I hate the fact that Roger Giddel can make rules like the Personal Conduct policy and make them retro-actve, it's un-american, any law congress makes can only effect people in the future. Mr. Giddel has suspended Adam "Pac-man" Jones for a whole season because of his many run-ins with the law, but moreso because of the incident that happened at the NBA All-Star game. Chris Henry of the Bengals got half a season because of his legal problems, and now Terry "Tank" Johnson is probably going to at least get a season. I'm not a player, but I think it's wrong that the league can suspend (or maybe fire, Pac-man has never been charged with anything and he got suspended, Tank Johnson is resting in a cell because he plead guilty, anybody else see the league possibly firing him?) someone for what they do off the field. That's like saying that if you get arrested for disorderly conduct at a bar, you deserve to be suspended from your job. My view is as long as it doesn't affect how they play, so what? It's not the leagues responsibilty to play morality police!!
Roger Goodell is doing what should have been done, a long time ago. Athletes should stop getting into trouble. If football players stop hitting their wives and shooting up strip clubs, which is a place where married men should not even be at all, then people like Pacman Jones and Chris Henry would still be playing instead of sitting out games.
The fact remains is that a. its a business b. sign up to the business, you have to abide by the rules of that business c. your an employee and you can be suspended if you break the rulesd. its thier business, they can bring in new rules anytime they want.
It's not the leagues responsibility but its thier responsibilty to protect thier business.
Your wrong, if you sign up to a job and its requirements for that job says that you have live your life by the law, and if you break that rule, they can do anything they want.
I see the fact that it's a business, but in the grand scheme of things there have been 41 recorded instances of NFL players in trouble with the law, out of 1600ish. Do you really think that a percentage of a percentage of players is going to ruin the league? The NFL is teflon, nothing can stop it not even it's own players ( the league owns the Players association). I'm just mad they feel compelled to be the morality police, they can't celebrate TD's anymore because it teaches kids to be unsportsmanlike, the players can't add any degree of personality to their uniforms (ala the Chad Johnson cleats he tried to where during MNF) because they want them to all look like boyscouts. It's the leagues morality policing that has gotten rid of these thingsDon't try to insult my intelligence by saying that I need to know what a business is first, the NFL can't be touched and that's not being biased its just fact. All I'm saying is that they don't have to police everything, at least not so strictly.
Just because they'res a few bad players, having a policy like the NFL has stops other athletes that are in the college level, and high school level from being idiots. If you dont have a policy where you punish athletes who are invovled with the law on a regular basis, then it tells the youngings that its alright to do that.
If you understand business then you relize that the NFL has contracts with certain shoemakers. Those contracts state the coaches and players have to wear that shoemakers clothing during gametime. Wearing something thats not part of the contract, especially for a marketable player like Johnson is against the law and is sueable.
But the policy says you can suspended without a conviction. You can be suspended and yet be innocent at the time, I agree with the OP, that is utter bull shit. What the hell kind of business suspends people before they are even proven guilty? There is no merit behind this new policy, the new commish doesn't know what he is doing obviously and I can see problems in the future with this. Hasn't been commish for 2 seasons and he is already stirring up shit. That policy didn't need to be changed and if it did it didn't need to be changed to the extent he did. And regular basis has nothing to do with it, you can be a first timer and still be suspended.
And don't get me started on the TD celebrations rule, that is something David Stern would do and he is ruining the NBA. Goodell better watch out or he will soon be known as one of the worst commissioners in sports. He can sit next to David Stern on the small bus.
Maybe they should stop with the exclsuive shoe deals. But with that said, what about the fines for a sock being too far down, or a jersey being briefly untucked? Who the {expletive} cares whether or not someone's sock gets stretched out on a play and ends up falling to the ankle, or after being tackled a jersey get untucked? I don't. That's not even a morality issue there, that's just being nitpicky. What's the logic behind that?
Last edited by headrek1 on Apr 13th, 2007 at 05:20 AM
"I think it was a little bit harsh," "I expected the suspension, but for a whole year for a guy that hadn't been charged with nothing? I really didn't agree with it. But for the most part, I'm taking it like a man. I'm going to appeal it. We'll see what the future brings."
Yeah, I would agree that a year could be a bit extreme, but still, its an suspension.
The thing it happens all over the world in business on where somebody gets charged but not convicted. Companies still fire them, especially if they represent the company, which players do.
KMC Community Forums
Apr 11th, 2007 07:13 PM
