49ers Reuben Foster suspended 2 games

[fretgod99]

On 7/3/2018 at 3:13 PM, cddolphin said:

You're right, probably; but it was likely because he was rich and could afford a decent lawyer, not sure a public defender gets that deal but who am I, just sayin'

I don’t know about other jurisdictions but I’ve never factored in PD or no PD when making an offer. In fact, there are a few private attorneys I’d probably be less likely to give a deal to.

[eyecatcher]

Aaron Jones of the Packers got busted for driving under the influence of weed and got two games.  Foster had two run ins with the cops including weed and weapons and got 2 games. 

@JBURGE25 had it right, the NFL is consistently inconsistent.

[cddolphin]

On 7/6/2018 at 8:57 AM, eyecatcher said:

Aaron Jones of the Packers got busted for driving under the influence of weed and got two games.  Foster had two run ins with the cops including weed and weapons and got 2 games. 

It's illegal to drive under the influence of any substance, including weed.

Foster had the weed in a state where it was legal, and had the guns legally (the charge ended up being a misemeanor due to "unsafe storage"). 

 

That aside, your point is correct: the NFL is very inconsistent in its punishments. I'm beating the rotting carcass of a horse at this point, but all the NFL had to do with the last CBA was defer to the legal system and implement a simple, straightforward hierarchy: misdemeanors get X games, drug charges get Y games, felonies of any kind get Z games, assaults/domestic violence gets W games. For example.

You instantly shift any outrage towards "unfair punishments" to the justice system (where it should be directed, anyways) and the NFL comes away clean.

"wah wah Ray Rice is still in the NFL what are you going to do about it commissioner?"

"Well, in this great country we live in, the roles of judge and jury have already been taken: by judges and juries. While the accusations were disturbing, we have to leave it up to the courts to determine a proper punishment moving forward, for all case, not just Mr Rice."

DONE

[eyecatcher]

7 minutes ago, cddolphin said:

It's illegal to drive under the influence of any substance, including weed.

Foster had the weed in a state where it was legal, and had the guns legally (the charge ended up being a misemeanor due to "unsafe storage"). 

 

That aside, your point is correct: the NFL is very inconsistent in its punishments. I'm beating the rotting carcass of a horse at this point, but all the NFL had to do with the last CBA was defer to the legal system and implement a simple, straightforward hierarchy: misdemeanors get X games, drug charges get Y games, felonies of any kind get Z games, assaults/domestic violence gets W games. For example.

You instantly shift any outrage towards "unfair punishments" to the justice system (where it should be directed, anyways) and the NFL comes away clean.

"wah wah Ray Rice is still in the NFL what are you going to do about it commissioner?"

"Well, in this great country we live in, the roles of judge and jury have already been taken: by judges and juries. While the accusations were disturbing, we have to leave it up to the courts to determine a proper punishment moving forward, for all case, not just Mr Rice."

DONE

Marijuana isn't legal in Alabama and he was charged with 2nd degree possession.  He also had a diluted sample with the NFL so this was his second offense.  I get what you are saying but what Aaron Jones did is not equivalent to the multiple offenses Foster has had.

[cddolphin]

27 minutes ago, eyecatcher said:

Marijuana isn't legal in Alabama and he was charged with 2nd degree possession.  He also had a diluted sample with the NFL so this was his second offense.  I get what you are saying but what Aaron Jones did is not equivalent to the multiple offenses Foster has had.

Ah, I thought he was in California reflexively.

[fretgod99]

9 hours ago, cddolphin said:

It's illegal to drive under the influence of any substance, including weed.

Foster had the weed in a state where it was legal, and had the guns legally (the charge ended up being a misemeanor due to "unsafe storage"). 

 

That aside, your point is correct: the NFL is very inconsistent in its punishments. I'm beating the rotting carcass of a horse at this point, but all the NFL had to do with the last CBA was defer to the legal system and implement a simple, straightforward hierarchy: misdemeanors get X games, drug charges get Y games, felonies of any kind get Z games, assaults/domestic violence gets W games. For example.

You instantly shift any outrage towards "unfair punishments" to the justice system (where it should be directed, anyways) and the NFL comes away clean.

"wah wah Ray Rice is still in the NFL what are you going to do about it commissioner?"

"Well, in this great country we live in, the roles of judge and jury have already been taken: by judges and juries. While the accusations were disturbing, we have to leave it up to the courts to determine a proper punishment moving forward, for all case, not just Mr Rice."

DONE

Except the burdens of proof in these contexts are not and shouldn’t be the same. I’m not saying the NFL has figured out a great way to handle this, just saying that simply deferring to the justice system isn’t the answer.

What happens when someone is convicted but that’s overturned for technical reasons? What if it’s not for technical reasons but for issues with proof? What happens if someone is obviously guilty but the evidence was improperly collected and suppressed? What happens if there’s an OJ-type of situation with someone still in the league? If the policy in the CBA is whatever happens in the criminal justice system controls, is the team that had a player in one of these situations forced to keep them on the roster? Can’t cut them for the legal issues that didn’t pan out or you’ll get crushed by a grievance.

Like it or not, the NFL should have a process for punishing players regardless of a criminal court’s determinations. But again, that doesn’t mean what the NFL has now is workable.

[Broncofan]

9 hours ago, eyecatcher said:

Marijuana isn't legal in Alabama and he was charged with 2nd degree possession.  He also had a diluted sample with the NFL so this was his second offense.  I get what you are saying but what Aaron Jones did is not equivalent to the multiple offenses Foster has had.

Just to be clear, though - a DUI is an automatic 2-game suspension at minimum.   Because the NFL rightfully thinks driving under the influence is far more dangerous than multiple weed strikes.  They have a provision to increase the suspension if bodily harm or an extreme DUI (above higher thresholds) is in play.    

2 strikes for weed alone doesn't normally get a suspension - you need 4 to get the first suspension.   That's how the NFL sees weed possession - they ramp up the penalty status if there's a conviction instead of positive/missed tests, which is why Foster was subject to a potential suspension even though he wasn't at 4 strikes.  But the main reason for treating arrests differently than positive/missed tests was to not allow DUI's to count as 1 strike and get just a fine, this was the NFL's main goal when they revised the substance abuse policy in 2014 (before then, a DUI only cost a 2-game fine on 1st offence).

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/05/25/new-drug-policy-would-require-a-suspension-for-first-offense-dui/

[cddolphin]

11 hours ago, fretgod99 said:

Except the burdens of proof in these contexts are not and shouldn’t be the same. I’m not saying the NFL has figured out a great way to handle this, just saying that simply deferring to the justice system isn’t the answer.

It might not be the answer, but it's a better one. IMO.

11 hours ago, fretgod99 said:

What happens when someone is convicted but that’s overturned for technical reasons? What if it’s not for technical reasons but for issues with proof? What happens if someone is obviously guilty but the evidence was improperly collected and suppressed? What happens if there’s an OJ-type of situation with someone still in the league? If the policy in the CBA is whatever happens in the criminal justice system controls, is the team that had a player in one of these situations forced to keep them on the roster? Can’t cut them for the legal issues that didn’t pan out or you’ll get crushed by a grievance.

Like it or not, the NFL should have a process for punishing players regardless of a criminal court’s determinations. But again, that doesn’t mean what the NFL has now is workable.

For the 1 or 2 annual instances like you mentioned above, the NFL could/should simply add in the CBA that punishment above the minimum could be exercised by the teams. They can have a textbook offense/punishment system like I outlined above, with NFL teams individually able to suspend players for conduct detrimental, just like they currently do for things like being late to practice, yelling at coaches, etc. 

If the Ravens are employing a scumbag, then they should get the public flak if there is any to be had.

Basically, decentralize the whole thing.

 

Perhaps that leads to more chaos, I have a hard time believing it though.

[fretgod99]

The reason the teams elected to have the NFL handle the sanctioning is because the teams can’t be trusted to do it. And, like it or not, people view the NFL as the responsible party. Hell look at the Anthem protest stuff. The people who were upset were upset the NFL didn’t do anything about it. People are upset the NFL hasn’t done more on the DV stuff. It wouldn’t reflect poorly on a team if one team is fine hiring a bunch of criminals; it would reflect poorly on the NFL. Like it or not, that’s the perception.

And no, I think deferring to the criminal justice system is far worse. The entities have completely different motivations, burdens of proof, and roles. It’s completely unworkable for any number of reasons.