Deathofthebambino said:
Soxfan, the owners are scheduled to meet October 7th-8th, and he is banned from participating in those meetings. In addition, he's banned from attending any meetings for any committees that he's a member of, and those meet throughout the season. Not to mention every single other league-affiliated event. I think that's a bigger deal than you make it sound.
If I'm not mistaken, the maximum 500k fine was a result of what happened during Spygate, and is the same amount that BB was fined for that. It's the fourth highest fine of anyone in NFL history, and reflects a tougher stance on DUI's than the NFL has taken in the past. In 2010, Detroit Lions President Tom Lewand only got a 30 day suspension and a 100k fine for a DUI.
I'm not sure why it matters that he could have killed someone. He didn't. And punishments under the law or under NFL policy shouldn't be based on what might have happened. First offense DUI's in this country are treated very differently than negligent vehicular homicide. They are two completely different crimes, and should be. I get the impression you think he should be punished as if he did kill someone and I can't go that far. Frankly, I'm surprised he got the punishment he did. In most cases, a first offense DUI is met with some probation, a couple of classes, the payment of court costs and the perpetrator's record is wiped clean after a period of time when they plead no contest. The one year loss of license is far, far more than most folks get for a first offense DUI. You write "Irsay has exhibited for years the erratic behavior some could associate with RX drug abuse." Explain that to me, because I don't buy it at all unless you know something about Irsay that I don't. As far as I know, this is a first offense, and the fact that he admitted to having issues with prescription drugs during his life is a good thing, and not something that should be retroactively punished, but I'd be curious to hear what "erratic behavior" you can pin on the drug usage. I think we'll probably have very different opinions on that front.
1. I should have checked the league calendar. Thanks for the correction. However, I highly doubt Irsay - though he cannot attend - will not have access to video of the proceedings, a team representative at the meetings and any league business or committees requiring his approval will take his "unavailability" into account. My point here is that it is not the same as a player suspension, like at all.
2. Addressed up thread but yes, it's the maximum the Commissioner can unilaterally decide. There's a mechanism in the NFL owners by-laws that allows for the owners, collectively, to issue a larger fine.
3a. I should have been more precise. "If" is a tiny word with big implications. If Irsay (or another owner) were to kill someone while drunk driving, it would not remind anyone of the Leonard Little affair. It would be a huge problem for the NFL and all 32 owners. Fiduciary responsibility and all that.
3b. I think he should be punished in the same way a player would be. Negligent vehicular manslaughter earns a year suspension (or did for Donte Stallworth), drunk driving earns a different penalty (Aldon Smith and Odell Thurman being two extreme examples) and possession of controlled substances another.
3c. Not a follower of Irsay's twitter feed? Suffice to say, it was not a surprise to find out he enjoys some recreational use of substances.
3d. (the bold) This is my point, DotB. Players ARE "punished retroactively" and much more harshly under the NFL's policy. I cannot fathom why Jim Irsay - a person much more responsible for the NFL, its image and its revenue generation than any player - is being treated with such sensitivity and consideration. Wes Welker probably would wonder the same thing.
The NFL "retroactively punishes" players all the time. One mistake - like the one Irsay committed - results in a lifetime subscription to "Piss Test Bingo" and the rules for how and when players must comply are onerous. Miss a test, for any reason, and you are suspended.
Again, the NFL did not impose the drug testing penalty. The Court did. The NFL is allowing Irsay to flaunt their own written rules for "personnel" by not enrolling him the in Program and not monitoring him going forward. THAT is a double-standard. That is proof Irsay is being treated differently. And if the response is "well, he is different, he's an owner" then my contention is that Irsay can do more harm to the NFL Shield than any player ever has or can IF he were to repeat his behavior.