Due process takes hit in NFL

Due process takes hit in NFL

There are 80 comments on the The Indianapolis Star story from Apr 12, 2007, titled Due process takes hit in NFL. In it, The Indianapolis Star reports that:

I can't decide: Is new NFL commissioner Roger Goodell pandering to the public, or merely grandstanding? Pardon me for failing to fall into lockstep with the prevailing opinion that Goodell's get-tough-on-crime ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Indianapolis Star.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Julius Hoffman

Jeffersonville, OH

#1 Apr 13, 2007
Kravitz,

You are such a hypocrite. You talk out both sides of your mouth. For the last two plus years all you have wrote is how Bird and Walsh need to make a stand against the off court behavior of the Pacers players.

Now you take the exact opposite stance when the NFL does exactly what you were DEMANDING the Pacer organization to do.

I quit taking the paper at my home and canceled the 8 issues I used to have delivered to my business for my employees 3 years ago. Specifically because of you.

To many of us integrity and honesty still means something. Just calling it your job sure dont make what you do on an almost daily basis right and I refuse to support it.

PLAYA

Indianapolis, IN

#3 Apr 13, 2007
Kravitz the people want me in your place
BS of A

Indianapolis, IN

#4 Apr 13, 2007
Bob, Bob, Bob,
Take away their ability to earn a living? These guys make more in one year than I make in five. They can afford a suspension or two.
Reputation? The public doesn't remember and everybody in the NFL gets two, three and four chances. I'm one and done in my profession.
Money lost? See above.
Finally, if a mistake is made, I'm sure due process can more than replenish any money and reputation lost.
Your job is reporting sports, not their personal lives.
Joe

United States

#5 Apr 13, 2007
It is high time that high profile players that consistently break the rules that all of us have to follow, pay a price for their indiscretions.
I believe we should wait and see how this works out or if the approach is used in a abusive way.
If it is, then complain. For not just wait and see how it works.
Richard Simpson

United States

#6 Apr 13, 2007
Bob,
It seems to me that these suspended players are repeat offenders, ones that REPEATEDLY step across the line of good behavior. I can see you point if it were a first timer, but lets face it, good guys these aren't.

Second, supporting a family? If you HONESTLY think that these guys are living paycheck-to-paycheck like most of us real people, you need your psych meds checked. They make more in a week than I made the last five years. And ***I*** can (somewhat) support my family.

I would be interested to see how this is going to play out with first time offenders. Before shooting the call of foul play, let's give the guy a chance to play his hand.
GARY ATKINSON

Bloomington, IN

#7 Apr 13, 2007
When I am home for lunch I sometimes watch Court TV. I can tell you this; if your wife is murdered and the Prosecutor can prove you have been having an affair; you are going up the river.They do not have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Drag Queens are safe so I think you will be O.K..
Eddie

United States

#8 Apr 13, 2007
Bob, have you ever taken into account the other 99.9% of those players who don't drink and drive, beat their wives, shoot up strip clubs, or worse?

Almost every player in the offseason meetings (Including Jeff Saturday) said, you can't be at the wrong place at the wrong time that many times.

You have been known to take your cynicism a little too far, but this is absolutely ridiculous. The most recent punishments were because of MULTIPLE infractions, very serious infractions, by the way. If all you're worried about is some wife beater losing a game check or two because they only did it once, without "due process", your priorities are obviously in the wrong place. Any normal person on the street would not only lose their job, but have little to no chance of fighting a conviction... Heck, maybe Ms. Pac Man and Chris Henry could use all that extra time off to prepare for their trials, instead of showboating on the field every Sunday.
John

Orange Park, FL

#9 Apr 13, 2007
Why all this hostility toward Bob? I can tell you this, I am a Purdue graduate and I quite often disagree with what he says in his columns. I disliked him in college because of his pro-IU bias. However, I have since moved to Dallas. I now visit indystar.com every day for the sole purpose of reading his column. Just because you disagree with a person from time to time does not mean that you can't respect the man's opinion. If you took the time to read his entire column, you would see that he acknowledged that he took a strong stance against Jackson and Tinsley, but that he never thought they should be suspended by the league. It has something to do with being innocent until proven guilty. You'd think the NFL might have learned something from the Duke Lacrosse tragedy.
Aim High

Palo Alto, CA

#10 Apr 13, 2007
Kravitz is so full of crap.

Take a stand... and stick with it. You're about as convicted to your beliefs as Bart Peterson and John Kerry. "I was for the suspension before I was against it."
Brian

Fair Oaks, IN

#11 Apr 13, 2007
It is not like Jones and Henry haven't had opportunities to clean up nor does the juducial system move a breakneck speed. Even the fines levied are chump change to the sports superstars. What else is there to detour such behavior. This is an intervention not a supension. The NFL is saying we're not going to continue feeding your disruptive habit. Shape up or fall back on that education you pursued.
Nick

Indianapolis, IN

#12 Apr 13, 2007
I don't think there is anything wrong with worrying about the future of this. Kravit's is right by saying Pacman and Henry are easy targets and despite whatever you think this can turn ugly quick. You might say that Goodell's suspensions were fair but he still is a dictator even if a beneveloent one.
The pay check to pay check thing is still appropriate by the way. I don't think Kravitz was talking about T.O. or somebody who makes multi-millions. There are a lot more guys in the league who say if you suspend for a year will be in serious financial jeapordy.
The one thing that I did find wrong with Kravitz's whole argument was that the suspensions were handed down with the old NFL conduct policy. It's not like Goodell just came in and took this power. It was there before but Taglibue just didn't use it this way.
nan phillips

White House, TN

#13 Apr 13, 2007
Systems are hard on people! People can call and say something happened, even if it didn't, and a person is placed in jail. Regular people loose their jobs because of it. It seems pro athletes just keep on ticking. I wonder why charges are droped for these offenses more often than not? Could it be they have so much money they can pay off the people charging them? The bottom line is I stay out of trouble so I don't loose my job. These people continue to do things because they get out of it. There is a fine line, where some people file charges to get their names in the paper with the pros. So they do need to be even more careful than most, but it doesn't seem to get through to them. What happens in the cases they are wronged and falsely accused? Is this just something that goes a long with being pros? Is there a rule for this in the get tough rules being handed down? I surely hope all this stuff was thought of before handing out punishment!
injury

United States

#14 Apr 13, 2007
"While Adam "Pacman'' Jones and Chris Henry were repeat offenders and easy targets, I wonder: What about guys who are charged with crimes for a first time? Do they get the legal benefit of the doubt, or does Goodell take away their ability to make a living and support their families?" WOW BOB, did they not go to college for an education for a proper job in the real world?i feel sorry for no one who looks a gift horse in the mouth.
moron sports anal yst

Indianapolis, IN

#15 Apr 13, 2007
It's too bad that the leadership at the Star doesn't exercise some of the same practices. If they would we wouldn't have to suffer Karvitz's crap on a daily basis. Besides being immensely unpopular his lack of grass root understanding of this markets sports fan is crimminal.
Indy guy

Fort Huachuca, AZ

#16 Apr 13, 2007
John wrote:
Why all this hostility toward Bob? I can tell you this, I am a Purdue graduate and I quite often disagree with what he says in his columns. I disliked him in college because of his pro-IU bias. However, I have since moved to Dallas. I now visit indystar.com every day for the sole purpose of reading his column. Just because you disagree with a person from time to time does not mean that you can't respect the man's opinion. If you took the time to read his entire column, you would see that he acknowledged that he took a strong stance against Jackson and Tinsley, but that he never thought they should be suspended by the league. It has something to do with being innocent until proven guilty. You'd think the NFL might have learned something from the Duke Lacrosse tragedy.
Well put. A lot of bashers on here. You don't have to agree with everything that is in the paper....we all have different opinions. I disagree with much of what Kravitz says on a regular basis, but his articles are still entertaining and informative. Get over yourselves.
Joe

Indianapolis, IN

#17 Apr 13, 2007
Private employers do not have to abide by any due process standards to protect there product!! Get in trouble a few times at the Star and find out for yourself!
LET THE PEOPLE VOTE ON IT

Indianapolis, IN

#18 Apr 13, 2007
Here's a real take on the issue-

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers...
Wabash Valley Dave

League City, TX

#19 Apr 13, 2007
I find your Stephen Jackson analogy a real joke. You don't want those players involved disciplined until after due process but think the team that has them (Pacers) should get rid of them. I guess it is OK if they are the Bulls or Hornets problem but not the Pacers. It is still a league problem that won't go away as long as they are around. I would really like for you to explain your logic in the next column. Maybe we in the Wabash Valley aren't smart enough to understand your column.
Cato

Cleveland, OH

#21 Apr 13, 2007
John wrote:
You'd think the NFL might have learned something from the Duke Lacrosse tragedy.
Learned what, not to put a crooked prosecutor on the case? It was obvious from about the first week on that those Duke kids were getting railroaded.

Goodell is right: just because a person isn't convicted doesn't mean they aren't guilty. The League simply chooses to operate outside the standards set by the criminal justice system. If the players don't like it, don't work in the NFL. That simple.

“Mike Tyson ate my children.”

Since: Jan 07

Camby, IN

#23 Apr 13, 2007
Why did Kravitz get a freaking roast? They should've just caned'em and sent him to write for Souix Falls sports page...that's about his caliber.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Marquis Daniels Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News NBA says replay shows foul was called incorrect... (May '12) May '12 Boo Freakin Hoo Hoo 1
News Leominster youngster is a Celtics superfan - Se... (Jun '10) Sep '10 nikeairmax 6
News Celtics re-sign backup Marquis Daniels - Sentin... (Jul '10) Jul '10 Norm McKinnon 1
News Celtics beaten by New Jersey Nets (Mar '10) May '10 jonathan51793 6
News Nets surprise Celtics 104-96 (Mar '10) Mar '10 Cammy 1
News Celtics' Pierce likely out today against Cavs -... (Feb '10) Feb '10 orin 2
News Pacers agree to community service (Mar '08) Nov '09 Truth123 237
More from around the web