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

Previous Next
WallyBB said:
Look, I am with every one in the 'Rodger is a terrible pile of failure' camp...

BUT... The charges are serious, the source is not ignorable, the players involved are front and center in the league. I think it is reasonable the the NFL should be able to compel some for of cooperation from the players while they investigate.

This is totally the bed Goodell has made for the NFL, but, specifically for this issue, the players are not exactly on the moral high ground.
Click to expand...

The problem is that no one really cares about the story, especially since the dude at the center of the story has recanted his entire testimony. This was a dead issue that very few people, if any, would ever even remember.

The day Peyton Manning was cleared of the accusations, this was over and done with, and the NFL could simply dismiss it and move on.

So why resurrect the allegations into a new news cycle? What possible benefit to the league exists with this action?

It is such a massive PR blunder that I cannot imagine a person with even minimal PR training making it, let alone someone who made their career in the practice.
 
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
 
Smart move by league. In next CBA, player will spend their leverage to get Goddell's power reduced. The owners would much much much much rather the players focus on that instead of trying to get more $$.
 
Is it some kind of inside joke to spell Roger "Rodger" and I just don't get it? I've never seen so many people spell it that way and have never met anyone with the first name of Roger spelled with a D in it.
 
insidejob said:
Is it some kind of inside joke to spell Roger "Rodger" and I just don't get it? I've never seen so many people spell it that way and have never met anyone with the first name of Roger spelled with a D in it.
Click to expand...

During the 2011 lockout, I heard a caller to a sports radio program refer to him as GODdell. It stuck to my brain like glue, particularly during the bounty fiasco. And that's what I'll call him until he's finally gone.
 
St.Fury said:
This is all based off of a statement by a guy, who has subsequently redacted said statement.

The players, in accordance to the CBA, have no responsibility to comply with the leagues request for an interview because there is no compelling evidence. Furthermore, they've all sent affidavits to the league, which the league rejected.

Roger likes to strong-arm people. He probably feels that, since he currently has no evidence, he can probably get them to miss speak just enough to use it against them. He can't do that without an interview. So, what he's basically doing is saying "guilty until proven innocent".

Punishing players just off of someone else's word...that's opening a Pandoras box that shouldn't be opened.
Click to expand...

That is the crux of the issue. Either the CBA specifies that the players have to interview or they don't. And by the way, I wonder what the legal or definition of ''conduct detrimental to the league'' would be. Or, is it specified in the CBA?
 
Last edited:
parlorcitysaint said:
Couldn't the janitor or somebody leak it to Hillary that goodell's about to testify against her?
Click to expand...

70988667.jpg

ray-rice-and-roger-goodell-memes_12.jpg
 
El Caliente said:
Maybe the NFLPA could fight for more power, but then they would have to give up revenue.

It's all good though. If these guys get in trouble from Goodell, they can just...appeal...to...Goodell...****!
Click to expand...

I wish every player in the league would refuse to play as long as these phantom investigations go on. Either he has proof something happened or he doesn't. He is trying to trip someone up to make a case that he now doesn't have, just like a cop.
 
2009ring said:
You may not have heard this, but the author of the Al Jazeera article has publicly retracted his accusations.
Click to expand...

I absolutely did NOT read that. Changes things a bit... still think the NFL should have the right to interview players about this stuff though. I understand why players are weary, it is a trust thing that Goodell has lost. However, if the NFL is investigating something, they should have the ability to talk to the players involved.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom