Edelman Suspension Appeal

[Ring 6]

It is. But maybe it didn't come across the way you meant, so fine.

Very possible I didn’t come across as intended. I was doing too many things at once.

If the NFL is concerned about the impact to their image based on off field actions why shouldn't they suspend a player?

Because they aren’t the law and every time they step into these issues they screw it up and hurt their image worse than the player did.

 

[SammyBlueCat]

I’m not talking about “his problem”. I’m saying he is suspended because it is an image issue FOR THE NFL. The NFL shouldn’t be suspending players for things that the law should handle. If a woman accused, and it’s accused not found guilty, you of grabbing her do you think your employer would launch an investigation and even though you were not found guilty of anything, suspend you from your job for 3 weeks?

The NFL is right to suspend players for using PEDs because it creates a competitive advantage and affects the game.

He was not found guilty because he settled out of court. No?

I do understand your point however private companies can have a code of contact.

I know people that cannot wear jeans to work.

Several states have legalized marijuana yet businesses in those states can and do have stricter policies.

On a more serious note, I know of a case where a young man was accused of raping a relative.
He has not had a trial yet however his employer dismissed him.

 

[fnordcircle]

Because they aren’t the law and every time they step into these issues they screw it up and hurt their image worse than the player did.

I don't agree that a private entity should be expected to wait for law enforcement especially when there was a public apology and an internal investigation. We can agree that the NFL, currently, is a corrupt bunch of a-holes.

But fundamentally I don't think I'd blame any private entity for taking action against an employee that might tarnish their image. It's why people get fired from their job for saying stupid stuff on social media.

 

[Ring 6]

He was not found guilty because he settled out of court. No?

No I don’t think he was ever even charged.

I do understand your point however private companies can have a code of contact.

I know people that cannot wear jeans to work.

Several states have legalized marijuana yet businesses in those states can and do have stricter policies.

Code of conduct typically revolves around being guilty of something.
Dress code affects business. Employers have a right to a dress code. It’s nothing like this.

I can’t comment on the last part because I am unaware of any cases, but just as drinking alcohol is legal, doing it at work is not acceptable.

Winston wasn’t at work.

On a more serious note, I know of a case where a young man was accused of raping a relative.
He has not had a trial yet however his employer dismissed him.

I’m sure they gave a different reason than accused of rape. They may have found it disgusting and found a reason to fire him.
He may have the type of job (sales?) where the publicity made it impossible for him to be effective.
And ewwww

 

[Ring 6]

I don't agree that a private entity should be expected to wait for law enforcement especially when there was a public apology and an internal investigation. We can agree that the NFL, currently, is a corrupt bunch of a-holes.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty.
Winston did not admit to anything. He apologized “for the situation she was put in”.
The NFL did an investigation about air in footballs once too.
They also investigated Ezekiel Elliot and suspended him despite their own investigator saying the victim lied. Ray rice, Greg hardy, ray Lewis, josh brown, etc etc.
An NFL internal investigation isn’t worth the toilet paper they wrote it on.
But let’s just say people are guilty because then the NFL can look like morality champs.

But fundamentally I don't think I'd blame any private entity for taking action against an employee that might tarnish their image. It's why people get fired from their job for saying stupid stuff on social media.

There is a huge difference when accusations affect the business. If an investment advisor is publicly accused of stealing money from his church that makes him an ineffective employee and he must be fired. In those cases you don’t suspend people you fire them.
The only reason for a suspension is to say Hey look at me, someone accused my employee of a disgusting act so to prove I dint like that act I will give him a punishment. That accomplishes nothing.

 

[Le Numéro Douze]

#FreeJules

 

[DaBronxPats14]

 

[Bill Lee]

Just sayin'...

 

[Tunescribe]

Just sayin'...

Yeah, except that Brady didn't request that footballs be under-inflated.

 

[maust]

Just sayin'...

Bryant didn't get suspended 16 games for smoking pot. He got suspended 16 games for being stupid enough to get popped pissing dirty 5 jeten times.

 

[Joker]

Yeah, except that Brady didn't request that footballs be under-inflated.

already sent this friggin' idiot a scathing e-mail...hopefully his head explodes when he reads it

 

[supafly]

already sent this friggin' idiot a scathing e-mail...hopefully his head explodes when he reads it

That’s why we love ya, buddy. Give ‘em hell.

 

[moosekill]

It would be so much simpler if the NFL just put in a set fine for certain issues. Felony conviction x games, misdemeanor conviction x games. Under investigation of a capital crime suspension until proven innocent, dismissed, or proven guilty. Same with football inflation. If they had simply followed protocol, which is a fine, no suspension, everything would have been ok, but they had to go further. They always end up looking like idiots because they are.

 

[primetime]

It's weird to see people defend at-will employment in the NFL where you can be fired for literally anything, but also believe that suspensions and fines should be based strictly on courts or something. I don't know, seems inconsistent to me.

 

[The Brandon Five]

It would be so much simpler if the NFL just put in a set fine for certain issues. Felony conviction x games, misdemeanor conviction x games. Under investigation of a capital crime suspension until proven innocent, dismissed, or proven guilty. Same with football inflation. If they had simply followed protocol, which is a fine, no suspension, everything would have been ok, but they had to go further. They always end up looking like idiots because they are.

That inconsistency isn't because of incompetence, it's by design. Arbritrary rules allow you to reward friends and punish enemies.

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

I actually have no issues with the NFL's PED/Drug policy. It is clearly spelled out, what the policy is and what the punishments are. It's not like these guys do not know the risk they run when they take this stuff. And the hearings are conducted by a neutral third party arbitrator.

You can argue the relevance of having any of these substances listed as banned, but the policy is pretty plain and straight forward.

 

[Ring 6]

It's weird to see people defend at-will employment in the NFL where you can be fired for literally anything, but also believe that suspensions and fines should be based strictly on courts or something. I don't know, seems inconsistent to me.

They are 2 different things.

 

[moosekill]

It's weird to see people defend at-will employment in the NFL where you can be fired for literally anything, but also believe that suspensions and fines should be based strictly on courts or something. I don't know, seems inconsistent to me.

The difference is the team vs the league. If a team doesn't want a player for whatever reason they can let him go. Like the Pats with AH. The team has to deal with their fans, and they decide whether or not to punish/fire the player.

The league should treat every situation the same because it should all be spelled out. Then if the public thinks the punishment is either too severe or not severe enough, and the league wants to change it, they can change it so it takes effect the next time something like that happens. Kind of like this,

"I am sorry about the Ray Rice situation. I agree the punishment should be much tougher, but this is the punishment the League and Union came up with in our CBA. I will be immediately bringing this back up in front of the Union and League so we can get much stricter punishments in place if this ever happens again. I can only speak for myself, but I never envisioned something this awful happening when we worked on the punishments, it has no place in the NFL and I will work tirelessly until we have suitable punishments in place to keep this from ever happening again. I will remind the public, that while the league has strict punishments in place, that we have to follow, per the CBA individual teams have many options available to them including suspensions and terminations. "

Wouldn't that have been much, much better than what actually happened?

 

[The Brandon Five]

The difference is the team vs the league. If a team doesn't want a player for whatever reason they can let him go. Like the Pats with AH. The team has to deal with their fans, and they decide whether or not to punish/fire the player.

The league should treat every situation the same because it should all be spelled out. Then if the public thinks the punishment is either too severe or not severe enough, and the league wants to change it, they can change it so it takes effect the next time something like that happens. Kind of like this,

"I am sorry about the Ray Rice situation. I agree the punishment should be much tougher, but this is the punishment the League and Union came up with in our CBA. I will be immediately bringing this back up in front of the Union and League so we can get much stricter punishments in place if this ever happens again. I can only speak for myself, but I never envisioned something this awful happening when we worked on the punishments, it has no place in the NFL and I will work tirelessly until we have suitable punishments in place to keep this from ever happening again. I will remind the public, that while the league has strict punishments in place, that we have to follow, per the CBA individual teams have many options available to them including suspensions and terminations. "

Wouldn't that have been much, much better than what actually happened?

I'm trying to picture Roger delivering that message...

 

[primetime]

The difference is the team vs the league. If a team doesn't want a player for whatever reason they can let him go. Like the Pats with AH. The team has to deal with their fans, and they decide whether or not to punish/fire the player.

The league should treat every situation the same because it should all be spelled out. Then if the public thinks the punishment is either too severe or not severe enough, and the league wants to change it, they can change it so it takes effect the next time something like that happens. Kind of like this,

"I am sorry about the Ray Rice situation. I agree the punishment should be much tougher, but this is the punishment the League and Union came up with in our CBA. I will be immediately bringing this back up in front of the Union and League so we can get much stricter punishments in place if this ever happens again. I can only speak for myself, but I never envisioned something this awful happening when we worked on the punishments, it has no place in the NFL and I will work tirelessly until we have suitable punishments in place to keep this from ever happening again. I will remind the public, that while the league has strict punishments in place, that we have to follow, per the CBA individual teams have many options available to them including suspensions and terminations. "

Wouldn't that have been much, much better than what actually happened?

The league office is run by the teams. The teams are the ones who sit across the bargaining table from the union and create these rules. The teams pay Roger Goodell. I'm uncertain why there's a belief that the teams aren't getting exactly what they want.