PFT: Union asks Commish to reduce Pacman's Sentence

[lspain1]

This is an interesting subject. How does one decide which infraction was "greater" or "lesser" when you have a corporate entity? The corporation can decide, on it's own, which behavior it wants to punish. It does NOT have to publish the specific penalties for a behavior, and most of the time corporations provide a broad range of penalties to give themselves some wiggle room.

Even the legal system provides some wiggle room for judges to exercise discretion in sentencing, so I can not imagine there is any type of case to be made here on "severity" or "the greater wrong." The Tank Johnson case is a good example. Which is a greater punishment....a loss of games and the money (in effect, a fine), or jail time in the offseason? I would view jail time as the "greater" punishment against a fine any day. It'll be interesting to see what Goddell does with this.

The NFL has the right to enforce it's policies with penalties as it sees fit. To say the NFL has been inconsistent or arbitrary goes directly against a corporation's right to discipline its employees. As long as the process is followed, the penalties do not have to be consistent.

I personally believe the NFL has a serious public image problem with bad behavior by players and the problem has been getting worse. It does not matter if that behavior is illegal or not. Goodell has been forced to act in a serious manner to stop the bleeding and he isn't done yet. Therefore, I believe that any reduction in PacMan's suspension will be a token one (one or two games) at best. It would not surprise me if Goodell made no reduction at all.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

wait and see for what? From what I've been reading, it's all about timing. You had the owners meeting, superbowl vote, and the holiday. With pacman, his appeal resolution was held up due to paperwork from what I've read, so I don't really see Goodell just twiddling his thumbs waiting on new info coming to light.

i think you misunderstand what i am saying. i am talking about tank johnson not about jones. a decision has been imminent for weeks now. if there is no procedural cause for him to wait then what is he waiting for?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

stop with the logic. He's got that fuzzy stuff in his head. He aint ever gonna see the truth

i know you dont know what either of us are talking about so just stop okay?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No way; Goodell loses power in the players' eyes I would think.

Besides, Goodell has bigger fish to fry with Vick; he can suspend vick for "conduct detrimental to the team"... That has so many loopholes I don't even want to get into it; All I am going to say is that Vick can be suspended wether or not he is convicted under that blanket statement, correct?

Because I would think just by his name being involved in this incident as well as this seedy subculture, as well as essentially putting the season and fan support of the team in jeopardy that would be conduct detrimental enough and grounds for suspension.

I am sure Goodell is not going to do that, but under his statement wouldn't you think that would be the proper if not desirable course of action? I understand that Goodell made it possible for suspension even before the court becomes involved was placed so players would stay away from wrongdoings and criminal activities, but I think it has backfired in his face.

under the new policy vick can indeed be suspended without a conviction.

 

[burmafrd]

So many for some reason seem to think that the NFL is like our messed up legal system. The NFL can pretty much do what it wants to their CONTRACTED employees- as long as the contract says so. That is why there is no hope for a court case. As regards the Union, this whole thing is one of the reasons why so many have contempt for unions. Fairly or unfairly, they see Unions all the time defending the drunk, incompetent, stupid, THUGS, etc. Fighting as hard if not harder for them then the good workers who many believe SHOULD get that treatment, not the duds that give good workers a bad name. Of course the Union is obligated to defend members- but there are times when the Union should stand back and say:"He had it coming".

 

[WoodysGirl]

i think you misunderstand what i am saying. i am talking about tank johnson not about jones. a decision has been imminent for weeks now. if there is no procedural cause for him to wait then what is he waiting for?

I understood you. Based on what I've read, the decisions for both Tank and Pacman will be announced at the same time. And the only reason it's been this long, outside of some paperwork for Pacman, has been the timing due to NFL business.

That was my point.

 

[AtlCB]

i think you misunderstand what i am saying. i am talking about tank johnson not about jones. a decision has been imminent for weeks now. if there is no procedural cause for him to wait then what is he waiting for?

Why is this such a big deal? When Tank's suspension is announced, his suspension will start at the same time as Pacman's - Week 1, 2007.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

it makes zeo zense to rule on Jones who still has cases pending and ignore Johnson who has already been to jail and released. Why do you think he did that then?

I think Goodell has spoken and his ruling is what it is. I think this is an attempt by Jones to recoup a bit of money from the lost season. The NFLPA is forced to take action to request certain things but in all honesty, I don't know how much leverage they actually have on this. I don't think they can force the NFL or Goodell to do anything. They could be in a difficult situation themselves (NFLPA) but thats a seperate matter. I don't know. I guess we will see how it works out but I doubt the NFL will be forced to do anything.

 

[AbeBeta]

Why is this such a big deal? When Tank's suspension is announced, his suspension will start at the same time as Pacman's - Week 1, 2007.

I think that folks fail to realize that different cases require different actions.

Tank Johnson came in and presented the commish with a plan for changing his life and presented some evidence reflecting how he was carrying out aspects of that plan.

Pacman came in and told the commish he was going to stop going to strip clubs, admitting that he'd been to one the night before.

Tank has made the decision tough for the commish b/c he's actually trying to positively change his life. Pacman made the decision easy b/c he's still an idiot who doesn't get it.

How folks can't see the difference between the situations is beyond me.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that folks fail to realize that different cases require different actions.

Tank Johnson came in and presented the commish with a plan for changing his life and presented some evidence reflecting how he was carrying out aspects of that plan.

Pacman came in and told the commish he was going to stop going to strip clubs, admitting that he'd been to one the night before.

Tank has made the decision tough for the commish b/c he's actually trying to positively change his life. Pacman made the decision easy b/c he's still an idiot who doesn't get it.

How folks can't see the difference between the situations is beyond me.

:laugh2:

Morning ABs,

Yes, I agree. It's the simple things that seem to escape simple grasp in situations like this. I'm as guilty as the next guy sometimes but I do agree. Simple perception, from my limited point of view dictates a very different reaction to both these players.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

Anyone think it's funny that we're talkin' about a guy named Pacman and a guy named Tank, it's almost like a new comic book series.

:laugh2:

 

[Angus]

Players union submits letter supporting Pacman
By Terry McCormick, tmccormick@nashvillecitypaper.com
May 30, 2007

The NFL Players Association submitted a four-page letter, obtained by The City Paper, to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in support of Adam “Pacman” Jones regarding the appeal of Jones’ one-year suspension levied April 10.

The letter, signed by NFLPA general counsel Thomas J. DePaso and dated May 23, echoes the sentiment of the letter sent to Goodell by Jones’ attorneys, Manny Arora and Mark Trigg, regarding the suspension.

It says that Jones was disciplined under the 2006 Personal Conduct Policy that “clearly provides that a player will not be disciplined until the player is ‘convicted of or admit(s) to a criminal violation.’”

Jones was suspended for one year based on felony obstruction of an officer charges in Georgia, the disposition in January 2007 of charges of disorderly conduct and public intoxication from an incident in Murfreesboro and a marijuana arrest in March 2006 in Georgia that was later dropped. A portion of Jones’ suspension also came as a result of his failure to report the two arrests in Georgia.

The plea in the letter says that Jones is being punished unfairly and too harshly as it pertains to the personal conduct policy that was in place in 2006.

The letter also alleges that the punishment is a violation of “clearly established principles of employment and labor law.” It quotes Elkouri & Elkouri that “An employee must receive clear notice of both what the employer expects as well as the range of penalties to be imposed for failing to meet the employer’s expectations.”

As part of that the letter urges that Jones should not be disciplined over the pending charges in Georgia since he had no previous notification “that merely being charged with a crime would result in discipline under the Policy.”

It also states that Jones’ failure to report the arrest for felony obstruction of an officer in Georgia should not be held against him until the charges are resolved in a conviction. It also states that the non-reported marijuana possession charge that was later dropped should fall under the collective bargaining agreement procedure of the Drugs of Abuse Policy, which the NFLPA claims does not fall under the failure to report clause of the Personal Conduct Policy.

Arora could not be reached for comment.

A ruling by Goodell on the appeal is expected this week.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section=7&screen=news&news_id=56412

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Players union submits letter supporting Pacman
By Terry McCormick, tmccormick@nashvillecitypaper.com
May 30, 2007

The NFL Players Association submitted a four-page letter, obtained by The City Paper, to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell in support of Adam “Pacman” Jones regarding the appeal of Jones’ one-year suspension levied April 10.

The letter, signed by NFLPA general counsel Thomas J. DePaso and dated May 23, echoes the sentiment of the letter sent to Goodell by Jones’ attorneys, Manny Arora and Mark Trigg, regarding the suspension.

It says that Jones was disciplined under the 2006 Personal Conduct Policy that “clearly provides that a player will not be disciplined until the player is ‘convicted of or admit(s) to a criminal violation.’”

Jones was suspended for one year based on felony obstruction of an officer charges in Georgia, the disposition in January 2007 of charges of disorderly conduct and public intoxication from an incident in Murfreesboro and a marijuana arrest in March 2006 in Georgia that was later dropped. A portion of Jones’ suspension also came as a result of his failure to report the two arrests in Georgia.

The plea in the letter says that Jones is being punished unfairly and too harshly as it pertains to the personal conduct policy that was in place in 2006.

The letter also alleges that the punishment is a violation of “clearly established principles of employment and labor law.” It quotes Elkouri & Elkouri that “An employee must receive clear notice of both what the employer expects as well as the range of penalties to be imposed for failing to meet the employer’s expectations.”

As part of that the letter urges that Jones should not be disciplined over the pending charges in Georgia since he had no previous notification “that merely being charged with a crime would result in discipline under the Policy.”

It also states that Jones’ failure to report the arrest for felony obstruction of an officer in Georgia should not be held against him until the charges are resolved in a conviction. It also states that the non-reported marijuana possession charge that was later dropped should fall under the collective bargaining agreement procedure of the Drugs of Abuse Policy, which the NFLPA claims does not fall under the failure to report clause of the Personal Conduct Policy.

Arora could not be reached for comment.

A ruling by Goodell on the appeal is expected this week.

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section=7&screen=news&news_id=56412

I can make a ruling right now. He's an idiot.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I'm just wondering what Fuzzy thinks should happen to Pacman, who's been involved in a litany of offenses?

 

[hank2k]

While its tough to support a creep like Pac man Jones, the fact is that if you are given a suspension at your job ( for say coming in late excessively) and another employee does the same thing and nothing happens to him, you have the right to be pissed and your union should defend you.

If the union can argue that others have NOT been punished for far worse things than PMJones, then they have to advocate on their members behalf. And they will probably win.

As far as this "conduct detrimental to the league" nonsense goes, how can that be proven? Have revenues dropped because of his behavior? No. Have tv ratings fallen off because of these guys? Nope . Are teams not selling tickets because of this? You're kidding , right?

The NFL is more popular than ever . This is a fact.

As long as they treat Jones like any other player in terms of discipline the union has no case, but I gotta feeling in the long run they(league officials) will talk tough (at first) but end up letting him back before a whole year is served.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

While its tough to support a creep like Pac man Jones, the fact is that if you are given a suspension at your job ( for say coming in late excessively) and another employee does the same thing and nothing happens to him, you have the right to be pissed and your union should defend you.

If the union can argue that others have NOT been punished for far worse things than PMJones, then they have to advocate on their members behalf. And they will probably win.

As far as this "conduct detrimental to the league" nonsense goes, how can that be proven? Have revenues dropped because of his behavior? No. Have tv ratings fallen off because of these guys? Nope . Are teams not selling tickets because of this? You're kidding , right?

The NFL is more popular than ever . This is a fact.

As long as they treat Jones like any other player in terms of discipline the union has no case, but I gotta feeling in the long run they(league officials) will talk tough (at first) but end up letting him back before a whole year is served.

I don't agree with much of your post. I know that if repeated offenses have taken place, the odds of a guy getting canned for this infraction or that infraction are greater then it would be if an employee got in trouble for the first time or rarely. Also depends on the position of the employee. For example, a person who is in management would get much less room to commit certain infractions then would others. You can also make the case that for some infractions, they might get more slack. It is not black and white all the time. There are certain things that influence certain decisions.

As for impact on the NFL, well, I can only speak for myself but I know for a fact that I no longer watch as much NFL Football as I used to. I don't buy ball caps like I used to or other NFL product offerings. For me, it is directly related to what goes on with players in the NFL. I simply don't care to watch them act as they do. I don't like reading about them in the papers and then spending 2 or 3 hours of my weekend watching these same players acting a fool on the field when they should be paying for there actions. I watch the Cowboys regularly but not nearly as much NFL as I used to.

 

[theogt]

Oh, herro.....you don't say? Bout time they pulled their heads out of their *****.

They're a whipped puppy. Always have been and apparently always will be.

 

[theogt]

I'm just wondering what Fuzzy thinks should happen to Pacman, who's been involved in a litany of offenses?

It's not necessarily about severity of punishment, but rather about the process. Goodell could have instituted infinitely better process without any trouble whatsoever, but he didn't seem to care.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

"Your suspension of Jones without pay for the 2007 season is clearly excessive . . . ."

No less excessive than getting shot at that strip joint Pacman wandered into. But that guy was just a working class stiff, so I guess he doesn't matter while we agonize over this NFL thug's fate.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

It's not necessarily about severity of punishment, but rather about the process. Goodell could have instituted infinitely better process without any trouble whatsoever, but he didn't seem to care.

such as?