Jump to content
dezertbill

Ed Oliver Arrested DWI

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Yeah his opinion would be the initial suspension, and then on appeal would be shown reason.  It's why he's reduced suspensions in the past.

 

Has he reduced a suspension in the past where he said he felt the charges for which a player was convicted were unreasonable?

 

Also, if the mandatory for DWI is 2 games and the added weapon conviction is what leads Goodell feel  it should be bumped up to 4, why would he then reduce it to 2?  He would have already considered the gun conviction as the reason to go 4, why would he then consider the gun conviction simultaneously unreasonable and then reduce to 2?  That wouldn't make any sense.  If thinks the gun charge is bogus, he wouldn't give him 4 in the first place.  It's not like he's appealing someone else's ruling.

Edited by Mr. WEO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

Has he reduced a suspension in the past where he said he felt the charges for which a player was convicted were unreasonable?

 

Also, if the mandatory for DWI is 2 games and the added weapon conviction is what leads Goodell feel  it should be bumped up to 4, why would he then reduce it to 2?  He would have already considered the gun conviction as the reason to go 4, why would he then consider the gun conviction simultaneously unreasonable and then reduce to 2?  That wouldn't make any sense.  If thinks the gun charge is bogus, he wouldn't give him 4 in the first place.  It's not like he's appealing someone else's ruling.

 

He doesn't have to reduce it to 4, just 3.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

He doesn't have to reduce it to 4, just 3.  

4 wouldn't be a reduction.  I used 4 as the max.

 

It makes no sense for him to say "I'm bumping it up to 4 because of the weapons conviction increases the severity of the infraction" and then subsequently say "I'm reducing to 2 because I feel the weapons conviction is bogus".. 

 

If he thinks the gun conviction is "trumped up", he won't give him more than the DWI 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

4 wouldn't be a reduction.  I used 4 as the max.

 

It makes no sense for him to say "I'm bumping it up to 4 because of the weapons conviction increases the severity of the infraction" and then subsequently say "I'm reducing to 2 because I feel the weapons conviction is bogus".. 

 

If he thinks the gun conviction is "trumped up", he won't give him more than the DWI 2.

 

You know what I meant.  He wouldn't have to reduce it to 2, just 3.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

You know what I meant.  He wouldn't have to reduce it to 2, just 3.  

 

Still not sure why he would reduce it at all by your reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Still not sure why he would reduce it at all by your reasoning.

 

Why has he ever reduced any suspension?  We never hear the exact reasons but it's obviously because the appellant made a convincing case and Goodell agreed and decided to reduce the suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Why has he ever reduced any suspension?  We never hear the exact reasons but it's obviously because the appellant made a convincing case and Goodell agreed and decided to reduce the suspension.


Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the Commissioner hears the appeals. The appeal is head by a “hearing officer” and they make the final decision. 

Edited by Bangarang
  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

Someone can correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the Commissioner hears the appeals. The appeal is head by a “hearing officer” and they make the final decision. 


I always thought it was Goodell. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

Why has he ever reduced any suspension?  We never hear the exact reasons but it's obviously because the appellant made a convincing case and Goodell agreed and decided to reduce the suspension.

 

In the case you describe, if he things the weapons charge is bogus, he wouldn't give him extra games.  If he doesn't think it's bogus and gives extra games, there's nothing Oliver could say that would change his mind about the second charge.  There's no mitigating factor he could provide to change Goodell's mind about the charge.

9 minutes ago, Doc said:


I always thought it was Goodell. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

 

One can deny anything, only the truth can be confirmed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

In the case you describe, if he things the weapons charge is bogus, he wouldn't give him extra games.  If he doesn't think it's bogus and gives extra games, there's nothing Oliver could say that would change his mind about the second charge.  There's no mitigating factor he could provide to change Goodell's mind about the charge.

 

What about 4 games to 3?

 

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

One can deny anything, only the truth can be confirmed.

 

And that would be...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

What about 4 games to 3?

 

 

And that would be...?


That’s a truism.

 

If he thinks it’s worth 3 he’ll give 3 to start.  If he concludes the weapons charge warrants 4 he can’t then say “oh, I meant 3”.  There’s nothing about the gun charge that isn’t known.  Oliver can’t explain it away if the charge sticks. Simple as that

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doc said:


I always thought it was Goodell. Can anyone confirm or deny this?


This is from the NFLPA

 

8579-A63-C-6-E1-C-428-F-BE2-C-BF7516906-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Bangarang said:


This is from the NFLPA

 

8579-A63-C-6-E1-C-428-F-BE2-C-BF7516906-

 

Thanks.  So Goodell is cut-out of the appeals process. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Thanks.  So Goodell is cut-out of the appeals process. 


Yes and no. It sounds like Goodell can still serve as a hearing officer but I’m not sure how much say the NFLPA has in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice section 2c.  Oliver can basically act like Kraft and keep putting it off until COVID-19 issues are gone.  A blow was involved in both cases but they were very different.  If I was any player I'd push for hearing after Krafty's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...