- Joined
- Sep 13, 2004
- Messages
- 37,855
- Reaction score
- 16,675
There is a lot of public sentiment for the league to take action over and above the legal system for lost of different crimes.
So, what crimes should be punished by lifetime suspension by the league? Do the actions (conviction and punishment) of the legal system relevant?
I am NOT meaning to discuss what the legal system should do, or what the teams should do. They have their own set of functions and priorities.
Also, for what actions should the league suspend a player, pending action by the legal system (which obviously could take years)?
===============================
We might start with murder. When should a player be suspended by the LEAGUE (if at all)?
Upon arrest?
After the player is charged with murder?
After conviction? (is a plea bargain relevant since this is often the result)?
========================
I don't think any of this is clear. The patriots had a situation that, in the judgement of the TEAM, was clearly guilty. The team fired him, taking an additional cap hit compared with waiting. The team did not wait for charges to be filed. I'm not questioning Kraft's actions. I'm just bringing up the most extreme situation.
========================
VIOLENCE, DRUGS and GAMBLING
These three issues seem important to the league. Should they be? If so, what should the league do? So many here have criticized the league for being inconsistent. Others take the opposite approach, suggesting the league should have extreme latitude to make decisions on a case by case basis.
The league is re-visiting its drug policy. IMHO, it needs major changes. I see no reason for the league to have penalties for use or abuse of alcohol or marijuana. These matters can be left for the legislatures and courts to deal with.
So, what crimes should be punished by lifetime suspension by the league? Do the actions (conviction and punishment) of the legal system relevant?
I am NOT meaning to discuss what the legal system should do, or what the teams should do. They have their own set of functions and priorities.
Also, for what actions should the league suspend a player, pending action by the legal system (which obviously could take years)?
===============================
We might start with murder. When should a player be suspended by the LEAGUE (if at all)?
Upon arrest?
After the player is charged with murder?
After conviction? (is a plea bargain relevant since this is often the result)?
========================
I don't think any of this is clear. The patriots had a situation that, in the judgement of the TEAM, was clearly guilty. The team fired him, taking an additional cap hit compared with waiting. The team did not wait for charges to be filed. I'm not questioning Kraft's actions. I'm just bringing up the most extreme situation.
========================
VIOLENCE, DRUGS and GAMBLING
These three issues seem important to the league. Should they be? If so, what should the league do? So many here have criticized the league for being inconsistent. Others take the opposite approach, suggesting the league should have extreme latitude to make decisions on a case by case basis.
The league is re-visiting its drug policy. IMHO, it needs major changes. I see no reason for the league to have penalties for use or abuse of alcohol or marijuana. These matters can be left for the legislatures and courts to deal with.