N/S Goodell trying to use "conduct detrimenta to the leaguel" again in Al Jazeera conflict (1 Viewer)

[SaintStephen]

The old "masturbating in the brothel lobby" card. Well played.

I was waiting for someone to play it...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[cutter11]

When time comes to renegotiate the CBA, what if the players just said, "we will not negotiate with Roger Goodell or play as long as he is commissioner". I think the players have the clout to do that but not the stones. I think some of the owners would want to give him the heave ho immediately while others would want a lock out.

I know I usually think of the Commissioner as someone who works strictly for the owners and I think that is how Roger sees it. But shouldn't a real commissioner work for both sides. The players are the NFL - not the owners. Nobody goes to see a bunch of old gray headed seniles on Sunday play football. They just need to grow a pair before the CBA expires.

 

[superchuck500]

Sounds like it's 2 arguments being combined

1. PED usage
2. Failure to interview

No interview would prove/disprove PED usage not would claims by a media source

The issue isn't about PED usage it's about appearing for an interview question is if when and can a player refuse an interview per the CBA

If there was a case of compelling evidence of PED usage or any wrong doing say betting on games by a player for example could the player refuse to interview this hindering the process

The NFL seems to be defending their position that such an interview is mandatory while the players in this case are saying no the league has no standing to mandate an interview due to no evidence

I understand both sides , the league has to do interviews , investigations etc to protect the image of the league and protect itself from law suites , who is the usual plaintiffs in suites against the league ? - the players

Players don't want to be falsely accused, have their name mentioned In such events that they are not involved with , who is most likely going to accuse them ? Media and in cases of "cheating" other teams

Here is the issue by demanding and refusing , the league looks abusive in power when demanding like noted in this thread , by refusing ( in cases where there is evidence to warrant) the players can appear guilty

Yeah, I think you nailed it. Goodell believes that the league has a prerogative to create it's own file on the matter (or any relevant matter), it should be able to request to speak with players identified and it should expect their basic, reasonable cooperation. A player refusing to do provide that basic cooperation is out-of-line and acting to the league's detriment . . . or at least that's how Goodell sees it. To him, it isn't so much about PEDs as it is cooperation with your employer's representatives.

But I think the players on solid footing to resist, arguing that there is no general obligation, either in the CBA or in any of the players' contracts. to meet with league investigators about something not specific to a game or team incident for which there is no concurrent law enforcement investigation or formal allegations stated in some kind of complaint or lawsuit. The only interest the league could have arises from the PED program and this kind of activity is simply not described or authorized in the program's provisions.

The problem for Goodell, I think, is that it is likely an overreach and certainly unprecedented. As we saw in bounty-gate, part of Tagliabue's arbitration ruling is that while the league rules and CBA were broad enough to include the investigation and punishments, there was no precedent for the commissioner's actions. The problem for the players, though, is that (1) the commissioner's discipline power and control of the appellate process are quite broad in the CBA and federal labor law requires the judicial system to defer to that process except in several very limited contexts. This is exactly what drove the federal appeals court decision in the Brady case.

If both sides dig in, the way it plays out is that the commissioner makes the deadline, then issues the suspension, the players appeal, and if the suspension is upheld, the NFLPA will take it to the district court (I believe it would be the Southern District of NY), probably arguing that the commissioner's action was beyond the power bestowed by the CBA and therefore contrary to law. Whichever side loses would take it the Second Circuit where the Brady decision stands front and center. It's a slightly different argument by the PA so it isn't necessarily going to have the same result, but if I had to bet, it would be on the commissioner.

And if he wins that case, it basically means that he can command cooperation with any investigation with any purported connection to league rules or policies no matter how flimsy the evidence or allegations may be. The NFLPA would have basically been beaten into submission on player discipline - but it could lead to substantial player pushback either in the lead-up to the next CBA negotiation (the current expires after 2020 season) or perhaps even earlier if they get really mad.

 

[superchuck500]

Looks like the players are going to meet with the league.

 

[Hedon James]

Looks like the players are going to meet with the league.

I'm disappointed. I feel like Roger already won...again. I hope they're taking the NFLPA counsel, as well as Jon Vilma's AND Tom Brady's attorneys.

 

[superchuck500]

I'm disappointed. I feel like Roger already won...again. I hope they're taking the NFLPA counsel, as well as Jon Vilma's AND Tom Brady's attorneys.

Roger was going to win anyway - or at least very likely. This way they don't get suspended to make a point.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Roger was going to win anyway - or at least very likely. This way they don't get suspended to make a point.

they should let fujita rep them

 

[baarbogast]

Maybe they'll drop a slander suit on him in person.

 

[superchuck500]

Maybe they'll drop a slander suit on him in person.

When did he slander them?