There has been some speculation about the impact of the decision--made by an appeals panel consisting of two retired judges and a university professor--which on the surface overturned NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s suspension of four current and former New Orleans Saints players. Frankly, I thought the panel—in claiming that Goodell overstepped his authority by hearing the players’ appeals rather than a third-party—came down with a decision that made little sense. The panel lifted the suspensions without actually considering the merit of the evidence against the players; the decision only makes sense if the panel made an assumption that a third-party arbitrator would have decided that the evidence for the suspensions was insufficient. The proper decision would have been to allow the penalties to remain in place until a third-party arbitrator examined the evidence. The correct move by Goodell now would be to reinstate the penalties, and then allow an arbitrator to make a decision to allow the suspensions to stand or not.
Jonathan Vilma thanked all those people who “supported” him after the decision, although some of us still think he is a thug in pads. To recap the NFL’s investigation, it found that at least two dozen present and former Saints’ players took part in a pay-for-performance setup, which incorporated a "bounty" payment plan run by defensive coordinator Gregg Williams from 2009-2011. The now infamous locker room “pep talk” given by Williams revealed that he actively encouraged his players to inflict serious, career-ending injuries on opponents. Vilma was a key participant in this “program,” putting-up as much as $10,000 of his own money into the pot, for anyone who knocked a player—preferably the quarterback—out of a game.
Players are knocked out of games due to injury every week, of course, but there is a significant ethical difference between injury from happenstance and that from deliberately targeting knees and ankles in a way that can seriously disrupt or end a player’s livelihood; it is no “coincidence” or “mystery” that Saints’ players deliberately targeted Brett Favre’s and Adrian Peterson’s ankles. The claim in court by players and coaches that they never “intended” to injure opposing players is laughable on its face, and would perhaps in another venue make them liable for perjury charges. The fact that Saints players repeatedly lied to investigators about their knowledge of the bounty program only makes their guilt more egregious—particular when Williams himself admitted to its existence and apologized for it.
Of course, there is still a better than even chance that an independent arbitrator could still rule that the NFL’s evidence is insufficient; but the players should still be punished, if only by fines, for violating the league’s non-contract bonuses prohibition. If they deny its existence as well, then their credibility cannot be taken seriously—which begs the question of why the panel chose to side with the players in the first instance.
At the time the NFL’s investigation was concluded, the NFL Players Association claimed that "health and safety” was a “paramount issue” to the organization. But their behavior in this case indicates that “player safety” is only important if someone other than players can be blamed, like coaches and team doctors. It would be easy to say that if players don’t want to take a stand themselves, then they should not complain about “dirty play” from opponents, and blame only themselves. But there is, of course, another party in all of this: Team owners, who obviously don’t want to pay players who are just sitting on injured reserve, especially due to a “dirty” play. Players themselves should be aware of the consequences of serious injury—especially if deliberately inflicted. I frankly do not understand how any player can look upon players like Vilma and not think subconsciously that they deserved a suspension—for their own safety.
No comments:
Post a Comment