Wayne Cubed Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Can someone please, please explain to me how Marshawn Lynch has not yet been suspended? It's truly mind boggling. I mean, I get that his trial has kept getting pushed back, but this is his third strike and apparently his case is pretty open and shut for authorities. At what point does the league say that there's no more pushing a trial back, you're going to face discipline? We just lost our starting weakside LB for something that was totally dismissed. I seriously don't get this. The case was settled in February, he pleaded to a lower charge of wet reckless driving, which is a lower version of DUI. But the point still remains, it's his 3rd major run in with the law, why hasn't he received any sort of punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Or possibly showing their "toughness" after a poor decision on the ray rice 2 game suspension. Speaking of which, it's a good thing (for the Ravens) that the elevator footage "mysteriously" disappeared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 No. No one around the league cares about bradham for this to be making an example. He got arrested with drugs, completed his program and got hit with a game. No ray rice relation. No relation, but the optics make both decisions look really flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 *uncertain* is Spice prohibited by NFL SA policy? Not remotely. It's speculated that's why he would be using that and not more natural versions. Problem is arrests are in the conduct policy. With arrests for unregulated substances - hazy area again. There are other players that have been arrested with it but I don't claim to know the ins and outs of their situations in order to comment but can note that I don't believe any were suspended. No relation, but the optics make both decisions look really flawed. Sitting the two side by side definitely looks ridiculous. A lot of punishments end up like that but I definitely get what your saying here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I don't know for sure, but if spice isn't tested for or banned, Marcell entering the substance abuse program was probably a concession on his part to avoid a suspension by Sir Roger, along with entering the PTI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 (edited) I don't know for sure, but if spice isn't tested for or banned, Marcell entering the substance abuse program was probably a concession on his part to avoid a suspension by Sir Roger, along with entering the PTI. i think theres a good possibility. as someone else mentioned, it could simply be a concession to the court as he works out of state too. id still be curious to learn more about the terms of him entering. Maybe a bat signal to wawrow to ask about that. (ie if dareus tests positive now that hes partaking in stage 1 testing in the nfl program is that a first offense, or a violation of stage 1 which is suspension) Edited July 31, 2014 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ko12010 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm just really confused about this whole Bradham suspension. How can you be suspended--even under the conduct policy--for a charge that was dropped? Isn't that essentially the equivalent of it never having happened? Also, is anyone else frustrated/concerned about how Goodell gets to act alone or has the final say on punishment? I feel like it should be a commitee decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cash Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I'm just really confused about this whole Bradham suspension. How can you be suspended--even under the conduct policy--for a charge that was dropped? Isn't that essentially the equivalent of it never having happened? I think the rationale would be that just getting arrested makes the league look bad, and since every player is an entertainer and league ambassador, anything that results in bad league PR is punishable. Of course, that logic should also apply to Ray Rice's situation, which makes these 2 punishments look really ridiculous side-by-side. I wonder if the league is going to start making Reefer Madness mandatory viewing at the rookie symposium? Also, is anyone else frustrated/concerned about how Goodell gets to act alone or has the final say on punishment? I feel like it should be a commitee decision. Yes, that's outrageous, but even worse is that Goodell is also the sole arbiter of appeals. Goodell: "You're suspended for 4 games." Player: "That's unfair! I'm going to appeal." Goodell: "Appeal denied. I was right the first time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I think the rationale would be that just getting arrested makes the league look bad, and since every player is an entertainer and league ambassador, anything that results in bad league PR is punishable. Of course, that logic should also apply to Ray Rice's situation, which makes these 2 punishments look really ridiculous side-by-side. I wonder if the league is going to start making Reefer Madness mandatory viewing at the rookie symposium? Yes, that's outrageous, but even worse is that Goodell is also the sole arbiter of appeals. Goodell: "You're suspended for 4 games." Player: "That's unfair! I'm going to appeal." Goodell: "Appeal denied. I was right the first time." You left out this: Player: "I have specifically agreed, through my union and its representatives negotiating a CBA on my behalf and with my own supporting vote of this same CBA, to allow the NFL Commissioner to be the arbitor of all suspensions and their appeals." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted July 31, 2014 Author Share Posted July 31, 2014 I think the rationale would be that just getting arrested makes the league look bad, and since every player is an entertainer and league ambassador, anything that results in bad league PR is punishable. Of course, that logic should also apply to Ray Rice's situation, which makes these 2 punishments look really ridiculous side-by-side. I wonder if the league is going to start making Reefer Madness mandatory viewing at the rookie symposium? Yes, that's outrageous, but even worse is that Goodell is also the sole arbiter of appeals. Goodell: "You're suspended for 4 games." Player: "That's unfair! I'm going to appeal." Goodell: "Appeal denied. I was right the first time." Yep. There is a lot of distrust amongst players of Goodell for that reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Speaking of which, it's a good thing (for the Ravens) that the elevator footage "mysteriously" disappeared. Check the local police station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 This sucks, but I don't think the suspension is wrong. Dude got caught with pot in his car and got one game. Don't get caught with pot, dude. As for everyone arguing that other suspensions (and non-suspensions) don't seem to fit the crime, I tend to agree. It seems Lynch should have missed 6-8 games by now with all the stuff he's pulled, and Rice definitely should have missed more time. If there is any truth at all to the idea that superstars get preferential treatment (e.g. Rice and Lynch) hopefully we might benefit from that when it comes to judgment time for MD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Monkeyhead Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Well at least someone is writing what we are all thinking. "So let's get this straight. Possessing a small amount of marijuana with charges dropped? Short suspension. Beating your wife or fiancee? Short suspension. If Bradham's marijuana charges weren't dropped, what does he get, four games? Way to be entirely tone deaf on not just one issue but two issues, NFL." http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/nfl-apparently-thinks-marijuana-possession-roughly-same-as-domestic-violence-232314967.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Check the local police station. Why? Was Sir Roget seen visiting there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Direhard Fan Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I believe the NFL owes us an explanation on Rice and Nigels punishment. Why hasn't the union gotten more involved? Something is very wrong here. You lift up the carpet and I'll go get the broom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Why? Was Sir Roget seen visiting there? Maybe the "missing" elevator tapes are with that "SB walk through" tape.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Maybe the "missing" elevator tapes are with that "SB walk through" tape.... In the great big shredder in the sky? Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 I believe the NFL owes us an explanation on Rice and Nigels punishment. Why hasn't the union gotten more involved? Something is very wrong here. You lift up the carpet and I'll go get the broom. nigel being cited as in possession of the drugs, regardless of charge, i believe can still count as a drug offense. its not just a conviction, as we saw with big ben, that will get you dinged. whats tough is instead of pulling examples similar to bradhams to see if its standard, people keep pointing to all kinds of random other offenses/punishments. im much more curious if bradham is in line with other dismissed drug arrests than trying to equate his to assaults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ko12010 Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 nigel being cited as in possession of the drugs, regardless of charge, i believe can still count as a drug offense. its not just a conviction, as we saw with big ben, that will get you dinged. whats tough is instead of pulling examples similar to bradhams to see if its standard, people keep pointing to all kinds of random other offenses/punishments. im much more curious if bradham is in line with other dismissed drug arrests than trying to equate his to assaults. This just makes no sense in my opinion. If there are no charges, or they are dropped, it's as though the offense never happened. At least in the eyes of the law, and that is what Goodell should go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted July 31, 2014 Share Posted July 31, 2014 In the great big shredder in the sky? Probably. What makes you think there is no tape of the elevator brawl? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts