Tank Has A Legal Leg To Stand On

by WCG on May 16, 2007 10:40 AM CDT in News Comment 5 comments

While I hope Tank just takes what he is given and deals with it, a sports agent and criminal lawyer has pointed out that Tank Johnson would have a strong case to appeal any suspensions.

The case would be based on the fact that Tank's charges occurred prior to the commissioner's new no tolerance policy and they cannot be retroactively applied.

In theory, Johnson might have a legitimate legal challenge to present against the league and seek to recoup a portion of the stack of $30,000 paychecks he will forfeit for each game he misses in 2007. He could argue that Goodell's new, no-tolerance policy punishes him retroactively when he should have been subject to the old rules.

As noted sports agent and criminal lawyer Steve Zucker pointed out, in the real world if Johnson had been arrested for a crime in December and Illinois laws stiffened Jan. 1, his penalties would have been bound by the previous state statute. In other words, Goodell is tougher on crime than your local judge.

"It's not fair," Zucker said. "Laws do not apply retroactively and they should not be allowed to be applied that way in the NFL. But at least [Johnson] has a good lawyer [Lorna Propes] and is in good hands."

It may not matter. Even the shrewdest of lawyers would run into the reality that Goodell is only exercising the authority the NFL Players Association granted him under the latest collective-bargaining agreement. The union and a six-player NFL Advisory Committee signed off on it in part to stem the tide of bad publicity.

Tank is already in enough of a PR mess, that going head-to-head with the man who is trying to clean up the sport just doesn't make sense. Granted if a full year suspension comes down, he might not really have much of an option than to appeal.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't think that will fly....

....unless there's something in the CBA that specificallycovers that. Ex Post Facto isn't something that applies to the private sector, and if Goodell wants to punish an employee there are laws covering that and EPF isn't one of them.

I for one applaud Goodell's stance. About time.

by PopeFlick on May 16, 2007 11:47 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

As the article mentions

it is going to come down to how much power the Players Union gave to Goodell.

by WCG on May 16, 2007 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That article is BAD.....

This quote is simple erroneous:

"Any punishment beyond a four-game suspension Johnson would have received under the NFL's previous policy, still in place at the time of his last arrest in December, will illustrate just how much power the NFL players union has ceded to Goodell."

Now, there isn't a NEW policy in place. At all. Period. The 6 player panel is new, but to sign off on the commish's decisions. They're working under the same CBA from before, but in the wake of TO's Philly BS the 'conduct clause' was tweaked more in favor of the league. Goodell has been using that clause as the basis for the suspensions. It is being more strictly enforced, by any definition, but it has not been re-done during this time span and Tank's problems DO NOT bridge a change in the CBA like this article implies. That simply isn't the case from my understanding.

http://www.comcast.net/sports/nfl/index.jsp?cat=FOOTBALL&fn=/2007/04/06/630044.html

by PopeFlick on May 17, 2007 12:03 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ummm.

There, is a new policy:
http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/NewsAndEvents/PERSONAL_CONDUCT_POLICY.pdf

I guess you could say they just added some things to the "old" policy, but the Players Association endorsed the "changes" to the policy and the enforcement of stricter punishments.

by BadGuy on May 17, 2007 8:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks....

....I missed that and had a Palmeiro moment.

Unfortunately my link didn't go to the article I was talking about which I think was dated close to this PDF.

I still think that article is full of it though: you cannot compare public legal precedent to privtae enterprises like that article implies. It's full of irrelevant facts.

by PopeFlick on May 17, 2007 2:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs