Probation violation charge against Thurman dismissed

[HairOnFire]

I haven't seen anything from the league that states that the suspension was based on when he was sentenced. I understand why that could be a claimed basis ("reed thin" is apt), but I haven't seen any basis stated at all other than simply issuing the suspension. If you have -- tell me where so I can check it out. Otherwise, I think Goodell is continuing to avoid giving such official explanations on the presumption that he doesn't have to. And...as I argue....if that is the case then we're back to the potential that suspensions can be levied based on pre-draft conduct regardless of how or when sentencing occurs.

No, as is his habit Goodell hasn't bothered explaining his actions...leaving everyone to speculate and fill in the blanks as best they can. Nor has it been determined that the suspension will stand after appeal. But I think Hoosier called it correctly when he noted the narrow circumstances that MIGHT have prompted Goodell to suspend Rucker.

The leap I can't make is the idea that Goodell now has broad powers that allow him to discipline any and all college players retroactively if they're drafted or signed by an NFL team.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

The leap I can't make is the idea that Goodell now has broad powers that allow him to discipline any and all college players retroactively if they're drafted or signed by an NFL team.

Here's your leap - Goodell can do whateverthehell he wants until Upshaw says something, but he seems more interested in fellating the commisioner than in protecting his players' rights.

[BengalszoneBilly]

The leap I can't make is the idea that Goodell now has broad powers that allow him to discipline any and all college players retroactively if they're drafted or signed by an NFL team.

Here's your leap - Goodell can do whateverthehell he wants until Upshaw says something, but he seems more interested in fellating the commisioner than in protecting his players' rights.

Ugh. Please, no visuals thank you.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

The leap I can't make is the idea that Goodell now has broad powers that allow him to discipline any and all college players retroactively if they're drafted or signed by an NFL team.

Here's your leap - Goodell can do whateverthehell he wants until Upshaw says something, but he seems more interested in fellating the commisioner than in protecting his players' rights.

Ugh. Please, no visuals thank you.

Be glad you didn't get sounds effects.

[The PatternMaster]

I truly believe the players would far better of with a sports agent as their Player Union rep, than a former player who doesn't know how to successfully negiotaite with the commissioner. Imagine if a guy like Carl Poston or Leigh Steinberg was representing the rights of the players instead former Raider Gene Upshaw. Former players make great coachers and TV personailties, union reps not so much.

The players have to get it together because in the end they have look out for their own best interest. Obiviously the powers that be enjoy the relationship they have with the current union boss because they get basically whatever they want when they want it. Plus the guy is too concerned with getting in good with Commish than looking out for the rights of the players, which is what he is supposed to be doing.

[BengalByTheBay]

The leap I can't make is the idea that Goodell now has broad powers that allow him to discipline any and all college players retroactively if they're drafted or signed by an NFL team.

Here's your leap - Goodell can do whateverthehell he wants until Upshaw says something, but he seems more interested in fellating the commisioner than in protecting his players' rights.

There it is. While I think it's all well-and-good to try to find some rational reason for the decisions that have been made, absent explanation from his lordship, it's just us boys talking about it. Goodell doesn't feel the need to explain himself and, thus, gives me all the ammunition I need to credibly argue that he's doing exactly what it looks like he's doing -- which is disciplining a player for something done when the NFL had no valid authority over that player. Maybe he will come out at some point and say it's because the charge was filed after he was drafted -- I tend to think he already chose not to claim that because it's only slightly less BS than what I'm claiming he did.

Interesting tactic today BTW. By rescinding the suspension but still levying discipline (fined a game check) Goodell is trying to maintain the right to still do this, but trying to take credit for being willing to listen to appeals at times. The union should continue to call him on it, but they won't. Jagoffs like Florio, for example, are claiming this just shows that the good ol commish is fair, without addressing the larger issue of the scope of his authority to do this kind of thing in the first place. IMO this is where it will end and -- but it is the first instance I can think of where Goodell saw that he was (a) wrong, and ( unpopularly so -- so he backslid enough to try to keep face.

[HoosierCat]

The leap I can't make is the idea that Goodell now has broad powers that allow him to discipline any and all college players retroactively if they're drafted or signed by an NFL team.

Here's your leap - Goodell can do whateverthehell he wants until Upshaw says something, but he seems more interested in fellating the commisioner than in protecting his players' rights.

There it is. While I think it's all well-and-good to try to find some rational reason for the decisions that have been made, absent explanation from his lordship, it's just us boys talking about it. Goodell doesn't feel the need to explain himself and, thus, gives me all the ammunition I need to credibly argue that he's doing exactly what it looks like he's doing -- which is disciplining a player for something done when the NFL had no valid authority over that player. Maybe he will come out at some point and say it's because the charge was filed after he was drafted -- I tend to think he already chose not to claim that because it's only slightly less BS than what I'm claiming he did.

Interesting tactic today BTW. By rescinding the suspension but still levying discipline (fined a game check) Goodell is trying to maintain the right to still do this, but trying to take credit for being willing to listen to appeals at times. The union should continue to call him on it, but they won't. Jagoffs like Florio, for example, are claiming this just shows that the good ol commish is fair, without addressing the larger issue of the scope of his authority to do this kind of thing in the first place. IMO this is where it will end and -- but it is the first instance I can think of where Goodell saw that he was (a) wrong, and ( unpopularly so -- so he backslid enough to try to keep face.

What BBTB said.

[Bobcat Bengal]

The leap I can't make is the idea that Goodell now has broad powers that allow him to discipline any and all college players retroactively if they're drafted or signed by an NFL team.

Here's your leap - Goodell can do whateverthehell he wants until Upshaw says something, but he seems more interested in fellating the commisioner than in protecting his players' rights.

Ugh. Please, no visuals thank you.

Be glad you didn't get sounds effects.

lol

Were YOU yourself going to do the honors?

ROFL @ DC Bengals simulating a blow job then posting the sound effects.

ANYWAY, I feel that hopefully, the commish's power binge will lead to the players realizing that 'hey, this is getting a LITTLE excessive.'

I can see this happening if he suspends the wrong player.

I mean, like a player who doesn't have a long history of getting in trouble, or suspending a player for something trivial.

Maybe then the players will realize that Gene Upshaw doesn't have their best interests in mind, and having him as their figurehead is a conflict of interest.

[HairOnFire]

The union should continue to call him on it, but they won't. Jagoffs like Florio, for example, are claiming this just shows that the good ol commish is fair, without addressing the larger issue of the scope of his authority to do this kind of thing in the first place. IMO this is where it will end and -- but it is the first instance I can think of where Goodell saw that he was (a) wrong, and ( unpopularly so -- so he backslid enough to try to keep face.

Mixed feelings from this chair.

Watching Goodell scramble to save face is a welcome sight, as is the growing number of voices in the media who have begun to openly question his policies and his motives. And just as important, Goodell admitted in the Mort interview that his recent tour of all NFL teams was intended to calm the rising anger amongst players who Goodell claimed didn't fully understand his actions. Personally, I think their dissatisfaction is a result of them understanding his actions perfectly.

What I don't like so much is how disinterested the NFLPA seems to be in regards to challenging Goodell on nearly any issue, with the obvious exception being a teams ability to reclaim roster bonuses. And that's no coincidence since roster bonuses are the most common tool used to drive up all salaries, especially those of the NFL's biggest stars. Obviously, that doesn't include Rucker...who I think should continue to fight the fine that results in the loss of a 20k gamecheck. Simply put, I think it's obvious the fine is based upon the same "reed thin" legal ground as the suspension, and wouldn't stand up to a dedicated fight.

[Kazkal]

So why wouldn't they at the least leak it to the press? The way Goodell has screwed them with his heavy handed suspensions of Bengals players I don't think they owe him any favors.

I don't think they want to expand the perceived war with the commish any more than it is now. Next thing you know Bengals players will be getting suspended for 5 years for a speeding ticket.

How much worse can it get, I mean the guy gave Odell a 2 year suspension for 1 dui while he gave another player a 2 game suspension for 2 dui's. The Bengals do have rights and the players union will have to step up sooner or later. Last time I checked the commissioner worked for the owners and Mike Brown is an owner of a NFL team.

Odell was in step 3 or 4 of the NFL's substance abuse policy when he got the DUI. He was well on his way when he got pulled over last year.

I do agree that it seems a little slanted our way though. Especially the Frostee 1-gamer.

He was in step 2 when he got his DUI making it his 3rd.

[BengalByTheBay]

Interesting to me is the "flavor-of-the-week" story that I've read about 3 different versions of in the last two days. It goes something like "whew -- Goodell sure has had a trying off-season: Pacman, Vick, Harrison...blah, blah, blah. What a great job he's doing showing that the NFL means business. This will be his legacy in saving the league from the bad guys. What a great guy with great hair." (Or something like that.)

To me, it would be at least as valid to say that Goodell rode in last season and tried to make an instant legacy as a hard-ass who showed the players their place by whipping out unprecedented punishments to a few players. In so doing, it looks to me like he thought making an example of Pacman, Henry and the Bengals as a team symbolic of "character problems" he would clean up this league and scare everybody to death. Flash forward a year and the NFL has experienced probably its worst off-season ever in terms of number and severity of arrests and criminal conduct. A fatal miscalculation by Goodell that everybody would immediately get with his program now has the league at an all-time high with "character problems" AND the media has (as he should have anticipated) focused on this like never before.

Goodell now has to at least act like he's giving Vick -- the NFL poster boy and jersey sales king -- the harshest penalty he has given out yet, or risk huge bad press. In short, he now has to walk-the-walk and, to my eye, he's squirming like he's had to take a leak for two hours.

How well has this get tough policy worked out? After a year I'd have to pronounce it a failure. The players very clearly don't care -- or at least a great number of them don't care. There is little to no deterrent value in the actions taken so far -- with the sole possible exception of those who wear Bengals colors. And the exposure to the criminality is higher than ever. Way to go Roger!

[HoosierCat]

Interesting to me is the "flavor-of-the-week" story that I've read about 3 different versions of in the last two days. It goes something like "whew -- Goodell sure has had a trying off-season: Pacman, Vick, Harrison...blah, blah, blah. What a great job he's doing showing that the NFL means business. This will be his legacy in saving the league from the bad guys. What a great guy with great hair." (Or something like that.)

To me, it would be at least as valid to say that Goodell rode in last season and tried to make an instant legacy as a hard-ass who showed the players their place by whipping out unprecedented punishments to a few players.

It might be as valid, but as you point out in your opening paragraph, it isn't what's being said. And I think we've all agreed that his actions have more to do with marketing and PR than actually punishing players. So from that perspective, his "God-el" act is working just fine.

[HairOnFire]

How well has this get tough policy worked out? After a year I'd have to pronounce it a failure. The players very clearly don't care -- or at least a great number of them don't care. There is little to no deterrent value in the actions taken so far -- with the sole possible exception of those who wear Bengals colors. And the exposure to the criminality is higher than ever. Way to go Roger!

Exactly. And the reason there's no deterrent is due to the uneven and logic defying ways that the punishment is being handed out AND because Goodell hasn't done a single thing to address the source of the problems. In fact, I think it's fair to say that he only acts when things are dumped in his lap....usually by sources outside the NFL.

But yeah, he's certainly taught the Bengal franchise a lesson....something that probably sits very well with fans living in Baltimore and Pittsburgh..

[BengalByTheBay]

Interesting to me is the "flavor-of-the-week" story that I've read about 3 different versions of in the last two days. It goes something like "whew -- Goodell sure has had a trying off-season: Pacman, Vick, Harrison...blah, blah, blah. What a great job he's doing showing that the NFL means business. This will be his legacy in saving the league from the bad guys. What a great guy with great hair." (Or something like that.)

To me, it would be at least as valid to say that Goodell rode in last season and tried to make an instant legacy as a hard-ass who showed the players their place by whipping out unprecedented punishments to a few players.

It might be as valid, but as you point out in your opening paragraph, it isn't what's being said. And I think we've all agreed that his actions have more to do with marketing and PR than actually punishing players. So from that perspective, his "God-el" act is working just fine.

He's living on borrowed time, however. I don't expect that the "soccer mom" is ever going to get what's really going on, but the core NFL audience seems to be getting a little ticked. Plus, how many "worst offseason ever" experiences is Goodell going to get a pass on anyway? I'm guessing one.

[BengalByTheBay]

Interesting to me is the "flavor-of-the-week" story that I've read about 3 different versions of in the last two days. It goes something like "whew -- Goodell sure has had a trying off-season: Pacman, Vick, Harrison...blah, blah, blah. What a great job he's doing showing that the NFL means business. This will be his legacy in saving the league from the bad guys. What a great guy with great hair." (Or something like that.)

To me, it would be at least as valid to say that Goodell rode in last season and tried to make an instant legacy as a hard-ass who showed the players their place by whipping out unprecedented punishments to a few players.

It might be as valid, but as you point out in your opening paragraph, it isn't what's being said. And I think we've all agreed that his actions have more to do with marketing and PR than actually punishing players. So from that perspective, his "God-el" act is working just fine.

He's living on borrowed time, however. I don't expect that the "soccer mom" is ever going to get what's really going on, but the core NFL audience seems to be getting a little ticked. Plus, how many "worst offseason ever" experiences is Goodell going to get a pass on anyway? I'm guessing one.

[BengalByTheBay]

Interesting to me is the "flavor-of-the-week" story that I've read about 3 different versions of in the last two days. It goes something like "whew -- Goodell sure has had a trying off-season: Pacman, Vick, Harrison...blah, blah, blah. What a great job he's doing showing that the NFL means business. This will be his legacy in saving the league from the bad guys. What a great guy with great hair." (Or something like that.)

To me, it would be at least as valid to say that Goodell rode in last season and tried to make an instant legacy as a hard-ass who showed the players their place by whipping out unprecedented punishments to a few players.

It might be as valid, but as you point out in your opening paragraph, it isn't what's being said. And I think we've all agreed that his actions have more to do with marketing and PR than actually punishing players. So from that perspective, his "God-el" act is working just fine.

He's living on borrowed time, however. I don't expect that the "soccer mom" is ever going to get what's really going on, but the core NFL audience seems to be getting a little ticked. Plus, how many "worst offseason ever" experiences is Goodell going to get a pass on anyway? I'm guessing one.

EDIT: So, this is what happens when the site freezes up and you just try to quit out of the thread. 3 times?? Really?? I obviously had a teriffic point. What do I win?

[HairOnFire]

3 times?? Really?? I obviously had a teriffic point. What do I win?

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

[HoosierCat]

[Obviously, that doesn't include Rucker...who I think should continue to fight the fine that results in the loss of a 20k gamecheck. Simply put, I think it's obvious the fine is based upon the same "reed thin" legal ground as the suspension, and wouldn't stand up to a dedicated fight.

Yeah, it's an odd ruling. If there's no justification for the suspension...then there ought to be no justification for the fine, right?

But since the "appeals judge" in this case is Goodell, I suspect a deal was cut: Rucker drops any further appeals or legal actions and pays the fine, Goodell drops the suspension. I guess Rucker felt it was worth it to get the issue behind him.

[HoosierCat]

He's living on borrowed time, however. I don't expect that the "soccer mom" is ever going to get what's really going on, but the core NFL audience seems to be getting a little ticked. Plus, how many "worst offseason ever" experiences is Goodell going to get a pass on anyway? I'm guessing one.

Well, I'm willing to bet that as far as "worst offseasons ever," the Vick-goes-to-jail saga is going to be pretty hard to top. Maybe if Carson Palmer gets caught dumping a truck full of kittens into the Ohio, or Peyton Manning gets exposed as an al-Queda terrorist, that might do it, but it will be tough IMHO.

As for the core NFL audience, I dunno. Most non-Cincy fans I talk to seem unfazed. We'll see.

[BengalByTheBay]

He's living on borrowed time, however. I don't expect that the "soccer mom" is ever going to get what's really going on, but the core NFL audience seems to be getting a little ticked. Plus, how many "worst offseason ever" experiences is Goodell going to get a pass on anyway? I'm guessing one.

Well, I'm willing to bet that as far as "worst offseasons ever," the Vick-goes-to-jail saga is going to be pretty hard to top. Maybe if Carson Palmer gets caught dumping a truck full of kittens into the Ohio, or Peyton Manning gets exposed as an al-Queda terrorist, that might do it, but it will be tough IMHO.

As for the core NFL audience, I dunno. Most non-Cincy fans I talk to seem unfazed. We'll see.

So we shall. (Helpful hint -- if you want to make a point it helps to post it 3 times.)

[HairOnFire]

Well, I'm willing to bet that as far as "worst offseasons ever," the Vick-goes-to-jail saga is going to be pretty hard to top.

Bringing us back to my point about Goodell not addressing the problems at their source.

I've personally written several threads, some dating back more than decade, that touch on NFL players fondness for "Superdogs"....including one that pointed out that the NFL considered the growing problem so serious that two or three years ago it hired a full-time staff to train, rehabilitate, and place dogs that players were unable to control. Concerns over dogfighting, animal cruelty, and abandonment were well documented and brought to the NFL's attention long before Goodell first met with Vick, and it should be pointed out that Goodell has still done absolutely nothing to address the issue beyond indefinately suspending a player who was no longer able to play.

And turning to steroid and HGH use Goodell has again chosen to do nothing in regards to existing policies. Instead, he casually claims that the NFL is "doing enough"....ignoring the fact that players have to be remarkably stupid or unlucky to be caught using HGH....and the number of players caught using steroids is a fraction of those suspected to be doing so.

So if next offseason isn't as bad as this last one has been it's simply a matter of dumb luck OR the result of the NFL's habit of deliberately ignoring serious issues that would harm it's carefully crafted image.

[HoosierCat]

Next on God-el's plate: bad-boy Buc TE Jerramy Stevens, who was found guilty of drunk driving today.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3009122

[BengalByTheBay]

Next on God-el's plate: bad-boy Buc TE Jerramy Stevens, who was found guilty of drunk driving today.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3009122

Quick HC, since you are in the know about the non-arbitrary suspension policy, what will Stevens get? Come on....you can do it. 2 games, 8 games, whatcha think?

[HoosierCat]

Next on God-el's plate: bad-boy Buc TE Jerramy Stevens, who was found guilty of drunk driving today.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3009122

Quick HC, since you are in the know about the non-arbitrary suspension policy, what will Stevens get? Come on....you can do it. 2 games, 8 games, whatcha think?

I think this would fall under the substance abuse policy. I have no idea if Stevens has already had any strikes under that while he was in Seattle. If he gets tossed into stage one of the drug policy then I believe there are just fines attached.

EDIT: looking at the story again I see he had a booze-related incident in 2003. But he ought to have completed stages 1 and 2 of the drug program, which only last for at most 30 months under normal circumstances. So he is probably back out -- and this will probably throw him back into stage 1 again.

[BengalByTheBay]

Next on God-el's plate: bad-boy Buc TE Jerramy Stevens, who was found guilty of drunk driving today.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3009122

Quick HC, since you are in the know about the non-arbitrary suspension policy, what will Stevens get? Come on....you can do it. 2 games, 8 games, whatcha think?

I think this would fall under the substance abuse policy. I have no idea if Stevens has already had any strikes under that while he was in Seattle. If he gets tossed into stage one of the drug policy then I believe there are just fines attached.

EDIT: looking at the story again I see he had a booze-related incident in 2003. But he ought to have completed stages 1 and 2 of the drug program, which only last for at most 30 months under normal circumstances. So he is probably back out -- and this will probably throw him back into stage 1 again.

I think you're wiggling. It doesn't matter what stage of the substance abuse program he is in -- that would only enhance whatever he would receive under the personal conduct policy anyway. I hate to quote from PFT, but this is something I wouldn't know otherwise: "In April the Personal Conduct Policy was revised to bring within its scope criminal charges relating to alcohol and drug abuse, removing such offenses from the scope of the substance-abuse policy. Given his history, which Commissioner Roger Goodell surely will take into account, Stevens could be facing a suspension of four or more games."

So, given the above, I'll make it easier for you -- use the 4 games as the over/under. Does he get less, more, or 4. Don't worry, I'm not gonna hammer you if you're within 1 game or so of what results. Just get close -- after all it's predictable right? Simple mechanical application of a formula including the following factors: (1) prior "run-ins" with the law; (2) whether player is a "star"; (3) whether NFL dislikes team owner; (4) whether any animals were harmed in the making of the crime. Okay, I'm only being kind of a jerk -- but you were the one who said it wasn't arbitrary. So, take your best shot at it.