Pacman's Argument on Appeal

[silverbear]

Wow. It's short-sighted to believe that the league should establish clear guidelines for punishment?

I'm not saying players should be punished more or less. I'm just saying it should be clear what constitutes sufficient punishable behavior.

How, again, is this short-sighted?

It isn't, this is just the first time you spelled that argument out clearly...

 

[silverbear]

Lawyer types are the last people you want involved in anything that you want easily understood.

You've spoken a whole mouthful of truth there...

 

[Jarv]

Thanks for posting that. My point is that the SA policy spells out the length of suspensions and the circumstances that trigger the suspensions.

The PC policy is essentially "It's up to the Commissioner."

Funny, thats what I said yesterday about being an employer and its MY decision on what I want to do with an employee.

Welcome to the real world here folks, NFL player work like the rest of us and the union has agreed that the penalty is up to the comissioner, because they want the league cleaned up too.

I love this policy ! I guess it won't make the punks and thugs to happy

 

[WoodysGirl]

That's incorrect. A drug-related arrest is cause for entry to the program (see article I.D.1.b of the Substance Abuse policy.).

My bad.

Due process in the sense that the latest incident in Vegas is really what prompted the suspension, and at the time of the suspension, there wasn't clear evidence that Jones had engaged in any of the prohibited conduct under the Rules and Regulations of the Conduct Policy. He probably did, but no charges were filed at the time of suspension, and I'm not even sure that PJ's role in the incident was clearly known.

Actually, I've read that Jones and Henry were already on the radar prior to the Vegas incident. The Vegas incident might've sped things up, but it certainly didn't prompt the inquiry into all of his prior incidences.

Also, you're incorrect about him not being in violation of the conduct policy prior to Vegas incident. He did indeed violate policy because that rule about not reporting arrests was already in the policy. He never reported the arrest in Georgia and that occurred before the Vegas thing.

Goodell was certainly within the CBA to suspend Jones when he did, but it creates an interesting precedent to begin punishing players before they are even charged with a crime.

Again, he wasn't suspended because of the Vegas incident. He could've been suspended simply because he failed to report his arrest.

 

[kmd24]

Funny, thats what I said yesterday about being an employer and its MY decision on what I want to do with an employee.

Welcome to the real world here folks, NFL player work like the rest of us and the union has agreed that the penalty is up to the comissioner, because they want the league cleaned up too.

I love this policy ! I guess it won't make the punks and thugs to happy

On a visceral level, I'm sure most fans will agree with your senitiments. However, consider the fact that many fans get pretty worked up over fines that the NFL levies against players for unnecessary roughness, and those fines only affect the players' wallets.

When the Commissioner starts issuing more rulings that start affecting competition by suspending players for several games, you'll truly hear outrage. Comparisons of transgressions are inevitable. Because these penalties can affect the competitive nature of the game, it behooves the league to establish some well defined guidelines for personal conduct infractions. Being more precise with the language around what constitutes an infraction and around suspension lengths will go a long way towards removing any doubt that fans might have about the fairness of the penalties.

For example, did you know that Clinton Portis could be fined and even suspended for condoning dog fighting in a recent interview? What would the uproar be among Skins fans if Portis started the season on the bench for several games because the Commissioner decided his comments were detrimental to the league?

 

[kmd24]

Also, you're incorrect about him not being in violation of the conduct policy prior to Vegas incident. He did indeed violate policy because that rule about not reporting arrests was already in the policy. He never reported the arrest in Georgia and that occurred before the Vegas thing.

Again, he wasn't suspended because of the Vegas incident. He could've been suspended simply because he failed to report his arrest.

Of course he had violated the policy already, but my point is that the latest incident most certainly figured in the suspension length, if not the suspension itself. Some of the misconduct happened well over a year ago. Why wasn't Jones suspended during the 2006 season? With a similar string of offenses in the Substance Abuse program, Jones would have already been suspended, and it would have been clear what consequences future infractions would have brought.

To suggest that the Vegas incident didn't figure into the suspension is disingenuous. It's not like Jones will be further penalized after the criminal trial is resolved.