It's also pretty interesting to follow team comments from the Steelers and Packers. Seems to me they don't want to draw the ire of Goodell either.
This guy is going to find a way to singlehandedly **** up one of the most successful and profitable businesses in the world today. It's amazing.
It's a pretty simple question to me
How can the league take corrective action (suspension) against these guys? What evidence leads to that conclusion? No failed tests I am aware of.
Taking the word of a guy under duress - who's not exactly the poster child of trust and integrity - seems weak at best.
That's fair and just treatment?
Bitch please
Maybe this was said - if so I apologize in advance. But, does anyone besides me think it is odd that this involves 2 players from other teams but 3 Packer players? One is a former Packer but FA was happening when this all broke. And none of the other 30 teams are involved?
I think it's a good idea to add Ryan Howard and Ryan Zimmerman were named in the report and both sued. MLB has essentially dismissed the report as all manner of bull****. MLB quickly conducted its own investigation and said nothing warranted suspensions for Howard and Zimmerman. MLB did suspend FA Taylor Teagarden who was named in the report but MLB never said it was due to the report or due to a failed test. Teagarden is the only person in the report to openly admit taking PEDs and peptides and how he beat testing.
Rodger on the other hand isn't near done. There's a public display of power here that needs to be excersised. He's going to fully extend the reach of Adolpho Birch to show he's as tough on PEDs as he is on ending concussions.
**** you Goodell. I hope these 4 guys tell you to go eff yourself and suspend them for having nothing other than "they forced my hand".
Pistol GB posted: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.
Manning was smarter from the beginning; the vials were ordered and shipped in his wife's name. She isn't beholding to the NFL. And they are limited by HIPAA and other privacy laws from looking into her medical situation.
NFLPA is using these Packer players as pawns in their larger battle, but at some point Matthews/Peppers need to make a decision that is in their best interest without considering the pack of clowns calling the shots at NFLPA.
Fans see the damage this guy is doing because we've grown up with this. Football represents some of our earliest cemented memories. This ginger **** stick wasn't in my grandfathers living room when I was 4 trying so hard to show everyone I got it. I understood this. I worked to get Football.
Now I feel like the 45 year employee that poured everything into this enterprise and worries what the new CEO is going to do to show the board a return. Yes, casting me aside probably carries a depreciable loss you've got factored in to forecasted growth.
**** you Goodell. My investment matters. To me. Same to the owners. You're ROI doesn't mean **** to me.
If Rodger keeps this path up I'll walk and never look back. No ****ing way will I let this jackass get the better of my memories of he NFL he destroyed.
Satori posted:Manning was smarter from the beginning; the vials were ordered and shipped in his wife's name.
I guess our definition of "smart" is different. "Smart" would have been shipping to an agent or friend with a different last name than "Manning."
ChilliJon posted:
If Rodger keeps this path up I'll walk and never look back. No ****ing way will I let this jackass get the better of my memories of he NFL he destroyed.
See you Sunday?
As Florio pointed out, ultimately this is an owners league who has final say in anything they like. Like them or hate them, Jerruh Jones, Bobby Kraft, and the Rooneys wield a lot of power. And they do not care for Rog. At all. If they feel this will become a big enough schit show where these fan bases are threatening to revolt, they will put the woah nelly on this witch hunt or ultimately, find a new pawn at Commish.
This has and will always boil down to profit and butts in seats (in front of TV's and in stadiums). GB, NE, and Pitt are extremely popular and loyal franchises. The owners are not stupid to that. This boat only rocks so far.
The Ref fka Blair Kiel posted:ChilliJon posted:
If Rodger keeps this path up I'll walk and never look back. No ****ing way will I let this jackass get the better of my memories of he NFL he destroyed.
See you Sunday?
It's a bitch to break an addiction. When it really takes you never look back. I've been addicted to Sunday and Monday and Thanksgiving and January for 45 years.
Rodger is becoming my counselor whisperer. He's making me see my thought of the football I grew up with wasn't the aggregation of wins and losses I endured but the proliferation of profit he's managed to nurture. It's a gift. His gift. The owners have quarter billion thanked him.
Hes going to break my addiction. He doesn't care about me. In his world he'll always see someone Sunday.
If/When this gets into the courts, the secret taping - recanted comments - defunct news agency will ALL be in play. Nothing has "slipped away" in the process to date.
El-Ka-Bong posted:Satori posted:Manning was smarter from the beginning; the vials were ordered and shipped in his wife's name.
I guess our definition of "smart" is different. "Smart" would have been shipping to an agent or friend with a different last name than "Manning."
Concur, you do not know the definition of smart. 
Manning travels all over the world, she was with him for all their stops
Additionally, he is protected by Spousal Privilege and she cannot be compelled to testify against him in most cases - unlike a friend or agent. The trail may or may not have led to " manning" in your scenario, but using his wife gave him convenience, impunity... and the occasional hand job.
Why did Raji retire again?
Hungry5 posted:If/When this gets into the courts, the secret taping - recanted comments - defunct news agency will ALL be in play. Nothing has "slipped away" in the process to date.
"Into the courts," as in, appealing suspensions? Ugh. I was hoping for a resolution short of that.
Public opinion on this started out massively in our favor, no doubt about it. Now, by recommending refusal to cooperate, the NFLPA has taken the focus off Al Jazeera and put it on the players. It makes them look like they have something to hide, like they are guilty. That's a loss of bargaining power.
Not only that, everyone is assuming Goodell was leaning towards suspensions before the players refused to interview. Based on Manning, I don't think that is even true. (He knows Al Jazeera is the enemy to Americans and probably feels the same way himself.)
Well he certainly wants suspensions now.
What's more, the NFLPA position just made those suspensions ten times easier to obtain, for failure to cooperate, as upheld in Brady . They are handing him independent grounds for suspension entirely removed from Al Jazeera.
There is no resolution Pistol because Goodell doesn't play that way. It's his way or the highway. That's part of the problem.
At some point, the players and the union have to do something about this because the commish is totally out of control. While he does possess a significant amount of management control per the CBA, his power is not unlimited. Under their drug policy, players do not have to submit to interviews/investigations yet Rog is demanding them to do so "or else" and that's a direct violation of the CBA. Heck, they haven't even tested positive!! We shouldn't be talking about this in the first place.
If Goodell wants to reach - and try to apply the "conduct detrimental the league" principle - that's even worse. But that's what Goodell does. He thinks he can simply interpret and apply the rules anyway he wants and it is going to come back to bite him.
Pistol GB posted: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 ...
... 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.
Pistol, appreciate your comments. I love intelligent discussion even when I'm not (!), but it's one way I learn.
Is there language in his written opinion that paints all investigations by the league, and therefore the duty of players to cooperate, with the same brush? Or was this specific to the Brady case? Or does it even make a difference?
It would seem to me the investigators requested Brady's phone early on. AFAIK, they haven't made the same request to Matthews, Peppers, Harrison (or Manning, for that matter). So do you think the same precedent applies in this situation?
To my eyes, the NFLPA botched the most-recent CBA so badly, I think the players should sue them! I'm sure they have likely had their legal people working on this since being notified by the league in June, but I'm not so sure that's a vote of confidence...
The players were willing to pass the agreement because the conduct clause does not affect approximately 95-98% of the players, so they want to play & be paid & are going to want concede to the NFL in this area of the contract. Although they may think what has happened to some players is unfair, the bottom line is that when it comes down to it people are going to vote in relationship to how it most affects them & the longer negotions are played out & the closer it gets to having to hold out the more they push their reps to settle.....1) guys other than me can be unjustly punished or 2) I get paid and able to play in the NFL. You know how that vote will go every time.
Goodell's recent actions indicate that the players will be suspended whether they are interviewed or not.
There are no failed drug tests so this does not fall under the NFL Drug Policy. The Commish/NFL is trying to push this under the Personal Conduct Policy, yet have presented no evidence how the alleged conduct of these players in this instance "undermines or puts at risk the integrity of the NFL, NFL clubs, or NFL personnel".
Goodell is no longer working in the parameters of the CBA, so pushing this to the courts makes the most sense.
What hasn't been determined is if the league has evidence and has yet to present it publicly.
Any way you slice it, it's not a good look that 60% of the players are/were Packers.
Agreed. I don't think Mike Neal will be over to Clay's home for Christmas this year, either.
Orlando Wolf posted:What hasn't been determined is if the league has evidence and has yet to present it publicly.
Not publicly, or the league is being deceitful... in the USAToday article linked in the OP of this thread:
"The NFL has chosen to initiate an investigation of these players based upon now-recanted statements that appeared in an Al Jazeera report. The NFLPA requested from the NFL any additional evidence supporting an investigation of the players; the NFL did not provide any such evidence, nor did they inform the NFLPA or the players that any such evidence exists. Instead, the NFL has decided to publicly pressure the players into submission. We will continue to advise our players about their rights and hold the NFL accountable."
So basically the Packers should prepare to not have Clay or Peppers for some, most or all of this season.
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
Timmy! posted:Is there language in his written opinion that paints all investigations by the league, and therefore the duty of players to cooperate, with the same brush? Or was this specific to the Brady case? Or does it even make a difference?
It would seem to me the investigators requested Brady's phone early on. AFAIK, they haven't made the same request to Matthews, Peppers, Harrison (or Manning, for that matter). So do you think the same precedent applies in this situation?
This is the part that has broad language for all investigations. Page 13, 2nd full paragraph:
"Mr. Brady's failure to cooperate and his destruction of potentially relevant evidence are significant because the ability to conduct an investigation--whether by NFL staff or by independent parties retained by the NFL--ultimately depends on cooperation. Neither the NFL nor any NFL member club has subpoena power or other means to compel production of relevant materials or testimony. Nonetheless, the NFL is entitled to expect and insist upon the cooperation of owners, League employees, club employees and players in a workplace investigation and to impose sanctions when such such cooperation is not forthcoming, when evidence is hidden, fabricated or destroyed, when witnesses are intimidated or not produced upon reasonable request, or when individuals do not provide truthful information. Moreover, in such cases, there is no question that the Hearing Officer may draw an adverse inference from the lack of cooperation and may reasonably interpret available evidence in a manner that supports findings of misconduct."
Full written decision here: http://nfllabor.files.wordpres...tom-brady-appeal.pdf
About the phones, that is the thing: this is in an old investigation. You give him your phone now, I doubt he's going to be able to retrieve texts from over a year ago, and there's no subpoena power to get the records from the carrier. Give him the phone, do your best on the questions, get it done. Even if you get suspended it will be for less than conduct detrimental for not cooperating.
Like someone already said, the NFLPA is using our guys as pawns, but it is a battle that needs to be fought at the next CBA. Here and now, it is just beating your head against the wall and is backfiring, IMO.
Hungry5 posted:Goodell's recent actions indicate that the players will be suspended whether they are interviewed or not.
Maybe now, but it sure didn't sound like it with the press release in Manning. Manning also opens up the whole Equal Treatment thing. The fact that he was cleared helps us.
Speaking of Equal Treatment, the part I'm thinking hardest about right now is Goodell's "indefinite" threat. That's not going to fly. If Brady got 4 games, he's going to be hard-pressed to keep the suspensions in effect longer than that if the players don't interview.
Hmm.... I'm not an attorney, but it sounds like there are several different issues being discussed. One big distinction in Brady's case is destroying the phone *after* the investigation started (as I understand it). That is clear misconduct in the course of an investigation. As far as being willing to meet, the player's union isn't saying there is a refusal to meet but that it must be done through appropriate procedures, and as others have already pointed out, there are clear procedures specified for substance use. It's still not clear to me that Brady's case set a precedent for this case, even if Goodell believes it did.
Pistol GB posted:"Mr. Brady's failure to cooperate and his destruction of potentially relevant evidence are significant because the ability to conduct an investigation--whether by NFL staff or by independent parties retained by the NFL--ultimately depends on cooperation. Neither the NFL nor any NFL member club has subpoena power or other means to compel production of relevant materials or testimony. Nonetheless, the NFL is entitled to expect and insist upon the cooperation of owners, League employees, club employees and players in a workplace investigation and to impose sanctions when such such cooperation is not forthcoming, when evidence is hidden, fabricated or destroyed, when witnesses are intimidated or not produced upon reasonable request, or when individuals do not provide truthful information. Moreover, in such cases, there is no question that the Hearing Officer may draw an adverse inference from the lack of cooperation and may reasonably interpret available evidence in a manner that supports findings of misconduct."
maybe I'm dense but I this sure looks like apples to oranges here. they had other "evidence" with brady. all they have in this instance is a recanted news item which spurred the whole thing.
I hate goodell. f***er could have started this circus months ago but sits on it till the season's about to begin. FG!
El-Ka-Bong posted:Satori posted:Manning was smarter from the beginning; the vials were ordered and shipped in his wife's name.
I guess our definition of "smart" is different. "Smart" would have been shipping to an agent or friend with a different last name than "Manning."
Roger Clemens did the same thing (had his HGH shipped under his wife's name). It's certainly cheaper than paying a trainer to stay quiet and sit tight in jail for refusing to testify in front of a grand jury, like Barry Bonds did with Greg Anderson.
RE: Brady not setting a precedent to this case: The United States Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit disagrees with you Dr. Bob. It specifically granted the Commissioner the power he is now exercising.
This link has a window where you can read their written ruling:
Not sure where everyone is getting that PED procedures are different. The standard is set forth like 5 pages ago in this thread. It is a nice try, but in PED cases, Goodell has a broad, noninclusive list of things he may consider to determine if there has been a violation. Obviously, he has the power to investigate those things, and under NFL vs. NFLPA and Tom Brady, he specifically has the power to sanction for noncooperation in any investigation.
Pistol, I'm not say you're wrong. I'm simply wondering if there is a difference or not. I'll simply wait to see what happens in this case, but if it's as simple and straightforward as you say then it is indeed odd that the player's union is taking the course it is.
I haven't gotten into the details yet, but it seems that the issue concerns which controls, the CBA or the specific Drug Policy. My immediate reaction, having just glanced at both, is that the following CBA provision on conflicts and order or precedence is concerning:
Section 1. Conflicts: The provisions of this Agreement supersede any conflicting provisions in the Settlement Agreement, NFL Player Contract, the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, the NFL Rules, or any other document affecting terms and conditions of employment of NFL players, and all players, Clubs, the NFLPA, the NFL, and the Management Council will be bound hereby. For the avoidance of doubt, the NFL shall be considered a signatory to this Agreement.
(CBA, Article 2, Section 1).
This language makes it fairly clear that in the event of a conflict between the CBA and "any other document affecting terms and conditions of employment of NFL players" (e.g., the Drug Policy), the CBA controls. Perhaps there is some additional language in the CBA and/or the Drug Policy that helps the players' defense, but I haven't seen it yet.
Ahh.... I had thought the Drug Policy was part of the CBA.
NFLPA president: Union is advising Matthews, Harrison, Peppers, Neal as to their options
Posted by Mike Florio on August 17, 2016, 11:55 AM EDT“We’ve spent the last few days advising our players and letting them know in a completely honest and open way exactly what their options are, what they want to do,” NFLPA president Eric Winston said regarding Packers linebackers Clay Matthews and Julius Peppers, Steelers linebacker James Harrison, and free-agent defensive lineman Mike Neal during a Wednesday morning appearance on PFT Live. “Each case is different, each guy is different. Each guy might want to do different things so no matter what we’re going fight for them like crazy like we always do, and we’re going go and have our players’ backs. That’s what we’re all about and that’s all we can do and that’s what we’re going to continue to do.”
It’s clear that Winston isn’t pleased with the position the NFL has taken.
“It’s definitely peak silliness and peak unprofessionalism,” Winston said. “It is what it is and unfortunately we’ve gone from this place where NFL [business] used to be conducted in a super-professional way by men that have played this game for a long time and a front office that has run this great game for a long time to now it’s almost seemingly like these scripts that are pulled from WWE Smackdown or something like that. It’s hard to understand why this is being allowed to continue on by some ownership that has some control but it is and we’re going to keep fighting. We’re going to keep advising our players in an open and honest way exactly about what their rights are and about what their options are and we’ll continue to go down this road and we’ll continue to fight for our players.”
And so it will be up to the four players to decide whether to fight this. What would Winston do if he were one of them?
“That’s a great question,” Winston said. “I just haven’t really put myself in that situation. You know me, I’d probably be more apt to fight. I told our guys that want to get this done and get this over, with the season coming up as well. It’s hard for me to say that one guy should do this or one guy should do that. Like I said I think every guy’s perception and what angle they’re coming from is different, and that’s why they have to make the decision. I can’t make it for them and nobody else can make it for them.”
Regardless of how this turns out, Winston hopes the fans and the media are beginning to realize how business gets done.
“I keep on thinking that every time we come to one of these instances, you know?” Winston said. “That everybody’s finally going to realize what we’ve been talking about now for a long, long time and there’s just a couple of things that really strike out to me is the bully mentality that they’ve used for quite some time. When they can’t get their way they’re going to bully you and they’re going to try to bully you and maybe sadly that’s where negotiations and things like that have gone to in America. That’s something I’m starting to see a lot more of. But on top of it, it’s also like you get to this point of where do we go from here? How do we resolve any of these differences? And it’s tough. That’s the most frustrating thing for me I guess.”
The four players have until August 25 to decide whether to submit to the interviews or to fight. Presumably, there’s a way to fight that secures a resolution of the question of whether the players are obligated to submit to interviews based on uncorroborated allegations of PED use before they actually have to decide to voluntarily give up game checks.
Again, I haven't taken a close look at this current dispute, but my immediate reaction is that Brady appeal and this matter present different issues. The issue in Brady's Second Circuit case concerned a federal court's review of labor arbitration awards. The court confirmed (IMO, correctly), that even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, a court may not disturb an award so long as he acted within the bounds of his bargained‐for authority. In other words, the parties gave the Commish the power to handle such matters and issue such discipline under the CBA, so the courts are not going to disrupt that so long as the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority as defined by the CBA.
The question here is whether the Commish has the authority under the CBA to demand cooperation from the players in the investigation, when there is a specific policy (i.e., the NFL's Policy on Performance-Enhancing Substances - 2015) that the parties negotiated to govern such situations that only allows discipline in specific situations. The NFLPA is likely arguing that the specific policy should govern over the general CBA, while the NFL will argue that the CBA, which arms the Commish with broad power to investigate and discipline, ultimately controls (or at least supplements).
IF the NFLPA did not include a provision in the CBA or PED Policy that addresses the apparent inconsistencies,* that's on them. You always address potential conflicts within documents during contract negotiations.
*To be clear, I don't know whether they did address the issue. I would need to take a closer look at both documents.
Here, that authority was especially broad. The Commissioner was authorized to impose discipline for, among other things, “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence, in the game of professional football.” In their collective bargaining agreement, the players and the League mutually decided many years ago that the Commissioner should investigate possible rule violations, should impose appropriate sanctions, and may preside at arbitrations challenging his discipline. Although this tripartite regime may appear somewhat unorthodox, it is the regime bargained for and agreed upon by the parties, which we can only presume they determined was mutually satisfactory.
Bill Michaels said today the league offered the union financial incentives to get that extremely broad authority for Goddell. If accurate that was a severe miscalculation on their part.
Dr._Bob posted:Ahh.... I had thought the Drug Policy was part of the CBA.
It may be. I see that Article 39, Section 7(b) of the CBA, the parties stated an intention to create a policy at a later date, and they stated the general terms of that policy:
(b) Policies. The parties confirm that the Program on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances will include both annual blood testing and random blood testing for human growth hormone, with discipline for positive tests at the same level as for steroids. Over the next several weeks, the parties will discuss and develop the specific arrangements relating to the safe and secure collection of samples, transportation and testing of samples, the scope of review of the medical science, and the arbitrator review policy, with the goal of beginning testing by the first week of the 2011 regular season. Pending agreement by both parties regarding the implementation of this program of blood testing, and such other policy amendments as the parties may agree upon, the Policy and Program on Substances of Abuse and the Policy on Anabolic Steroids and Related Substances, will remain in full force and effect as each existed during the 2010 season.
Completely agree, MICHIGANJOE.
Taking this one step further, what if it wasn't an Al Jazeera article, but an anonymous tip from a friend/family member who got cut off from the players money. Or maybe the anonymous tip goes to a news outlet first and then gets reported. First, does the NFL even investigate this? What is the standard for investigating these situations? Second, does the NFL give the player said evidence before interrogation? You'd think no, since there is no provision in the CBA for this and it'd be a much better interrogation strategy to grill a player with no notice. But that's an awful look for the league, when you have players being called in to the league office to be questioned.
It's a slippery slope that is a bigger deal than just 4 players and the NFLPA knows that. Sucks for Harrison, Neal, Peppers and CMIII but the NFLPA can't let them talk. This would establish a precedent where any hangers-on that feels jilted now has an easy way to screw with a players life. Just call TMZ or Deadspin and make up some PED story, get it reported, and see a player lose out on free agency (or just threaten the player with this). Just look at Mike Neal - who knows if he's guilty but no one is touching him right now.
I just don't get why the NFL is pursuing this. Baseball rightfully dropped it, so what is the NFL doing?
