Porter of a Madman

[HairOnFire]

Sheesh, Porter didn't even have to appear in court...and settled for $1000 fine. No word about the video being released either. And you just know that Goodell isn't going to do squat.

It's almost like it didn't happen.

Porter pleads no contest to battery

By Greg A. Bedard

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The attorney for Joey Porter today entered a plea of guilty/no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge that the Dolphins' linebacker faced in Las Vegas Justice Court, a member of the Las Vegas District Attorney's office said.

Porter, who was not present in the courtroom, was fined $1,000, which was paid by attorney Karen Winckler. The case is now closed, said Kathy Karstedt, assistant to District Attorney David Roger.

Porter faced a maximum sentence of six months in jail and/or a $1,000 fine for punching Cincinnati Bengals left tackle Levi Jones in the face March 18 at a Las Vegas casino.

The possibility remains that Porter could be punished by the NFL.

Porter could not be reached for comment. Both the Dolphins and NFL had no immediate comment.

Bengals public relations director Jack Brennan said Jones did not want to comment.

The incident occurred just a few weeks after Porter, 30, signed a $32 million free-agent deal with the Dolphins after eight seasons with the pissburgh Steelers.

Porter and Jones became heated rivals when they both played in the AFC North. The fight started at a blackjack table in The Palms hotel/casino and continued near the front entrance.

Jones, 6-foot-5 and 307 pounds, received on-site medical attention to treat a small laceration on his forehead. He said the attack included not just Porter (6-3, 250) but his companions, too.

Porter and Jones are scheduled to meet again — on the field — in the season finale Dec. 30, when the Bengals visit Dolphin Stadium.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Porter and Jones are scheduled to meet again — on the field — in the season finale Dec. 30, when the Bengals visit Dolphin Stadium.

Heh-heh...this oughta be good!

[Defender]

PFT seems to think the Rog is likely to hand him a one game suspension. My money is on this pretentious bag of douche getting a pass due to this being his first incident.

[Kazkal]

Porter and Jones are scheduled to meet again — on the field — in the season finale Dec. 30, when the Bengals visit Dolphin Stadium.

Heh-heh...this oughta be good!

Eh it's funny that people think they'll meet up,Jason Taylor = top 5 Defensive Player top 3 Pass rusher...

I look forward to see Big Willie owning porter though

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

And you just know that Goodell isn't going to do squat.

I don't know that at all. Based on his record so far, I'll bet he will. How are you defining 'squat'? I wouldn't be surprised to see a short suspension at all.

[Section 310]

Goodell has to take some action on this.

How can the league give a death sentence to a guy like Ricky Williams who just likes to sit around in Jamaica and get high (not hurting anyone) and turn a blind eye to Porter who gave the bum's rush to a "co-worker" in the middle of a freakin' casino?

I think the video's release could turn the tide in this case. Now that the criminal matter is resolved, it would seem that a public records request would have to be honored by the LVPD.

[DesperateDerelict]

Goodell has to take some action on this.

How can the league give a death sentence to a guy like Ricky Williams who just likes to sit around in Jamaica and get high (not hurting anyone) and turn a blind eye to Porter who gave the bum's rush to a "co-worker" in the middle of a freakin' casino?

Despite the best efforts of NORML, pot is still illegal, and still viewed as a narcotic.

I think the video's release could turn the tide in this case. Now that the criminal matter is resolved, it would seem that a public records request would have to be honored by the LVPD.

If there's ANY chance of a civil suit for the Rabbit punch, they will NOT release the video.

[HairOnFire]

And you just know that Goodell isn't going to do squat.

How are you defining 'squat'? I wouldn't be surprised to see a short suspension at all.

Okay, let's all define what we think a fair penalty would be and then see if Goodell falls short. Or if you prefer, does squat...or less.

My first question. Does Porter have a past history that needs to be considered? Right off the top of my head I can think of three, and I'm no Joey Porter historian. there could very easily be more.

1- Porter being shot in the buttocks

2 -The mid-field brawl against Cleveland

3 -Porter's dog going on a pony eating rampage

Second question. Did Porter show remorse or contrition after any of the above incidents? I'd have to say no.

1 - After Porter was shot he took no personal responsibility for the situation.

2 - Even after the brawl he was responsible for led to a rule change Porter never stopped his mid-field antics.

3 - Porter kept local authorities from putting down his pony eating dog by shipping it out of state to Las Vegas.

Third question. What would be fair punishment for the current incident? A quick check of the facts shows Porter was completely responsible for the incident. He approached Jones, and from all reports in a threatening manner. He threw a drink in Jones face. He threw the first punch. He attacked knowing that he was backed up by at least 6 other men. Jones was alone. The attack involved personal property being stolen from Jones. Finally, Porter repeatedly lied about what happened until a videotape was produced. Only then did Porter stop his rant about Jones being a punk who got what he deserved after shooting off his mouth.

Add it all up, and then factor in Porter's past history, and I think a minimum suspension of 4-6 games is warranted. But I fully expect Roger "Squat Thrust" Goodell to fall far short of that mark for two reasons.

First, the suspension would punish Porter's new team while having no impact whatsoever on the team that coddled him and enabled his behavior for almost a decade. Second, Goodell seems overly concerned with perception and media image. Fair punishment and logic, not so much. And there's the rub because the media has never seen fit to treat the Porter/Jones fight seriously. In fact, when the media isn't ignoring the incident, or snickering softly to itself....it actually uses the fight as a way to promote interest in this seasons Bengal/Dolphin game.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Okay, let's all define what we think a fair penalty would be and then see if Goodell falls short. Or if you prefer, does squat...or less.

I've never understood your hatred for Goodell, I've haven't seen evidence that his schtick is simply for media consumption. That said, I'll bite the bullet and play the role of Porter's agent, and address your evidence:

*Midfield skirmishes: NFL doesn't care about that stuff as much as the NBA does, so I don't see that figuring here.

*Pony Assault - he didn't actively commit the crime, it occurred because he wasn't careful enough with his sweet innocent death machines. The commissioner will consider it somewhat I expect, but not that much.

*Shot in the ass - Porter was the one who was shot, not the one doing the shooting. While I'm sure he deserved it, I can't see that contributing.

*Jones assault - I think Goodell will take a good look at this. On the one hand, it was a violent crime, and there was a conviction. On the other hand, it's Porter's first conviction of the sort (isn't it?), and it was a misdemeanor he was convicted of, not a felony.

*Contrition - Porter kind of, sort of apologized. We all know it was bogus, but I'm sure he'll get some relief for going through the motions.

All in all, adding that up, trying to be a neutral observer as much as possible, I give him 2-4 games considering he doesn't have extensive trouble with the law. Henry and Pacman got theirs through the sheer number of incidents.

Caveat: Part of my reasoning for the lower threshold is the relative lack of evidence. If the league can get its hands on the tape and finds that the conduct was above and beyond what we know, or if Porter was involved with the theft of Levi's crap, I could see that going to your estimated 6 or so.

[HairOnFire]

*Midfield skirmishes: NFL doesn't care about that stuff as much as the NBA does, so I don't see that figuring here.

The brawl that you're so quick to ignore resulted in a rule change that Porter essentially ignores every week. That's flaunting authority, right? Not so lucky are the officials who now have to position themselves between the two opposing teams, at least whenever Porter is playing, a demand on their time that they've repeatedly complained about.

*Pony Assault - he didn't actively commit the crime, it occurred because he wasn't careful enough with his sweet innocent death machines. The commissioner will consider it somewhat I expect, but not that much.

Porter ignored official demands that his dog be turnd over to local authorities....once again flaunting authority.

*Shot in the ass - Porter was the one who was shot, not the one doing the shooting. While I'm sure he deserved it, I can't see that contributing.

Isn't part of Goodell's Boy Scout Code of Conduct based upon staying out of situations, and away from people, where events like random shootings are more likely? That said, like you imply, it almost certainly wasn't random.

*Jones assault - I think Goodell will take a good look at this. On the one hand, it was a violent crime, and there was a conviction. On the other hand, it's Porter's first conviction of the sort (isn't it?), and it was a misdemeanor he was convicted of, not a felony.

If Goodell were truly interested in stopping this type of behavior wouldn't he have to question how much of a message Porter was given when his lawyer showed up in court with a check for $1000.

*Contrition - Porter kind of, sort of apologized. We all know it was bogus, but I'm sure he'll get some relief for going through the motions.

Why should any consideration be given if it's well known that any apology given isn't sincere.

All in all, adding that up, trying to be a neutral observer as much as possible, I give him 2-4 games considering he doesn't have extensive trouble with the law. Henry and Pacman got theirs through the sheer number of incidents.

But as I pointed out...Porter is no stranger to legal trouble, and his troubles have all been related to acts of misplaced aggression or extreme violence.

Caveat: Part of my reasoning for the lower threshold is the relative lack of evidence. If the league can get its hands on the tape and finds that the conduct was above and beyond what we know, or if Porter was involved with the theft of Levi's crap, I could see that going to your estimated 6 or so.

I said 4-6. The lower number represents a reasonable punishment based upon what we already know. The higher figure is what might be justified if the videotape shows what I think it does.

[The PatternMaster]

Porter should be investigated for dog fighting cause if his dogs are eating ponies he ain't training them to be house pets. By not cooperating with the authorities and putting this vicious animal to rest, Porter proved that he has something to gain by this dog being alive, I wouldn't be surprised if he was indeed fighting dogs as it is very common.

Goodell has to take some action against Porter because his actions were carried out after Goodell drew his line in the sand. I think Goodell is going to let Porter twist in the wind a bit and mead out punishment before the season starts.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

1) The brawl that you're so quick to ignore resulted in a rule change that Porter essentially ignores every week. That's flaunting authority, right? Not so lucky are the officials who now have to position themselves between the two opposing teams, at least whenever Porter is playing, a demand on their time that they've repeatedly complained about.

2) Porter ignored official demands that his dog be turnd over to local authorities....once again flaunting authority.

3) Isn't part of Goodell's Boy Scout Code of Conduct based upon staying out of situations, and away from people, where events like random shootings are more likely? That said, like you imply, it almost certainly wasn't random.

4) If Goodell were truly interested in stopping this type of behavior wouldn't he have to question how much of a message Porter was given when his lawyer showed up in court with a check for $1000.

5) Why should any consideration be given if it's well known that any apology given isn't sincere.

6) But as I pointed out...Porter is no stranger to legal trouble, and his troubles have all been related to acts of misplaced aggression or extreme violence.

7) I said 4-6. The lower number represents a reasonable punishment based upon what we already know. The higher figure is what might be justified if the videotape shows what I think it does.

I'll number your stuff for convenience...

1) The fact that he essentially ignores it without repercussions shows how much the league cares. I really don't see them rolling some on-the-field taunting into a consideration of a suspension, as much as we would like to see it happen. That's homerism. League won't care.

2) And as I said, I'm sure the commissioner will consider that...slightly...but again, we're not talking about violence against another human here. And he didn't commit it. Negligent, yes. Might hurt him a bit given the Vick thing. But it appears that much of the NFL population likes big, violent dogs.

3) So what was Porter doing at the time that caused him to deserve to get shot, that the Commissioner can use as evidence? You and I know the answer: he's an a**h***, and that's all the explanation I need. Unfortunately, that's not illegal. In the end, there's no evidence he did anything wrong here. This will probably not play at all.

4) What you're saying is Goodell should throw the book at everyone? Fact is, as far as is proven, Porter punched Levi and Levi wasn't badly hurt. It's not like he pulled a Ray Lewis here and some guy fell on his knife. Again, if the tape proves otherwise, that's different.

5) Because you can't prove sincerity.

6) But you haven't shown that. We have two incidents that will really play here, that amount to more than Porter just being an a**h***: one involving dogs, and one involving misdemeanor assault. Is he aggressive and violent? Yes. But this is the NFL, so that's kind of ignored. Is he also an a**h***? Yes, but that's not illegal either. So again, in terms of things the commissioner can really look at to suspend him, we have dogs and a punch. Is that 6 games? No. Probably not even 4. I'm just saying, trying to take a neutral look at this, don't be surprised when you don't see Goodell come down with a death sentence.

7) I understand. And I'm going with 2. If he hadn't punched an NFL player, I'd go with 1. I'll double it if video confirms theft or forethought (ie, Porter did bring 6 friends to intentionally jump Levi, then stole his 'bling'). Remember, the facts in this case (other than a video which may or may not show much) are very fuzzy - probably why the prosecutor knocked it down to misdemeanor assault. Based on what can be proven, I don't think you'll see 4.

Believe me, I'd love to be wrong. Just as long as he isn't suspended for the Bengals game.

[HoosierCat]

I'd be surprised if Goodell levies any punishment on Porter. His new policy is clearly aimed at players who have gotten into trouble multiple times over a short period of time. Joey doesn't fit the bill. That said, Levi ought to sue his punk a**.

[The PatternMaster]

I'd be surprised if Goodell levies any punishment on Porter. His new policy is clearly aimed at players who have gotten into trouble multiple times over a short period of time. Joey doesn't fit the bill. That said, Levi ought to sue his punk a**.

I completely agree, if it went down the way Levi said it did, he should sue for millions.

[HairOnFire]

I'm just saying, trying to take a neutral look at this, don't be surprised when you don't see Goodell come down with a death sentence.

I won't be. In fact, I've predicted several times that he'll do nothing, or something that closely resembles nothing. But that only serves to underscore why I mock Goodell's get tough act. Because I'm fairly certain it's an act that's based more on image and perception than actual logic or fairplay. So not only do I expect Goodell to do far less than what I think is reasonable and justified, a 4-6 game suspension, I think he'll fall far short of the 2-4 game suspension that you felt was justified.

Simply put, I'm betting the media hasn't given the Porter/Jones fight the level of attention needed to provoke Goodell into taking real action. And there's the rub, because I have no respect for a system of punishment that is largely dictated by the amount of media coverage a case may get.

[HairOnFire]

I'd be surprised if Goodell levies any punishment on Porter. His new policy is clearly aimed at players who have gotten into trouble multiple times over a short period of time. Joey doesn't fit the bill.

I don't disagree. I'd say that it's becoming blatantly obvious that Goodell cares very little about the seriousness of the charges brought against the players in question, but concerns himself greatly with the number of headlines produced and the resulting damage done to the NFL's public image over the short term. And IMHO that's completely bass-ackwards.

Look at it this way. Chris Henry melts down in spectacular fashion over a very short period of time and creates headline after headline in the process. He quickly becomes a poster child for everything that's wrong with the current NFL precisely because it's said that his actions prove that he doesn't care or simply can't learn. But the very speed of his meltdown dictates that he hasn't had much of a chance to learn, right? Meanwhile, veteran NFL players like Joey Porter and Steve McNair show up on the police blotter sheets every couple of years...proving far better what it means to never learn from past mistakes...yet these players aren't looked at bad character types.

In fact, when they beat their wife, get shot, or repeatedly drive drunk excuses are made in their behalf.

[HoosierCat]

I'd say that it's becoming blatantly obvious that Goodell cares very little about the seriousness of the charges brought against the players in question, but concerns himself greatly with the number of headlines produced and the resulting damage done to the NFL's public image over the short term.

Well, of course. Goodell is the commissioner of the NFL, not attorney general. His job isn't to actually punish wrongdoing, any more than that's the job of any corporate CEO type. But it is his job (among others) to protect the "integrity" (read: image) of the league.

I'd argue Goodell isnt doing anything that isn't done by companies all the time. Employees who generate embarassing headlines often find themselves looking for work. If they are highly placed enough, they may have the opportunity to "leave to spend more time with their family." No organization likes bad publicity, and if it keeps coming like it did in Pacman's and Henry's, you can bet something will eventually be done.

[HairOnFire]

Goodell is the commissioner of the NFL, not attorney general. His job isn't to actually punish wrongdoing, any more than that's the job of any corporate CEO type. But it is his job (among others) to protect the "integrity" (read: image) of the league.

Fair enough. However, if the commissioner's new "Get Tough" policy is dictated by the amount of media coverage generated, and not simple logic and fairness, then how is it supposed to serve as a deterent to players? Wouldn't a policy based upon the whims & short attention span of the media be nearly impossible for players to understand, as Marvin Lewis just implied.

[HoosierCat]

Fair enough. However, if the commissioner's new "Get Tough" policy is dictated by the amount of media coverage generated, and not simple logic and fairness, then how is it supposed to serve as a deterent to players? Wouldn't a policy based upon the whims & short attention span of the media be nearly impossible for players to understand, as Marvin Lewis just implied.

I wouldn't think so. As long as you stay out of situations that would generate negative press, you should be fine. And since a player can still be caught in such a situation by accident, Goodell seems to be holding off action unless there's multiple incidents in a short period of time, which would suggest that it's the player who continues to put himself in bad spots, not just bad luck. Takeo Spikes said basically that in a sportsline.com article a couple weeks back.

[Spor_tees]

If Joey Porter isn't handed any type of suspension for his transgressions against Levi, I foresee a possible large lawsuit coming from players like Pac Man and Henry. What's good for the Goose is good for the gander and you have to punish all "employees" evenly and fairly or just like any job, there can be litigation. That's why several companies have a standardized guideline similar to the one the NFL has for substance abuse. But when you have a conduct policy that the punishment is doled out only by how the commissioner sees fit on a case by case basis, that is just asking for trouble.

[jjakq27]

Pete Prisco story about Porter and how he is overrated. I think it is the same article about Deltha and Geathers.

http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/10205109

And another speculating that Porter could here from the commish real soon.

http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/story/10203521

[HairOnFire]

And since a player can still be caught in such a situation by accident, Goodell seems to be holding off action unless there's multiple incidents in a short period of time, which would suggest that it's the player who continues to put himself in bad spots, not just bad luck.

Again, no argument. Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, Tank Johnson, and even Mike Vick are all examples of players being linked to multiple incidents/arrests over a fairly short period of time. But if the commissioner is seriously interested in restoring discipline how can he completely ignore examples where veteran players who have also been involved in multiple incidents over a longer period of time? Isn't Steve McNair's latest drunk driving arrest proof that he never really learned the lesson the first time? And if Joey Porter stays home and naps, after giving his lawyer enough pocket change to pay his fines, what lesson has he learned?

And knowing those things to be true why should I be suprised if next week Steve McNair gets busted a 3rd time for drunk driving?

[HoosierCat]

But if the commissioner is seriously interested in restoring discipline how can he completely ignore examples where veteran players who have also been involved in multiple incidents over a longer period of time?

Well, I think you already answered that question yourself: he's interested in stopping the headlines, not the incidents, and with the short attention span of the media, the key is less "how many" and more "how close together" incidents come. In short, the real message coming out of NFL HQ is: don't get caught.

I think the challenge will come with something like the Vick deal. We think of Porter of being high-profile, but he really isn't. Stories about his cheap shot at Levi in Vegas don't routinely reference past flare-ups like the dog thing or getting popped in the a** outside a bar. But Vick is a Big Star. Already in stories about the whole dog fighting thing you see references to the water bottle incident, and even "Ron Mexico." In that case, the "how close together" bit ceases to matter, because everything unto his cheating on a first grade math test will be dredged up. Will be interesting to see what Goodell does then.

[HairOnFire]

For whatever it might be worth, the talking heads on the NFL Network were recently discussing whether Porter was likely to receive a suspension from Goodell. Most felt that he wouldn't and at most would receive a fine equal to one game check. One commentator felt that Goodell would have to suspend Porter, but doubted it would be longer than a single game.

There weren't that many comments added, but the ones that were seemed familiar enough. Not enough media attention. The Dolphins just paid the guy a ton of money. And best, it's one thing to read about what happened and something very different to actually see it....so all bet's were off the table if Goodell watched the video before ruling.

[HairOnFire]

But if the commissioner is seriously interested in restoring discipline how can he completely ignore examples where veteran players who have also been involved in multiple incidents over a longer period of time?

Well, I think you already answered that question yourself: he's interested in stopping the headlines, not the incidents, and with the short attention span of the media, the key is less "how many" and more "how close together" incidents come.

Then it is what I keep saying it is.

Grandstanding. Window dressing. Smoke shoveling.

Or my favorite, tilting at windmills.