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.

Will Allen

We (Britishers) are well behind you (Americans) in terms of litigistic fervour but we are (seemingly) trying to close the gap. In my experience any kind of professional service costs a fortune these days, even people who previously weren't even thought of as being 'professional' can charge hundreds of pounds an hour for their time. I don't know where a private individual would get the money from to employ some people, I guess they must work almost exclusively for large corporations.

Kevin 11... Right or wrong due process doesn't exist in the media. If there is a perceived issue that draws negative attention to your company you can be sure it will be addressed. In this case Goodell sent a strong message that REPEAT run-ins with the law are not to be tolerated.

Consider that even if the Players Union argues succesfully that it was too harsh a punishment at least Goodell has given the appearence of a no tolerance attitude. It's a win win.

129- I agree that due process doesn't exist in the media, but it should be taken into account when metering out actual punishment.

I'm not a mathematician, so hopefully someone else could help me out... but is the arrest rate in the NFL really that statistically divergent from the arrest rate in the general population? If I recall correctly, about one half of one percent of the US population is presently incarcerated. If you assume that there are 100 people (players, staff, etc) involved with every NFL team (that may actually lowball it), then you could expect at least .5% of these people to be INCARCERATED, let alone just in trouble with the law. That would be about 16 people in the clink, and probably a bunch more on top of that who have minor legal entanglements. So perhaps this is a non-story after all.

Re: 93

Objectively, both suspensions are harsh, but fair. As to an appeal, I'd guess that the NFLPA will be advising both players to suck it up.

Arguing for leniency for Jones and Henry will be a PR nightmare for the Players Association, and one I suspect they would like to avoid. If they win the perception (fairly or unfairly) is the PA is indifferent to the behaviour of its members. If they lose, the Commissioner gets carte blanche in the future.

Rightly or wrongly an arbitrator is unlikely to look sympathetically on either man, and if I understand things correctly, there is no specified policy on the appropriate sanction for "conduct detrimental to the League". If the NFLPA are going to challenge this new policy they would do well to wait until Goodell gets the big stick out in a case that is marginal. Jones and Henry are not the ideal individuals around which to build a case against the Commissioner.

Peter King decides there's a little too much rationality in the world, and decides to come down firmly on the side of Roger Goodell. His conclusion:

Goodell's approach reminded me of how another young commissioner, Pete Rozelle, dealt with a gambling scandal in 1963, when he banned Paul Hornung and Alex Karras for the year.

I can't think of a soul who loves this game who isn't applauding Goodell.

I'm so aghast at PK's perspective I don't even know where to begin rationally. Right now, I'm just glad to know I don't love football.

Re: 131

Let's look at the arrest rate, instead of incarceration rate, since what we're dealing with here are mostly arrests(FWIW, I think the incarceration rate is more like 1-2%, but that's neither here nor there). From the site linked on my name:
In 2004, the estimated rate of arrests in the Nation was 4,752.4 arrests per 100,000 residents.

Given your estimate of 3200 people involved with all NFL teams, that means we should expect 152 arrests per year from the NFL. As near as I can tell, there have been about 15 arrests involving NFL team employees(either players or not) in the past 2 months or so, relying on Florio's much-maligned Turd Watch. In other words, the NFL is about in line with the rest of the country, maybe even a little better than average.

One might argue that we hold athletes and other public figures to a higher standard then the general populace, though.

133- Please read my post #8 and explain how it's fair. Not challenging, but I'd like to know why you think that.

134- I saw that and I was amazed. Karras and Hornung get a year for GAMBLING, and Jones gets a year for....what?

Seriously, this has been a great discussion and I appreciate everyone's input.

#115 is exactly correct. Manning pled no contest because of his prior record and because he technically committed the crime of assault (which basically means any attempt to intimidate). He didn't actually hit the guy in question.

This is not a recommendation to invite him over to your house and have beers. That having been said, he apparently stays in most of the time these days.

One might argue that we hold athletes and other public figures to a higher standard then the general populace, though.

I think the assumption that the NFL is a representative cross section of the populace (and thus should follow the general trend) is a little absurd, though. They're in just a tad higher tax bracket than average, for one.

The fact that the content of the letter wrote to each player is made public seems to me that mr Goodell is an attention whore and is setting an examle over the heads of others.
Why not whathisface, mr Dropalot. Or the Bengals team.

Setting examples is weak.
It only means your rules stink and you should make new rules.

#136
"–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."

Kevin, you and I are in agreement here. All the above punishments are too leinient, with the possible exception of #3. That would depend on what the conviction is for. Ricky Manning should never play again. A single conviction for a minor offence by a player with no history of criminal behaviour I'd treat differently. I don't think that the above cases are truely comparable, because the CBA defines the sanctions available to the League.

The key here for me, is the offence for which Jones and Henry have been suspended. "Conduct detrimental to the League", for which no sactions have been defined.

This is the crux of it. Both Jones and Henry have had multiple arrests, and given their high profile positions have brought scorn upon the NFL. I have no idea if NFL players are more likely to be arrested or incarcerated than the population as a whole, but that I think is currently the general perception.

The NFL at heart is a business. That business relies on the public taking an interest and spending their hard-earned money on the product that the NFL produces. That business is put at risk by the perception that the NFL is a refuge for criminal or socially unacceptable behaviour.

Both Jones and Henry have multiple arrests/convictions, and I think it's fair to say, are major causes of the current perception of the NFL. It's difficult to see how they are not guilty of "conduct detrimental to the league".

Their behaviour has the potential to cause the NFL real damage, especially if it becomes widespread. Hitting the worst offenders hard may provide some deterrent effect but also provides the NFL and the rest of its employees (read players) with protection from the actions of Henry and Jones.

Both of these individuals are serial offenders and as adults will have known that their actions would have consequences. Given this, I don't think they've been treated unfairly.

Aaron
I'm glad you cleared that up. I thought we were in the middle of one of those "forward reply" threads that plaqued us during the season

Commissioner Goodell should be applauded.

I have not yet heard Adam Jones' reaction to his suspension, I do know that after Chris Henry met with the Commissioner he was asked what he thought of fans that wanted him suspended due to his transgressions - his response - 'they aren't true fans'.

Enjoy your time off gentlemen.

Kevin11
No appology required if you didn't intend come off in an attacking demeanor. I'm curious though as to why you would think that these punishments are harsh...you can't deny that these two individuals are repeat offenders, whether they've been charged or not. I would say that past punishments could be to little (someone like Leonard Little comes to mind).

Thanks for the response, James. We agree to disagree, but I take specific issue with this:

The key here for me, is the offence for which Jones and Henry have been suspended. “Conduct detrimental to the League�, for which no sactions have been defined.

I'm sure we can agree that being convicted of a crime or failing three drug tests is conduct detrimental to the league, but those offenses warrant four game suspensions. Whether or not you or I thinks that's lenient isn't the issue- the fact is that four games is the standard. Ergo, I can't help but think an arbitrator will reduce the suspensions.

PacMan probably deserves what he got, esp. since i read it as a minimum 10 game suspension. However, is Henry being suspended for just the arrests, but none in this offseason? Hasn't he already been punished individually for each of those??? Why is his situation different from Lenoard Little who KILLED somebody drunk driving then got another DUI last year? Is this simply from the he was drunk in the car with another Bengal story for last year, but not driving? Henry seems like he has a case to fight back to me.
Oh yeah, #113 has it right. These arrests don't bother me in the slightest, this whole thing reeks of a PR stunt to subdue media criticism.

For what it's worth, Gene Upshaw agreed with the punishments in a statement

#132

"’m sure we can agree that being convicted of a crime or failing three drug tests is conduct detrimental to the league"

Absolutely. I'd have no problem with the NFL saying that for future offences of this type that a further x game ban was being imposed for detrimental conduct. However I think the CBA as it stands forbids that. In the Jones & Henry cases it doesn't appear to, although ultimately that remains to be seen.

I think the assumption that the NFL is a representative cross section of the populace (and thus should follow the general trend) is a little absurd, though. They’re in just a tad higher tax bracket than average, for one.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my "One might argue..." comment. Still, I think it is useful to put this in some kind of perspective - it's not like the NFL is hiring career criminals as the majority of their players. There are some bad apples in the NFL, but by and large the NFL is made up of perfectly decent, law-abiding human beings, and the statistics show that. Consequently, it's not surprising to me that those "decent human being" players would want the "bad apples" suspended for a long time. If someone brought widespread disgust upon my chosen profession through their personal conduct, I'd be pretty pissed at them, and I'd probably support preventing them representing my profession any more too. Of course, no one judges "software developers" as a group, so it's a pretty false analogy, but I think the point is sound.

Off the top of my head, it seems like someone like Leonard Little or the wifebeaters have gotten off pretty easy in the past - what would there punishment be in this new system. Another guy who got off easy was Romanowksi, when he broke a teammates jaw with a punch - and he was already a bad apple. It seems like Goodell has set the bar very, very high.

ABW and Pat,
I agree that there are factors that make the comparison between the employees of NFL Franchises and the general population less than perfect. However, one rhetorical device used by Florio and others concerning the criminal activity in the league is "why can't these guys stay out of trouble the way that 99% of everyone else does". It would seem, based on what ABW said, that only 96% of everyone else is staying out of trouble. We'll see what the tally looks like at the end of the year... but this isn't a tiny group of people and the fact that some of them are getting arrested shouldn't be astonishing.

As all good IRCers can attest to, There's No Politics in Football!

33: See, you cannot be the subject of an adverse employment action due to criminal history unless it meets certain conditions. The way I see this (Tom would be a better authority), this is not an adverse employment action. As I said earlier, he agreed to this when he joined the union and its CBA.

Will: Any appeal about firearms would be silly, since no firearms was a condition of his probation. It doesn't matter what the second amendment says- at that point he is directly violating a court order.

I imagine that this is mostly Goodell making an example. I don't expect everything to be this heavy-handed. As Will said, Machiavellian is a very apt description.

Boy, I really think the jury did a bad job in the Romanowski civil suit, albeit with the caveat (rather large, at that) that I didn't hear, you know, the testimony. It just seemed to me that it's pretty hard to peer into the future and say that there is any preponderance of evidence that the guy Romanowski assaulted wouldn't have played a couple of years in the NFL if Romanowski hadn't assaulted him. The Raiders brought him in because he was of some value, and he had to leave after Romonowski tore off his helmet and pummeled him. I though the award should have been larger.

I’m sure we can agree that being convicted of a crime or failing three drug tests is conduct detrimental to the league, but those offenses warrant four game suspensions. Whether or not you or I thinks that’s lenient isn’t the issue- the fact is that four games is the standard. Ergo, I can’t help but think an arbitrator will reduce the suspensions.

However, the league, with the assent of the player's union, has stated that the standard is, heretofore, changed, and this and all future offenses will carry much harsher suspensions.

When the local legislature increases the fine for speeding from $100 to $300, "But it was $100 last year" isn't a valid defense. Now, Jones/Henry could argue that the suspensions were overly harsh, and maybe (and only maybe, given the NFLPA has reportedly signed off on both of these suspensions) there is something there.

I actually think that Henry has a 'better case', oddly enough. Pacman Jones, by every account, did violate the NFL's personal conduct policy by not reporting his arrests - and he did so multiple times. Therefore it's going to be hard to argue he shouldn't be suspended in some way. Henry, however, reported everything that happened to him, and the kinds of incidents he's been involved in were typically punished lightly in the past.

Couple of points:

141: The four game suspensions for drugs, steroids, and convictions are still in effect, thus making them the standard.

My other point was that I have yet to see it reported that Gene Upshaw has approved of the suspensions. I'll hold off on blasting him until I do.

wow, there seems to be pretty large majority that supports the Commish.

Count me in the minority. These suspensions are way out of line with history and came with absolutely no warning that the rules had changed. Mark the NFL down as the latest (last?) part of our society to become completely obsessed with appearing to be "tough on crime" or the equivalent.

Next time Goodell gets a speeding ticket, I hope they suspend his license for the year. What, that's a different penalty than you're used to, Rog?

Again...Carlos, the NFL is not the state, and it does not have very similar responsibilities. It has every right to ruthlessly pursue it's own self interest, within boundaries of law. If it thinks that it's self interest is best served by sitting Jones a year, so be it. I don't presume to know what is in their interest better than they do.

Re #144

Can you honestly tell me that these two guys didnt know they were flirting with disaster?

Combined they had something ridiculous like 17 incidents, how can that be justified? It cant be and if Goodell would have slapped them on the wrist then there would be no deterant for other players to not make the same mistakes.

For all those that posted in defense of PacMan dont forget that because of him a man is now paralyzed for life, which is a far cry from being suspended from a dream job for a year. At the minimum he got what he deserved, and if there is any justice in the world he and whomever else was involved will be held financially accountable and be put in jail.

I don’t presume to know what is in their interest better than they do.

Will, can we agree that it would be in the NFL owner's best interests if they had a salary cap of $40,000 per player?

My exaggerated point is, the NFL has to take other interests into consideration.

For all those that posted in defense of PacMan dont forget that because of him a man is now paralyzed for life

Because of Pac Man..what?

Please explain.

Will,

I never said the NFL was the state! As an employer, I think it's unfair to punish people strongly without forewarning. As a dad, I feel the same way. Tyranny is tyranny, whether it's the state, the (monopoly) employer or your parents.

Ryan,

Nice false choice you present between a "slap on the wrist" and a one year suspension without pay. There's plenty of middle ground, where Goodell could have suspended Pacman for something like 4 games and said, There's a new commissioner in town, and improving player behavior off the field is my top priority, so you're all on notice that the penalties will get increasingly severe until we see improvement.

My question is--what happens when this doesn't magically deter players from breaking the law? I mean, I'm assuming that if players keep getting arrested at the current rate, this policy will be considered a failure. Do they keep getting tougher and tougher, creating even more antagonism? Or would they rather address the problem, instead of merely "looking tough?"

Carlos, then don't use state action (penalty for speeding ticket) as an analogy. As for tyranny, until Pacman Jones is kept in chains at Titans' headquarters, it trivializes the word tyranny to say that is what Jones is enduring.

I think "fair" and "unfair" are among the least useful words in the english language, as they are both qualities wholly dependent on the vantage point of the observer. I much prefer using the quality known as "liberty" as a bellweather of proper behavior, since it is much more clear-cut; two parties are either engaging in a relationship voluntarily, or they are not. The NFL decided that the relationship was no longer satisfactory to them, so they ended it for now, and did do within the boundaries of law. What's to complain about?

No, kevin, the NFL ony has responsiblity to ruthlessly pursue it's own interests, within the boundaries of law. Sometimes it will be in it's interests to give ground to other actors' perceived interests, and sometimes it won't be. I don't presume to know those occasions better than they do.

Carlos, then don’t use state action (penalty for speeding ticket) as an analogy.

Will, all due respect, but since you have no problem using analogistic and hypothetical situations from your work environment to this table of discussion...

Also, I'm the "business-practice-insulting" guy. I am, apparently, "VERY BAD!" (That reminds me of the Simpsons frogurt scene. You go, Aaron!) So, I hereby offer the following apology:

Will Allen's business practices (i.e., firing someone and then threatening to ruin them if they fought back) are eminently patriotic and All-American. Nonjudgmental, non-swaggering people like you help our country to be loved all over the world, my friend.

And if I'm responsible the infamous post #93 (I honestly can't remember), I'm merely a lower-to-middle-class Montanan, my friends. No college for me, I'm afraid.

(Enjoy it while it's up, guys. But, Aaron, please leave my other one up!)

Carlos, then don’t use state action (penalty for speeding ticket) as an analogy.

Poor reading comprehension. It's not offered as an analogy, but as a wish on Goodell so he can be on the receiving end of an arbitrary abuse of power.

it trivializes the word tyranny to say that is what Jones is enduring.

Says you. I'd say an arbitrary abuse of power that deprives Pacman of his only shot at making millions of dollars next year qualifies.

I think “fair� and “unfair� are among the least useful words in the english language,

Color me relieved not to be your spouse, child or employee!

Yes, kevin but the analogy is more apt, because it involves a private employer/employee relationship. The relationship that an individual has with the state is in no way analogous to the relationship an individual has with a private employer. They really are very disimilar, thus making the analogy unhelpful.

A better analogy would be to suppose Goodell being fired by the owners after a DUI. It certainly wouldn't bother me if that happened, and if Goodell didn't like it, tough goalposts.

Kevin11, Carlos -- you guys are dead right on this one. Since when is Sheriff Gonna Getcha commissioner of the NFL? The cliche runs that 'the punishment should fit the crime,' not 'the punishment should fit the accusation.' I understand that the NFL is a private employer, and that there's a great deal of ambiguity about what rights employers have to impose punishments on employees in a collective bargaining framework, etc etc.

But tedious legal questions aside, these punishments are flat-out bogus. Comparing them to previous suspensions only reinforces the obvious inference that this is a Roger Goodell media stunt, tailored to appeal to the knee-jerk 'law and order' crowd. Judging from the response of the "analysts" on ESPN, it's working, but that doesn't mean its not completely unfair to the players and the teams involved.

With this kind of pompous and hypocritical posturing -- nice "open letter" to Jones and Henry, Rog... I guess Merriman got a private email -- along with its increasingly fascistic anti-celebration policy, the NFL getting worse by the hour. It's too bad the product is so damned good, because it makes us forget how repulsive league management is...

Kevin11,

During Pacmans latest incident in Las Vegas during the NBA all star game two door men were shot by a member(allegedly) of Pac's Posse. One of those men is now paralyzed.

The LVPD has recommended that the state persue a felony charge of coercion against Pacman for his role in the events. Apparently the whole thing is on camera so hopefully justice will prevail.

Bengalsfan, please don't slander me. I did not threaten to ruin anyone. It was explained to ignorant people how very unpleasant being involved in an extended lawsuit is. Like I said, I'd rather do root canal surgery on myself than be involved in a lawsuit, and I mean that even if I thought I had a good chance of winning.

During Pacmans latest incident in Las Vegas during the NBA all star game two door men were shot by a member(allegedly) of Pac’s Posse. One of those men is now paralyzed.

The LVPD has recommended that the state persue a felony charge of coercion against Pacman for his role in the events. Apparently the whole thing is on camera so hopefully justice will prevail.

Your point is...?

re: 144

Don't compare getting a speeding ticket to the bad things Jones did. I may only be 17, but even I know how dorky post 144 looks.

Do vote for me tonight. I think I did well on American Idol tonight.

Carlos,

Sure goodell could have suspended Pacman for 4 games, but what message would that have sent? It takes 10 incidents to get noticed?

Say you are an NFL player, and Pac got 4 games. Would you really notice? I say no, because if Im a regular player and get into trouble once or twice I am not too worried.

But now I guarantee you every single player in the league will be taking notice of this. Any player who was on the fence was just given a giant push towards the good side.

#73: "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?"

Well, seeing as they are already suspending him for a year due mostly to arrests that haven't yet resulted in convictions...yes, that seems like exactly what they would do. The NFL has shown no reluctance to punish him for being arrested, regardless of whether any convictions resulted from the arrests. Why would they suddenly decide to wait patiently for the courts when dealing with future arrests?

The "Open Letter" is pretty inappropriate, regardless of what you think of the suspension. It just seems Mickey Mouse, and is pandering to the masses. Granted, it may be effective, but lame. Will any of his letters to Jerry Jones, or Upshaw, or sponsors also be open?

Will--I'm 90% sure that you actually used the word "ruin" in your post.

But don't worry, buddy, I'm on your side. Corporate America is clearly the entity that we should allow to determine morality. Why, as we speak, Iraqis are flooding the streets to praise "civilian contractor" groups, and Enron shareholders are diving into Uncle Scrooge-like money bins!

Kevin,

My original point was that at the very least Pacman deserves this suspension.

Any clown that acts like him should be incarcerated, and hopefully he will.

Carlos, I explain to my employees where my interests lie, and where I believe my interests likely intersect with theirs, and what the upside of our relationship could be, and what the downside could be. I then keep my word, and I have had extremely low turnover in the businesses I've owned.

As to my relationship with my family, it really is quite warm and affectionate, if you must know. It really an error of large proportion to use the family as a template for other types of relationships people have.

As for your notion of tyranny, I'll simply adhere to Aaron's rules and thus avoid a debate about our extraordinarily different notions of what it means to be tyrannized. You and I live in very different worlds, and likely have had very different experiences, indeed.

If you wish me to drop the word "analogy" (all the better to improve your view of my reading comprehension), fine.

152, 156 - Will, no one (at least right now) is questioning whether the NFL has the legal right to suspend Jones and Henry so suddenly and extravagantly. They may or may not -- and to me, that's not an especially interesting question.

The issue is whether the punishments were in themselves just -- based on previous league precedents (much milder), Jones's and Henry's actual wrongdoing (unproven, in one case, and relatively minor, in the other), and a general sense of fairness and proportion.

It occurs to me that the word for what the NFL is becoming is not "tyrannical" or "fascistic" but "paternalistic." That's the sentiment that draws an emotional response from the law-and-order crowd (and explains the parenting analogies on this board). Maybe I'm in the minority on this one, but I have less than zero interest in seeing Roger Goodell and other league suits attempt to "parent" wayward players, on the field or off. It's absurd, politically and historically offensive, and, worst of all, it damages the product. No exciting Pac-Man returns! No hilarious Chad Johnson celebration stunts! More thrilling press conferences featuring a stern Roger Goodell.... Ugh.

But now I guarantee you every single player in the league will be taking notice of this.

So what? They'd also take notice if NFL had castrated him. Is "everyone taking notice" the right metric?

And while you deride a 4 game suspension, the evidence suggests players take that pretty seriously, or we'd see more drug/steroid activity.

Given the average NFL career is something like 4 years, a one year suspension is a quarter of a career. I'm about 20 years into what'll probably be a 40 year (first) career... how about a 10 year suspension!

so obviously there are some pretty serious moral implications, but what about the football implications? Are players with red-flag pasts (criminal incidents, etc.) now treated the same as players with perceived injury risks? Or worse, given the magnitude of the two suspensions handed out, and the fact that it seems certain players tend to repeat off-field incidents quite often, resulting in even longer suspensions?

Bengals fan, I'm 100% sure I didn't. I said my attorney explained to them how extraordinarily unpleasant it would be to litigate the matter, even more unpleasant than things had already become. Again, please don't slander me.

Also, please don't lie by implying that I stated that "Corporate America" should be the entity to determine morality. In fact, by repeatedly stating the importance of staying within the boundaries of law, I implied pretty much the opposite. I really do wish to adhere to Aaron's rules, bu when you lie about me, I am compelled to respond. Why do you choose to lie about me?

#154: "Will Allen’s business practices (i.e., firing someone and then threatening to ruin them if they fought back) are eminently patriotic and All-American."

Hey, he does have that motto, "ruthlessly pursue your own interests, within the boundaries of the law". At the very least, you couldn't accuse him of ignoring his own advice.

"No college for me, I’m afraid."

That explains a lot.

and another thing: does any one think these two (basically) show suspensions will discourage other players from getting in trouble--? If they don't, what's the NFL's next step, exile bad players to Canada? The problem really is bad, but I can't for the life of me figure out how it can be fixed without harming the actual play on the field--like it or not, Pac Man and Chris Henry were two pretty good, pretty exciting young players...

a question you have to ask yourself is "Would Chris Henry be suspended if Pacman Jones hadn't been involved in that fracas in Vegas?" also, where does it end?

Boss, "paternalistic" is likely an accurate description. Whether that is smart or not is certainly debatable, but I'm just very, very, wary of presuming to know the business of the NFL better than the people who have devoted their entire professional lives, and billions of dollars, to making sure it operates optimally.

Are they infallible? Of course not, but I really need to see substantial evidence before I conclude that I know their business better than they do. I think an innteesting comparison can be drawn with NASCAR, a sport which didn't even achieve anything but minor regional status 40 years ago, and now has unbelievably widespread popularity, largely due to the France family managing every minute detail of their product, including driver conduct. When it comes to sports entertainment, it may be the case that micromanagement is a sound business policy

Chris Henry's suspension is like a two minute bench minor in hockey. He is serving on behalf of the entire Bengals team.

Boss, I should also say that my only really stong interest is what I see after the whistle blows. I suppose it is possible that enough players are as ineffective as Jones is at avoiding arrest, and the product could suffer if Goodell kept on his current course, but I think it unlikely, and the league is deep enough to suffer a few long suspensions without the product suffering much.

#171: "I said my attorney explained to them how extraordinarily unpleasant it would be to litigate the matter, even more unpleasant than things had already become."

I missed the earlier post, so I'm a bit curious: How'd they react? Did it work? Did they take it as a veiled threat or just as an explanation of "how things are"? Sorry to go so far off topic.

#162: "But now I guarantee you every single player in the league will be taking notice of this."

So? They could have accomplished this without such a wildly disproportionate punishment. And even if they wanted to send a strong message, couldn't they have said the suspensions would be between 4 games and the entire season, depending on the players' behavior? That would get everyone's attention, and allow them to show a severe punishment if either player made the slightest misstep, but it would, possibly, allow us to see Pacman Jones on the field sooner.

I'm not lying, Will. But you seem to be in denial or something, so I'd better withdraw from this discussion.

And thanks for insulting my class status, Alex. We know what this is really about, eh?

No, Bengals Fan, I never said I threatened to "ruin" someone. It is also dishonest to imply that I ever said that Corporate America shoud be the entity to determine morality. You are lying about me. Please stop.

Alex, they were angry about being fired, of course, but I don't think they saw it as a threat. A lot of people have no idea regarding how being involved in a lawsuit disrupts lives, and I think the conversation was more just a case of an unpleasant education. It probably helped that they really had no basis for legal complaint, and thus would have had a tough time hiring legal advice of any quality.

Boss, “paternalistic� is likely an accurate description. Whether that is smart or not is certainly debatable, but I’m just very, very, wary of presuming to know the business of the NFL better than the people who have devoted their entire professional lives, and billions of dollars, to making sure it operates optimally.

Is optimal operation the only standard here? Should the only two considerations be a) is it legal and b) is it profitable?

Well, seeing as they are already suspending him for a year due mostly to arrests that haven’t yet resulted in convictions…yes, that seems like exactly what they would do.

I'm pretty sure the main reason they're suspending him isn't due to the arrests. It's due to 1) not reporting them, and 2) the comments made during the arrest, with primarily 1), and a bit of 2) as an aggravating factor.

Not reporting them's a huge deal, since there are testing policies for which getting convicted is the same as failing a test.

The comments made during the arrest are also a pretty big deal from a PR standpoint, especially given the recent congressional hearings.

I think the size of the suspension is way too large, but the suspension itself is perfectly fine. He was completely flaunting the league's authority, and there are suspensions available for just that.

Will, there's no analogy between your business and the NFL's.

If you fire someone, you risk them working for one of your competitors. The NFL doesn't have to put that risk vs reward factor into their decisions.

And again, the NFL is dealing with a union. You are not.

I suspect that if there a thread here where someone compared the labor conditions in Caspiar to those in the U.S., you'd throw out the analogy- and you'd be correct in doing so. Yet you continue making analogies of your own workplace to the NFL's.

goodell just drew a line in the sand and said it stops here. maybe the terms were to harsh, maybe to lenient, but the line has been drawn. all current and future players now know that off the field behavior will seriously affect their ability to earn a paycheck in the NFL.

Scott, if you want to charge the NFL with unethical, yet legal behavior, go ahead, but in general I see nothing unethical in one party deciding they would like to terminate a mutually voluntary relationship they have with another party. Presumably, if it is done on a fradulent or illegaly discriminatory, or in violation of a contract, there would be basis for legal complaint.

#138: It would seem, based on what ABW said, that only 96% of everyone else is staying out of trouble.

I think it's pretty much impossible to say casually whether the NFL is above or below the average for their demographic. It's not an easy question.

But yeah, Florio's rhetoric in that regard is annoying. As usual, of course. I try not to listen to any of Florio's extended rants, as they're almost always completely flawed ("why isn't everyone using the poison pill!" "because 'we don't want it used against us' is sound reasoning, and it is not collusion, dumbass.").

There's no reason to put up with this shite. What I'd do:

Effective, um, now, any person who is convicted of a violent or gun-related felony AT ANY POINT IN HIS LIFE is thereafter permanently ineligible for employment by the NFL in any capacity. (This does not apply to crimes committed before the rule takes effect, so no one can say the penalties were ramped up on him unfairly.)

If a player is arrested and charged with a violent or gun-related felony, he will be ineligible to play until he is exonerated. (He will be paid while the case is being resolved.)

For non-violent felonies committed while employed by an NFL team, automatic one-year suspension for the first conviction, lifetime ban for the second. As above, the player may not play while the case is being resolved, but he will be paid.

Kevin, I didn't say the analogy was perfect. I said it was superior to that of an individual's relationship to the state. If you have information that Goodell has violated the terms of the CBA, go ahead and share it with us.

I've put some more extended thoughts in a blog post, which you can visit by clicking on the link in my name. This discussion seems to have deteriorated over the past 30-50 posts.

Re #139 (Fnor, pointing toward me)
Disclosure: this is not legal advice, I'm not a labor lawyer, these don't claim to be definitive answers, haven't done research, given for amusement purposes only, read at your own risk, don't rely on this for anything, &c...

As is often the case, the laws of the individual states vary. In the default world of employment at will, hiring, termination, and promotion are all fine except in legally protected categories. Personally, I believe the language of the site linked in #33 is fairly disingenuous, at least when it comes to EEOC protection; the EEOC is generally more concerned with discrimination upon criminal records as a proxy for discrimination against a protected class. State laws generally don't provide that much more protection.

And in an employment world governed by a CBA, the CBA pretty much rules the world. If Goodell's action is authorized by the CBA, and I'm sure he has a very expensive memo from a law firm with a very nice name (as far as law firms go) saying that is does, the outside avenues of attack are limited.

Gosh, I missed Phil's post at #134. If Upshaw has released a statement supporting Goodell's actions, that pretty much renders any dispute regarding Goodell's authority in the matter moot. I doubt Upshaw would have done so without support of the overwhelming majority of the player reps.

I read regularly but rarely post, but I wanted to at least try to contribute a little to the discussion here. It seems to me that the problem is less that Goodell is taking SOME disciplinary action; it's that it seems he's doing it somewhat arbitrarily. If he wants to take a tougher stance on off-field issues, he HAS to make a break from past policies. The problem is that he's trying to set precedent merely with his ad hoc actions, rather than changing policy or creating a new one. Granted, the latter process would be difficult and time-consuming (presumably it would require some sort of amendment to the CBA -- is there a procedure for doing so?) -- but it would give some sort of support for his actions.

I agree that a year seems too harsh for somebody without convictions. Yes, I know, the league is free to set its terms and the player agrees to them voluntarily . . . but in this case, the players agreed to their contracts before such "harsh" precedents were set. I use quotation marks for "harsh" because it's stringent relative to the league's previous actions.

146: Sure, maybe the players ought to be locked up and whatnot, but THAT IS THE ROLE OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM. Sure, the NFL can do what it wants to "supplement" the law for its own benefit, but arguing that the penalties are weak as punitive measures for the crime is a little absurd -- especially when there hasn't been a conviction.

Finally . . . folks are saying "the league would look into the veracity of future accusations" to make sure that troubled players weren't booted from the league indefinitely without reason . . . but this argument seems to be coming from the same crowd that's essentially arguing "it's the legal system's job to determine the player's crime." It appears that the NFL isn't concerned with whether or not the players are actually convicted of their current "misdeeds," so what makes us believe it will care about the veracity of future accusations?

Random Bengals Fan: I know this is off topic, but what town are you from? I can't help but get excited whenever I hear somebody is from Montana, probably because right now I'm going to a school in Florida where 75% of the students are in-state and the rest are from the east coast or Texas.

Speaking of "off-topic," please let your tiff with Will Allen go. Thanks!

Enjoyed your extended post, Tom, and agree with much of it. I do think, however, that Manning pled no contest to a felony, not a misdemeanor, which mkes the conrast with Jones even more stark. As far as not liking what happened to Jones, though, well, I don't like it when people jump of the Golden Gate Bridge either, and I have sympathy for such people. I don't know, however, if the dislike can be directed at others' actions. Jones has seemed to willingly place his career in great jeopardy, which is a shame, but if he is being cast as "The Other", it is only because he auditioned for the role.

"And thanks for insulting my class status, Alex."

First off, I was just joking with you, and only because you were getting on Will Allen's case a bit too much.

Secondly, I wasn't insulting your class status, I was insulting your educational level, and I didn't even mean it. Relax, man.

"We know what this is really about, eh?"

Umm...I'm honestly not sure. I don't harbor any ill-will towards people from Montana, if that's what you're after. Seriously, though, it was just a joke. We're both fans of the same team, so why can't we all just get along?

"I’m pretty sure the main reason they’re suspending him isn’t due to the arrests. It’s due to 1) not reporting them, and 2) the comments made during the arrest, with primarily 1), and a bit of 2) as an aggravating factor."

True, but my point was that they're suspending him for a year, as opposed to 4 games, because he's been arrested so many times, even though those arrests haven't resulted in convictions.

Well, I'm one of the most cynical people you would ever meet, but I do want to hand it to Goodell - Good job.

Like others, I think the penalties are too strong - you should have warned everybody that you were going to get tougher from here on, for offenses from here on - not going to get tougher from here on based on what already happened. For example (and I don't want this to degenerate into an off-topic, historical recollection), Ray Lewis had some trouble a few years ago which you may have heard about. I don't believe it was resolved with anything like this kind of a penalty from the NFL. Is he too far back to be subject to this new penalty process? Who else might be in the sights of Goodell? Just these two - because the press keeps shining the spotlight on them?

And here's where my cynical streak comes in. Schedule gets announced tomorrow. Put the suspension story out, one day - big splash in the press, tomorrow - forgotten as everyone thinks about match-ups and how the league is screwing them making them play 2 weeks in a row on the road. Will the late season games be in Miami, or Buffalo?

Attention span changes, and he has now settled this, let's move on. I am convinced the schedule was ready last week - I think ESPN had a couple of hours set aside for it. And the plan was the suspensions would have been ready for the owner's meeting (but something got delayed there). But no, I need to save the Schedule release, so I can kill this suspension story, right after the press says I'm right. So delay the Schedule release, even though it is ready.

The players will have responses tomorrow that they were hard done by (and I think they are right), but the press will by-pass them to cover the schedule, and Goodell will have swept this under the rug, with the last word being that he was right. As I say, good work on his part.

I expect that in a couple of weeks (or after the draft), there will be some appeals, some negotiations, some players saying, "yes, the commissioner is right, and I fully support the NFL, and I will change my behavior, and I am happy my suspension was cut in half"

I don't have time to read all 200 or so of these comments, so forgive me if I repeat someone's thoughts, but seriously...right or wrong, the numbers here just seem too arbitrary. 1 year and 8 games...would one traffic ticket less have netted Henry a game check back? If Pacman had stayed away from Vegas would he be facing an 8 or 12 game absence versus a season?

I also would second people that compare these suspensions to the set drug suspensions. There's no easy way to define the line between them (and which is more damaging to the NFL) but I think that's something worth thinking about as well.

This is a very good thread, with many good points made.
"they have been suspended without pay for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy and engaging in conduct detrimental to the league on numerous occasions."
My question is, what will happen to the next player, or group of players, who make the news as Henry and Jones have. Will Goodell be as "tough" on them as he has been on these two?
It would be helpful, albeit simplistic, to make up a chart (if one does not already exist) of Screwup - Punishment, so that at least the players would know what they are risking.

I can understand why Jones and Henry are suspended, even if it's quite hard as there are no conviction...
But I can't CAN'T CAN't understand how Merriman could be invited to the Pro-Bowl !

I mean, he was suspended four games, it's normal, it's the first time he is caught, but how can he be invited to the Pro-bowl in the same season ?

I face people every day comparing football players to body-builders dummies... Roids are far more damaging to the NFL in Europe than Jones/Henry behaviour, our soccer players are as scarying as them (rape, fraud, gambling, alcohol, domestic abuse...)!
The true competition for NFL is rugby there, and as long as there will be roids warriors, rugbymen will make fun of the NFL and keep an edge in the basic no-German European fan.

187: That has been driving me nuts all off-season. Two parties having a device which they could use to take employees from one another and then neither choosing to use it for fear of retribution is about as far from collusion as possible. I don't mind Florio when he just sticks to reporting rumours (or making them up) but I hate it when he starts to rant on about things that he does not fully understand.

Re: 138

Picking up on a discussion from yestterday....

I think you are misreading the statistics. Assuming the stats provided in #122 are accurate, they still don't indicate that 4% of the population is getting arrested annually. A significant portion of this (4000+ arrests/100,000 people) total is 'contributed' by people that are arrested more than once in a year. And while I don't have the stats at my disposal, I would guess this represents the lion's share of arrests.

Will–I’m 90% sure that you actually used the word “ruin� in your post.

----------

I missed the earlier post, so I’m a bit curious: How’d they react?

----------

You guys know you can scroll up, right?

Kevin11, I have to wonder why you are such an apologist for Pacman and Henry. Honestly, they're in the news every other week for either being linked to an incident or arrested in Henry's case. It is indeed a privelidge to play football for a living and to be paid in the milllions to do so. If you act poorly you are punished accordingly.

Also, think about who you are defending here. The man brought 80K in singles to strip club... How out of touch with reality do you have to be in order to think this is a good idea. The man thinks he lives in a Lil' John video. If anyone needs a year off to think about what's important in life he should surely be considered.

True, but my point was that they’re suspending him for a year, as opposed to 4 games, because he’s been arrested so many times, even though those arrests haven’t resulted in convictions.

The fact that the arrests haven't resulted in convictions doesn't matter. They aren't ignoring the fact that he hasn't been convicted. They might've suspended him for more if he had been convicted (they also might reduce the suspension if he's not found guilty).

The arrests - and him not reporting them - are easily enough to merit a suspension. Tack on the utterly idiotic comments he said at the time as aggravating factors, and I could easily see an 8 game suspension.

A year is too much, in my opinion: but I think what people are missing is that "Week 10, we'll reevaluate" thing. I think this is actually a year's suspension assuming he gets convicted, and if he's not, they'll reduce it.

#203 - Pacman brought $80k in singles? What filthy strip joint did he roll up into where the ho's will dance for singles? In the classy strip clubs I frequent, they dance for fives at a minimum.

#109:

I completely agree with your post, and I'm surprised no one else picked up on it.

Suspend everyone who had their picture published on the front page of yesterday's USA Today Sports section for at least one game. Don't just hang Pacman and Henry out to dry. Let these other knuckleheads know this stuff won't be tolerated.

One other comment:

For those who think the only reason the NFLPA wouldn't appeal this is because they're weak and/or in bed with the league office, I think you're missing the more obvious conclusion. Jones, Henry, etc. probably don't get involved in union matters frequently, whereas those who do stay clean probably do. It's probably a case of "if you don't agree with the way you're represented by your union rep, you should've voted."

Um, wow. Can't say I saw the length of these suspensions coming.

I hear the comparisons of these suspensions to those for drug/roid use, and I see one big issue (which NewsToTom touched on in his blog post, but let's draw it out here). The reason this comparison doesn't necessarily work is that punishments for drug/roid use are set in stone. They have been collectively bargained, and it's very clear - for X offense, you receive Y punishment. No argument, no ambiguity, it is what it is.

But in this case, those kind of guidelines just don't exist. Instead, we're in the nebulous world of the commissioner acting "in the best interests" of the sport. Which basically means, he has discretion to do whatever the heck he wants, and can set his own rules.

So is this the ideal way? Would it be better to come up with a set system - a chart of X misdemeanor gives Y suspension, X felony gives Y suspension, indicted for X crime gives a certain punishment? Well, we've had this discussion before, haven't we, back when the "three strikes and you're out" policy was proposed a few months ago? A lot of the problems with such a system were brought up then - what counts as a strike? What to do about false accusations, illegal stops/arrests? How do we protect players against extortion? Coming up with such a system, making it fair and just, and properly enforcing it will be extraordinarily difficult, and I don't envy the people who have to do it (and close the inevitable loopholes later). But ultimately it's what needs to be done, and I think we'll be better off when it is.

But in the interim, we have the commissioner alone as lawgiver, judge, jury, and executioner. I don't really like that setup much. The only real check on his power, besides labor law (which they'll be very careful not to break, of course), would be the owners. Goodell acts as their representative, and they're the only ones now to rein him in. If enough of them view these (or future) suspensions as out of line or excessive, they can smack him down or even fire him, if need be. But until he goes way overboard, or suspends a player from a powerful owner's team (like a Cowboy, Bronco, or Steeler) and draws the ire of that owner, he has pretty wide discretion. And to be fair, it sounds like he is acting with approval from the owners collectively.

I do think these suspensions were of the intentionally long, send a message type. In that regard, it's unfortunate for these two that they happened to be the first in line - with better timing, perhaps they'd've gotten less. But such is life, and as many have pointed out, they're in this position due to their own actions, so it's hard to be too sympathetic. The best case in their favor is probably the retroactive nature of the punishments - that instead of a new "from this day forward" policy, their past offenses were (seemingly arbitrarily) brought forward into the new, tougher age. In the legal world, imposing a more severe penalty passed after the commission of a crime is prohibited, and in this case it sure seems unfair as well. Although you could make the case that since there is no set penalty for these transgressions, etc.

One thing I'm not buying is comparing these suspensions to those for other infractions or in other leagues. Being careful to keep from getting too political, I think reliance on precedent, while often very useful, can also be dangerous - just because someone else screwed up previously doesn't mean you have to keep repeating the mistake. It's true that Manning only got one game for a felony(?). Does this necessarily mean that all offenses from that time forward should be limited to that? Isn't it just as valid to argue that his suspension was too short (way too short, possibly), and that the commissioner needs to ignore that when issuing these ones? Instead of arguing that Bertuzzi or Simon or Romanowski or Sprewell got X games or percent of a season, shouldn't we focus on what is right and proper in this case? I don't know if I'm in the minority on this, but I think past precedent can be a nice guide, but should never be binding on the present. And if the commissioner can make the case that Pac-Man deserves a full-year ban, so be it, no matter what Ray Lewis got.

Other quick hits:

22: " 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 don't think there's any doubt that this is a PR/marketing issue. In fact, I think the NFL has been quite open about that, as have many players who are constantly saying how they want to clean up the image, don't want to get their reputations spoiled by a few bad guys, etc. I fail to see how that could possibly have any negative impact, let alone ruining them. The only charge here that would have any basis would be the charge of racism, which as some have pointed out, is so far completely baseless.

Some have suggested that the NFL/teams be more active in addressing the problem rather than punishing, such as training these guys to be responsible men, etc. We'll set aside for now the question of individual responsibility vs. state/employer/etc duty. Instead, I'll just say that the NFL already does plenty in this regard. You start with the rookie symposium, where such things are clearly taught and exhibited, including by current and former players. The NFLPA will offer a lot of help in these areas (and in financial planning and other important things). And you don't think each team would bend over to help any player who asked, to - looking at it from a purely pragmatic view - keep their investments safe and productive? With all that they have invested in these players, don't you think that if one of them approached the GM and said "I grew up in [bad situation], I really don't know [important life skill], can you help so I stay out of trouble" that the team wouldn't do everything possible to help? What they need is out there if they ask, and a lot of it is pushed on them even if they don't. The issue isn't that the NFL isn't doing enough to help; it's that people aren't utilizing that help, or are just jerks.

I forget what else I was going to say. I know much of this made no sense, and may be internally contradictory. Such is the case with stream of consciousness on tough issues.

I forgot to mention the biggest question in all of this: how will David Stern respond? Until now, Stern had been the unquestioned champion of commissioners in the category of "I rule all, and you peons are blessed that I consider you worthy of playing in my league". Is Goodell a serious threat to Stern as the master of screwing with players just because he can? We shall see. Stern has already taken control of how players dress after games, what can he do now? Mandatory castration for anyone challenging Shawn Kemp? Lifetime ban for anyone caught recording a rap album, unless it gets approval from a blue ribbon panel (featuring Snoop Dogg, Q-Tip, and Kool Moe Dee)? Anyone whose behavior reminds him of Artest is punished by having to spend a day with Artest?

I was checking out the results of ESPN's poll regarding the subject. While it's certainly completely unscientific, I think it gives at least some representative numbers.

~70% of respondents said that Pacman's suspension was "just right" in length. Another 14% said it should have been longer.

~60% responded that Henry's suspension was "just right", while an additional ~30% said it was "too light".

95% responded that the punishments make it clear that the commissioner and NFL are dedicated to addressing this problem (this is likely the #1 way the NFL wanted people to react).

While 70% said the negative behavior of players is reaching a crisis level, 80% said it doesn't affect whether or not they watch the NFL.

70% responded that the overall character of NFL players is "worse" than that of society at large (not surprising, although some of the statistics given in this thread seem to belie that).

40% said that off-the-field incidents bother them more than anything else about the NFL (~25% said DirecTV's Sunday Ticket exclusivity, 15% said drugs/steroids, another ~15% said head injuries).

Again, while completely unscientific, and essentially a push poll (since it's being done right after the suspensions), I don't think it can be doubted that the results (especially about "Is the NFL committed to solving this problem?") are exactly what the NFL was likely hoping to achieve.

The one thing about Pacman's suspension that surprises me is that it's going to be very, very difficult for them to reduce it voluntarily. Henry is easy: no one will notice the difference between 6 games and 8 games, for instance, or even 4 games and 8 games. But everyone will notice if Pacman plays this year.

It's a ridiculously common PR trick to hand out a heavy suspension and then reduce it once the PR benefit of the suspension has run its course. But I can't see them doing that with Jones this year.

210:
It's kinda screwed up (in my mind, at least) that so many more people think that off-field incidents are more of a threat to the NFL than steroids. Did they see what happened to baseball?

Trodgor
I agree with everything you said. Very well put.

Re 212
Count me with you.
Steroids are far more prejudicial for the league in the long-term than any of the off-fields incident...

Just punish the teams, the owners financially and I can bet the "small-market" teams that Cincinnati and Tennessee are wouldn't dare to pick headaches guys !

Money rules.

210,

I don't know if I would agree with that. Baseball is a very different sport, and they have got a ton of problems that have nothing to do with steroids.

For one, the popularity of baseball, relative to football, has been declining for decades. As has been said for a very long time now, baseball is America's pastime, football is America's passion. Many of the reasons for the decline include things that have nothing to do with steroids, such as strikes, etc.

Actually, steroids played a major role in bringing people back to baseball, I would imagine. After the '94 strike, interest in baseball went way down, and it really did not return to higher levels until the presumably steroid caused homers start blasting out of the park left and right in 1998 and beyond. I really don't believe that steroids became a real liability to MLB until a couple of years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue that steroids is not a problem, and I'm not saying that it can't greatly hurt the league. I'm just saying that you can't blame steroids for all of baseball's ills, and that other factors likely played a much larger role in baseball's decline than steroids.

For the NFL, that means that they have to make sure other things are in place for the league to keep growing as it is. Among them are labor peace, player conduct, and others.

210,

I have the same thoughts about the ESPN poll. Something to keep in mind: 20% said that player conduct does affect how they follow the NFL. Say, in an extreme example, that 20% left. Obviously, that would be a major problem, and a big hit to the league's popularity. Perhaps that is why Goodell cracked down so tough on this.

Whether or not the players will sit up and listen is debatable; however, teams will probably sit up and listen.

As I recall, earlier plans to improve player off-field behavior considered some sort direct of punishment to teams that didn't reign in their bad actors, which probably didn't sit too well w/ owners.

Goodell's current actions encourages teams to reign in the bad actors. Failure costs a team less directly, but there is a cost in terms of talent loss (as noted, now the Titans need to look for a CB) and salary the player had earned previously.

From the article: 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.

Isn't eligibility (years of service under contract) affected if a player does not play in at least 6 games? I do not think the 10 game review is arbitrary. I can't presume to know what other people are thinking, but it looks if Jones stays out of trouble and is exonerated of all charges stemming from the LV incident than he can play. Thus using up a year on his contract. If he is convicted of a crime, his suspension may be lengthened.

BTW-One thing I do know is that the NFL is loaded with Lawyers. Whether you personally believe Goodell went over the line here or not, I think that he cleared it with his attorneys before announcing it.

One other thing. The prolonged discussion of these off the field has done one thing for the NFL. . .made headlines during the off-season. Is any press good press? Think abolut how much time people have spent discussing this. Not MLB. Not NHL or NBA, NFL.

I could care less about this stuff personally. I think it's just another area where the media creates a story which creates a reaction which creates another story etc. I've never met one person that said they don't watch football because of player character issues. I think most people understand that out 1500+ folks paid to beat the hell out of each other every week that a few of them may not be the classiest people around.

Re: 203

OK, this "he brought 80K in singles" story has got to end. It's so ridiculously stupid, it doesn't even pass the smell test. Do you have any idea how much 80,000 bills WEIGHS? I'll tell you: 176 pounds. Does anyone really believe Pacman brought nearly his own weight in ones to a strip club? What, did he push it in on a dolly?

I'm sure Pacman showed up to the strip club with a stupid amount of money and did stupid things with it and then followed it up by being even stupider, but he did not throw 176 pounds of 1 dollar bills on to a strip club stage. $10,000, maybe I could believe. This 80K story is just totally freaking ridiculous.

Did they see what happened to baseball?

No. Because they've had a strong steroid policy in place since the 1990s.

Repeat steroid offenders basically don't exist in the NFL. People might remember Shawne Merriman's steroid suspension for a few years, but when he's clean for the next 5 years, people will start to forget.

Really, the personal conduct policy basically needs to mimic the steroid policy: 4 game suspension, 1 year suspension, lifetime ban. That's a pretty effective deterrent.

#219 - Of course Pacman didn't wheel 176 lbs of greenbacks into the club on a dolly. He had someone in his entourage do it.

220:
I should clarify: it's not so much conventional steroids I'm worried about, it's HGH and new designer, cheating drugs. That's what I'm afraid of--they don't even test for stuff like that. I think it has the potential to ruin the achievements of players and teams, just as Bonds' record is now at least tainted. Merriman is a great example.

Oh, and I agree that the personal conduct policy should mirror steroid suspensions, however what counts as a strike? (what would be a positive test in steroid testing) Is it conviction, indictment? Is drunk driving treated the same as wife-beating as drunk and disorderly? Are felonies=misdemeanors? etc.

Pat do you honestly beleive that no one in the NFL is using performance enhancing drugs?

They might test for steroids, but there are other substances out there that could have just as great a benefit. If there was one BALCO there will be a dozen, they will just be doing a better job keeping their heads down. The only reason BALCO came out was basically down to an insider sending a used syringe to the drug testing people, the people cheating had been using the drugs and getting away with it for years (and there will be cheats doing it right now). Sports like athletics and the NFL are awash with drugs, its just that you have to be careless to get caught.

Two Pakistani cricketers have just failed drugs tests for heaven's sake. CRICKETERS!!

#190:

What? I thought you did significant labor practice! Bah!

(I still want my referral :D )

The NFL retains Covington and Burling
And has an office in their building

Pat do you honestly beleive that no one in the NFL is using performance enhancing drugs?

I try not to make assumptions without evidence. You look like an ass far, far less when you do that.

But in any case: the important thing isn't ridding the NFL of steroids/etc. It's the public appearance of it.

Repeat offenders basically don't exist in the NFL. That's why the public doesn't care much. They know people get caught using steroids (Merriman, Hollis Thomas last year). But they never hear of someone getting caught multiple times.

Sports like athletics and the NFL are awash with drugs, its just that you have to be careless to get caught.

1) There's no real evidence of that. It might be true, it might not. I try not to assume, which everyone who insists it must be true is doing.

2) Even if it is true, that's fundamentally true of all testing procedures. There will always be a way to avoid being caught. That's why the punishments have to be severe enough. Which they are.

Honestly, like I said, there's not a ton of evidence for the fact that the NFL's awash in drugs. The lack of repeat offenders, which you would expect from stupidity (stupidity is not a curable condition), kindof implies that players, once caught, either don't repeat, or retire.

Re #219/221
Apparently there was about eight grand, most or all in singles, not eighty grand, and the singles were acquired at the club.

Another brilliant column, this one by Rich Hoffman of the Philadelphia Daily News. He proposes punishing the teams: two fewer active players, 5th round draft pick, fire personnel director, in increasing order of severity. Pardon me if I'm rolling my eyes as I get back to work.

I feel like I've been saying this in every thread recently, but it merits consideration here as well: Keep in mind that the NFL is not the employer of the players; rather, the individual franchises are the employers of the players. The businesses that employ Jones and Henry did not suspend them; rather, the cartel that includes those businesses as members suspended them. Furthermore, the cartel prohibited them from working for not just the businesses that currently employ them but also all of the other members of the cartel. That doesn't necessarily mean that the NFL is prohibited from suspending players for off-field incidents (it certainly has done so in the past), but it should influence some of the rhetoric used in this discussion. I for one would be more comfortable if discipline for off-field incidents such as these was left completely to the discretion of the teams, but my understanding is that the CBA severely limits the power of teams to respond to such matters on their own.

I am very worried about the potential unintended consequences of the new personal conduct policy. It is wise to be weary of knee-jerk reactions to issues that emerge so suddenly in the public consciousness. It is easy to be swept up in the tide of the times and enact policies that produce short-term benefits and satisfaction but prove to be disastrous in the long term. The new policy significantly increases the key man risk that is already such a problem in football. It used to be that teams had to worry about players missing significant amounts of time due to injuries, testing positive for drugs on multiple occasions, and testing positive for steroid use. Now we must add to that list "conduct detrimental to the league," whatever that may mean (and the fact that such conduct apparently is poorly defined simply adds to the risk). Most organizations seek to mitigate risk. The NFL has just instituted a policy that artificially exacerbates risk.

I also worry that the fact that "[c]lubs will be subject to discipline in cases involving violations of the Personal Conduct Policy by club employees" will cause teams to shy away from employing people who may have histories of off-field problems but who have turned their lives around. There are many people who make mistakes when they are young but who legitimately change for the better. Under the new policy, can teams afford to take the risk, however small, that such a person may not have changed? There could be a lot of good people who will make significantly less money or not be employed by NFL teams at all because of a single mistake in their past.

I anticipate that the implications of the new policy will be more extensive and harmful than the NFL intends or realizes. As much and as widely as this change in course is being praised now, I expect to see quite a few complaints about the consequences of the new personal conduct policy to emerge in the future, even from the current cheerleaders.

219: I thought the same thing about the $80,000. However, it should be noted that the police later recovered $81,000 in cash (not sure if was all $1 bills) from a guy who was reported to have stolen the "money bag" during the fight. So as crazy as it sounds, its possible PacMan did roll into the club with this amount of cash.

"It’s the public appearance of it."
Not to me. I actually do care whether Merriman knowingly and willingly took drugs to make him a better player; I don't give a crap what other people think. I do care that the achievements of players on the field are legitimate, and not achieved by cheating, even if the NFL becomes the most (or least) popular league in the world.
"1) There’s no real evidence of that. It might be true, it might not. I try not to assume, which everyone who insists it must be true is doing."
Fine, but you really have no evidence that people AREN'T doing it, other than that very few people are caught/caught multiple times, which you would expect to be true for people using untestable drugs.
I, for one, don't insist that it must be true, but I would like to see more information and research done to see whether it COULD be true, and then I'd like to see it proceed from there with more testing, a more severe policy, whatever. To just pretend though, that because we don't test for it means it must not be there, or because there isn't enough information it must not be an issue, is the wrong thing to do (this is the NFL's policy, not yours, Pat).

"2) Even if it is true, that’s fundamentally true of all testing procedures. There will always be a way to avoid being caught. That’s why the punishments have to be severe enough. Which they are."
I completely agree with the premise, and absolutely disagree with the conclusion I think you are making. As you stated before, the reason the NFL isn't completely awash in steroids is because they got wind of the issue early on and adopted a good testing policy for it. Then they sat on their a$$ and pretended the bad guys weren't constantly thinking up ways to get around it. What they should have been doing is thinking up ways to test for all the new, bad, performance enhancing drugs that are out there, and being used/developed by places like BALCO. You're absolutely right, it's inevitable that some cheaters get through the policy unscathed, because they will always be a step ahead in designing new drugs or treatments. Does that mean we shouldn't try to keep up with the cheaters, even if they always stay a step ahead? I don't think so.
One more thing: why did the story about that doc who prescribed steroids to TO and Mike Vick and a bunch of others go away so quickly? That was pretty damn good evidence that something is up, be it steroids or some other drug(s).

CA, no highly talented player will fail to attract interest, due to a team's fear of the personal conduct policy. All that will happen is that teams will be less willing to guarantee as large amount of cap space to such a player. The fans enjoyment of the product won't be hindered a bit; we don't like the touchdown pass or interception any more or less because of the amount of money being earned by the player. Yes, the far less talented player has a chance of missing an opportunity to play in the league, but the far less talented player ain't sellin' the beer commercials anyway.

Again, I would suggest that an intersting comparison can be drawn with the only competitive entertainment entity which can credibly claim to have been as well-operated over the past 40 years, NASCAR. NASCAR, fer cryin' out loud, changes the competitive outcome of their contests based upon the language the competitors use in interviews! Their popularity continues to skyrocket.

Now, NASCAR is a wholly owned business of one family, and has contracts with individual racing teams, so it is structured differently in some respects, but not extremely so. Micromanagement has worked very well for them.

re: 128

This is the crux of it. Both Jones and Henry have had multiple arrests, and given their high profile positions have brought scorn upon the NFL.

Getting arrested isn't something you do, it's something you have done to you. Therefore, with their arrests they haven't brought scorn on anyone. They've just been arrested, and since that can happen to anyone, guilty or innocent, being arrested is no cause for shame.

Both of these individuals are serial offenders and as adults will have known that their actions would have consequences.

Getting arrested isn't an offense, therefore they can't be serial offenders. Furthermore, getting arrested isn't an action they're taking, it's an action that's being done to them.

James, I frequently like your posts, but you're making a lot of bad assumptions in this one.

re: 156

A better analogy would be to suppose Goodell being fired by the owners after a DUI. It certainly wouldn’t bother me if that happened, and if Goodell didn’t like it, tough goalposts.

No it's not. A DUI is a conviction.

227: Actually, to say repeat offenders basically don't exist in the NFL is an assumption. You can be an offender and not get caught. Repeat punishments certainly do not happen, and initial punishments happen on a relatively seldom basis. I'm sorry, but for the longest time people looked at baseball players with nothing more than invoking appearances to support the suspicion that the league had a problem. Turns out they were right. No one holds the same standards to the NFL, because.... they're just so darn natural looking?

Before Merriman was busted, I couldn't name you one say, Viagra spokesman who got busted in the 15 years they've had the policy. Do we really want to believe that only the scrubs have been doing the stuff all this time? Honestly?

As for the main subject, I've missed a couple of Super Bowls because Little and Lewis were so loathsome to me, as well as the teams who employed them. Now that the NFL has a commissioner who will actually do something about threats to society, I'm more inclined to watch the product.

Fine, but you really have no evidence that people AREN’T doing it,

Uh, yes I do. The ginormous amounts of negative tests. That is evidence. You're just dismissing it by believing that the majority of drug use is untested/undetected. Believing that is fine, but there's no evidence to support that. Given evidence, the burden of proof is on the disbeliever, not the believer.

Then they sat on their a$$ and pretended the bad guys weren’t constantly thinking up ways to get around it.

What evidence do you have that this is true? The NFL has dumped a ton of money into drug testing programs, and has changed their drug testing procedures several times. That doesn't seem to support your statement.

See, for instance, here, but also in 2007 as well, and back in 2003, 1999, and others.

Getting arrested isn’t an offense, therefore they can’t be serial offenders. Furthermore, getting arrested isn’t an action they’re taking, it’s an action that’s being done to them.

Jones didn't report that arrest. Twice. That's an action that he took, and it's a violation of the NFL's policy.

O.K., bravehoptoad, I'll revise. If Goodell was arrested, managed to keep it secret, didn't report it to his bosses, and was subequently fired when they found out, it woudn't bother me in the least.

"Fine, but you really have no evidence that people AREN’T doing it,

"Uh, yes I do. The ginormous amounts of negative tests."
That's really lame, Pat. Surely you read the rest of the sentence:
"other than that very few people are caught/caught multiple times"

I'm not going to get into burden of proof. That doesn't really apply here. I have one belief, you have a different one. Neither one of us really has the evidence necessary to make our beliefs justified. I'm suggesting that the NFL should do much, much more to collect that evidence. You seem to be saying that there is no problem because the current policy is enough. Burden of proof, in fact, proof in general, has no place in this argument: we are both making assumptions.

"See, for instance, here, but also in 2007 as well, and back in 2003, 1999, and others."
I looked at that, incidentally, and if anything, it furthers my point. Why? Because it was totally reactionary. They basically accidentally found out that players were taking steroids they didn't test and then decided, hey, we should ban that kind of steroids. Moreover, if you read far enough into the article, you find quotes like this, from Penn State professor Charles Yesalis:
"Yesalis said "there are guys I've spoken with who say there is a sustained epidemic of use" in the league. He said the NFL's steroid-testing program "suffers from fatal flaws" because a "disinterested third party" does not oversee it."

Or this, from a guy named Wadler who is associated with the Olympic drug testing commision:
"But they don't do blood testing."

Blood testing is necessary to detect lots of the advanced kinds of steroids.

and, finally,
"Todd Sauerbrun and offensive linemen Todd Steussie and Jeff Mitchell -- never tested positive despite repeatedly filling testosterone-cream prescriptions by James Shortt"
this should at least put some doubt into your head for the belief that: no positive tests=no steroids.

If the suspensions are in part for "conduct detrimental to the league," what exactly was the detriment?

TV ratings for every network were up last year. 98% of the games sell out. The Bengals and Titans sold out their entire home schedule and are likely to do so again this year.

Sorry, I fail to see the damage to the league. Saying it's a matter of perception is vague and slippery.

If you're going to suspend somebody by saying their conduct hurts your business you should be able to demonstrate in hard terms HOW it hurts your business.

Is there anything preventing these players from quitting and playing in the IFL, CFL or AFL?

Actually, the CFL has implemented a new rule stating that NFL players under suspension will no longer be eligible to play in the CFL.

You seem to be saying that there is no problem because the current policy is enough.

No, I'm not. I'm saying there's no evidence for an epidemic of use. I'm specifically avoiding assumptions.

Blood testing is necessary to detect lots of the advanced kinds of steroids.

It's also incredibly invasive. I will never, ever fault the NFLPA for opposing blood tests.

“Yesalis said “there are guys I’ve spoken with who say there is a sustained epidemic of use� in the league.

Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of statistical information. Drug users assume everyone else is as well, tending to massively overstate things. All I've ever seen is anecdotal claims to support it.

this should at least put some doubt into your head for the belief that: no positive tests=no steroids.

The only thing the Sauerbrun issue did for me is make me wonder why Sauerbrun wasn't suspended. So he avoided the standard NFL tests. Big deal. In some sense, he still got caught. If he had been punished, I'd be okay with it - I just really can't understand why he didn't get suspended.

That actually relates to the topic, too. I can't understand how the Panthers involved in that got no punishment at all. Heck, I can't really understand how they didn't get arrested for trafficking in a controlled substance.

Mikey, why not leave it to the the people who actually, you know, own the business, subject to whatever contractual obligations they have to employees?

But Will, if they can't establish that the behavior is actually costing them money then the suspensions are just grandstanding.

I'm no fan of Henry and Jones but I think it's wrong to take someone's livelihood away for the sake of press clippings.

To me this is nothing but Goodell posturing for the press, and it's working.

There is some blood testing done now for some presciption drugs which is quite minimally invasive; no more than the smallest of finger sticks. Certainly no more invasive than having to drop one's pants and stick the unit in a jar, in front of observers. Whether this will ever suffice for testing cutting edge performance enhancers, I wouldn't know.

Bravo,

I'll accept that being arrested is something that is done to you. Beyond watching Law & Order, I'm not that familiar with the American Justice system, but doesn't a Police Officer have to have reasonable grounds for an arrest?

To be arrested once without real cause I can accept, but multiple times? We may have to agree to differ here, but in that situation the arrested individual has to look to himself. Jones clearly hasn't modified his behaviour. As for Henry, his convictions are a matter of record.

Mikey, I think it is a lot more wrong to try to dictate to somebody who has invested his capital and innovation in an enterprise, how to operate that enterprise, absent legal or contractual cause.

"No, I’m not. I’m saying there’s no evidence for an epidemic of use. I’m specifically avoiding assumptions."
There is obviously some evidence, just as there is some evidence that there ISN'T an epidemic of use. There just isn't enough evidence to make a definite conclusion. But hey, if you want to pretend there isn't any evidence, that's fine. It sounds like we agree anyways: absent enough information, the NFL should do more to figure out whether there is or isn't an epidemic, and how to stop one if there is, and/or the best way to do so. I.E., they need to gather more information.
"Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of statistical information."
Agreed, but it is evidence nonetheless, and quotes such as this are quite common, giving them slightly more credence.
"The only thing the Sauerbrun issue did for me is make me wonder why Sauerbrun wasn’t suspended. So he avoided the standard NFL tests. Big deal."
Yes, actually, big deal. Your main evidence for claiming there isn't an epidemic was...
"Uh, yes I do. The ginormous amounts of negative tests. That is evidence. You’re just dismissing it by believing that the majority of drug use is untested/undetected. Believing that is fine, but there’s no evidence to support that."
The fact that Sauerbrun and others took steroids and never got caught is evidence to support that. Deny it if you wish. But the only way the NFL found out was something pretty much unrelated to their supposedly great drug-testing program.
Oh, and I agree that they should have gotten punished--but I thought Sauerbrun did get some kind of suspension, didn't he? Can't remember.

Mikey, as an example of how arrests hurts revenues, look at Kobe Bryant. Prior to his sexual assault arrest, his was the highest selling NBA jersey. It dropped for several years before climbing back to the number 1 spot. Now, no doubt some of those lost sales, perhaps a lot of them, simply accrued to other players' jerseys. Some were no doubt lost completely, however, and if you get a lot star players getting arrested, that would affect revenues even more. The NFL has a legitimate business interest in keeping it's players off the police blotter.

Whether this will ever suffice for testing cutting edge performance enhancers, I wouldn’t know.

Well, it certainly doesn't suffice now.

If there was a minimally invasive test for an additional drug, they'd probably do it. The only thing they oppose now are tests which require blood drawn, and I can't oppose that.

Honestly, I just don't see any evidence that the NFL is sitting on its hands when it could do more. The players do have rights under the CBA.

But Will, if they can’t establish that the behavior is actually costing them money then the suspensions are just grandstanding.

Why do they have to establish that? The potential money loss could be 10 years down the road. Or longer.

Keep in mind, for the players in the NFL, their interest in the league is very long term. They have a strong interest in making sure the NFL continues indefinitely. Heck, stronger than the owners, who might not have interest in the teams 20 years down the road.

Sauerbrun was suspended for 4 games, but I think that was for an unrelated incident.

Rob, it sounds to me like you will always be convinced that there is an epidemic. No matter how much evidence there is to the contrary, some people will always say that the NFL isn't doing enough to catch the cheaters.

The fact that Sauerbrun and others took steroids and never got caught is evidence to support that.

No, it isn't. There's a difference between a few players having received steroids (there isn't evidence that they took it, incidentally, although that's naive) and assuming that its use is widespread. Widespread use would produce repeat offenders, and the only repeat offenders that show up are those players declining late in their career.

I'm not trying to say that there's not performance-enhancing drug use going on. I'm just saying it's not the majority of players. It's probably not even the "20%" that a player was quoted as saying before (and then retracted it, not realizing how much 20% was).

HGH is a different beast, though, but that's not the league's fault. They just don't have the means to test for it.

Oh, and I agree that they should have gotten punished–but I thought Sauerbrun did get some kind of suspension, didn’t he? Can’t remember.

Nope. He got it for later use of ephedra.

Compared to some other drug testing regimes the NFL is fairly lax. Players know when they are going to be tested and what the samples will be analysed for. What this really means is that scientists who wish to create perfoming enhancing drugs for athletes have a clear set of parameters that their drugs must clear in order to do their job. This is the problem that any drug testing regime faces, and why every drug testing regime that doesn't keep its testing requirements secret is doomed to failure. But I do see why this would be an odious requirement for a union, but my sympathies always lie with the guy who didn't make it because the guy who pipped him to the post cheated. They get nothing.

If Goodell was arrested, managed to keep it secret, didn’t report it to his bosses, and was subequently fired when they found out, it woudn’t bother me in the least.

C'mon Mr Analogy Authority, you have to add another couple elements, which include that Goodell gets fired (or suspended for a year) not only from his employer, but from all employment prospects for his skill set. Oh, and the average career for his skill set is 4 years.

Oh, yeah, and you have add that for the last 40 years in Goodell's business, other guys did much the same thing, with most others not being punished at all, and the severest punishment being a small fraction of what he received.

Oh, yeah, and add in that Goodell's employer and the employer's cartel will likely see a short-term boost in their Q rating based on the severe punishment that appeals lesser angels of our nature (cf, the ESPN poll cited above, and, say, the last 30 years of electoral politics), so while Goodell loses a huge piece of his lifetime earning capacity, the cartel actually sees a slight uptick in profits.

That still might not "bother" you, but at least you'd be closer to real analogy, and I want to be sure you retain the vaunted title of Mr Analogy Authority.

Oh, and I say "Mr Analogy Authority" totally in good natured (but probably lame)fun. The argument is sincere, the name is meant as a joke.

Carlos, I guess I didn't realize that that the NFL was morally implicated by the fact that Roger Goodell's skills have wider application than Pacman Jones'.

I love you too, by the way.

I think there is going to be more problems in the near future, at least insofar as press reporting stories go. I fear that every time somebody gets in trouble now, the tabloid press is going to be there to pump up the story to get attention and say "What will be the length of the suspension for this from Goodell"

Just in recent memory, you've got the Vikings Love Boat. Well, that would have to fall under this new policy in some fashion. Porter's dogs eating ponies probably doesn't qualify, but perhaps taking part in the beating of another player in a casino does. How about the Bears beating each other up at a police firing range? In the near term, until the press loses interest, you might see more guys in the headlines for lesser offences. And every DUI and spousal battery case is going to get more headlines.

In fact, there might be competitive advantage in prodding the press to play up the misdeeds of others. If you were in the NFC North during the Love Boat thing, why wouldn't the Bears and the Packers demand the press keep the story in the headlines until Goodell was forced to act with a suspension of some players (Lions wouldn't do this, no competitive advantage to them).

morally implicated by the fact that Roger Goodell’s skills have wider application than Pacman Jones’.

Huh? Goodell's skills are frankly impossible for us to discern. We do know that he was the quintessential Son of Privilege whose last name got him internships with NFL and the Jets.

Pac-Man's skills are easy for us to discern, and the only thing his last name ever did for him was get him confused with a bunch of other guys named Jones.

As Goodell's town car ferries him back home to his Westchester or Greenwich home at night, I'm sure he toasts his own righteousness.

Well, golly gee, good gravy, Carlos, why didn't you inform us that you have the ability too peer into people's souls, as they travel to their homes at night! My, my, how wonderful it must be to be you! Is omniscience ever a burden? Do tell!

Now, when you write....

"C’mon Mr Analogy Authority, you have to add another couple elements, which include that Goodell gets fired (or suspended for a year) not only from his employer, but from all employment prospects for his skill set. Oh, and the average career for his skill set is 4 years."

....you have certainly implied that Goodell's skill sets has wider application, otherwise, you would not have suggested the element be added. Tell me when you read you own posts, and then we can discuss mine. Better yet, let's just end the conversation; I always get intimidated when conversing with omniscient beings.

Count me with Rob on the skepticism regarding performance enhancing drug use in the NFL. The issue with the Carolina players sure makes it look like the NFLs drug testing program isn't very effective. As Pat noted earlier it may catch the occasional moron, but it sure seems to me like at least some of the players have figured out how to beat the system.

By the way, not sure why the Caroina players would have attracted the interest of law enforcement. They had legit perscriptions, didn't they?

Regarding the NFLPA's objection to blood testing, given the players interest in not having to compete against cheaters, I'm a little surprised they are so opposed. The testing wouldn't have to be with the same frequency as the urine testing.

I think all of the suspensions are bogus. Any star athlete should be able to rape, murder, and pillage the planet due to their gifts at sport.

166- Not sure what you mean when you say "acts like Jones".

203- Here's people fall into the trap. They read about Jones and Henry and decide that they DISLIKE them. Once they DISLIKE them, any semblance of fairness and due process gets tossed.

I never apologized for either player. In Jones' specific case, I looked at the allegations against him, and I looked at the NFL's history of suspending players. From there offered my opinion that the length of Jones' suspension was far, far out of line.

I just learned something: Gene Upshaw is the stupidest person on the planet.

Per PFT: "Under the pre-existing Personal Conduct Policy, the players' only recourse is a right to an appeal "before the Commissioner or his designee.

In other words, the guy who already has imposed the discipline will be the guy to determine whether he was right.

As several league insiders previously have commented to us, the NFLPA should have insisted on the use of third-party arbitration procedures to review the penalties imposed under the Personal Conduct Policy. Without an independent look at the situation, any appeal comes down to the question of whether the Commish will be inclined to change his mind".

So Upshaw signed off on something where Goodell can literally suspend anyone he wants for anything he wants for as long as he wants.

Gene Upshaw: Twenty Years of Incompetence.

Alot of you guys are neglecting that this is essentially Goodell using the absolute maximum permitted by the present code of conduct agreement and simultaneously introducing a new one (which he's entitled to do) which makes this sort of punishment regular.

Also there was never an EP about the NFLPA voting fairly overwhelmingly in favor of stronger discipline for its badly-behaving minority.

While the NFLPA is not an extremely strong organization, its obvious that both 80% of them and the league itself feel that this kind of behavior needs to go and they're addressing it with a meat ax. I'd hate to be the next guy, because I think this is not an aberration - its going to be a new standard, and the main reason it's shocking right now is the degree it varies from the old one.

Re: 245 There is some blood testing done now for some presciption drugs which is quite minimally invasive; no more than the smallest of finger sticks.

I don't think it's the size of the needle that counts in the invasiveness of a test. It's the fact that they have your blood.

They're trying to contaminate our fluids.

re: 259

And Robo-Punter would surely agree. It is, after all, his God-given right.

Er... I mean, he gives himself the right. Sorry, sir.

James, that's why I drink nothing but distilled water, and pure grain alcohol.

From The Tennessean:

Jones could appeal the suspension through the courts, starting with involvement by the NFL Players Association.

"As of today, he has not informed us of his desire to appeal the suspension,'' NFLPA spokesman Carl Francis said. "That could change, however.''

Arora has said repeatedly he would not let the NFL make an example of Jones by suspending him for the entire season. In an interview with NFL Network last week, however, Jones said he wouldn't fight the league's decision.

That, of course, was before he learned it was a season-long suspension.

"I am going to be a man and I am going to take responsibilities and own up to whatever the punishment is,'' Jones said last week. "Hopefully it won't be that long of a punishment, or nothing that could jeopardize my career.''

Is omniscience ever a burden?

Only once a year when I have to feign ignorance by coming in last my office pool, you know, to throw people off.

266: I think it's only rainwater and grain alcohol that you drink.

Damn this omniscience!

Quick! Carlos! What is Rex Grossman toasting as he goes home tonight?

270: It'll be a three shot ride home, toasting:

1. being a white man in Roger Goodell's NFL

2. Goodell's arbitrary and unwarned upping of the misconduct penalties happening after the Bears SB run

3. the bears not trading Briggs for DC's pick and drafting Brady Quinn.

Next?

Yeah, that Roger Goodell; he's practically another Bull Connor. Luckily, Carlos, your omniscience is only matched by your vigilance. Whew!

Tell me, o wise one.....if things are good for the "white man" in "Roger Goodell's NFL", what does that make Gene Upshaw, and the player reps of African descent? The world awaits your answer! Peer into their hearts, as they go home tonight, and tell us!

what does that make Gene Upshaw

An Uncle Tom, as many have pointed out.

So Upshaw signed off on something where Goodell can literally suspend anyone he wants for anything he wants for as long as he wants.

As usual with PFT, welcome to yet another lack of due diligence: that clause has been in the CBA for years.

Well, I expected as much. Thanks for your "insights", Carlos, but before I go, can I avail myself of your Supreme Powers just once more, just to make things clear? Are all the player reps of African descent who support Upshaw, or supported even more harsh penalties for Jones, Uncle Toms as well? Peer into their souls, Supreme One!

275- It doesn't really matter *when* the clause was put in- Upshaw is a moron for agreeing to it.

The situation reminds me of a small southern town in the 50's. Someone from out of town gets pulled over and arrested. The police officer also happens to be the sherriff. The sherriff is also the judge. The judge is also the mayor.

Bad. Very, very bad.

On the severity of the suspensions: We simply cannot judge them as of now. Maybe we are experiencing the "new way" (to bring in another Kubrick movie), so let's wait for the next ten or so suspensions before drawing conclusions.
On the drug problem: I agree that it should be seen as the most important problem the NFL has. Not because of its implications on the 'level playing field' - if that was the only problem, the NFL could very well choose not to sanction it at all - but because of health implications. I expect the long term effects of drugs to become a problem in the same way that the long term effects of head traumas (traumata?) are becoming right now. Would you choose to let your child play football or not based on a) whether it might die of brain damage or liver malfunction at age 40 or b) whether there are a certain number of criminals in a professional league?
One question: Can the Titans send Pacman Jones to NFL Europa?

bengt

"One question: Can the Titans send Pacman Jones to NFL Europa?"

You might see a work permit problem there. Or a non-entry deely. The UK just refused entry to Snoop Dog for example.

Pacman Jones is going back to school at WVU.

It is seen as a " smart" move to go back to school now on the national radio shows, but is it? Do you think he's only going to get an education?

Wasn't he the guy beating a fellow student over the head with a pool stick in a bar fight? Wasn't he the guy that got in trouble with the law almost 10 times in college?

With all the drinking, drugs, women that a colleges have, college might not be such a great idea for old Pacman. Especially a party school like West Virginia.

Can we once and for all do away with the nonsense that what transpires between a player and a professional sports league in which he plays, within the context of a collective bargaining agreement, in regards to the terms of employment, in any way, shape, or form resembles the arbitrary exercise of state power in the criminal justice system? In case anybody here is too young to know this, there was a time, in the 60s, 50s, and earlier, when some white southern sherriffs participated in the murder of individuals because they were the descendents of slaves, or working for the equal civil rights of such people. It wholly trivializes those heinous acts to compare the atmosphere of that era to what has happened here.

Kevin, what of the player reps who, if reports are true, actually wanted Jones to be given a lifetime ban? Are you saying that you know their interests better than they do? If you want to call Upshaw a moron, fine, but the players aren't all stupid too, are they?

Regarding the NFLPA’s objection to blood testing, given the players interest in not having to compete against cheaters, I’m a little surprised they are so opposed. The testing wouldn’t have to be with the same frequency as the urine testing.

There's also the issue of false positives. To take an example, let's say 1% of the NFL players use. so of 2000 NFL players (approx.), 20 are using. Let's say the test is 95% effective. So 19 are caught, one gets free. Also, the test has a 2% false positive rate. So 40 false positives are found. Thus, the totals:

2000 players
19 using, and caught,
1 using, not caught
40 not using, test positive.

Is that a good deal for the NFLPA?

RE: 280 and PacMan going back to school - Do we believe he is going to complete his degree/further his education in case this football thing doesn't pan out, or is also a PR move?

Re 202:
"'I missed the earlier post, so I’m a bit curious: How’d they react?'

You guys know you can scroll up, right?"

That post was deleted, along with many others in this thread, for being too political. So scrolling up wouldn't help much.

Re: 282

Of course not. And if that is the rationale and those numbers are close to reality, well, there wouldn't be much debate. But we could just as easily create a different set of numbers that would make it look very effective.

Unless/until we know the reality of the situation, it's a pretty pointless exercise.

By the way, if actual cheating was as low as outlined in your example, I could understand the players not caring much (regardless of the potential for false positives). It's just not enough to put everybody else through the hassle. Of course, I could also understand the players opposition to testing if the number of cheaters were extremely high. If everybody's cheating, nobody wants to get caught.

There is a big brouhaha going down in the world of olympic swimming regarding Ian Thorpe (possessor of many olympic titles and current world records) has tested for elevated levels of testosterone.

Apparently there are two types of testosterone that occur within the human body, both of which occur naturally. One of these two types can be synthesised, the other only occurs naturally. In humans they have a ratio of concentration in the blood of 1:1. For the purposes of this discussion lets call the synthesisable type 'A' and the naturally occuring type 'B'.

Under the old rules, a 10:1 ratio of A to B constituted a failed test. The drug enforcement agencies had been pushing reducing the fail ratio to 5:1 for the last few years as they felt substance abuse had become so sophisticated that athletes were able to cheat by controlling their excessively high testosterone levels within the fail limit. As far as I understand it the drug enforcement people want to reduce it even further as there are no recorded medical instances of large discrepancies in the relative amounts of the two types without either serious illness or the use of synthetic testosterone to boost performance.

For the record Thorpe denies any cheating. He tested between 5:1 and 10:1.

Does the NFL even test for elevated testosterone? Or elevated levels of human growth hormone? Abuse of these substances has huge negative side effects for long term health and is difficult to test for.

There is a lot less money at stake in athletics or swimming and the testing is far more stringent and wide ranging in its scope. If these guys are all cheating when it is far more difficult and less rewarding than in the NFL, why wouldn't there be cheats in the NFL. The illegal enhancement drugs have already been shown to beat much more stringent testing. If you were producing these drugs wouldn't the NFL be a natural market? If not one of the core markets?

MLB-

Some of those roids can build you up real quick before you start to deflate right back to where you were. That's especially hard on a body considering that you can't work out nearly as hard in season as you could in the offseason. A lot of guys lose a lot of strength later in the year.

I'd suspect more players would take a juice like "winny". One that more is more catered to olympic sprinters and racing dogs.

If a player were going to take say DBol, it would probably be deeper into the offseason and I believe that's when they do most of their testing.

"There is a lot less money at stake in athletics or swimming"

TRUE

"and less rewarding than in the NFL,"

By rewarding, I assume you mean financially

"There is a lot less money at stake in athletics or swimming"

TRUE

"and less rewarding than in the NFL,"

By rewarding, I assume you mean financially

I see this was a hot topic so I guess I will post my thoughts.

Someone at my work got fired last week for accidentally bringing in a flash drive. A complete mistake. No one is accusing him of misconduct, but it is a fire able offense.

Anyway, I have zero sympathy for these guys. Too bad they weren't just banned for life. Time to start getting people's attention. Start acting like adults.

275- It doesn’t really matter *when* the clause was put in- Upshaw is a moron for agreeing to it.

PFT implied that Upshaw agreed to it recently. The fact that it's been there for years just stresses the fact that no one considers it a big deal. Is it ripe for abuse? Possibly. But it's not a new development.

Does the NFL even test for elevated testosterone?

Of course. That's how many steroid tests work.

Or elevated levels of human growth hormone?

Not possible without blood tests, which the NFLPA considers an unreasonable restriction.

PFT implied that Upshaw agreed to it recently. The fact that it’s been there for years just stresses the fact that no one considers it a big deal. Is it ripe for abuse? Possibly. But it’s not a new development.

Good point, but the new development is that this is the first time the commissioner has arbitrarily used this power.

I know I'm in the minority, but I feel thesuspensions are agross injustice. And the reality is, no one will oppose them for one reason- Jones is considered to be unpopular.

And Cedric Griffin is the first player to test the waters of Goodall's new policy, arrested for disorderly conduct...

In the real world one can get fired for less than the dynamic duo did.

//////////////////

I will give them credit for one thing. Neither apparently was the "concubining" Rickey Lackey. See link, if it is still good.

//////////////

OTOH, Punkman and his posse are already talking like he was screwed cause he hasnt been charged with anything (au contraire, however, he has been charged).

Here is a guy who had a member of his entourage accomplish the near-impossible, making a T&A bar bouncer a sympathetic figure, by shooting and paralyzing said bouncer from a T&A bar.

Sure, he's a pillar of society. Got to love the focus on Goodell. The power he now has was negotiated by his predecessor and agreed to by Geno. Ergo it must be a good thing. Perhaps it should have been used before.

Remember, Roger gets to hear from people, including advertisers, who also hear from people, or dont hear from their pocketbooks. Out of control players (and former players) are ultimately bad for business.

#279:
James: Good point about problems with the authorities. I guess as there is going to be an indictment, it's not even a question as to whether the Netherlands and Germany are going to let him in. ;-)
My question was more aimed at the situation within 'jurisdiction' of the NFL.