Kind of a long read.
POSTED 9:35 a.m. EST, November 10, 2005
UNION'S T.O. ARGUMENTS OFF BASE
The NFL Players Association says that it plans an aggressive attack against the actions taken by the Eagles as to receiver Terrell Owens.
According to The Philadelphia Inquirer, the union will advance three arguments at the November 18 hearing. First, the NFLPA will contend that the four-game unpaid suspension is excessive. Second, the NFLPA will argue that the five-game deactivation following the four-game suspension violates the disciplinary procedures set forth in the CBA. Third, the union will claim that the one-game suspension imposed for the taterskins game makes the punishment complete, and that no further sanction is permitted.
Let's take a look at each of these claims, setting aside for now the quasi-journalist hat and donning the cap of a practicing lawyer who deals with issues of this nature virtually every day.
1. The Four-Game Suspension.
Article VIII, Section 1 of the CBA permits a maximum fine of one week's salary and/or a suspension not to exceed four weeks, without pay, for conduct detrimental to the team. (The maximum sanction, then, isn't a four-game suspension but a four-game suspension and a one-game fine.)
The union primarily plans to argue that Owens' punishment is more severe than the penalties imposed by other teams in other circumstances.
"This isn't necessarily about one player and one team," NFLPA General Counsel Richard Berthelsen told The Inquirer.
"Wrong!" the Eagles should shout in response. Section 3 of Article VIII plainly states: "Discipline will be imposed uniformly within a Club on all players for the same offense; however, the Club may specify the events which create an escalation of the discipline, provided the formula for escalation is uniform in its application." (Emphasis added.) This means, in English, that what another team does or doesn't do under similar circumstances is completely and totally irrelevant.
Sure, it would be helpful if the Eagles had promulgated internal rules stating that publicly dissing the quarterback and generally acting like a butthole is punishable by a four-week suspension. But the real question is whether the Eagles have been uniform in their imposition of discipline. The challenge for the union and T.O., then, will be to prove that other Eagles players engaged in similar behavior without similar consequence.
Good luck with that.
Our guess is that the union will nevertheless point to other players on other Clubs in support of the notion that the conduct of T.O. wasn't sufficiently detrimental to the Eagles to merit a four-game suspension -- or that it wasn't detrimental conduct at all. But since the CBA does not attempt to codify the specific levels of punishment or the behaviors that will trigger action, the matter is left to the discretion of the Club, and the only requirement for the Club is to be uniform in its imposition of discipline for conduct detrimental to the team.
This means, in English, that the union doesn't have a leg to stand on.
As to the potential argument that the conduct wasn't detrimental, we can sum up the technical legal response in one word.
Please.
Not detrimental? Look no farther than Paragraph 2 of Owens' contract with the team, which states: "He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game."
Game, set, suspension.
2. The Five-Game Deactivation.
All due respect, the union's argument that a five-game deactivation constitutes "punishment" simply makes no sense.
Article XXXIII of the CBA expressly contemplates that there will be 53 players under contract, and that 45 of them will be active for any given game. This means that eight of the players, at any given time and for any reason, will be inactive.
The CBA contains no mechanism for challenging a decision to deactivate a player, and sets forth no rules for making this decision. Thus, the decision falls within the discretion of the team, and it should not be subject to second-guessing.
With that said, the union might be able to argue that Owens should be permitted to attend practices and to work out at the facility. Article XXXIII, Section 3 states that "Inactive List players will receive the same benefits and protections as Active List players." The question is whether the phrase "benefits and protections" refers only to issues like salary and pension rights, or whether the "benefits" include access to the team and the facilities.
The problem with this argument is that the term "benefits" is defined by Article I, Section 3 as the "specific benefits paid to players." (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Eagles should argue that, if Owens is getting his game checks during the period of deactivation, he is getting his "benefits."
The union also argues in this regard that the deactivation prevents Owens from "earning any additional incentives" or from proving to other teams that "he's worthy of playing for them next year." But couldn't every player on the inactive list raise this same argument?
The Eagles have decided that, notwithstanding T.O.'s objective ability, the team will perform better as a unit without him on the field or in the locker room. Nothing in the CBA prevents a team from making that decision.
As to the argument that Owens can't earn any additional incentives, the only additional incentive in his contract is a $250,000 payment for being elected to the Pro Bowl squad. Again, if one player can challenge a team's decision to make him inactive on the basis that it would keep him from making it onto the Pro Bowl roster, then every player could make that argument.
Bottom line -- it looks like the union's attack on the decision to deactivate will fail. Badly.
3. The "Double Penalty" Argument.
This contention is based on the notion that by suspending Owens for the game against the taterskins, the penalty was imposed and nothing more could be done to him.
It's a real stretch.
On Saturday, the team announced that Owens was suspended "indefinitely." The Eagles never said it was a one-game suspension followed by a three-game suspension. It was and is, in the end, a four-game suspension, and the union should worry about losing credibility in the eyes of the arbitrator by arguing otherwise.
Really, both of the final two points raised by the union don't hold much water, in our view. We believe that the NFLPA is simply aiming as high as possible in the hopes that recovery of the four game checks will then seem like an acceptable middle ground to the arbitrator.
The union also might be going as far as it is in order to avoid any possible argument by Owens that the union didn't do enough to help him.
But, as we see it, no one can help him now. He clearly engaged in conduct detrimental to the interests of the Club -- why else would the Club be so adamant about not utilizing the services of one of the best players in the league? And if the arbitrator applies the CBA as written, and if there's no evidence of other current or former Eagles engaging in similar behavior with no punishment, Owens should lose his grievance.
Please.
Make.
It.
Stop.
For the right price, it can be done. :paranoid
Nice legal synopsis, although I'm sure the FO did their homework. The NFLPA is just grandstanding and pretending to be active in this process. AR and the FO were judicious in all of thier statements, and I would imagine researched this matter $eriously.
It took legal action to get TO in an Eagles uniform. Now it's going to take legal action to make him take it off. Ironic, ain't it?
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on November 10, 2005, 10:27:34 AM
Please.
Make.
It.
Stop.
(http://www.jackdaniels.com/images/wallpaper/jd03-150.jpg)
Upshaw must be an idiot. The suspension and the deactivation are separate actions, for one thing. The 4 games without pay for conduct detrimental to the team is pretty much undebatable, and the deactivation for the final games is allowable according to the language of the CBA and it has a precedent in the Keyshawn/Bucs situation.
No wonder the NFLPA is such a weak union. They probably don't even read the contracts before they sign them.
see, if normal guys like us can see that, what makes it so tough for the nflpa to come to grips with it.
Quote from: EJ72 on November 10, 2005, 02:07:23 PM
Upshaw must be an idiot. The suspension and the deactivation are separate actions, for one thing. The 4 games without pay for conduct detrimental to the team is pretty much undebatable, and the deactivation for the final games is allowable according to the language of the CBA and it has a precedent in the Keyshawn/Bucs situation.
No wonder the NFLPA is such a weak union. They probably don't even read the contracts before they sign them.
Agreed. Please keep in mind that Upshaw would defend Pol Pot, Tojo, Bin Laden, Charles Manson if they had played in the NFL.
I believe Hitler was a DB for the old Canton Bulldogs before relocating.
Quote from: Don Ho on November 10, 2005, 02:13:07 PM
Quote from: EJ72 on November 10, 2005, 02:07:23 PM
Upshaw must be an idiot. The suspension and the deactivation are separate actions, for one thing. The 4 games without pay for conduct detrimental to the team is pretty much undebatable, and the deactivation for the final games is allowable according to the language of the CBA and it has a precedent in the Keyshawn/Bucs situation.
No wonder the NFLPA is such a weak union. They probably don't even read the contracts before they sign them.
Agreed. Please keep in mind that Upshaw would defend Pol Pot, Tojo, Bin Laden, Charles Manson if they had played in the NFL.
I believe Hitler was a DB for the old Canton Bulldogs before relocating.
never made the pro bowl though
but this is true. as the union head, he must act upon the union member's request and file the grievance. regardless of how stupid the argument, that is what the union is there for.
Quote from: Don Ho on November 10, 2005, 02:13:07 PMAgreed. Please keep in mind that Upshaw would defend Pol Pot, Tojo, Bin Laden, Charles Manson if they had played in the NFL.
I believe Hitler was a DB for the old Canton Bulldogs before relocating.
You left George Bush off that list.
Quote from: Don Ho on November 10, 2005, 02:13:07 PM
I believe Hitler was a DB for the old Canton Bulldogs before relocating.
Upshaw would have lobbied for him unsuccessfully when he complained about the league's "No Charlie Chaplin moustaches mandate", and the fact that the team wouldn't let him write or paint in the locker room.
Hitler got kicked off the team for burning all the playbooks.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 10, 2005, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Don Ho on November 10, 2005, 02:13:07 PMAgreed. Please keep in mind that Upshaw would defend Pol Pot, Tojo, Bin Laden, Charles Manson if they had played in the NFL.
I believe Hitler was a DB for the old Canton Bulldogs before relocating.
You left George Bush off that list.
idiot
The only real argument they have to stand on is that being sent away for the last 5 weeks is additional discipline. Every team has the right to inactivate whoever they wish, but this is the rare situation where the inactivated player is banished from all practices, team meetings and team events. They may have to allow him to come. But, does anybody really think TO with his ego, would hang around practices and meetings and the facilities while knowing he wouldn't get on the field? Would he really want to try to be an ever bigger pain in the butt, further threatening the likelihood of getting a good deal from another team?
I refuse to start a new thread about TO, but this is funny.
More proof that Ralph Nader has lost his mind and doesn't realize that no one gives a shtein what he thinks (sidebar from an ESPN story). (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2219743)
QuoteRalph Nader, onetime presidential candidate and consumer advocate, has asked Eagles CEO Jeffrey Lurie and NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue to reconsider Terrell Owens' suspension.
In a letter to the football officials dated Nov. 10, Nader called Owens' comments boorish, but defended the receiver's right to speak.
"If the Eagles management declines to remedy its mistake, commissioner Tagliabue, you should intervene to overturn the team's decision, which dishonors this country's traditional respect for free speech and cheats fans of an opportunity to see arguably the best receiver in football.
"Let him play."
Nader signed the letter as founder of League of Fans, which he describes as a sports reform project.
"Fans have purchased tickets for Eagles' games, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, on the assumption that they will see one of the game's most exciting receivers, so long as he is healthy enough to play. The Eagles' action denies them this opportunity."
-- ESPN.com news services
Quote from: Diomedes on November 10, 2005, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Don Ho on November 10, 2005, 02:13:07 PMAgreed. Please keep in mind that Upshaw would defend Pol Pot, Tojo, Bin Laden, Charles Manson if they had played in the NFL.
I believe Hitler was a DB for the old Canton Bulldogs before relocating.
You left George Bush off that list.
both Georges!
Nader is a flat-out kook.
Quote"Fans have purchased tickets for Eagles' games, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, on the assumption that they will see one of the game's most exciting receivers, so long as he is healthy enough to play. The Eagles' action denies them this opportunity."
oddly enough i'm one of the very fans he's talking about and completely disagree with him.
Quote from: rjs246 on November 10, 2005, 03:00:41 PM
I refuse to start a new thread about TO, but this is funny.
More proof that Ralph Nader has lost his mind and doesn't realize that no one gives a shtein what he thinks (sidebar from an ESPN story). (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=2219743)
QuoteRalph Nader, onetime presidential candidate and consumer advocate, has asked Eagles CEO Jeffrey Lurie and NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue to reconsider Terrell Owens' suspension.
In a letter to the football officials dated Nov. 10, Nader called Owens' comments boorish, but defended the receiver's right to speak.
"If the Eagles management declines to remedy its mistake, commissioner Tagliabue, you should intervene to overturn the team's decision, which dishonors this country's traditional respect for free speech and cheats fans of an opportunity to see arguably the best receiver in football.
"Let him play."
Nader signed the letter as founder of League of Fans, which he describes as a sports reform project.
"Fans have purchased tickets for Eagles' games, in Philadelphia and elsewhere, on the assumption that they will see one of the game's most exciting receivers, so long as he is healthy enough to play. The Eagles' action denies them this opportunity."
-- ESPN.com news services
Nader makes me want to....Ralph.
That was bad. :)
QuoteBloch to decide whether Eagles were unreasonable
By Chris Mortensen
ESPN Insider
Richard Bloch is an arbitrator, a premium public speaker for hire, a Washington taterskins season-ticket holder and a magician by hobby.
Bloch will decide very soon whether Terrell Owens will disappear or reappear with the Philadelphia Eagles and the NFL.
"What the Eagles did is like a judge sentencing a defendant on a Friday for a month, and then he comes back on Monday and says, 'No, let's make that four months.' "
—Richard Berthelsen, general counsel for the NFL Players Association
Bloch is the arbitrator who -- on Nov. 18 -- will hear the NFL Players Association grievance that, on Owens' behalf, claims the Eagles have improperly suspended the receiver for four games under the "conduct detrimental to the team" clause in his contract. In addition, the union will claim that additional punitive action -- announcing that Owens would not be allowed to play another game this season -- also is excessive.
Don't assume just because Owens has been loud, obnoxious and disruptive that he doesn't have a case. Bloch could reduce the suspension without pay to one game, and he could reinstate Owens to the team, buying into the players' union argument that the punishment is excessive and the case is flimsy.
The Eagles believe otherwise. They have documented a number of instances in which Owens displayed misconduct, some of which Bloch might find disgusting, harmless or even humorous.
According to sources who have seen the document, allegations the Eagles make against Owens in their case include:
• He was already on notice for previous inappropriate behavior.
• He did not participate in a team autograph session in training camp.
• He told coach Andy Reid, his boss, to shut up and showed further disrespect by saying that his last name wasn't Reid, that he wasn't one of Reid's children.
• He told offensive coordinator Brad Childress not to speak to him unless Owens spoke to him first.
• He said he will not give his full effort.
• He parked his car in a coach's designated spot.
• He parked his vehicle in a handicapped spot on another occasion.
• He was late to a mandatory offensive meeting.
• He failed to comply with team rules pertaining to travel attire.
• He publicly criticized the organization as "classless" and publicly criticized quarterback Donovan McNabb.
• He engaged in a fight with Hugh Douglas at the team facility.
That's a pretty interesting list. From a distance, it seems the Eagles certainly acted within reason when they suspended Owens. Or did they?
Bloch is the designated NFL arbiter because of his familiarity with the collective bargaining agreement and the sport itself. The arbitration hearing will take place in Philadelphia. It is very much like a legal proceeding, with witnesses who will be sworn to their testimony.
The Eagles, as the employer, will present their case first, an effort headed by league counsel Buck Briggs and attorney Daniel Nash. Owens, the employee, will be defended by Richard Berthelsen, general counsel for the NFLPA, and attorney Jeffrey Kessler. Both sides are allowed to cross-examine witnesses and make their arguments before Bloch, who is allowed to ask his own questions.
Those arguments and answers, along with the letter of the CBA law, will determine Bloch's ruling, which is expected within seven days of the hearing. In fact, the union will ask Bloch to make an immediate ruling but that would be an exception rather than the rule.
When describing his arbitration job in his speaking engagements (his fee starts at $7,500), Bloch has said that "[people try] to convince me and persuade me to suspend disbelief and skepticism."
In Bloch's words, there is an "art of persuasion." He cites such important elements as simplicity, eye contact, direct responses, being likable and listening skills. In the end, Bloch is judge and jury. His decision is binding and cannot be challenged in another legal venue, according to labor law and the CBA agreed upon by management and the union.
There is no absolute way to read how Bloch will rule on this case. In contract disputes, he has ruled for players and for management. He determined earlier this year that Ricky Williams did have to repay the Miami Dolphins approximately $8.6 million in bonus money for breaching his contract. Two years ago, he ruled in favor of Chad Morton, who argued that the Jets did not properly match an offer sheet, allowing him to play for the taterskins -- an uncomfortable twist in light of Bloch's status as a Washington season-ticket holder.
In matters of discipline, however, Bloch has not hesitated to reduce penalties for players even when it appeared a team was on solid footing.
In 1996, Saints defensive end Renaldo Turnbull had a one-game suspension without pay reduced to a fine when he left the field -- or "quit" on the team -- after he was berated by an assistant coach for failing to "contain" his side on a touchdown run by 49ers quarterback Steve Young. This was in a game during the same season that Jim Mora quit as the Saints coach. In the hearing, Berthelsen asked a Saints official on the witness stand to describe how Mora could quit and not be disciplined without pay, whereas Turnbull was being docked despite having eventually come out of the locker room and returned to the game in question. It's uncertain whether Bloch was persuaded by that question, but his ruling favored the player more than the team.
Before he quit, Mora once suspended running back Ray Zellers for one game when Zellers refused to participate in certain drills. The suspension was reduced to a fine.
Reggie Langhorne, a wide receiver for the Cleveland Browns, was in then-Browns head coach Bill Belichick's doghouse. He refused to participate on the scout team and after practice said publicly that he wanted to be traded. Belichick suspended him for a game; the suspension was reduced to a fine.
The difference between losing a game check and being fined is significant. Owens' game checks are worth $191,176 each week of the 17-week season.
Historical perspective
The most notable decision Bloch has made in recent years with the NFL was a huge blow to the players' union, yet it is a ruling the union could use in its favor in Owens' case.
Bloch ruled that a controversial "loyalty clause" in the Bengals' contracts was valid and enforceable. It was referred to in the media as the "Pickens clause" after wide receiver Carl Pickens (what else?) criticized the team publicly. The Cincinnati clause Bloch upheld specifically stated that the team could demand all or part of the player's signing bonus if the player criticized the Bengals or their employees through the media.
Bloch ruled that teams have the right to independently negotiate stipulations in player contracts; the player had the right not to sign the contract.
The Eagles have no such "loyalty clause" in Owens' contract. However, ProFootballTalk.com cites Paragraph 2 of Owens' contract, which it claims reads, "He agrees to give his best efforts and loyalty to the Club, and to conduct himself on and off the field with appropriate recognition of the fact that the success of professional football depends largely on public respect for and approval of those associated with the game."
The Eagles also believe they have carefully documented and proceeded legally with an airtight case. But there are circumstances that suggest otherwise.
In a letter the team sent to Owens Saturday, the Eagles simply stated that he was being suspended for the taterskins game for conduct detrimental to the team and that his status beyond that would be addressed this week. The union will argue that the team never stated it was reserving its right to discipline Owens the maximum (four games) under the collective bargaining agreement. It's a double-jeopardy argument -- you can't punish Owens twice for the same violations.
A technicality? Yes. Sometimes technicalities are vital in these cases, although the Eagles certainly will argue that Owens' final action -- failure to apologize privately in a team meeting -- came on a Saturday before the team was set to travel and that they properly reserved their right to discipline Owens further until after the game.
Berthelsen doesn't buy that argument. It's important to Owens' bank account. A one-game suspension versus a four-game suspension is a difference of almost $600,000.
"What the Eagles did is like a judge sentencing a defendant on a Friday for a month, and then he comes back on Monday and says, 'No, let's make that four months,'" Berthelsen said.
The most interesting angle of the union's demand is that Owens be reinstated to his exact team status before the suspension. Even if Bloch upholds the four-game penalty, the union will make the case that Owens has the right to work, to report to the facility, to attend meetings and to practice.
QuoteGene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFLPA, is pressuring the Eagles to release Owens after the suspension is lifted.
The Eagles surely will use their own technicality to prevent Bloch from making this so-called "reinstatement" a part of his decision. In the most recent letter to Owens -- the one that added the four-game suspension -- the team makes no written mention that he no longer will be allowed to play for Philadelphia.
In other words, the Eagles will argue to Bloch that the arbitration hearing is about the four-game suspension and nothing else. The union will contend that Reid's public statement at Monday's news conference is an indisputable declaration that making Owens inactive for the rest of the season is an extension of the disciplinary action and, thus, also is excessive.
Won't Owens still get paid during the final five games when he is inactive? Yes, he will get his base salary, but the team will be denying Owens an opportunity to earn incentives and make the Pro Bowl.
Yes, the Buccaneers successfully kept Keyshawn Johnson away from their facility for the final six games of the 2003 season after his very public dispute with coach Jon Gruden.
The difference? Johnson never asked the union to file a grievance on his behalf. He didn't want to play for the Bucs (Gruden specifically) and was content to stay away as long as he was getting paid.
Of all NFL players, Owens is the one guy who would have enough gall to show up for work when he has been told to stay away (with pay). Sure, both sides could make such a situation very uncomfortable, but this level of discomfort could compel the Eagles to release Owens, which would give him an opportunity to play elsewhere this season.
Something else that might not bode well for the Eagles' case is that in the long list of allegations against Owens, it appears he has been fined only once -- a measly $150 for being late to that one offensive unit meeting.
Owens wasn't fined when Reid sent him home from training camp for one week. His paycheck was not docked, either, because players' salaries aren't paid until the regular season is under way. As for skipping the autograph session, the contract is vague about Owen' obligations and he can argue that he could have satisfied that aspect at other functions.
Owens also apparently wasn't fined when he wore a Michael Irvin retro jersey after the Eagles lost to the Cowboys in Dallas -- a clear slap in the face to his team, no matter what his relationship with the former Cowboys great and current ESPN analyst.
So, if the Eagles have deemed all of Owens' actions worthy of just $150 in fines until this past week, how egregious did they consider his conduct? There is a concept of progressive discipline that the union certainly will argue that the Eagles ignored in this case.
Reid no doubt will be a key witness for the Eagles and Bloch. He will have to convince Bloch that he did not have a ironhanded approach because he truly cared about Owens, that he was patient in his effort to resolve problems, and that he believed he could improve Owens' behavior through his own personal leadership and counseling.
Reid surely will say that he even gave Owens a chance to get out of his latest shenanigans with a detailed apology. The union will argue that Owens did apologize Friday before Reid demanded another apology -- more personal to quarterback Donovan McNabb and specifically in a team meeting -- that Owens refused to make.
As for that fight between Owens and Douglas, most accounts suggest that Douglas -- no longer a player but a designated team ambassador -- was the instigator. Some of the facts about that fight remain unclear.
Bloch does have a sense of humor, evident when one views his speaking engagements.
One must wonder how he will react internally to the allegation that Owens has parked in a coach's spot. We don't know whether it was Reid's spot or Childress' or some other assistant's. Bloch could see that as flaunting disregard for company policy or, on the funny side, maybe he will wonder whether Owens actually was getting to work earlier than a coach.
Either way, Bloch appears to have considerable discretion. And whether he is persuaded by his own personal feelings about Owens is known only to him.
Didn't this Skins fan piece of shtein have something to do with some other Philly arbitration thing before? I remember him....
That's what I was thinking. Is this the same arbitrator that was to hear the case about 81, Baltimore, and Philly?
I actually have a bad-feeling about the way the arbitration hearing will go. I have the feeling that it will decide a one-game suspension, and resinstatement to the same status. All that does is give 81 more of his money back and allow him to practice and use the facilities -- they can't make the eagles play him -- but having him around could still be quite the distraction if 81 decides to play it that way.
No, Steven Burbank was the arbitrator for when he came here.
Quote from: Diomedes on November 10, 2005, 02:22:12 PM
Quote from: Don Ho on November 10, 2005, 02:13:07 PMAgreed. Please keep in mind that Upshaw would defend Pol Pot, Tojo, Bin Laden, Charles Manson if they had played in the NFL.
I believe Hitler was a DB for the old Canton Bulldogs before relocating.
You left George Bush off that list.
Mao, Stalin, Kruschev
I wonder how much more entertaining this would get if the injury report read like this
Owens - IR - groin pull
Why do even care about the money?
The Eagles have plenty and so does Lurie. We will underspend on the cap like we do every year
Let him collect his whole years salary and stay the hell away.
SalPal reported that Eagles officials have pretty much said just that. They said they'll pay TO for the entire 9 games if it comes to that... won't even go after any of his SB. They just want to get rid of him.
QuoteRev. Jackson: T.O. penalty too stiff
CHICAGO - The Rev. Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, issued the following statement yesterday on the suspension of Terrell Owens:
"Terrell Owens did an interview last week and engaged in some unsportsmanlike speech, deemed detrimental to the team, but nonetheless free speech. He expressed some dissatisfaction with his contract, his team and the Eagles' organization, which should have been expressed in a more professional manner. The Eagles have suspended T.O. for four games without pay and have decided to deactivate him for the rest of the year. His future in the National Football League is uncertain, thus potentially ending his career at its heights.
"This punishment is much too severe for the charge. If he had been caught shaving points, selling drugs, carrying a gun or fighting some fans, who provoked him, and he had not shown sufficient restraint, we could understand the severe suspension, because those are very serious and illegal acts. Unfortunately for T.O., who belatedly apologized 3 days after the infraction, the real question is do his comments warrant a penalty this severe?
"The answer is no. This does not warrant a 1-year ban from the game. The NFL Players Association has taken a position that the punishment does not correspond with the infraction and the association wants the Eagles to cut T.O. if they are not going to reinstate him. I agree. T.O. has publicly apologized. His heart is contrite. If the Philadelphia Eagles' owners do not find his apology acceptable and no longer aim to maintain an association with him, they should release him to the open market or free agency, allowing him to test the free market for his services. I call for fairness in this dispute."
Are you kidding me with this farging bullshtein already?
we still have to hear from Rev. Al.
oh yeah, and Johnnie Cochran, oops.
Dear Rev. Jackson:
Shut Up.
Sincerely,
A Philadelphia Eagles Fan
Ralph Nader? Jesse Jackson? I go on vacation and come back and the world has gone absolutly mad!!
Who the farg is mixing reality TV into my sporting experience? Shoot them! Shoot them now!
Cmon leave Jesse alone. He's just supportin a brotha. :-D
Bloch was the guy who awarded the Skins Chad Morton when the Skins and Jets had their dispute a couple of years ago. Coincidentally he is a taterskins season ticket holder.
And I couldn't care less about the money they will or will not have to pay TO. It affects us in no way. Even if they reduce his suspension then they can still deactivate him.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on November 13, 2005, 12:44:02 AM
Bloch was the guy who awarded the Skins Chad Morton when the Skins and Jets had their dispute a couple of years ago. Coincidentally he is a taterskins season ticket holder.
And I couldn't care less about the money they will or will not have to pay TO. It affects us in no way. Even if they reduce his suspension then they can still deactivate him.
Yup, that's what it was...the Morton thing. I posted about him being a Skins season ticket holder on this thread I think....but I couldn't remember what it was that he had arbitrated before.....I DID know that it went in the Skins favor though.
QuoteRalph Nader, onetime presidential candidate and consumer advocate, has asked
QuoteThe Rev. Jesse Jackson, founder and president of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, issued the following statement
(http://phaethon.homedns.org:58080/penn.gif)
Have you guys seen this bit of the Owens saga? This may be the part of the "some things were made public, some were not..."
http://www.foxsports.com
Terrell, Terrell and more Terrell. We just can't get enough can we?
With Terrell Owens' special arbitration hearing set for later this week, there are always three sides to every soap opera. It's our job to fill in some blanks and paint a picture of that third side.
With that said, the following are some additional intriguing questions that need to be answered in order to fill in the blanks of what has become the most notorious football story of the decade to date:
Question No. 1: Was this suspension a shock to people inside the Eagles?
No, because many knew that Eagles coach Andy Reid actually considered suspending Owens three weeks ago.
This portion of the weekly T.O. escapade began weeks ago when Reid had a meeting with his players and informed them that they must begin to follow the little rules that were in place, most notably the dress code of not wearing tennis shoes or jeans and parking in the back of the Eagles' complex.
Owens, despite Reid's insistence, wore jeans, tennis shoes and a Michael Irvin jersey. Wearing the Irvin jersey after their loss to the Cowboys created a national stir, but Reid actually cared about the other part of his ensemble, the jeans and sneakers. The coach again warned Owens and told him that he was responsible for following the same dress code as the rest of the team.
According to sources, had Owens showed up to Philadelphia's next road game in tennis shoes or jeans, Reid had planned to suspend him and not allow the controversial wide receiver on the team plane. Owens, in what was viewed by many inside the Eagles as pushing Reid, wore a tuxedo and shoes that resembled sneakers but were, in fact, considered shoes.
"He was just trying to push Andy," said one source. "That's what we had to deal with every week."
Owens also parked in a handicap space in the front of the building, citing that he wasn't parking in the back as he was told. Such instances may not sound like much, but the team felt he was constantly trying to push the limits of insubordination and see how far he could push.
Guess not much changed since he wore tights in the first practice etc.
Did you guys see TO and Jesse hanging out together at the Falcons game? They're bestest friends now....