I will post a link when and if this ever gets published online. I started it with a disclaimer to protect the website
*****************
I want to make it clear that the opinions I express below are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the opinions of any other writer or administrator on The Football Educator.
I really liked Roger Goodell when he first took over the responsibilities of NFL Commissioner. I liked that there was a new Sheriff in town and he was trying to clean up the league's image. Time and observation have slowly changed my perception of him and I no longer think that. It just seems like the man can't get out of his own way and has damaged my perception of the NFL. I do not seem to be alone. Back before the Super Bowl Seattle Seahawks Cornerback Richard Sherman summed things up very nicely for me when he said he did not expect the New England Patriots, Bob Kraft, or Bill Belichick to be sanctioned in any way for the discovery of altered footballs. Which brings me to where I lost all faith in the NFL Commissioner.
It is my opinion that he is way too influenced by John Mara, Principle Owner of the New York Giants, and Bob Kraft, Principle Owner of the New England Patriots. I believe they and their teams get preferential treatment by the Commissioner's Office, and I'm going to attempt to defend why I think so.
Let's start with when the New Sheriff started to lay down the law in the NFL. I want to assure you that I do respect trying to clear up the NFL's image. I believe that the effort is noteworthy and admirable. I believe how it has been applied has been a joke. Let me start with a 5 game suspension handed down to an NFL Assistant Coach. Wade Wilson, the Quarterbacks Coach of the Dallas Cowboys was given a 5 game suspension for the use of HGH. Players are typically given a 4 game suspension for performance enhancing drugs. Players are the ones who actually get out on the football field and perform. Coaches do not. Wilson claimed he was trying to get some help with diabetes. He was also fined $100,000. So he was trying to improve the quality of his life, not perform better on a football field. Goodell had no sympathy whatsoever for this reason. He said that coaches were going to be held to a higher standard than players.
I got to tell you, that even though I felt his punishment was unnecessarily cruel, I agreed with him in principle. Coaches being held to a higher standard came across to me as right. The problem is that the punishment ever since has not been equal. I began to watch how coaches were dealt with in the NFL. The glaring example is Bob Kraft's Head Coach, Bill Belichick. I want to begin by saying that I respect Belichick like few people can understand. I feel that he is a brilliant coach who is one of the absolute best to ever lead a team. When the story broke about the Patriots filming their opponents practices my first thought went back to Wade Wilson.
Coaches are going to be held to a higher standard than players. I looked at the fine and suspension Wade Wilson got and at what Belichick did and I have to be honest with you, I thought he was going to be held to the same standard Wade Wilson was. I was wrong. Let me ask you something rhetorically here. No matter how you feel about a person taking PEDs, did Wade Wilson's use of HGH to try and treat his diabetes affect the integrity of the NFL? I think players using them does affect the integrity of the game. It is blatantly cheating on their part. I can't say the same for a coach using it. It does not affect the integrity of the game. The NFL still deemed it wrong and I am okay with that. My problem arises with consistency from that point.
Did Bill Belichick and the Patriots filming opponents affect the integrity of the game? In my opinion yes it did, and I am not alone. Ever since those allegations surfaced I have seen the Patriots referred to as the "Cheatriots." I have seen a great coach referred to as "Belicheat." Cheating, and all things in relation to it do affect the integrity of the game of football. I expected the Commissioner to lower the boom on Bill Belichick and the Patriots. After all, look at the precedent in Wade Wilson and remember what Goodell professed, "Coaches will be held to a higher standard."
Bill Belichick was fined $500,000. You would automatically think it was 5 times as much as what Wade Wilson got fined. That would be mathematically correct, until you look at their salaries. I am not 100% sure, but I believe Wilson's fine was 40% of his salary, and if I recall correctly Belichick's fine was 7% of his salary. How is that equitable? Wade got suspended 5 games. Bill Belichick never left the sidelines. No suspension. Instead the Patriots were also fined and lost a 1st round Draft pick. You are free to disagree but I think that is less justice than a suspension would have been. I think the man deserved a greater suspension than 5 games. Again, we're talking about the precedent set. One man, not cheating. The other, clearly cheating and breaking NFL rules. $750,000 total fines is nothing to these guys. It certainly wasn't 40% of his salary. The Patriots can make up that amount in concessions for a pre season game.
Is there a double standard being applied here? Ask New Orleans Saints fans, players and coaches. I do not approve of bounties in any way. I think the Saints went too far with it. I think it affected the integrity of the game. So, from where I sit Sean Payton should have been fined $500,000, the Saints $250,000 and lose a first round Draft pick. No suspension for Payton. That is the precedent set by the Patriots and Bill Belichick for things affecting the integrity of the game. My jaw dropped when Sean Payton and Gregg Williams got suspended for an entire year. In addition to this he forfeited over 80% of his salary.
Why the huge dichotomy of justice here? That's what I'd like to know. One person in all the years since then has ever given me a mitigating circumstance possibly affecting the two situations. Payton tried to cover the bounty scandal up. Belichick didn't need to cover up the "spygate" scandal, the NFL themselves destroyed the evidence. Now, I am sure that Patriots fans will disagree with me and think their team got hosed. I think if you ask the fans of 31 other teams the New Orleans Saints and Sean Payton got hosed times 100. I don't see how anyone can defend the discrepancy between these punishments.
Now a new scandal surround Belichick and the Patriots. A new way discovered to cheat in the eyes of many. Richard Sherman doesn't think anything will happen to the Patriots. I don't either. I have precedent on my side. The last time they got caught it was a meaningless slap on the wrist and a "bad boy." Maybe things would be different if it weren't a team owned by John Mara or Bob Kraft.
You're probably wondering why I add John Mara to my skeptical meter here. That is fair. In 2011 the NFL operated without a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the NFL Players Association. This removed the salary cap restrictions from the 32 NFL teams. There was no ceiling to spend above, no floor to spend below. Teams could effectively operate on a bare bones budget or go extravagant. Two teams opted to go extravagant and two teams opted to go bare bones. I want to stress this next point, the NFL approved all contracts signed that year. Then in March 2012 the NFL, now operating with a Collective Bargaining Agreement, retroactively sanctioned two teams. The Dallas Cowboys were hit with a $10 million salary cap fine levied over 2 years. That's nothing compared to the Draconian punishment levied on Washington. They were fined $36 million over the same two years.
Now, many intelligent people have asked, what did these two teams do wrong if the NFL approved the contracts they gave players in an uncapped year? The answer is they did nothing wrong legally. Not one blessed thing. But John Mara led the NFL Competition Committee and they ruled that the two teams violated the "spirit of the salary cap." To this day I find this explanation to be two things. One, utterly a sham, and two, collusion. I have yet to meet a lawyer who doesn't feel that it was obvious collusion, and therefore a violation of antitrust laws. I remain to this day perplexed beyond belief at how the NFLPA and their leader, DeMaurice Smith, could so casually accept this injustice. That's right, it is an injustice.
The "spirit of a salary cap." To this day I cannot wrap my head around what that is. The best allegory I can draw as a comparison might be if you were driving your car on a roadway where there was no speed limit posted. You decide to drive at a reasonable speed of 45 miles per hour and find yourself pulled over and given a speeding ticket. You argue, there is no posted speed limit. The officer replies to you, "There is a spirit of a speed limit and it is 25 miles per hour." How does that make any sense? If you said it doesn't you would be correct. Neither does the NFL's "spirit of a salary cap." I suppose it is just a coincidence that the man who levied those sanctions did it to his division rivals. Yeah, coincidence. That's it, that's the ticket. Excuse me the spirit of the ticket.
It comes as no surprise to me whatsoever that Greg Hardy, a newly signed Dallas Cowboys player, was levied the most disgusting punishment in NFL History yesterday. You can disagree with what I just said about it being disgusting. That is your right. I stand by the adjectives I used. Allow me to illustrate. First of all what was Greg Hardy convicted of? The answer to that questions is nothing. That is why Greg Hardy recently filed a motion to have his record expunged. He was accused of domestic violence towards his ex-girlfriend. A bench trial did find him guilty, but in North Carolina that is similar to an arraignment. Greg Hardy was entitled to a trial before a jury of his peers. It never happened because the accuser quit cooperating with the courts. All charges were dropped.
Now you can claim that Greg Hardy paid her off. That is the allegation by her lawyer. I haven't seen it substantiated anywhere. Just pure speculation. I personally do not know how the Judge found him guilty in the bench trial. I have read the 911 call transcripts and the testimony at the trial. I believe the young lady was lying and committed perjury. That is just my opinion, and no one has to agree. I will simply say this in defense of my opinion. No one on this planet can talk while being choked. No one on this planet can be chocked by a nearly 300 pound man and come away without severe bruises. This young lady could not explain why there were no bruises on her neck other than to say she had a high pain tolerance of 100%. She claims that while he was engaged in the act of choking her on a futon full of assault rifles, that cops did not find, that she looked him in the eye and bravely said, "Just do it, kill me."
The drama of this is over the top, but that isn't even my issue. A choking person cannot talk. Impossible. If you ever take a CPR course, or a first aid course where choking is covered you know exactly what I am saying is true. If, like me, you have ever had the Heimlich Maneuver performed on you, you know for a 100% certainty that you can't talk or breathe while choking, or being choked. Why do you think people die from choking? She defiantly implored him to do it? I'm sorry, but it is getting deep in here. She then testified that she then fled the apartment. Yet, when Greg Hardy and another caller called 911, she was still in there? Her bruises were consistent with bind restrained by Hardy's manager as she tried to get away to inflict harm on Greg Hardy. Consistent with his 911 phone call. Consistent with police testimony that he was bleeding and she had broken things in his apartment and was found with only one shoe.
I have a reasonable doubt. I think any sane jury would too. The young lady admitted to doing cocaine before going to his house to get money. He paid her off? Well, that's all she wanted wasn't it? She clearly didn't care that by accepting a settlement and not sending Greg Hardy to jail that she was endangering any woman who ever comes into contact with him ever again. I just don't believe her at all. I don't really see how anyone could. I think she acted as a vindictive antagonist, not a victim. Just my opinion. I think if she were not a White woman, and Greg Hardy a famous Black man that this never would have gone anywhere. Sorry to drop a race card, but again, just my opinion.
Which rings me to his punishment as handed down. 10 games for his actions against his accuser. More than any guilty man in the History of the NFL, not to mention a man effectively found not guilty and being cleared of all charges. In the handing down of this decision Mr. Goodell once again exhibited his bias and his complete lack of grasp. First let's look at the Ray Rice situation. That is where the NFL decided this get tough on Domestic Violence movement was needed. Mr. Goodell suspended Ray Rice for 2 games. This is pretty much in line with all of his previous suspensions for similar conduct. Allow me to name them, courtesy of a poster on my private forum called kmd24. Michael Pittman, 3 games (2004); Dwayne Carswell, 1 game (2004); Brad Hopkins, 1 game (2005); Ricky Manning, 1 game (2006); Tony McDaniel, 1 game (2010).
In other words, Mr. Goodell's 2 game suspension of Ray Rice fell inline with how he had previously treated this social issue. Then the tape came out of the actual punch. Suddenly the NFL cared about the safety of women to the point it was time to move to Draconian again. Ray Rice ended up suspended for the entire season. Adrian Peterson the same for a discipline incident with his son. Greg Hardy for the incident with his accuser. The difference here is that these incidents all fell under the NFL's newly adopted personal conduct policies. You can clearly see by the suspensions levied above that in previous years where video of a woman being punched was not available that it wasn't treated the same way.
The problem is Goodell had to repair his image. This wasn't about justice for women. It was about his image. He needed to be the Sheriff again. The defender of right and wrong, the moral compass. You can't do that for your sponsors without looking ultra tough. So, when you look at the new personal conduct policy it says 6 games for a first offense of Domestic Violence. Wait a minute, 6 games, not 10? That's right, not 10. I will come back to that little injustice later. Further you will find that the statement by the NFL says that the suspension length would be "appropriate under any version of the Personal Conduct Policy or its predecessors."
Really? So what you are essentially saying Mr. Goodell is that all of your previous sanctions, under all of the predecessors to the new personal conduct policy, were inappropriate? Please don't try and sugar coat it that is exactly what it means. If you want more proof, simply look at Chris Cook's case in 2011. He was never suspended by the NFL. He was suspended by his team just like Peterson and Hardy, but never by the NFL.
So, what exactly is the difference where Hardy is concerned? In my opinion the penalty is harsher because of the team he plays for. You don't have to agree with me, but I'm not likely to move on from that opinion. I am going to defend it in a moment. Before I do, I want to further separate this suspension from all previous ones. Greg Hardy was effectively found innocent. So, the action of the NFL here is to punish without there being any recognized crime acknowledged. In the other cases mentioned above, there were settlements and penalties. In Greg Hardy's case it effectively is in the process of being erased. His record being expunged is considered a formality by most pundits so far. 10 games for a man effectively considered innocent?
It is ridiculous and further paints Mr. Goodell in my eyes as a bumbling fraud. He over reacted to the backlash from the Ray Rice video and is going to retroactively punish all players accused of anything to the maximum. Forgive me if I find this wrong. An accusation is not automatic guilt. This is a slippery slope that unfortunately is going to adversely affect the players. In my opinion the next time the Collective Bargaining Agreement comes up the NFLPA needs to use this and Mr. Goodell's other bumbling decision to support collusion and hammer the NFL without much mercy. Right now, under his rule the NFL is acting as a dictatorship and oligarchy not a business. The Hardy decision isn't about justice, it's about the NFL putting on a front for their sponsors to say, "Look how tough we are on Domestic Violence." It's a shame you weren't so tough on allegations of rape.
Here's the problem with that. Judge David Doty has already ruled that the NFL cannot retroactively levy punishment. The nice little language attempt by Mr. Goodell to say the punishment would be appropriate under any previous personal conduct policy version is further evidence that he just does not get it. All legal experts agree, the suspension will not hold up. How does it benefit the NFL to have the face of their league look so incompetent? I just do not understand that, and worst of all, Mr. Goodell is himself a lawyer. He knows the laws and rules of law he is breaking at the behest of the oligarchy he represents.
So, how do I feel that the influence of John Mara and the Giants is evident in the Hardy suspension? Well, last year when Mr. Goodell basically publicly admitted that he was inept at deliberating on violence towards women he appointed someone to be his executioner on these cases. Her name is Lisa Mendelson-Friel and a couple of National publications today are extolling her virtues for this brave and ground breaking decision. My first question would be, how is a first offense under a new policy of 6 games justifiable as 10 games? How does a man effectively being exonerated not factor into the decision and punishment? Basically what the NFL is saying to all of its employees is that if they are accused of something they're going to be dealt with whether they are guilty or not.
If I were a billionaire wanting a football team I think I'd start considering it a good time to launch a new competitor to the NFL wherein I promise to treat the employees better and follow up on my promises. IN other words, I am saying Mr. Goodell's actions here are an open invitation to the NFL once again being subject to a competitive league, but one that this time might attract the best talent away if they feel they cannot trust the league to act in their best interests. A new league that could challenge the NFL monopoly yet again, and now, courtesy of Mr. Mara and Mr. Goodell, has evidence of collusion to limit salaries paid, a clear antitrust violation. Do you see how Mr. Goodell is potentially jeopardizing the very owners he works or?
Back to Ms. Friel for a moment. I think having a woman described as a "rabid Giants fan" dictate the punishment of a player for one of Mr. Mara's division rivals is a horrible decision.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...r-goodell.html So Greg Hardy's punishment is meted out by someone who is a Giants' season ticket holder from a family of them dating over 60 years. A woman who paints her home with their team colors. This is fair to Greg Hardy, the Dallas Cowboys and the NFL players out there under this intense scrutiny where they can be accused, denied due process of law, and still punished beyond the very limits the league itself imposed, retroactively?
The NFL, Mr. Goodell, Mr. Mara, Mr. Kraft, and Ms. Friel can deny it all they want, but from where I sit this looks very much like yet another case of someone acting like a hatchet to benefit those two teams. You say that sounds a little unrealistic? Oh, then explain to me why Ms. Friel's edict goes beyond the 6 games of the new retroactive policy? It's just a coincidence that the Giants play the Cowboys in week 1, and again in week 7, and Eli Manning, a figure proudly displayed "life sized" on her wall, doesn't have to face a feared pass rusher? It's just a coincidence that Mr. Kraft's team still hasn't been sanctioned for being caught cheating a second time, and also gets to avoid him because they play in week 5? I'm sorry, I don't buy that. I bet Richard Sherman doesn't either, but I can't ask him.
You can't tell me that this was impartial, and it really has nothing to do with Ms. Friel's zeal for her team, even though I find that to be a horrible conflict of interest. It has nothing to do with "spygate," "deflategate," Mr. Mara, Mr. Kraft, collusion, or any of the other things I described int his article. It has everything to do with Mr. Goodell, whom I think has once again opened himself up to scrutiny and continues to put the NFL in impossibly precarious positions by his bumbling. I no longer trust Mr. Goodell. I feel like he is a complete fraud. I have no doubt he is a nice guy at heart. I really don't. When Gerald McCoy became the first player to come hug the NFL Commissioner, I was enjoying that thoroughly. At times he comes across as very human. Humans make mistakes. The problem is the ones he makes are dangerous to the NFL as an entity in my opinion, and in some ways against the law. Collusion is against the law. So is denying due process, which is exactly what this case does.
The last thing in the world I would have done in Mr. Goodell's shoes is put a "rabid Giants fan" in charge of a punishment to be levied on a division rival player. He continues to look inept and incapable. At least from this chair and in my opinion. The second to the last thing I would have done is suspend a man whose record is about to be expunged, and say it is "appropriate" retroactively to all previous personal conduct policies, despite no previous punishment under those policies being a viable precedent. And I certainly would not have enacted a new personal conduct policy with a stipulation in place for 6 games and let it try to go unnoticed that the aforementioned "rabid Giants fan" deemed the policy not enough and try to sell NFL Players that I am still being fair and impartial and acting in their best interests. Because trying to claim that after this amount of ineptitude would make me a fraud too.
