Jolly Suspended Indefinitely

[SMACKTALKIE]

I had a feeling this would come up. The only way these cases could be compared is if:

1. Jolly had a cough or pain.
2. Jolly took a cough syrup or pill labled all natural that despite it's labled ingredients contained a banned substance.
3. The NFL knew there was a banned substance in said all natural cough syrup or pill and decided not to tell the NFLPA.
4. Jolly then failed a drug test due to the inaccurate labeling of said cough syrup or pill and the NFL suspended him.

Weren't they appealing based on violation of MN law? What do any of 1-4 have to do with that? None of them are exceptions to the NFL's drug policy.

At this point all of those questions are not for us to answer. The Courts have/will decide.

The point is the two cases are not comparable. Maybe a comparison to a guy like Nate Newton should be in order.

I think the issue is you absolutely defended 2 players (who happen to be Vikings) who violated the NFL's drug policy and here you have a player (on the GB Packers) who hasn't been convicted of anything or had a positive drug test reported being suspended for a year and you don't make a peep.

Why aren't you defending all players but only the Viking players?

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

[sharpe1027]

I think the whole felonious possession of codeine thing may be a reason for suspension. Perhaps the fact that he is facing 20 years in prison is a reason for a suspension.

Also two reasons the Williams and Jolly cases are not comparable.

Just because you can point out differences that doesn't make the similarities go away. If we could only ever compare things that were exactly the same, this forum would be pretty dull.

[sharpe1027]

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

As far as I know, the legal ramifications do not necessarily mean anything to the NFL. The fact that he may have had codeine in is possession does, but not the "legal ramifications."

Ben didn't get suspended for the substance abuse policy. Both Jolly and the Williams boys did, however.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I think the whole felonious possession of codeine thing may be a reason for suspension. Perhaps the fact that he is facing 20 years in prison is a reason for a suspension.

Also two reasons the Williams and Jolly cases are not comparable.

Just because you can point out differences that doesn't make the similarities go away. If we could only ever compare things that were exactly the same, this forum would be pretty dull.

I agree with your last point. I feel there are more differences than similarities in the two cases.

[cheesner]

I had a feeling this would come up. The only way these cases could be compared is if:

1. Jolly had a cough or pain.
2. Jolly took a cough syrup or pill labled all natural that despite it's labled ingredients contained a banned substance.
3. The NFL knew there was a banned substance in said all natural cough syrup or pill and decided not to tell the NFLPA.
4. Jolly then failed a drug test due to the inaccurate labeling of said cough syrup or pill and the NFL suspended him.

Weren't they appealing based on violation of MN law? What do any of 1-4 have to do with that? None of them are exceptions to the NFL's drug policy.

At this point all of those questions are not for us to answer. The Courts have/will decide.

The point is the two cases are not comparable. Maybe a comparison to a guy like Nate Newton should be in order.

I think the issue is you absolutely defended 2 players (who happen to be Vikings) who violated the NFL's drug policy and here you have a player (on the GB Packers) who hasn't been convicted of anything or had a positive drug test reported being suspended for a year and you don't make a peep.

Why aren't you defending all players but only the Viking players?

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

He was in a vehicle with 3 other guys. Are you so sure that it was his?

The Williams' have admitted taking a banned substance.

Personally, I think Jolly is probably guilty and I am sure the NFL has seen more evidence than the public knows about to suspend him for a full year. He must be an idiot and I won't defend his actions, even though he is a Packer. Wrong is wrong, no matter what jersey a person wears.

[SMACKTALKIE]

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

As far as I know, the legal ramifications do not necessarily mean anything to the NFL. The fact that he may have had codeine in is possession does, but not the "legal ramifications."

Ben didn't get suspended for the substance abuse policy. Both Jolly and the Williams boys did, however.

So you are saying you don't know if legal ramifications mean anything to the NFL, but you do know why Rothlisberger was suspended?

Rothlisberger has not been convicted of anything but has been suspended for his illegal behavior.

John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison.

Obviously the legal ramifications DO mean something to the NFL.

[sharpe1027]

So you are saying you don't know if legal ramifications mean anything to the NFL, but you do know why Rothlisberger was suspended?

Rothlisberger has not been convicted of anything but has been suspended for his illegal behavior.

John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison.

Obviously the legal ramifications DO mean something to the NFL.

Jolly was suspended under the substance abuse policy.

Ben was suspended under the conduct policy.

Neither was suspended because of any the prison sentence or fine they might receive. Thus, neither was suspended because of the "legal ramifications."

Jolly's suspension is arguably much more like the Williams' than Ben's.

[ThunderDan]

So the legal ramifications of getting caught with a feloniois amount of codeine mean nothing?

Do you think Ben Rothlisberger is being treated unfairly?

As far as I know, the legal ramifications do not necessarily mean anything to the NFL. The fact that he may have had codeine in is possession does, but not the "legal ramifications."

Ben didn't get suspended for the substance abuse policy. Both Jolly and the Williams boys did, however.

So you are saying you don't know if legal ramifications mean anything to the NFL, but you do know why Rothlisberger was suspended?

Rothlisberger has not been convicted of anything but has been suspended for his illegal behavior.

John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison.

Obviously the legal ramifications DO mean something to the NFL.

JJ has not been convicted yet he has been charged.

Big Ben was suspended under the conduct policy not the drup policy. JJ was suspended under the drug policy not the conduct policy.

I would have no problem if Goodell suspended JJ 4 games for his conduct. If what is alledged is true I have no problem at all.

Clean up football and make it a level playing field for everyone.

[SMACKTALKIE]

So you are saying you don't know if legal ramifications mean anything to the NFL, but you do know why Rothlisberger was suspended?

Rothlisberger has not been convicted of anything but has been suspended for his illegal behavior.

John Jolly broke the law and is facing 20 years in prison.

Obviously the legal ramifications DO mean something to the NFL.

Jolly was suspended under the substance abuse policy.

Ben was suspended under the conduct policy.

Neither was suspended because of any the prison sentence or fine they might receive. Thus, neither was suspended because of the "legal ramifications."

Jolly's suspension is arguably much more like the Williams' than Ben's.

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

[Lurker64]

My guess for the Jolly drug suspension is that he piled up multiple failed drug tests before we heard about it. Entirely possible that he failed a test at some point last year and has been appealing it (a la Brian Cushing), and then failed one NFL mandated drug test in the offseason, and then another court-ordered drug test during the offseason.

I think that would be enough to get Goodell to just say "screw it, you're not playing until I say you can."

[sharpe1027]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

[ThunderDan]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

[SMACKTALKIE]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

No. I don't think it's fair. But there are alot of aspects regarding the Williams case that are not fair.

All said the NFL will demand a CBA that will address the state law loophole. I just hope the NFL will work more with the NFLPA in the players interests.

[Bossman641]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

I'm just impressed that he continues to argue in favor of the Williams and doesn't just give up and say ya you're right, the Williams are getting off the hook based on a technicality.

[SMACKTALKIE]

I guess if Jolly feels he is being treated unfairly he should take it to court.

I think Jolly is being probably being treated fairly. The policy is pretty clear, and I trust the NFL has reason for the suspension. He probably deserves what he gets.

The Williams boys found a state law that might get them out on a technicality despite there being no argument about whether or not they violated the policy they agreed to. Does that sound fair to you?

DING DING DING, We have a WINNER!!!

Good one dan. Believe me you would be crying fowl if the NFL attempted to suspend Woodson and Matthews based on the same circumstances as those surrounding the Williams case.