NFL tells NFLPA have players interview or else

I too think they'll be cleared and don't believe it's a witch hunt. All I'm implying is that there must be a set of guidelines that Goodell/NFL (hopefully with agreement from NFLPA) must use consistently in responding to these accusations; specifically "if to investigate", "when to investigate", "how to investigate", and "how to hold accuser accountable".

If subjective and/or no guidelines, then Goodell/NFL deserve the criticism they get! If it's perceived they'll react to every accusation with interviews, press conferences, threats of suspension, etc. think of the circus this will be to the team and fans whose players are being accused (God forbid during, let's say, a Super Bowl run.) Pretty convenient way for an accuser to distract and an awesome way for sports center (think Spinzone or TMZ) to pick up ratings on just a tweeted rumor!

Will it be addressed in next CBA? Yes. Will it change? Doubtful. NFLPA will have to give away too many chips to take the power away. Bigger fish to fry

It's the leagues job to investigate any rumor or accusation just like any other company would do. And if it's a story espn or any other media outlet show over it. It's their responsibility.
 
Will it be addressed in next CBA? Yes. Will it change? Doubtful. NFLPA will have to give away too many chips to take the power away. Bigger fish to fry
Hence the word "hopefully". :)
It's the leagues job to investigate any rumor or accusation just like any other company would do. And if it's a story espn or any other media outlet show over it. It's their responsibility.
Bull. If someone comes to my office and says my employee Joe Schmoe is stealing copper from job sites and I know Joe as a good employee, I'm going to ask for evidence. If he has none, the accuser's getting admonished as I boot him out of my office. Likewise, if I'm a good employee and my employer asks me to defend myself based on someone's accusation with no evidence, you've just created a disgruntled employee. I understand that there are situations that must be investigated; hence again why I stated there needs to be consistent and objective policy on if, when and how. And, no, media outlets do not have a responsibility to report "any rumor or accusation".
 
Hence the word "hopefully". :)

Bull. If someone comes to my office and says my employee Joe Schmoe is stealing copper from job sites and I know Joe as a good employee, I'm going to ask for evidence. If he has none, the accuser's getting admonished as I boot him out of my office. Likewise, if I'm a good employee and my employer asks me to defend myself based on someone's accusation with no evidence, you've just created a disgruntled employee. I understand that there are situations that must be investigated; hence again why I stated there needs to be consistent and objective policy on if, when and how. And, no, media outlets do not have a responsibility to report "any rumor or accusation".
I have seen first hand many people pulled into HR based on an employee complaint. I was part of an "investigation" where one of my staff members accuse another of racial bias. And let's be clear in this case we don't know what evidence they have or don't have.

As to news organizations. It's their job to report news. Look at political coverage. News organizations get tips all the time.
 
Hence the word "hopefully". :)

Bull. If someone comes to my office and says my employee Joe Schmoe is stealing copper from job sites and I know Joe as a good employee, I'm going to ask for evidence. If he has none, the accuser's getting admonished as I boot him out of my office. Likewise, if I'm a good employee and my employer asks me to defend myself based on someone's accusation with no evidence, you've just created a disgruntled employee. I understand that there are situations that must be investigated; hence again why I stated there needs to be consistent and objective policy on if, when and how. And, no, media outlets do not have a responsibility to report "any rumor or accusation".

And hypothetical.... If I went to your office and filed a complaint and you kicked me out due to no evidence, my next stop would be human resources. It's the corporate world.
 
I have seen first hand many people pulled into HR based on an employee complaint. I was part of an "investigation" where one of my staff members accuse another of racial bias. And let's be clear in this case we don't know what evidence they have or don't have.

As to news organizations. It's their job to report news. Look at political coverage. News organizations get tips all the time.
Yes, you must investigate complaints of racial discrimination whether you have evidence or not. So you better have policy with how to deal with it! Believe me, I've had to deal with it. The last case I had investigated per policy it was determined that there was no race discrimination. I quickly and quietly removed the accuser.

As to news organizations, it's time they return to "fair and unbiased". But let's not get into that here! :P
 
  • Like
Reactions: TW
And hypothetical.... If I went to your office and filed a complaint and you kicked me out due to no evidence, my next stop would be human resources. It's the corporate world.
And good on you. And I would take on HR to protect my good employees. And there better be good justification for an accusation without evidence.

Edit: I'm not trying to be disagreeable... My point is, there must be evidence or some justification for an accusation or the accuser should be held accountable. And again, there must be procedure on if/when/how to conduct investigations.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you must investigate complaints of racial discrimination whether you have evidence or not. So you better have policy with how to deal with it! Believe me, I've had to deal with it. The last case I had investigated per policy it was determined that there was no race discrimination. I quickly and quietly removed the accuser.

As to news organizations, it's time they return to "fair and unbiased". But let's not get into that here! :p

In broad terms, isn't that what the CBA is for the NFL? The policy for darned near anything is whatever the commish says it is.
 
In broad terms, isn't that what the CBA is for the NFL? The policy for darned near anything is whatever the commish says it is.
Yes. Until investigations and punishment guidelines are made and communicated, the commish, having seemingly unilateral authority, will not be a popular man.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Until investigations and punishment guidelines are made and communicated, the commish, having seemingly unilateral authority, will not be a popular man.

It's players own faults for giving him the power. Even Rodgers says players have no one to blame but themselves.

Also IMO will be foolish for players to fight to get it back as they will have to give something up to get it. Why give up something to protect players getting in trouble when most of the league the players follow the rules.
 
It's players own faults for giving him the power. Even Rodgers says players have no one to blame but themselves.

Also IMO will be foolish for players to fight to get it back as they will have to give something up to get it. Why give up something to protect players getting in trouble when most of the league the players follow the rules.
The perception is that Matthews, Peppers et al are players being accused and investigated of doping in order to mete out punishment. That's behind Rodgers "judge, jury and executioner" comment that Rodgers blames the players (NFLPA) for not preventing by signing the current CBA. I've had little CBA experience so I'm not arguing who's to blame with the current CBA or why Goodell has the power he has - but rather arguing that, as a good steward and leader of an organization, undefined authority and accountability is bad and unfair business practice and must be changed.

Most employers (hopefully with, sometimes without an agreement with employees) have documented and communicated policies for misbehavior that the company determines fair and reasonable. As a fair employer you must be clear with expectations, responsibilities, authorities, and accountability. And as an employee, you must be clear about what's expected of you, your responsibilities and authorities, and how you will be held accountable for breaking rules. The employee or union may not agree, but at least it is clear how specific situations will be handled and the ramifications for breaking such established rules. More importantly it prevents holding or preventing investigations at the whim of the employer, closed door investigations, inconsistent punishment without findings revealed, punishment based on popularity or status, etc. Good leadership, good business, common fairness and decency requires this!

I'm not siding with either the NFL or the NFLPA here. I'm saying it appears Goodell/the NFL is being stupid in this case. As far as I read, Al Jazeera presented nothing to substantiate their reporting. Goodell/the NFL should have left it go unless or until the source provided some evidence. It appears to be unilateral decision-making without policy.

Harrison also had a good comment. He said you don’t mess with someone’s livelihood on unsubstantiated rumor. This situation sets bad precedent.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top