PatsFans.com Menu
PatsFans.com - The Hub For New England Patriots Fans

NFP: NFL finds Al Davis in violation of league rules


Status
Not open for further replies.

BPF

In the Starting Line-Up
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
2,469
Reaction score
0
The National Football Post | Davis In Violation Of League Rules

By National Football Post
Posted October 7, 2008
Davis In Violation Of League Rules

League sources have confirmed to us here at The National Football Post that the NFL League Office has sent Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis a letter informing him that he was in violation of NFL league rules when he falsely accused the New England Patriots of tampering with then Raider wide receiver Randy Moss. This violation of NFL team policy and guidelines will certainly come with a hefty fine.

More on this story as it develops.
 
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy :rolleyes:

I can't wait to see how FESPN spins this to say how it was really New England's fault all along... etc... etc.... sigh...
 
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy :rolleyes:

I can't wait to see how FESPN spins this to say how it was really New England's fault all along... etc... etc.... sigh...

Oh no Doubt. I can't wait to hear what Tom Jackson has to say. He's soooo SMART. :rolleyes:
 
Sweet. I'm glad to see Goodell actually following through on what he should be doing. I was a little worried he'd look the other way.
 
What no Goodell press conference? Without it ESPN won't even discuss it and I doubt it even makes the ESPN scroller.
 
Mike Lombardi added this yesterday to this story yesterday:

The National Football Post | National Football Post Tavern Talk

TUESDAY TAVERN TALK….

First some follow up to our Al Davis Raider story from this morning. Commissioner Roger Goodell sent out a memo on 5 June 2008 called “Integrity of the Game and Fair Competition” to all 32 club owners and executives clearly stating his policy and guidelines.

Here is the part that the Raiders failed to take into account when they threw the Patriots, Randy Moss, or anyone else under the bus last Tuesday at their press conference:

This is directly quoted from the memo.

“Second, in assessing discipline for competitive violations, I will take into account the nature and materiality of the violation, the prior record of the party committing the violation, the discipline imposed in comparable cases, the extent of the party’s cooperation in the investigation and all other relevant facts and circumstances. Insofar as possible, I will take into account the actual competitive effects of the violation.”

“Third, we have made clear that those who report a competitive violation must have a reasonable basis for doing so, and are expected to come forward with evidence to substantiate the charge. If I determine that a charge was made in bad faith, is frivolous, or that the club or person making the charge is unable or unwilling to provide evidence to support it, I will impose appropriate sanctions.”

“Fourth, we will make all reasonable efforts to preserve confidentiality and protect those who report the competitive violation. Any actual or threatened retaliation against a person who makes a report in good faith will be grounds for discipline.


So, if the Raiders had a case against the Patriots, there is ample wording and protection to go ahead and make their claim. Why wait 18 months later to make this charge? Might it be that Moss scored 23 touchdowns last year for the Pats?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.


Thursday Patriots Notebook 4/25: News and Notes
Patriots Kraft ‘Involved’ In Decision Making?  Zolak Says That’s Not the Case
MORSE: Final First Round Patriots Mock Draft
Slow Starts: Stark Contrast as Patriots Ponder Which Top QB To Draft
Wednesday Patriots Notebook 4/24: News and Notes
Tuesday Patriots Notebook 4/23: News and Notes
MORSE: Final 7 Round Patriots Mock Draft, Matthew Slater News
Bruschi’s Proudest Moment: Former LB Speaks to MusketFire’s Marshall in Recent Interview
Monday Patriots Notebook 4/22: News and Notes
Patriots News 4-21, Kraft-Belichick, A.J. Brown Trade?
Back
Top