Titans' Pacman is suspended for 2007 season

I'm surprised that the penalties were this lengthy. They are far longer than any other punishment that I remember the league handing out for off-the-field behavior (Leonard Little?). The two of them have brought a lot of bad publicity to the league. Maybe this will encourage them to pull themselves together. We will have to see if this is a trend for the NFL or just a message being sent. Please let's work to keep the comments civil and on-topic, so we don't get this discussion closed.

Posted by bperk at 2007-04-10 01:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jones' off-field conduct has included 10 incidents where he was interviewed by police HOLY SHIT. He was interviewed by police? He didn't kick them or push them? He was only questioned? Out fucking standing. How many felony convictions does Pacman have on his record? I'll give you a hint. None.

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-10 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wow. Goodell got his banhammer and nailed pacman on the first swing. This will certainly cast a chill on the NFL draft. Not only will the owners think twice about risking money on players with questionable behavior issues, the Titans are going to have to re-think their draft plans, which will force other teams to do the same.

Posted by irunfromclones at 2007-04-10 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

How many felony convictions does Pacman have on his record? Why would criminal felony convictions be the standard by which conduct detrimental to the league is judged?

Posted by bperk at 2007-04-10 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

There were two arrests that he failed to mention to the Titans and it's in his contract that any 'conduct detrimental to the team' as such, the individual needs to inform the organization, which he did not. The thing about this is that the Titans can just cut him now if they want. Nowhere does it say that Pacman is a bad guy, he's just been caught up in idiotic situations and continues to surround himself with the wrong people. The situation where someone was paralyzed from a gunshot wound, witnesses are saying that the shooter came and left with Pacman. Not saying that Pacman was involved but he just needs to understand that he's now in the proverbial spotlight and anything he does will be magnified to the upmost. As soon as Tank Johnson finishes his 4 month bid, he'll most likely be suspended for the year as well.

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-10 01:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good for Goodell and the NFL.. As stated in an earlier post, felonies shouldn't be the standard by which good/bad conduct is measured. I think excerpts from Goodell's letter to these two nailed it on the head. They truely have emabarrassed the4mselves ,other players and the league in general. The only problem I have with the punishment is the almost absolute banishment from the team's facilities. I think they should be allowed full access to their respective teams' facilities. In fact, wouldn't it actually be further punishment if Jones was required to participate in mini camp and training camp...without pay? Just a thought ,and yes, perhaps a bit harsh. But wouldn't they have a better support system if they were able to be around teammates/ friends? I think Favre nailed it on the head last year when he questioned this policy reagrding the suspension of teammate Koren Robinson.

Posted by IRUNNIKE87 at 2007-04-10 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think what he league is trying to say is: " If you, the prospective NFL player or current roster member, would like to earn MILLIONS of dollars playing football and representing a city and/or community on TV, then you should probably conduct yourself civilly from now on." It's sort of like a rule. If you get caught cheating, you will be penalized.

Posted by THX-1138 at 2007-04-10 02:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

I hate to say this because it sounds so typical. But I really think he was harsh. Really for Pacman Jones. I would have been able to except an 8 game suspension but a whole season I dont agree with. I really think if he had good hair, blue eyes(other words if he were WHITE) the penalty would not have been as stiff. Especially a white athlete performing at a hight level

Posted by zznupe at 2007-04-10 02:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bish - you do such good work and then manage to furrow brows across the community by defending a complete asshammer like Pacman. Every athlete is not unfairly criticized, nor do they not bear some responsibility for their reputation. (Asshammer. I made that up. Try it on - tell me if it fits. Take your time. Maybe look in the mirror. Now decide.) That said - 8 games is a lot. I would think that 4 or 5 would be sufficient.

Posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 2007-04-10 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

The question now becomes whether the two teams keep the guys in question. Pacman is now open for the 2008 season, but not this one. He doesn't make a lot of sense to keep him on the roster for this year. Even more so with Chris Henry, who was not as sensational a player but was also paid less. He's notenough of a playmaker to be worth holding a roster spot on him for 8 weeks.

Posted by Bonkers at 2007-04-10 02:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Finally a commissioner with a spine. This is the only thing that may/will start getting the attention of both players and prospective players. Anyone who thinks this type of behavior will just go away without being dealt with severely is kidding themselves. The league is bigger than any one (or several) player(s), and if these athletes want to enjoy the perks and big salaries, they'd better keep their acts together. I really think if he had good hair, blue eyes(other words if he were WHITE) the penalty would not have been as stiff. But he doesn't. Neither does Chris Henry or Tank Johnson. And I could personally care less if it ever winds up being, for example, Peyton Manning or Drew Brees. They want to break laws and make the league look like crap, then out with them. If you think this type of treatment only targets black players, then I guess you have to come to terms with it. Maybe in the coming years we'll have a white player in a similar situation.

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-10 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Here we go. Where's that really good train wreck pic when I need it. I really think if he had good hair, blue eyes(other words if he were WHITE) the penalty would not have been as stiff. Especially a white athlete performing at a hight level.

Posted by irunfromclones at 2007-04-10 02:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's about time that someone out there is held accountable for their actions. This is a long time coming and way too late to turn the tide of the modern day athelete who thinks they can do most anything they feel. Granted, we the sports fan pay their salary. Wouldn't it be great that instead of being suspended, he had to go around and pay for each fans ticket for the year. Once again race is an issue, WHY?? Who cares what color he is, I don't. The fact remains that he feels he is special and does not have to abide by the same rules others are made to follow. Here is one for ya, Pete Rose. Last time I checked he is white and he got kicked out of baseball for life for his gambling habit that he lied about. I think he still owns the all-time hit record, did I mention he was white? Get over it and stop using that as an excuse for some sort of judicial justice. He is very deserving of this punishment regardless of race, sex, religion, or any of the other EEO issues of the day. That "asshammer" comment, good one!

Posted by 1SGkamnet at 2007-04-10 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I am the original asshammer old school bass line thumpin' mack daddy west side style. Speaking from experience, asshammers come in all colors. Let this discussion not digress into one of race unnecessarily. I think we can agree that the NFL policy that Pacman has been punished by makes no mention of his race. Try not to flame the thread with the same race card argument all the time. I think the commissioner is trying to say "Knock it the F#@k Off or you don't get to play!!" Not "Let's get all them black dudes."

Posted by THX-1138 at 2007-04-10 03:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

I like IRUNNIKE87 comment. Make them still be apart of the team. Attend all events, just not able to play. I'll take it one-step further and say, the team is now responsible to pay them accordingly, since they will not play, but still take part in the workouts, practices and all other events. Pay minus, game pay. This will help get them back on track, allow them to regain face and show some respect and remorse for what they have done. Not all bad, and it's seems to guarantee them back after the punishment. And I also think the whole season is too long, but I guess this will make others think twice. It's that example thing that Pacman is paying for. I do feel for him. It probably should have been around 10 games or so.

Posted by sap_basis at 2007-04-10 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

They are far longer than any other punishment that I remember the league handing out for off-the-field behavior (Leonard Little?). while I don't think anyone would argue that Little's offense was worse, the severity of the punishment has more to do with # of infractions than it does severity of infractions. If this guy had had 2 or 3 "incidents" he wouldn't be out for a year. He's had as many as TEN! TEN! HOLY SHIT. He was interviewed by police? He didn't kick them or push them? He was only questioned? well, he's being interviewed for a reason (i.e. throwing $81,000 in a club causing a riot and gunfire to break out). I'm not exactly squeaky clean, but I've still managed to go 35 years and have never been "interviewed" by police (meaning having to go down to the station and talk to them). This man has accomplished that feat in less than 2 years. He's not the angel you're painting him out to be. Convictions or not, it's evident he's displaying a pattern of behavior that the NFL wishes to correct. That said, I can't imagine that this sort of thing would stand up versus the legal challenges that will be put against it

Posted by bdaddy at 2007-04-10 03:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

where is the punishment on the team on drafting these sort of players? Tennessee seemed almost pleased with the verdict based on a comment I read from the team. I wonder if this is because they won't have to pay him while they see if he's going to "change his ways"? I'd like to see the team eat his contract (and maybe an extra fine). That way the teams themselves are discouraged from drafting this garbage (look at the team the Bungel's have thrown together), not just because they lose a player (which may be a risk they're willing to gamble on), but also lose financially if they gamble wrong. maybe that money could go to the disabled ex-NFL players who can't seem to get the NFL to give them anything (Dobler)

Posted by bdaddy at 2007-04-10 03:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Make them still be apart of the team. Attend all events, just not able to play. Nah. These guys need to do a little soul-searching throughout these suspensions, and hanging out with the rest of the team doesn't fit the message the commish is trying to send. If, after the suspension, Jones comes to the conclusion he'd rather be a gangsta instead of a football player, then best wishes to him. He'd better think, though, because I don't see him getting another chance after this.

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-10 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by jmd82 at 2007-04-10 04:49 PM | Reply | Flag:

Art Schilichter ( white, male, good hair, blue eyes, ) banned from NFL for gambling? (Yes?) If you make yourself a target you just might get hit with something nasty. Will I miss Pacman's abliltiy to make plays and entertain me? Yes, but I don't feel one bit sorry for a grown man that can't handle himself. If you don't want to play by the rules get out of the way and let one of the thousands of other potential NFL players have a shot.

Posted by fourthreeforty at 2007-04-10 05:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

As far as the felony issue. There have been players in the NFL CONVICTED OF FELONIES and NOT suspended the entire year. I'm not saying Pacman is an angel, I'm saying HE HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT to due process no matter how many uppity old (and young) white men think he "wants to be a gangsta" (as dyams put it). If what Pacman has done is so bad, why the fuck isn't he behind bars. Meanwhile, 1 thread over talks about a white (award winning, Stanley Cup winning, 41 year old, should know better ) veteran Goalie from the NHL fights police, and the majority of the posters are more concerned with what I have to say about it, than what he actually did. Some going as far as saying, "SO he's JUST an angry drunk". Notice not once is he referred to as a "gansta", even though he's hanging out in a club in Miami (again at age 41). He also reserves the (white) right not to be shot for nothing, not to be stereo-typed, not to be categorized as a punk, thug or nigger, and he deserves to be looked at as a lesser offender. Pacman gets an entire year for being "interviewed by police" (not fighting police like Belfour), and Imus gets 2 weeks for being a well known racist all in the same week. Furrow your brows all damn day long, you'll still hear what I have to say about it.

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-10 05:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bishop- the only reason pacman hasn't been convicted of a felony to this point is that his excellent (white) attorney has managed to plea bargain the charges to misdemeanors and convince the judges (white) to grant pacman probation instead of jail time. pacman is currently on probation in two states, and since these probations are based on good behavior which includes not being interviewed by police, the chances are that either or both will revoke the probation and give him jail time. For the record I think that a veteran (white) hockey goalie should know better than to get drunk in a club and start fights. That being said, the goalie didn't have an entourage with him shooting up the place and the patrons. If the goalie had done that 10 times in the last 2 years then I would have called that gangsta behavior too.

Posted by irunfromclones at 2007-04-10 06:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

(Asshammer. I made that up. Try it on - tell me if it fits. Take your time. Maybe look in the mirror. Now decide.) Sounds like a character in a male on male porno. Mickey Spillane's Asshammer.

Posted by forrestv at 2007-04-10 06:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bish, not to make it seem as if it doesn't matter but that 41 year old goalie your talking about....nobody cares because it's hockey!! These cats punch the shit out of each other just to say good morning but it's not like this situation has happened 10 times. Again, I'm not trying to downplay the situation but we're talking about Pacman Jones here. The very same Pacman Jones that's been involved directly or indirectly in some sort of situation where the cops had to be called in. When I posted this, the last thing I was thinking about was, "Let me make this cat look bad because he's black", I didn't need any help in making Pacman look bad because he seems to be doing one hell of a job doing that himself. I am a 29 year old Puerto Rican man that lives in Central Jersey and I grew up in an area that consisted of nothing but Puerto Ricans and blacks and I've seen some of the struggles that minorities have to deal with but because I rather enjoy life than have to sit in a jail cell, I don't chill at strip clubs until after 2am (we all know something shady can happen at that time at a strip club), hang out on the block or any of that shit. Also, if I made 1/4 of what Pacman makes in a season, the last thing I'll be spending my money on is strippers (make it rain with $81,000), lawyer fees or fake ass friends to keep around me. Real friends would do their best to make sure you stay out of trouble so that you can continue to live 'the life' of a professional athlete, not a criminal, regardless what the skin color is. BTW, Don Imus is a dinosaur and still thinks we're living in the 1970's. He should be held accountable for his choice of words and terminated, not suspended.

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-10 06:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

HE HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT to due process You know bishop i appreciate your sentiments, but on the other hand "due process" has been abused by white and black players to continue making $$$. This has been possible b/c of their excellent (and mostly white) attorneys. Tagliabue's belief in due process before suspensions or penalties has had the practical effect of allowing the problems in the NFL to continue to grow to the point where it is beginning to become a serious problem. I understand that doesn't mean we should lock them up or anything, but it is important to remember that this is a job. The commissioner has the right to suspend them before "due process." If i was interviewed by the police 10 times in such a manner hat it reflected poorly on my employer publicly, do you really think that i (or any of us) would be allowed to continue to work until i had received "due process?" C'mon man, we both know it wouldn't work out like that. Now i agree with you bishop that Pac-man & Henry are getting hit with some pretty tough penalties while others have walked scott free. I agree with you that this is crap. But this is (hopefully) in the past. Part of Henry and Pac-man's problem was poor timing. The axe was going to fall anyday, and they put themselves in risky positions at the wrong time. However, at some point there is a cut-off point where someone says "enough is enough." It had to happen at some point, meaning that some past offenses are overlooked, and the guys in hot water at the time are screwed. This is a less than ideal situation to be sure, but the alternative is to never take a stand. I don't think that Goodell has a vendetta against any race. I think that he is trying to restore order in his sport. However, time will tell. If it is only blakc athletes being banned, then he is full of crap. Goodell needs to be consistent from here on out, or he is in trouble. He will then go from a man of reform to a bigot. My hope is that after a while, when both inexcusable behavior by both white and black players has been punished, things will settle down in the league.

Posted by brainofdtrain at 2007-04-10 06:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not saying Pacman is an angel, I'm saying HE HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT to due process no matter how many uppity old (and young) white men think he "wants to be a gangsta" (as dyams put it). Due process requirements only apply to interactions with the government. They have no relevance to the NFL.

Posted by bperk at 2007-04-10 06:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Posted by yerfatma at 2007-04-10 07:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thank you, bperk and yerfatma. Give Pacman all the due-process he has coming to him. It has nothing to do with the NFL, his employer. And as for how the league handled things in the past, there's a new sheriff in town. If he stays out of jail, great for him. It still doesn't mean the league is going to allow the people they pay to conduct themselves in that manner. And Bishop, just because I'm white, I can't notice what "gangsta" behavior looks like? Every single human who cares to listen to or watch Snoop of 50 Cent, and hundreds of others, have this type of lifestyle and behavior modeled for them constantly. A guy starting a battle involving guns after he throws tens of thousands of dollars in a strip club, then grabs the stripper by the hair and slams her head to the stage, sounds like half the stupid rap videos I've seen in the last several years. How would you describe that type of behavior?

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-10 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Good job commish! Hey Weedy, I love you man but your "Asshammer" is coming on the heals of my "Ass clown"... :)

Posted by firecop at 2007-04-10 09:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

I really think if he had good hair, blue eyes(other words if he were WHITE) the penalty would not have been as stiff. Especially a white athlete performing at a hight level If thats the case ZZ, then could you remind us of the last caucasion NFL player to be involved in anything like Pacman, Henry or Tank Johnson while under the new commish? If not, it may be a good idea to keep those accusations in your pocket until you have a comparison to make. Playing that card just to play it is lame and getting old around here.

Posted by jojomfd1 at 2007-04-10 11:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not sure I get the implication, jojo. Are you suggesting white NFL players are better behaved, as a rule?

Posted by yerfatma at 2007-04-11 05:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

...your "Asshammer" is coming on the heals of my "Ass clown".. Don't try and claim something as "yours" when you didn't create that phrase.

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-11 06:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

As far as this is Pacman Jones/Chris Henry situation, it's not about race. The thing is, players like Troy Vincent were actually called by Roger Goodell to create a player's counsel in order to figure out what to do. From what's being said, 80% of NFL players actually wanted to kick out people like Pacman and Chris Henry out of the league. The commish is the one that decided otherwise and hence the suspensions. Also, not to name drop but I actually know Troy Vincent since he's actually a friend of mines and thru all the years I've known him, I just thought to throw out the fact that he's black. I actually want to see what happens when Tank Johnson gets out of jail, will he recieve a harsher punishment or will he get kicked out permanently?

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-11 06:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Are you suggesting white NFL players are better behaved, as a rule? I *think* the idea is that until a while player has engaged in Pacman-like actions under the Goodell regime and gotten a free pass, there is scant evidence that Pacman wasn't given a fair shake because of race. Am I right Jojo? Personally, I echo Yerfatma's statement. Criminal convictions and due process are not relevant to private employment, just as free speech is not relevant to Sportsfilter. If I was running around this neck of the woods actin' a Pacman, I'd be run out of my job lickety split.

Posted by Venicemenace at 2007-04-11 07:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

FIRECOP and BORN ICON, Actually the correct phrase is: "No talent assclown" quote Micheal Bolton in the movie "0ffice Space"

Posted by Debo270 at 2007-04-11 08:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

I know what the phrase is, I love that movie. I just don't want someone claiming something as "their own" when in fact, it's not.

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-11 09:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Watch out Tank Johnson ! You may just want to stay in jail a while longer after the commish drops his hammer on you......

Posted by wdminott at 2007-04-11 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

DEBO AND BORN ICON I wasnt "claiming it" as my own. I made a post using the word assclown that Weedy commented on. It was good natured teasing addressed to Weedy, so cool your jets...

Posted by firecop at 2007-04-11 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Then you need to rephrase the way you say things then. You can say, "Well, I meant to say....." but the fact is, you used the word "MY" which means your claiming it as your own. No disrespect intended, just needed clarification.

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-11 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

Heh, I love it when BornIcon gets to joshin'.

Posted by lil_brown_bat at 2007-04-11 09:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, I don't see how he has any right to due process within the NFL. Would your employer consider disciplinary action if you'd been involved in a similar number of incidents that had made their way into the paper, with your employer's name attached, regardless of convictions? while I don't agree with anything Bishop said, there's no real comparision to your job and Pacmans. If the same thing happens to you (and your boss lets you go), you can go down the street and get another job. Know anyplace south of Canada where pacman can play professional football? :-) That's why I get the feeling this one is due for a lengthy court fight.

Posted by bdaddy at 2007-04-11 09:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thanks LBB, I live to make sure that you're amused. BTW, who's Josh? Who thinks that as soon as Tank Johnson gets out of jail, he'll be either suspended for the season or banned from the league? I haven't really heard anything about him but I guess the commish is waiting for him to get out of jail first.

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-11 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

there's no real comparision to your job and Pacmans. If the same thing happens to you (and your boss lets you go), you can go down the street and get another job. This argument comes up all the time. Is Pacman "owed" a football-playing job? You act like if anyone but a pro athlete loses their job for acting like a criminal they still keep tripping over job after job. That's crap. If I am involved in a assault in a strip club, and a triple shooting, and I'm involved with the gunman, do you think I'll just waltz right back into a teaching job? Do you think I'll keep my professional certification? Yeah, I can go down the street and get another job...at Taco Bell! If Pacman's "great" job is so hard to replace, he sure doesn't seem to value it much. Maybe I just value my $65,000 a year job more than he does his $1.3 million per year gig. He can go down the road and get another job, too. It just won't pay as much. Maybe several arrests in that should have dawned on him.

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-11 10:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

If the same thing happens to you (and your boss lets you go), you can go down the street and get another job. I don't know that's necessarily so. And I don't know that the lack of other pro football leagues means the one we have has to accept any sort of behavior. That's not a slippery slope, it's a trap door.

Posted by yerfatma at 2007-04-11 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

All this fuss about Pacman when these guys are still on the loose.

Posted by HATER 187 at 2007-04-11 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hater, Jones' ex-wife, Ms. Pac-man has been taking care of that situation for quite some time now while he hits the clubs with his peeps. Surprised you didn't know that. Sheesh.

Posted by tahoemoj at 2007-04-11 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

The "due process" statement was referring to how black men are often referred to as a "criminal" before they ever get to the due process part (i.e. the Foley shooting thread I was accused of defending a criminal before the cop there attempted to murder him "because it's normal to be afraid of "over sized black men"). Also I was making the distinction between this thread and the Belfour thread, where not 1 member of this community referred to him as a "criminal" even though he has had several "run in's" with police. When I referred to due process, I certainly didn't mean the NFL owes him due process. However, it would look better on their part to at least see what the guy gets convicted of. As for those of you who continue to over use the number 10 as referring to pacman being arrested 10 times, convicted 10 times etc. Witnesses, bystanders, and victims are always "interviewed" by police when crime of any sort is committed. Talking like Pacman has been convicted 10 times is just fucking foolish. Belfour has repeated arrests and convictions and as soon as there is a thread about it, 2 or 3 people here are quick to point out that Belfour is just an angry drunk, not a criminal, thug, gansta or anything of the sort. "Well that's because none of his posse started shooting up the club". I'd be willing to bet that no 1 at the club flashed a pistol at Belfour or his posse (who then began to rip apart fire trucks). I can't notice what "gangsta" behavior looks like? Every single human who cares to listen to or watch Snoop of 50 Cent, and hundreds of others, have this type of lifestyle and behavior modeled for them constantly Now to address this BS, "we know what gansta behavior is cause we seen it in a snoop video". Man what the fuck does this shit mean. Why don't you know what it is because you saw it in a Scorsese flic. Video's are fucking TV man. Have you ever watched cribs? The most snoop is doing is hitting some of that hash weedy made reference to a few threads ago. Is weedy a gansta? Snoop was found innocent at his trial and he was in a car in which a member of his SECURITY (not posse) shot someone. Otherwise he is the Ceo of a record label, clothing line, and runs around his mansion playing with his kids. You watch to much fucking TV. Are Metallica, Guns and Roses, etc murderers because they sing about killing people? Did the Columbine shootings happen because those kids were listening to 50 cent? Get your fucking thought process together before you post some dumb shit like that again. Never once did I hear about those kids that did the shooting referred to as ganstas. NO, they were troubled teens. then grabs the stripper by the hair and slams her head to the stage, sounds like half the stupid rap videos I've seen in the last several years. What the hell are you talking about? Please refer me to 1 rap video(that you sit around and watch) where the stripper gets grabbed by her hair and has her head slammed into the stage? Dude whatever videos you have seen, IT'S TV. Rap videos/songs are nothing compared to: Our brains are on fire with the feeling to kill And it will not go away until our dreams are fulfilled There is only one thing on our minds Don't try running away `cause you're the one we will find Running, On our way Hiding, You will pay Dying, One thousand deaths Running, On our way Hiding, You will pay Dying, One thousand deaths Searching, Seek and Destroy Searching, Seek and Destroy -Metallica You can stick your "hood referencing" stereo-types in the bong that you know you own and smoke them.

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-11 01:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is weedy a gansta? Nope. Full fledged wanksta, though. Props?

Posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 2007-04-11 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Hell, yeah.

Posted by tahoemoj at 2007-04-11 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

You make it sounds like other (white) artists like Metallica haven't got in trouble over their lyrics.

Posted by jmd82 at 2007-04-11 02:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

Me talking about rap artists and videos, lyrics, whatever, is to make the point that if any black makes reference to this type of behavior, it's probably considered fine by you, Bishop. If it is even alluded to by a white guy, though, then I'm full of shit. Snoop "Can You Control Yo Hoe" Can you control your hoe? (You got a bitch that won't obey what you say)/ You can't control your hoe? (She hardheaded, she just won't obey)/ Can you control your hoe (You've got to know what to do, what to say)/ You've got to put that bitch in her place, even if it's slapping her in her face/ Ya got to control your hoe/ Can you control your hoe? What kind of pimp holds back?/ Never met a bitch that a pimp can't slap/ What's wrong with pimpin'? 50 Cent P.I.M.P. Bitch choose with me, I'll have you stripping in the street/ Put my other hoes down, you get your ass beat/ Now Nick is my bottom bitch, she always come up with my bread/ The last nigga she was with put stitches in her head. I can go on and on. "KKK Bitch" by Body Count. "Give Me That" by Lil Webbie. This kind of thing is glorified by bullshit hypocrite money-grubbing shills like Snoop, but to many, including kids in high school and college, this shit has to be real life, right? You better go lend your talents to Pacman's defense. He'll need all the help he can get. As for Belfour, if he or any other hockey player gets thrown out of the game, or if a cop should shoot him because he chooses to scuffle with and challenge them, Oh Well! I'm just saying these assholes acting like they're bigshots with cash to throw around, hanging around with their guns or idiot-posses ready to start shooting at the first sign of trouble is getting really old and played out. Maybe Bishop doesn't agree with me, but the NFL commish does.

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-11 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

U pay him to play football what i do on my time had nothing to do with what i do on the field. all the league should be worried about is can he play or not. You let him and his lawyers and the United States government deal with off the field issues. If he has the money to get out of trouble when he causes it so be it. White people been doing this but when u have money your able to avoid penalties a lot of the time. So dont be mad that he had got into a lot of off the field troubles he has not been convicted of anything so therefore he is innocent the same as O.J. rather u think he did it or no he did it the court system said he didnt so thats the end of that. But you got all these old white people and uncle tom black people wanting to make a statement. Talking about its a priviledge to play in the NFL those men earned their way into the league and if the were not good enough to play the teams would have drafted the players. Its a priviledge for the league to have these players so all you white people complaining can continue to make the big bucks that u been making and black people to.

Posted by zznupe at 2007-04-11 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

So Bishop i'm confused. Since tv doesn't depict what "gangsta life" is, can you enlighten us by telling us what is REALLY IS? I highly doubt you can without referencing the videos/music/ clothes (eg the culture) you are so quick to distance from "gangsta life," but i will respect your wish to not be pinned in and give you a chance to respond. What really is gangsta life then? It is one thing to call everyone's view of gangsta life stupid, it is another thing to tell them what it really means. Please play both sides of the field bishop, like you are asking the people you disagree with. As an aisde, Hater, i love that picture!

Posted by brainofdtrain at 2007-04-11 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps the point Bishop is making is that every bad act by a black person isn't gangsta. When did that become a catch-all for every time some black person is involved in something stupid or criminal? It certainly isn't applied to stupid behavior by white people.

Posted by bperk at 2007-04-11 02:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

I *think* the idea is that until a while player has engaged in Pacman-like actions under the Goodell regime and gotten a free pass, there is scant evidence that Pacman wasn't given a fair shake because of race. Am I right Jojo? Thats exactly what was meant by my comment earlier, sorry if there was any mix up.

Posted by jojomfd1 at 2007-04-11 03:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oh i see bperk. If that is what he meant, then i guess that makes some sense. However, i think this same phenomenon happens to white people. If i said that i knew a white person who lived in a mobile home, what would (did?) you categorize them as? What if that was the only part of their life that fit into that category? Would that matter, at least at first? I doubt it. You would still initially think "tailer-trash, redneck, southerner," whatever. This happens to everyone i think, which is sad for sure. That being said, is there an official set of acts, clothes, temperments for either "rednecks" or "gangstas" that they must fulfill completely to be classified that way? If not, then how many is needed? The optimal thing is to rid ourselves of these labels and construct positive ones. Easier said then done, when we all (white and black) make poor decisions. However, i would still out of curiosity like to see bishop's response to my earlier question.

Posted by brainofdtrain at 2007-04-11 03:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

The people who even begin to want to look at both sides of this understand what I'm trying to say (CSP, bperk). Dyams WTF? I said metallica's lyrics doesn't make them murders, gansta's, thugs etc. WHY come back with snoop and 50cent lyrics? Do Metallica lyrics demonstrate the life style of it's listeners? Metallica singing about killing doesn't MAKE IT A BEHAVIOR. Will you at least attempt to read my entire post. What is gansta life? Let's see. First of all the definition of ganster. dictionary.com 1.a member of a gang of criminals, esp. a racketeer. American heritage dictionary. 2.A member of a gang of delinquents. Online Etymology Dictionary: gansta:Gangsta rap style is generally credited to West Philly hip hop artist Schoolly D, but his "Gangster Boogie" (1984) used the conventional spelling; NWA was spelling it gangsta by 1988. Gangster's main definition I found mostly contained the word racketeer. American heritage Dictionary: Racketeer: n. A person who commits crimes such as extortion, loansharking, bribery, and obstruction of justice in furtherance of illegal business activities. Worldnet: 1. someone who commits crimes for profit (especially one who obtains money by fraud or extortion) See what I'm getting at? Is a kid on a street corner with his pants below his waist trying his hardest to sell his first nickel sack of weed a gangsta/gangster. Hell no. A gansta is the enron types, the WHITE collar crime type. The mob or mafia types you see in some of your favorite tv shows (sopranos). Starting to see my point. Because you're white and watch the sopranos then get arrested for public drunkenness, does this make you a gansta? So because NWA is credited with the alteration of the word gangster to gangsta, does that mean every Black person in trouble is now a gangsta? According to dyams, every "black" (notice he doesn't even have enough respect to say person) it does. When a white person fights police or participates in criminal behavior, what do we call them? what was Belfour referred to as for his transgressions? White trash? No. Redneck? No? White people for the most part do not get labeled, they are more likely to have excuses made for them. "aww, he's just an angry drunk, no big deal". Where as a black PERSON usually gets labeled with , thug, punk, gansta, and the favorite CRIMINAL

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-11 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

I referred to Snoop and 50 Cent in an earlier post, and you asked me what video showed all the stuff Pacman is accused of. The actual moment-to-moment events, of course, I've never seen in an actual video. But the degrading treatment of females, the attitude that having fistfuls of cash to literally throw around, and the idea of having guns ready to use any moment is becoming a stereotypical portrayal. If I'm the only one here who thinks this and draws this comparison, then I apologize. As for other types of music/videos, I absolutely believe many individuals strive to emulate the lifestyle depicted in popular culture, whether they be white, black, Hispanic, etc. Plus, my use of the term "black" (male/female/person/human/ etc./etc/) had to do with any black male/female/person/human/etc./ etc. referring to this issue in general, and had nothing to do with me saying all criminal behavior by a black male/female/person/human/etc./ etc. is "gangsta." What I actually said was, if any black makes reference to this type of behavior, it's probably considered fine by you, Bishop. Way to try and bend one oversight into a way to label me as "disrespectful."

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-11 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because you're white and watch the sopranos then get arrested for public drunkenness, does this make you a gansta? No b/c according to your definitions, this isn't a crime done for profit. Good try though. the WHITE collar crime type Since you only adhere to strict definitions of words bishop, i can't understand what you're getting at with this phrase. Are you using a metaphor relative to a certain group of people who commit a certain type of crime? If you are then you've just completely shot yourself in the foot, or have demonstrated just how easy it is to be ungracious when it comes to stereotypes. Do Metallica lyrics demonstrate the life style of it's listeners? I don't know, does the color of the collar of your shirt determine the range of crimes you can/will commit? Again, backfire. Is a kid on a street corner with his pants below his waist trying his hardest to sell his first nickel sack of weed a gangsta/gangster. I don't know, is he threatening to hurt either them or their family/friends if they don't buy it (eg extortion: the felonious act of extorting money [as by threats of violence dictionary.com])? To limit fraud and extortion to "white collar" "enron-people" is simply ridiculous bishop. In fact, it isn't even in the definitions you cite. They leave it open to both the "blue" and "white" collar variety (yeah for equality!). Not making much sense here. You are doing what you claim pisses you off! Bishop i know what you are trying to say, but honestly the way it is coming out sounds very hypocritical. I think you are right to point out how we label people too quickly. This is something that we as human beings in the USA need to work on. Also i agree with you that our definitions of stereotypes would often include more than one race. However, it is pretty lame to turn around and commit the same error, all the while chastizing the rest of us for our heathenism. I think that it is so hard to not judge people unfairly. Hopefully you see that this is something we all (black people, white people, hispanic people, etc) need to work on. I think that we need to move beyond the idea that only white people struggle with this (prejudice, stereotyping). This is an American issue, not a white people only doing this to black people issue. I make no argument against the fact that it is much tougher for black individuals to get beyond the constraints society put on them than whites, and i find such a state deplorable. However, to imply that white people do this without recognizing it while black , hispanic, or any other minority group of people don't is naive at best, and disengenuous at worst. This is a huge post, sorry everyone. I hope no one hates me after this.

Posted by brainofdtrain at 2007-04-11 06:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

See what I'm getting at? Is a kid on a street corner with his pants below his waist trying his hardest to sell his first nickel sack of weed a gangsta/gangster. Hell no. A gansta is the enron types, the WHITE collar crime type. The mob or mafia types you see in some of your favorite tv shows (sopranos). Starting to see my point. Because you're white and watch the sopranos then get arrested for public drunkenness, does this make you a gansta? If you ask that kid if he's a "gansta", what is he likely to say? Will he say he's a troubled youth trying to sell a bag of weed? Or will he say he's a straight up G. My point is you and I know that listening to Snoop doens't make you a gangsta, but we also know that there are people (white and black) who try to emulate the fictitious lifestyle Snoop is rapping about. White kids in the midwest will flip you a gang sign with their fingers, are they gangstas? Gang members? Do I care? It's got nothing to do with Gangsta anyway. The point is if you choose to pursue a certain lifestyle, (entourages, rented hummers on 36 inch wheels, $50,000 in your mouth) endure the consequences. If the consequence is jail, suspension, seeing your buddy killed, someone stealing your teeth, etc. so be it You choose how your living. If the consequences become too steep for you here's a novel idea--- Change your lifestyle. Nobody cares about the hockey dude cause nobody cares about hockey, dude. They closed the whole sport and nobody cared, except for like 6 Canadians. There will always be more comments to a football related post than one for hockey. I know the black community doesn't get a fair shake. And I agree that Jackson and Sharpton are opportunists at best, but the issue remains an employer has the right to alter the consequences for your conduct as they see fit. You have a right to comply or endure the consequences if you don't. You can always work somewhere else if you want. If there's no other football jobs in America, is that fair? Who cares? That's so not my problem. It's Pacman's.

Posted by sumokenobi at 2007-04-11 06:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

This thread has gotten way out of hand with Metallica references that are not valid, Rap lyrics that are quoted and misinterpreted, what is gangsta and what is not. The fact is Adam "Pacman" Jones and Chris Henry have embarrassed their employer enough. They have gotten sick of the bad image that their company (the NFL) has gotten and are taking steps to improve it. I am a business owner/CEO: It is not a black/white problem or situation. It is a solution to keeping the interest of the company and its well being intact. It is a BUSINESS decision. I do not care what color, gender or religion my employee is- but if he/she repeatedly represents themselves or my company in a negative manner they will be dismissed without prejudice. I will also distance myself and my company from them as fast as possible. Mr. Henry and Mr. Jones have had many talks from management as warnings and yet they still did not feel their job was worth keeping or they would have changed their behavior.

Posted by urall cloolis at 2007-04-11 10:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because you're white and watch the sopranos then get arrested for public drunkenness, does this make you a gansta? NO is the right answer. If you are then you've just completely shot yourself in the foot, or have demonstrated just how easy it is to be ungracious when it comes to stereotypes. Did I do this on purpose? Yes. Were you quick to point it out because you thought I was making the reference toward white people seriously? Yes. My point? Be that quick when it's done to Black people. Do Metallica lyrics demonstrate the life style of it's listeners? I don't know, does the color of the collar of your shirt determine the range of crimes you can/will commit? Again, backfire. Again not a backfire, your helping me make my point. Thanks. To limit fraud and extortion to "white collar" "enron-people" is simply ridiculous bishop The term Rackets or racketeering is the one I was referring to. You know mob or mafia type crimes. Again I glad you noticed how ridiculous it is. Sounds about as ridiculous as saying only Black people are ganstas, thugs, criminals right? You are doing what you claim pisses you off! On purpose my friend. Since I applied stereo-typing to white people you have been quick to point out how ridiculous it is. Thanks again. However, it is pretty lame to turn around and commit the same error, all the while chastising the rest of us for our heathenism. I hope you get it now. Should be easier for you to keep up. However, to imply that white people do this without recognizing it while black , hispanic, or any other minority group of people don't is naive at best, and disengenuous at worst. Sorry you feel compelled to mention the whiteman's burden here, but good luck with your struggles for equality. If you ask that kid if he's a "gansta", what is he likely to say? Will he say he's a troubled youth trying to sell a bag of weed? Or will he say he's a straight up G DUDE, If he calls himself a "wanna be G" because of what he saw in a rap video, then he is just confused. If a white man calls every black person (college educated or professional) who gets "talked to by police" a criminal, G, Gangsta wanna be, thug, punk or otherwise (before due process convicts him) it's a fucking bullshit stereo-type. Do you understand what I just wrote? The point is if you choose to pursue a certain lifestyle, (entourages, rented hummers on 36 inch wheels, $50,000 in your mouth) endure the consequences. If the consequence is jail, suspension, seeing your buddy killed, someone stealing your teeth, etc. so be it You choose how your living. but we also know that there are people (white and black) who try to emulate the fictitious lifestyle Snoop is rapping about There is a show on HBO called entourage, where 1 is an actor, another is his manager and the other is a white hiphop artist producer. They ride in hummers and aston martins, what the fuck are their consequences? Jail? getting shot? Having their teeth stolen? Maybe these kids you speak of are trying emulate the life of the TV show I mentioned instead of snoop's interpretation of a certain life style. You people that keep mentioning snoop are as bad as the ones who run to Jackson and Sharpton when they some how reveal that they are racists. I will also distance myself and my company from them as fast as possible. You would? Unless they are the target consumer of most of your billion dollar merchandise huh? Don't even start that hypocrisy. It's no secret that some pro athletes come form the inner city. It's no secret that life is tough in certain areas. It's no secret that it's kill or be killed in some places whether it's by someone trying to rob you or an off duty cop trying to murder you (for no logical reason). It's no secret that scouts from the NFL and the NBA go into these places to get an early eye on talent (to help their team become winners, so they can get more money). A lot of kids from the inner city live an unpleasant life, all their life. They develop survival mechanisms that a lot of people can't understand and don't want to understand. When it becomes 2nd nature to react a certain way all your life, you can't turn it off all at once, because your new boss wants you to. These leagues go fishing in these areas, then want to act all surprised at what they catch. I've seen kids killed for NBA/NFL jerseys. You think these leagues give a shit? They market their apparel to these young kids (jerseys, sneakers,jackets), then when one of them gets to work in the league, they get told not to dress like that. They get told not to look the way they do. They basically get told, ok act like us. It's not that easy and it never will be. These leagues need boards of mixed backgrounds to over see them, not 1 person. The day of the "commissioner" is over. They are out of touch with a lot of their employees. Which one of these words is different to you: commissioner/principal/warden/ master? To some athletes coming from the inner cities, they are all the same.

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-11 10:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

Bishop- I was very sympathetic to a lot of your rationales. I am a high school soccer coach in my "spare" time (make time for it). I have had two hispanic players of mine murdered needlessly after they graduated. One was a gang member who was killed by his own gang because he was trying to get out. Another was shot by a former cop/navy contractor who was pissed about noise at a party and my ex-player was unarmed. The person who killed my first athlete got the death penalty, while the Navy Cop did not get charged at all by police. I am spending my time trying to get justice for him and his family through the proper channels, not trying to piss off everyone that could possibly help. As for the last comment you made "commish/principal/warden/ master"- You know that is bullshit. If an athlete that is making over a million a year and feels his boss is his "master" and he needs to rebel then he has a lot more problems than anyone can help. Anyone with an education, and yes Pacman and Henry went to college for an education, knows the difference. We are not talking about "some athletes from the inner city", we are talking about athletes from major universities who have been schooled by the NFL players union (people of similar background). They have been educated about the hazards of "who you hang out with", consequences of actions, and what they are risking and how they are held to a higher standard. Instead of ranting on every subject about racial inequities, I would suggest getting your facts straight first.

Posted by urall cloolis at 2007-04-11 11:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

When it becomes 2nd nature to react a certain way all your life, you can't turn it off all at once, because your new boss wants you to. I'm calling bullshit on this. For every Pacman in the league who can't turn it off, there are dozens of players who do turn if off or never get drawn into in the first place. That's why I am all in favor of a harsh penalty for Pacman. He is drawing all this negative attention to the league until people start calling the NFL full of thugs. The truth is that lots of the players are from the type of neighborhoods you describe. The difference is that when they see their opportunity to get the hell out and make a better life, they seize it and make the most of it. He is pissing it away and that's unacceptable.

Posted by bperk at 2007-04-12 07:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nobody cares about the hockey dude cause nobody cares about hockey Why are you recycling what I already said?

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-12 07:21 AM | Reply | Flag:

To try to put a more constructive spin on this: Bishop, what would you propose as an appropriate penalty/sanction/treatment/ whatever for Pacman? I don't really have a strong opinion myself. I do feel strongly that his employer has certain rights to take disciplinary action against him, up to and including termination, for certain types of conduct that it deems detrimental (and that in other contexts would be perfectly legal). All employers have that right, although it plays out differently in different workplaces. But that's not the same thing as what should happen. What do you think should happen -- what would be best for all concerned?

Posted by lil_brown_bat at 2007-04-12 07:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

I think Pacman needs to take some responsibility for his actions. They are not simply misunderstandings based on some grandiose big-picture racism, or the result of an unhappy and troubled upbringing. He's 24. Take the suspension and decide if the NFL is worth your time and effort. Maybe stop going with your gun friends to strip clubs and making it rain. You know - sensible ideas of conduct. I think the 'problem' with hip-hop culture is that it is consumed by some white people who obviously can't extract the ironies and substance of it - and think that it is representative of black people everywhere. Or worse, it isn't consumed, but merely sampled by the prejudiced, who use it as arguement fuel to help them feel better about the fact that 1 in 4 black male Americans are in jail (or have been there). That and the fact that old white men and women flip the channels and come across a rap video and are horrified and frightened. Which is partly the attraction to young white consumers. Who's being played? White kids in white neighbourhoods. There are some unintended consequences to that arrangement (i.e. white people think baggie pants = banging). I think hip-hop is unfortunately the primary exposure to black people that most white Americans get. And when they get it the reaction is either to be enticed, or wary. But the problem isn't the fucking music for god sakes. I mean, really. Who still thinks like this?

Posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 2007-04-12 08:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

Bishop, it's a shame - I firmly believe you could add something constructive to conversations on this kind of topic. But, you were wrong in the Belfour thread and you're heading that direction here. And, I'm not saying you're wrong for disagreeing about our varying interpretations of any particular factual incident. You're wrong because you insist on ranting, making disingenuous analogies and personally attacking anyone and everyone who doesn't join you in saying that the whole world is racist. You told someone in the Belfour thread not to tell you to "preach to the choir" by taking your efforts to your community. Since I agree with you about not telling you what to do - don't tell me/us to "don't use my delivery as an excuse - focus on the message". Your delivery is part of your message, sir. And while your message is founded on some legitimate and important ideals which deserve further thought by all of us - your delivery outright sucks and unfortunately drowns out all the positives. On topic, I echo other thoughts here - The employer of Pacman and Henry has determined that those 2 players have acted inappropriately multiple times, and that employer has exercised their very legitimate right to take disciplinary action against them. And, while, again, there may be some legitimacy to your thought of having multi-backgorund supverisory boards - that legitimacy is lost when you 1) choose to ignore that the commissioner sought the input of the Union, and reports are that 80% of them said "kick 'em out entirely" and 2) when you follow that up with your obnoxious "commissioner/principal/ warden/master" comment. Also, you seem to be out on a limb when whining about no-one on this site coming to the defense of when stereotypes/negativity are applied toward black athletes ... refresh your memory with the Serena Williams thread here on March 29. May I suggest (not demand) that you answer lbb's legitimate/non-sarcastic question of "what would you do" with these two players, and answer it moderately civilly so that your intelligent message gets across.

Posted by littleLebowski at 2007-04-12 10:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe stop going with your gun friends to strip clubs and making it rain. You know - sensible ideas of conduct. It couldn't be said any better. It all comes down to making wise decisions. I don't care what neighborhood you grew up in, at some point you were still taught right from wrong, it has nothing to do with "Survival Instincts". Just out of curiosity what part of making it rain is a "Survival Instinct" anyways? Is this some way of protecting yourself from harm that I am unaware of?

Posted by Steel_Town at 2007-04-12 11:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

May I suggest (not demand) that you answer lbb's legitimate/non-sarcastic question of "what would you do" with these two players, and answer it moderately civilly so that your intelligent message gets across. You're not demanding what I should do, you're just telling me what to do. For every Pacman in the league who can't turn it off, there are dozens of players who do turn if off or never get drawn into in the first place Who are these dozens? Just black men that you assume are from the inner cities just because they are black? Out of the "dozens" name 5. What do you think should happen -- what would be best for all concerned? It's simple really. For starters, let's go back to my first post here. My point was basically that there are CONVICTED FELONS, accused rapists, and drug traffickers who never got suspended for 1 year. My position is pacman is being made an example of (as a few have pointed out here) My other point is if he was a white hockey player this would be no big deal. My view point isn't that pacman shouldn't be reprimanded. (from 1 of my other posts: I'm not saying Pacman is an angel, I'm saying HE HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT to due process,) Now some made the mistake of thinking I meant the NFL owed him due process. Not at all, I'm simply saying he is currently under investigation. Charges have not even been filed yet in this most recent situation. So, what do I think should be done? Suspended him for 2 years for all I care, but wait until he is found guilty in a court of law (just like with Ray Lewis, Jamal Lewis and so on etc). When people can make a thread here posting a yahoo snippet about punishments (that most likely would have been deleted if it was about anything else) it seems as if the entire group was waiting just to say, Good, I agree, ban them all. Meanwhile, there is a thread about a white hockey player that is guilty of the same damn thing as the people getting punished here (fighting police, resisting arrest, repeat offender) and the consensus is, oh he's not that bad, or my favorite, NOBODY CARES ABOUT HOCKEY. It's like a slap in the face. Where are all the hockey guys here, the fantasy hockey players, The hockey Gods of Spofi? Why are they not taking offense to this? It's simple really. The fact is, the majority here don't really care if a white hockey player fights police, he gets a pass. If a black NBA player ripped something off of a local fire truck, there would be 20 people (at least) calling for him to have to perform community service at the local fire station. The fact is, if it isn't pete rose gambling. It doesn't get discussed. Or if it does, it's mostly excuses being made. 1 Case in point. Take a look at that link to a repeat offending, getting arrested sociopath. What is the over all opinion? Poor guy, trying so hard but keeps fucking up. Poor fellow. A comment from Weedy regarding the gambling ring in hockey a while back. This is ridiculous. They placed bets through a friend. No one has implicated Janet with doing anything other than making some bets. And not on hockey.They want to interview her. She has not been charged with anything. It's a fucking feeding freezy, show a little restraint. Can we WAIT until charges are laid on Wayne Gretzky for Obstruction of Justice, before we insinuate that this is the case? You know? I mean, his wife who actually seems to be involved hasn't been charged with anything. For whatever reason, the New Jersey State Police have elected to try this whole thing in public. That also smells. I mean, Sweet tap dancing Jesus they called this thing "Operation Slap Shot" for crying out loud. posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:10 PM CDT on February 9 I wonder if Gretzky was "talked to"/ "interviewed" by police 10 times and if so, hey "they're talking to him for a reason right"? From the same thread: Not to mention that no one in this operation wants to find anything on Wayne. The prosecutors will of course do their job, but no one (no one) will be happy to find dirt on either Gretzky, Wayne least of all.posted by chicobangs at 1:49 AM CDT on February 10 How right you are, no one cares about hockey. Or no one wants to find dirt on them. Which is it?

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-12 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

You're not demanding what I should do, you're just telling me what to do. No, as my original note stated, it was merely a suggestion. One you chose to twist and go against, which is your right, but which I personally feel is unfortunate for your potentially informative perspective. My point was basically that there are CONVICTED FELONS, accused rapists, and drug traffickers who never got suspended for 1 year So, because there was weak-willed supervision over NFL payers in the past, all current transgressions should be ignored? Never a good argument - and I honestly think you're smarter than that. So, what do I think should be done? Suspended him for 2 years for all I care, but wait until he is found guilty in a court of law As someone else asked - why on God's green earth should convictions be the determining factor in the disciplinary action the NFL chooses to take? If I, as a representative of my company and very visible to the public, chose to repeatedly have run-ins with the law, I don't care if I wasn't convicted of a single thing, my company would certainly show me the door. And, let's review a couple things with Pacman's situation that you're conveniently overlooking (at best) or completely twisting ... these aren't just "interviews" with authorities, as you've liked to preach here, these are public displays of altercations with citizens and police - and while there haven't been any prison-sentence convictions, several of these have lead to extensions of his already existing probation sentences - so there has been official legal recourse taken against him. Also, let's keep in mind this is a suspension - again let's go back to the average citizen, whose similar actions would lead to termination from their job. Which is related to ... When people can make a thread here posting a yahoo snippet about punishments ... it seems as if the entire group was waiting just to say, Good, I agree, ban them all. WHERE in this thread has anyone suggested that he or anyone else be banned for life? "Nowhere" is the correct answer. You may have gotten confused with the reports that the vast majority of the Players Union said exactly that. The fact is, the majority here don't really care if a white hockey player fights police, he gets a pass. If a black NBA player ripped something off of a local fire truck, there would be 20 people (at least) calling for him to have to perform community service at the local fire station. Since most of your rambling has come across as ... well, rambling ... I can agree with you on only 1 point, but it's worth mentioning. Perhaps more of us should have chimed into the Belfour thread with comments stronger than just "ah, Eddie bein' Eddie" or "wow, that was stupid" - and posted our disgust at his actions and legitimately demanded the NHL take some kind of disciplinary action against. Other than that, I bet I'd love to sit down with you and talk about, even amiably debate, issues like these - but now is obviously not the time for that, given the attitude you're taking. Take care

Posted by littleLebowski at 2007-04-12 12:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's simple really. For starters, let's go back to my first post here. My point was basically that there are CONVICTED FELONS, accused rapists, and drug traffickers who never got suspended for 1 year. My position is pacman is being made an example of (as a few have pointed out here) My other point is if he was a white hockey player this would be no big deal. My view point isn't that pacman shouldn't be reprimanded. (from 1 of my other posts: I'm not saying Pacman is an angel, I'm saying HE HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT to due process,) Now some made the mistake of thinking I meant the NFL owed him due process. Not at all, I'm simply saying he is currently under investigation. Charges have not even been filed yet in this most recent situation. So, what do I think should be done? Suspended him for 2 years for all I care, but wait until he is found guilty in a court of law (just like with Ray Lewis, Jamal Lewis and so on etc). The NFL can and has handed out suspensions in the past for conduct that did not result in a criminal conviction. I will use just recent example, the five-game suspension of Albert Haynesworth. No criminal charges were brought in that case, much less a conviction, yet a significant suspension resulted. There are also numerous examples of suspensions for violation of the league's substance abuse policy, and I'd guess that some of these involve conduct that is legal -- getting drunk off your ass -- but that is nevertheless given grounds for suspension. So my question remains: what do you think should be done with pacman? Should the NFL grant him something it does not grant to any other player -- that is, the right to remain active unless and until he is actually convicted in a court of law? Also, you seem to have missed part of what I was trying to get at. Look at pacman through the most sympathetic lens possible, and you still have to admit that he needs some kind of help. The NFL has other interests to consider, but Pacman is part of the package too. If they were to apply your unique play until convicted standard, how exactly would that help him?

Posted by lil_brown_bat at 2007-04-12 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

For every Pacman in the league who can't turn it off, there are dozens of players who do turn if off or never get drawn into in the first place Who are these dozens? Just black men that you assume are from the inner cities just because they are black? Out of the "dozens" name 5. I hope you are not being serious. If you think Pacman growing up tough is an unusual situation, then you lack an understanding of the type of neighborhood that the bulk of black Americans live in. Most of the current NFL players were growing up during the height of the crack epidemic, which impacted every where, not just inner cities. Pacman is not in this trouble because he grew up poor in a bad area. Pacman is in trouble because he lacks the character to change his life unlike Edgerrin James, Marshall Faulk, Bryon Leftwich, Vince Young, Steve Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, and Chad Johnson to name just a few.

Posted by bperk at 2007-04-12 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

So my question remains: what do you think should be done with pacman? Should the NFL grant him something it does not grant to any other player -- that is, the right to remain active unless and until he is actually convicted in a court of law? First off, everything done by the NFL previously, prior to Goodell taking over, doesn't really matter at all (unless some sort of court case challenging these or subsequent rulings wants to argue past-practice). A year out of football sounds harsh, granted, but if last year was any indication, without a harsh stand being taken players like Pacman and Henry would just keep accumulating legal charges. Goodell isn't leaving discipline to the individual teams, he's doing it at the league level. Pacman may be serving as the example for future misconduct, but someone was going to assume that role. Actual convictions, unfortunately, can't be counted on to extract justice in many instances. Sloppy police work, slick legal work by attorneys, whatever, can all lead to someone not being convicted. It still, however, doesn't change the fact these behaviors reflect horribly on the NFL as a whole. ESPN interviewed Joey Porter yesterday, and he admitted he needs to start avoiding some of the places he has chose to frequent in the past, knowing if bad stuff starts, he may find himself out of the game. Players all have the right to go where they want and do what they want, but if what they're doing involves individuals with weapons, drugs, or going to clubs where problems have a good chance of starting (because these guys are celebrities), they need to stay home. Sometimes it's either that or risk forfeiting millions of dollars. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

Posted by dyams at 2007-04-12 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why are you recycling what I already said? posted by BornIcon at 7:21 AM CDT on April 12 Sorry if I missed that. Didn't mean to plagarize, and I recognize the futility of having the same things being repeated, having the same things being repeated to someone who reads it but doesn't hear, but doesn't hear.

Posted by sumokenobi at 2007-04-12 04:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Perhaps more of us should have chimed into the Belfour thread with comments stronger than just "ah, Eddie bein' Eddie" or "wow, that was stupid" - and posted our disgust at his actions and legitimately demanded the NHL take some kind of disciplinary action against. Finally someone is starting to get it. My point exactly. But remember, no one wants to find dirt ( or discuss it) on hockey players because??? You'll note the thread about Belfour was closed. While this yahoo snippet remains open. Edgerrin James, Marshall Faulk, Bryon Leftwich, Vince Young, Steve Smith, Keyshawn Johnson, and Chad Johnson What gives you the fucking idea that these guys "changed their lives"? Are you suggesting that all these guys were "thug gangsta's" and then turned over a new leaf when they got to the NFL? then you lack an understanding of the type of neighborhood that the bulk of black Americans live in. Are you kidding me? What constitutes "the bulk"? The "bulk" of pro sports are African American. Are you really saying you think crack was an epidemic to the black race? Cocaine was and is a plague to all races that use it. The epidemic to the black race is certain types of police like the ones who beat Rodney King and the one who shot Foley, and people with the beliefs of Don Imus. You can't honestly tell me that you know for certain that there is not 1 owner in the NFL or NBA that think like him. If pacman needs help Belfour needs help, but no one cares about hockey. If pacman's behavior reflects negatively on the NFL, then so does Belfours on the NHL, but no one cares about hockey. Haynesworth was an on the field transgression, totally irrelevant for this topic. Since most of your rambling has come across as ... well, rambling You have to choice to skip what I write and not respond. you want to debate something, then I'm all for it. If I'm rambling, why are you so pressed to debate something with someone who is just rambling? My point is, if we start a "i know you are but what am I" bit, we'll be here for a while and get no where. Grow up and say what you have to say and I'll respond. why on God's green earth should convictions be the determining factor in the disciplinary action the NFL chooses to take Again I'm simply calling for what Weedy called for during the investigation of Gretzky. Speaking of Gretzky, I'll reiterate (since everyone conveniently skipped over it). no one in this operation wants to find anything on Wayne. The prosecutors will of course do their job, but no one (no one) will be happy to find dirt on either Gretzky, Wayne least of all. posted by chicobangs at 1:49 AM CDT on February 10 Let's find every thing we can on every black athlete under the sun, but if Wayne is participating in criminal behavior, WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW OR HEAR ABOUT IT. And if we did, aww that's just wayne, belfour (or any white guy except pete rose) being wayne, belfour (or any white guy except pete rose).

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-12 07:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I give up. You are right. Pacman is an innocent victim of oppression. The difficulties that he is encountering are solely due to racist cops, growing up in the inner city, and the white commissioner.

Posted by bperk at 2007-04-12 07:29 PM | Reply | Flag:

What gives you the fucking idea that these guys "changed their lives"? I'm not saying Pacman is an angel, I'm saying HE HAS THE FUCKING RIGHT to due process Take a look at that link to a repeat offending, getting arrested sociopath. What is the over all opinion? Poor guy, trying so hard but keeps fucking up. Poor fellow DUDE, If he calls himself a "wanna be G" because of what he saw in a rap video, then he is just confused. If a white man calls every black person (college educated or professional) who gets "talked to by police" a criminal, G, Gangsta wanna be, thug, punk or otherwise (before due process convicts him) it's a fucking bullshit stereo-type. Do you understand what I just wrote? Poor guy, trying so hard but keeps fucking up. Poor fellow. Bishop- Is "fucking" the only adjective/adverb you know? You seem like an educated person, why the need to try to throw out that word every time you feel you need to make a point? It only detracts from the points you are trying to make.

Posted by urall cloolis at 2007-04-12 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

All that and you only saw the word Fucking? That's funny. You might as well said, all most every thing you're saying is true and correct, but I don't like the way you talk. Don't worry, you're not the first. No Bperk, I give up. Oh well, I guess it was the "no one wants to find dirt on Gretzky" comment that proved my point.

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-13 01:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh well, I guess it was the "no one wants to find dirt on Gretzky" comment that proved my point. No people give it up because you are difficult to argue with because you are constantly in attack mode when we are trying to engage in rational discourse. Of course, no one wants to find dirt on Gretzky, he is a legend. If you recall when Jordan was gambling and such, no one wanted to investigate that too closely either. Tarnishing a legend sucks.

Posted by bperk at 2007-04-13 07:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

If pacman needs help Belfour needs help, but no one cares about hockey I'm sure that Belfour needs help, it's called AA meetings. There's a huge difference between the two and I'm not talking about the color of their skin. The difference is that Pacman was in 10 different situation that the cops had to intervene. Sure, Belfour should be suspended as well for his actions (rightfully so) but I am a fan of the NFL so that's why it's more of a story for me than anything NHL related. Tarnishing a legend sucks Yes it does but the truth is the truth~

Posted by BornIcon at 2007-04-13 08:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Tarnishing a legend sucks Being a regular guy and getting shot by an off duty cop for not "obeying" him sucks much worse. The difference is that Pacman was in 10 different situation that the cops had to intervene. Here we go again. You say that as if he is a 10 time convicted felon. HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU THINK THE POLICE HAD TO INTERVENE DURING THE GRETZKY SITUATION. Get it?

Posted by Bishop at 2007-04-13 11:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU THINK THE POLICE HAD TO INTERVENE DURING THE GRETZKY SITUATION. Get it? Yes, we get that your logic skills could use a little work, unless you think a bunch of cops intervening in one matter is the same as a few cops intervening in ten matters. As lbb suggests, you undermine your own points with the yelling and the poor foundations, though for me the fact there is no destination you are driving to makes me want to get out and hitchhike.

Posted by yerfatma at 2007-04-13 12:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tarnishing a legend sucks Being a regular guy and getting shot by an off duty cop for not "obeying" him sucks much worse. You seemed to have ignored completely the Jordan reference. Why is that? You keep mentioning that Pacman Jones has not been convicted as if that absolves him of any publc scrutiny for the incidents he has been involved in the past few years. Are you willing to acknowledge that his actions have brought embarrassment to the league? Do you not think the league was justified in suspending Pacman Jones period? What about Henry? Is he being treated unfairly as well? And you never did respond to my question about when a black person is killed by a black cop. Had the officer involved in the Foley incident been non-white, would you have felt the same as you do? Because your posts, as I read them anyway, seem to suggest that only the "white" cops are dirty and looking to enforce their own justice. Only "white" sports figures are getting away with crimes. I just don't buy that as 100% accurate. I think we have several police officers who abuse the power that comes with the job. I think many celebrities, whether an athlete or actor, black or white, use their celebrity to escape legal trouble, or at least have the cash to hire a legal team that will get them off. You also posed to me that unless a family member has been shot 10 times by a cop for looking like he was going to commit a crime then I would never understand where you are coming from. I'm sure that's true. However, do not be so quick to assume that I have not had similar experiences. My family has suffered the loss of a family member due to gunshot and we still have no idea what happened. The person responsible has never been brought to justice and may never be found. So I do understand senseless loss. On the other hand, I have other family members who have been shot and I have no choice but to hold them somewhat responsible because of the nature of the people they associated themselves with and the lifestyle they chose to pursue. I think that's the point many here are trying to make. Pacman Jones, while he has not been convicted , has conitnued to place himself in situations that could easily be avoided. Maybe I buy the "not easy to turn off the mentality that he was forced to develop as a youth" (intended as general comments not necessarily your direct quote), but the kid wasn't signed off the street. He should know right from wrong by now and should understand that he could be a target for other people becuase of his wealth and celebrity. And that's before doing something as self serving and plain stupid as throwing $81,000 on a stage at a strip club. If that's doesn't scream "look at me, look at me" I don't what does. Why not choose to avoid the lifestyle that has conitnued to get him "interviewed" by police? Sorry, just don't buy the "troubled kid who needs help", to me he is a punk of punks and the NFL and the new commish should be commended for finally taking a stand. Instead, you'd rather lable Goodell as "slave master, 2007". We'll wait an see how Jones decides to handle it. I hope he is able to get some control over his life and I wold hope that those around him would help him acheive that. If not, and he's banned o for life, so be it. I won't lose any sleep over it. He has his "2nd" chance, let's home he can capitalize on it.

Posted by ampto11 at 2007-04-13 01:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments