I would like to start a Roger Goodell fan club and its mission statement wouldn't at all be ironical. Really.
RE: non-cooperation. When have they not cooperated with this unsubstantiated, no positive tests, investigation?
Tschmack posted:What I find interesting is that it's open season on employers right now from the NLRB and why they haven't been more active I have no idea. I don't think the NFLPU is very saavy or informed - certainly not like the other major sports.
Maybe. But in some quarters, it's "open season" on employEES. The argument starts when one side or the other "crosses the line" and then there needs to be some push-back.
Goalline posted:Ghost of Lambeau posted:Florio shoots AR down like a goose flying thru a hunters gauntlet.
http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...11-cba-negotiations/
Personally, I have never read the cba ............
You mean, smacks AR down like AR stiff arming a cancer patient?
Depends on how far the cancer patient is deteriorated physically. 
But yeah, something like that. My phrase just sounded good at the time.
Thanks Herschel.
Boris posted:Yeah I know about the "non-cooperation" rule. The point is, when you're in the NFL, you have no rights.
If this matter was taken to a court, the prosecution has ZERO evidence & it would be thrown out. PERIOD!
They have a contract that states otherwise. Should has nothing to do with it.
The labor board- like many other regulatory agencies right now - are heavily tilted in favor of employees. I'm not suggesting that's a bad thing, but when you look at the body of work (law) from the NLRB in the last few years there is no question what their agenda is.
Given how Rog is running roughshod over the CBA - and has for a couple of years now - I'm very surprised the NLRB hasn't stepped in.
Hungry5 posted:RE: non-cooperation. When have they not cooperated with this unsubstantiated, no positive tests, investigation?
Under this CBA, that is correct. I don't like it any more than you do.
That is undoubtedly why they are interviewing. Why else would they? If it wasn't the case, all they would have to do is refuse to interview, and then file an appeal of the suspensions and get it into court.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: Oops, I thought you were asking if they could be disciplined "when they have not cooperated with this unsubstantiated investigation."
To the question, "When have they not cooperated?" The answer is never. The deadline for interviewing was set at the 25th, and they have chosen to interview instead of getting suspended, which was set to start on the 26th. I said that suspension would have been upheld.
What is "minimum compliance?"
I assume bigRog has a rubric of some sort to identify if you were complying just enough.
What is "minimum compliance?"
My marriage.
Grave Digger posted:Rog just has to look like he's getting tough on "protecting the integrity of the game". He needs to look like he's cracking down on cheating and PEDs, specifically targeting big name players. If this was limited to JUST Mike Neal, would Rog make all these demands about interviews? Doubtful. It's a sham and nothing will come of it now that they have agreed to interviews. I like James Harrison's idea to have the interview on TV, and since the NFL is all about transparency with fans it shouldn't be an issue. Right?
Agree on the first part wholeheartedly.
Strongly disagree on Harrison's idea, at least for our guys.
If, like you say, the whole idea is to make it look like he is getting tough, then you want these interviews behind closed doors, because as soon as you shut the doors, that is indeed what it looks like. He no longer needs to suspend, because it already looks like they are getting grilled and already looks like he is cracking down.
But if you open the doors, you force his hand. Now he has to suspend if there is any suspicion of foul play, because he's not going to want to look stupid and will feel the need to, as you say, look like he is getting tough.
Sly probably didn't spend 6 weeks Pittsburgh. It was only Green Bay. We are in a different boat than Harrison.
It's like Thompson said, the more people get involved or speak up, the worse it is going to get. Take the high road, get it done with as little grandstanding as possible, and get ready for Jacksonville. Clay, Julius, the team and the City of Green Bay need this done and over.
Treat it seriously, not like a circus like Harrison wants to. That's not going to help anyone.
Still don't see how Goodell could suspend CM3 and Peppers since they have yet to be non-compliant in the investigation.
He didn't. He said he was going to. It was a deadline.
Foul play? Did someone murder a PED?
If they are cooperating with the investigation per the request of the league then how could he still suspend them? Brady was suspended for not providing the requested information, as long as these guys are doing their part then Aricle 46 wouldn't be on the table. I think making it a circus is the only way to get transparency from the league. If he "suspects" foul play, that still doesn't fall under the PED policy and if they are cooperating then it doesn't fall under Article 46. Of course he could still suspend, but I would think if the proceedings were recorded then there wouldn't be a basis for non-cooperation to hold up in court. Brady bungled it on his end, these guys won't make the same mistakes he did.
Seems you've (pistol) been going on for a few days now that Goodell was going to suspend since they refused to cooperate. However, they have yet to, you know, actually refuse to cooperate.
Not only that, everyone is assuming Goodell was leaning towards suspensions before the players refused to interview.
the NFLPA position just made those suspensions ten times easier to obtain, for failure to cooperate
They are handing him independent grounds for suspension
And then there were 4:
The fourth active player targeted by the NFL’s performance-enhancing drug probe has decided to speak to league investigators after all.
Free-agent linebacker Mike Neal has agreed to be interviewed, one day after Green Bay Packers linebackers Clay Matthews and Julius Peppers and Pittsburgh Steelers linebacker James Harrison did the same, a person with knowledge of the situation told USA TODAY Sports.
Neal, who spent the past six seasons with the Packers, is proposing to make himself available to investigators in Chicago, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. The proposed date for that meeting wasn’t immediately known.
Hungry5 posted:Seems you've (pistol) been going on for a few days now that Goodell was going to suspend since they refused to cooperate. However, they have yet to, you know, actually refuse to cooperate.
Not only that, everyone is assuming Goodell was leaning towards suspensions before the players refused to interview.
the NFLPA position just made those suspensions ten times easier to obtain, for failure to cooperate
They are handing him independent grounds for suspension
Are you drunk? He originally said they had to interview at the start of camp. July 25 for our guys. They refused. On August 18, he sent the letter giving them until August 25 to interview or he would suspend them for noncooperation.
Did you slur my words when you read them out loud?
If you are referring to "the 7 attempts to interview", that was from what the league claimed. What we don't know, were those 7 attempts to each player or 7 attempts total? Were the players unavailable for those interviews because they flat our refused or because they had previous commitments? Did the players actually decline the interview or was that the PA declining?
The PA sent statements from the players in good faith, but the league didn't like those, so that prompted the Or Else stance from Goodell.
Weak case... no failed tests, recanted statement, defunct news agency.
I don't think you can accuse H5 of being drunk without a test to back it up
These types of unsubstantiated accusations are ruining the game
He originally said they had to interview at the start of camp.
Um, no. The league told the union that league officials plan to show up on the first day of training camp to conduct the interviews. They didn't as far as we know.
In related news, the MLB Commish found no credible evidence against Howard and Zimmerman from the Al Jazeera report.
This just in about cooperation - or the lack there of as it pertains to the NFL:
http://profootballtalk.nbcspor...h-nfl-investigation/
So Josh Brown's wife doesn't cooperate - doesn't say if Josh Brown cooperated - the assumption is that he did since he wasn't mentioned as not cooperating. But Josh gets suspended -for 1 game only. Somehow the lack of cooperation was Josh's fault. Justice NFL style.
In a related story, the NFL has yet to announce suspensions for Josh's wife and the police officers who refused to cooperate.
CMIII should just tell the NFL it was his DAD they were talking about in the video
Sly didn't mention WHICH Clay Matthews. If Manning can pawn it off on his wife, Clay can use the We Are Family defense too.
What do you need when you have Roger Goodell up to his neck in concrete? Like with most lawyers you need about another foot of concrete.
Good point, Satori. Did he write his name as just Clay Matthews, or did he actually put the III after his name?
Heck, it could be grandpa or dad then. Use it Clay!!
I'm not defending Josh Brown in any way but what evidence did they find in that case?
I've worked in union settings a long time and second or third hand information doesn't work. In other words, that dog won't hunt.
Yet Rog seems to think he's got it all figured out.
What a mess
Plausible?
Here's what I think... Neal used and Sly was his guy. Neal brought Sly to GB and the 25 players he talked to told him to piss up a rope. Sly talked big-shot to the Brit athlete on the secret video-tape hoping to get another customer with access to more customers. He dropped names (CM3, Peppers, other Packers) in hopes that lends credibility to his methods.
Is there proof Sly actually talked to 25 guys?
IIRC, Sly said Neal brought him to GB for 6 weeks and "brought some guys by. Like half the team" in the AJ report.
Was this ever confirmed? If so by who? There is no way Sly gave anything to the NFL. Otherwise Manning never gets cleared.
I wish Harrison got his wish and his interview aired live so he could ask to see the evidence they have against him. Of course it's never going to happen. But it should be aired live. If Goodell has credible evidence he should want it aired. Only because I can't think of a commissioner in the last 40 years that's been taken less seriously than Goodell other than maybe Gary Bettman or Bowie Kuhn.
Ok. Le'Veon Bell is having his 4 game suspension for missing several drug tests reduced to 3 games. But somehow the negotiation for the reduction included this nugget:
"As part of a settlement between the two parties, Bell will remain in his current stage of the substance-abuse program, Garafolo added. Staying in the same stage of the program means Bell's next suspension would also be four games, not 10"
Im telling you. Goodell is just making **** up as he goes along.
cuqui posted:No way all 25 guys say no IMO
This part.
Sly talked big-shot to the Brit athlete on the secret video-tape hoping to get another customer with access to more customers.
Why did he recant? Because none to very little of what he said was true.
Tschmack posted:I'm not defending Josh Brown in any way but what evidence did they find in that case?
It was a single police report. The original one. Probably a couple of pages.
They said that report was enough for a violation of the Personal Conduct policy and gave him one game. I agree: That is messed up.
[ All the talk about her not cooperating had nothing to do with noncooperation by the player as Conduct Detrimental. They were only mentioning it as justification for only giving him one game. Obviously they don't suspend him for her not cooperating. ]
There's enough in the police reports to satisfactorily say Josh is a POS that may very well have anger issues and most likely drinking problems. A kicker kicking in a bathroom door to get at a 16 year old. I hope that kid said wide right.
If an edge rusher happens to get 100% of Josh's ACL I'd be fine with it.
Obviously if it is true he is a POS, but we're talking about sufficiency and quality of the actual evidence against him. It had to be really low if they dismissed charges 5 days after they were brought.
Not begrudging your right to draw your own conclusions, Chili, but somewhere on the Internet, Giants fans are pointing out things like: 1) There was no physical injury or evidence; 2) She recanted her story (sound familiar so far?); 3) Charges were completely dismissed 5 days after they were filed, which prosecutors don't do lightly in domestic cases and means she may well have convinced them she lied to the police; and 4) There was no allegation of harm to the 16 year old son, only that Brown "got in his face," etc.
Somewhere else on the Internet, Vikings fans are saying things like: "There's enough in the Al Jazeera video to safely say Clay and Julius were using, come on, it is obvious what's going on, Packers are cheaters and we are all whiney douchebags," etc.
Just saying (and this is ALL I'm saying): We can't really bitch about the use of recanted hearsay in our case and at the same time say it is fine and dandy in his.
(Well I mean I suppose we can, we're fans, but it is kind of hypocritical.)
Pistol, the police were called to Josh Browns home on consecutive nights. Don't confuse that with Viking fan trolls about Clay and Julius. And commingle these two stories. And then introduce internet input from Giants fans. My god there's equal posts from Giants fans that he needs to be shown the ****ing door yesterday.
He smells like a POS. He truly does. If you don't think he is then God bless you. But EVERYTHING points to him being a true piece of human garbage.
Im not making a comment about Josh Brown in any regards to GB players and their fight with Goodell. I'm simply calling Josh Brown a POS.
And no disrespect. But you strike me as a public defender.
You missed my point completely and totally Chili. It was not about comparing your opinion of Josh Brown the person to anybody else's. It was about comparing the type of evidence (recanted hearsay) that was being used in his case and ours. That is ALL my post was about, WHICH IS WHY I CLARIFIED IT WAS ALL IT WAS ABOUT.
So, you know, "no disrespect," but you strike me as a person who did not read my post very well, and who needs to calm the hell down and re-read it, maybe in the morning. I specifically said I respect your conclusions about Josh Brown the person, and I do. But if you're going to base it on recanted hearsay, then it would be hypocritical to say others can't also rely on recanted hearsay for Clay and Julius. For the 3rd time, that is all the post is about.
Obviously your last personal comment is supposed to be derogatory (even though it fails), so don't lie and say "no disrespect." You don't know **** about me, and it is not my fault you can't read right now. Go to bed.
I think I know plenty about you. I think I nicked a nerve. I think I read your post just fine. I think you are crossing points. I think Josh Brown has nothing to do with Green Bay. I don't get why you are trying to spin it that way. I don't get how you feel Viking fans posting things about Packer players has anything to do with Josh Brown.
Its your fault you're not making any sense right now.
Try it in the morning, seriously. You're right that you're not getting it. The hypothetical Vikings fans would be using recanted hearsay testimony, which is all they have on our players, just like it is all they had on Brown. That is what Josh Brown has to do with Green Bay: It is all they have on both.
I think I shouldn't have used Vikings fans as an example and I also must have touched a nerve with that. I thought it was funny, sorry.
And I guess I shouldn't be crossing personal opinions with sufficient evidence to sanction, but that is why I said you are free to draw your own personal conclusions. I am only pointing out that it is (kind of) hypocritical to draw one based on recanted hearsay alone, but then say (as I thought we kind of all are saying) that Goodell shouldn't be able to suspend Matthews and a Peppers based on it alone. I didn't even think it is that big of a point, really.
You're a huge Packer fan; so am I. It will suck if they use recanted hearsay to suspend our boys. That is what is behind it. I'm sure we can agree on that. ( ? )
I have no opinion on Brown the person. I don't know enough. Like I said I don't begrudge yours.
But dude, seriously, don't say you know someone from an anonymous Internet football forum or from stereotypes you have in your head. I don't think you're that stupid.
Pistolero out.
If Josh Brown is really acting as what's being alleged it will surface at some point with real evidence. These guys tend to have a pattern of behavior that's difficult to turn off unless they can get help for their issues.
Count me as shocked that Vikings fans are outraged Goodell hasn't kicked CMIII and Pep out of the league as being "cheaters." So says the franchise that pumped artificial noise into their former ****hole stadium