What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Stallworth suspended entire 2009 season (1 Viewer)

Following are excerpts from Commissioner Goodell's letter to Stallworth:

"As you recognized both at and following the hearing, guilt or innocence as a matter of criminal law is not the same as a violation of NFL policies. Here, longstanding league policies make clear that discipline is warranted "if a player is convicted of or admits to a violation of the law…relating to the use of alcohol." The degree of discipline may take into account "aggravating circumstances, including but not limited to felonious conduct or felonious injury or death of third parties…" All of those factors are present here. There is no question that your actions had tragic consequences to an innocent man and his family, and that you have violated both the Substances of Abuse and Personal Conduct Policies. In that respect, you are clearly guilty of conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL."

"Nor do I find that the outcome in the Florida courts is controlling in terms of determining disciplinary consequences within the NFL. The considerations that applied in Florida, particularly with respect to criminal standards of proof, claims of contributory negligence, consideration of crowded court dockets, and the like, do not enter into this decision. Without regard to the merits of the disposition of the criminal case, I believe that further consequences are necessary."

"In my view, the essential facts are that you had alcohol in your system well above the legal limit, made a conscious decision to drive, and struck and killed a man. As you recognize, this conduct and the loss of life has caused serious damage to the NFL and NFL players generally. Legal arguments that focus on criminal liability under Florida law do not diminish that damage or your responsibility for your conduct."

"Despite a repeated emphasis on the importance of avoiding driving under the influence of alcohol, you chose to drive under circumstances where you were legally impaired. And you did so even though safe and confidential alternatives, such as the "Safe Ride" program, were available to you. Your conduct endangered yourself and others, leading to the death of an innocent man. The NFL and NFL players must live with the stain that you have placed on their reputations."

 
Isn't the guy under house arrest for like two years or something? What was even the point of this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Isn't the guy under house arrest for like two years or something? What was even the point of this?
Theoretically you could leave house arrest to work, at least in state for home games. I wonder if the alarm bracelet would slow him down.
 
Isn't the guy under house arrest for like two years or something? What was even the point of this?
The point is that the commissioner utilized this situation to clearly enunciate to the ENTIRE league of players the following: "Nor do I find that the outcome in the Florida courts is controlling in terms of determining disciplinary consequences within the NFL. The considerations that applied in Florida, particularly with respect to criminal standards of proof, claims of contributory negligence, consideration of crowded court dockets, and the like, do not enter into this decision. Without regard to the merits of the disposition of the criminal case, I believe that further consequences are necessary."

The commissioner is putting all the players on notice that the employees of the NFL are held, and are going to be held, to a higher standard than the one that prevails in the criminal courts.

He's building precedents and establishing the standards that future offenses will be dealt with.

That's the point, IMO.

 
I just want to say that although I would presumably side with Mr Goodell, that this road inaprticular that Stallworth was on, the same one my wife and I drove on last night to SoBe, is really dangerous although one of the most scenic beautiful roads you drive over going into SoBe. Last night on the way back some crazy was on a bicycle with dark clothes, no reflectors, wife almost hit him and she was not drinking.

I understand Stallworth deserves to be punished but what happened to him could have happened to anyone including folks not drunk and high driving this road.

 
Didn't Mr. Reyes run out in front of Stallworth? Wouldn't a sober person have hit Mr. Reyes?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Too heavy handed, IMHO. NFL is so worried about their image they're making a spectacle of themselves going too far the other way, in this case.

 
This dude has been the maker of bad decisions for a very long time. I for one have a very hard time feeling "sorry" for Stallworth the spoiled millionaire playboy. In my book he doens't deserve to play a game and get rich doing so if he can't play by society's rules. He made a choice to drink and drive, he will now suffer some consequences.

Good for Goodell for holding the line. He's like the parent that lays down rules for his "kids" so they don't destroy themselves and others.

 
Too heavy handed, IMHO. NFL is so worried about their image they're making a spectacle of themselves going too far the other way, in this case.
I would much rather see them err this way than be too lenient.Honestly, I really have no problem with heavy discipline for these knuckleheads.
 
Isn't the guy under house arrest for like two years or something? What was even the point of this?
The point is that the commissioner utilized this situation to clearly enunciate to the ENTIRE league of players the following: "Nor do I find that the outcome in the Florida courts is controlling in terms of determining disciplinary consequences within the NFL. The considerations that applied in Florida, particularly with respect to criminal standards of proof, claims of contributory negligence, consideration of crowded court dockets, and the like, do not enter into this decision. Without regard to the merits of the disposition of the criminal case, I believe that further consequences are necessary."

The commissioner is putting all the players on notice that the employees of the NFL are held, and are going to be held, to a higher standard than the one that prevails in the criminal courts.

He's building precedents and establishing the standards that future offenses will be dealt with.

That's the point, IMO.
:hot: Works for me. The commish continues to do a great job.

 
I have mixed feelings about how the league should deal with situations like this, including the Vick situation.

In the end, I can't help but think that the players are being punished for their various indiscretions or criminal conduct via the criminal judicial system. Whatever the result, their alleged crimes are being handled in the appropriate forum. I'm not saying that the league should simply ignore what goes on, but a full year suspension for Stallworth seems a bit much.

For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh. Even if their conduct was as reprehensible as what Vick was convicted of doing.

I think the commissioner could have levied a softer penalty, and in so doing, expressed his unhappiness with what he did but acknowledge that it was being handled by the proper authorities. IMO, players shouldn't need the threat of a suspension to not drive drunk. The idea of possibly killing a person and/or going to jail or losing his license etc., should be the detterent here.

 
Didn't Mr. Reyes run out in front of Stallworth? Wouldn't a sober person have hit Mr. Reyes?
Did you read Goodell's letter?
No, I didn't. In short, what did it say?
It went something like this:
"As you recognized both at and following the hearing, guilt or innocence as a matter of criminal law is not the same as a violation of NFL policies. Here, longstanding league policies make clear that discipline is warranted "if a player is convicted of or admits to a violation of the law…relating to the use of alcohol." The degree of discipline may take into account "aggravating circumstances, including but not limited to felonious conduct or felonious injury or death of third parties…" All of those factors are present here. There is no question that your actions had tragic consequences to an innocent man and his family, and that you have violated both the Substances of Abuse and Personal Conduct Policies. In that respect, you are clearly guilty of conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL.""Nor do I find that the outcome in the Florida courts is controlling in terms of determining disciplinary consequences within the NFL. The considerations that applied in Florida, particularly with respect to criminal standards of proof, claims of contributory negligence, consideration of crowded court dockets, and the like, do not enter into this decision. Without regard to the merits of the disposition of the criminal case, I believe that further consequences are necessary.""In my view, the essential facts are that you had alcohol in your system well above the legal limit, made a conscious decision to drive, and struck and killed a man. As you recognize, this conduct and the loss of life has caused serious damage to the NFL and NFL players generally. Legal arguments that focus on criminal liability under Florida law do not diminish that damage or your responsibility for your conduct.""Despite a repeated emphasis on the importance of avoiding driving under the influence of alcohol, you chose to drive under circumstances where you were legally impaired. And you did so even though safe and confidential alternatives, such as the "Safe Ride" program, were available to you. Your conduct endangered yourself and others, leading to the death of an innocent man. The NFL and NFL players must live with the stain that you have placed on their reputations."
 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
 
This dude has been the maker of bad decisions for a very long time. I for one have a very hard time feeling "sorry" for Stallworth the spoiled millionaire playboy. In my book he doens't deserve to play a game and get rich doing so if he can't play by society's rules. He made a choice to drink and drive, he will now suffer some consequences.Good for Goodell for holding the line. He's like the parent that lays down rules for his "kids" so they don't destroy themselves and others.
I hear what your saying and to be honest, I don't feel sorry for Stallworth. My feeling is that whether we feel sorry or don't shouldn't factor into the equation.My problem with Goodell judging people for their "bad decisions", is just that, he gets to judge other people. It's way to subjective in my opinion. Whether he's a playboy and living by society's rules is something that the court's and criminal justice system should deal with. I think it should be separate from how the guy earns his living. I mean, lets be honest, these guys are getting paid millions of dollars because they are very good at what they do, not because they are model citizens. When we start judging people, it leads to a very slippery slope. Who's judging Goodell.......
 
Im kind of suprised that people feel like this is too harsh. Stallworth avoided any real punishment from the court because he cut a deal to give X amount of his paycheck to the family of the man he killed. This is a deal that would likely only be available to someone earning a large yearly salary.

The suspension was fair if not light IMO.

 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
:lol: Tough ####. Every career has their pros and cons. You're basically advocating for NFL players to be shown more leniancy because they're NFL players, which I think is pretty ridiculous. If you have a really great job that's very rare and exclusive, it should be more incentive for you to not screw it up, not less.

 
Cleveland Browns receiver Donte' Stallworth was suspended without pay for this season Thursday after pleading guilty to killing a pedestrian while driving drunk. He cannot participate in any team activities until his reinstatement after the Super Bowl.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said Stallworth placed a "stain" on the reputation of the league and all its players.

Stallworth struck 59-year-old Mario Reyes on March 14 in Miami. He pleaded guilty June 16 to DUI manslaughter, a second-degree felony, and was suspended indefinitely by Goodell two days later.

Stallworth drew a 30-day jail sentence and reached an undisclosed financial settlement with the family of Reyes, who was leaving his crane operator job when he was struck.

In a letter to Stallworth released by the NFL, Goodell said he didn't take into account the sentence in determining the 28-year-old player violated the league's substances of abuse and personal conduct policies.

"Your conduct endangered yourself and others, leading to the death of an innocent man," Goodell wrote. "The NFL and NFL players must live with the stain that you have placed on their reputations."

Goodell held a hearing with Stallworth, his representatives and union officials Aug. 5. He also met privately with Stallworth on Monday at the player's request.

Police said Stallworth had spent the night drinking at a Miami Beach club and had a blood-alcohol level of .126, above Florida's .08 legal limit. Besides jail time, his sentence included two years of house arrest, eight years of probation and other restrictions.

A college star at Tennessee, Stallworth has also played for the New England Patriots, Philadelphia Eagles and New Orleans Saints. His first year with Cleveland was marred by injuries. He hurt his leg in training camp, which sidelined him for most of the season.

The Browns signed him to a seven-year, $35 million contract in 2008, hoping he could be a complementary No. 2 receiver and take pressure off Braylon Edwards. But Stallworth never got going because of the injury and made only seven starts. Edwards spent the season dropping important passes and Cleveland finished a disappointing 4-12.

Once it became apparent Stallworth could miss time, the Browns signed 12-year veteran David Patten and drafted Brian Robiskie and Mohammed Massaquoi in April to add depth at receiver.

 
This dude has been the maker of bad decisions for a very long time. I for one have a very hard time feeling "sorry" for Stallworth the spoiled millionaire playboy. In my book he doens't deserve to play a game and get rich doing so if he can't play by society's rules. He made a choice to drink and drive, he will now suffer some consequences.

Good for Goodell for holding the line. He's like the parent that lays down rules for his "kids" so they don't destroy themselves and others.
I hear what your saying and to be honest, I don't feel sorry for Stallworth. My feeling is that whether we feel sorry or don't shouldn't factor into the equation.My problem with Goodell judging people for their "bad decisions", is just that, he gets to judge other people. It's way to subjective in my opinion. Whether he's a playboy and living by society's rules is something that the court's and criminal justice system should deal with. I think it should be separate from how the guy earns his living. I mean, lets be honest, these guys are getting paid millions of dollars because they are very good at what they do, not because they are model citizens. When we start judging people, it leads to a very slippery slope. Who's judging Goodell......
Of course this:
Who's judging Goodell?
Is always going to be problematic, but as the commissioner noted, his decision is not solely based on his opinion of the situation. Rather, it is based on clearly enunciated standards that are published for every NFL player to read and understand, particularly the "Substances of Abuse" and "Personal Conduct Policies" and also in light of established services/options that Stallworth declined to utilize which could have avoided the tragedy (Safe Ride, call a cab, just sleep in your car until you're sober, etc.). If we refuse to enforce the well-known rules of conduct because of a "slippery slope" concern, we end up with anarchy and survival of the most brutal. SOMEONE has to hold the line and enforce the rules that (in this instance) govern the players and coaches of the NFL. Right now, the guy who has that difficult and unsavory task is Roger Goodell.

I say, good for him to insist on further consequences for Donte Stallworth. Stallworth was drunk and high (demonstrably so, and according to his own admissions of guilt) in violation of multiple rules of conduct that apply to all the NFL players and he ran down a guy who was just off a long night shift trying to get home.

Whether or not the victim screwed up by running across the road where he did is not the point. He died, so I think Mr. Reyes (RIP) clearly didn't make the best of all possible choices. However, Stallworth was impaired with multiple substances and even if he hadn't hit Mr. Reyes he still would deserve a suspension from the NFL according to the rules established by the NFL.

Personally, I think a longer suspension would be entirely appropriate in this case.

 
This dude has been the maker of bad decisions for a very long time. I for one have a very hard time feeling "sorry" for Stallworth the spoiled millionaire playboy. In my book he doens't deserve to play a game and get rich doing so if he can't play by society's rules. He made a choice to drink and drive, he will now suffer some consequences.Good for Goodell for holding the line. He's like the parent that lays down rules for his "kids" so they don't destroy themselves and others.
I hear what your saying and to be honest, I don't feel sorry for Stallworth. My feeling is that whether we feel sorry or don't shouldn't factor into the equation.My problem with Goodell judging people for their "bad decisions", is just that, he gets to judge other people. It's way to subjective in my opinion. Whether he's a playboy and living by society's rules is something that the court's and criminal justice system should deal with. I think it should be separate from how the guy earns his living. I mean, lets be honest, these guys are getting paid millions of dollars because they are very good at what they do, not because they are model citizens. When we start judging people, it leads to a very slippery slope. Who's judging Goodell.......
The owners are judging Goodell. The same owners who invested millions in Stallworth. The NFL has a conduct policy. The players agree to abide by that when they sign their contracts (or face the consequences). The players union agreed to this in the CBA.I had no problem with the sentence that was handed down by the criminal justice system; I actually defended Stallworth in some of the thread in which people whined about his sentence. But I've got no problem with what Goodell is doing here.
 
Didn't Mr. Reyes run out in front of Stallworth? Wouldn't a sober person have hit Mr. Reyes?
Did you read Goodell's letter?
His letter does not address JohnnyU's question as to whether Reyes darted out in front of the car and wupild have been struck by any driver, sober or bombed.Personally, I felt it was very odd how quickly his family was willing to settle and just be done with the whole thing. Not taking away from what Stallworth did, but I wonder if there was ever a toxicology report on Reyes done? If I had to speculate, my gut tells me he was on something and if it went to trial, Stallworth's team would have been forced to bring it up.As far as the suspension for Stallworth, I applaud Goodell. Stands by his guns and is trying to make it a better product for us. For those that feel it is too strict, I am a headhunter and have seen guys with 3 year old misdemeanors not get jobs at places like AT&T and Dell because of this (literally for disturbing the peace-type stuff). Considering he has a felony, he is lucky he gets a chance to play again.
 
Good job to the Commish for punishing bad behavior and protecting the shield.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This dude has been the maker of bad decisions for a very long time. I for one have a very hard time feeling "sorry" for Stallworth the spoiled millionaire playboy. In my book he doens't deserve to play a game and get rich doing so if he can't play by society's rules. He made a choice to drink and drive, he will now suffer some consequences.

Good for Goodell for holding the line. He's like the parent that lays down rules for his "kids" so they don't destroy themselves and others.
I hear what your saying and to be honest, I don't feel sorry for Stallworth. My feeling is that whether we feel sorry or don't shouldn't factor into the equation.My problem with Goodell judging people for their "bad decisions", is just that, he gets to judge other people. It's way to subjective in my opinion. Whether he's a playboy and living by society's rules is something that the court's and criminal justice system should deal with. I think it should be separate from how the guy earns his living. I mean, lets be honest, these guys are getting paid millions of dollars because they are very good at what they do, not because they are model citizens. When we start judging people, it leads to a very slippery slope. Who's judging Goodell......
Of course this:
Who's judging Goodell?
Is always going to be problematic, but as the commissioner noted, his decision is not solely based on his opinion of the situation. Rather, it is based on clearly enunciated standards that are published for every NFL player to read and understand, particularly the "Substances of Abuse" and "Personal Conduct Policies" and also in light of established services/options that Stallworth declined to utilize which could have avoided the tragedy (Safe Ride, call a cab, just sleep in your car until you're sober, etc.). If we refuse to enforce the well-known rules of conduct because of a "slippery slope" concern, we end up with anarchy and survival of the most brutal. SOMEONE has to hold the line and enforce the rules that (in this instance) govern the players and coaches of the NFL. Right now, the guy who has that difficult and unsavory task is Roger Goodell.

I say, good for him to insist on further consequences for Donte Stallworth. Stallworth was drunk and high (demonstrably so, and according to his own admissions of guilt) in violation of multiple rules of conduct that apply to all the NFL players and he ran down a guy who was just off a long night shift trying to get home.

Whether or not the victim screwed up by running across the road where he did is not the point. He died, so I think Mr. Reyes (RIP) clearly didn't make the best of all possible choices. However, Stallworth was impaired with multiple substances and even if he hadn't hit Mr. Reyes he still would deserve a suspension from the NFL according to the rules established by the NFL.

Personally, I think a longer suspension would be entirely appropriate in this case.
I really don't disagree with anything you are saying here. It's a matter of degree.I have no problem with Stallworth getting additional punishment by the NFL for his conduct. But when I hear things like how much he was drinking etc., it makes the decision making process too subjective in one man. How much is too much to drink and drive? Lets say he was just barely over the legal limit when this accident occurred. Would that make it better? Would he still have received the same punishment from the NFL?

Using Vick's situation as an example. What would have happened if Goodell was a tremendous activist in animal rights? No doubt, Vick's conduct was deplorable, right? But he got, what, a four game suspension from the NFL. Why only four games? If Goodell was an animal rights activist and was personally mortified by Vick's actions, could he have suspended him forever under the NFL's conduct policy? Probably, right. And a lot of people would have sided with him on that.

My point is that by letting Goodell have a sort of free pass to enforce the league's personal conduct policy as he sees fit leaves a lot of room for abuse and personal opinions into a situation that should have none of either. Players should be dissuaded from criminal behavior because of fear of retribution from the legal process. It should go without saying that their jobs would be effected by that process, as oppossed to in addition to it.

 
Didn't Mr. Reyes run out in front of Stallworth? Wouldn't a sober person have hit Mr. Reyes?
Did you read Goodell's letter?
His letter does not address JohnnyU's question as to whether Reyes darted out in front of the car and wupild have been struck by any driver, sober or bombed.Personally, I felt it was very odd how quickly his family was willing to settle and just be done with the whole thing. Not taking away from what Stallworth did, but I wonder if there was ever a toxicology report on Reyes done? If I had to speculate, my gut tells me he was on something and if it went to trial, Stallworth's team would have been forced to bring it up.As far as the suspension for Stallworth, I applaud Goodell. Stands by his guns and is trying to make it a better product for us. For those that feel it is too strict, I am a headhunter and have seen guys with 3 year old misdemeanors not get jobs at places like AT&T and Dell because of this (literally for disturbing the peace-type stuff). Considering he has a felony, he is lucky he gets a chance to play again.
Again, read it please. The letter says that other contributing factors don't matter. If Stallworth was not guilty of any transgression, they would matter, but they don't here.
 
This dude has been the maker of bad decisions for a very long time. I for one have a very hard time feeling "sorry" for Stallworth the spoiled millionaire playboy. In my book he doens't deserve to play a game and get rich doing so if he can't play by society's rules. He made a choice to drink and drive, he will now suffer some consequences.

Good for Goodell for holding the line. He's like the parent that lays down rules for his "kids" so they don't destroy themselves and others.
I hear what your saying and to be honest, I don't feel sorry for Stallworth. My feeling is that whether we feel sorry or don't shouldn't factor into the equation.My problem with Goodell judging people for their "bad decisions", is just that, he gets to judge other people. It's way to subjective in my opinion. Whether he's a playboy and living by society's rules is something that the court's and criminal justice system should deal with. I think it should be separate from how the guy earns his living. I mean, lets be honest, these guys are getting paid millions of dollars because they are very good at what they do, not because they are model citizens. When we start judging people, it leads to a very slippery slope. Who's judging Goodell......
Of course this:
Who's judging Goodell?
Is always going to be problematic, but as the commissioner noted, his decision is not solely based on his opinion of the situation. Rather, it is based on clearly enunciated standards that are published for every NFL player to read and understand, particularly the "Substances of Abuse" and "Personal Conduct Policies" and also in light of established services/options that Stallworth declined to utilize which could have avoided the tragedy (Safe Ride, call a cab, just sleep in your car until you're sober, etc.). If we refuse to enforce the well-known rules of conduct because of a "slippery slope" concern, we end up with anarchy and survival of the most brutal. SOMEONE has to hold the line and enforce the rules that (in this instance) govern the players and coaches of the NFL. Right now, the guy who has that difficult and unsavory task is Roger Goodell.

I say, good for him to insist on further consequences for Donte Stallworth. Stallworth was drunk and high (demonstrably so, and according to his own admissions of guilt) in violation of multiple rules of conduct that apply to all the NFL players and he ran down a guy who was just off a long night shift trying to get home.

Whether or not the victim screwed up by running across the road where he did is not the point. He died, so I think Mr. Reyes (RIP) clearly didn't make the best of all possible choices. However, Stallworth was impaired with multiple substances and even if he hadn't hit Mr. Reyes he still would deserve a suspension from the NFL according to the rules established by the NFL.

Personally, I think a longer suspension would be entirely appropriate in this case.
I really don't disagree with anything you are saying here. It's a matter of degree.I have no problem with Stallworth getting additional punishment by the NFL for his conduct. But when I hear things like how much he was drinking etc., it makes the decision making process too subjective in one man. How much is too much to drink and drive? Lets say he was just barely over the legal limit when this accident occurred. Would that make it better? Would he still have received the same punishment from the NFL?

Using Vick's situation as an example. What would have happened if Goodell was a tremendous activist in animal rights? No doubt, Vick's conduct was deplorable, right? But he got, what, a four game suspension from the NFL. Why only four games? If Goodell was an animal rights activist and was personally mortified by Vick's actions, could he have suspended him forever under the NFL's conduct policy? Probably, right. And a lot of people would have sided with him on that.

My point is that by letting Goodell have a sort of free pass to enforce the league's personal conduct policy as he sees fit leaves a lot of room for abuse and personal opinions into a situation that should have none of either. Players should be dissuaded from criminal behavior because of fear of retribution from the legal process. It should go without saying that their jobs would be effected by that process, as oppossed to in addition to it.
Let's leave Vick aside as there are a ton of threads on that front and my position is well-known. Dragging that into a Stallworth thread is going to be counter-productive, IMO.Goodell does NOT have a free pass to enforce the personal conduct policy. It is clearly enunciated here: CBA . The players' union would never agree to a free and personal enforcement of conduct standards by the commissioner. There are well-known and published rules which every player SHOULD be aware of and which they are expected to abide by.

There is also an established appeal process which could be utilized, but Stallworth has (remorsefully) declined in advance of Goodell's decision to go down that road. Stallworth decided to throw himself on the commissioner's mercy and abide by whatever Goodell decided before the decision. In another well-known case regarding illicit drug use, Marshawn Lynch tried to appeal his 3-game suspension and was denied. Of course, Lynch got 3 games as he was a passenger in the vehicle at the time of his bust, and nobody got killed.

I think that Stallworth's decision speaks to the integrity with which Goodell is perceived to conduct himself as commissioner of the league.

My .02.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unless I am remembering incorrectly, Lynch was busted on having a concealed weapon in the back seat of a car. I don't believe drugs were involved.

 
Unless I am remembering incorrectly, Lynch was busted on having a concealed weapon in the back seat of a car. I don't believe drugs were involved.
Stench of Mary Jane attracted officers in Lynch Bust

Additionally, how do you get caught with a concealed weapon in your car when you're a professional athlete? After all, that usually gets you a little leeway; particularly when the method of discovery is just a "field investigation." The short answer is that a car is much more likely to be searched if it reeks of marijuana smoke. At least that's the logic provided by Culver City Police Captain Dave Tankenson.

"They (officers) knocked on the window of the car. Someone unrolled the window. They saw three people in the car and they could smell a strong odor - marijuana coming from the car. They had the occupants exit so they could further investigate to see if there was any marajuana in the car. What they found were four, not marajuana cigarettes - what they call blunts or swisher sweets that appeared to contain marijuana in them," says Tankenson.

Tankenson says neither Lynch nor the other two individuals were charged with possession of marijuana because they could not determine who was smoking, or whom the cigarettes belonged to.
Of course, it appears there's a pretty good chance Lynch won't be charged with anything marijuana related. That's good news for his resumé, but considering Goodell puts little stock in the actual legal process when he determines NFL-sanctioned punishments, it might not matter a whole lot just how many blunts he had in his car.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
Last I checked NFL players had to go to COLLEGE before playing in the Pros. If they went to college, it would seem that they would have to take classes and get an EDUCATION in some sort of field of study. If said athlete receives an education it would also seem that they would have the "tools" and "knowhow" to land a job like the rest of us. Stallworth's options of employment certainly are not simply playing football in Europe or the UFL.He could take his degree and go on to be a supermarket clerk, a roadie for a band, a janitor at the zoo...his employment opportunites are ENDLESS! Don't give us that crap about Stallworth only having football as his "trade". Besides, he's made more money than you, and I, and about 10 others guys in here combined already.
 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
You think teachers who boink their students should be able to teach again? Once that happens they are essentially "black balled" from ever teaching again. It's called the real world, Stallworth can stack cans at the local grocery store.
 
Considering that Stallworth should be spending the next 10-20 years in prison but somehow isn't leaves me with the impression that this suspension is probably the minimum he should have received.

 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
:shrug: Tough ####. Every career has their pros and cons. You're basically advocating for NFL players to be shown more leniancy because they're NFL players, which I think is pretty ridiculous. If you have a really great job that's very rare and exclusive, it should be more incentive for you to not screw it up, not less.
:goodposting: Exactly. These guys are constantly in the public eye and if anything need to police themselves even more than Joe Blow on the street. I'm a Deputy Sheriff and if I commit a crime do you think I get to continue my career? Not a chance. There is no year long suspension then come back and resume. Just doesn't work that way, but yet Stallworth gets to do just that. All that being said I think the punishment is warranted.
 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
You think teachers who boink their students should be able to teach again? Once that happens they are essentially "black balled" from ever teaching again. It's called the real world, Stallworth can stack cans at the local grocery store.
:mellow:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
I don't understand why this is such a problem? MANY careers are ruined by a significant criminal charge. If you're a cop, a schoolteacher, or in any LARGE number of other professions which generally require some sort of background check, a charge like this would effectively end your career. This is a tired and worthless argument.
 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
You think teachers who boink their students should be able to teach again? Once that happens they are essentially "black balled" from ever teaching again. It's called the real world, Stallworth can stack cans at the local grocery store.
Keep him away from the jars though.
 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
I don't understand why this is such a problem? MANY careers are ruined by a significant criminal charge. If you're a cop, a schoolteacher, or in any LARGE number of other professions which generally require some sort of background check, a charge like this would effectively end your career. This is a tired and worthless argument.
:popcorn: Politicians aside (LOL), most careers require a clean criminal backround...Do y'all really think Joe Bryant or David Dodds would give me a one-year suspension if I drunkenly ran down someone on a street here in Macon, Georgia? I'd be fired and I'd deserve it in addition to any legal penalties.
 
One year is way too much IMO. Dude ran out in front of his car

Its not like he mutilated, tortured and killed Reyes or even forced him to fight to the death. Someone who does that deserves multiple years

 
I work in state government. Many people in state government tend to have photos of various state officials hanging on their office walls, such as the governor, the treasurer, etc. Of course many other people hang their diplomas and other awards on the wall.

The only thing I have hanging on my office walls is a framed photo of Roger Goodell at the NFL podium on draft day. On a day like today, I am proud to have that photo on my wall. :lol:

 
Do y'all really think Joe Bryant or David Dodds would give me a one-year suspension if I drunkenly ran down someone on a street here in Macon, Georgia? I'd be fired and I'd deserve it in addition to any legal penalties.
:lol: Hell, they might ban you a year just for talking about it hypothetically.
 
I work in state government. Many people in state government tend to have photos of various state officials hanging on their office walls, such as the governor, the treasurer, etc. Of course many other people hang their diplomas and other awards on the wall.The only thing I have hanging on my office walls is a framed photo of Roger Goodell at the NFL podium on draft day. On a day like today, I am proud to have that photo on my wall. :confused:
Good lord.
 
For an NFL player, football is their livelihood. It's how they earn their livings. Taking away their ability to earn, on top of whatever crimiminal ramifications they suffer just comes across as harsh.
NFL players have no more a right to keep their old job after committing a felony than you or I. Just because they've pigeon-holed themselves into one (incredibly lucrative relative to most of us) career doesn't mean they should be cut any "slack." Everyone else who commits a crime can and probably will face criminal and career ramifications, NFL players should be no different.
I agree. But if something like this happens to you or I and we get suspended from our company, we can go and seek a job at another company. True, an NFL player can go to Europe or the UFL, but the NFL is really the only place they can ply their trade. Suspending a guy for a whole year, imo, is like one of us getting fired and being black balled from our respective careers.Don't get me wrong, I think Goodell was right to take some kind of action here. But giving him the boot for a whole year just seemed to strong.
I don't understand why this is such a problem? MANY careers are ruined by a significant criminal charge. If you're a cop, a schoolteacher, or in any LARGE number of other professions which generally require some sort of background check, a charge like this would effectively end your career. This is a tired and worthless argument.
:confused: Politicians aside (LOL), most careers require a clean criminal backround...Do y'all really think Joe Bryant or David Dodds would give me a one-year suspension if I drunkenly ran down someone on a street here in Macon, Georgia? I'd be fired and I'd deserve it in addition to any legal penalties.
Here's the rub with this argument, IMO.Sure, most normal jobs require a background check and a clean record. Problem is, the NFL doesn't! Come on, how many guys have significant character issues before coming to the NFL? Guys beating girlfriends, drinking and driving, smoking grass, pooping in a female's dorm room (sorry, had to throw that one in).

I understand everything you guys are saying, and I just don't agree that they should be treated like everyone else. Its too convenient. The league turns a blind eye and lets some of these thugs come to the NFL with spotty backgrounds...why, because their play on the field sells the NFL product. Plain and simple. The NFL accepts these guys with open arms and gives them huge contracts but then is appalled when they do something wrong once they are in the league.

Of course these guys should be extra careful and make sure to fly the straight and narrow...but not because they may lose their job, but because they can get in trouble with the law if they don't. If Goodell didn't suspend Stallworth at all lets say, each individual team could have stepped up and said, no, we're not taking you on because of your character issues. But rest assured, someone would have taken Stallworth back if he weren't suspended, I guarantee you that. What does that tell you?

Reasonable minds will differ. It's what makes life worth living.

 
If we refuse to enforce the well-known rules of conduct because of a "slippery slope" concern, we end up with anarchy and survival of the most brutal.
You have yet to see the point. No one is taking issue with the personal conduct policy. People are taking issue with there being no clear, objective standards for punishing violations. It's one guy --- just one guy --- making up the punishments as he goes along. Putting all your faith in one guy, answerable to no one, is usually a dangerous path to follow. The talk of anarchy and survival of the most brutal is ridiculous.
 
This dude has been the maker of bad decisions for a very long time. I for one have a very hard time feeling "sorry" for Stallworth the spoiled millionaire playboy. In my book he doens't deserve to play a game and get rich doing so if he can't play by society's rules. He made a choice to drink and drive, he will now suffer some consequences.Good for Goodell for holding the line. He's like the parent that lays down rules for his "kids" so they don't destroy themselves and others.
I hear what your saying and to be honest, I don't feel sorry for Stallworth. My feeling is that whether we feel sorry or don't shouldn't factor into the equation.My problem with Goodell judging people for their "bad decisions", is just that, he gets to judge other people. It's way to subjective in my opinion. Whether he's a playboy and living by society's rules is something that the court's and criminal justice system should deal with. I think it should be separate from how the guy earns his living. I mean, lets be honest, these guys are getting paid millions of dollars because they are very good at what they do, not because they are model citizens. When we start judging people, it leads to a very slippery slope. Who's judging Goodell.......
So if you broke the law, drunk driving and killing someone in the process, you wouldn't receive disciplinary action at work? And who would issue that discipline? Wouldn't that be your boss?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top