The NFL thinks it's above the justice system

http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/04/21/roger-goodell-nfls-solomon-attempts-to-split-the-baby/


I don't care about Big Ben. He's an a*****e. But I think the entire concept of the NFL suspending a player who has done nothing wrong legally is complete BS

Quote:

Welcome to Roger Goodell's NFL, where you can be suspended from football without being arrested or charged with a crime.

Whether you agree with the NFL's suspension of Ben Roethlisberger, it's important to realize what an unbelievable expansion the NFL has now undertaken into the private lives of its players. Never before has a player been suspended from a league for something that is entirely of a private nature. Sure, we've had suspensions for gambling, drug use, utilization of banned substances that increase athlete potential, but never before has a player been suspended without being arrested or charged with a crime.

And as the 21st century progresses, with the rise of new media and the alacrity with which media reports can damn athletes no matter their guilt or innocence, the NFL may have won the public relations battle while losing the war. Because, guess what, this won't be the last time that a prominent football player is accused of a seamy crime. And this won't be the last time that Roger Goodell, the NFL's own Solomon, sits in a high court of sports justice.

As anyone who has ever practiced criminal law knows, guilt or innocence is rarely a bright line rule; the criminal court dwells in a constant sea of gray, uncertain testimony, questionable motives, witnesses who aren't completely truthful, a jumble of uncertainty, the whirlwind of conflicting stories.

That's why our court system requires that someone be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before we punish them. As a country, we'd rather see 1000 guilty men go free than unjustly imprison one person for a crime he didn't commit. That's just what we believe.

You or I can read the Big Ben police report and the pre-existing civil complaint filed in Nevada and draw our own conclusions. Personally, I believe that Ben Roethlisberger is likely a rapist. But that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of Big Ben's peers. Moreover, that personal belief doesn't change my opinion of what the NFL has to do in the absence of a player being arrested or charged with a crime.

Nothing.

Not one damn thing.

Why?

Because it's not the NFL's job to determine guilt or innocence in criminal matters.

And if you value the judicial process one iota, if you value the ability of a player to defend himself in a court of law, and, perhaps most importantly, believe that the media doesn't determine whether someone is guilty or not, then you have to repudiate the NFL's decision to expand the bounds of sports justice and suspend a player for an entirely off-the-field action that led neither to an arrest nor charges being filed

This is no different than any other large organization, they are all going to have their own internal laws that are designed to protect the organization from negligent members. Take the NBA, Air Force, Navy, GE, or Google, each of these entities are going to put restrictions on their employee's outside of what the law is allowed to. They may require there employee's to dress a certain way or act a certain way and all have means of moral punishment they can exact if the contract is broken.

The Air Force can imprison an Enlisted/Officer member for violating their internal rules even if the individual acts in a way that only violates the UCMJ and not Federal or State law. Military members often get punished twice, first by the UCMJ and then by State and Federal law.

When an individual joins organizations like the NFL, Google, and Pepsi they are a representative of the organization. The NFL stands to lose billions in revenue if it is represented by the wrong people. If the NFL was to allow it's players to act in inappropriate ways it would eventually loose it's huge prime time market and fan follower ship. This would eventually lead to it's demise. The NFL has a duty to protect it's image and if one of its employee's acts in ways that determent it's image then it has full right and authority to act. If the player doesn't like or agree he has the full right to leave the organization and live free of all power it may hold over him.

There is nothing wrong with the NFL's action, and the Law of the land is not the end all to right and wrong. It's only where the line is drawn for a state to morally punish its citizens.

When you do questionable things that bring negative attention to the business it's in the business's best interests to do something about it.

The man obviously has some issues. Just because charges weren't filed doesn't mean Ben is innocent. It just means the DA doesn't have more then he said she said.

Maybe because the justice system is f**ked up, Rapistberger deserves a lot worse.

I have a family member that got fired for something he posted on facebook. A younger cousin who posted something his manager took offense to. The post said nothing about Pizza Hut, or anything involving anyone who works for Pizza Hut, but he had them listed in his profile as his place of employment.

This kind of stuff happens often. Ben IS guilty of putting himself in a dumb situation to gain negative press that reflects on the entire NFL.

I am a firm believer that he not only didn't rape this girl, but he is at most guilty of persuasion.

How is it possible to not understand how one thing has nothing to do with the other


Take my job we are going to the bar for lunch today and I will have a beer because I can my boss will also have one because he allows it.

Take another job that does not allow drinking during business hours even lunch no exceptions and some one has a beer during lunch and is reprimanded for it

Are you telling me that person would need to have broken a law in order for the company to take action and that the actions taken by the company would be unfair

This is not rocket science.

these players work for the NFL, and the NFL expects professionalism.

Originally posted by kingairta:
When you do questionable things that bring negative attention to the business it's in the business's best interests to do something about it.

The man obviously has some issues. Just because charges weren't filed doesn't mean Ben is innocent. It just means the DA doesn't have more then he said she said.

Well said. I think a lot of us forget the NFL is a business first and a football league a distant second. A business has any and every right to discipline its employees on any type of suspect behavior, regardless of what the law's opinion is on Big Ben's behavior.

I feel sorry for the people that don't understand why he was suspended Makes me wonder what they do behind closed dorrs to excuse this behavior.

Exactly, if I'm accused of slapping a b***h at work twice but they don't find me guilty for anything you think my job doesn't have the right to suspend me? You bet your ass they do.

It's a f**king business, the NFL is even worse because they have an image to protect.

I use to think it was a simple concept. But there seems to be a lot of people on the zone who don't understand. Maybe its not a simple concept at all.

hmm.

Did Goodell throw Ben in jail. The title confuses me, why do they think they are above the justice system?

Originally posted by 49erWill:
I dont have to get arrested or break the law to get suspended, written up, fired from my job

Exactly! I've had jobs where people get fired for getting in trouble with the law (dui, etc).

In ANY job, if someone is suspended based on an UNPROVEN accusation, then that is WRONGFUL termination.

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
Exactly, if I'm accused of slapping a b***h at work twice but they don't find me guilty for anything you think my job doesn't have the right to suspend me?

Absolutely. They have no right to suspend you based on an accusation unless that accusation is proven.


It's a simple concept. There should be no punishment unless there is proof.

Different standards of proof.

Criminal justice system requires proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

NFL requires proof of likely misconduct.

Originally posted by crzy:
In ANY job, if someone is suspended based on an UNPROVEN accusation, then that is WRONGFUL termination.

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
Exactly, if I'm accused of slapping a b***h at work twice but they don't find me guilty for anything you think my job doesn't have the right to suspend me?

Absolutely. They have no right to suspend you based on an accusation unless that accusation is proven.


It's a simple concept. There should be no punishment unless there is proof.

there is a difference between suspension and termination