[macrojack]

I was just thinking that banning any NFL player who is arrested on gun or drug charges from ever playing in the Super Bowl might be a very effective deterrent. Notice I said arrested, not convicted. I'm 62 years old and have never been arrested on either charge so I know it isn't really very hard to accomplish. Likewise, this takes the matter out of the hands of lawyers if a conviction is not required.
The Super Bowl Ring is the ultimate prize and I'm pretty sure that even the most cocksure jackass wide receiver would think twice about risking permanent exclusion.

[zybar]

Not a big fan of punishing without a conviction.

There is a reason we have due process and a pretty good legal system - let's use them.

Glad to hear that you haven't been arrested or convicted on gun or drug charges, but frankly that is irrelevant. 

George

[macrojack]

You're right, George. My arrest record, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. I offered it only to demonstrate that anybody can keep his nose clean.

The NFL is not required to, nor do they bother to, follow the requisites of due process in their disciplinary policies.

My thinking in such a proposal is that, if it's to work, it must have meaningful consequences that money can't effect. Keeping lawyers out accomplishes that.

The accused will still get his day in court with the civil authorities but the mere fact that he was arrested at all ices the deal with the League. What the League really wants and needs to curtail is arrests, not convictions. If Goodell really wants to change behaviors, he needs to put the ultimate prize on the line. No Super Bowl and no HOF consideration if you get arrested on either kind of charge while under contract with an NFL team. I think this is more important than gambling.

[maxwalrath]

Not a big fan of punishing without a conviction.

There is a reason we have due process and a pretty good legal system - let's use them.

Glad to hear that you haven't been arrested or convicted on gun or drug charges, but frankly that is irrelevant. 

George

Many people think the drug laws in this country are antiquated and enforced in an inequitable manner as it is.  To be blunt, I would not want to be a minority in a country that had such a system.

[Dan Driscoll]

Many people think the drug laws in this country are antiquated and enforced in an inequitable manner as it is.  To be blunt, I would not want to be a minority in a country that had such a system.

Sadly, I am forced to agree. 

[drab]

Discipline in the NFL (and in the US) can be strange when you consider that if you kill some dogs or shoot yourself in the leg you get more jail and suspension time than if you mow someone down in your car while driving drunk.

[macrojack]

For a player with a drug or gun arrest, being excluded from the Super Bowl, if he's ever on a team that gets there, is the least of his worries at present. Nonetheless, knowing that involving himself in gun or drug activities even once could permanently sabotage any dream he ever held of winning a ring might keep a young player from being seduced by the gangsta lifestyle.

While I absolutely agree that the minorities in America have to be extra careful, all of us are better off if we never risk being guilty in the first place. It's hard to imagine anyone being framed just to disqualify them from possible SB participation. Stay away from the strip clubs, be home by midnight, avoid dangerous people and places, don't gamble, carry a gun or use any drugs and your chances of remaining out of jail will be very good.

If you are an NFL player, you have achieved a great opportunity. Don't waste it on childish behavior. Many are called but few are chosen. Don't squander your chance. And don't think for a moment that you are immune to punishment. Racism isn't really a part of my proposal.

[zybar]

I agree that our drug laws need to be improved, but that is for a different thread and discussion.

Why should a NFL player be treated differently from you or I?

If I was arrested on a drug or gun charge, I would not expect to be fired from my job or barred from certain activities that are part of it.  In fact, if my company did that, I probably would have the basis for a lawsuit!

While I don't want guns or drugs to be a negative influence on our society (not just the NFL or other professional sports), I think we have to be consistent and careful in how we go about fixing things.

I am with you in spirit macrojack, just not on board with your proposed method.

George

[macrojack]

Unions are dead, George. Employers can do as they please so long as they don't cross certain civil rights laws.
And the NFL certainly does as they please. Would your employer fine you $50,000 for giving someone the finger? Do they make you submit to periodic drug testing? Never mind that one - they probably do.
How about fines for celebrating or taunting or violating the uniform code?

Anyway, you get the picture - the NFL does not compare to our usual employer profile. They behave a bit more like the military. And as such, they have the right, it seems, to make their own rules.

Taking away HOF and Super Bowl eligibility for doesn't seem all that dramatic when you measure it against getting cut on a moment's notice.

Players who lose their eligibility would stand out as dramatic examples of what not to do. And the message would travel quickly and effectively. It seems to be working pretty well in drug testing even though that isn't even predicated on arrest.

[JerryM]

Boy, that rule would suck, but then again, could be pretty sweet.

The Dallas Cowboys have always liked having their training camp in Ventura County, where I live. If this rule were to be implemented by the league, I would spend an inordinate amount of time filing complaints against the Dallas players.    Things like; I think Tony Romo just sold a bag of weed to a kid in front of my house! I saw the whole thing! I saw Jerry Jones snorting coke in his limo!!! Saw the whole thing! On and on. As each was arrested for investigative purposes, I would destroy any chance they ever had for winning a Super Bowl with their current squad. 

Have fun,
Jerry

[Marbles]

Macrojack, why do you insist the penalty should be given out on the accusation of a crime, rather than the proof (beyond a reasonable doubt) of a crime?

[macrojack]

Marbles - I've stated my reason in several posts above. Ultimately it comes down to encouraging the players to be ultra cautious about being in a position to justify arrest and discouraging these young millionaires from thinking they can skate by funding an O.J. caliber defense.

Please note that I am not suggesting any punishment beyond loss of HOF and SB eligibility. Legal conditions would not be affected in any way by my proposal. The players would still be facing legal repercussions.

By causing them to defend their dream, you encourage them to deal with something more important than just staying out of jail.

Why the hell does this bother anyone here? It's a League matter that doesn't affect any of us other than perhaps reducing the headlines and cleaning up the game.

The next thing to address after we get this passed is bad refereeing. Too many games are directed by the zebras. They don't always control the outcome, of course, but there is a strong possibility that N.O. is going to be flagged for a bogus pass interference call or two on Sunday. Pierre Garcon is particularly good at drawing these. And I think Peyton taught him how.
Meanwhile, we all know that there is holding on every play at the line. How do the refs decide when to call one? Roughing the passer has become a useful way to award a first down. etc...........

[Marbles]

Just to make sure I understand, lets say a football player has consensual sex with a women he barely knows.

She then says, pay me x amount or I will say you (pick one) raped me, beat me up, exc..

Under your scenario, if he doesn't cave to her blackmail, the league will punish him on her word without him getting a chance to defend himself.

This is not what I would want for ANYONE under any circumstance.

Why does it bother you that a person gets a chance to defend themselves BEFORE they are punished?  I just don't get it.

[cujobob]

If you get convicted of any felony, any, you should be banned from the league.

[Marbles]

If you get convicted of any felony, any, you should be banned from the league.

I'm glad you used the word convicted, thanks.

I think that I would prefer to let the league decide those matters on a case by case basis, as I have seen what happens in a zero tolerance atmosphere, like banning High Schoolers who took an aspirin etc..

[cujobob]

Well, felony and convicted were the keywords.

[Marbles]

Well, felony and convicted were the keywords.

Sure I'll bite...

So Mike Vick pays the price that society says he should pay.

He gave up millions of dollars in signing bonus and endorsements, spent 2 years in jail.  Again, he paid the price that society demanded.

Does he have the right to make a living doing what he was trained to do?  That is play football.

Does society hold the profession of football as a higher one than being an accountant?

I say let the league decide.  You say permanent banning.

[cujobob]

The cool thing is that leagues can make up whatever rules they wish.  There are other leagues he could go to, should he choose...he would not be out of a job.  Also, he makes a ridiculously large amount of money in comparison to the average worker.  His job is in the entertainment industry and they set the examples for the younger generations.  It would be positive for the league to set up a rule like this so that there are better role models.  Every workplace has rules, this is just one more.  Vick is a murderer of animals for sport, he's lucky to be out of jail already.  Unfortunately, not all  of society's prices make sense or are fair.  The league can make up whatever price it wants.  If he knows it ahead of time, it is the player's job to fall in line.  When my workplace makes up a new policy...I don't exactly get much of a say.

[PhilNYC]

I was just thinking that banning any NFL player who is arrested on gun or drug charges from ever playing in the Super Bowl might be a very effective deterrent. Notice I said arrested, not convicted. I'm 62 years old and have never been arrested on either charge so I know it isn't really very hard to accomplish. Likewise, this takes the matter out of the hands of lawyers if a conviction is not required.
The Super Bowl Ring is the ultimate prize and I'm pretty sure that even the most cocksure jackass wide receiver would think twice about risking permanent exclusion.

If I'm a Miami police officer and a Saints fan, I'd be arresting Peyton Manning on a drug charge right about now...

[macrojack]

I'm neutral on this one as I think business can do this legally and morally. I'm posting it in order to get opinions about how it relates to the topic of this thread.

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/02/06/sources-warren-sapp-pulled-from-nfl-network-following-arrest/?ncid=txtlnkusspor00000002