Bailey reinstated

[nanotech]

Quite frankly, I don't get the NFL. Preach accountability and responsibility, but decide : Oh, we were just kidding. Put me in the corner of those who think the world today, along with the NFL, is way too soft on morals and personal behavior. There have been way too messages sent to our young folks that, if you are good enough at sports or some other entertainment, rules can bend or may not even apply. I'm pretty much sick of it. Bailey, and the other folks, may be guilty of what some in our society would deem "misdemeanors", but I don't want my kids growing up with the mindset that misdemeanors are in some way not something you need to be accountable for. Instead of lessening the penalties, I would be OK with making them tougher.


Never mind. I'm an old guy who emigrated to this country a long time ago and have this antiquated notion that laws, morals, and virtues mean something.

 

[jrry32]

You're neglecting to acknowledge a key component...this is all part of a negotiation by both sides. A major player in this whole thing is that the NFLPA thought the punishments being given out didn't fit the foul. They wanted the rules changed and part of that was the current players serving suspensions.

You are arguing that it should simply be future infractions that the rules change...the NFLPA wanted it to include current infractions. I don't understand why that is so damning? It's simply a negotiation where one side wants XYZ and the other wants ABC, it's all the letters in between that get sorted through.

I mean hell, you can negotiate with the IRS on back taxes for goodness sake.

You're looking at it from the big picture stand-point. I'm looking at it from the individual stand-point. And the issue is that it's not CURRENT infractions. It's PAST infractions. I have no issue with them removing suspensions from guys that happened just recently when negotiations were going simply because those players shouldn't be punished due to the league and the NFLPA dragging their feet. However, the players that were punished last year or in early 2014 should not be getting off.

 

[jrry32]

Oh, okay. I see where we lost each other. I thought you were talking about people who had been punished and served their sentence already to completion. You're talking about players who are currently serving a sentence, and you feel they should just serve the original term without getting any leniency under the guidelines of the new rule. Like time served.

Well, tough crap.

Yes and no. My argument towards players that already served their sentence was that they're getting shafted if you allow players currently being punished to go free.

I want the people punished to serve their suspensions. But if the NFL is intent on doing this, the players that actually had to serve their suspensions under similar circumstances to the guys getting let off now should have a right to get paid back the money the league took from them that these other players are now going to get paid.

 

[-X-]

Yes and no. My argument towards players that already served their sentence was that they're getting shafted if you allow players currently being punished to go free.

I want the people punished to serve their suspensions. But if the NFL is intent on doing this, the players that actually had to serve their suspensions under similar circumstances to the guys getting let off now should have a right to get paid back the money the league took from them that these other players are now going to get paid.

I don't necessarily agree, but let's run with that. How far back does this old rule go?

 

[jrry32]

I don't necessarily agree, but let's run with that. How far back does this old rule go?

In a technical sense, the agreement to the last CBA.

 

[-X-]

In a technical sense, the agreement to the last CBA.

Which was? I'm on a Google sabbatical.

 

[jrry32]

Which was? I'm on a Google sabbatical.

2011? It was the McDaniels year...so yea, 2011.

 

[-X-]

2011? It was the McDaniels year...so yea, 2011.

Okay, so all of the players suspended since 2011 for this (now old) infraction should be due a refund of their lost wages commensurate with the difference between the amount of days they were suspended and what the new rule imposes?

Sounds good. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Unfortunately......

 

[jrry32]

Okay, so all of the players suspended since 2011 for this (now old) infraction should be due a refund of their lost wages commensurate with the difference between the amount of days they were suspended and what the new rule imposes?

Sounds good. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Unfortunately......

Yep. If you're going to let the guys on the hook off of it, seems like the only fair way to do it.

 

[Sum1]

Yes and no. My argument towards players that already served their sentence was that they're getting shafted if you allow players currently being punished to go free.

I want the people punished to serve their suspensions. But if the NFL is intent on doing this, the players that actually had to serve their suspensions under similar circumstances to the guys getting let off now should have a right to get paid back the money the league took from them that these other players are now going to get paid.

And the NFLPA doesn't. And the NFL is granting them that. The league and the PA have to draw a line somewhere, whether it's future infractions or current is completely irrelevant. What you are proposing about repaying past infractions is next to impossible. How many years do you go back? How does that effect the accounting of teams and which fiscal year does it get applied?

Rules in all walks of life change. Life isn't fair.

If players from past years are repaid money they lost it now seems more moral that the current suspensions are getting lifted? C'mon...

 

[jrry32]

And the NFLPA doesn't. And the NFL is granting them that. The league and the PA have to draw a line somewhere, whether it's future infractions or current is completely irrelevant. What you are proposing about repaying past infractions is next to impossible. How many years do you go back? How does that effect the accounting of teams and which fiscal year does it get applied?

Rules in all walks of life change. Life isn't fair.

If players from past years are repaid money they lost it now seems more moral that the current suspensions are getting lifted? C'mon...

And yet ex post facto law is unconstitutional in America.

It's really not next to impossible. You go back to the last CBA which was 2011 since that is technically when the rule was agreed upon in writing before being changed. How does it effect the accounting? It doesn't. Lost wages due to suspension go directly to the NFL League Office. The NFL League Office would be responsible for paying the players back. It would have no effect on the salary cap.

I don't give a shit if life is fair. Rules and policies should be. They should be even-handed.

 

[jrry32]

Because from all reports, this agreement was supposed to have been made before the season started. In the court system, for example, if a relevant binding case is decided or statute enacted while your case is still active, it is taken into account.

I'd make it retroactive to the new league year...which I think they did...assuming that was when it was supposed to go into effect.

 

[Sum1]

And yet ex post facto law is unconstitutional in America.

It's really not next to impossible. You go back to the last CBA which was 2011 since that is technically when the rule was agreed upon in writing before being changed. How does it effect the accounting? It doesn't. Lost wages due to suspension go directly to the NFL League Office. The NFL League Office would be responsible for paying the players back. It would have no effect on the salary cap.

I don't give a crap if life is fair. Rules and policies should be. They should be even-handed.

It is very obvious you have no experience with contracts, negotiations, or unions at all.

 

[jrry32]

It is very obvious you have no experience with contracts, negotiations, or unions at all.

The irony.

 

[Sum1]

The irony.

Oh, why is that? Are you in law school or something?

Because you seem to be really upset that players of the past aren't getting a fair shake when the reality of it is that the NFLPA which is the group that represents the players in the collective bargaining process has decided this is what they want, and you can't see that for some reason...very odd.

I've negotiated numerous union labor contracts. I've also sat through many amendment negotiations, a few somewhat similar to this. This sort of thing is not uncommon at all among collectively bargained agreements.

 

[jrry32]

Oh, why is that? Are you in law school or something?

Yep. And contracts happen to be one of the subjects I am studying right now. Haha.

I don't have experience with Unions, you're right about that.

Because you seem to be really upset that players of the past aren't getting a fair shake when the reality of it is that the NFLPA which is the group that represents the players in the collective bargaining process has decided this is what they want, and you can't see that for some reason...very odd.

I think you've mistaken my argument against the logic of the decision for my intention. I don't think any of the punishments should be undone except punishments that fall under the retroactivity solely due to the drug policy not being enacted in time for the new league year due to the NFL's and NFLPA's errors.

I completely understand WHY it's happening. I'm arguing why it SHOULDN'T happen. You're arguing practical, I'm arguing theoretical.

I've negotiated numerous union labor contracts. I've also sat through many amendment negotiations, a few somewhat similar to this. This sort of thing is not uncommon at all among collectively bargained agreements.

I don't doubt it. Quid pro quo. NFL wants the new HGH policy, they're going to have to give in some things to the NFLPA. And obviously, releasing the players from suspensions is something they can give up without having to sacrifice much of anything...except, and here's the issue I have with it, their credibility in the consequences of the drug policy. They've seriously undermined it.

Take Josh Gordon, for example, dude failed his drug test late in the 2013 season. He filed an appeal and lost. And yet his punishment is still being reduced. When you see that, how do you respect the NFL's ability to punish when they clearly don't seem intent on upholding their own punishments? And, imo, the Ray Rice situation only made it worse. Goodell had already punished him but chose to punish him more severely after the fact to save face. I just think it's a bad move.(even if that isn't connected to this specific deal...I think it's indirectly connected)

 

[Sum1]

They've seriously undermined it.

Take Josh Gordon, for example, dude failed his drug test late in the 2013 season. He filed an appeal and lost. And yet his punishment is still being reduced. When you see that, how do you respect the NFL's ability to punish when they clearly don't seem intent on upholding their own punishments? And, imo, the Ray Rice situation only made it worse. Goodell had already punished him but chose to punish him more severely after the fact to save face. I just think it's a bad move.(even if that isn't connected to this specific deal...I think it's indirectly connected)

I agree with this sentiment to s a certain degree, no doubt about that.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Yep. If you're going to let the guys on the hook off of it, seems like the only fair way to do it.

I thought the agreement was retroactive to March of this year. Disallowing any violations before that to have any consideration.