Jolly Suspended Indefinitely

[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!!!

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.

See above.

[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!!!

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.

No I wouldn't. I would be pissed that the players and the origanization were stupid enough to eat something that they aren't sure of. The drug policy is the drug policy. Let's all play by the same rules.

[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!!!

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.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

[Bossman641]

Maybe you can expand on this statement a little bit

But there are alot of aspects regarding the Williams case that are not fair.

As others have already stated, neither Jolly or Big Ben were suspended for any legal reasons. Jolly was for the drug plicy, Ben was for the player conduct policy. Those are facts. It is also a fact that the Williams failed the drug policy as well. Ignorance is not an excuse.

[sharpe1027]

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.

Does this mean that you agree that the Williams boys should have been suspended already?

[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.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

[SMACKTALKIE]

The last ruling actually stated that the Williams have to serve their suspensions, however there is a futher ruling that they can play while their case is being appealed. The law is the law, and it is above the CBA.

So the latest gripe from packerland is that they can play despite their case not being resolved. The legal process is our responsibility so the only people who you can be pissed at is yourselves.

[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!!!

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.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

No, once again you are mistaken. Every judgement so far has been won by the NFL. The judges may have brought up some issues but all have ruled for the NFL. The WIlliams just keep appealing to a higher court. At some point they will be out of appeals and they will be suspended.

[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.

If I am making $6,000,000 a year and I can get suspended for what I eat; I sure the hell am sending a supplement to a lab to make sure that it doesn't contain ingredents that are banned.

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

No, once again you are mistaken. Every judgement so far has been won by the NFL. The judges may have brought up some issues but all have ruled for the NFL. The WIlliams just keep appealing to a higher court. At some point they will be out of appeals and they will be suspended.

See above.

[sharpe1027]

Why should you send it to a lab when the NFL already has and found an illegal substance? Who said I am not pissed at them for not just hitting the treadmill?

I think the whole thing sucks but my point has been since the beginning that its mere presence in the court of law points to something being fishy. Judges with far more knowledge of the law and the CBA have also decided there was unfairness in their suspension and that is all that matters.

The presence if court points to a lot of money being at stake. The found a loophole and are exploiting it.

I thought the judge ruled that they could be suspended, and they had to appeal just to keep from serving it? Seems like they lost and are appealing mainly to put it off as long as possible. Not a bad strategy for them, but not exactly fair to the rest of the NFL players.

[Bossman641]

The last ruling actually stated that the Williams have to serve their suspensions, however there is a futher ruling that they can play while their case is being appealed. The law is the law, and it is above the CBA.

So the latest gripe from packerland is that they can play despite their case not being resolved. The legal process is our responsibility so the only people who you can be pissed at is yourselves.

Your statement above seems a little at odds with your earlier statement

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

In the Williams instance, you want to respect the legal process. In Jolly's case you are fine with whatever he gets even though he has not been convicted.

[SMACKTALKIE]

The last ruling actually stated that the Williams have to serve their suspensions, however there is a futher ruling that they can play while their case is being appealed. The law is the law, and it is above the CBA.

So the latest gripe from packerland is that they can play despite their case not being resolved. The legal process is our responsibility so the only people who you can be pissed at is yourselves.

Your statement above seems a little at odds with your earlier statement

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

In the Williams instance, you want to respect the legal process. In Jolly's case you are fine with whatever he gets even though he has not been convicted.

I was under the impression that Jolly had been suspended under the personal conduct policy, not the substance abuse policy. This is because I was not aware of any previously failed drug test.

Facing 20 years in prison, I felt, would be a good reason to suspend someone under the personal conduct policy, much like Adam Jones or Ben Rothlisberger.

I want to respect the legal process regardless.

[ThunderDan]

The last ruling actually stated that the Williams have to serve their suspensions, however there is a futher ruling that they can play while their case is being appealed. The law is the law, and it is above the CBA.

So the latest gripe from packerland is that they can play despite their case not being resolved. The legal process is our responsibility so the only people who you can be pissed at is yourselves.

Your statement above seems a little at odds with your earlier statement

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

In the Williams instance, you want to respect the legal process. In Jolly's case you are fine with whatever he gets even though he has not been convicted.

I was under the impression that Jolly had been suspended under the personal conduct policy, not the substance abuse policy. This is because I was not aware of any previously failed drug test.

Facing 20 years in prison, I felt, would be a good reason to suspend someone under the personal conduct policy, much like Adam Jones or Ben Rothlisberger.

I want to respect the legal process regardless.

You were told that 2 or 3 times pages ago and now you want to change your stance that you are called out on it?

[Lurker64]

Facing 20 years in prison, I felt, would be a good reason to suspend someone under the personal conduct policy, much like Adam Jones or Ben Rothlisberger.

That's a horrible idea. Someone can be accused of a crime that would carry a significantly worse penalty than 20 years in prison (e.g. murder) and yet be completely innocent and ultimately be found not guilty in a court of law. Why would you want to punish a guy simply for being accused formally?

The presumption in our society is, after all, "innocent until proven guilty" and not "the other way around."

You get suspended under the personal conduct policy for conduct that reflects poorly on your employer. What Johnny Jolly has done would only reflect poorly on the NFL if he's found guilty (at which point he will be suspended). If it turns out he's not guilty, all he was doing was "hanging with some guys who were doing drugs", which really doesn't damage the brand of the NFL. On the other hand, having Ben repeatedly accused of sexual assault, poor judgement, and general jackassery reflects poorly on the NFL.

But anyway, Jolly was suspended on a substance abuse violation, the specifics of which nobody knows at this point.

[sharpe1027]

I was under the impression that Jolly had been suspended under the personal conduct policy, not the substance abuse policy. This is because I was not aware of any previously failed drug test.

See above? Ah, nevermind.