The Dv8or
I post because you're unable to Google
Premium
join:2001-08-09
Danbury, CT
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to ariesguy
Re: Bears' Benson Dazzles Again...
The problem is that if you try and permanently suspend these people, they have a good argument for a monster lawsuit, not to mention a grievance from the union. Someone is always going to sign these guys.
--
You're so vain... I bet you think this post is about you. |
|
ariesguy
join:2001-01-30
 ·Cox HSI
| said by The Dv8or  :The problem is that if you try and permanently suspend these people, they have a good argument for a monster lawsuit, not to mention a grievance from the union. Someone is always going to sign these guys. What would the argument be? Most work places will fire you if you test positive for illegal drugs. The NFL/NBA/MLB could be no different if they wanted to.. They just don't want to do it. They allow their employees to do the things they do and then they wonder why these things keep happening. |
|
GTaylor
Premium
join:2002-12-14
Frisco, TX
clubs:
| reply to The Dv8or
said by The Dv8or :The problem is that if you try and permanently suspend these people, they have a good argument for a monster lawsuit, not to mention a grievance from the union. Someone is always going to sign these guys. Can't see that happening in football, at least not now. Players union is too weak. |
|
The Dv8or
I post because you're unable to Google
Premium
join:2001-08-09
Danbury, CT
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to ariesguy
The argument is that these people are under contract at the time, and if you permanently suspend them without coming up with a wicked good reason, they can argue breach of contract.
If they dont have a contract and no team signs them, they could sue for collusion. To legitimately have a way for all teams not to sign a player that demonstrates athletic capability over something like drug use or other indiscretion would require collective bargaining.
--
You're so vain... I bet you think this post is about you. |
|
ariesguy
join:2001-01-30
·Cox HSI
| said by The Dv8or :The argument is that these people are under contract at the time, and if you permanently suspend them without coming up with a wicked good reason, they can argue breach of contract. If they dont have a contract and no team signs them, they could sue for collusion. To legitimately have a way for all teams not to sign a player that demonstrates athletic capability over something like drug use or other indiscretion would require collective bargaining. Obviously, if there's a contract that's a whole other matter.. but remember in this case, NFL contracts are not guaranteed. Players get cut all the time.
Collusion? I think that's a big stretch. If the NFL (the parent company) says someone is banned/suspended, there is no collusion. All teams fall under their rule.
Just because a player can play well, doesn't mean anyone has to employ him.
The unions. If the leagues pushed a tougher player conduct policy, I don't think the unions could publicly support their players breaking all these laws with no/little penalty. |
|
