the league says it will suspend the al jazera 4 indefinitely for contract detrimental to the league if they don't cooperate and give interviews by the 25th of this month
this is complete and absolute bull shit on the part of the nfl, and if they do go through with it, will be the final straw for me and the nfl
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...views/#respond
Not surprising at all.
How sad. The NFLPA told these players they didn't have to give the interviews to the league if there was no evidence they did anything wrong. Now the league is going to punish these players unless they talk. It appears to me ALL of the players in this league should fire these union leaders. They are getting lousy advice.
The leaders are just doing what they negotiated in the CBS. The NFL is overstepping, in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pugger
The NFLPA is as useless as any other union.
Maybe the second amendment people could do something to fix the problem the next time goodell comes to wisconsin
Don't give in. Screw The NFL. I'd refuse to talk to them all season.
Yup, the NFL players have it so horrible compared to the 60s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutnstrut
If suspended the NFLPA can file a lawsuit and probably keep the players on the field until there is a court ruling.
And 1 year later they will lose like Brady.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
That's okay as long as we win the Super Bowl this year!Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderDan
The point wasn't how bad off players are. The point was that when you really need them unions are useless. They do not have your back as they imply. They are however good at taking money from their members.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderDan
The players themselves are to blame for the last CBA they signed giving Roger Goddell absolute authority. It doesn't matter what court or legal theory they try the NFL trots out the ratified and signed CBA and they win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rutnstrut
of course you would. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Rastak
bs considering the guy recanted. so there's no story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbgary
Yea, I'm messing with ya. Florio just wrote a good piece on how the Brady case ruling has emboldened Goodell to ignore policy even more.
I wish that dude would get ousted.
So here is the letter Goodell sent, stolen from PFT:
"As you know, the league has been investigating a nationally televised report concerning potential violations of the collectively bargained Policy on Performance-Enhancing Substances. There can be no question that the league has a good faith basis for conducting this investigation; moreover, the league and NFLPA have a shared interest in ensuring that our jointly developed policy is not being violated.
Nevertheless, since the initiation of our investigation in January the league has made at least seven attempts to arrange interviews of Messrs. Harrison, Matthews, Neal and Peppers. On each occasion, the NFLPA has communicated the players’ refusal to participate. Most recently, the NFLPA has attempted to prevent the interviews by submitting for each player a half-page statement, which you advised should be treated as a sworn statement given in a legal proceeding, and which you contend should fulfill the players’ acknowledged obligation to cooperate with the investigation. The statements, however, are wholly devoid of any detail, and we were quickly able to determine that Mr. Neal’s statement includes an assertion that is demonstrably false. Rather than eliminate the need for interviews, the players’ plainly deficient statements simply underscore the importance of obtaining their full cooperation.
You were so advised on July 29, when we again wrote to offer the players another opportunity to participate in an interview, beginning with Mr. Neal. In that letter, you were expressly notified that continued noncooperation could result in discipline up to and including a suspension. In response, you provided a revised statement and letter which acknowledged Mr. Neal’s prior steroid policy violation and that his previous “sworn statement” is in fact untrue. Most important, you advised that Mr. Neal had again refused to cooperate with our investigation by participating in an interview.
There is no dispute that players are obligated to cooperate with the league’s investigation, as you have repeatedly acknowledged. This obligation includes not only the responsibility to submit to an interview but also the duty to provide meaningful responses to the questions posed. Nor is there a dispute that a failure to cooperate or an attempt to obstruct the investigation may result in discipline, including suspension from play, for conduct detrimental under Article 46 of the CBA and the NFL Player Contract.
We cannot accept your unilateral assertion that the cursory, untested statements you have submitted satisfy the players’ obligation. Accordingly, the Commissioner has directed that Messrs. Harrison, Matthews, Neal and Peppers be given until Thursday, August 25 to provide interviews. For those players whose interviews do not take place on or before that date, or who fail meaningfully to participate in or otherwise obstruct the interview, their actions will constitute conduct detrimental and they will be suspended, separate and apart from any possible future determination that they violated the steroid policy. The suspension for each such player will begin on Friday, August 26 and will continue until he has fully participated in an interview with league investigators, after which the Commissioner will determine whether and when the suspension should be lifted.
To avoid this outcome, please promptly contact my office to make arrangements for the interviews. As previously stated, we will make every effort to accommodate the NFLPA’s availability, within the outlined time period."
How do you know he was truthful when recanting and not when he told the original stories?Quote:
Originally Posted by gbgary
Well, we can't know for sure, but the NFL has talked to Manning and found no credible evidence that the original story was true. My guess is the guy recanted to avoid a lawsuit, either by one of the players, or by the company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
I suspect you are correct about his reason for recanting, but that still doesn't mean the original story wasn't true and the recant a lie. He may have recanted to avoid a suit even though the story was true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joemailman
The commiss already abused his power in bullying Brady around in his Rogers Rules self appointed system aka...guilty unless proven otherwise............many joked about it cause it was he Pats..............how is Rogers Rules feeling now ?
They are what the players agreed to. I don't like them. This case is a little different from the Brady case as property wasn't destroyed in this case and they did have texts about "The Deflator".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
If this is Peppers last year, I wonder if he doesn't interview just to try the legal system out in this case. The case pushes out a year with appeals and Peppers retires before the suspension hits.
Peppers would seem to be in a good position to do this - likely the last year of a long (HOF?) career, has made plenty of money and as far as I know hasn't blown it all. But I don't know that he's enough of a shit disturber.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderDan
I think James Harrison is more likely to take a stand. He is certainly not concerned about his image and would love a chance to piss all over Roger's cornflakes.
Doesn't bother me a bit. I think the league has an obligation to look into the report, and I think the players generally have an obligation to work with the league to maintain the integrity and reputation of the league. MLB ignored issues for years, and it didn't enhance their image to their fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bretsky
Regardless of agreements or commissioners, is not this still America . Nobody has to volunteer information that puts them in jeopardy. Appeal this point in a court and there will be changes. IMO , if the NFL can't prove their own case without bullying people then they deserve to loose. If medical testing and Private Investigator surveillance is not invasive enough, then the confessions will not be forthcoming . Can anyone say "The Imposition" or "The McCarthy Hearings ", the powerful never do stop reaching for even more power .
After the Brady saga I fear Clay and Julius are basically screwed. Even if they submit to these 'interviews' Goodell and company might suspend them anyway because they didn't answer the questions to their satisfaction. The NFLPA may appeal but sooner or later these players will be suspended sometime in the future. When the CBA comes up things are really gonna get ugly.
You are being ridiculous.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radagast
Never know if you're playing devil's advocate or not! Should they look into it? Yes. Should players be forced into conducting interviews and answer questions? Not sure why. This is like the oldest line in the book from a cop asking you to turn your pockets out - "If you've got nothing to hide, why does it matter?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
disclaimer: I'm Canadian, most of what I know about US law I learned from 'The Practice'!
The way this is heading, it seems to me that signing a contract with the NFL effectively suspends your 5th amendment right?
If my employer said they wanted to talk about some accusations, founded or unfounded and I told them to "forget it, I'm not talking". I would likely also be on an unpaid leave very quickly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Radagast
"This is Amercia" doesn't work so well with a private employer.
That said, Goodell makes this stuff up as he goes and people don't care until it's "their" team about to get rammed up the keister, then suddenly it's not fair.
I don't know, the original statement from Al Jazeera is looking an awful lot like a McCarthyism, and the NFL is acting on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderDan
That's the way I feel about it. I get the feeling this would have gone away quickly and quietly if the players had met with the league when first asked (sometime last spring?). The union decided to take a stance. That immediately set up a battle, because the league could not simply say, "Oh, OK. Never mind." and then just ignore it. The union knew it to. Basically, the initial refusal pretty much indicated that this was going to court, because I didn't expect either side to back down until forced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rastak
Manning's part with the league went mostly unnoticed until it was done, and the announcement made. It could have been the same with the other players.
The media in general is a bunch of scumbags, and Al Jazeera has to be the worst of the worst. That being said, it wouldn't hurt the guys they accused to go in and say for the record that it's all bullshit. They aren't testifying under oath, and if the NFL had independently found reason to bring them in instead of the damn media, clearly they should go. As it is, it appears they have no choice.
One thing that troubles me just a little bit, if it is total bullshit, why don't the players sue the scumbags for slander or libel?
Patler, if Matthews and/or Peppers say they didn't and it comes out that they did, are you gonna turn against them too?
:-)This time I'm not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiness
But this isn't the police in a criminal investigation. It's more like a private employer/employee situation. Not exactly, because the league isn't the direct employer. That's what makes for litigation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guiness
I think a couple of the baseball players have. It's tough to win against the media, especially when they have a tape of the "informant" saying exactly what was reported.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Meanwhile, back at NFL Headquarters...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g
This is the important part. The rest of this is just checking boxes. I thought there might be something to this when they reported Mike Neal made a demonstrably false statement in his affidavit to the League. But the false statement wasn't about this incident, his affidavit said he failed to mention his previous suspension for a positive PED test.Quote:
Originally Posted by gbgary
On the other hand, Goodell is doing a good job of assuring a job action in 2018/19.
If you are a public figure, you must prove malice of intent I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patler
Goodell has always been the arbitrator of last resort in the CBA in most respects. So was Tagliabue. The language did not change. What did change was Roger availing himself of it more often and inventing new levels of sentencing based on the public reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderDan
There are other areas where grievances are sent to a neutral arbitrator, but they are limited to contracts I believe. Drug and Alcohol and Conduct have never had outside arbitration.
http://www.sportsonearth.com/article...-cba-and-nflpa
You ever said that to YOUR boss when he/she asked you questions directly related to your workplace?Quote:
Originally Posted by Radagast
I want Salt n Pepper to spill every last bean.
it's become a distraction so get it over with.