UPDATE: Two Colts players suspended for gambling, waived by team (merged)

[jvan1973]

21 hours ago, Nickster said:

Dude you have some goofy takes but you MUST be intentionally obtuse on this one.

 

good god son.

 

Not really.   My point is,   players could give inside info to others who are able to make bets.   What's the difference?  Let's say JT has been labeled as a game time decision.   Yet the entire organization knows he won't be playing.   What's to stop players or coaches from sharing that info with family and friends.   Then they place bets based on that information. 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

Not really.   My point is,   players could give inside info to others who are able to make bets.   What's the difference?  Let's say JT has been labeled as a game time decision.   Yet the entire organization knows he won't be playing.   What's to stop players or coaches from sharing that info with family and friends.   Then they place bets based on that information. 

 

So you want to suspend the family and friends from their jobs?  Wait a second . . . Oh never mind.

 

[jvan1973]

11 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

So you want to suspend the family and friends from their jobs?  Wait a second . . . Oh never mind.

 

How do you not understand that information is going to be shared.   So if a player tells a family member player x is not gong to play before the general public knows about it,  it's the same thing as the player making the bet.  Maybe worse.   He could tell multiple people.   Multiple bets, parlays.   What if the game plan is to throw the ball 50 times.   The general public wouldn't have that information.   But cousin Joe does.  30, 50 100 bets made on that info.  It's exactly the same thing.   

[AKB]

7 hours ago, LJpalmbeacher2 said:

Like I said somewhere earlier, of course its not a good look for NFL if players bet(even though Russo says owners and Goodell do?) BUT the penalty doesn't fit the violation. Being suspended for a year or indefinitely his way too harsh. Thats too severe for most players and hurts the teams too. 

 

Imo, the penalties should depend on how much they bet. If the Aggregate Bets are say $1000 or less for a week(which is peanuts for these guys, even those earning rookie minimum) then the fines/penalty should be minor. 

If their bets are much more, then heavier punishment, especially if not their first heavy bets. 

Most people Gamble for Fun, win or lose, and seriously doubt a player making small bets will go out of his way to try to influence his tiny wager becoming a winning one. 

The NFL is definitely more guilty of other, bigger  things that lower the integrity of their game, but yet the NFL is still popular ironically because of gambling. 

definitely confusing when someone can be accused of sexual assault and get a lesser punishment than gambling. 

 

I do understand that gambling threatens the validity of the game, but it just shows where the league's priorities truly are. they virtue signal, but at the end of the day, the shield is always the most important thing to the league. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

3 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

How do you not understand that information is going to be shared.   So if a player tells a family member player x is not gong to play before the general public knows about it,  it's the same thing as the player making the bet.  Maybe worse.   He could tell multiple people.   Multiple bets, parlays.   What if the game plan is to throw the ball 50 times.   The general public wouldn't have that information.   But cousin Joe does.  30, 50 100 bets made on that info.  It's exactly the same thing.   

Rodgers did similar and got caught...

 

It's tough to always find that kind of insider information leaks, but when it becomes a habit, that provides the league to track and find all the history of those cousins and friends and their connections..

 

This is why NFL does tracking based on location and the kind of bets placed. If a relative or friend of a player gets such information and earns easy money, league and betting agencies would immediately notify such user accounts and start watching what they do going forward and also their past bets. If that friend stays in same home as an NFL player or is a close relative that both of their locations match with the player's home or native, the league and betting agencies can continue to track and find out. The next time similar bets are made by that friend with possible inside information, league and agencies could be utilizing private investigators, if required, to get to know who they are and if they're related or known or have had communications with the phones of any of the NFL players.

 

This investigation goes much much deeper than it is known outside, Rodgers had another friend create an account in different name and placed bets. Still, the league and betting agencies track it all well and have pointed out accurately what's going on.

 

With all these spending by the league, do any of you think NFL will let convicted players play again easily? That's why the punishment is also harsh and the league will continue to track Rodgers and possible related user accounts to him for next year or more to see if he's really kept himself clean from betting. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

1 minute ago, AKB said:

definitely confusing when someone can be accused of sexual assault and get a lesser punishment than gambling. 

 

I do understand that gambling threatens the validity of the game, but it just shows where the league's priorities truly are. they virtue signal, but at the end of the day, the shield is always the most important thing to the league. 

In a way, it makes sense 

 

NFL isn't department of justice to have a responsibility to worry about players'morality, social, domestic issues until it affects them or the game in some way.

 

But, if a player gambles with inside information, it brings bad reputation to the whole game and its future, so of course they would take it very very seriously.

 

It's obvious, right, in any business?

 

So yes, gambling is very serious offense than sexual harrasment allegations that didn't convict the player even in court, especially for a player of the calibre of Watson, and of course league gains by reinstating high calibre QB who might bring revenue for the league in future, just like how Big Ben did.

 

That's how the world revolves. Enforcement of morality and punishment are all within the reason aiding to the benefit of the league. 

[AKB]

1 hour ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

In a way, it makes sense 

 

NFL isn't department of justice to have a responsibility to worry about players'morality, social, domestic issues until it affects them or the game in some way.

 

But, if a player gambles with inside information, it brings bad reputation to the whole game and its future, so of course they would take it very very seriously.

 

It's obvious, right, in any business?

 

So yes, gambling is very serious offense than sexual harrasment allegations that didn't convict the player even in court, especially for a player of the calibre of Watson, and of course league gains by reinstating high calibre QB who might bring revenue for the league in future, just like how Big Ben did.

 

That's how the world revolves. Enforcement of morality and punishment are all within the reason aiding to the benefit of the league. 

there are plenty of cases where a player has been proven and found guilty of many different types of assaults. 

 

the counterargument to your point is that by allowing the players to be reinstated into the league, they view the offense as recoverable. 

 

Michael Vick for example killed dogs for recreation.  To me, he is absolutely disgusting and shouldn't even be allowed on NFL networks. But that's just my personal opinion on the matter. Yet, he was able to play in the league yet again.

 

So what's the main point here? Unless it directly affects the integrity of the NFL, it is not important to the league.  

 

Another example of this is the Black Lives Matter, and End Racism that they put on the helmets and fields, but simultaneously removed and called against Colin Kaepernick for standing up for those same people. 

 

Does it make sense for the business to operate this way? Sure. Up and to the right are all the graphs for the NFL right? But, at some point people begin to notice the hypocrisy

[Nickster]

12 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

How do you not understand that information is going to be shared.   So if a player tells a family member player x is not gong to play before the general public knows about it,  it's the same thing as the player making the bet.  Maybe worse.   He could tell multiple people.   Multiple bets, parlays.   What if the game plan is to throw the ball 50 times.   The general public wouldn't have that information.   But cousin Joe does.  30, 50 100 bets made on that info.  It's exactly the same thing.   

yeah right .  So should we legalize murder because there are going to be murder and people that aid and abet murder and people that hire people to murder for them?

 

so you want to do away with the policy because people are going to violate it?

 

huh?  Are you following your own logic?

 

It would be technically correct that there would be no crime if there were no laws I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

[Superman]

On 7/3/2023 at 4:27 PM, AKB said:

"Do as I say, and not as I do"

 

I think that's the point he's making. 

 

It's like students in a middle school being told that smoking cigarettes is bad, but the school advertises discount cigarettes over the PA speaker after the pledge of allegiance. 

 

It's in your face, but don't touch it. 

 

--> counterargument is that we aren't talking about children we are talking about "grown" men with more money than they have ever had. In a sense, they do become children again because its a new way of life. from not having money to having more than you know what to do with. it's an easy trap to fall into.

 

i don't think his behavior is excusable, but there are many young stars that fall into some type of addiction fueled by extra cash. not limited to football. 

 

 

That's not my counterargument to what you've presented, although it's a legitimate point.

 

Some people have a moral objection to sports gambling (or gambling in general), but that's not why the NFL is suspending players for gambling. It's not 'gambling is bad for you,' not at all. It's about preventing the appearance of anything that could undermine the competitive integrity of the league. Not about morality.

 

I'd also like to point out that the NFL isn't gambling on the outcome of games, so the 'do as I say, not as I do' part doesn't seem applicable.

 

The NFL does make money from their partnerships with sportsbooks and other outlets. However, that money is football related revenue, and it gets split with the players just like ticket sales, TV revenue, jersey sales, etc. So the players, as a whole, stand to benefit from the NFL's gambling partnerships, without ever placing a bet. And this is why I think the charge of hypocrisy is misplaced.

 

Now, is gambling objectively "good" for the NFL, its players, or society in general? I think that's an entirely different discussion.

[Superman]

19 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

Not really.   My point is,   players could give inside info to others who are able to make bets.   What's the difference?  Let's say JT has been labeled as a game time decision.   Yet the entire organization knows he won't be playing.   What's to stop players or coaches from sharing that info with family and friends.   Then they place bets based on that information. 

 

This is also prohibited in the gambling policy. It's probably difficult to prove, but if strong evidence were presented it would be acted upon by the NFL.

 

Paragraph 5.2 -- here's the PDF: https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2018 Policies/2018 Gambling Policy - FINAL.pdf 

[Superman]

12 hours ago, AKB said:

Unless it directly affects the integrity of the NFL, it is not important to the league.  

 

That seems like an extreme statement. I'm not here to defend all the NFL's actions, but they obviously didn't condone what Michael Vick did. They didn't condone what Deshaun Watson did. Both received suspensions. So saying it's not important to the NFL rings false.

 

In the same way, the NFL is not condoning gambling. They are suspending players accordingly.

 

Moral integrity and competitive integrity are different, but the NFL takes actions to uphold both. 

[2006Coltsbestever]

40 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

This is also prohibited in the gambling policy. It's probably difficult to prove, but if strong evidence were presented it would be acted upon by the NFL.

 

Paragraph 5.2 -- here's the PDF: https://nflcommunications.com/Documents/2018 Policies/2018 Gambling Policy - FINAL.pdf 

That would be almost impossible to prove to what @jvan1973was saying as long as nobody said anything. Hypothetically, lets say you or I was the best player on the team and knew we weren't going to play by Thursday but nobody else knew yet, I could easily tell my best friend that I am not playing and to bet on the other team. He isn't going to say anything.

[Superman]

2 minutes ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

That would be almost impossible to prove to what @jvan1973was saying as long as nobody said anything. Hypothetically, lets say you or I was the best player on the team and knew we weren't going to play by Thursday but nobody else knew yet, I could easily tell my best friend that I am not playing and to bet on the other team. He isn't going to say anything.

 

And you could do that whether gambling was legal or not, whether the NFL had partnerships or not, etc. The NFL has a policy, which they enforce, and if they were able to prove that a player was feeding insider information to someone else to place bets, that player would be penalized. Even if the NFL never catches a player doing this, the policy is necessary from a legal standpoint, otherwise the NFL is guilty of negligence.

 

Same thing is true in business. It can be difficult to prove insider trading, but the laws still exist. And people still go down for it.

[jvan1973]

15 hours ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

Rodgers did similar and got caught...

 

It's tough to always find that kind of insider information leaks, but when it becomes a habit, that provides the league to track and find all the history of those cousins and friends and their connections..

 

This is why NFL does tracking based on location and the kind of bets placed. If a relative or friend of a player gets such information and earns easy money, league and betting agencies would immediately notify such user accounts and start watching what they do going forward and also their past bets. If that friend stays in same home as an NFL player or is a close relative that both of their locations match with the player's home or native, the league and betting agencies can continue to track and find out. The next time similar bets are made by that friend with possible inside information, league and agencies could be utilizing private investigators, if required, to get to know who they are and if they're related or known or have had communications with the phones of any of the NFL players.

 

This investigation goes much much deeper than it is known outside, Rodgers had another friend create an account in different name and placed bets. Still, the league and betting agencies track it all well and have pointed out accurately what's going on.

 

With all these spending by the league, do any of you think NFL will let convicted players play again easily? That's why the punishment is also harsh and the league will continue to track Rodgers and possible related user accounts to him for next year or more to see if he's really kept himself clean from betting. 

Yeah,   I'm not sure any of what you just described is possible or legal.  The NFL can't track the online behavior of every players friends and family

[VikingsFanInChennai]

56 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

Yeah,   I'm not sure any of what you just described is possible or legal.  The NFL can't track the online behavior of every players friends and family

I didn't mention tracking phone calls which they obviously can't, I mentioned about tracking the bets placed by people and their location - the information is public that NFL and betting agencies collaborate with each other to provide such information.

 

Did you understand the gist of the process or how Rodgers got caught? 

 

I didn't say that the league could track every player's friends, I said bets - with possible inside information or exact bet on the actual scenario to happen - would get called out by betting agencies to the league and they'd start tracking past history and future bets if there's a pattern of possible insider information aiding to the bets.

 

I think you should take time to really get what others are trying to say. 

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

I didn't mention tracking phone calls which they obviously can't, I mentioned about tracking the bets placed by people and their location - the information is public that NFL and betting agencies collaborate with each other to provide such information.

 

Did you understand the gist of the process or how Rodgers got caught? 

 

I didn't say that the league could track every player's friends, I said bets - with possible inside information or exact bet on the actual scenario to happen - would get called out by betting agencies to the league and they'd start tracking past history and future bets if there's a pattern of possible insider information aiding to the bets.

 

I think you should take time to really get what others are trying to say. 

 

I think you have the Rodgers thing backward. What I read is that his friends are in Florida, where online bets are not allowed. So rather than Rodgers having friends place bets for him, Rodgers placed bets for his friends.

 

And that's just incredibly stupid on his part. And his friends were stupid, also. 

[jvan1973]

15 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

I didn't mention tracking phone calls which they obviously can't, I mentioned about tracking the bets placed by people and their location - the information is public that NFL and betting agencies collaborate with each other to provide such information.

 

Did you understand the gist of the process or how Rodgers got caught? 

 

I didn't say that the league could track every player's friends, I said bets - with possible inside information or exact bet on the actual scenario to happen - would get called out by betting agencies to the league and they'd start tracking past history and future bets if there's a pattern of possible insider information aiding to the bets.

 

I think you should take time to really get what others are trying to say. 

That's not how things went down with Rodgers.  He made the bets for his friends 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

I haven’t read that he was placing bets for friends. I don’t even know how anyone can prove  it was for friends or himself. I mean he knew enough to use a alias.

[csmopar]

11 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I haven’t read that he was placing bets for friends. I don’t even know how anyone can prove  it was for friends or himself. I mean he knew enough to use an alias.

It’s easy to track anyone anywhere

[Superman]

26 minutes ago, Restinpeacesweetchloe said:

I haven’t read that he was placing bets for friends. I don’t even know how anyone can prove  it was for friends or himself. I mean he knew enough to use a alias.

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37934061/nfl-suspends-four-players-gambling-violations

 

Quote

Sources familiar with the activity on the online sportsbook account used by Rodgers told ESPN's David Purdum on Thursday that upward of 100 bets were placed, including at least one wager on a game involving the Colts. A source told ESPN that friends of Rodgers, who were in Florida, encouraged him to place many of the wagers, the majority of which were in the $25-$50 range. Legal sports betting was not available in Florida this past football season. The largest wager placed through the account was a $1,000 prop bet on the over/under on rushing yards by a Colts running back, which won.

 

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/37934061/nfl-suspends-four-players-gambling-violations

 

 

Real dumb move.   

[jvan1973]

12 hours ago, Nickster said:

yeah right .  So should we legalize murder because there are going to be murder and people that aid and abet murder and people that hire people to murder for them?

 

so you want to do away with the policy because people are going to violate it?

 

huh?  Are you following your own logic?

 

It would be technically correct that there would be no crime if there were no laws I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

That analogy doesn't make sense.   First.   Let's get back to where I stand.   Yes players that bet on NFL games should face consequences.   Maybe I didn't make that clear.   I think the consequences should be based on the types of bets they made.  Any bet made against the NFL policy should be a year.   But if a player made a bet that he could have changed the outcome of it should be life.

 

Now to my hypothetical scenario.   Tons of people have inside information inside an organization.   My question is,  are those people held to the same standards as players and coaches.   Can the VP of marketing place bets and not be in violation of the rules?   Try to answer without a GIF

[AKB]

9 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That's not my counterargument to what you've presented, although it's a legitimate point.

 

Some people have a moral objection to sports gambling (or gambling in general), but that's not why the NFL is suspending players for gambling. It's not 'gambling is bad for you,' not at all. It's about preventing the appearance of anything that could undermine the competitive integrity of the league. Not about morality.

 

I'd also like to point out that the NFL isn't gambling on the outcome of games, so the 'do as I say, not as I do' part doesn't seem applicable.

 

The NFL does make money from their partnerships with sportsbooks and other outlets. However, that money is football related revenue, and it gets split with the players just like ticket sales, TV revenue, jersey sales, etc. So the players, as a whole, stand to benefit from the NFL's gambling partnerships, without ever placing a bet. And this is why I think the charge of hypocrisy is misplaced.

 

Now, is gambling objectively "good" for the NFL, its players, or society in general? I think that's an entirely different discussion.

quality response. 

 

i didn't know the players already got a portion of the revenue from the gambling partnerships

[AKB]

8 hours ago, Superman said:

 

That seems like an extreme statement. I'm not here to defend all the NFL's actions, but they obviously didn't condone what Michael Vick did. They didn't condone what Deshaun Watson did. Both received suspensions. So saying it's not important to the NFL rings false.

 

In the same way, the NFL is not condoning gambling. They are suspending players accordingly.

 

Moral integrity and competitive integrity are different, but the NFL takes actions to uphold both. 

will have to agree to disagree on this one, as it is a matter of opinion.

 

 

So when players are suspended longer for gambling (rather it be on games they play in or not) compared to a man who killed canines for fun, well.. people are allowed to compare the two and have their own opinion.

 

Sure we can get into semantics and split the arguments into criminal vs league violation and say that they shouldn't even be compared, we can also say that one is morally worse than the other, but then we can counter that and say this isn't about morals, businesses don't run based off morals, otherwise we probably wouldn't have football at all in the form that it is now.

 

but when we talk as humans, and look at it as people who see one punishment compared to another, whilst one is a threat to the integrity of the game, and one is killing animals for recreation, many people will, and have taken issue with what they prioritize to punish and the severity of said punishment. 

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

That analogy doesn't make sense.   First.   Let's get back to where I stand.   Yes players that bet on NFL games should face consequences.   Maybe I didn't make that clear.   I think the consequences should be based on the types of bets they made.  Any bet made against the NFL policy should be a year.   But if a player made a bet that he could have changed the outcome of it should be life.

 

Now to my hypothetical scenario.   Tons of people have inside information inside an organization.   My question is,  are those people held to the same standards as players and coaches.   Can the VP of marketing place bets and not be in violation of the rules?   Try to answer without a GIF

I personally support Draconian zero tolerance policies for players, coaches, and management who make bets on NFL games.

 

I don’t know if other employees are held to the same standard.

 

I guess you could suspend janitors for what was it leaking jersey numbers that weren’t laundered.

 

VPs for marketing probably aren’t privy to game plans and real insider stuff I wouldn’t think. They are like hot dog vendors.

 

I guess I support firing janitors who leak unlaundered jerseys (I’m really feeling a Rock eye roll here but will honor your request and refrain).

 

But I don’t think hourly and non football operation salaried employees are anything like contracted players, coaches, and management.

 

I think this is obvious (I need an eye roll like a crackhead needs a rock, but again in good faith I am practicing great self restraint), and I also have to believe you see the difference.

[Nickster]

1 hour ago, jvan1973 said:

That analogy doesn't make sense.   First.   Let's get back to where I stand.   Yes players that bet on NFL games should face consequences.   Maybe I didn't make that clear.   I think the consequences should be based on the types of bets they made.  Any bet made against the NFL policy should be a year.   But if a player made a bet that he could have changed the outcome of it should be life.

 

Now to my hypothetical scenario.   Tons of people have inside information inside an organization.   My question is,  are those people held to the same standards as players and coaches.   Can the VP of marketing place bets and not be in violation of the rules?   Try to answer without a GIF

And I didn’t read Supes post till after I responded.  The doc he posted clearly states that ALL NFL employees are held to the same standard.

 

I mean I suppose Goodell could ban a janitor for life from cleaning NFL schidders.

[jvan1973]

14 minutes ago, Nickster said:

I personally support Draconian zero tolerance policies for players, coaches, and management who make bets on NFL games.

 

I don’t know if other employees are held to the same standard.

 

I guess you could suspend janitors for what was it leaking jersey numbers that weren’t laundered.

 

VPs for marketing probably aren’t privy to game plans and real insider stuff I wouldn’t think. They are like hot dog vendors.

 

I guess I support firing janitors who leak unlaundered jerseys (I’m really feeling a Rock eye roll here but will honor your request and refrain).

 

But I don’t think hourly and non football operation salaried employees are anything like contracted players, coaches, and management.

 

I think this is obvious (I need an eye roll like a crackhead needs a rock, but again in good faith I am practicing great self restraint), and I also have to believe you see the difference.

I actually know for a fact many folks inside the organization know when players will or will not play.  My mother in law used to live in the same apartment complex as Pat Beach  way back when.   He would come sit with us at a bon fire and tell us all sorts of things.   Players that were not going to dress,  a dumbed downed version of the game plan. That could be important information for a gambler.  It happens. Now post your GIF

[AKB]

3 hours ago, Nickster said:

I personally support Draconian zero tolerance policies for players, coaches, and management who make bets on NFL games.

 

I don’t know if other employees are held to the same standard.

 

I guess you could suspend janitors for what was it leaking jersey numbers that weren’t laundered.

 

VPs for marketing probably aren’t privy to game plans and real insider stuff I wouldn’t think. They are like hot dog vendors.

 

I guess I support firing janitors who leak unlaundered jerseys (I’m really feeling a Rock eye roll here but will honor your request and refrain).

 

But I don’t think hourly and non football operation salaried employees are anything like contracted players, coaches, and management.

 

I think this is obvious (I need an eye roll like a crackhead needs a rock, but again in good faith I am practicing great self restraint), and I also have to believe you see the difference.

do you also support zero tolerance for recreational dog killing, drug taking, girlfriend beating? 

[Dark Superman]

Isaiah Rodgers Sr is one of my favorite players on the team and losing him this way kills me.

[AKB]

37 minutes ago, Dark Superman said:

Isaiah Rodgers Sr is one of my favorite players on the team and losing him this way kills me.

same.

 

i remember when he came in during the playoff game vs the Bills and had back to back interceptions (i think) vs Allen but called back due to penalty or something. 

[Nickster]

9 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

I actually know for a fact many folks inside the organization know when players will or will not play.  My mother in law used to live in the same apartment complex as Pat Beach  way back when.   He would come sit with us at a bon fire and tell us all sorts of things.   Players that were not going to dress,  a dumbed downed version of the game plan. That could be important information for a gambler.  It happens. Now post your GIF

Yeah I used to “date” a girl who lived in the same condo complex as a fairly prominent Colts player whom I conversed with that told me things I was surprised he revealed when we drank together a couple times.

 

I used to see another girl who’s Dad played and was good friends with Archie Manning and knew PM growing up.  She was from SC and told me some things about PM that were contrary to his image.  I met PM in a bar downtown after that and he corroborated the info.  He also told me that Dungy was bringing some player.  In his drawl I can still hear him emphasize that.  He was just like he seemed.

 

 

so I know personally of 2 NFL players that were freer with info than I expected.

 

but to me it begs a giant question.

 

So what?

 

what does that have to do with policy?

 

what difference does that make?

[2006Coltsbestever]

12 hours ago, Nickster said:

I personally support Draconian zero tolerance policies for players, coaches, and management who make bets on NFL games.

 

I don’t know if other employees are held to the same standard.

 

I guess you could suspend janitors for what was it leaking jersey numbers that weren’t laundered.

 

VPs for marketing probably aren’t privy to game plans and real insider stuff I wouldn’t think. They are like hot dog vendors.

 

I guess I support firing janitors who leak unlaundered jerseys (I’m really feeling a Rock eye roll here but will honor your request and refrain).

 

But I don’t think hourly and non football operation salaried employees are anything like contracted players, coaches, and management.

 

I think this is obvious (I need an eye roll like a crackhead needs a rock, but again in good faith I am practicing great self restraint), and I also have to believe you see the difference.

Does Draconian mean Dracula is coming 

[Superman]

13 hours ago, AKB said:

So when players are suspended longer for gambling (rather it be on games they play in or not) compared to a man who killed canines for fun, well.. people are allowed to compare the two and have their own opinion.

 

We can have our own opinions, but I think it's important to respect the facts. What player who has been penalized for violating the gambling policy has received a more severe punishment than Michael Vick?

 

Vick was suspended indefinitely by the NFL in August 2007. He was reinstated prior to the 2009 season, but was not eligible to play until Week 3. So his suspension lasted more than two seasons.

 

Isaiah Rodgers is suspended indefinitely, and can apply for reinstatement before the 2024 season. The precedent we've already seen with Calvin Ridley is that the league will consider reinstating him at that time, provided he's not engaging in prohibited activity during his suspension. So far, no player suspended for gambling has missed more than one season.

 

So it's not factual -- at this point -- to say that players suspended for gambling are being suspended longer than a person who killed dogs. In fact, Vick's suspension was more than twice as long as any player's gambling suspension, so far.

 

However we feel about morals, legality, business, integrity, etc., I think the baseline facts need to be acknowledged. You might feel the gambling policy is too strict or severe, or you might really dislike the way the NFL handled other punishments, and that would be a fair conversation to have either way, even if we don't agree at the end of the day. But I think that conversation needs to be based on established fact.

 

And then, we still should acknowledge that the NFL is going to take very seriously anything that threatens the competitive integrity of the league. From a moral perspective, I think what Vick did was much worse than gambling, but gambling is a much greater threat to the NFL from a legal perspective. You're talking about the league's antitrust exemption, business partnerships, etc. Fraud and corruption could literally destroy the NFL. That's just the reality, and it's not based on whether anyone dislikes gambling more than they dislike dogfighting.

[Superman]

13 hours ago, Nickster said:

And I didn’t read Supes post till after I responded.  The doc he posted clearly states that ALL NFL employees are held to the same standard.

 

@jvan1973

Just to nail it down:

 

Quote

 

NFL Personnel – Unless otherwise limited, this Policy applies to all full- and part-time Club and League personnel including League office employees, players, owners, coaches, athletic trainers, game officials, security personnel, consultants, Club employees, game-day stadium personnel and other staff. 

 

That includes the janitor, parking attendant, the pretzel guy, everybody. Certainly the VP of Marketing. And most certainly the players.

 

You guys are making me take sides with Nickster... 

[Superman]

3 hours ago, Nickster said:

drugs:  I am for whatever policy they want with PEDs.  Have a MLB vet buddy who likely would have made the league and more money earlier than he did late 90s and early Os if he’d have used but made the personal decision not two when utility infielders were roided up hitting 20 HRs .  Recreational I don’t give a crap as long as it is controlled.  If he can play I don’t care what he does on his own time.

 

Waaay off topic, but I think the sports world's stance on PEDs is poorly considered and overly rigid.

[2006Coltsbestever]

47 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

@jvan1973

Just to nail it down:

 

 

That includes the janitor, parking attendant, the pretzel guy, everybody. Certainly the VP of Marketing. And most certainly the players.

 

You guys are making me take sides with Nickster... 

When you take sides with the big Nickster it is time to do this -  Just kidding Nickster.

[Nickster]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

@jvan1973

Just to nail it down:

 

 

That includes the janitor, parking attendant, the pretzel guy, everybody. Certainly the VP of Marketing. And most certainly the players.

 

You guys are making me take sides with Nickster... 

you love being on the right side of a debate though Supe ;-)

[Nickster]

3 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Waaay off topic, but I think the sports world's stance on PEDs is poorly considered and overly rigid.

It’s almost personal with me man.  Like I said I had a buddy who didn’t break into the league as a powerless middle infielder until 29 and around the turn of the millennium who likely would have made it 5 years earlier if PEDs hadn’t been so prominent.  He did not want to put it in his body.

 

The health risks of PEDs might be quite overblown looking at the long game but I don’t have a problem with the league making its rules on that issue.  They were (are?) illegal and so I don’t have a problem with any league suspending for them.

 

Whether or not they should have been or still are illegal is a different question that is a question for lawmakers not the NFL or mlb etc.

[BlackTiger]

19 hours ago, jvan1973 said:

e would come sit with us at a bon fire and tell us all sorts of things.   Players that were not going to dress,  a dumbed downed version of the game plan.

If they got caught doing that they would be in trouble with the team, and if it was for gambling purposes the league would probably step in too.

 

"it happens" isnt really relevant, you get in trouble when you get caught

 

 

[Superman]

2 hours ago, Nickster said:

It’s almost personal with me man.  Like I said I had a buddy who didn’t break into the league as a powerless middle infielder until 29 and around the turn of the millennium who likely would have made it 5 years earlier if PEDs hadn’t been so prominent.  He did not want to put it in his body.

 

The health risks of PEDs might be quite overblown looking at the long game but I don’t have a problem with the league making its rules on that issue.  They were (are?) illegal and so I don’t have a problem with any league suspending for them.

 

Whether or not they should have been or still are illegal is a different question that is a question for lawmakers not the NFL or mlb etc.

 

I think a lot of people have a version of that story. But I think a version of that story also happens every day in law school, business school, med school, etc., except college students don't get suspended for using PEDs to improve their scholastic performance.

 

I just think the sports PED discussion is really sanctimonious and overly rigid, especially compared to other competitive pursuits. So much so that there hasn't been any reconsideration of PEDs in the last 20 years. It's just 'no, PEDs are cheating, end of story.' I think it's a disservice, overall.