Thread: Pacman Jones’ appeal says suspension in unprecedented

"so-cal" wrote:

"canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:

As much as I agree that he's a joke, I think Jones has a point. I don't understand how Goodell can suspend him for a year based on accusations - he hasn't stood trial yet, so he hasn't had a chance to defend himself.

In this situation, I'd agree that it sure looks like he's guilty, but I think the NFL seriously needs to look at its guilty until proven innocent policy.

Why not just wait until after the trial, then suspend him for the year. That way you cover your bases.

Which trial?
There are so many.

Goodell is absolutely using Jones as an example.
He has been warned numerous times by nearly every authority in his life to stay out of trouble.
He just wouldn't get the message.
Since warnings weren't enough, Goodell decided to make his case the examlpe of what can warrant a year suspension.

As for their citing examples of previous player infractions and subsequent penalties, put simply, that was a different administration.

And I don't have a problem with any of that. If you want to make an example out of him and give him a life-long suspension, I wouldn't really mind.

Just give him the chance to defend himself first. Nobody's heard his side of the story, so why are we assuming he's guilty until he proves himself innocent?

"singersp" wrote:

Who here will admit they would have loved the Vikings to draft Pacman in the 2005 draft?

well i wanted mike williams when he was still there

"singersp" wrote:

Who here will admit they would have loved the Vikings to draft Pacman in the 2005 draft?

I don't know if I would have been unhappy back then had we taken him. But I remember that I wanted us to take Derrick Johnson.

With the money these guys make, they represent the NFL their team and as in any profession, this stuff won't be tolerated. He's a good player, but has a penchant for being at the wrong place all the time. If he can show anyone with the two year run of trouble like he's been in to Goodell, then maybe he should have a lesser penalty. I don't believe he can show proof of this. He is disrespecting the game and does NOT deserve to play. It seems rather, that he has alot of growing up to do. I think this is a wake-up call, and maybe his punk-butt will finally see that he'd better shape up. Right now his life skills wouldn't get him a job changing oil.

"canadian_vikes_fan" wrote:

Just give him the chance to defend himself first. Nobody's heard his side of the story, so why are we assuming he's guilty until he proves himself innocent?

He's already had a hearing with Goodell and now will have an appeal.
Sounds like he's getting his chance to defend himself.

The NFL is not the law.
There is no concept of "innocent until proven guilty" in terms of the personal conduct policy which was violated.
It is bad enough - in terms of that policy - that he was involved in questionable situations which put the league in a bad light.

=Z=

I hate to have to say this, but I was a Mike Williams guy and would have preferred if the Vikes had taken him at the time.


And this year I was a Jarret fan and would have taken him over Rice, but I like the pick of Rice and I am happy the Vikes have him.