WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Based on his prior actions as a commissioner and league policy, WSGD? Actions taken on other players for acts they were associated with (NOT CONVICTED OF), would dictate that Mr. Roethlisberger is due a suspension.  The "core values" of the NFL call for defending the shield etc...  If they're concerned about PETA, what the hell do you think N.O.W. and the other various prominent women's organizations going to do about this one? 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    I'm not really sure how to answer this question. It's a tricky situation, as it's only a civil action and no criminal charges have been filed. What I think he will do is number three. However, if Ben loses the case (and Goodell is feeling pressure from the groups you've mentioned), I think he could take action, such as a suspension. I don't think he'll do anything, though, until after the case is sorted out. But you never know. It's really tough to say. Were I in Roger's position I may be inclined to wait, too. This is a matter still of he said/she said, and until more facts are uncovered it might be a bad move to act rashly. If he were to suspend one of the league's "stars", and then the allegations are proven to be false.....well, that opens up another can of worms, and I don't think Goodell would want the wrath of Mr. Rooney. If Ben loses the case (or settles) he'll have to take a stand on whether that is substantial enough to warrant suspension (or other action). In either case, he will draw a lot of fire no matter what he does. For now, though, I believe he will hold off until the matter unfolds more.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Bub,
    You're using a rational thought process.  Your commissioner often does not.  The league code of conduct states that you DO NOT have to ever be convicted of anything.  The mere allegation is enough to bring "shame upon the shield", therefore, said act makes you subject to suspension.  Under this policy, players have been suspended without ever being convicted...
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    For your viewing and evaluating pleasure... Perhaps this will assist you in responding to the poll...

    BEHOLD THE "NFL PLAYERS CONDUCT POLICY"

    http://www.nflplayers.com/images/fck/NFL%20Personal%20Conduct%20Policy%202008.pdf
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from JimfromFlorida. Show JimfromFlorida's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    The question is has there ever been a similar situation where he made a decision. I don't know??????
    If there has been and he does nothing he will be accused of playing favorites because it's Big Ben.
    If he does make a decision and the Steelers lose him for 4 games and it causes them to not make the playoffs but then he is proved to have done nothing..Is that  right.

    Has he made a decision in a case similar to this in the past?
    Meaning no crimanal charges...yet?????
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    First, allow me to assure everyone that I do not condone the behavior of any of these individuals.  My intention is to play "devil's advocate" and rationally discuss the commissioner and his policies regarding this topic. 

    The answer to the question raised by JimfromFlorida, is yes.  Both PacMan Jones and Chris Henry were both suspended without ever being convicted of a criminal offense.  Jones' suspension was for a complete season and Henry's was for 8 games in 2007 and 2 games last year.  Michael Vick was barred from team facilities prior to his plea agreement.  This was done despite the fact that the NFL was left with the impression that Vick wasn't going to be indicted at all (this was all the way until the day he was actually indicted).  Tank Johnson was the only other individual to get suspended due to a conviction.
    The answer to the other question is also yes.  The mere allegation of sexual assault or rape (one of the most degrading things one human could do to another) is MORE than enough to bring "shame or dishonor to the NFL shield.  These are their words, not mine. 

    The following is a full account of NFL suspension thus far
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_player_conduct_controversy

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    In Response to Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?:
    [QUOTE]Bub, You're using a rational thought process.  Your commissioner often does not.  The league code of conduct states that you DO NOT have to ever be convicted of anything.  The mere allegation is enough to bring "shame upon the shield", therefore, said act makes you subject to suspension.  Under this policy, players have been suspended without ever being convicted...
    Posted by theplaintruth[/QUOTE]

    I wasn't suggesting that he couldn't take action right away. But I do not think that he will "jump the gun", so to speak. The mitigating fact being there have been no criminal charges filed. Were that to be the case I might think otherwise. In all the other cases where he doled out penalties before convictions it was a legal issue, not a civil lawsuit. Add to that the fact that Ben is undoubtedly a higher profile player than any of the others (with the possible exception of Vick), and he's in a sticky situation. Like another poster stated, if he does act, and Ben is exonerated, he will be in a very bad situation with owners and players alike. He would lose all credibility with the league as a whole if that were to happen. I think internal pressure is what will keep him from acting too quickly in this instance. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the way I see it.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    More information regarding the other defendants... This article also imparts insight on her reluctance to come  forward.  If she's a lunatic, then so be it and get her some help.  However, if this happened, it's very disgusting and horrifying.  Going into her home to destroy evidence. Unfortunately, all IT personnel know, nearly everything is recapturable that's been deleted from a computer.  It was text messages that brought out the truth in Kobe's case.  Email that busted Gov. Sanford.  They better hope that they've dropped every electronic communication device they've owned into the "great abyss" or they are in trouble...

    http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=AloaYuzkeQupTaaZx1V2P4Cr0op4?slug=ap-roethlisberger-lawsuit&prov=ap&type=lgns
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Goodell has to suspend Big Ben because it of the Pacman Jones ordeal. He was suspended due to poor behavior and was never convicted. Big Ben put himself in this position he needs to sit a game. Do before it becomes a race thing.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from jbolted. Show jbolted's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    I think Roger Goddell has done an outstanding job thus far. His handling of Vick & Pacman have been consistent and fair, while demanding integrity from all league employees. I believe Ben R. will eventually get suspended and that at the conclusion of his investigation. If Mr.Ben did anything remotely close to the allegations, the Allegheny team is doomed. Pacman committed 'no crime' and he's out of football forever [conjecture]. I say Roger makes him sit 8 games when his decision is rendered and that the decision comes before game 1.   
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from m1r3d12. Show m1r3d12's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Goodell is not* going to do anything, remember Vick had dogs dead at his house. Pacman was at a scene of the crime, I'm sure you have all seen the video by now. Remember when Moss was accused of abusing that woman, he was never charged with anything, and he even had a restraining order placed against him.

    *-that is, unless there is evidence that Big Ben did anything
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    What should goodel do? retire? yea he should deffently retire.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    In Response to Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?:
    [QUOTE]What should goodel do? retire? yea he should deffently retire.
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]
     I hear that ! LOL
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Good one, MVP.


    Contrary to what some are saying that Goodell has to suspend Ben because he suspended Pacman even though Pacman was never convicted, well, that just isn't true. 

    Goodell suspended Pacman for continually getting into trouble. I believe Pacman registered on police blotters 13 times before Goodell suspended him. His pattern of behavior is what got him suspended, not his guilt or innocence.

    WRT Ben, I expect Goodell to wait and see. It is an accusation that may or may not have merit. Once the merits of the incident are established, then I could see him easily suspending BR should he appear to have done what he is accused of.

    I am left wondering why Goodell hasn't suspended Brandon Marshall as of yet. There were two or three domestic violence incidents and his gf has talked to the league acknowledging the incidents took place but asking they not penalize him (I think. I caught the report at the end of May.) 
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Root and everyone else,
    My primary problem with commissioner and the leagues policy is that it's too easily corruptable.  The same people who rail against the athletes for poor behavior also pick and choose who should be disciplined and when.  Good policy should be precise and evenly administrated.  An accusation is just that until it is adjudacated accordingly.  Jones was then and still hasn't been convicted of squat (except being a jerk without common sense).  Leonard Little killed a woman and was still allowed to remain employed.  Several months later was involved in the same activity that caused that accident and remained employed.  In Jones' case, a state trooper whose patrol area was near Jones' residence in TN was quoted as saying "everytime I see that "sum bit**" in that orange Lamborghini, I'm gonna pull his a** over.  Keep this in mind as I continue.

    Former NBA referee Tim Donahy fixed games because he needed money.  Do you think he's the only one.  The only reason they squelched that one was to keep the industry from crumbling.  Human beings with no financial woes are corruptable.  Human beings with financial woes are even more corruptable.  If you want to find a target, look for someone who's divorced, alimony, child support, tax issues, multiple mortgages, a spouse who can't balance a checkbook, and you've scoured over half of our population.  With a policy such as this and the human factor in full effect, you've got a recipe for trouble.  If a deputy has bills to pay and is offered relief to assist in shifting the balance of power in a conference or league by busting a player or  two, would he do it and what would the ramifications be?  The answer is yes, and completely devastating.  This policy is no good.  I see what they were trying to accomplish, but they failed.  Simple guilt by association could cost you millions.  That's incomprehensible!  We Patriot fans are extremely luck that the issue with the gunfire @ the Brady gathering didn't develop into something more.  As those have said about Jones, Brady was THERE when it went down.....

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    In Response to Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?:
    [QUOTE]Root and everyone else, My primary problem with commissioner and the leagues policy is that it's too easily corruptable.  The same people who rail against the athletes for poor behavior also pick and choose who should be disciplined and when.  Good policy should be precise and evenly administrated.  An accusation is just that until it is adjudacated accordingly.  Jones was then and still hasn't been convicted of squat (except being a jerk without common sense).  Leonard Little killed a woman and was still allowed to remain employed.  Several months later was involved in the same activity that caused that accident and remained employed.  In Jones' case, a state trooper whose patrol area was near Jones' residence in TN was quoted as saying "everytime I see that "sum bit**" in that orange Lamborghini, I'm gonna pull his a** over.  Keep this in mind as I continue. Former NBA referee Tim Donahy fixed games because he needed money.  Do you think he's the only one.  The only reason they squelched that one was to keep the industry from crumbling.  Human beings with no financial woes are corruptable.  Human beings with financial woes are even more corruptable.  If you want to find a target, look for someone who's divorced, alimony, child support, tax issues, multiple mortgages, a spouse who can't balance a checkbook, and you've scoured over half of our population.  With a policy such as this and the human factor in full effect, you've got a recipe for trouble.  If a deputy has bills to pay and is offered relief to assist in shifting the balance of power in a conference or league by busting a player or  two, would he do it and what would the ramifications be?  The answer is yes, and completely devastating.  This policy is no good.  I see what they were trying to accomplish, but they failed.  Simple guilt by association could cost you millions.  That's incomprehensible!  We Patriot fans are extremely luck that the issue with the gunfire @ the Brady gathering didn't develop into something more.  As those have said about Jones, Brady was THERE when it went down.....
    Posted by theplaintruth[/QUOTE]

    I am not sure what you mean.

    The same people who rail against bad behavior are the same that pick and choose discipline? Are you talking about Goodell or the fans? Not sure what the point is.

    Leonard Little's manslaughter conviction was in 1998 and his conviction for speeding (He was not convicted of driving while intoxicated.) was in 2004. Goodell started as Commish in Sep 2006 and would not have had a say in Little's discipline. 

    I disagree that good policy is precise and evenly administered. A good policy needs to account for unjust circumstance. Take the case of the Williams' in Minnesota. The supplement they took was not on the NFL's list of banned products, they called the substance hotline (whatever it is called) several times and received no response, but when they popped positive for a banned substance in StarCaps (but not listed in the ingredients), they were held entirely responsible. Is that good policy? That even the potentially innocent receive the same punishment regardless of mitigating circumstances and blatant irresponsibility by those enforcing the policy? I don't believe it is.

    To me, a good policy incorporates the variances. Now, Goodell can give out pretty much any consequence he deems fair. In Pacman's case, he felt that his continued behavior pretty much said FU to the league. A job, any job, is a privilege and Pacman thought it was an entitlement. Why? Because for most of his life he was probably told by those around him that it was and that the normal rules don't apply to him. I think Goodell actually did this guy a favor by letting him know for certain that actions have consequences. 

    There is, in my mind, no comparison at this point between BR's issue of a single unproven allegation and Pacman's continued misbehavior. Ben's situation needs to play out a little more before Goodell can make an accurate determination on any potential consequences. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Root,
    You got the point.  It was the fan that brought about this new policy with it's outcry.  Goodell and the union simply blew it.  No "single" individual should have that kind of authority.  "Good Policy" takes mitigating circumstances into account.  The Williams' are the precise example of this not being "Good Policy".  They were told that "Star Caps" was in fact not on the list of band substances.  Problem is that an ingredient not listed in the product is on the band list.  This particular issue could have wide ranging ramifications because supplements aren't governed by the FDA.  I think all leagues need to reasses this issue and re-examine the the facts about supplements.  Although it has been widely reported that actual regulated medications are often found in OTC supplements, this isn't taken into account.  This first came to light through "male potency" supplements causing heart attacks.  "Healthy" men began showing up in ER's around the country in the midst of cardiac episodes.  The common thread was the use of these products.  Researchers compiled the data on the multiple products and tested them only to find that they actually contained "herbs" and near prescription strength amounts of the ED medication sildenafil (Viagra), and Tadalifil (Cialis).  The same thing has happened with muscle building products containing these banned substances.  There have also been weight loss products that have killed people and the drug companies simply reformulated the products, gave them a new name (in most instances), and you may now purchase them at your local GNC.  The latest to do this was HydroxyCut.  So yes, this is not "Good Policy".  The program designed to assist the NFL players with compliance, failed.
    Rather than admit that a mistake was made, he proceeded to suspend them after he was aware of the actual facts.  He even tried to overrule an appellate judge's decision.  If it weren't for the union, these guys would be out.  That's not "Good Policy".  "Good, Sound, Policy", doesn't invite corruption of itself.  As you say, every job is a priviledge, but how many of you have lost your job due to your off duty activities (unless it's in your contract).  Perfect example of this is the movie Iron Man.  It made several hundred million dollars despite the fact that the leading actor has an unbelievable history of pi**ing his opportunities away.  He's one of the finest actors alive today, but a recovering pig.  Yet, by the amount of ticket sales, all has been forgiven.  Even in  the midst of his issues, he still received choice roles.  Even a role on the highest rated ABC show "Alley McBeal" right after a stint in rehab.  We pick and choose our fury and who to unleash it upon. 

    Protect the "SHIELD" right?  No player is allowed to be associated with the "specter" of a act this heinous.  He is alleged to have RAPED a woman.  True or False, the public relation nightmare potential is huge.  The NFL has been trying to broaden it's appeal to women for years.  How can this possibly help?  For the leagues commissioner to tacitly condone this and have fought so hard to uphold the suspensions of the Viking players is NOT "GOOD POLICY".....

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BabeParilli. Show BabeParilli's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Goodell will look into this. If he thinks the woman is not a nut job he will act.

    As it stands, every game BR plays until this is resolved it will be a freak show. Every snap he takes, every pass he throws, every time the announcer mentions the name Rothlisburger it will have millions wondering if he ravaged the poor woman.

    VERY bad publicity for the league if he plays with this unresolved.

    This is a nightmare for the Commish. But he deserves it for the way he botched spygate.

    And what's worse is that the woman can file a criminal complaint anytime in the next 6 years as well.




     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    In Response to Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?:
    [QUOTE]Root, You got the point.  It was the fan that brought about this new policy with it's outcry.  Goodell and the union simply blew it.  No "single" individual should have that kind of authority.  "Good Policy" takes mitigating circumstances into account.  The Williams' are the precise example of this not being "Good Policy".  They were told that "Star Caps" was in fact not on the list of band substances.  Problem is that an ingredient not listed in the product is on the band list.  This particular issue could have wide ranging ramifications because supplements aren't governed by the FDA.  I think all leagues need to reasses this issue and re-examine the the facts about supplements.  Although it has been widely reported that actual regulated medications are often found in OTC supplements, this isn't taken into account.  This first came to light through "male potency" supplements causing heart attacks.  "Healthy" men began showing up in ER's around the country in the midst of cardiac episodes.  The common thread was the use of these products.  Researchers compiled the data on the multiple products and tested them only to find that they actually contained "herbs" and near prescription strength amounts of the ED medication sildenafil (Viagra), and Tadalifil (Cialis).  The same thing has happened with muscle building products containing these banned substances.  There have also been weight loss products that have killed people and the drug companies simply reformulated the products, gave them a new name (in most instances), and you may now purchase them at your local GNC.  The latest to do this was HydroxyCut.  So yes, this is not "Good Policy".  The program designed to assist the NFL players with compliance, failed. Rather than admit that a mistake was made, he proceeded to suspend them after he was aware of the actual facts.  He even tried to overrule an appellate judge's decision.  If it weren't for the union, these guys would be out.  That's not "Good Policy".  "Good, Sound, Policy", doesn't invite corruption of itself.  As you say, every job is a priviledge, but how many of you have lost your job due to your off duty activities (unless it's in your contract).  Perfect example of this is the movie Iron Man.  It made several hundred million dollars despite the fact that the leading actor has an unbelievable history of pi**ing his opportunities away.  He's one of the finest actors alive today, but a recovering pig.  Yet, by the amount of ticket sales, all has been forgiven.  Even in  the midst of his issues, he still received choice roles.  Even a role on the highest rated ABC show "Alley McBeal" right after a stint in rehab.  We pick and choose our fury and who to unleash it upon.  Protect the "SHIELD" right?  No player is allowed to be associated with the "specter" of a act this heinous.  He is alleged to have RAPED a woman.  True or False, the public relation nightmare potential is huge.  The NFL has been trying to broaden it's appeal to women for years.  How can this possibly help?  For the leagues commissioner to tacitly condone this and have fought so hard to uphold the suspensions of the Viking players is NOT "GOOD POLICY".....
    Posted by theplaintruth[/QUOTE]

    You seem to be trying to equate several things. Being suspended for using banned substances is a different policy than the personal conduct policy, but it seems you are saying they are the same policy. 

    The banned substance policy is cut and dried, 1st + gets you in the program, 2nd use gets you a 4 game suspension, 3rd use gets you 1 year etc... You said a "good policy" should be applied equally. The opposing argument I gave was this policy that is applied equally, but there is an obvious case existing right now where it possibly shouldn't be.

    The personal conduct policy is entirely different. It was created by Goodell after the NFLPA began looking into ways to better discipline players who demonstrated bad conduct. NFLPA reps actually went to Upshaw and requested some kind of policy that would be as cut and dried as the banned substance policy. At one point, they even advocated a three strikes policy but they were not able to decide on a fair way of applying discipline. Goodell, in consultation with Gene Upshaw and the player reps, created the personal conduct policy to discipline players for their off the field behavior. This policy only applies to players personal lives and image in the public spotlight. 

    And I disagree with you that Goodell is tacitly condoning anything if he waits to see if the allegations are true. I am not sure why you would think that. The only thing it means is that he is waiting to see if discipline is needed. Would it be better somehow for him to discipline Roeslithberger now only to find out down the road that the allegations are false? 

    And, BTW, there have been 4 players suspended so far under the policy. Only one, Pacman, had no convictions, but was interviewed by police in 10 incidents and, at the time of suspension, was under two felony indictments.


     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    I realize the differences in the two policies.  I'm equating the application of discipline within the policies and the administrator.  If a player is guilty of using a banned substance, there is nothing preventing him from being admonished under the personal conduct policy.  I'm very aware of the origin of the PCP.  It was the "outcry" from the FAN on talk radio, blogs, news media, etc... that began the ground swell in the opinion polls and led to this current policy.  The player reps wanted to clean up the image of  the product in hopes it would produce more revenue (and also keep FANS from bit**ing about their salaries).  It was all about perception.  They had to correct the idea that players weren't grateful for being in their situation (getting paid for playing a childs game). 

    You either chose to ignore or didn't have the information to discuss the merits of the other issues raised about the "Good Policy".  You also didn't speak to the fact that the administrator of the policies looked a good hard facts and chose to ignore them.  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...

    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.  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).  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.  Goodell didn't think twice about what if Jones is exhonerated.  The fact that he was questioned by police 10 times was enough.  I better contact Professor Gates and tell him to turn in his Harvard Faculty credentials NOW...

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Truth are you really trying to defend a scum bag like Pac-Man Jones?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from EnochRoot. Show EnochRoot's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    In Response to Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?:


    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. 



     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    You obviously are choosing to read what you wish and don't care to think about the complexity of the issues I presented. You may want to re-check your facts regarding the suspension of all the players mentioned.  I'd previously posted a link detailing each. 

    Whenever the press (media) discusses the lives of celebrities and what their personal conduct has to do with their chosen craft, it ALWAYS turns to their lives a public figures regardless of the venue.  The ALWAYS refer to them as a collective group as "ENTERTAINERS".  The fans of these respective persons do the same when they try to quantify there opinion or disdain for said personal conduct.  That is WHY I draw on those analagies.

    You refer to BR as having NO history of bad off the field behavior with your lone exception being stupidity.  I refer to his off the field behavior as breaking the laws of the state where he resides.  In the state of PA at the time of his accident, operating a motorcycle without a helmet is against the law, as is operation said vehicle without a proper license. 

    Although the current policy about personal conduct was not in effect at the time of the "stomping incident", Haynesworth was suspended by Goodell for his "unprofessional conduct".  The only reason that he wasn't criminally indicted was because the victim chose not to pursue that avenue of restitution.  However, due to continued blurry vision, he has left open the possibility of a civil suit (do these circumstances sound familiar). 

    Finally, it is the way FANS perceive the entertainer which dictates his market value.  FANS are selective (for whatever reasons) in who they choose to berate and rail against.  I got three words that prove that point.  Lance the PIG !
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    Lance the pig? who the h ell is that?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from theplaintruth. Show theplaintruth's posts

    Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?

    In Response to Re: WSGD W.hat S.hould G.oodell D.o?:
    [QUOTE]Lance the pig? who the h ell is that?
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]

    Armstrong.  In response to your ?? about defending Jones.  Hell no... I defend principles.  Jones is a proven young immature Jack***.
     

Share