Saints players win appeal

[polamalubeast]

BREAKING: A 3-member appeals panel has overturned the player suspensions in the Saints bounty case, says a source. Details coming.


https://twitter.com/SI_JimTrotter/status/244154899078717440

[fansince'76]

Der Kommissar will not be pleased...

[zulater]

Der Kommissar will not be pleased...

B...bu bu bu but, he's always right, so how could this be?!



http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/505880-35430-49.jpg

How can this be????!!!!!


:chuckle:

[polamalubeast]

With Saints winning appeal, suspensions are voided as Roger Goodell doesn't have jurisdiction and Stephen Burbank does.


https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/244155857649164288

[zulater]

With Saints winning appeal, suspensions are voided as Roger Goodell doesn't have jurisdiction and Stephen Burbank does.


https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/244155857649164288

This is what happens when you overstep your authority and don't make consistent and fair rulings. Now Pandora's box has been opened, and while I despise Goodell, long term this isn't good for the league.

But of course the league has no one to blame but the commissioner who overplayed his hand.

And I promise you, if Ben had taken his suspension to court that would have been overruled too. But the idiot (Goodell) got away with it that time, so then he got power drunk even more. And thus we're where we're at today.

[Butch]

Nice little kink in the shield!!! I agree with you Zulater, but I can't help but hope this is going a long way to running go to Hell out of office. More and more players are complaining about him and more and more fans as well. If not maybe he will re-evaluate his decisions and see that there may be consequences to his overstepping his bounds.

[86WARD]

Awesome!

[Devilsdancefloor]

http://i47.tinypic.com/xqeybt.jpg

Der Kommish is very upset i am sure, but maybe he will not spin the wheel of punishment anymore and stick to what he can do

[suitanim]

Chidi will not be pleased.

[salamander]

Chidi will not be pleased.

This. Sorry Chidi. :chuckle:

[Butch]

I can hear Jack right now pointing his finger at go to Hell and through his snarling toothless sneer saying "That'll cool your ass down!!!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3RQ_xhLK-4

[Count Steeler]

Hopefully this is the start of returning a balance of power back to the league. The overreach of Roger has to stop.

So what does this do to the coaches?

[steeldawg]

This changes nothing about goodels power or the barginning agreement, it only pertains to this incident because of when the penalties occured and the signing of the cba. Goodell will still be commish for many years to come and will still hold ultimate power because thats the agreement the players signed.

[X-Terminator]

This changes nothing about goodels power or the barginning agreement, it only pertains to this incident because of when the penalties occured and the signing of the cba. Goodell will still be commish for many years to come and will still hold ultimate power because thats the agreement the players signed.

Unfortunately, you are correct. Still though, I'm enjoying the smack down that Der Kommissar just received. :thumbsup:

[stillers4me]

Unfortunately, you are correct. Still though, I'm enjoying the smack down that Der Kommissar just received. :thumbsup:

:drink:

[steeldawg]

Unfortunately, you are correct. Still though, I'm enjoying the smack down that Der Kommissar just received. :thumbsup:

Well actually they ruled that in the case of play for performance it was a salary cap violation which is why goodell according to the cba was not allowed to suspend them for that offense, however goodell can still put together evidence of intent to injure and come after them again so this is far from over.

[Craic]

Well actually they ruled that in the case of play for performance it was a salary cap violation which is why goodell according to the cba was not allowed to suspend them for that offense, however goodell can still put together evidence of intent to injure and come after them again so this is far from over.


Expect to see the Saints get nailed for salary cap violations then. Actually, I think that makes sense. Also, IF they can find the EVIDENCE, then I this is just the first of a long process. And make no mistake about it, every step of that process entrenches Goodell more and more as both the commissioner, and as judge and jury. Heck, even this judgment does that, as it simple told Goodell that he had to abide by the CBA. That's not a smack down, that's a technical ruling - one that did nothing to make him retreat from his position but rather, makes him look even harder for the evidence concerning the actions, rather than the financial gain.

[SMR]

Unfortunately, you are correct. Still though, I'm enjoying the smack down that Der Kommissar just received. :thumbsup:

:thumbsup::tt03:

[steeldawg]

Expect to see the Saints get nailed for salary cap violations then. Actually, I think that makes sense. Also, IF they can find the EVIDENCE, then I this is just the first of a long process. And make no mistake about it, every step of that process entrenches Goodell more and more as both the commissioner, and as judge and jury. Heck, even this judgment does that, as it simple told Goodell that he had to abide by the CBA. That's not a smack down, that's a technical ruling - one that did nothing to make him retreat from his position but rather, makes him look even harder for the evidence concerning the actions, rather than the financial gain.

I agree I didnt say it was a smackdown, I dont think this hurts goodell or the nfl at all.

[vader29]

"Victory is mine!!!! -stewie griffin," Vilma tweeted Friday afternoon. :lol:

[Craic]

I can hear Jack right now pointing his finger at go to Hell and through his snarling toothless sneer saying "That'll cool your ass down!!!"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3RQ_xhLK-4

You know the ironic thing about that video, only three of his tackles might of drawn a penalty today. One absolutely would have, and that's because he clubbed a guy in the head with his forearms. Outside of that, every tackle was legal by TODAY's rules.

The difference, was that he 1. tried to wrap on must tackles and 2. didn't care about the flashy hits. He just tried to get the guy down.

[zulater]

Anyone who views this as anything other than a huge loss of face by Goodell is missing the point. Goodell has misused the authority he was given, and that is why the court has ruled against the league. If he had been fair and consistent in his initial punishment the court would have dismissed the case in nothing flat.

[BnG_Hevn]

Some of his tackles he grabbed and threw the runner to the ground. I guarantee that would draw a flag today.

[Count Steeler]

Jack Lambert!

[st33lersguy]

Of course I would like to know why the NFLPA did nothing when Ben was suspended for literally doing nothing

[zulater]

Of course I would like to know why the NFLPA did nothing when Ben was suspended for literally doing nothing

That's easy, though no one wants to say it out loud.

He was the white sacrificial lamb to balance out all the previous suspensions to black players.

Though no charges were brought forward Ben was tried and convicted ( unfairly) by the public and press. Therefore no one was going to stand in the way of Goodell "balancing out the scales of justice" in a supposed non discriminatory way.

[st33lersguy]

If James Harrison or Ryan Clark had done something like this, I guarantee that nothing would have been done. It is not fair that a steeler player gets suspended for doing nothing while non-steeler players do not get suspended for wrongdoing unless they are guilty of substance abuse

[LLT]

Any way you slice it.....Goodell retains his "power"....HOWEVER....it reduces his ability to arbitrarily hand down punishments in two ways. 1) Legally....he will have to play by the rules in cases such as this in which he overstepped his authority. 2) Public perception......This is a HUGE setback to the super-ego. He is going to be under the microscope, and everymove (at least for awhile) is going to be disected.

[Count Steeler]

This is a great opportunity for DeMarcus Smith to level the playing field. He has to keep the spotlight on Goodell and have every decision questioned. The CBA may have given him too much power, but the fight is in the court of public opinion and with the fans of the game. If Smith can do his job, the players can level the playing field.

[SMR]

That's easy, though no one wants to say it out loud.

He was the white sacrificial lamb to balance out all the previous suspensions to black players.

Though no charges were brought forward Ben was tried and convicted ( unfairly) by the public and press. Therefore no one was going to stand in the way of Goodell "balancing out the scales of justice" in a supposed non discriminatory way.

I would have to agree with your statement if I wanted to be honest.

[suitanim]

Where IS Chidi?

He must be taking this news much harder then we anticipated...

[Chidi29]

Where IS Chidi?

He must be taking this news much harder then we anticipated...

Tears just stopped.

Actually away for a wedding this weekend so I won't be around much.

But let's first understand what the ruling really means.

The players have not won entirely. All they've done is delay a decision. The judge just ruled that Goodell did not have the authority to rule on the appeal. So now it should go to an independent arbitrator who will then make a decision if the players are in the wrong or not.

And here is why everyone is a hypocrite.

When this panel ruled that Goodell did not have the authority yesterday, you guys were happy. The judge made the decision and stuck it to Goodell.

But when independent arbitator Shyam Das ruled a few weeks ago that Goodell had the authority to appeal, no one said anything. No one said, "Well this gives Goodell more credibility because an outside source is confirming the decision to let Goodell appeal."

[X-Terminator]

Tears just stopped.

Actually away for a wedding this weekend so I won't be around much.

But let's first understand what the ruling really means.

The players have not won entirely. All they've done is delay a decision. The judge just ruled that Goodell did not have the authority to rule on the appeal. So now it should go to an independent arbitrator who will then make a decision if the players are in the wrong or not.

And here is why everyone is a hypocrite.

When this panel ruled that Goodell did not have the authority yesterday, you guys were happy. The judge made the decision and stuck it to Goodell.

But when independent arbitator Shyam Das ruled a few weeks ago that Goodell had the authority to appeal, no one said anything. No one said, "Well this gives Goodell more credibility because an outside source is confirming the decision to let Goodell appeal."

Maybe because we didn't agree with that ruling to give Goodell ultimate power over this case? The ruling yesterday only validates our disagreement. He shouldn't have been given that authority in the first place.

[SMR]

Maybe because we didn't agree with that ruling to give Goodell ultimate power over this case? The ruling yesterday only validates our disagreement. He shouldn't have been given that authority in the first place.

And "boom goes the dynamite."

:chuckle:

[suitanim]

Christ. How can anyone ALWAYS side with Goodell no matter how awful and evil and slimy he is?

I didn't originally decide the Goodell was an evil twisted douchenozzle based on bias or prejudging. In fact, I gave him a lot of benefit of the doubt. He EARNED my hatred and the ensuing well deserved vitriol that stems from it. I wonder what kind of mental gymnastics one must twist and contort their mind through in order to consistently find apologies for this awful loser? Even if one wanted to work for the NFL, it probably wouldn't be a great idea to align oneself too closely with an increasingly controversial commissioner who may or may not even be around in a few years.

[Chidi29]

Maybe because we didn't agree with that ruling to give Goodell ultimate power over this case? The ruling yesterday only validates our disagreement. He shouldn't have been given that authority in the first place.

But we rave about how great of a decision the judge made and how much clout it holds. And we totally discredit the fact that prior judge agreed with Goodell. So it's 1 to 1 right now with no final determination being made.

[Chidi29]

The point is that two judges have ruled two separate ways. Nothing final has been settled yet so there hasn't been a "victory" for either side.

[Count Steeler]

Court < Appellate Court< Supreme Court

Judge < Judge < Judge

[Butch]

The point is that two judges have ruled two separate ways. Nothing final has been settled yet so there hasn't been a "victory" for either side.

Well the players do get to play in the games today so players 1 go to Hell 0, at this point.

[Chidi29]

Well the players do get to play in the games today so players 1 go to Hell 0, at this point.

...at this point. The suspensions could come back at some point.

[suitanim]

...at this point. The suspensions could come back at some point.
Would that make you happy?

The way I look at this now is simple: Goodell overstepped his bounds. He made (at LEAST) an oral agreement that players actions prior to the CBA signing couldn't be punished. He then almost immediately reneged. This is not so different than the "fruit of a poison tree" doctrine in our legal system. If you get pulled over illegally, it doesn't even matter if there's a dead body that you killed in the trunk, because your rights were violated by the illegal stop. The key issue here isn't the guilt or innocence of the players anymore, it's Goodell's overreach. I KNOW you'll disagree, but that's irrelevant.

[Chidi29]

And I know you'll always disagree with me. You won't be happy until Goodell is dead.

And no, what you're saying is completely off the mark. Even the NFLPA knows that argument is ludicrous and holds zero water.

This is what Shyam Das ruled and as far as I know, this new ruling did nothing to change that. In his own words in his findings that dealt with that issue (Article 3)...

"The NFL ... releases and covenants not to
sue ... or to support financially or
administratively ... any suit against the
NFLPA or any of its members ... or any
member of its bargaining unit ... with
respect to conduct occurring prior to the
execution of this Agreement.

This provision, particularly in the overall context of Article
3, addresses legal claims and suits or similar actions. It does
not, as I read it, constitute an agreement by the NFL that the
Commissioner relinquishes authority to impose discipline for
conduct detrimental occurring prior to the execution of the CBA
on August 4, 2011. "

Article 3 merely has to deal with lawsuits...not discipline. And just think about if for a second. Do you think the league would really agree to not having the authority to punish players before a certain date? I know you think they're stupid but you'd have to admit they're not that dumb.

What this new panel has done is simply say the league still can punish the players but the appeals process has to go through Stephen Burbank and not Roger Goodell.

[fansince'76]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb136/garyb12001/Goodell-Dartboard.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[vader29]

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb136/garyb12001/Goodell-Dartboard.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The man with two left thumbs. :lol:

[BnG_Hevn]

ROTFLMAO

[suitanim]

The problem is, that's NOT what the NFLPA agreed to. In fact, they have specifically stated:

In connection with entering into the 2011 CBA, the NFL agreed to release players of all pre-CBA conduct, which would mean that only events during the 2011 season could even be considered. The NFLPA’s grievance filing states that Goodell is “prohibited from punishing NFL players for any aspect of the ‘pay-for-performance/bounty’ conduct occurring before August 4, 2011.”

What the NFLPA wanted was for an independent arbitrator to punish the players, not Goodell. DeMaurice Smith, a lawyer himself, not only believed that to be the case, he's cited this several times. Do you think SMITH is stupid enough to be hoodwinked by a bait-and-switch? The judge may in fact have ruled against the NFLPA, and narrowed the scope, but the Players union's intentions were for anything prior to 8-4-2011 to be punishable ONLY by an independent arbiter. If you go back and read your own post, at the end there, the judge is actually reading authority well BEYOND what the players agreed to, or even the language in the agreement itself...namely he's even stating that Goodell himself is allowed to levy discipline pre-CBA. That doesn't even make sense, given that the players are getting their way here, and independent arbiters will now be handling the matter.

The fact is, you're a mindless Goodell shill, endlessly defending him even when his actions are beyond defense. Is it really worth selling your soul over this? Like I said, I had no problem with Goodell until he started giving me reasons to have problems with him. I started in one place, and moved to another not because of any bias of my own, or hopes and dreams of working for any organization, rather based on the myriad miscalculations, errors, mistakes, inconsistencies and blatant and obvious biases of ROGER GOODELL.

He did this to himself.

[suitanim]

Oh, and woah! there on the "death wish". He's a suck-assed commissioner, and ruining the game, but I don't wish death on him. I just wish he would take his tens of millions and retire...preferably somewhere where the NFL isn't played.

[Chidi29]

The problem is, that's NOT what the NFLPA agreed to. In fact, they have specifically stated:

In connection with entering into the 2011 CBA, the NFL agreed to release players of all pre-CBA conduct, which would mean that only events during the 2011 season could even be considered. The NFLPA’s grievance filing states that Goodell is “prohibited from punishing NFL players for any aspect of the ‘pay-for-performance/bounty’ conduct occurring before August 4, 2011.”

What the NFLPA wanted was for an independent arbitrator to punish the players, not Goodell. DeMaurice Smith, a lawyer himself, not only believed that to be the case, he's cited this several times. Do you think SMITH is stupid enough to be hoodwinked by a bait-and-switch? The judge may in fact have ruled against the NFLPA, and narrowed the scope, but the Players union's intentions were for anything prior to 8-4-2011 to be punishable ONLY by an independent arbiter. If you go back and read your own post, at the end there, the judge is actually reading authority well BEYOND what the players agreed to, or even the language in the agreement itself...namely he's even stating that Goodell himself is allowed to levy discipline pre-CBA. That doesn't even make sense, given that the players are getting their way here, and independent arbiters will now be handling the matter.

The fact is, you're a mindless Goodell shill, endlessly defending him even when his actions are beyond defense. Is it really worth selling your soul over this? Like I said, I had no problem with Goodell until he started giving me reasons to have problems with him. I started in one place, and moved to another not because of any bias of my own, or hopes and dreams of working for any organization, rather based on the myriad miscalculations, errors, mistakes, inconsistencies and blatant and obvious biases of ROGER GOODELL.

He did this to himself.

Of course the NFLPA is going to say that...they're trying to boost their case. They're lying...what is so hard to understand about that?

I just showed you what Article three of the CBA states. No bias involved. It talks about lawsuits...not punishments in general. That is the unbiased wording of the CBA that the NFLPA agreed to.

I am not talking about the decision to appeal to an independent arbitrator. I am simply talking about your case that Goodell should not be allowed to punish players at all before August of 2011. These are two separate arguments.

[suitanim]

Then why does DeMaurice Smith keep telling everyone, including Goodell, that these suspensions violate the CBA? It's also quite humorous that you, um, postulate that the PLAYERS are lying, when in fact it's been their understanding all along that the new CBA DID INDEED strip Goodell of his power to punish incidents prior to August 4th (and that's only part of their reasons they have for suggesting that Goodell overstepped his bounds). So, in your World, the players are lying because they thought a thought that was against Goodell? How Orwellian....thought-crime!

Here is what the NFLPA is citing (this is straight from the CBA, Article 3, section (b):
(b) The NFL, on behalf of itself, the NFL, and the NFL Clubs and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns,
releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or
voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any
suit (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or
the Prior Agreement) against the NFLPA or any of its members, or agents acting on its
behalf, or any member of its bargaining unit, with respect to conduct occurring prior to
the execution of this Agreement.


If the players believed that this section cut Goodell out of the disciplinary process prior to the signing of this CBA, how can they be lying? In fact, the crux of the players defense is that A) This is a cap issue because it involved money, so this is beyond Goodell's purview B) Goodell has no power to determine punishments for hits and the like (that's under Article 46 section 1(b) and C) Goodell should not have been ruling on issues prior to Aug 4 anyway.

The truly interesting thing is, the NFLPA isn't even bothering to deny that their were bounties. They don't need to. This is strictly about getting the decisions out of Goodell's hands and into someone more unbiased. What does this say about Goodell? The players in his league hate him. Why do you like him so much? Planning on owning a team?

[Chidi29]

Then why does DeMaurice Smith keep telling everyone, including Goodell, that these suspensions violate the CBA? It's also quite humorous that you, um, postulate that the PLAYERS are lying, when in fact it's been their understanding all along that the new CBA DID INDEED strip Goodell of his power to punish incidents prior to August 4th (and that's only part of their reasons they have for suggesting that Goodell overstepped his bounds). So, in your World, the players are lying because they thought a thought that was against Goodell? How Orwellian....thought-crime!

Here is what the NFLPA is citing (this is straight from the CBA, Article 3, section (b):
(b) The NFL, on behalf of itself, the NFL, and the NFL Clubs and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns,
releases and covenants not to sue, or to support financially or administratively, or
voluntarily provide testimony of any kind, including by declaration or affidavit in, any
suit (including any Special Master proceeding brought pursuant to the White SSA and/or
the Prior Agreement) against the NFLPA or any of its members, or agents acting on its
behalf, or any member of its bargaining unit, with respect to conduct occurring prior to
the execution of this Agreement.


If the players believed that this section cut Goodell out of the disciplinary process prior to the signing of this CBA, how can they be lying? In fact, the crux of the players defense is that A) This is a cap issue because it involved money, so this is beyond Goodell's purview B) Goodell has no power to determine punishments for hits and the like (that's under Article 46 section 1(b) and C) Goodell should not have been ruling on issues prior to Aug 4 anyway.

The truly interesting thing is, the NFLPA isn't even bothering to deny that their were bounties. They don't need to. This is strictly about getting the decisions out of Goodell's hands and into someone more unbiased. What does this say about Goodell? The players in his league hate him. Why do you like him so much? Planning on owning a team?

Because he works for the NFLPA! He's on their side...of course he says the league is in the wrong. The league could say the sky was blue and Smith would say Goodell is an idiot. Smith is a crook and a lawyer (redundant, I know) who is more self-serving than you think Goodell is. And that's really saying something.

Please please please read what you just posted.

The NFL, on behalf of itself, the NFL, and the NFL Clubs and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, representatives, agents, successors and assigns,releases and covenants not to sue...

Article three pertains to nothing but lawsuits. The league is not suing the players. Ergo, the article does not apply. This is what Das, an independent arbitrator, has backed up.

I am fine with the players' argument about appeals going to someone other than Goodell. But those are two different arguments. This argument we're having is about whether or not Goodell has any authority to hand down an punishment in the first place, discarding an appeal. I think that's where you're getting tripped up. If we hypothetically say that Article 3 is valid and Goodell can't punish players, then they can't be suspended in the first place and there isn't the need for an appeal.

[suitanim]

But there is also article 43 and article 46. The players thinking that they signed an agreement that stripped Goodell's tyranny pre-Aug 4 is only part of their defense here. There are 2 other legs on the tripod here.

What you're doing here is saying that Goodell is good and right, and that the players are awful evil liars, namely because they are contesting Roger Goodell, the second worst commissioner in all of sports.

I don't see how trashing the NFLPA, it's mouthpiece, and by extension, the NFL players is going to win you favor and a job with the NFL.

[vader29]

From Adam Schefter:

September 13, 2012:Jonathan Vilma's attorney Peter Ginsberg on NFL releasing a statement today on Appeal Panel's decision last week: "It is interesting and illuminating that it took the NFL almost one week to develop a publishable rationalization of the Appeals Board decision. Contrary to the NFL’s media statement, the Appeals Panel voided the suspensions – it did not “put the suspensions on hold,” as the NFL now pretends. And the Appeals Board is clearly based on the conclusion that the Commissioner overstepped his jurisdiction."

[BnG_Hevn]

So does that mean the players are with their team?

How about the coach, is he protected by this?

[suitanim]

From Adam Schefter:

September 13, 2012:Jonathan Vilma's attorney Peter Ginsberg on NFL releasing a statement today on Appeal Panel's decision last week: "It is interesting and illuminating that it took the NFL almost one week to develop a publishable rationalization of the Appeals Board decision. Contrary to the NFL’s media statement, the Appeals Panel voided the suspensions – it did not “put the suspensions on hold,” as the NFL now pretends. And the Appeals Board is clearly based on the conclusion that the Commissioner overstepped his jurisdiction."

"Nonsense! The players and their union are all liars! Heil Goodell!"

< Chidi >

[Chidi29]

"Nonsense! The players and their union are all liars! Heil Goodell!"

< Chidi >

Again, biased sources. And no, the suspensions are not voided. They can still come back into play.

[suitanim]

Again, biased sources. And no, the suspensions are not voided. They can still come back into play.

But Goodell is biased! And you are biased! You can't have it both ways. You can't pretend that your biased views are more valid then others biased views, and it makes even less sense to claim so when your sides argument is rapidly deteriorating.

[Chidi29]

But Goodell is biased! And you are biased! You can't have it both ways. You can't pretend that your biased views are more valid then others biased views, and it makes even less sense to claim so when your sides argument is rapidly deteriorating.

I'm not using anyone's quotes. I am using literally what the CBA says. There is no bias there. I am reading what the paper that they both agreed to says.

[suitanim]

I'm not using anyone's quotes. I am using literally what the CBA says. There is no bias there. I am reading what the paper that they both agreed to says.

Oddly, so am I.

I just wonder, if this doesn't shake out your (i.e. Goodell's) way, will you admit you're wrong?

[Chidi29]

Oddly, so am I.

I just wonder, if this doesn't shake out your (i.e. Goodell's) way, will you admit you're wrong?

No, you're taking quotes from D Smith and Vilma's lawyers. Those are what people said and those don't have to be facts.

It depends on how it shakes out. I highly doubt the players will ultimately win out because Goodell did not have the authority to punish the players in the first place. That is the only thing I've stated in our conversation.

[suitanim]

No, you're taking quotes from D Smith and Vilma's lawyers. Those are what people said and those don't have to be facts.

It depends on how it shakes out. I highly doubt the players will ultimately win out because Goodell did not have the authority to punish the players in the first place. That is the only thing I've stated in our conversation.

Maybe you should look at being a lawyer, too...spinning and twisting, ducking and dodging, etc, etc...

Although you'll still be wrong in this case. Remember the players union is challenging Goodell's authority to penalize on THREE FRONTS. They have three prongs to their attack. Or maybe you don't know that...

[Chidi29]

Maybe you should look at being a lawyer, too...spinning and twisting, ducking and dodging, etc, etc...

Although you'll still be wrong in this case. Remember the players union is challenging Goodell's authority to penalize on THREE FRONTS. They have three prongs to their attack. Or maybe you don't know that...

Spinning and dodging? Not a chance. I am taking my info from written documents...how is that "spinning?"

They may be challenging all three fronts but the judge only overturned the idea that Goodell can hear the appeal.

[suitanim]

You are spinning your whole argument to be 100% pro-Goodell. And you are ducking and dodging any fact or counter-argument that finds fault with him, his policies or his judgment. I don't even LIKE DeMaurice Smith, and I'm generally anti-union, but I can't see how the other side is better in this case. You're the tail wagging the dog...your arguments start out assuming Goodell is right, and you only look at information or data that back that biased and prejudged conclusion.

[Chidi29]

You are spinning your whole argument to be 100% pro-Goodell. And you are ducking and dodging any fact or counter-argument that finds fault with him, his policies or his judgment. I don't even LIKE DeMaurice Smith, and I'm generally anti-union, but I can't see how the other side is better in this case. You're the tail wagging the dog...your arguments start out assuming Goodell is right, and you only look at information or data that back that biased and prejudged conclusion.

And you're doing the same thing in thinking Goodell is wrong.

[suitanim]

And you're doing the same thing in thinking Goodell is wrong.

Except for the FACT that i arrived at that correct conclusion independently, i.e. I don't have a dog in this fight.