Didn't the players give Goodell all this power when they negotiated the last CBA? They got raked over the coals. This is nothing more than Goodell claiming ground for the next negotiation. He gives up some of his authority and the players lose out on what really matters (their cut of the money). The next CBA is going to get ugly.
Tdog posted
This is precisely why the NFLPA must roll the dice on an appeal of the Brady case from the Second Circuit (and the Adrian Peterson case from the Eighth Circuit) to the U.S. Supreme Court. As slim as the chances of prevailing may be, not trying to overturn the Brady and Peterson precedent would allow the NFL to use Article 46 not just as a shield against The Shield but as a sword to compel players to do what the league wants, even if the specific policies relevant to a given controversy suggest that the players aren’t required to comply.
It is Brady's decision, not the NFLPA's, and he already decided not to file. It is probably too late for him to change his mind now. Appeals have strict time requirements.
ChilliJon posted:Doesn't it seem like every misstep by Rodger quickly leads to another in an attempt to redirect focus from the last one? Rinse. Repeat.
No. The Court of Appeal in Brady affirmed his written ruling.
So check it: in Brady, he issues this lengthy written opinion on how the players have a duty to cooperate, and failure to cooperate is conduct detrimental (I've read it, and he obviously spent hours on it). It was his baby. After initially getting overturned--told he was wrong--it goes to a Court of Appeal, where an Appellate Court--dudes in robes--affirm his written ruling and tell him his baby is legitimate.
So how did people think he is going to react when the issue comes up again? More importantly, how did the NFLPA think he was going to react? Did they really think he was going to do a 180, and just agree they don't have to interview? He just won the issue in Brady! This current action by the NFL is entirely consistent with what it had just been through, and was entirely predictable. It's why I said stonewalling wasn't going to work in this case.
You can disagree with him, but to say Goodell is all over the place is wrong. He is putting one foot after the other, sanctioned by the dudes in robes. It may a harsh one, but at least he has a plan, which is more than can be said for the NFLPA. No idea how they are earning their money, but they need to pay attention to precedent, and they need to formulate a plan here PDQ.
titmfatied posted:Didn't the players give Goodell all this power when they negotiated the last CBA? They got raked over the coals. This is nothing more than Goodell claiming ground for the next negotiation. He gives up some of his authority and the players lose out on what really matters (their cut of the money). The next CBA is going to get ugly.
It is contractual, so each CBA sets up new rules. You can bet both of your buttcheeks the next one will include 2 things: 1) No investigations based on illegal secret tapings; and 2) No duty to interview except for specified reasons. It doesn't have to be ugly. Both sides are going to want specificity on this.
Anyway, this is about as ugly as it gets right here and now. It is part of why I wanted our boys to interview at the start of camp. There is media ****storm brewing, and at this point this is looking to be a year-long distraction.
Since we are the only publically owned NFL franchise, could we as owner/shareholders bring a lawsuit against the NFL for investigation without cause based on hearsay evidence? If there is more evidence than the withdrawn words of the accuser, let the NFL put that out there. Otherwise we are moving more and more toward McCarthyism of the 1950's (ironic with the name of our coach being the same).
Unless the players are prepared to take this to court they get no sympathy from me, but they really have to draw the line somewhere with Roger. They have given him way too much power, and the players are to blame for that. Matthews and Harrison may have to martyr their careers to make a case. Will they?
ChilliJon posted:I'm still waiting to hear from the NFL office why a lack of credible evidence was enough to clear Manning but that same lack of evidence dictates Harrison, Clay, Peppers, and Neal must agree to an interview or be suspended. It makes no sense on any level. If it's just a dog and pony show for Rodger to show he got the interviews he publicly demanded as a stance of being tough on PEDs he's a complete ass clown.
It sounds to me that Manning has already spoken with the league, and that's the point, isn't it? The greatest crime a player can commit is to refuse to speak with Goodell.
I deal in labor relations for a living and I can tell you no one has a more effed up relationship and environment than the NFLPU and the Commish.
It's like Goodell just makes this **** up as he goes along and on paper he's committing ULPs left and right with no check and balance system in place.
At some point, the players union is going to have to make a stand; it's just a question of when. If I am a player I am furious at what the commissoner is being allowed to do under the guise of the CBA and this might explain why CMIII and Peppers are doing what they are doing. Either way, it's going to come to a head quickly and it could get very ugly.
Pistol GB posted:titmfatied posted:Didn't the players give Goodell all this power when they negotiated the last CBA? They got raked over the coals. This is nothing more than Goodell claiming ground for the next negotiation. He gives up some of his authority and the players lose out on what really matters (their cut of the money). The next CBA is going to get ugly.
It is contractual, so each CBA sets up new rules. You can bet both of your buttcheeks the next one will include 2 things: 1) No investigations based on illegal secret tapings; and 2) No duty to interview except for specified reasons. It doesn't have to be ugly. Both sides are going to want specificity on this.
Anyway, this is about as ugly as it gets right here and now. It is part of why I wanted our boys to interview at the start of camp. There is media ****storm brewing, and at this point this is looking to be a year-long distraction.
Yep, it was almost inevitable this was coming even outside of the Brady precedent. Now these guys are basically going to be asked/answering questions on refuted report which we all know has some truth to it. So if these guys aren't bringing a cadre of lawyers into the interview I don't see how suspension aren't coming down the pipe. If I had to guess, Mike Neal is done.
if I were Peppers and Matthews I would start rehearsing the lines "I don't recall" and "not to the best of my knowledge". sure, come interview me - you'll get nothing and like it. and then badell, being badell, will suspend them for not kissing the ring and we're back in court. yippee.
Perhaps this is why the Packers seem to be stocking up on OLBs.
Is a likely scenario;1) a court injunction stopping the suspension 2) A legal battle that drags out to next season 3) Peppers retires, so it only effects Matthews. 4) With Jones, Perry, & Frackell we can survive a CM suspension.?
Packers and PEDS hasn't exactly been sterling lately. Sure seemed to be getting tagged a lot.
Wise up Roidheads, do your **** secretly like everyone else.
If there is any truth to that report and half the team showed up to talk to this guy like Al at a buffet, some heads need to be cracked.
Whether it has truth to it or not is completely irrelevant. The guy recanted his story. The players have not tested positive.
Fine....go into the interview with.....
"Hi Rog...I don't understand why we are here as I have not tested positive. Do you have any questions for me?"
Rog: "Did you order the code red?!?!"
Player$: "No it was Colonel Mustard with the Candlestick in the Library."
I am starting to think these four guys know they're getting suspended whether they interview with Rodger or not. I think the decision's already been made.
Regarding Manning. Apparently he agreed to be interviewed. That never happens if he doesn't retire. And again, there wasn't anything there to connect him to doing anything wrong. Then again Manning could have shown up to the interview with a needle in each ass cheek and he's cleared and out the door in 10 minutes.
While I don't think the suspensions will be longer than 4 games who know's what Rodger will do given how long this has been dragged out. If they give Rodger the middle finger I could see indefinite suspensions until they agree to talk.
Assuming that they will be suspended either way, which response results in the shortest suspension? Which one keeps them out of a substance use program?
For Peppers it was an allegation of PED use and he has been popped before
In the case of Matthews, he allegedly was seeking a secondary source of percocet so that's a Substance policy more than PEDs ( 2 games vs 4)
The whole thing is about Rogers' need to be King and the players need to acquiesce to his investigation. Cooperation nets leniency, obfuscation nets punishment. Kiss the ring and move on. That's what the sham Manning interview was all about - it was Roger poking a stick in the Patriots eye.
Play nice and its all over poste haste. Eff with the Bull, you get the horns
This Goodell **** may seem like fun and games. Just remember if this ass clown gets his way Green Bay might be playing a REGULAR SEASON game against the Rams in China in 2018 on a Tuesday morning which is actually Monday night prime time here. And remember, Rodger doesn't give a **** how long it takes both teams to shake off that jet lag because GODDAMMIT CHINA IS A BIG A$$ MARKET.
Player safety my ass.
Satori posted:For Peppers it was an allegation of PED use and he has been popped before
In the case of Matthews, he allegedly was seeking a secondary source of percocet so that's a Substance policy more than PEDs ( 2 games vs 4)
The whole thing is about Rogers' need to be King and the players need to acquiesce to his investigation. Cooperation nets leniency, obfuscation nets punishment. Kiss the ring and move on. That's what the sham Manning interview was all about - it was Roger poking a stick in the Patriots eye.
Play nice and its all over poste haste. Eff with the Bull, you get the horns
You could have said all that in one sentence. That was time I could have spent watching MILFs online.
titmfatied posted:Didn't the players give Goodell all this power when they negotiated the last CBA?
Yes, and it's why my sympathy toward the players is pretty limited.
No kidding Goalline.
When is Boris going to finally give us a MILF forum ?
michiganjoe posted:titmfatied posted:Didn't the players give Goodell all this power when they negotiated the last CBA?
Yes, and it's why my sympathy toward the players is pretty limited.
And if they players had walked away from negotiations and taken a year off would that sentiment have changed? Would be pissed at them for not settling? This is an honest question BTW.
Becasue it's going to happen when this CBA is done and DeMo is long since fired. This is shaping up as one long ass work stoppage.
Maybe. Maybe not. I heard this discussed on one of the sports' networks yesterday...or was it this morning...crap, I forget.
Their take: Bad-All is doing this hard now so at the next CBA he will be willing to give up some of this power for other concessions. They said they really didn't think Bad-All wanted ALL of this power but he's using it for future bargaining issues.
not sure I agree, but it does cause one to pause and think about it...
I'd call it greedy but to each his own
Thompson wants no one with the #Packers speaking on the Matthews/Peppers issue, which may explain why 52 and 56 weren’t in the locker room.Thompson on Matthews/Peppers: It’s a little more complicated than you’d like. The more people pipe in, the less likely it will be resolved.
Just so the Packers can plan Matthews suspensions for when his hammy acts up.
packerboi posted:Thompson on Matthews/Peppers: It’s a little more complicated than you’d like. The more people pipe in, the less likely it will be resolved.
That quote speaks volumes right there. The 2 sides went polar and dug in. Now the more it grows the worse it gets.
Frustrating because Goodell's actions were predictable and therefore preventable.
cuqui nailed it. The NFLPA is "advising" the players not to interview according to Harrison. It's a bad look for the players in the media, but none of them want to be the first to validate an awful precedent that Goodell is trying to set. Manning didn't care, as previously pointed out by previous posters. But is the NFLPA willing to take heat if the players names kept getting dragged through the mud, with no opportunity to clear themselves? The NFLPA needs to litigate this quickly to see if the conduct detrimental even applies in this case and whether the NFL has any standing. I don't understand why the NFLPA is waiting so long...
ChilliJon posted:And if they players had walked away from negotiations and taken a year off would that sentiment have changed? Would be pissed at them for not settling? This is an honest question BTW.
Neither one of us were privy to the negotiations and one can speculate all day long. Also possible that the union may have gotten a deal that didn't give Goddell almost dictatorial power. The bottom line is they struck a deal that may have looked pretty good at the time but not in retrospect.
Mike Tomlin says Steelers won’t push James Harrison to cooperate
Posted by Josh Alper on August 16, 2016, 1:21 PM EDTGetty Images
Steelers linebacker James Harrison followed up his video response to being scheduled for a PED test on Tuesday morning by reiterating that he’s willing to submit to an interview about allegations that he’s used banned substances if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell comes to his house to conduct it.
Harrison says he believes “there are certain rules” the league has not followed regarding beginning an investigation and that he won’t “answer questions for ever little thing Tom, Dick and Harry come up with.” Harrison did say that he would “lean” toward changing his stance at the request of the team because he doesn’t want to let either the organization or teammates down should the league follow through on its threat to suspend him if he doesn’t interview by August 26.
Steelers coach Mike Tomlin said on Tuesday that no such request is going to come, however.
“That has nothing to do with us,” Tomlin said, via the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “That is between him, the PA and the league. I assume that he is going to do what he has to do.”
What Harrison feels he has to do in this case and what the league feels he has to do have yet to overlap, which could leave the Steelers down a linebacker by the end of the month if things continue on the same course.
Good post 50K. My only point of contention is, the precedent was already set in Brady. The issue is no longer PED's, just like it stopped being about deflated footballs in Brady. All it is about now is the interviews (and probably also about getting the phones).
The bad part is, by taking the position the players don't have to interview, which has already been litigated in Goodell's favor, instead of working within the guidelines of Brady which they have to, and getting this resolved quietly, the NFLPA's position has only made it worse. And they are letting their best bargaining chip--that this was an illegal taping by a terrorist news agency--slip away in the process.
Fitting you brought up Manning. He's free and clear right now. Who does it look like got better advice, him or our guys? The NFL press release after Manning even spelled it out: "Hey remaining guys," it said, "Come in, answer a couple of questions so it looks like we are coming down on you, and we will clear you."
In my opinion it practically screamed it.
And here's the NFLPA 's response: "We don't have to submit to no interviews! We know our rights!" Which it appears they obviously do not, as if they are not even paying attention, didn't read the Appellate decision in Brady, or simply don't know what they are doing. It wasn't that Manning didn't care, it was that he was smarter.
You know, I'm not standing up for Goodell when I say this, but I'm really starting to think the NFLPA's stance on this backed him into a corner and left him no choice. Now it looks like it is going to be a huge cluster**** we will all have to endure, even though the whole thing was totally preventable.
And this makes all involved a bunch of terminally ****ed ass clowns. Goodell and DeMo. A couple of child like ****s that can't collectively figure out how a cats ass works.
michiganjoe posted:ChilliJon posted:And if they players had walked away from negotiations and taken a year off would that sentiment have changed? Would be pissed at them for not settling? This is an honest question BTW.Neither one of us were privy to the negotiations and one can speculate all day long. Also possible that the union may have gotten a deal that didn't give Goddell almost dictatorial power. The bottom line is they struck a deal that may have looked pretty good at the time but not in retrospect.
True enough. I don't think anyone anticipated a secret taping.
These issues can be easily cleared up at the bargaining table for the next CBA, but that ain't now. This is its own mess that has to be dealt with under this CBA, including the rulings interpreting it.
50k Club posted:I don't understand why the NFLPA is waiting so long...
As Andrew Brandt would say: Deadlines spur actions. Thus, the dates provided by the NFL yesterday.
ChilliJon posted:And this makes all involved a bunch of terminally ****ed ass clowns. Goodell and DeMo. A couple of child like ****s that can't collectively figure out how a cats ass works.
a-ha! That's why cats are constantly licking their butt-hole!
I can't say I'm an expert on Brady vs. NFL, but I understand how the ruling was upheld. IMO, they ignored the facts but at the end of the day, this was a clear case of "conduct detrimental to the game" (as it was a systematic approach by a team to circumvent specified ruled) and under such cases, Goodell has wide latitude to investigate and players /teams have to cooperate. Think spygate, gambling, deflategate, etc. Situations where the actions of the player/team could undermine the public's confidence in a fair game, and where there is no specific details on how to deal with it. Like I said, I disagree with the facts used by the league but the courts did not look at facts, they only looked at the power granted to Goodell by the CBA which is accurate to say he has wide latitude in "integrity of the game" situations. Blame the NFLPA for that.
However, this is soooooo much different. Four players possibly doing PED's has nothing to do with "integrity of the game" and there is very clear language in the CBA on dealing with PEDs.
IMO, it'll come down to two questions: Is this situation covered by "integrity of the game" language? And if not, is the retracted statement printed in a publication that no longer exists (Al Jazeera America closed shop in March 2016) considered to be "compelling evidence"? I can't see how you would be able to argue anything but "no" to both questions.
I'm pretty sure the NFLPA didn't provide Goodell the authority to do what he is doing now. The league still has to follow due process with investigations for misconduct and clearly Goodell has proven he's either incapable or unwilling to do so. He's totally overstepped his boundaries and to make matters worse his inconsistency in administering discipline is mind boggling at best.
I'm not sure what the union security or strike provisions allow for in the current CBA but it might be something they want to look at in the future. The only way they level the playing field at this point is a work stoppage and Goodell is literally doing everything in his power to get to that result.