Sydla
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 60,205
- Reaction score
- 92,103
Inconsistency I will give you, yes. The beef thing I didn't know about and will look it up but also don't know exactly what the proof was in either case. Quinn's agent is admitting that they couldn't adequately prove what could have happened so unless we know exactly what they did have beyond what the agent says it's impossible to compare. We also don't know if it was "right before" or longer. The statement didn't say. If the NFL did feel it wasn't intentional it's probably why he got 2 games instead of 4 but if it's in his system I don't think you can automatically jump to complete innocence either, especially if the proof isn't concrete as admitted by Quinn's camp. Maybe in the beef incident it was.
Where did Quinn’s camp say the proof wasn’t good enough? The statement seems to read the exact opposite way. They had the proof, the league dug in and punished Quinn strictlY on procedure because they could.
In this case the league should absolutely defer to the player especially one that has no issues prior.
I have little doubt the league screwed Quinn simply because they can. These arbitration proceedings are largely rigged against the players (yes that’s their fault as well as they agreed to how these things go down when they agreed to the current CBA) anyway.