"The conduct reflected in your guilty plea resulted in the tragic loss of life and was...

"The conduct reflected in your guilty plea resulted in the tragic loss of life and was inexcusable," Goodell wrote. "While the criminal justice system has determined the legal consequences of this incident, it is my responsibility as NFL commissioner to determine appropriate league discipline for your actions, which have caused irreparable harm to the victim and his family, your club, your fellow players and the NFL."

In the letter, excerpts of which were released by the NFL, Goodell said he will eventually contact Stallworth's representatives before determining the length of the suspension.

Donte Stallworth suspended indefinitely

4 months ago MaPatsFan 12 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Absolutely reasonable

I’m still not certain the NFL ought to be operating its own criminal justice system, but given that they’ve long since determined that that’s exactly what they’re going to do, they had to suspend a guy for killing another person, no matter how accidentally and no matter how responsibly he handled the aftermath.

by RSNexile on Jun 18, 2009 7:00 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think...

The NFL is treading on some troubled water with this. If some player really wanted to make a case out of it, I think it could cause just what the NFL does not want.. a look into their anti-trust exemption. To me, this is being punished twice for the same crime. Something like this could lead to a constitutional issue, and highlight the fact that the NFL is imposing penalties on its players above and beyond the legal system.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the sentence Stallworth got is not appropriate either. I don’t know all the details of the case, and no one outside of the family and the lawyers from both sides really know everything involved. At the same time, he should have had at least a few years in prison for involuntary manslaughter.

by Ogor on Jun 18, 2009 9:58 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

Agreed

and I don’t think it looks too good either, that Goodell acts as judge, jury and executioner in this matter.

We may all agree that Michael Vick, Donte Stallworth or Chris Henry deserve what they get, but I find it unsettling with all this power in the hands of one man, urged on by public opinion.

by hythlodaeus on Jun 19, 2009 6:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Goodell

History has shown too much power in the hands of one person is very rarely benefical. As effective (not perfect) as Goodell has been I believe he gets informal input from owners before making this kind of decision.
As I understand the owners can vote him out of the job.

by steelerstyle on Jun 19, 2009 7:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

Goodell is hired by the owners to handle matters of rules, discipline…

Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit

by MaPatsFan on Jun 19, 2009 7:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Constitutional issue

is not being tried for the same crime twice by governmental powers. The constitution says nothing about private affairs even when it is a publicly visible business.

by steelerstyle on Jun 19, 2009 7:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Would another employer have grounds for the same action?

If Stallworth worked for Fidelity Investments, Ernst & Young, Microsoft, or some law firm or ad agency… can he get fired or “let go” because of his conviction? I’m guessing that Goodell might have the same leeway any employer might have in this case.

Keep the faith!

by Marima on Jun 19, 2009 7:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I believe so

A criminal conviction has been grounds for disciplinary action at most of the companies I’ve worked at.

Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit

by MaPatsFan on Jun 19, 2009 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Goodell not employer

Just to complicate things a bit: Goodell is not the employer letting his employee off. The Cleveland Browns is the employer. They can take harsher action – like releasing him – but they decide to lift the suspension imposed by a commissioner also hired by 31 of their competitors.

Now, a NFL franchise would probably not take the league to the courts, but if they did, it could get ugly.

by hythlodaeus on Jun 19, 2009 8:27 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

correctio

…but they cannot decide …

by hythlodaeus on Jun 19, 2009 8:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Goodell doesn't pay him

But he does have authority over him given to him by the Browns. The Browns could of course still pay Stallworth but they’d be flaunting the League’s authority, and obviously they aren’t going to risk going against the league.

I don’t think they have any legal ground here to object, this sort of stuff is probably all contracted and part of the pact signed when a team agrees to join the league.

The Browns could cut him too, it would not shock me, except that they’re so bad they need him.

I’d say Microsoft would be even less forgiving than a football team, since they have thousands of employees and the Brown have less than 100.

"These players, a lot of other people didn't believe in them, but they believe in themselves. And that is all that matters."- Bill Belichick

by Mainiac on Jun 19, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

NFL as governing body

I believe you are correct; the NFL, represented by commissioner Goodell, has disciplinary authority over teams, players, and coaches. Think back to Spygate when Goodell was able to pass judgement and hand out punishment.

I look at this much the same way most every other franchise is structured: McDonalds is a corporation and the restaurants are franchises purchased by individuals. Those restaurants are responsible for their own P&L, but must also play by the rules of the corporation (follow policies, cook food a certain way, etc…).

I’ve been meaning to write a few stories on the business of the NFL; this would be great to add to that.

Blogger at SBNation's Patriots blog, Pats Pulpit

by MaPatsFan on Jun 19, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs