Roger Goodell open to removing himself from NFL punishment process

[Donger]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/us/nfl...ing/index.html

(CNN)NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is open to changing his role in how the league disciplines its players, he told the "Mike & Mike" show on ESPN2 on Tuesday.

In his first public remarks since the NFL lost in federal court in the Tom Brady "Deflategate" case, Goodell said that he is open to changes in the player disciplinary process, with the potential of setting up a panel to handle punishment of players.

The process has become "extremely time-consuming," he said. "I have to be focused on a variety of other issues, and that's what I've discussed with many of the owners over the last couple years."

Goodell said he would not be at the NFL regular-season opener Thursday night, which has the Super Bowl-champion New England Patriots hosting the Pittsburgh Steelers. He said he didn't want to be a distraction. Instead, Goodell said he'll be attending the Green Bay Packers-Chicago Bears game in Chicago on Sunday.

"The focus should be on football," Goodell said. "It should be a great night on Thursday night. I certainly don't want to be a distraction to that, but I think everyone wants to get back to football, and certainly I do."

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

So we have 4 vacated NFL titles then right Glory? I can't award those to the NFC as the AFC had some strong teams those years too robbed by the Cheatriots.

Even your trolling attempt is pathetic. Good God, at least try to make it interesting here.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Never will be. No way to contest them. No CBA in place, and Commissioner can do whatever the hell he wants. There isn't any mechanism to challenge his ruling, no matter what.

Oh, I'm sure they'll challenge it, and win. If I have know one thing, Kraft is out to make sure he uses the courts to allow him to get away with things.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

Oh, I'm sure they'll challenge it, and win. If I have know one thing, Kraft is out to make sure he uses the courts to allow him to get away with things.

Nope. Said he wouldn't, and his son (the Pats VP of operations and the successor-in-waiting) said they weren't going back on it.

But even if they wanted to contest it, it's pretty much impossible to do it. I'm not kidding, there's basically no way for a team to fight the NFL on team-imposed sanctions. That system works 99% of the time, but when you have a "I do whatever I want" nutcase like Goodell, I wouldn't feel good about it if I owned a team.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

Oh, I'm sure they'll challenge it, and win. If I have know one thing, Kraft is out to make sure he uses the courts to allow him to get away with things.

Oh, and err, the suit was brought by the NFL itself, and they fought Brady and teh NFLPA. It had nothing, literally nothing, to do with anything Kraft did or didn't want to do. He had zero say in the whole thing.

[TEX]

Are Tom Brady and the Patriots open to removing themselves from the cheating process? Especially since the Patriots have been cheating under two NFL Commissioners.

[Hootie]

only Patriots fans would still try and use "Ideal Gas Law" as an excuse for employing an equipment guy who smuggled NFL footballs into a bathroom, lied about it, and then lied about his lie after getting caught in a lie, while also dubbing himself with the nickname, "the deflator." Yeah. Totally. Ideal Gas Law! Hahaha. I mean, it's just laughable at this point.

[Dave Lane]

It would be great to see Goodell hit the bricks. This whole deflategate crap was about Goodell's ego. Nothing more.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Nope. Said he wouldn't, and his son (the Pats VP of operations and the successor-in-waiting) said they weren't going back on it.

But even if they wanted to contest it, it's pretty much impossible to do it. I'm not kidding, there's basically no way for a team to fight the NFL on team-imposed sanctions. That system works 99% of the time, but when you have a "I do whatever I want" nutcase like Goodell, I wouldn't feel good about it if I owned a team.

Well good. They should change the fine to 90% of what's distributed to each team each year for five years (so only 10% of what other teams get), and no draft picks until after the year BB leaves.

All proceed derived from retaining the team's distribution should go to Children's hospitals and feeding the poor in Africa.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Oh, and err, the suit was brought by the NFL itself, and they fought Brady and teh NFLPA. It had nothing, literally nothing, to do with anything Kraft did or didn't want to do. He had zero say in the whole thing.

And when ruling was made in favor of TB, not once did they say he didn't do it. Basically put, the judge decided he didn't like the all powerful person Roger had become. So while everybody knows Tom/NE did it, the judge was upset over a structure that was agreed upon by all until it was used.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Hootie 2.0

only Patriots fans would still try and use "Ideal Gas Law" as an excuse for employing an equipment guy who smuggled NFL footballs into a bathroom, lied about it, and then lied about his lie after getting caught in a lie, while also dubbing himself with the nickname, "the deflator." Yeah. Totally. Ideal Gas Law! Hahaha. I mean, it's just laughable at this point.

And add "a judge that doesn't like people having supreme executive power" as the cherry on top.

What the judge hates:

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

And when ruling was made in favor of TB, not once did they say he didn't do it. Basically put, the judge decided he didn't like the all powerful person Roger had become. So while everybody knows Tom/NE did it, the judge was upset over a structure that was agreed upon by all until it was used.

Because the judge couldn't decide that, it wasn't within the scope of the process he had to go through.

And yet, on page 7 of his decision, he wrote a sentence from the Wells Report, in bold: "At the same time, the Wells Report acknowledged that "[o]ur scientific consultants informed us that the data alone did not provide a basis for them to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering, as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is uncertain."


I wonder why he included that sentence in his decision. I wonder why he BOLDED that sentence in his decision.

He doesn't rely on it in any way in making his ruling. It's completely extraneous. Just an extra thrown in there for no reason at all.

Unless, of course that he was sending a not-very-subtle signal that he thought the whole damn case was weak on the evidence also. But he COULDN'T rule on the evidence. He wasn't allowed to. So he just happened to mention it, IN BOLD, and then moved on.

[GloryDayz]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

Because the judge couldn't decide that, it wasn't within the scope of the process he had to go through.

And yet, on page 7 of his decision, he wrote a sentence from the Wells Report, in bold: "At the same time, the Wells Report acknowledged that "[o]ur scientific consultants informed us that the data alone did not provide a basis for them to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering, as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is uncertain."


I wonder why he included that sentence in his decision. I wonder why he BOLDED that sentence in his decision.

He doesn't rely on it in any way in making his ruling. It's completely extraneous. Just an extra thrown in there for no reason at all.

Unless, of course that he was sending a not-very-subtle signal that he thought the whole damn case was weak on the evidence also. But he COULDN'T rule on the evidence. He wasn't allowed to. So he just happened to mention it, IN BOLD, and then moved on.

Most law is based on a preponderance of the evidence, it sounds like the judge is close enough to RK, BB, and TB to say that short of video evidence and them admitting it, no amount of common sense would suffice.

So basically it's the judge admitting that he either has no common sense or refuses to use it. Like the sun rising in the east, he's of the mindset that there's nothing to prove it'll happen that way again tomorrow.

He's an idiot, and a perfect lacky for the Pats.

Oh, and another person with too much power at his disposal. He's not far off of Roger.

[TEX]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

And when ruling was made in favor of TB, not once did they say he didn't do it. Basically put, the judge decided he didn't like the all powerful person Roger had become. So while everybody knows Tom/NE did it, the judge was upset over a structure that was agreed upon by all until it was used.

THIS FOREVER!

This is exactly what happened. EVERYONE KNOWS, including Pats fans.

I so hope the Refs call EVERY LEGIT PENALITY on New England this season. You know what they say, you can call holding on EVERY play. I sure hope they do.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by GloryDayz

Most law is based on a preponderance of the evidence, it sounds like the judge is close enough to RK, BB, and TB to say that short of video evidence and them admitting it, no amount of common sense would suffice.

Amazing. The NFL getting the news out to hte press that Berman had a brief meeting with Kraft at some social function involving a zillion people has now turned into Berman being "close" to not just Kraft, but BB and TB.

The NFL has really done it's job well here.

Facts....they are so damn pesky.

[Chief Roundup]

The Patriots will always be the biggest cheaters in the NFL. Their SB wins should have asterisks.