LeSean McCoy allegations

[MTBill]

3 hours ago, Uncle Joe said:

Seems like they are waffling on whether they think he was involved...or not.

 

What is potentially problematic for her is - if these suspicions aren't proven, she may get sued later for baseless accusations - which is exactly what they are so far.

 

If her account is accurate - it would be a logical conclusion for a person to draw up.  But - so far this is all her word.  No other evidence corroborates her story.  (she could have set this whole thing up - as crazy as it sounds).

Just now, JinxedBill1 said:

Regardless of outcome, I think its Ridiculous that someone can lose money/employment before being found guilty of an action/crime.

 

What happened to innocent before found guilty? 

 

Public opinion does not offer such protections.  People make judgements.  If/When it goes to court, that's when you have this protection.  But people can and will believe what they want to believe - or by first impression/bias.

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

So in your mind, anyone can accuse a player of something and boom, the Commish can suspend him without anything needing to be proven?  Yeah, that's so not retarded.

 

In his mind...and in the CBA.

 

The unholy stupidity of the NFLPA is such that, in their chase for more money, they gave the Commissioner's office complete authority over player discipline in the CBA, with no restrictions.  Goodell would be stupid to abuse that power...but then, he is stupid, as he has already abused that power. 

[Lurker]

Just now, BringBackOrton said:

Says who?

 

The Commissioner has to say he believes Shady may have violated the policy.  Boom.  Shady suspended.  

 

Shady appeals, says Goodell is being arbitrary and unfair.  Goodell hears the appeal.  Says no.  Boom.  Shady suspended.

 

You are demonstrably incorrect.

 

McCoy would have nothing to loose by bringing a defamation suit against the NFL, regardless of the CBA.    His career would be over, so go ahead and knock over the china.

 

His attorney could get Goodell on the stand trying to explain why he thought McCoy was guilty (absent proof that specific conduct occurred) and the NFL would want nothing to do with that, IMO...

 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

McCoy would have nothing to loose by bringing a defamation suit against the NFL, regardless of the CBA.    His career would be over, so go ahead and knock over the china.

 

His attorney could get Goodell on the stand trying to explain why he thought McCoy was guilty (absent proof that specific conduct occurred) and the NFL would want nothing to do with that, IMO...

 

 

 

I agree.  But that doesn't mean they can't.  It just makes it a bad idea.

 

Also, the NFL would win that defamation suit.

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

In his mind...and in the CBA.

 

The unholy stupidity of the NFLPA is such that, in their chase for more money, they gave the Commissioner's office complete authority over player discipline in the CBA, with no restrictions.  Goodell would be stupid to abuse that power...but then, he is stupid, as he has already abused that power. 

Doc hasn't read the CBA.  He thinks the NFLPA and Commissioner have a separation of powers/checks and balances thing going on.

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

In his mind...and in the CBA.

 

The unholy stupidity of the NFLPA is such that, in their chase for more money, they gave the Commissioner's office complete authority over player discipline in the CBA, with no restrictions.  Goodell would be stupid to abuse that power...but then, he is stupid, as he has already abused that power. 

 

I don't think Goodell is out to suspend every player for the slightest infraction.  The league requires players to play and he's an employee of the owners, who don't want to see their players, especially stars, get suspended.  And players have been suspended for a game, only to have that suspension lifted on appeal, so there's some type of remediation at work.

 

3 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

I agree.  But that doesn't mean they can't.  It just makes it a bad idea.

 

Also, the NFL would win that defamation suit.

Doc hasn't read the CBA.  He thinks the NFLPA and Commissioner have a separation of powers/checks and balances thing going on.

 

Why would it be a bad idea?  Goodell can suspend anyone he wants at any time for any reason (and apparently no reason) at all.

 

No the reason it would be a bad idea is because he'd lose on appeal.  If he were to suspend Shady based on the facts that we know right now, it would never stand up.

 

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I don't think Goodell is out to suspend every player for the slightest infraction.  The league requires players to play and he's an employee of the owners, who don't want to see their players, especially stars, get suspended.  And players have been suspended for a game, only to have that suspension lifted on appeal, so there's some type of remediation at work.

 

 

Why would it be a bad idea?  Goodell can suspend anyone he wants at any time for any reason (and apparently no reason) at all.

 

No the reason it would be a bad idea is because he'd lose on appeal.  If he were to suspend Shady based on the facts that we know right now, it would never stand up.

 

STAND UP TO WHO?  WHAT PROCESS OF OVERSIGHT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

Edited July 20, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

I agree.  But that doesn't mean they can't.  It just makes it a bad idea.

 

Also, the NFL would win that defamation suit.

Doc hasn't read the CBA.  He thinks the NFLPA and Commissioner have a separation of powers/checks and balances thing going on.

 

It truly amazes me how much the NFLPA gave away in pursuit of cash.  

 

For everyone's edification, here's what the CBA says about it:

 

From Article 46:

Quote

Section 1. League Discipline: Notwithstanding anything stated in Article 43: (a) All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field (other than as described in Subsection (b) below) or involving action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within three (3) business days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.

Article 43, referenced, concerns injury grievances, and isn't applicable to this discussion.  Subsection (b), referenced, refers to exclusively on-field conduct, and is likewise not applicable

 

From Appendix A, the player contract

Quote

15. INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

 

 

That is everything the CBA says about the Commissioner disciplining off-field conduct.  No schedule of fines or suspension, no other guidance.  The Commissioner is the judge of what is "detrimental to the integrity the game of professional football" or "detrimental to the League," and only constrained by a requirement for a hearing, a requirement for written notice to be provided to the player, and a right of the player to appeal, which the Commissioner hears.  

 

The NFLPA has already announced that they'll strike to get this changed when it's renegotiated (in 2021).  And I don't blame them one bit.  But for now...they negotiated this piece of ****, they can suck it.

8 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No the reason it would be a bad idea is because he'd lose on appeal.  If he were to suspend Shady based on the facts that we know right now, it would never stand up.

 

 

Who hears the appeal, though?

 

Goodell.  Under the CBA, he decides on the appeals of his own decisions.  THAT'S how ridiculous the disciplinary system is.

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

STAND UP TO WHO?  WHAT PROCESS OF OVERSIGHT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

 

Like I said above, players have been suspended and had their suspensions lifted on appeal.  How/why do you think that happens?

 

And just to clarify, do you think that Shady can, much less will, be suspended based on what we know so far?

[Luxy312]

1 hour ago, BringBackOrton said:

Read the CBA.  Maintain an educated position on the matter.

 

I'll help.

 

"Under Article XI of the NFL’s CBA, “action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football” may only be appealed to the commissioner."

 

"The lack of a just cause provision also implicates where the burden of proof lies in appeals of League discipline. Without a just cause standard, the burden of proof lies upon the party challenging the discipline. See In re Logan-Hocking (Ohio) Local School District Bd. of Educ., 122 Lab. Arb. 550, 557-58 (2006). That is to say, the disciplined employee, which in most instances operates through his certified collective bargaining representative, here, the NFLPA, has the burden of showing that the discipline was arbitrary or capricious."

 

"Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline."

 

"Leave with Pay–A player may be placed on paid administrative leave pursuant to the Commissioner Exempt List under either of the following circumstances: ... Second,when an investigation leads the Commissioner to believe that a player may have violated this Policy by committing any of the conduct identified above , he may act where the circumstances and evidence warrant doing so

 

AKA Goodell can suspend you.  FOR ANYTHING.  And the burden of proof is on the player, or the PA, to fight it.  And you can only appeal, to, you guessed it, the Commissioner.

 

Does that sound retarded?  Of course.  Did the NFLPA agree to it?  You betcha.

 

Better luck next time.  Do your homework.

 

What is the conduct that he would be suspended for?  Thus far there is NO CONDUCT.  The NFL would get crushed in a lawsuit.  You trying to create facts when none exist is idiotic.  There has and never will be an NFL suspension without actual conduct that can be deemed harmful to the NFL.  In every case, there is conduct / action by a player that drives the suspension.  It may not be criminal, but it's still something.

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Like I said above, players have been suspended and had their suspensions lifted on appeal.  How/why do you think that happens?

 

And just to clarify, do you think that Shady can, much less will, be suspended based on what we know so far?

Why don't you tell me how appeals work in the NFL disciplinary process?  And tell me who players appeal to?  

 

Yes.

[Lurker]

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It truly amazes me how much the NFLPA gave away in pursuit of cash.  

 

For everyone's edification, here's what the CBA says about it:

 

From Article 46:

Article 43, referenced, concerns injury grievances, and isn't applicable to this discussion.  Subsection (b), referenced, refers to exclusively on-field conduct, and is likewise not applicable

 

From Appendix A, the player contract

 

 

That is everything the CBA says about the Commissioner disciplining off-field conduct.  No schedule of fines or suspension, no other guidance.  The Commissioner is the judge of what is "detrimental to the integrity the game of professional football" or "detrimental to the League," and only constrained by a requirement for a hearing, a requirement for written notice to be provided to the player, and a right of the player to appeal, which the Commissioner hears.  

 

The NFLPA has already announced that they'll strike to get this changed when it's renegotiated (in 2021).  And I don't blame them one bit.  But for now...they negotiated this piece of ****, they can suck it.

 

The word "conduct" still sticks in my craw.   

 

All of the players that have been suspended to date were physically present or linked (Carruth) to the conduct they were suspended for.   If Shady's involvement with the events in Atlanta can't be proven, how would there be conduct to suspend him over?

 

 

 

Edited July 20, 2018 by Lurker

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Why don't you tell me how appeals work in the NFL disciplinary process?  And tell me who players appeal to?  

 

Yes.

 

They appeal to Goodell.  And yet some still get their suspensions reduced. 

 

And no, Goodell cannot do a thing to Shady based on what we know so far.  Maybe you want it to happen so bad that it's clouding your judgment, I don't know.

Edited July 20, 2018 by Doc

[Roger Goodell]

Just now, Doc said:

 

They appeal to Goodell.  And yet some still get their suspensions reduced. 

 

And no, Goodell cannot do a thing to Shady based on what we know so far.  Maybe you want it to happen so bad that it's clouding your judgment, I don't know.

 

The league and the players assoication has worked hard to establish a partnership that balances and respects the concerns of all sides with respect to handling issues around player discipline.

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, Doc said:

 

They appeal to Goodell.  And yet some still get their suspensions reduced. 

 

And no, Goodell cannot do a thing to Shady based on what we know so far.

Well, you've just been linked to 3 pages to the contrary, but believe what you want.

 

Some get their suspensions reduced, yes.  Goodell changes his mind or walks back his punishment.  What is your point?

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Well, you've just been linked to 3 pages to the contrary, but believe what you want.

 

Some get their suspensions reduced, yes.  Goodell changes his mind or walks back his punishment.  What is your point?

 

It means he won't just suspend people for no good reason, and even when he does suspend people, he has to admit he erred.  If he were judge, jury, and executioner, his suspensions would stand.

 

And not sure what you're saying, but Cordon believing Shady was involved is absolutely no grounds for a suspension. 

[BringBackOrton]

5 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It means he won't just suspend people for no good reason, and even when he does suspend people, he has to admit he erred.  If he were judge, jury, and executioner, his suspensions would stand.

 

And not sure what you're saying, but Cordon believing Shady was involved is absolutely no grounds for a suspension. 

Why isn't it him changing his mind?

 

So how does that work Doc?  If Goodell hands out the suspensions, and hears the appeals, why don't his suspensions stand?  Who tells him to change his suspensions?  Why do some suspensions get reduced and some don't?  Who is granting this oversight in the disciplinary process?

Edited July 20, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[Doc]

Just now, BringBackOrton said:

Why isn't it him changing his mind?

 

So how does that work Doc?  If Goodell hands out the suspensions, and hears the appeals, why don't his suspensions stand?  Who tells him to change his suspensions?

 

No one knows because we're not there to witness it.  It could be him changing his mind (which means he made a mistake in the first place) or more likely the player's/NFLPA's legal team presents their case and/or threatens legal action. 

[BringBackOrton]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

No one knows because we're not there to witness it.  It could be him changing his mind (which means he made a mistake in the first place) or more likely the player's/NFLPA's legal team presents their case and/or threatens legal action. 

What legal action?

 

Changes his mind does not imply Goodell made a mistake. At all.  He may have made the right decision and changed it to a bad one.  And neither means that he isn't judge, jury and executioner.  Because if he does what he wants in both cases.

Edited July 20, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[Augie]

1 minute ago, BringBackOrton said:

What legal action?

 

Changes his mind does not imply Goodell made a mistake. At all.  He may have made the right decision and changed it to a bad one.  And neither means that he isn't judge, jury and executioner.  Because if he does what he wants in both cases.

 

 

....or......they know an appeal is coming so they build in some room to negotiate. Just like buying a house - throw out your opening offer, and go from there. 

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, Augie said:

 

 

....or......they know an appeal is coming so they build in some room to negotiate. Just like buying a house - throw out your opening offer, and go from there. 

Possible.  But the appeal is a dog and pony show for the NFLPA and fans.  Goodell's word is law.

Edited July 20, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[Lurker]

Just now, BringBackOrton said:

Goodell's word is law.

 

To date, that's been true. 

 

But at some point, the NFL's going to be drug into court, where the justice system will likely neuter some of that power...

[Beast]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

To date, that's been true. 

 

But at some point, the NFL's going to be drug into court, where the justice system will likely neuter some of that power...

 

Nope.

 

That’s a CBA issue.

[Augie]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

To date, that's been true. 

 

But at some point, the NFL's going to be drug into court, where the justice system will likely neuter some of that power...

 

The NFL has every advantage even if they get to court because the players negotiated away their rights in return for dollars. The next CBA battle should be one for the ages! 

[BringBackOrton]

3 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

To date, that's been true. 

 

But at some point, the NFL's going to be drug into court, where the justice system will likely neuter some of that power...

No, they won't.  The NFLPA agreed to the terms set in the CBA.  Every court appeal has supported the CBA.  

[Lurker]

1 minute ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

Nope.

 

That’s a CBA issue.

 

The CBA doesn't supersede labor law related to wrongful termination.    Or civil law related to loss of employment and damage to reputation.     

 

Whether the NFL would ultimately prevail in such suits is really secondary.   A long, drawn out civil action would generate a lot of negative PR for a group of owners who are already skittish over the kneeling issue.    They would much rather make this go away quietly...   

[Luxy312]

37 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It means he won't just suspend people for no good reason, and even when he does suspend people, he has to admit he erred.  If he were judge, jury, and executioner, his suspensions would stand.

 

And not sure what you're saying, but Cordon believing Shady was involved is absolutely no grounds for a suspension. 

 

I keep coming back to the same question.  What exactly is the conduct that he would be suspended for?  What evidence has been produced supporting the conduct that gets him suspended.  After all, this is the NFL Conduct Policy that we're talking about.  It's not the NFL Suspicion Without and Evidence Policy.  Dante Fowler just suspended for "off the field issues".  3 in 17 months.  

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

...wonder why his "buddy" from the "Philly Bar Tango" was called a "person of interest" in some news accounts?.....rampant speculation?...he seems like a nice, upstanding fellow...

[JoeF]

58 minutes ago, Roger Goodell said:

 

The league and the players association (sp) have worked hard to establish a dictatorship that provides the commissioner with ultimate power over all issues related to player discipline.

 

This is what I got when I put the original statement into Google's Commissioner Translator....

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, Luxy312 said:

I keep coming back to the same question.  What exactly is the conduct that he would be suspended for?  What evidence has been produced supporting the conduct that gets him suspended.  After all, this is the NFL Conduct Policy that we're talking about.  It's not the NFL Suspicion Without and Evidence Policy.  Dante Fowler just suspended for "off the field issues".  3 in 17 months.  

 

He can't be suspended.  She made an allegation.  It's now up to the police to find a link between the incident and Shady.  The NFL will probably investigate and make sure Shady didn't pay her off so he can avoid legal entanglements. 

 

6 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...wonder why his "buddy" from the "Philly Bar Tango" was called a "person of interest" in some news accounts?.....rampant speculation?...he seems like a nice, upstanding fellow...

 

Because he signed the eviction papers. 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He can't be suspended.  She made an allegation.  It's now up to the police to find a link between the incident and Shady.  The NFL will probably investigate and make sure Shady didn't pay her off so he can avoid legal entanglements. 

 

 

Because he signed the eviction papers. 

.....GOOD point...thanks bud....forgot he put that "X" on the document.....

[26CornerBlitz]

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

He can't be suspended.  She made an allegation.  It's now up to the police to find a link between the incident and Shady.  The NFL will probably investigate and make sure Shady didn't pay her off so he can avoid legal entanglements. 

 

Because he signed the eviction papers. 

 

That wouldn't stop the MPD from charging him with a crime if they find evidence that links him. 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

That wouldn't stop the MPD from charging him with a crime if they find evidence that links him. 

 

Maybe.  A settlement would stipulate that she not cooperate with the police, in which case they might drop it.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Maybe.  A settlement would require that she not cooperate with the police, in which case they would might drop it.

 

Any potential settlement bewteen them (which won't happen) would not impact the investigation into the already reported home invasion, assault, and armed robbery. 

[Doc]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

Any potential settlement bewteen them (which won't happen) would not impact the investigation into the already reported home invasion, assault, and armed robbery. 

 

I know.  I'm just saying that if she doesn't cooperate with the police, they might not pursue it further. 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

I know.  I'm just saying that if she doesn't cooperate with the police, they might not pursue it further. 

 

Too late for that.  They can pursue the case without her by examination of the surveillance system, phone records, and his finances if required. 

[Augie]

44 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

The CBA doesn't supersede labor law related to wrongful termination.    Or civil law related to loss of employment and damage to reputation.     

 

Whether the NFL would ultimately prevail in such suits is really secondary.   A long, drawn out civil action would generate a lot of negative PR for a group of owners who are already skittish over the kneeling issue.    They would much rather make this go away quietly...   

 

It’s not wrongful termination. It’s a suspension the CBA allows as part of the process, and both sides agreed to it. 

 

Now, this is assuming there is something REAL to point to. I suspect that won’t be the case, but it leans hard toward the league’s side here. Roger has nothing to gain by abuse of this power he rightly has,. 

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

Too late for that.  They can pursue the case without her by examination of the surveillance system, phone records, and his finances if required. 

 

How often does it happen that an assault case like this would proceed without the victim cooperating? 

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Doc said:

 

How often does it happen that an assault case like this would proceed without the victim cooperating? 

 

Standard fare. The crime has already been committed and reported.  

[Luxy312]

25 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Standard fare. The crime has already been committed and reported.  

 

Committed and reported with no evidence.  There's nothing to pursue legally without a minimum of some facts.  Money changing hands, etc.  To get a conviction, police would need to catch the guy that did it and have a direct connection to McCoy.  At this point, that seems highly unlikely.  If evidence were actually building, my opinion could be different.

[Lurker]

45 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

That wouldn't stop the MPD from charging him with a crime if they find evidence that links him. 

 

That's a stone cold given.   And this whole thread would be moot if that were to occur.

 

But the hypothetical that Goodell would add Shady to the "list" in the absence of such evidence is the bone of contention.   I don't think he could/would, while others think the Commish would go down that slippery slope..   Time will tell...