We might be completely alone on this one, but we think that Adam “Pacman” Jones got a raw deal today.
When it was announced Tuesday that he would be suspended for the entirety of the 2007 NFL season, it raised our eyebrows. When it was announced that Chris Henry would be suspended for eight games next year, we were utterly shocked.
Henry and Jones, who incidentally both went to West Virginia (Goooooo Mountaineers!), have
been thorns in the proverbial side of the NFL for the past two seasons. In that time period Henry has been arrested, pulled over, or investigated as many as four times, on charges varying from DUI, to providing alcohol to minors, to driving without insurance, to aggravated assault with a firearm. Also, and more importantly, he has been convicted or plead guilty to three of those charges. Jones, for all of the times he has been alleged to have committed this, or been questioned in relation to that, has not been convicted of a single crime since entering the NFL. As guilty as everyone (ourselves included) think that Jones is of at least some of what he has been accused of, he must be given the benefit of the legal system.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is setting a dangerous precedent by suspending a player without pay for an entire year without a conviction or a guilty plea. Isn’t this just going to invite false accusations of NFL players? If a player does not need to be proven to be guilty of a crime before he is penalized, where do you draw the line? Do you only need an accusation in order to be suspended? The Bengals are the team that has show to have a culture of lawlessness. If you were going to "make an example" of someone, wouldn't you want to choose the Bengal?
And above all, isn’t it a little inconsistent to suspend a player found guilty three times for half a year and at the same time suspend a player found guilty zero times for a whole season?
When it was announced Tuesday that he would be suspended for the entirety of the 2007 NFL season, it raised our eyebrows. When it was announced that Chris Henry would be suspended for eight games next year, we were utterly shocked.
Henry and Jones, who incidentally both went to West Virginia (Goooooo Mountaineers!), have
been thorns in the proverbial side of the NFL for the past two seasons. In that time period Henry has been arrested, pulled over, or investigated as many as four times, on charges varying from DUI, to providing alcohol to minors, to driving without insurance, to aggravated assault with a firearm. Also, and more importantly, he has been convicted or plead guilty to three of those charges. Jones, for all of the times he has been alleged to have committed this, or been questioned in relation to that, has not been convicted of a single crime since entering the NFL. As guilty as everyone (ourselves included) think that Jones is of at least some of what he has been accused of, he must be given the benefit of the legal system.NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is setting a dangerous precedent by suspending a player without pay for an entire year without a conviction or a guilty plea. Isn’t this just going to invite false accusations of NFL players? If a player does not need to be proven to be guilty of a crime before he is penalized, where do you draw the line? Do you only need an accusation in order to be suspended? The Bengals are the team that has show to have a culture of lawlessness. If you were going to "make an example" of someone, wouldn't you want to choose the Bengal?
And above all, isn’t it a little inconsistent to suspend a player found guilty three times for half a year and at the same time suspend a player found guilty zero times for a whole season?
1 comment:
agreed.
but if chris henry provided me with booze when i was a minor, i would have been majorly delighted.
Post a Comment