Bailey reinstated
- Thread starter 12intheBox
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
This isn't our government so you can't make the comparison. NFL also throws due process and double jeopardy out the window as well.
But to just give an different example, if a new king unseats a tyrant, it is not uncommon to free all prisoners from the previous ruler. Just saying.
I'm guessing that Gordon would much rather have his suspension be reduced by 6 games, rather than have to serve all 16 games.
But I think you are making it overly legalistic. But if you like, what has happened is that the with the changing of the laws, there was an appeal for leniency for those serving time under the old laws. Leniency has been granted, which does NOT require that it be granted to everybody who was ever convicted, nor that the leniency be absolute.
Leniency is part of most Western legal systems, and by its nature is NOT totally logical and consistent. Demanding that the NFL's private rules be more logical and consistent than the legal system is setting expectations that will not and should not be met.
AnarchyRam
Rookie
No, because they did not play and the rules were different. Now, the rules have changed and the suspensions are being lifted in order to match the changes. I just don't understand what you're so pissed about this. But that's just me. Unless I'm not understanding something..
Well, no. First off, it makes little sense to have the rule changes affect those who have already served their sentence. When punishments in the legal system change they don't go and give money to those who have already completed their sentences. What they sometimes do is - generally on a case by case basis - offer partial or total leniency to those still serving. This is what the NFL did. They negotiated with the NFLPA and lightened sentences. Some they totally commuted to time served if they were minor. A more serious repeat offender still had to serve most of his sentence - though to be fair, he did have 6 games taken off of it, and is allowed to be at the facility so that he'll be ready for game 11. There is some arbitrariness of course - my argument is that leniency by its very nature has some arbitrariness. That is FAR different than being "completely arbitrary" though. Completely arbitrary would be a coin flip - in this case a repeat offender who also got nailed for a DUI is facing more of a sentence than players who are not repeat offenders. Which does make sense.
Hard to believe anyone is upset about the NFL swinging one our (and by extension everyone else's) way.
Actually, my understanding (possibly wrong) is that leniency HAS been granted. That the NFLPA and the league negotiated on what should be done with those already being punished, and came to this agreement. Which is clearly leniency. They decided that even though in some sense the players already suspended should still be fully under the old rules, that their sentences would be reduced at least.
As X says, I'm not sure what you're upset about. The NFL is not a legal system in the first place - and they are actually reducing suspensions so the players should be happy.
Oh, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport has zero jurisdiction. The appeal process is laid out in the CBA, and the contracts players play under agree to that process.
Why(to the bold)? What's the logic for offering leniency?
Better yet, I'm actually curious about how often leniency is granted and in what circumstances. Anyone know of any good links or data on it?
I'm against invalidating any suspension handed out under the old program.
If you make it retroactive for everyone, as I said, you run into the issue of what you do about players that already served their suspension. Not really fair to just say, "Deal with it" when you took money out of their pocket and then are a year or two or more later letting other players off the hook for the same reasons. Gotta be consistent imo.
The rules for Jo-Lonn Dunbar's suspension were the exact same as the rules for Stedman's. The rules changing now shouldn't effect people who were punished under the old rules. And if you are going to have it work that way, you shouldn't arbitrarily choose who benefits and who doesn't.
Why am I pissed? I'm not. I'm disappointed that the NFL has more or less said, "To hell with the consequences". I was raised to believe that when you do something against the rules, you are punished for it so you will alter your behavior. How will you alter behavior or have anyone respect your system if you just start arbitrarily not punishing certain people...and in Ray Rice's case, punishing certain people more severely?
I'm bothered by the lack of consistency and the more about what it says than the outcome. They are going to arbitrarily punish Ray Rice, after already punishing him, due to negative PR and remove suspensions of players who broke the rules. Yes, it benefits the Rams but it also undermines the system. How can you respect a system that does this sort of thing?
Then there would never be any change to the rules. How would you ever find a pocket of time where nobody would have a grievance to a rule change in the scenario you just laid out (having already served it)? You would literally have to have a 15 year period where nobody broke the (now old) rule before you could change it to a more lenient rule. And that's just never gonna happen.
Well, they have been consistently, inconsistent....so I'm rolling with it, cuz you never know WTF they are going to do.