Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Irsay expected to be suspended 6-8 weeks and fined $1M


Recommended Posts

No he didn't.

Silly me... I forgot you know it all, heheh. I believe he talked in mid May about being in rehab for for his physical problems such as his hip/back issues, and still had a way to go with that. Plus his on going drug issues which will take much more than a month, or two to deal with. Trust me. I'm sure he is still working on both as we speek, or type. I'd be currious to see what exactly you think he did afterward, but I was notified that my cousin has passed from cancer... and I will be away for the foreseeable future.

Stay safe everyone, and hug your loved ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The suspension is relevant.....the fine is irrelevant other than its increased worth to the NFL. This is like you and I being fined $10 dollars. 

 

Please dont read into my words that I think he should have been fined more.

 

It's not the size of the amount.    We all realize a million dollar fine is nothing to a billionaire.

 

But,  it's the fact that this could be the largest fine any NFL owner has ever received.    That will put Irsay at the top of a list that no owner wants to be at the top of.....   if you follow my meaning?!

 

In essence,  it's a public shaming.    And Irsay not being allowed to be at Colts camp or many of the Colts home games will drive him crazy!    He loves being there.    And not being allowed will hurt him personally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Silly me... I forgot you know it all, heheh. I believe he talked in mid May about being in rehab for for his physical problems such as his hip/back issues, and still had a way to go with that. Plus his on going drug issues which will take much more than a month, or two to deal with. Trust me. I'm sure he is still working on both as we speek, or type. I'd be currious to see what exactly you think he did afterward, but I was notified that my cousin has passed from cancer... and I will be away for the foreseeable future.

Stay safe everyone, and hug your loved ones.

He is still tweeting. Trust me when i tell you, you can't Tweet from inpatient rehab facility.

Sorry to hear about your cousin

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a blatant attempt by the NFL to get on its high horse and market its product....to those people who are duped by such things. 

As opposed to what?

 

Treating drunk driving, drug abuse, PED use, dog-fighting, strip club shootings and domestic violence with a slap on the wrist?

 

You're implying that the NFL....now grossing in excess of 10B a year....should just let everything slide and instead tilt their marketing toward recklessly irresponsible fools and uneducated thugs who engage in all of the above, and who often don't have two nickels to rub together.

 

So what Madison Avenue marketing firm do you work for? :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

All businesses that deal with the public will take measures like this. It is in the interest of protecting their integrity. 

 

PS: a "non crime" doesn't put the general public at great risk. 50 years ago, drunk driving was treated with an almost comedic grin. Until the body count became so high that society demanded harsh punishment to deter such careless, selfish behavior. 

Testing for PED's would be protecting integrity. 

 

Shouting "I'm more moral than thou" over nothing, is a fake way to do it. 

 

He broke the law....but did nothing wrong.  He could have ran a stop sign at 2:30 am in the middle of a deserted mall parking lot, sober, and it would have equated to the same thing.

 

Driving stoned is not proof you are dangerous.  Hitting a tree is proof you are dangerous.  I understand the purpose of the law....and I understand he broke that law....but he did nothing wrong. 

 

Yet he is being fined $1M so his peers can pretend they have standards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

He broke the law....but did nothing wrong.  He could have ran a stop sign at 2:30 am in the middle of a deserted mall parking lot, sober, and it would have equated to the same thing.

 

Driving stoned is not proof you are dangerous.  Hitting a tree is proof you are dangerous.  I understand the purpose of the law....and I understand he broke that law....but he did nothing wrong. 

 

Yet he is being fined $1M so his peers can pretend they have standards.

haha     :scratch:   :hmm:   What...?????     I am soooooooooooo confused.   Just WHAT exactly is Right about breaking the Law?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As opposed to what?

 

Treating drunk driving, drug abuse, PED use, dog-fighting, strip club shootings and domestic violence with a slap on the wrist?

 

You're implying that the NFL....now grossing in excess of 10B a year....should just let everything slide and instead tilt their marketing toward recklessly irresponsible fools and uneducated thugs who engage in all of the above, and who often don't have two nickels to rub together.

 

So what Madison Avenue marketing firm do you work for? :lol:

 

Every transgression you mention is covered by the legal system, all sorted out in our country's courts. 

 

Its now the duty of every company and organization to establish their own piggyback punishment?  Bull.  Its high-horsedome run amuck for the purposes of trying to get hero worshipers to spend money on their sacred organizations. 

 

The NFL, like every company, should tilt their marketing towards product.  Stoned or juiced players affect product.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

haha     :scratch:   :hmm:   What...?????     I am soooooooooooo confused.   Just WHAT exactly is Right about breaking the Law?

Yes....most people are confused.  Most people don't get it.

 

Stop signs, speed limits, laws about operating a vehicle while under the influence, are all designed to PREVENT CRASHES. 

 

Tell me, in the middle of a mall parking lot, at 2:30 am, would you drive your car in a straight line so it followed those nicely painted lines?    Would you stop at the stops signs in the parking lot if there are no cars within 500 feet?  Would you sit for 5 minutes at a stop light in that same scenario? 

 

How can you crash into something else if nothing else is there?

 

There are times when breaking the law is not the same thing as doing something wrong.

 

OTOH...Its ALWAYS wrong to hit a tree, even though you may have not broken a law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes....most people are confused.  Most people don't get it.

 

Stop signs, speed limits, laws about operating a vehicle while under the influence, are all designed to PREVENT CRASHES. 

 

Tell me, in the middle of a mall parking lot, at 2:30 am, would you drive your car in a straight line so it followed those nicely painted lines?    Would you stop at the stops signs in the parking lot if there are no cars within 500 feet?  Would you sit for 5 minutes at a stop light in that same scenario?

 

There are times when breaking the law is not the same thing as doing something wrong.

 

OTOH...Its ALWAYS wrong to hit a tree, even though you may have not broken a law.

FYI ~  I'm not REALLY confused.   haha  but that flew right over your head  :mindblow:

 

and I beg to differ with the bolded part....   But then again,   I am a law abiding citizen.   :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear,  both media outlets are using the exact same source -- ESPN's Adam Shefter.

 

And he does NOT have a source inside the NFL executive offices that he's using.

 

He said he talked with various owners and other team execs and asked them for their opinion.

 

So, this could could be absolutely right.    But, it might be wrong.    I want to make that clear -- it might be wrong.

 

If I had to guess,  I'd say it's much more likely right than wrong.    But I don't think this is a done deal just yet.

 

Just want to make sure we're all on the same page on this one......

 

Wondering how you would have a Clue if it is a done deal? You saying you have sources?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every transgression you mention is covered by the legal system, all sorted out in our country's courts. 

 

Its now the duty of every company and organization to establish their own piggyback punishment?  Bull.  Its high-horsedome run amuck for the purposes of trying to get hero worshipers to spend money on their sacred organizations. 

 

The NFL, like every company, should tilt their marketing towards product.  Stoned or juiced players affect product.  

According to the collective bargaining agreement and NFL bylaws governing employee conduct?

 

The answer is YES....agreed to in writing, ahead of the stupidity committed by those involved. Players, coaches and owners alike.

 

The NFL is a business which has the right to set its standards however it wishes under these agreements....and if those standards include conduct detrimental to the league's image or integrity, and that bothers you....then all I can say is welcome to planet earth because that is what companies in a free market do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI ~  I'm not REALLY confused.   haha  but that flew right over your head   :mindblow:

 

and I beg to differ with the bolded part....   But then again,   I am a law abiding citizen.   :)

I understand...this is all in fun.

 

If you want to sit for five minutes at a stop light at a deserted intersection in the middle of the night, simply because it hasn't turned green yet....be my guest. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the collective bargaining agreement and NFL bylaws governing employee conduct?

 

The answer is YES....agreed to in writing, ahead of the stupidity committed by those involved. Players, coaches and owners alike.

 

The NFL is a business which has the right to set its standards however it wishes under these agreements....and if those standards include conduct detrimental to the league's image or integrity, and that bothers you....then all I can say is welcome to planet earth because that is what companies in a free market do.

Then I guess my argument is the wrongness of companies that establish these standards.  Because what he did doesn't violate an image or integrity...if consumers would judge companies based on product and not morals. 

 

IMO, conduct detrimental to the league, FOR AN OWNER, would be him being too wacked out to run the team in a competitive fashion.  Competition between teams is what makes the product. 

 

Irsay has shown...on purpose....that there is competent leadership behind him, should he be in rehab often, or in a coma, god forbid. 

 

So they can punish Irsay, wrongly defining what he did as detrimental to the league, but let a crazy whack-job like Al Davis run his club into the ground and skew the competitiveness of the AFC West for years?

 

The NFL is free to be wrong about this if they want to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wondering how you would have a Clue if it is a done deal? You saying you have sources?

 

What I'm saying is that Shefter is NOT reporting that it's a done deal.

 

For all I know Goddell has decided.   I don't know.    And I've not suggested otherwise.

 

But what I've been attempting to make clear is that Shefter didn't offer his own opinion.   He offered the judgement of a number of owners and front office execs.    Their view on what could happen.   That's it.

 

Hope that clarifies....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing for PED's would be protecting integrity. 

 

Shouting "I'm more moral than thou" over nothing, is a fake way to do it. 

 

He broke the law....but did nothing wrong.  He could have ran a stop sign at 2:30 am in the middle of a deserted mall parking lot, sober, and it would have equated to the same thing.

 

Driving stoned is not proof you are dangerous.  Hitting a tree is proof you are dangerous.  I understand the purpose of the law....and I understand he broke that law....but he did nothing wrong. 

 

Yet he is being fined $1M so his peers can pretend they have standards.

 

He's being fined because everyone who is involved in the NFL is subject to the same treatment.   An owner, a general manager, a coach or a player, or anything else.    If you do something wrong,  something illegal,  you're going to receive some sort of punishment.

 

And since Goddell has made it clear that the higher up you are the more you are accountable then Irsay has to be punished.  Period.    The players are furious he hasn't been punished already -- but that's another story.   

 

I'm not sure why you're having trouble accepting this.    As you noted,  the NFL is now a $10B a year industry.   When one of the 32 owners breaks the law,  there has to be a punishment.   He's an owner.   He must be held to account.

 

It'd be a much bigger deal if Goddell did nothing....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I guess my argument is the wrongness of companies that establish these standards.  Because what he did doesn't violate an image or integrity...if consumers would judge companies based on product and not morals. 

 

IMO, conduct detrimental to the league, FOR AN OWNER, would be him being too wacked out to run the team in a competitive fashion.  Competition between teams is what makes the product. 

 

Irsay has shown...on purpose....that there is competent leadership behind him, should he be in rehab often, or in a coma, god forbid. 

 

So they can punish Irsay, wrongly defining what he did as detrimental to the league, but let a crazy whack-job like Al Davis run his club into the ground and skew the competitiveness of the AFC West for years?

 

The NFL is free to be wrong about this if they want to.

It's fine to have a differing opinion and not shaping your fan interest based on personal conduct standards you disagree with.

 

But those standards have been agreed to by the union membership and non-union employees of the NFL....ahead of the infractions being dealt with. These are not a one-sided edicts handed down by Roger Goodell.

 

These are options stipulated in legal, two-party agreements or bylaws the owners should be fully aware of. And if there is any grey area...then the two sides lawyer up, engage, and hash it out.

 

Unfortunately, Jimmy Irsay's situation is not the first of its kind....not by a long shot....and he's gonna get slapped to some degree.

 

I just hope it doesn't involve us losing any draft picks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I guess my argument is the wrongness of companies that establish these standards.  Because what he did doesn't violate an image or integrity...if consumers would judge companies based on product and not morals. 

 

IMO, conduct detrimental to the league, FOR AN OWNER, would be him being too wacked out to run the team in a competitive fashion.  Competition between teams is what makes the product. 

 

Irsay has shown...on purpose....that there is competent leadership behind him, should he be in rehab often, or in a coma, god forbid. 

 

So they can punish Irsay, wrongly defining what he did as detrimental to the league, but let a crazy whack-job like Al Davis run his club into the ground and skew the competitiveness of the AFC West for years?

 

The NFL is free to be wrong about this if they want to.

 

This is your opinion. You should probably bracket it as such.

 

Because the way you're coming across is as if personal conduct doesn't matter, and it does. Maybe it doesn't matter to you, so long as the courts figure it out, and that's fine. You're certainly entitled to that viewpoint, but most people disagree with you.

 

And businesses make these decisions based on their bottom line. A company that holds its employees responsible for their actions -- even when the law doesn't call for penalty -- does so because consumers and advertisers care about this kind of stuff. Again, you might not care, but again, you're not representative of the majority.

 

I personally think the public is overly critical of people's personal lives, sometimes to a degree that I find very irritating. Often, there's a loud and vocal minority that seems to set the tone for this kind of discussion, and that's too bad. People tend to make their minds up based on first reactions, and the instant gratification of the Internet and social media makes it worse. On top of that, people don't like being wrong, so once they make their minds up, they don't consider the other side of the story, or refuse to admit when they've overreacted. You have comments sections across the Internet full of people making judgments of other people in situations that they don't really understand, all hoping to be heard and validated, not looking to have an honest discussion about a complicated manner.

 

I say all that just to acknowledge that I don't think Jim Irsay is scum of the earth that needs to be locked in prison for the rest of his life. And I think it's sad that people choose to look up to public figures as role models. But I do think his actions have an impact on the business he's involved in, that he's part owner of, and that he represents to the general public. As such, that business is right to expect him to be an upstanding citizen. Fair or not, as a public figure, his personal life is going to be subject to scrutiny at times, and his transgressions -- legal or moral -- will be exhibited to the public. His arrest has a financial impact on the rest of the NFL. You're plain wrong if you think it doesn't. 

 

Now, whether Irsay's arrest should be as big of a deal to consumers and advertisers, thus affecting the NFL the way it does, that's another topic. But it absolutely does have an impact. And as an entity that's in business to make money, it makes sense that the NFL would take a stand in this regard. Not only do they want to send a message to their business partners and consumers that they don't condone this kind of conduct, but they want to dissuade anyone else from this kind of conduct in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the saints owner get a million dollar fine and suspended for 8 weeks? i know about the coaches and there penalties 

Two different things. Irsay was personal and the Saints was a team related problem. Benson had a $500,000. fine and lost a draft pick. Apples and oranges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did the saints owner get a million dollar fine and suspended for 8 weeks? i know about the coaches and there penalties 

 

I wanted to add this to CrazyColts good post....

 

The owner's team was hit with severe penalties.   But the owner himself wasn't.   In fact he had gone out of his way to assure Goodell that his team was clean.    That he had admonished his team to knock off any bad behavior.   And the coaches assured him they would.     And when they didn't,  Goodell dropped the hammer on the coaches and GM, who was suspended for a half-season.

 

Benson himself was cleared of wrong doing, but his team suffered badly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I guess my argument is the wrongness of companies that establish these standards.  Because what he did doesn't violate an image or integrity...if consumers would judge companies based on product and not morals. 

 

IMO, conduct detrimental to the league, FOR AN OWNER, would be him being too wacked out to run the team in a competitive fashion.  Competition between teams is what makes the product. 

 

Irsay has shown...on purpose....that there is competent leadership behind him, should he be in rehab often, or in a coma, god forbid. 

 

So they can punish Irsay, wrongly defining what he did as detrimental to the league, but let a crazy whack-job like Al Davis run his club into the ground and skew the competitiveness of the AFC West for years?

 

The NFL is free to be wrong about this if they want to.

So when did a live Al Davis get arrested for doing something detrimental to the NFL?  He may have lost a bit of reality but nothing he did was criminal. For you to compare Irsay to Davis is way off base. Irsay showing he has competent leadership behind him has zero to do with getting arrested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, both media outlets are using the exact same source -- ESPN's Adam Shefter.

And he does NOT have a source inside the NFL executive offices that he's using.

He said he talked with various owners and other team execs and asked them for their opinion.

So, this could could be absolutely right. But, it might be wrong. I want to make that clear -- it might be wrong.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's much more likely right than wrong. But I don't think this is a done deal just yet.

Just want to make sure we're all on the same page on this one......

Thanks NCF. Glad you cleared that up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes....most people are confused.  Most people don't get it.

 

Stop signs, speed limits, laws about operating a vehicle while under the influence, are all designed to PREVENT CRASHES. 

 

Tell me, in the middle of a mall parking lot, at 2:30 am, would you drive your car in a straight line so it followed those nicely painted lines?    Would you stop at the stops signs in the parking lot if there are no cars within 500 feet?  Would you sit for 5 minutes at a stop light in that same scenario? 

 

How can you crash into something else if nothing else is there?

 

There are times when breaking the law is not the same thing as doing something wrong.

 

OTOH...Its ALWAYS wrong to hit a tree, even though you may have not broken a law.

So you've drawn a personal distinction between choosing to break traffic laws and being incapable of controlling ones vehicle due to inebriation? 

 

Seriously.....I'm not following the logic you're promoting AT ALL. 

 

Choosing to run a stop sign is dangerous, and nobody will argue that. Being incable of realizing there was a stop sign....far more dangerous. The loss of ones faculties is the epitome of danger. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tell me, in the middle of a mall parking lot, at 2:30 am, would you drive your car in a straight line so it followed those nicely painted lines?    Would you stop at the stops signs in the parking lot if there are no cars within 500 feet?  Would you sit for 5 minutes at a stop light in that same scenario? 

 

 

 

I'm feeling like such a square because my answer is yes :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

So when did a live Al Davis get arrested for doing something detrimental to the NFL?  He may have lost a bit of reality but nothing he did was criminal. For you to compare Irsay to Davis is way off base. Irsay showing he has competent leadership behind him has zero to do with getting arrested.

I believe the NFL policy is "conduct detrimental to the league."  If it was about being a criminal, it would clearly state it.  If it was about getting arrested, it would clearly state it.   Its really not that difficult to have " being found guilty of misdemeanors being subject to suspension or fine" written into the policy.

 

Conduct detremental to the league does not mean personal legal problems.  Or it shouldn't, IMO.  The league was established to provide fair competition in an entertaining way.  Personal legal problems and isolated personal conduct, even if illegal, don't sniff that standard, IMO.

 

Being daffy-duck in charge of your teams draft choices for a decade does.

 

If you are a player who uses drugs, you have no way of providing a substitute to do your job (including showing up for off season team activities sober) (the TEAM replaces the player). In that case, the PLAYER is committing conduct determental to the league.  Irsay showed that HE can provide a substitute to do his job, when he is incapacitated.  

 

Different roles in the organization should beget different punishment under the terms of the policy, if any at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm feeling like such a square because my answer is yes :)

 Which is why people like me speed around you, not even bothering to care if there is a double yellow line on our left side.....

 

Being astute enough to realize that its impossible to cause harm to anyone. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've drawn a personal distinction between choosing to break traffic laws and being incapable of controlling ones vehicle due to inebriation? 

 

Seriously.....I'm not following the logic you're promoting AT ALL. 

 

Choosing to run a stop sign is dangerous, and nobody will argue that. Being incable of realizing there was a stop sign....far more dangerous. The loss of ones faculties is the epitome of danger. 

 

I'm not arguing the merits DWI laws, or that the cops have the duty to arrest people, and that they should be convicted for beaking them. 

 

But people are arguing that because Irsay drove a car while stoned, the NFL should punish him.  Should the NFL punish an owner or player for commiting misdemeanors of ANY kind, or just certain kinds?  Which ones?

 

The ones that endanger others?  A sober person endangers others.  And the sober person who drives poorly enough to actually crash his car, and get a misdemeanor for it, endangers others more than, apparently given the facts of the situation, a stoned Irsay does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Testing for PED's would be protecting integrity.

Shouting "I'm more moral than thou" over nothing, is a fake way to do it.

He broke the law....but did nothing wrong. He could have ran a stop sign at 2:30 am in the middle of a deserted mall parking lot, sober, and it would have equated to the same thing.

Driving stoned is not proof you are dangerous. Hitting a tree is proof you are dangerous. I understand the purpose of the law....and I understand he broke that law....but he did nothing wrong.

Yet he is being fined $1M so his peers can pretend they have standards.

He did nothing wrong?

Seriously?

Wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why people like me speed around you, not even bothering to care if there is a double yellow line on our left side.....

Being astute enough to realize that its impossible to cause harm to anyone. :D

And it's irresponsible actions like yours that leads to tragic accidents. Happens ALL the time.
Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's irresponsible actions like yours that leads to tragic accidents. Happens ALL the time.

haha  I often view you as my nemesis,  but when I do agree with you I can at least admit it.  And I totally agree with you here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think the public is overly critical of people's personal lives, sometimes to a degree that I find very irritating. Often, there's a loud and vocal minority that seems to set the tone for this kind of discussion, and that's too bad. People tend to make their minds up based on first reactions, and the instant gratification of the Internet and social media makes it worse. On top of that, people don't like being wrong, so once they make their minds up, they don't consider the other side of the story, or refuse to admit when they've overreacted. You have comments sections across the Internet full of people making judgments of other people in situations that they don't really understand, all hoping to be heard and validated, not looking to have an honest discussion about a complicated manner.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's irresponsible actions like yours that leads to tragic accidents. Happens ALL the time.

 

Happens NEVER.  Simply crossing two yellow stripes of paint causes nothing. 

 

Its being unware of the situation, meaning...doing it at the wrong time, that causes the crash. ALWAYS.

 

I suppose most people can't figure out when that is, ...which is why there is the law. 

 

Even stoned off his rocker, Irsay had good enough judgment to go 10mph.  Still a better driver in that situation than many sober people are in other situations.  Many of which go unpunished by employers.

 

Heck....I know people that can hardly even SEE at night.  I'd trust a .15 drunk person over a half-blind person many times.

 

I'm all for establishing Mothers-Against-Drivers-Who-Need-Their-Prescription-Glasses-Updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his issues made Indy lose the Superbowl bid. I thought we'd at least beat out New Orleans and then lose the Minnesota's new stadium.

Indy never had a shot at the superbowl going against Minnesota or new Orleans

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wow at some of the posts going on, I know it's a topic that's going to polarise people but I've never before seen positions that are patently just wrong, not even it's my opinion it differs, actual any rational person knows it's wrong being defended.

Kudos to those trying to bring some sanity back to the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Hidden by B-B, June 8, 2014 - Personal Shot
Hidden by B-B, June 8, 2014 - Personal Shot

I'm not arguing the merits DWI laws, or that the cops have the duty to arrest people, and that they should be convicted for beaking them.

But people are arguing that because Irsay drove a car while stoned, the NFL should punish him. Should the NFL punish an owner or player for commiting misdemeanors of ANY kind, or just certain kinds? Which ones?

The ones that endanger others? A sober person endangers others. And the sober person who drives poorly enough to actually crash his car, and get a misdemeanor for it, endangers others more than, apparently given the facts of the situation, a stoned Irsay does.

Doing things like this is how innocent people get killed. Your opinion in this matter is that of a dumb person.

Link to post

 

And businesses make these decisions based on their bottom line. A company that holds its employees responsible for their actions -- even when the law doesn't call for penalty -- does so because consumers and advertisers care about this kind of stuff. Again, you might not care, but again, you're not representative of the majority.

 

Now, whether Irsay's arrest should be as big of a deal to consumers and advertisers, thus affecting the NFL the way it does, that's another topic. But it absolutely does have an impact. And as an entity that's in business to make money, it makes sense that the NFL would take a stand in this regard. Not only do they want to send a message to their business partners and consumers that they don't condone this kind of conduct, but they want to dissuade anyone else from this kind of conduct in the future.

So lets take this assumption and have it manifest into actions.

 

You think that the NFL thinks that the fans in Indy would stop buying tickets, stop buying jerseys, stop rooting for Luck, Wayne, and Mathis, in any appreciable way, if the NFL fails to punish Irsay for commiting 2 misdemeanor DWI's?

 

I think its more likely, that the NFL and advertisers are trying to INCREASE sales by trying to sell the public that they are upstanding organizations by using whatever opportunity they can to get on their soap box.

 

To convince me that they are as upstanding as they want us to think...the NFL, advertisers, and the sports media should demand the clause of the NFLPA contract be enforced as it relates to PED testing, not browbeat owners over their personal transgressions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing things like this is how innocent people get killed. Your opinion in this matter is that of a dumb person.

Doing things like what?  I contend that crashing into things gets innocent people killed.  That's not really a matter of opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...