If the NFL has it in their policy to ban a player for behavior thats a Detriment to the League....?
then why dont they have the balls to ever do it? See Adam Jones, Tank Johnson, Bill Romanowski, etc...
From what i understand, it is outlined in detail in the NFL's policy and when players come into the league, they sign one of those documents saying they will adhere to the conduct clause... that pretty much should eliminate any legal rangling, shouldnt it.. the commisioner in the NFL has it in his power to ban a player, but i dont think any commisioner ever has used it. the NFLPA is NOT as powerful as the MLBPA, and if there was a player who wanted to fight it, then the NFL could EASILY tie a player up in court for years, and then win. guys like Pacman Jones and his history, have no leg to stand on, if it went to court....i just dont understand why the NFL is so reluctant to do it.
Behavior Detrimental to the League can be Defined as Any Act or Behavior, that shines a Negative light onto the League..... GUYS! Cmon! lol... how is that NOT met by what Jones, Johnson, Romanowski (now retird) have done?
- Anonymous1 decade agoBest Answer
The legal battles they would face against the NFLPA would tie up something like that forever.
'Conduct detrimental' requires such a degree of interpretation, that it is unlikely to find an example that is enough to strip a player of his income.
Obviously rape and murder, but those are covered in the normal justice system.
I completely get what you are saying. It's the litigious nature of life today...
EDIT: The standard player contract does have behavioral clauses as part of the contract language agreed on in the CBA. However, that's still a large leap from a wholesale banning of a player for an extended period. The Commissioner doesn't have unilateral power in deciding what is fair, in what stems from an off-field incident.
There also gets to be a gray area between whether the team or the League office gets to decide a players fate.
Then you throw in the 'wait for the justice system' to render judgment.
To your point, the Commish has come down on Adam Jones, when in fact I don't believe he's yet been convicted of any crimes.
EDIT 2: Apples and oranges. Romanowski = On-field, ball-grabbing, spitting, vile human. Tank = Convicted, weapons charges. Pacman: History of off-field poor behavior, no convictions.
In every circumstance there is a 'progression of discipline' that must prevail. There is still a great burden of proof required.
In fairness, justice can prevail. Terrell Owens lost a whole season, as did Keyshawn (though paid).
This is a GREAT topic.
- satcomgruntLv 71 decade ago
It is getting better, a few years ago guys like Tank Johnson, Pacman Jones, would have got a slap on the wrist. Things are different now, look at the Falcons granted even though Vick went to prison they want nothing to do with him any more. Also even Dallas is being cautious with Pacman Jones. Back in the early 90's nobody would have cared about his off field issues because he is a good CB. Now Dallas is going to give him a 2nd chance but with a very short leash. I can not remeber which team it was but in the 70's a coach had to bail his team out of jail one night in order to play. That does not happen anymore.
- Anonymous4 years ago
Its not really the NFL's responsiblilty to police whether or not players do "risky" behavior. Most of the players new contracts now have clauses in them that fines them for "destructive behavior". But its like apples and oranges. Are you going to tell someone to not cross the street on fear of getting hit by a car? Well, why is this any different? Can't help it that Big Ben was a moron for not wearing a helmet. I think he will know better now.
- 1 decade ago
Unfortunatelyy today, many in the legal world take the phrase "The right to work" which is not guarenteed in many states, to mean that the Athlete is ENTITLED to play proffesional sports.....instead of having to get a real job like you or me.
You know... a job we could lose in a heartbeat if we broke the rules. But..when you get paid millions to play a kids game..you are entitled to da as you please. Be it killing someone while driving drunk (leonard little) to rape and drug allegatios (Micheal Irvin) to whatever.
Crash Fu, said it right.
It is dumb...but the problem is with ANY contract..their is no such thing as loophole free. Plus...evenif its in writing...the judge can decide it is unfair, and rule against the league.
Add into that an *** like Gene Upshaw who is trying to put the players in charge of the league (yeah...great idea...be bankrupt in 2 years top)... and you see the problem.
But...if anyone IS going to ban these turds... I trust Goodell to be the one. He is the most hard-*** commish i've seen yet for any sports.
You wanna complain about dickless Commishes.....take a look at Bud Selig.....and you'll realize just how good a Job Goodell is doing.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
good question....i think the main reason they dont do it is because they fear they will regret it later and its a very serious decision. i mean guys make mistakes, much like the players you named but to ban a player for the mistakes theyve made, to me dosent fit the violation. dont get me wrong, i think a player should be banned under certain circumstance but only if he "persists" on being a detriment to the league. we put athletes on this pedastal and when they make a mistake we want them to suffer the ultimate consequence, when it sometimes dosent call for that. if the nfl started banning players, all other leagues would have to follow suit, because honestly the majority of athletes get caught up in the same stuff. the nfl or any league for that matter, isnt gonna take that first step towards such a huge decision, even if it is in writing.
- KicksLv 61 decade ago
I'm guessing that being a Detriment to the league is subjective, maybe. Unless they explicitly spell out what Detriment behaviors are.
The commish is pretty good about suspending player for at least a year.
See Odell Thurman, Pack-man Jones...
- 1 decade ago
umm I think it is dificult to take a stand in such a way when there are certainly ramifications trying to be the gate keeper of what is acceptable. i agree that there needs to be a lot done, for those who break the rules. But I think you hit the player in the pocketbook and they will remember the sting. A bigger question might be the league and their lack of support for these athletes when they retire. I mean if they cared, lol.
Consider the rise in weight with these athletes we marvel at. they more and more are likely to suffer from sleep apnea, and with the heavier load of the weight and muscle and deterioration (the nature of the sport) who is gonna take care of these individuals.
the league prob won't do a thing
- 1 decade ago
Simple reason. A Commish with no guts & it's all about money. They will be plenty of imbeciles who will pay to see Pacman back playing.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Red Tape and Politics...
Wow Crash...write a book why dontcha...dang...BA right there.