vick ordered not to report to camp

Policies are designed to handle different situations equally. That is why they are drafted. You can cut it any way you like- Pac was suspended with no convictions and the league justified by saying it was because he was damaging the image of the league.

Not unlike many of Pac's "10 incidents" that the media popularly refers to.

True. However, if it is about league "image" being protected- Vick has far exceeded the limit that Pac set.

According the NFLPA, a few columnists, and Pac's attorney's, Pac dropped his justified appeal because there was an agreement with the commisioner that he would consider letting Pac in training camp. There are also suggestions there were other undisclosed stipulations.

Guidelines would be nice, our courts of law use them and major corporations use them in disciplinary measures with their employees who violate corporate policies.

I would be satisfied, however, if Goodell would simply administer the policy CONSISTENTLY. For example, as mentioned above, Goodell took the policy in an unprecedented direction when he suspended Pac without a conviction in a court of law. He cited Pac's behavior and the resulting media attention put the NFL in a bad light in the public's eye. He gave him an unprecedented 1 year suspension. Chris Henry, Tank Johnson had convictions and got less punishment. So OK the natural thing to surmise is DON'T PUT THE NFL IN A POSITION THAT LEAVES AN UNFAVORABLE POSITION IN THE PUBLIC'S EYE OR YOU WILL GET SEVERELY PUNISHED. Well now I argue, if that is how the policy is to be administered- how can anybody reasonably argue that Mike Vick and Joey Porter have not made the same transgressions?

I'm sorry but the dog fighting issue, the water bottle issue, the Ron Mexico issue, Joey Porter's pitbull killing a neighbor's horse, Porter starting an on field fight, his assaulting another player in a casino- they all PUT THE NFL IN AN UNFAVORABLE LIGHT. Porter clearly got off way too light. (many columnists agree) I'll will acknowledge the Vick issue is far from over and as I've written- he probably will get a year suspension. IMO- not because Goodell wants to do it (if he did he would have done it by now), but because he will have no alternative. The public is screaming for him to do it.

 

Actually, I'd surprise you how patient a person I am. I agree that the league's disposition on Vick is far from through and I also agree that he will eventually be suspended for the year. But I must point out that the league statements regarding "allowing due process" with Vick are completely contradictory to the manner in which they administered the policy toward Pac.

 

Maybe Pac's money isn't as green as Porter's or Vick's?

 

I agree, Pacman was suspended with no convictions.

You are using that statement to skew your opinion, and you know it. 4 incidents are listed by the NFL as reasons for the suspension. Not 10.

That is only your opinion. I do not agree that Vick has exceeded the limit that Pac set.

Still, it was Pac's decision to drop the appeal, which means Pacman has agreed to the suspension. Therefore, IMO, Pacman must believe the suspension was fair and in Goodell's right, otherwise Pac should've continued to challenge it.

I can and would easily argue that Joey Porter has not made the same transgression. Why because he started a fight on the field?? If that's the case, throw Haynesworthless out the league permanently because what AH did WAS WAY WORSE than what Porter did, and brought much more negative attention to the league. Oh and Porter hit another player in a vegas CASINO. Well, no charges right? I don't consider throwing a punch at someone reason to suspend him for a year.

Vick, I will only agree because of the dogfighting. Not any of his prior (non) incidents.

Porter: Wow, so now we are going to fire people from a job for something their animals do? He "assaulted"... is that actually accurate from the police?

Vick: The water bottle- COME ON.... he was questioned, never charged, nothing. Ron Mexico... the civil suit was dropped! Did this put the NFL in a negative light? Sure. Do either of those two things warrant suspension... NO. If Vick gets supsended there will be 1 reason listed.... DOGFIGHTING.

Your opinion of course. I don't really think Goodell cares one way or the other what happens to Vick. Vick really won't affect the NFLs bottom line all that much.


For the record, I appreciate the time you have taken to argue your position both in a blog and on several different threads on this forum. I understand your basic premise that, as Titans fans, we should be upset that one of our top players may be treated less fairly then other NFL players under similar scrutiny for legal actions or what have you.
However, I have lost all my sympathy and respect for Adam Pacman Jones. If I had my way (if I were GM), I would cut him, hold a press conference, tell the nashville media, sorry our organization made a mistake with this man, and it is in the best interest of the team to move on without him (which I truly believe.)
I guess, my other perspective, I'd rather have someone that can interpret and decide on his own how to conduct the policies and rules of the NFL, rather than a blanket sheet that says if A happens B must result. I am giving Goodell the benefit of the doubt, it can't be an easy job. He has to try to judge the character of these people as individuals, and look at their pending crime/s.
And, if anyone has a problem with it, then it's up to the player, the nflpa, and/or the owners of the NFL to do something about it. I guarantee you if the owners thought Goodell was wildly exceeding his authority, he would be out as commissioner.

 

It appears these two precepts represent the difference in our opinions.

1) You don't believe Pacman will ever change or be productive for the team. I don't have any problem with that as long as you don't permute logic or blind yourself to actual events to support this theme.

2) You are comfortable allowing the commisioner leeway to use his judgement in for individual cases WITHOUT guidelines. Fair enough for opinion. Personally, I don't believe anybody can function without bias- not even the commissioner. I want consistency.

Fair enough. We'll see how all this eventually shakes out. I hope you are never on the receiving end of your precepts.

 

I believe it is possible for Pacman to change. I try to stay aware of actual facts when I debate, although I haven't looked at his arrest record or "incident" list in several weeks.

I can see a scenario in which, Pacman doesn't get in legal trouble again, and plays very succesfully for the Titans next season.

I also think the correct change of scenery could be good for Pacman. His name isn't good around here, maybe a chance in another community/city would help.

It's also possible he doesn't change at all.

Personally, if it were up to me, I would cut the organization's losses with Pacman to avoid further potential negative publicity and team distractions. Basically, I would say this, "Vince is too special a player to let you in anyway screw things up for this franchise. Sorry, Pacman, good luck to you, wherever you end up." Maybe if I thought things were more bleak for the organization, I'd be willing to work longer to see Pacman turn around. Guess that's just the way I think.

Actually I think that it's a good idea to have a general set of written guidelines to follow. I bet more specific written guidelines happen in the future.

Even if more specific rules/punishments are not written, the commisioner, even now, does have some "guidelines" or reason he has to follow. Unless my assumptions about how the NFL operates as a business are wrong (a possibility), then I assume Goodell is trying to keep his job. If he went overboard in his authority/job then the owners would rise against him.

I understand your wanting consistency, but that rarely happens, especially in the legal system. People will get totally different sentences for the same crime, and obviously there are numerous other problems.

I am FAR, FAR, VERY FAR from being a saint. I hope I am never under the receiving end of this type of legal scrutiny. At least I'm not famous, man, I can't imagine how terrible it would be to deal with all the legal drama, on top of being in the public media everyday.

(And hey, I've even been to a strip club in Vegas this year.)

I'm also thinking, perhaps I need to improve my writing. Perhaps I am not conveying my opinions very well. :hmm:

 

I don't believe you grasp how serious the charges against Vick are. There is no contradiction here.....the league clearly states that if you are CHARGED (please try and comprehend this), that you are subject to punishment. If you are a REPEAT offender, you are subject to a more severe approach. You are really reaching to compare any of the players mentioned in these threads to each other. All are different circumstances. Porter throwing a punch in a strip club is NOT the same as one of Pacman's entourage firing a gun and leaving a man paralyzed. This is also not the first instance of trouble for Pacman at a club. In fact it follows a sad pattern. Now onto Vick.......he is facing federal charges, and if convicted you can rest assured that Goodell will escalate the suspension, and might even ban him from the NFL, so time is needed in this matter to get things right. He is not going to training camp, and it doesn't take much imagination to know this will carry over into regular season. So Goodell has until September to further add to Vick's suspension, but in the interim this will do just fine. I just don't follow how you think Goodell is inconsistent, when there is nothing consistent regarding the problems of Pac, Tank, Porter or Vick. Their problems are as different as the positions each play. Do you think it's inconsistent for a QB to make more than a CB? They both wear uniforms, play the same amount of games and work for the same company. You seem like an educated guy...I really don't follow why you can't see that each case is different.

 

Give me a break. I don't know where you are coming from with that.

The outline of the league CHANGES you referenced published on April 10, 2007 indicate that players can now be disciplined with charges only:

"Repeat violations of the personal conduct policy will be dealt with aggressively, including discipline for repeat offenders even when the conduct itself has not yet resulted in a conviction of a crime."

1) The application of this principle to Pacman was UNPRECEDENTED. Although the policy had been in effect that subsequent charges could be subject to fine or suspension at the discretion of the commissioner, Pac was the FIRST AND ONLY player (thus far) to whom this policy has been applied. Please try to comprehend that.

2) If the commisioner is going to make unprecedented enforcement of the policy, he must be consistent in subsequent situations to maintain credibility. There have been numerous players with multiple offenses during the same time frame referenced as Pac. Why did Goodell select Pac? That is a great question. IMO- primarily because he engaged in "incidents" or "run-ins" published by the media that put the NFL in a negative light. My contention has always been that Goodell's application is ARBITRARY- there are many other players with prior charges who have been involved in "incidents" that reflect poorly on the league. Jerry Porter and Mike Vick are 2 of the more prominent names. Why didn't Goodell apply the same standard of "prior charges" and negative incidents to suspend them? Good question. I could only speculate an answer.

3) Why was Pacman given an entire year for 4 prior charges and Tank Johnson and Chris Henry given lesser suspensions? Good question. I'll save you the torment of my speculation. He never gave any definitive answer consistent with policy.

See above.

See above.

In summary, you make excellent points,YOU RESEARCH your position, and your arguments are well thought out. I have enjoyed thinking about your opinion. It appears we simply disagree on how Goodell has applied the policy. Let's agree to disagree.

 

Hmmm, educated and well thought out debate... how refreshing...

Even if it is a topic that we've been beating to death.

 

You need to read it again. It has not changed since 2000. It was convictions or CHARGES even back then. The only thing that has changed is the severity of the punishment.

NFL Conduct Policy - 2000
Persons Charged With Criminal Activity
Any Covered Person arrested for or charged with conduct prohibited by this policy will be required to undergo immediate, mandatory clinical evaluation and, if directed, appropriate counseling. Such evaluation and counseling must be performed under the direction and supervision of the NFL Vice President of Player and Employee Development. Failure to cooperate with evaluation and counseling (including being arrested for or charged with additional criminal activity during the evaluation and counseling period) shall itself be conduct detrimental to the National Football League and shall be punishable by fine or suspension at the discretion of the Commissioner.


As far as Pac, I believe you would be hard pressed to find any player in the last two years with as many problems as he has. I don't find 10 games unreasonable if you look at EVERY incident he has had. It was clear to most everyone that Pacman was out of control, and repeating the same problems over and over. If you are a Titans fan, you should be glad Goodell sat him down and put an end to this. Maybe we get him back as a changed person and don't have to hold our breath waiting for the next incident. This was a wake up call for Pac, let's just hope he doesn't hit the snooze button.