You either chose to ignore or didn't have the information to discuss the merits of the other issues raised about the "Good Policy".
Actually, I stated what a good policy should be in my previous post. Your post seem to go in a lot of different, irrelevant directions (Ironman, Robert Downey, Ally McBeal...)
My intent with this last post was to clarify just what you were talking about.
You also didn't speak to the fact that the administrator of the policies looked a good hard facts and chose to ignore them.
Didn't gather this from your post. Not sure of its relevance to Goodell.
I have a problem with that. Especially when there is documented evidence supporting what takes place in those industries. "Good Policy" isn't constructed without a solid foundation of the facts and details necessary to support it... "Good Policy" would take into account the history of the organization and find a "middle ground" in applying discipline. New guy takes over and in order to prevent a "knee jerk" reaction, does his research and finds out what offenses took place prior and what discipline was carried out. If there was none, the use common sense and create a scale of what should've been done. Then you continue from there. You don't go from no action to suspensions without pay. Not when that's not being done throughout your "entertainment" industry...
Now I see why you keep bringing up the entertainment industry. I am not sure why because while football certainly is entertainment, it is so far separated from the movie business that I don't see them as even remotely connected. The entertainment industry (in the context of tv and movies) also does not have any policy that I am aware of regarding the conduct of those who participate in it. The only reason an actor doesn't work is because he isn't asked to. Even then, with a bad reputation, he or she can still get work if they are a draw for the audience.
And, Goodell didn't just decide to do this unilaterally. He did it with the input and blessing of the players union who have supported his actions at least in the press.
BTW, there have been 5 players suspended under this policy, you were omitting Albert Haynesworth and he was never convicted of anything except in the court of public opinion.
This is why I felt the need to clarify the policies. The personal conduct policy is for off the field behavior. Albert Haynesworth was suspended for his on field actions of stomping on the head of another player. It wasn't a personal conduct issue.
Jones WAS suspended after being questioned by police 10 times and was under indictment. However, he was NEVER even charged on those issues and when he was charged, the charges were later dropped. This a tactic used to gain cooperation from a witness. They knew he wasn't guilty (just like Ray Lewis).
I am fully behind the suspensions given to Jones. But he was charged and under felony indictment when he was suspended. You say he wasn't and was charged, so I am not sure which one you mean. As noted in my previous post, he was not disciplined for a single incident. He was disciplined for a continued pattern of behavior that brought negative publicity to him, him team and the league. Again, I don't have a problem with that. Nor did the NFLPA and most of the NFL players from what I have read.
Chris Henry pleaded guilty to a charge of allowing minors to consume alcohol in a room he rented. What the hell kinda charge is that? He picked up some girls in a club who had lied about their age (used fake ID's) and took them to his room to have sex. Is he supposed to ask for birth certificates? Because public perception is was a concern, he was nailed. The same concern should be applied in this case.
That was Henry's second suspension. He was suspended for two games in Oct 2006. Then, less than three months later, he was charged with providing alcohol to minors and plead guilty. That means he has a conviction. Do you think Goodell should look the other way?
Goodell didn't think twice about what if Jones is exhonerated. The fact that he was questioned by police 10 times was enough.
Again, it wasn't that he was questioned, it was a due to his continued pattern of misconduct.
With that, please explain why you think Ben Roethlisberger, with no history of bad off the field behavior (stupidity aside for the helmet incident) should be suspended for this allegation.