Joseph Suspended!

[HoosierCat]

While we're on the subject of Bengals, arrests, and all that, today brings a blast from the past...

Third-and-Artrell busted for DUI.

[HairOnFire]

Educate me, oh magnanimous Hair. Is the penalty for violation of the substance abuse policy discretionary?

Signed; Confused in the Bay....

Dear Confused,

The penalties are entirely discretionary. Always have been. They reflect the opinions of one man, and can be based upon whim and concerns over image as much as hard fact and unshakable logic.

So the issue of fairness relates only to what was previously considered the norm, the factors related to how new precedence was set, and if there are reasons to believe the change in policy is somehow rooted in prejudice. And in each example the signs point to one team being targeted above all others....an assessment you've repeatedly agreed with.

And how could you not agree? While the Bengals led the NFL in player arrests last season their lead over several other teams wasn't remarkable, and in regards to the crimes commited the Bengals examples aren't unique. However, when it comes to changing existing policy Roger Goodell has repeatedly went out of his way to use Bengal players to set precedence. remarkably, in none of thes cases has action been forced on Goodell in the same way it was for Mike Vick, Chris Henry, or PacMan Jones. Instead, Goodell went out of his way to find new ways to punish Thurman, Rucker, and now Joseph.

As for the punishment, the issue isn't whether Joseph deserved some punishment, but how that punishment measures up to the penalties handed down by the same discretionary overlord in regards to more important issues. For example, Belichick was found guilty of blatant cheating but not only was he not suspended for a single game the NFL's actions seem designed to protect him from more serious punishment. That seems odd when you consider how determined Goodell is to take punishment for minor player trangressions to a whole new level.

Fair enough?

Thanks for your post, Confused.

Signed; AnnLandersOnFire

[BengalByTheBay]

As for the punishment, the issue isn't whether Joseph deserved some punishment, but how that punishment measures up to the penalties handed down by the same discretionary overlord in regards to more important issues. For example, Belichick was found guilty of blatant cheating but not only was he not suspended for a single game the NFL's actions seem designed to protect him from more serious punishment. That seems odd when you consider how determined Goodell is to take punishment for minor player trangressions to a whole new level.

Fair enough?

Thanks for your post, Confused.

Signed; AnnLandersOnFire

Agreed - to an extent. My primary issue is how the punishment compares to punishment given recently (this year) for the same transgression (pot, not dui or anything else - there's gotta be other pot arrests, right? This is the NFL after all). If, as you claim, nobody else is getting suspended for a pot arrest --- then I do recognize it as the continued trend of inconsistent enforcement. As you know, I've railed against that using the Odell and Frostee examples mostly. Where did I get the mistaken notion that the substance abuse policy was an actual policy -- wasn't the Odell progression through multiple strikes an example of specific punishments attaching to specific stages? I must be getting old ... (mumbles to self while removing and replacing teef).....damn kids.

[membengal]

I have no problem with a pot bust resulting in a game suspension -- as long as it's consistently administered. As of now, I have no reason to think it wouldn't be, so that's all I'm saying. I don't see this as particularly unfair.

It's unfair only in the sense that a 1st time offense has never been so harshly dealt with. And it's unfair only in the sense that it follows only a month or so after Goodell's bizarre decision to suspend Frostee Rucker for a minor act that happened years before Rucker entered the NFL, a suspension that wouldn't even have been possible under normal circumstances. Remember, the police who felt there was a profound lack of evidence delayed their decision to charge Rucker until the statute of limitations was due to expire. Rucker later agrees to settle in an attempt to put the matter behind him, but Goodell decides to make an example of the case even though the circumstances that allowed him to suspend a player are likely to never be repeated. Ever.

Debate fairness all you want, but this sort of crap isn't happening elsewhere. Goodell isn't setting precedent using Charger players even though there were almost as many arrests involving that team. And he isn't setting precedent in Chicago, Jacksonville, Kansas City, or Miami. Instead, fans of those cities are likely talking amongst themselves about how much worse things could have gone for their teams.

Bottom Line? I guess it's only unfair in the sense that in the bizzaro world that is the NFL some things matter and some things don't, and an unrealistic glossy image seems to be something that matters to Roger Goodell far more than cheating scandals and ridding the game of performance enhancing drugs. Instead, he sits in an office reading a newspaper that spoon feeds him information about what an individual player was caught doing in his personal life and decides that's where the get tough policies need to be directed.

Bonus Bottom Line: Skip Bayless is no fan of the Bengals, but after the MNF matchup between the Patriots and the Bengals he admitted that he was pulling for the team that had become most closely linked to arrests and criminal behavior...."because they haven't had a head coach busted for cheating or a star player caught using HGH."

Standing ovation here in Memphis, to all this.

By the way, Jared Allen gets busted for 2 DUIs and only sits out two games. Then again, he's not black. Or a Bengals player.