Joey Porter gets 3 game fine

[Spor_tees]

Joey Porter got a three game fine from the NFL but didn't get suspended for any games. Thoughts? I think it is a load of crap seeing what some other guys got. Especially with the seriousness that dog fighting is getting and knowing that Porter raises vicious pit bulls, one of which that got lose and killed a neighbors horse.

[BengalszoneBilly]

Joey Porter got a three game fine from the NFL but didn't get suspended for any games. Thoughts?

Yeah, I'm a little surprised how lightly the league office hit him on this. I thought a three game suspension would most likely be incurred by this offense by Joey.

[redsbengalsbucks]

Is it Jerry or Joey that got the 3 game fine?

[Spor_tees]

Is it Jerry or Joey that got the 3 game fine?

Ooops, if a Mod can edit the title, it was Joey Porter that got the 3 game fine for the Las Vegas incident with Levi

[BengalszoneBilly]

Is it Jerry or Joey that got the 3 game fine?

Ooops, if a Mod can edit the title, it was Joey Porter that got the 3 game fine for the Las Vegas incident with Levi

OH yeah...one edit, coming up!

[redsbengalsbucks]

I find the lack of a suspension for Porter's actions are not in line with the trend the NFL has set.

He was involved in a violent group mugging of another NFL player and all he gets is a fine. Seems that as long as you have already become a star name in the NFL, you will be allowed to behave much worse than a greenhorn.

Vick is given the benefit of being innocent untill proven guilty, but Pacman gets 1 year off, how is this consistent?

It seems as if Goodell was just out to make a big PR splash as the new sherrif in charge of the NFL and now that he has the power he wanted, he has become to chicken to actually enforce his new morallity onto the veteran troublemakers.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

This certainly adds some credence to redsbengalsbucks' point that Goodell's 'tough cop' act is for media consumption, since the Jones/Porter fracas didn't get that much play. PFT also said a while back that the Dolphins were fighting hard to keep him from getting suspended, and since they gave up a home game to London, the idea I guess was that they had a favor to call in. I might guess that he lost 3 game checks to possibly avoid being suspended for one or two.

[jjakq27]

I thought he would have at least gotten a couple of games off.

His coach says it's over. I say where's the apology? See you on Dec. 30, Jo-Jo....if they haven't released you by then.

http://www.nfl.com/teams/story/MIA/10263595

[ShulaSteakhouse]

Well I think one thing you have to consider is that this was 2 players - not involving the general public.

The NFL definitely seems to treat habitual offenders differently than those with isolated incidents - as they should. That is why Pac and Henry were treated so harshly - getting arrested or having brushes with the law 5-10 times over a year's time is a little ridiculous.

As far as I know, Porter hasn't had any other incidents (his dog doesn't count as stupid as that was)? First time offenders usually get fined - and that's a pretty harsh fine for getting into a scuffle with another player.

[oldschooler]

Brian Urlacher got fined $100,000 for wearing a Vitamin Water hat at the Super Bowl.

Joey Porter gets $141,176 for assaulting and mugging a fellow NFL player,

after the New "tougher on bad conduct" policy was implemented.

Yeah, that`s fair . . .

OH AND WHERE IS THE DAMN VIDEO ???!!!!

[Crazy4Bengals]

One time thing vs. Constant troublemaking.

Don't worry, Joey will screw up again and get a half year off.

[711chad]

wat wuld levi have gotten he had hit joey porter???more than a fine i can tell u that

[BengalszoneBilly]

OH AND WHERE IS THE DAMN VIDEO ???!!!!

It'll probably never be seen outside of the casino where it was recorded I heard due to how bad it made the security there look. They basically don't want to air their dirty laundry.

[NJ29]

Brian Urlacher got fined $100,000 for wearing a Vitamin Water hat at the Super Bowl.

Joey Porter gets $141,176 for assaulting and mugging a fellow NFL player,

after the New "tougher on bad conduct" policy was implemented.

Yeah, that`s fair . . .

OH AND WHERE IS THE DAMN VIDEO ???!!!!

Wow, that's a little ridiculous.

wat wuld levi have gotten he had hit joey porter???more than a fine i can tell u that

Yup. A Bengal doing something stupid draws a lot more attention than someone else doing it.

[BengalByTheBay]

I disagree with Shula's take (what are the odds, huh?) that this was a private squabble only involving two players. In addition to the Porter posse, there were innumerable members of the public that clearly could've been injured by this incident. I continue to be dumbfounded at the degree of control that the Malouf bros. (likely assisted by the LVPD) have exerted to keep the lid on this. If I was Levi, I'd go to the Maloufs and insist that I'm going to file a civil suit at which the videotape(s) will be subpoenaed. Can you imagine worse publicity for a casino than video of its keystone coplike security guys slowly resopnding to this melee and getting manhandled by NFL players and thugs? I'm guessing the Palms would choke up an easy 6 figures to settle that claim for Porter. Of course, I'm just an opportunistic shark -- but that's what I'd do.

As for the "league conduct policy" -- it's a sham, arbitrary and appears calculated only to respond to a few situations that involve a high degree of media exposure. Goodell's "get tough" policy now looks ludicrous as he is forced to admit that he won't act in certain circumstances prior to a conviction (contrary to his earlier stance) and that the seriousness of the offense will be generally outweighed by some vague claim that "repeat offenders" are the focus -- whatever that means. There's no way on God's green earth that Vick doesn't ultimately get convicted of something (or plea bargain out) in this dogfighting thing and Goodell's going to look like he's coddling a real criminal to avoid hurting jersey sales and the overall image of the league in order to slap some wrists of those players retarded enough to keep getting in trouble for DUI's and stuff like that.

[HoosierCat]

As for the "league conduct policy" -- it's a sham, arbitrary and appears calculated only to respond to a few situations that involve a high degree of media exposure.

Regarding the connection to media exposure: well, yes. That's been clear from the get-go. But I disagree that makes Goodell's policy a sham, arbitrary, or ludicrous. Maintaining the company's image is the job of any chief executive, and employees who publicly embarass the company risk discipline or termination. And the exact punishment is very often tied to the employee's importance to the organization. In short, I see nothing going on here that doesn't go on everywhere else. Fair? Of course not. Par for the course? Yup.

As for Porter's discipline, it doesn't bug me. In a way, it's even better than a suspension. If you got suspended without pay for three days...well, at least you got an unpaid vacation, right? Joey, meanwhile, doesn't get paid, but still has to go to work.

[BengalByTheBay]

As for the "league conduct policy" -- it's a sham, arbitrary and appears calculated only to respond to a few situations that involve a high degree of media exposure.

Regarding the connection to media exposure: well, yes. That's been clear from the get-go. But I disagree that makes Goodell's policy a sham, arbitrary, or ludicrous. Maintaining the company's image is the job of any chief executive, and employees who publicly embarass the company risk discipline or termination. And the exact punishment is very often tied to the employee's importance to the organization. In short, I see nothing going on here that doesn't go on everywhere else. Fair? Of course not. Par for the course? Yup.

As for Porter's discipline, it doesn't bug me. In a way, it's even better than a suspension. If you got suspended without pay for three days...well, at least you got an unpaid vacation, right? Joey, meanwhile, doesn't get paid, but still has to go to work.

It's arbitrary because the employees don't know who is important enough to the organization to sidestep punishment and who isn't. Goodell alone decides this, so it actually is arbitrary. There is, therefore, no real deterrent effect unless each player admits to himself that he's not that important and likely to be made an example of by the league. Moreover, the lip service paid to "repeat offenders" makes it even more arbitrary. Jones wasn't convicted of anything at the time of his suspension, so is he a repeat offender just because he was arrested more than once? Is he a repeat offender because he was in trouble with the law more than once. If it's the latter, both Porter and Vick qualify on that score. If it's the former, then the league has decided that arrest = guilt. We've seen numerous times where a player is arrested and then actually proven to be innocent of the charges -- just like occasions where a player wasn't arrested for something that he very probably was guilty.

In terms of the league's self-interest alone, it would seem to me that Goodell is in danger of losing his credibility to the public. So, there is a problem with treating important players differently. This isn't really analogous to some anonymous executive at GE getting his hand slapped for insider trading or something like that. NFL players are -- each and every one -- to some degree recognizable and celebrities. Goodell has basically conceded that by implementing this policy in the first place. Isn't he saying -- if you embarass the league there will be consequences? That was rhetorical -- the answer is of course yes. To suggest that Chris Henry has embarassed the league more than Mike Vick is ..... questionable.

Whether it's a sham is a subjective opinion. The fact that you don't think the policy is a sham, based solely on the fact that the same sort of thing goes on in other sectors of the corporate world, appears to ignore the fact that the NFL is purely an entertainment venture. If Goodell is charged with protecting the league's image -- I would simply point to the huge uproar going on right now because he has not done anything about Vick -- he's not doing a good job. To say -- we'll let the justice system play out -- is exactly the opposite of what he has previously said.

Finally, this really isn't a Bengals-clouding-my-vision thing. Yeah, if Chris Henry hadn't been whacked previously, it would likely be less of an interest to me, but it's clear that there is a double or triple standard for this "get tough" policy. As such, it's not really getting tough in any meaningful way and I think Goodell underestimated the number of times he would have to continue to "get tough" if he wanted to make it appear any way other than what it does now -- a sham.

[HoosierCat]

It's arbitrary because the employees don't know who is important enough to the organization to sidestep punishment and who isn't. Goodell alone decides this, so it actually is arbitrary.

Oh, come on. It isn't arbitrary because you know if you embarass the league, you get punished. As for who is important enough to get fired and who'd only get smacked on the wrists -- hell, that's obvious to anyone who follows the game. Wasn't this board full of predictions that nothing serious would happen to Joey because he's a big name? Wasn't it full of predictions that the league would have to be dragged kicking and screaming into suspending a star like Vick? You're telling me we can figure it out, but they can't?

There is, therefore, no real deterrent effect unless each player admits to himself that he's not that important and likely to be made an example of by the league.

If they aren't important enough to be made an example of by the league, events have shown they are likely to be made an example of by their team. Ask AJ Nicholson, one of many no-names who did no more than get arrested this offseason and quickly cut.

Moreover, the lip service paid to "repeat offenders" makes it even more arbitrary. Jones wasn't convicted of anything at the time of his suspension, so is he a repeat offender just because he was arrested more than once? Is he a repeat offender because he was in trouble with the law more than once.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

If it's the latter, both Porter and Vick qualify on that score. If it's the former, then the league has decided that arrest = guilt.

Yup (it's just that they are bigger names = different treatment) and yup.

In terms of the league's self-interest alone, it would seem to me that Goodell is in danger of losing his credibility to the public. So, there is a problem with treating important players differently.

Happens every day (see Libby, Scooter). As for Goodell's credibility, well, since when has he had any? Haven't we had endless posts talking about how full of crap he is?

If Goodell is charged with protecting the league's image -- I would simply point to the huge uproar going on right now because he has not done anything about Vick -- he's not doing a good job. To say -- we'll let the justice system play out -- is exactly the opposite of what he has previously said.

There would be a huge uproar over the Vick thing even if Goodell had never disciplined a player before. He'd still be getting screamed out for not "doing something."

but it's clear that there is a double or triple standard for this "get tough" policy. As such, it's not really getting tough in any meaningful way and I think Goodell underestimated the number of times he would have to continue to "get tough" if he wanted to make it appear any way other than what it does now -- a sham.

Of course there's a double standard. But that doesn't mean "get tough" doesn't exist. Ask Chris Henry about the "sham" policy. Ask Pacman. Ask Tank. I'm sure they would tell you it's all too real.

[BengalByTheBay]

I'm trying like heck, HC, to see where we disagree about the facts, but we don't. Arbitrary is defined, in part, as "arising from will or caprice." How do you agree that different people get treated differently under the same policy for the same thing and then say it's not arbitrary. It is -- Goodell decides himself without any (real or consistent) guidelines.

Your point seems to be that everybody knows *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge* what's really going on. True or not, that doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

[Crazy4Bengals]

I'm trying like heck, HC, to see where we disagree about the facts, but we don't. Arbitrary is defined, in part, as "arising from will or caprice." How do you agree that different people get treated differently under the same policy for the same thing and then say it's not arbitrary. It is -- Goodell decides himself without any (real or consistent) guidelines.

Your point seems to be that everybody knows *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge* what's really going on. True or not, that doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

Please show me one example, just one, of two people doing the same thing and being treated differently. Thank you.

[Spor_tees]

If two players get into a fight on the field there is going to be a fine and most likely a suspension. So with the NFL worried about it's public perception, why should it be treated as any less severe when two players have an altercation out in the public? I don't see it.

[HoosierCat]

I'm trying like heck, HC, to see where we disagree about the facts, but we don't. Arbitrary is defined, in part, as "arising from will or caprice." How do you agree that different people get treated differently under the same policy for the same thing and then say it's not arbitrary.

I don't think we disagree, I just come at it from another angle. I think that the league policy isn't arbitrary in that, if LB Joe Superstar and LB Jim Noname both get a DUI, both are also going to face league discipline. It's also true that the discipline will vary because one is a star and the other a nobody -- but that variance isn't arbitrary either, it has a direct relationship with their status. The bigger name they are, the less chance they get of anything other than a Joey Porter-esque slap on the wrist.

Is that unfair? From the viewpoint of equal justice, that the same "crime" should draw the same punishment regardless of who commits it, absolutely. But in reality, things work out like that all the time, in the courts, in business, in schools. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I just don't see why it should be expected to be any different in the NFL.

[BengalByTheBay]

I'm trying like heck, HC, to see where we disagree about the facts, but we don't. Arbitrary is defined, in part, as "arising from will or caprice." How do you agree that different people get treated differently under the same policy for the same thing and then say it's not arbitrary. It is -- Goodell decides himself without any (real or consistent) guidelines.

Your point seems to be that everybody knows *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge* what's really going on. True or not, that doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

Please show me one example, just one, of two people doing the same thing and being treated differently. Thank you.

Seriously? If you can't see it, I can't help you. If you're splitting hairs about what the "same thing" is (ie, arrested on exact same charge, etc.) then you're being overly technical about it in my opinion. You're welcome.

[Crazy4Bengals]

I'm trying like heck, HC, to see where we disagree about the facts, but we don't. Arbitrary is defined, in part, as "arising from will or caprice." How do you agree that different people get treated differently under the same policy for the same thing and then say it's not arbitrary. It is -- Goodell decides himself without any (real or consistent) guidelines.

Your point seems to be that everybody knows *wink, wink* *nudge, nudge* what's really going on. True or not, that doesn't make it any less arbitrary.

Please show me one example, just one, of two people doing the same thing and being treated differently. Thank you.

Seriously? If you can't see it, I can't help you. If you're splitting hairs about what the "same thing" is (ie, arrested on exact same charge, etc.) then you're being overly technical about it in my opinion. You're welcome.

Seriously, please show me one example of two people doing the same thing and being treated differently. I'm not even asking for the same charge, I'm asking for similar charges with similar background. The reason guys like Pac-Man and Henry got what they got while Porter got a 3 game fine is because they are repeat offenders, and this new policy is about repeat offenders. So, guys who are in trouble over and over again are going to be punished more harshly than the guy with one mistake.

[duus]

So I just returned from my 6 month checkup at the dentist. Normally I wouldn't bother boring you guys with that sort of information, but as I sat in the waiting room, I noticed something interesting. Sitting there on the table was an old SI issue that had an article about the Joey Porter signing in Miami. In it, they enumerated his 'troubles'. They listed things that I simply forgot about. You remember ... the William Green fight before the game. That was an actual physical fight, not just Joey and his big old jaw yapping. Then you had the 'bad word' usage in the Cleveland game that was caught on tape. They also mentioned the Vegas fight. Hmmm ... no prior problems? I now don't get it. Seems like a pattern to me. Seems like there is 'history' to be sure. Yet no suspension.