Goodell Begging Congress to Clean Up His Mess

by Gonzo on Nov 3, 2009 7:10 PM CST in Vikings Comment 15 comments

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has spent a good amount of time in Washington, D.C. over the past couple of days, and I can't say that he appears to have enjoyed himself too much. He got ripped by Congress for the disgusting way the league treats its former players, and now, according to Pro Football Talk, he's asking the nation's legislative body to close a loophole that he and everyone else in the league offices didn't quite bother to catch until it came back to bite them.

And, as he has since the beginning, Goodell continues to lie his ass off about the circumstances surrounding the StarCaps case:

As the league would have Congress -- and anyone else who cares -- believe it, the NFLPA betrayed the league by assisting the efforts of the members who faced suspension based on the consumption of StarCaps, an over-the-counter supplement that had been secretly spiked with a banned substance. But the evidence in this case supports a finding that the league knew that StarCaps had been spiked with a prescription drug, that the league knew players had been taken StarCaps, and that the league issued no specific warning to the players that taking StarCaps could be hazardous to their careers -- and more importantly to their health.

See, this is what anybody with a clue has been saying all along. The question in this case, in my opinion, has always been "What did the NFL know, and when did they know it?" And damn near all of the evidence in this case suggests that the league knew that StarCaps contained the substance bumetanide way, WAY in advance of the positive tests of Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, Charles Grant and Will Smith of the New Orleans Saints, and Grady Jackson of the Detroit Lions.

Quite frankly, Goodell's pathetic begging in front of Congress to get this rule changed as a result of these events taking place tells me one simple thing.

He's conceding a loss.

I think he's under the impression that there's no way that he wins this case against the Williams Wall, and is now trying to get the rule changed so that he and the liars in the NFL front office don't have to potentially face such a problem again in the future.

Sorry, Roger. . .maybe you and yours should have been more honest in the first place rather than fooling around with the lives of your players in a pathetic attempt to yell "GOTCHA" at some of the guys that line your pockets.

As I always say. . .get up, get get, get down. . .Roger Goodell is a joke in your town.

0 recs | Comment 15 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Here's the thing that gets me

It’s that the NFL knew there was a banned substance in StarCaps. They knew that bumentide wasn’t listed as an ingredient, and they knew that NFL players were taking StarCaps. By accounts, Williams and Williams checked with the league and weren’t told that taking StarCaps could result in a suspension.

And now Goodell is pissed that the union is doing their job in defending their clients, and he wants the law changed ex post facto. So even if he gets the law changed, you still can’t be prosecuted (or punished) after the fact.

If Goodell had said:

‘yeah we (the league) screwed up. One time freebie for WIlliamsx2, Grant, Smith, and McAllister. Anyone that has taken StarCaps within the last 30 days has 48 hours to report it to the league office. StarCaps is illegal immediately.’

This would have blown over long ago, and he probably could have pursued this loophole closure with Congress with the blessing of the union. Now, he’s pissed off the union just in time to re-negotiate a very difficult CBA, and he looks like an idiot.

Stunningly dumb on Goodell’s part.

"We're used to Favre-a-palooza now. We're engulfed in Favre-a-palooza. It's not even Favre-a-palooza anymore. He's family now."

--Vikings TE Visanthe Shiancoe, on Brett Favre

by MilCardFan on Nov 3, 2009 7:25 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I officially hate Nebraska

I was born and raised in Minnesota. I currently am attending college in South Dakota. I have heard negative about Nebraska while here, and I just laugh it off as another state rivalry. No more. I cannot like a state that elects a man like Lee Terry.

Now before I go too much further, I am very serious about the Vikings. Also, I realize I am saying this in a Vikings blog. One of my high school teachers is a representative in the Minnesota Legislature and I have told him straight out, "If the Vikings move because they couldn’t get a stadium, I will vote against anyone who was in office at the time who didn’t support it regardless of their other political affiliations.

So, Lee Terry, R-NE, per the Star Tribune
This is in regards to the Minnesota law allowing the Williams to get around the suspension.

""Maybe Minneapolis without the Vikings is the appropriate remedy," said Nebraska Republican Lee Terry."

I just can’t support any group of people who would vote for someone who wants to take the Vikings out of Minnesota.

by DarkWalker25 on Nov 3, 2009 11:46 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

+10

And what’s it to him anyway?! It’s not like there’s a chance in hell of the Vikings ever going to Nebraska!

Ah, ah,
We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!
SKOL!

by DCPurple on Nov 4, 2009 9:14 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Lee Terry is an idiot.

This guy, who was elected to serve the citizens, decides to put in his 2 cents by making a dumb-assed comment based on his own interpretations of the case. Lee Terry should be feeling like a moron after seeing his words in print…but I’ll bet he’s not.

"Skol pa fiskande"

by NobleSavage on Nov 4, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Politically Correct Goodell

During his testimony to Congress, he was directly asked about Rush Limbaugh’s forceable out of the team formed to purchase the St Louis Rams on the basis that the NFL and a number of vocal black players didn’t like Limbaugh due to a comment made regarding Donovan McNabb some years ago. Goodell’s response was that the rejection of Limbaugh was justified because the NFL promotes unity, implying that Limbaugh was unacceptable for having a contrarian view point.

Despite having no issues whatsoever with the ownership consortium of the Miami Dolphins, where there are celebrities who make their living denigrating black women and using racially inflammatory language in their songs, Goodell considers such things to be suitable to the NFL’s theme of ‘unity’, while speaking out on a conservative theme for a living fails to meet that criteria and is suitable grounds to deny economic opportunity.

While I certainly question the wisdom in wanting to spend money on a team like the St. Louis Rams, Roger Goodell made it clear that the NFL will not tolerate outspoken political views that it disagrees with, in the ranks of it’s ownership. Rather than promoting unity, the NFL has taken a very partisan stance that reveals an inherent divisiveness. Despite trying to positioning itself as ‘Americas Game’, this policy is the very antithesis of being American.

I can only hope that one day Mr. Goodell discovers what it’s like, on a personal level, to be denied something based on having an opinion that someone else disapproves of.

by DCPurple on Nov 4, 2009 8:33 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Right on.

Great comment.

If only there were a way to remove politics from football.

by peterplaysbass on Nov 4, 2009 9:19 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Totally!

I listen to Limbaugh on occasion, sometimes I agree with him and sometimes I don’t, but one that he’s always been consistent on his is absolute love of the game of football, and of the NFL. He’ll go off on football tangents for an hour at a time, trying to understand and analyze and trying to explain why he thinks one team will win a game or why some player is truly great. Even now, despite what happened to him, he still loves football and the NFL, separating the jerks from the sport itself. That’s a real fan, and to me, that’s what the NFL should be cultivating, rather than getting involved in taking political positions.

I was really happy to read the recent experiences at Lambeau (and yes, am totally jealous both of the trips, AND the stadium; the Packers have the definitive NFL stadium :) ), and seeing how most of the fans even in the heat of our rivalry are able to get along because of a shared love of the game. Politics is divisive and depressing enough as it is, we don’t need it involved in our fun as well.

by DCPurple on Nov 4, 2009 9:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and you know, I can kinda see his point

about McNabb. It’s been blown up since, but look at the context:

Black players were enjoying success and majority in the sport at the time (and still are) and some people were pointing out that the so-called intellectual positions (quarterback among them) were still being filled mostly by whites. If that’s the case, then I can see some trying to trump up the best black QB as a face for the movement that players of all color are capable of succeeding at football both mentall AND physically. Rush showed a critical eye for McNabb because of this, and I don’t think there’s anything all that wrong with that.

That said, Rush’s comments fall flat on other levels as there have been outstanding black players at all positions past and present (and as has been more recently recognized, in coaching).

Regardless of whether we agree with him in general or with the McNabb comments specifically, he’s passionate about football and wouldn’t have been without controversial peers in the ownership group of the league.

by peterplaysbass on Nov 4, 2009 12:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno

I can’t help but speculate that the decision was solely economic — the owners want other owners who increase the size of their wallets, not decrease the size of them. If a prospective owner is so controversial in a way that it could HURT revenues, he or she gets nixed.

That is the law of the private sector. It’s not politics. But that’s only my guess, I concede. An educated guess though…..

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Nov 4, 2009 12:22 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Economics and Controversy

Hrmmmn… let’s see… that Limbaugh represents a view specifically held by at least 40% of Americans, twice the percentage of those espousing the other view, makes him more mainstream than some of the very Liberal part-owners in the NFL. It’s difficult to see how someone who is that mainstream can hurt the organization through being ‘controversial’.

If there’s any evidence that Limbaugh being a part-owner in a consortium owning an NFL team would generate controversy that would result in profit loss, I would be most interested in hearing it. Until such evidence exists, I would hope that education would lead to more likely conclusion.

by DCPurple on Nov 5, 2009 8:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You think Jerry Jones is any less conservative politically than Rush?

If Rush’s views represented the views of 40% of America, Obama would not be president right now.

I’d say Rush’s pill-popping past, his penchant for putting his foot in his mouth with very off-colour remarks in very public settings, his delight in alienating large segments of the ticket-buying market, are more “ilkely” causes than any agreement or disagreement with his political perspective. Limbaugh came close to the booth on MNF, even gopt a first date, but didn[’t get the callback. Dennis Miller tried to stay apolitical, but failed and got canned.

Political controversy and mass-market appeal do not mix. That’s my take. I may be wrong.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Nov 5, 2009 10:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Goodell tried to do the Selig Thing...

and make “examples” of the Williamses and other players. The NFL doesn’t really care if players use steriods for ethical reasons, only for public relations reasons. They let players use steriods for years and THEN when it became known to the rest of the world that steriods are harmful and unfair, they decided to start testing and banning them. Same applies to the StarCaps, they knew players were taking it, they knew what was in it, and decided they would make an example of these players so they could spin a media story about how they continue to crack down on steriod use. Only this story blew up in his face. Goodell is a POS who once had a good reputation in the public light, and this story shows how he shot himself in the foot.

by cdubs on Nov 4, 2009 10:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

This is not accurate

We have covered this extensively in prior posts, but y’all need to read the facts as they are laid out in the 8th Circuit opinion affirming the federal trial court’s decision that federal labor law did not pre-empt the Williamses’ state law claims. Your assertions about what the NFL did are just wrong. You may believe them to be true, but they are not consistent with the all the actual events that actually occurred here.

The TRUTH is that the first time this happened — ie, a player tested positive for butemanide and it was traced back to StarCaps by the league, the league official responsible for making such decisions decided NOT to discipline the player who tested positive. His superiors, when they learned of that outcome, properly instructed the official that such “discretion” was not permitted under the CBA rules agreed to by the Union and the league and that in the future suspensions would HAVE to be imposed. PR was nowhere in the calculus. It was clearly an obviously a legal issue.

The more troubling issue is why the NFL was not more forthcoming about what they had determined about StarCaps after that event. The NFL DID — they DID — inform the players that the StarCaps distributor was on the black list for endorsements and any other business relationships with the players. The players should have known that StarCaps was a suspect product for that reason. Moreover, the UNION told their players that they were barred from taking StarCaps. But the Williamses took StarCaps any way, knowing all this AND knowing that the NFL: had REPEATEDLY warned them NOT to take supplements precisely because they would be suspended if the supplmements ended up containing a banned substance without their knowledge — a rule agreed to by each player’s union rep.

There is room to criticize the NFL for not being even more explicit — for not publicly disclosing that it had determined that StarCaps contained a banned substance. I have seen references to evidence that the NFL did not do this for legal reasons — either for fear of problems with StarCaps if they did so or for fear of setting a precedent that players might believe they were free to take any supplements with no risk unless the NFL had clearly listed the supplement as a banned product, or both. But there is NO evidence that I am aware of that the NFL refrained from doing more about informing its players about StarCaps for PR purposes.

There may be good reasons to criticize the decision made by the league not to publicly disclose what it had determined from testing StarCaps. I am inclined to agree with such criticism. But I see no merit at al in the assertion that the decision was made solely for PR reasons. It just makes no sense. More likely is that the NFL put legal risks above player safety or the players’ best interests.

TiggerSr

by TiggerSr on Nov 4, 2009 12:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You have no proof that it's NOT for PR reasons

My reason being the PR is my opinion, and it is speculation, but you have no solid evidence discrediting it. And you probably can’t gather that evidence ever, as we’ll never know true intentions of why someone does something, but there’s multiple reasons why someone could do something, whether they correctly “line up” with events that have occurred isn’t always 100% relevant.

by cdubs on Nov 4, 2009 1:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs