Wow, a whole year?? Now PacMan has even more time to get into trouble. This will not end well for him.

Will the Titans keep paying him?

I agree with you, Ryan. Severe. Very severe. But it's a good move. Message: sent.

Damn. This puts Upsahw in the unenviable position of trying to argue that the league needs to aggressively address player conduct, but not this aggressively. I dount that will work, but what else is he going to say?

I really approve of this decision. If they comply with the conditions of their suspensions, they'll be back in the league. If not, they'll have to find something else to do.

I mean really, it isn't like the stipulations of the suspension are that tough to meet.

#1,

Neither player will be paid for the duration of their suspension.

It seems excessive. I believe, all that's proven is that he didn't report this arrest to the league/Titans. I don't have the data for suspension length vs offense, but this length seems way out of line with past practice, particularly since the Clark County D.A. hasn't yet charged him with a crime (I think).

I'm also surprised that the Players' Union hasn't immediately appealed. The length also seems out of line when compared to other leagues.

Keep in mind, I'm not defending Pacman's actions, nor am I a Titans fan (I get to watch them pound my Texans into paste twice a year).

He seems like a thoroughly loathsome human being, who'd be in jail now were it not for his ability to cover the WR #1. All I'm saying is that this suspension seems excessive, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

I would guess the NFL will lose this on appeal and the suspensions will be halved because the players union will argue that the transgressions these two are being suspended for happened before this get tough emphasis on breaking the rules and that this conduct penalty should be enforced for all future conduct violations only.

Let me make sure I understand this.

--A failed steroid test warrants a four game suspension.

--A THIRD failed drug test warrants a four game suspension.

--A conviction warrants a four game suspension.

And somehow Jones, who has no convictions, gets a sixteen game suspension.

I can't help but think that Jones' legal team is going to have a field day with this, and as will the NFLPA.

Goodell is out of his mind.

#4: Well, you don't know what "He must adhere to the restrictions on his activities that have been agreed to by he and the Titans" or "He must fully cooperate with all required counseling, education, and treatment assigned to him under league programs" mean.

I'm really, really surprised though. Note also, regarding Jones: "His status will be reviewed after the Titans' 10th regular-season game to determine the extent to which he has complied with the conditions and whether the suspension should be affected by the disposition of any pending or prospective charges." - though I imagine that means Jones could actually be reinstated by the 10th game if the charges are dismissed, but you could interpret it to mean that it could get worse.

I wonder how this affects the Bengals/Titans in terms of roster space/salary cap issues, though. In both cases, it's without pay, so clearly only the prorations would apply this year, if at all. It probably depends as to whether Henry/Jones accrue a year in 2007 during the suspension.

Jones really stepped in it, and gave Goodell free reign to put the hammer down, by failing to report the arrests last year. I will say, however, that Jones getting a year, while Rickey Manning only got a game from Tagliabue, after actually having been determined in a criminal proceeding to be a violent felon, seems incongruent. Perhaps things are going to be different from here on out for those who plead no contest to felonious assault, and, if so, I agree with the change wholeheartedly.

God, I hate NFL Commissioners.

Pac-Man absolutely deserved it, but Henry? He was already punished for his other crimes; his most recent evil act was--gasp--a traffic violation. If the NFLPA had any guts at all, they'd appeal on Henry's behalf, but they're basically a bend-over-and-take-it organization.

My suggestion for the press release:

"We understand that some of our (white) fans have been quite upset about how certain (black) players aren't being punished enough by the legal system. However, I've decided that I know better than the legal system, so I'm going to punish them more severely. I understand that there's a lot of OJ Insecurity in the red states, and we need to keep our fanbase feeling emotionally and culturally secure."

Seriously, the NFL has a history of operating on ethically and legally shady ground...punishing people for crimes they haven't been convicted of may or may not be constitutional. And I wonder if double jeopardy applies to the private sector--can a company punish an employee, and then punish them again for the same thing, just because they feel like it?

This won't have any effect, mind you. It'll make certain people "feel good," which is probably the actual intention, but it won't change athletic/celebrity culture at all. If you're willing to risk an NFL career in order to (insert illegal thing here) in the first place, a mere suspension is nothing. It's obvious that Henry doesn't take football seriously enough to stop doing this stuff, do you really think that taking away something he doesn't take seriously will be some kind of deterrent?

Hey, someone's clock is an hour off. I see the last post time as 12:53 PM (post 6 from Gray Jay).

I think the suspensions are appropriate. I think that it's better for Pac-Man to focus on his personal life right now, rather than his playing career. The pattern that I see in Jones' actions is arrest-probation-arrest. Not necessarily in the same state, and not necessarily to a Leonard Little extent (yet), but still, for some people, being on probation is a signal that maybe you need to change what you're doing. For Pac-Man, that doesn't appear to have registered yet. Maybe this will change his perception.

Never mind his playing career. If he can fix the real-life issues he has, that's more important. Sure, I'd like to see him play, but I'd rather not see a footnote at the end of his NFL career. (*Missed 2008-2012 seasons due to prison sentence.)

If these suspensions are out of line with other leagues, again, maybe that's a good sign. Sprewell? Artest? McSorley? Bertuzzi? Brett Myers? Maybe we shouldn't have the attitude that all that matters is on-field performance.

punishing people for crimes they haven’t been convicted of may or may not be constitutional. And I wonder if double jeopardy applies to the private sector–can a company punish an employee, and then punish them again for the same thing, just because they feel like it?

The Constitution doesn't bind private entities (although TMQ has of course argued that the NFL is only quasi-private due to public funding of stadiums). Double jeopardy is a constraint on the courts, not on employers.

Pacman twice failed to report arrests - I predicted 4 games for the first and a year for the second. This is easily defensible. Well doen the NFL.

kevin11, the league's code of conduct policy, which was in place last year, and to which the NFLPA had agreed to, I believe, clearly required that all arrests be reported to the league office. Jones was arrested on two occasions last year, and did not report them. I think it might be EXTREMELY unwise for Jones to challenge this, given the potential outcomes of more recent investigations. If he loses a challenge to this suspension, and more stuff comes out in ongoing investigations, Jones could face an EXTREMELY punitive commissioner who has no inclination to lighten up on any subsequent sanctions.

"It is a privledge not a right to play in the NFL." I wonder if you think a year would be too long if YOU got shot in the neck at work.

Will, could you provide a link for the code of conduct policy? I'd be interested in reading it.

I think that in the future, whomever posts Extra Points concerning player discipline should add some bold-faced autotext at the top. Something along the lines of:

The NFL, nor any other private enterprise, is required to follow the standards of US Judicial Code. Players MAY be punished without being convicted of a crime. Players ARE NOT entitled to due process of law in regards to league discipline.

#11: As #13 pointed out, Double Jeopardy is a restraint on the courts, not on a corporation. However, the punishment for Henry is much like the firing of Bob Knight from Indiana: He never would have been fired for grabbing a kid that called him "Knight" walking across campus had he not previously thrown a chair, choked a player, kicked his son, brought a whip to practice, and so on. It's the proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back", and I don't feel bad for Henry since he's been given plenty of free passes and chances to get his priorities straight.

The NFL is probably within their rights since this hurts the image of the league as a whole, and they should be entitled to do what they need to protect that image since, without that, none of these players are making them money they are now or will in the future. For a parallel to the NBA, back when Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf refused to stand for the national anthem, it probably said nowhere in their contracts they had to stand for the anthem, but as this hurt the image of the league, they suspended him for it for a game.

This hurts the Titans and the Bengals, but lets not pretend they never got into trouble in college before they were drafted and this is their first offense, the teams knew what kind of trouble they could get into when they drafted them and took the risks.

More importantly, does this mean the Titans can make an offer for Asante Samuel?

Does anyone know how this affects Tank Johnson, I am assuming that Goodell is waiting for Tank to get out so that he can have an interview with him. Would TJ's attitude or demeanor during the meeting influence his punishment or should we just assume that he will get suspended for 4/8 games?

ASG--no, the Constitution doesn't bind private entities, but numerous federal laws do. Employer ethics, etc.

If I were Henry, I'd sue the NFL, primarily in the hopes of getting my hands on some internal memos debating all this. If marketing/demographics weren't a factor in this decision, I'll eat my (Bengals) hat. If something like that came to light--that the decision was made not on the merits, but on the PR, with possible racial factors mentioned--the NFL would be screwed.

I really hate having to defend this guy. That said, Kevin11 hit it on the head with how out-of-line this punishment is.

Failing to report two arrests to the league is at least 10 times the crime of kicking a man until he's unconscious? (Ricky manning's one game suspension for pleading no contest to felony assault) Now you can make the argument that Manning should have been tossed for a lot longer and I'd agree with you. Going cross-league, we're saying that failing to report two arrests is worse than causing a riot in the stands during a game or committing agg. assault on a player with a piece of equipment?

It seems premature to toss Pacman for this long without a conviction.

re Will and appealing the suspension: I don't think that appealing the suspension will harm Pacman, simply because nothing stops the League from enhancing his suspension upon conviction or Pacman pistol-whipping his hairdresser, etc... Of course, the NFL could act like MLB did in one case and raise the number of days suspended when the player had the temerity to appeal.

kevin, I don't know if it has actually been published publicly, but I've seen it reported to that effect in many media outlets. Perhaps thay are all incorrect, but if the code of conduct, agreed to by the NFLPA, requires a player to report all arrests to the league office, I don't think Jones has a chance.

Henry could sue the NFL but by far the most intelligent thing he could do would be to grow a brain and straighten himself out. He has eight to ten years left of an NFL career which could well leave him a wealthy (and still comparatively young) man. Both these guys should realise that they are effectively being given a strong warning that they should take heed of.

I do think that it is important when this type of punishment is handed out that IF the miscreant does change his ways and serves their time then they should be welcomed back. In an ideal world both these guys will be punished, sort their lives out and be allowed back into the NFL to once again entertain us with their talents.

22:

1) your idea of filing a suit just to get the memos without any sort of prima facie showing of discrimination (discrimination against african-americans as players? AHAHAHA) means no action. Even if he tried something else, it would likely be viewed (rightly) as a fishing expedition. You need to be able to a) articulate a claim upon which relief can be granted and b) make your allegations sufficient to let the court know that discovery will yield, or is likely to yield, that information.

He could very likely do neither in this case.

2) There is no blanket law of corporate "ethics" in any sort of law. There are illegal practices, such as discrimination, and criminal activities. This does not seem to be either. Hence, there is no law governing this except for the law of contracts, and these sorts of sanctions are part of the bargained-for collective agreement between the NFLPA and the NFL.

16: The only legal right you have is a right to a "livelihood." Is there anything preventing these players from quitting and playing in the IFL, CFL or AFL? No? Then they are legally voluntarily complying with the terms of their employment contract. You have no legal right to the job that you want, just a right against being blacklisted from a field (all fields, actually) that you are qualified from performing in.

21: I imagine Johnson will get 2-3 games. He had an arsenal, but not quite as bad a record as these guys. Although we'll have to see what goes on with the nightclub shooting. It's all very hush-hush.

18: It could be immediately followed with:

If you know nothing about labor law, please refrain from pretending that you do. Nothing in the law says that corporations have to be puppydogs and sunshine.

Well, that is what I mean, Gray. If somebody holds a gigantic amount of power over your ability to work again in your chosen profession, and you chance of succeeding on appeal are small, you may be well advised to not challenge the authority of those who have such power.

Enough already with the "but he hasn't had any convictions" argument. People seriously need to learn to separate the criminal justice system from the world of private business. There is no "innocent until proven guilty" standard for business. Convictions or not, if I had pulled half the crap Jones did, I would have been fired long ago, and it wouldn't take failing to report an incident to do so.

In re: 22 -- taking away the alleged racial aspect, what's the problem with firing someone for PR reasons? If I had an employee who was costing me money by getting arrested and him being reported as an employee of my company, hell yes would I fire him.

Anything short of "we suspended him because he's black" simply has no merit.

Actually, tell me this -- why does race even matter in this, huh? The public doesn't like _athletes_ being arrested, regardless of race and/or sport. And teams like to make money. Teams, as well as the NFL, could care less whether a player is a certain race, they just want to make money. Period.

23- The NFL is not the NBA. The guy could have potentially been accused of attempted murder ( crazier things have happened). Being suspended from work for a year would seem to be a lot better alternative than facing attempted murder charges. Just because he didn't pull the trigger doesn't mean he wasn't behind it. If he told his boys to run back into the strip joint and "bust a cap", well, then he would be responsible as well.

But then again, somebody was only shot in the neck. The NFL must have just had it out for Pacman because of his hair style.

Oh, also, I forgot:

Any suit by these players against the NFL (employment practices) would likely end up in arbitration. From there, if arbitrage went against them, they would have the (insurmountable) burden of showing that the arbiter committed some sort a horrendous error. That happens just about never.

With these guys, I also imagine that no sane arbitration would resolve in their favor.

Referring back to post #8, how can twice (allegedly) failing to report an arrest merit a year-long suspension?

I think this is a bit harsh - I figured 8 games, 4 per arrest. And while I haven't read the conduct policy (and I doubt it's publicly available) numerous sources throughout the media, and from the players' union, have said that it does say that all arrests must be reported.

It's tough, though, to judge severity. Everyone knows the NFL has decided to crack down much moreso than it has in the past, so comparing to previous suspensions doesn't work - if Ricky Manning did the same thing today, with this new emphasis in place, he'd have gotten more than one game.

On the other hand, it makes it tough to increase the suspensions by so much. Were it someone besides Pacman (who has such a history) they would have gotten maybe two games for this, even under this new policy.

Of course, there's also an issue of Goodell's desire to set precedent. If he suspended Pacman for two or four games, even if he qualified it by "Future suspensions for any player will be greater, this is only because the policy is new" we'd still see every single player in the future day "Hey, I'm getting 6 games? But Pacman only got..." - the qualifier would be tossed out.

He wants to set the "precedent bar" as high as possible to give him as much leeway for the next punishment. Even if it's reduced on appeal (and that reduction would likely come because the policy is new) he'd have set the precedent high in advance.

I'm not a lawyer, Fnor; I was just speculating. I can, however, Google. So before anyone gets too giddy about the whole "You don't have any rights THIS time" thing:

"Questions about and adverse job and employment decisions based on criminal records are limited to convictions only."

Enough already with the “but he hasn’t had any convictions� argument. People seriously need to learn to separate the criminal justice system from the world of private business. There is no “innocent until proven guilty� standard for business. Convictions or not, if I had pulled half the crap Jones did, I would have been fired long ago, and it wouldn’t take failing to report an incident to do so.

Please, enough with the "I would have been fired a long time ago" argument. It's completely irrelevant. Jones is part of a union that has an agreement with the owners, and both sides have to follow the rules of that agreement.

34 -- fine, that's a valid point. Although Jones DID break the rules. And while I'm in no Union, I'm fully aware of plenty of people who are that would be let go if they did the same. Yes, it would require the company to jump through some hoops, but it's still going to happen.

Do you think Goodell just shouted "8 games and 1 year", or he carefully thought out the suspensions. I'm sure he thought about the possibility of having to defend his position.

Fnor, was Johnson convicted purely on violation of Illinois' gun laws? If so, the bar room lawyer in me thinks it would be interesting to see Johnson challenge his conviction and subsequent parole violations on 2nd Amendment grounds, and castigate the NFL for punishing him for exercising his rights protected by that amendment. Given the recent Appeals Court decision on D.C.'s gun laws, it could produce some interesting briefs.

I agree wholeheartedly, by the way, that people often overestimate entirely the ease with which one can file a lawsuit with any expectation of a positive development in any way, or the wisdom of doing so, especially when the defendent being slapped with a lawsuit has much, much, much, deeper pockets than the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's behavior may be subject to criminal sanction. Sometimes, you really are best served by taking the two by four right between the eyes, without complaint.

Anybody find it funny that a Bengals fan is arguing that these suspentions are to harsh?

Your conduct has brought embarrassment and ridicule upon yourself, your club, and the NFL, and has damaged the reputation of players throughout the league.
Hmmm, at least on FO, I think Michael Vick, the Whizzinator guy from the Vikings (not to mention the whole sex-boat thing), the Carolina Panther Cheerleaders, and FredEx have all brought more "ridicule" on the NFL than PacMan or Henry...
:-)

I support this measure, and grant that the NFL (or any employer) is and should be allowed to make firing/suspension decsions based on PR considerations (as long as those considerations are not discriminatory--e.g. race, gender, religion, etc). However, just to play devil's advocate, if you can get suspended merely for getting arrested, but not convicted, or merely for making the NFL look bad, does this open the door to some woman trying to extort money from some rich NFL player by threatening him with a rape accusation? Or some hood threatening to finger an NFL player to the cops for a crime he did not commit (enough to get the player arrested, even if there's no evidence to indight or convict), unless the player pays off the hood?

re 31 the cover-up ALWAYS gets punished harsher than the crime. It strikes at the heart of the system if someone gets away with not reporting an incident.

So... 2 game suspension for a speeding ticket? 4 games for a DUI? Weren't there a slew of arrests this offseason for DUI?

I heard divorces could merit a 6 game suspension. Good thing for Strahan he got that thing settled out.

What a joke... why do they care more about this than steroids/HGH?

Re 31

I don't think it's just the two un-reported arrests. Pac-Man has had something like 10 police incidents since he came into the league. As #19 said above, it's a cumulative effect.

38- I was going to say that. The Bengals fan arguing for less punishment cracks me up.

First things first:
Re #11- Why must you turn this into a race issue? As soon as anything happens to a black athlete someone has to throw the race card into the mix. This has NOTHING to do with race. If Pacman and Henry didnt know after their second "incidents" that they were skating on thin ice, then they are absolute idiots.

Moving on, the NFL has said that Pacman has the option to apply for reinstatement after 10 games. So read between the lines here, the message is

"Kid you screwed up real bad, and were hitting with a year. If between now and 10 games into the season you dont so much as spit on a sidewalk, then you can come back and play. If however you bounce another strippers head off of a stage, you are gone for good!"

Why exactly are some of you people sticking up for these guys? The NFL has never been known as a group of choir boys. So if the NFL takes this type of stand on the issue, obviously these guys have screwed up more than a couple of times.

Also dont be surprised if Pac gets criminally charged in Nevada, which will make this suspension seem like a time out.

I am a little of the opinion that minorly punishing the teams that draft/sign players with checkered reputations is not a horrible idea, either. Nothing major, but how about something like having the contractual salaries/bonuses to the suspended players count against the team's cap, even if they are not payed out. I would not want to open the door to teams taking questionable players and signing them to big, playing-time dependent contracts, under the theory that "well, if the player screws up and runs in with the law, he'll get suspended and we won't have to pay his salary or take the cap hit, so it's all good. We might as well take the risk on him".

#31, because, Kevin, the code of conduct the NFLPA agreed to required it, and the cba gave the commissioner extremely wide latitude in enforcing it? The NFL is a lot of things, some good, and some bad. What they are not, however, is underlawyered or legally reckless. I suspect they are on extremely strong ground, legally.

37 -- I believe the law you are referring to was precisely that, a gun ownership law, and didn't relate to a criminal's right to possess firearms while on probation. Am I wrong, or isn't that what Tank is doing time for? I believe it's because he was on probation and had guns, which (at least here in Minnesota) is a no-no. My understanding is that he still needs to face charges for possessing said unregistered guns, and yes, the DC case would relate to that.

MJK- I think along with your statement is the fact that the league doesn't have to suspend a player for games to lower the quantity demanded of bad behavior.

The league can impose plain old fashioned cash fines. Say fining Vick 25K for flicking off the fans of Atlanta after a game.

Then throw in the fact that teams can discipline players as well. Jeff Fisher already benched Pacman for a game last year for bad behaivor, now the commish is sitting him down.

Re: 33

I'm pretty sure those rights got bargained away. That's the deal you make when you have a collective bargaining agreement - you can negotiate for extra protections under the law(say, minimum salaries that are way, way higher than the federal minimum wage), but you have to give up some rights in return.

MJK, I think it likely that if Jones had merely reported all his arrests, and thus not committed a clear violation of the code of conduct agreed to by the NFLPA, Goodell would have been more constrained in his ability to mete out punishment, at least until some convictions, guilty pleas, or no contest pleas had resulted.

Without any sort of prior agreement, it is indeed illegal for employers to make a decision to terminate an employee based simply on an arrest.

However, anyplace I've pretty much ever worked (I've never worked a union job, so I can't comment on collective bargaining agreements), I've had to sign some sort of conduct agreement as a condition of employment, with which I agree to the company's personal conduct policy.

Such policies usually say something to the effect of "The company reserves the right to make decisions on an employee based on repeated violations of this policy, including arrest, conviction, etc. etc."

I'm no employment lawyer, I have no idea as to the legality of such agreements - after all, an employer can't make you sign away your right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of race, no matter what such an agreement might say. I don't know how the laws are worded in this case.

In this case, no one is really disputing that the NFL/NFLPA collective bargaining agreement includes a personal conduct policy, a policy that has recently been strengthened - as such, these suspensions may be perfectly valid.

the code of conduct the NFLPA agreed to required it, and the cba gave the commissioner extremely wide latitude in enforcing it?

But you said you've never actually seen the code of conduct.

I wish more coaches would have the juevos to sit their own players down. Do you remember last NCAA tournament when George Mason basketball coach Jim Laranega sat down his starting guard Tony Skin for the first game of the tournament for punching an opponent in the groin during a game? Larranega said that it was unnaceptable and punished his player in house. Then he led his team to the final 4.

What about Bill Parcells kicking Quincy Carter off the Cowboys for alledged Coke a few years ago. Or once again, Fisher already benching Pacman in house.

No, kevin, I am not privy to all NFL documents. You asked a question. I provided a possible explanation, based upon numerous characterizations that have appeared in multiple media outlets. As I said, they all could be in error.

In the interests of finding some common ground, I'll happily concede that Chris Henry is an idiot.

I think that having Henry playing for us increases our chances of winning. Thus, I don't want him to be suspended. So long as he isn't hurting people or stealing stuff, I don't really give a **** about what he does. (The same applies to the rest of society, incidentally.)

Also, it just seems unfair and hypocritical. I've been Googling, and I've yet to find anything that definitively states that employers can punish people for crimes without convictions. Maybe someone can link me?

Would Henry have a hard road, if he sued the NFL? Absolutely, they have much more money than him. But this isn't the old boys' network, anymore. Our last two Presidents have been caught in lies, while Chris Henry...had a hotel room where minors were served alcohol. Oh noes!

This private sector gloating is really revealing, btw. The private sector needs to be careful about its power-trips; the public sector can always take it back behind the woodshed.

#41: As far as PR goes right now, this is more important that Steroids/HGH. The NFL has a pretty good public image in this regard since they've had testing for so long, and you see punishments handed out every year, and they have baseball to compare themselves to. Right now, having your players constantly arrested puts you on the news in a bad light for the public far more often.

As far as the game on the field goes, then steroids relate more directly to that, but for PR, this is far more important to the NFL at the moment, which is why they're doing this.

54- Fair enough, Will. Again, it just seems to me that the punishment to crime ratio is way out of whack with the established NFL standard (again referring to post #8).

And we all know that Jones' alleged unreported arrests have nothing to do with the suspension- they're not even mentioned in the ESPN.com story, or in Goodell's open letter to Jones.

56- IMO the NFL has created it's own bad publicity by the way they've handled this. Think about it- by announcing a meeting with Jones, announcing a suspension a week later, etc, it keeps the story in the news.

If Goodell had simply said "we have faith in the judicial system, and if there's a conviction we will suspend a player accordingly", NFL fans would have stopped talking about this a long time ago.

As a Bengals fan, I'm in full agreement with the punishment. I'm optimistic that this will result in improved behavoir on the team. No way could I stomach another season of this embarrassment.

I think a key issue to deterence here is that they aren't 8/16 games and then you're done. The conditional requirments really put meat in to the supsensions and hopefully will really scare other players.

Initially I was concerned over precedent and comparison of future suspensions, but I think we have to realize that future offensese will be dealt with on a sliding scale as offensese occur and hopefully wouldn't reach the level of Jones and Henry.

Finally, the CBA and Union seem to be brought up quite a bit here in defense of Jones and Henry, but isn't Upshaw and the NFLPA on the same page as Goodell? How would it look if Jones comes to the Arbitration table across both the NFL and NFLPA?

A full year, without a conviction, just strikes me as harsh. Or maybe it's that Merriman Luis Castillo and got off too light.

According to NFL.com, here's Pacman's rules for the year:
-- He must have no further adverse involvement with law enforcement.
-- He must fully cooperate with all required counseling, education, and treatment assigned under league or court-ordered programs.
-- He must adhere to the restrictions on his activities that have been agreed to by he and the Titans.
-- He may not be at the Titans' facility through May 31 and may not participate in any practices or organized workouts during the term of the suspension. Beginning June 1, he must visit the team facility once each week to meet with the team's player development director. Also, beginning June 1, he is permitted to spend one day a week at the team facility for conditioning, film study, and other similar activities.
-- In conjunction with the team's player development director and other professionals working with him, Jones must develop with the Titans a structured program of community service or other activity. This program must be submitted to the league office for review and approval.

Re 55

I just don't see it being worth it to Henry to sue the NFL. If he keeps himself clean, he can be back playing this year. If he sued the league over this, he would almost certainly never play in the NFL again whether or not he won anything.

People might cry that he was being unfairly black-listed, but actually proving that would be another matter. Henry's (and Pac-Man's) best course of action in the short term is to straighten up and get back on the field.

Typical. I had Goodell over to my house for dinner last month and he said my wife's soup was "too salty" and suspended her for the next four meals. All the while not thinking about the collateral damage: i.e. what the hell would I eat? (In case you're wondering, she appealed it down to two meals and I got take-out.)

Back on planet Earth, this looks "about right to me," but I'll take the stance that we'll know better in about 3 years. Will we have a lot more boy scout-like behavior in public, or just a lot of lawyers getting rich on appeals issues?

Maybe rather than pure punitive action, the League and NFLPA join forces and pour a couple million into a "how to act like a grownup" class for all 1st and 2nd year players--taught not my psychologists or economists or cops but by NFL retirees. (They can offer advice like Bradshaw to Ben R on motorcycles: "Hey, they're fun, but wait 'til you retire to do that stuff.") Do you think rookies would listen to Emmitt Smith? Steve Young? Harry Carson?

I'd have agents kick in some funds too--they make a lot repping these guys and it's in their best interests to have the players' careers be long and uneventful off-field.

They probably have such a program, but it seems to be in need of an overhaul.

#22: Actually, the discussions behind it have little to do with this, unless they showed a clear racial motivation. As long as the contract isn't specific about lengths of suspensions, the NFL can impose whatever sanctions it wants for violation of that contract. If the NFLPA site is accurate, the language is vague enough that the league can do whatever it wants to send a message, including terminating the player's employment in the league. (Click my name to see that info.)

One of the issues with comparison to the drug policy is that the drug enforcement times are definitely set, as per negotiations from way back when, whereas the sanctions for violating public image regulations probably aren't. The NFLPA can try to stick in a specific schedule for whichever ones it wants, but unless it's a big concern for most players (like the drug schedule), there's no reason to. That means the league can probably point to something that says players who violate the arrest report clause are subject to fines, suspensions, or firing, at the NFL's discretion.

Unfortunately, all those fancy federal laws only cover specific elements of labor (max hours, minimum wages, taxes, etc) -- they don't disallow generic contracts which give the employer power to demand that an employee abide by restrictive regulations even when not performing official duties for the NFL.

Drew--I'll be shocked if Pac-Man and Henry can stay out of trouble for more than a few months, let alone an entire year. Well, I'll be shocked if Pac-Man can, and I'll be pleasantly surprised if Henry can.

I have a feeling we'll be taking a late-round WR, again, this year...

Finally, the CBA and Union seem to be brought up quite a bit here in defense of Jones and Henry, but isn’t Upshaw and the NFLPA on the same page as Goodell?

I can't help but think that a union would be against arbitrary suspensions. Nor do I think the NFLPA would want a system where the commissioner has unlimited and unchecked authority to levy suspensions.

What exactly is an "adverse incident" with law enforcement? I mean, anyone can be arrested. What's to keep some Titans-hater from arresting Jones before the year is out just to void the conditions of his suspension?

This will never, ever hold up in court if Pac-Man's agent has anything resembling a clue.

That is all.

– He must have no further adverse involvement with law enforcement.

Darn scary. All someone has to do is call the police and *accuse* Jones of something- anything- and he's screwed.

Whatever happened to due process?

I'd have to say that a Bengals fan arguing for a lesser penalty is actually acting rationally and completely out of reasonable self interest. Last year, under this system, the Bengals might have been looking at years of penalties, cumulatively.
This is just well-deserved payback for the success Cincy has had from getting skilled players who were discounted because they have a history of anti-social behavior.

Regarding suing the NFL over this...

I believe that any argument between players and the NFL (or the NFLPA and the NFL) must be taken to binding arbitration, and only if one side or the other believes the arbiter itself broke the law, does a general lawsuit arise. This the case for almost all the sports leagues.

Recall a few years ago when an arbiter ruled in favor of the NFL in the Terrell Owens case, the NFLPA decried the decision, said it was wrong, it was stupid, it was obtuse, and the fired the arbiterin question...but they didn't go to court. They did, however, make sure the next CBA clarified the rules to ensure it couldn't happen again.

The courts very, very, very rarely get involved in arbitration decisions in situations like this.

72-

Well, lawsuits are pretty unpleasant in and of themselves, especially when your opponent gets friends and neighbors to testify about you... kind of puts a strain on relationships. I would be pissed if I got fired for personal behavior outside the office, but it's important to choose ones battles wisely.

#58 Kevin11, do you have kids? I am guesing not, but could be wrong. I think what Goodell is doing is essentially laying down the law like a parent might.

If my oldest (granted, he's just 6) was caught cheating in school, should I punish him as well as his teacher, or just say "I have faith in the teachers meting out appropriate punishment," and leave it at that???!!!

No. If I want to prevent future behavior like that, I impose what seems to be strict, but fair punishment, pretty quickly, offer education and outreach, and remind him often why this is so and how well he's doing to overcome it (okay, the players are a bit beyond pats on the head, but the concept is the same).

In fact, I think a lot of the rules are more bear strong similarities to how you want responsible kids to grow up. They break the neighbor's window playing ball, you want them to come to you and say "Dad, I messed up." I'd be proud of my kids for doing that, rather than having the neighbors call to complain and have to find the boys cowering in the basement. Same with the "report all incidents" policy. Although for the NFL it's probably more for PR purposes--so the League knows what's up rather than building responsible citizens.

If I were Goodell, I would also be concerned that if I did "nothing" (more or less what you suggest by leaving punishment in the hands of others) then the rest of the players might percieve mine as a weak regime and take carte blanche to do whatever they want. If in two years time the situation was worse, the media would be calling for my head for not doing anything "back at the beginning of this whole mess".

warning: crystal ball predictions not 100% guaranteed.

Regarding the "no adverse contact with law enforcement", do you really think that the NFL will say, "oh, looks like Jones got arrested again, let's ban him for life" without looking into the veracity of the charges/incident? If it's some frivolous charge, it will be (hopefully) dropped eventually, and the NFL will be able to make their own determination on whether it was legit or not. But despite being morons at times, I give the NFL enough credit that I assume they will at least look at the circumstances of the incident as much, or more than, than whether he had official "adverse contact."

Re 65

Oh, I'd be shocked too. I figure at least one of them will eff this up, and possibly both.

Re 67

Yes, anyone can be arrested. Most people don't get arrested every couple months though.

Still, it is a good point, that others have also made, that there is the potential for extortion here. A player with one or two prior "incidents" could become a target to someone looking to shake them down. I'm not sure how the system is going to handle that.

Will Allen,
Next time you're in Seattle, let me know and I'll gladly have you over for a beer. I don't recall seeing what I would consider an un-sage comment from you in a few years. We can watch a replay of the last Vikes/Colts game (the "Manning left-hand-pass" game from a couple years ago).

75- I do have kids.

I'm sorry, but your analogy doesn't work. Goodell's role as NFL commissioner is not synonymous as our roles as parents. It's not even comparable.

You're cruel, bobman, but the local beers in the Northwest are excellent, so maybe I'll just meet you at a downtown saloon, and we can skip the videotape.

Good point, Rich, and I'm sure my lawyer would agree.

#41,

Because the 'roids work, man. They work!

#70,

Gee, maybe if he didn't already have a legal history as long as my arm....

Thanks, Chris, but just to make no mistake, I did it for the cash.

Wow. These penalties are about twice what I expected. Is there an over/under yet on when either of these guys gets back into hot water?

#58, Goodell's actions the past two weeks have done more with fans to make them respect the NFL than had he followed your advice. Saying "We have full faith in the legal authorities" is what teams/coaches always say so they can get around having to sit their best players while their legal teams work to get them off the hook. Following that kind of advice (doing nothing, really) is what has led to the public perception recently that the NFL is full of thugs and can't do anything to police it's self.

Goodell taking positive action to suspend those people that make it worse for all the players leads to good PR, and if the players or union try to challenge this suspension they wind up looking bad in the eyes of the public (most of us have trouble identifying with rich athletes who keep getting arrested).

The NFL tried your advice and that's why they are in this place: They didn't give the players any reason to not get in trouble, and so the players kept the story in the news themselves by getting arrested.

When was the last time an NFL player successfully challenged a suspension?

Never, to the best of my knowledge.

Ah, but with good reason! All of the NFL suspensions that I'm aware of are pretty cut and dry. For example, failing a steroid test = a four game suspension. Not too much to appeal there.

This case is different, since IMO the length of the suspensions are far out of line with the NFL's established standard.

Re: 88

I don't know the answer MDS, but I'm not sure it's relavent. The suspicion is that Tags didn't rock the boat in this area, so his disipline wasn't challenged. Neither was it effective. Goodell is operating from a different playbook. Not saying he would lose in arbitration, just that it wouldn't really surprise me if he did.

Assuming Goodell is well-lawyered, in addition to being an excellent lawyer himself, I'd say that he was entirely Machiavellian in his conduct, and no, I don't think being described as Machiavellian is an insult.

I think one of the funniest quotes I've read in advance of this announcement was Goodell saying 'I'm not trying to send a message'. Guess he is well-lawyered.

#94

The system needs to go.

The system sucks. Too bad every other system sucks even worse.

If people actually want to discuss this with you, then perhaps I'll have more to say.

90- My point is that there are fans that think the NFL is littered with thugs *because* of the way Goodell handled it. He turned it into a soap opera.

#88, somebody did within the last decade. Terry Glenn, maybe? Maybe not, but it has happened.

Kevin11, I have to agree with Will's analogy, b/c it's dead on. Look at these athletes, you can't tell me they're not children....they certainly know how to act like them. I doubt most of them ever had anybody "lay down the law" in during their upbringing....and it shows w/their disregard for others and sense of entitlement

I assume, James, that your litigation took place in the U.K.. I wonder if the torture of litigation is any worse on this side of the pond . I, too, would rather do my own root canal surgery than be involved in a lawsuit.

But the suspension I'm thinking of was almost certainly team-imposed, so I guess it's not the same thing.

RE : Kevin11

I don't think the NFL, or many other companies/entities, can afford to count on due process and only punish people for convictions. Any time you're arrested it reflects badly on the company, and they have the right to defend their image. I would hope they would make exceptions for incidents that are out of the player's control (say someone randomly taking a swing at him in a nice restaurant).

And as far as someone simply accusing Jones, it would take quite a bit more than that to get him arrested. Giving the high profile of these players, that is something that the NFL would have to take into account. I believe Jerome Bettis was accused in this manner a few years ago, and eventually it came out that the woman was trying to set him up.

All things considered, I don't feel that you can just let the courts handle it, even if you think the punishment the league meted is too strong.

69, 93
When did Marx and Engels start posting at FO? :P

On balance, I think it's a good thing. Hopefully, the NFL will start (or improve) some counseling sessions for these players.

102- I can tell you that they're not children, since they are all over the age of eighteen.

Beyond that, we've learned that you don't like professional athletes and that you paint with a very broad brush. I feel less than enlightened.

Out of the office, work to do, &c., so my comments will be brief.
1. I'm very surprised at the length of the suspensions. Like #89, these are twice as long as I expected.
2. As a Titans fan, this really sucks. Pacman was an awesome player, and taking away his coverage and return skills is a big hit to the team. I'm starting to feel my December prediction of 6-10 in '07 was optimistic.
3. I believe the length of these suspensions was influenced by Pacman and Henry's history, and was longer because of it. Suspensions of these length could end up making Goodell look bad if other players do the same events and don't have the same personal history.

More later, hopefully.

I didn't employ the children analogy. I can see it's usefulness, but I really am loathe to employ the terminology of "family" or parenting when discussing business relationships involving adults. Give people the respect they are due as adults, and I don't mean to imply that anyone was deliberately doing otherwise.

This may be a stupid question (if so, I'm sure it will be pointed out to me), but if Jones/Henry want to appeal this decision is the NFLPA (more or less) bound to support them in seeking arbitration?

93: Uh-oh! Someone's gotten ahold of a freshman philosophy class!

This doesn't really relate to the suspensions per se, but Tags was a smooth operator when it came to protecting the league's image and prominence. I don't think Goodell is his equal, and there may not be an equal out there. It seems like discipline and especially steroids are powderkegs right now.

On the Ricky Manning front, I think the reason he only got a one game suspension was because the video of the incident showed that Manning didn't do any beating in the incident (with shoes or without) and was only dumb enough to hang around with the kind of person that does.

Disclaimer: I personally do not entirely exonerate Manning for this incident, just adding what I know about why he only got one game having sat down with Goodell to watch said tape.

Tarrant, I do not have the time at the moment to respond, but I wanted to say I appreciate what you wrote, and it was very well said. I do disagree with certain points, but your tone and detail should be admired.

Thanks.

Kevin, I didn't mean all athletes, I don't paint with a broad brush. But if you want to attack me b/c you've been on the defensive throughout this thread, go ahead. However, you can't tell me that Jones/Henry have been acting like good standing adults. I realize that they are older than 18, but have they been acting like that?

Also, your comment about fans thinknig the NFL is full of thugs is b/c of Goodell taking this action seems weird to me. The thug image isn't a new phenominon....so I don't know how you came up with that argument. What is your basis for that comment? I don't think he turned it into a soap opera. There have been prominant members in the NFLPA come out agaist these "repeat offenders" before Goodell mentioned meeting with Jones/Henry.

Forgive me for bucking the tide, but I have not gotten caught up in this player arrest obsessed, "throw the bums out!" frenzy that seems to have swept NFL fandom recently. Is there any actual empirical (not anecdotal) evidence that misconduct by or arrests of NFL players are on the rise? I find it fascinating to see which matters suddenly explode into massive public issues seemingly out of nowhere. I'll lay a lot of the credit (or blame) for this one on Mike Florio. He's been pushing this tabloid crap for years, and, in the last few months, his crusade has become adopted by the more traditional sports media outlets.

Personally, I really don't care about these off-field incidents. They don't affect my enjoyment of the game in the slightest, so they are no more relevant to me than any other random crimes by and against people I don't know. My disappointment that I won't be able to see one of the best corners in the land play next season far outweighs any satisfaction that I might derive from knowing that Pacman Jones is being punished for his transgressions. I understand that this is a public relations move, but it fails to impress this member of the public. I see this as an overreaction where no reaction whatsoever was required. It hurts me as a fan, and it reduces my respect for the National Football League.

Tarrant- Way too many Orrin Boyles, Wesley mouches, James Taggarts...

Not enough Dangy Taggerts and Hank Reardons.

If Henry's getting 8 games for a bunch of misdemeanors, then Joey Porter has to see at least 4 for jumping, and robbing, Levi Jones.

Call me biased, but I'm slightly more concerned by the assault and robbery than I am about someone who seems to be troubled by lack of intelligence and a drinking problem...

To add another perspective, I heard Chris Mortenson report that there were player reps who wanted Jones to be hit with a multi-year or even lifetime ban.

The following players had adverse run-in with law enforcement... per PFT turd watch.

Joey Porter, Dominique Bird, Jeramey Stevens, Gerald Sensabugh, Dominic Rhodes, Dexter Reid, Brandon Marshall, Darrell Reid, and Anthony Davis.

Now, I fully expect them to all have at least a 1 game suspension, and Joey Porter should probably get a bit more time for attacking a fellow NFL player.

If the NFL is serious about this they can't just make an example out of a few players... they need to be consistent.

117- It wasn't my intent to attack you. In fact, it may have been me painting with a broad brush since I've read far too many "I've read he's a thug, so throw him out of the league" stuff on other boards. Please accept my apology.

Now, I can't tell you that Jones or Henry have been acting like good standing adults, but I can say they shouldn't be suspended for that specific offense.

As I stated previously, Goodell's actions have kept Jones' name in the news. He kept pouring gas on the fire when he should have been pouring water on it.

118- I agree that Florio has greatly helped create the hysteria over player arrests. It's great for him since he's making a full time living from it, but I hate the effect it's had on sports coverage.

It's 5:00 and his site hasn't been updated re: the suspensions. My guess is he had a coma-inducing orgasm upon hearing the news.

It’s 5:00 and his site hasn’t been updated re: the suspensions. My guess is he had a coma-inducing orgasm upon hearing the news.

What update are we missing?

#118 - Bravo to you. Sums up this fan's feelings exactly. This entire "story" is more or less a media creation, which has zero impact on me, unless I let myself get caught up in the media frenzy. The purpose of these punishments is to let bored, self-righteous people and media members lazy and/or incompetent at their jobs feel good about themselves by getting on their high horse to look down at other people.

Re 125

I assume he means PFT's take on the suspensions. Turd Watch is Florio's new favorite dead horse, so it is a little surprising that he hasn't weighed in with his opinion yet. Of course, he does have a day job.