PDA

View Full Version : Dominic Rhodes suspended


LionSmack
07-03-2007, 08:43 PM
Raiders | Rhodes suspended four games
Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:30:02 -0700

Jason Jones, of the Sacramento Bee, reports Oakland Raiders RB Dominic Rhodes has been suspended the first four games of the 2007 season for violation of the NFL's Substance Abuse policy. He can return to the active roster Oct. 1 and is allowed to practice during training camp while also taking part in preseason games. His suspension begins Aug. 31.

ouch Raiders :(

PoopSandwich
07-03-2007, 08:46 PM
Wow, good for the Browns (him not being there against us.) maybe Micheal Bush will step up though?

Windy
07-03-2007, 08:48 PM
the incident was before the raiders signed him and this was expected.

Dam8610
07-03-2007, 09:03 PM
the incident was before the raiders signed him and this was expected.

Is this because of the DUI? If so it's just another reason for me to dislike Fuhrer Goodell.

PoopSandwich
07-03-2007, 09:09 PM
Is this because of the DUI? If so it's just another reason for me to dislike Fuhrer Goodell.

Probably roids.

GB12
07-03-2007, 09:11 PM
Yes, I just draft Lamont Jordan in FF.

Xonraider
07-03-2007, 09:17 PM
Yes, I just draft Lamont Jordan in FF.

Eh, we still got Crockett, Fargas, O'neal and Griffith to run the rock. Not to mention the possibility of Michael Bush being used. At this point I guess LaMont will get about 50% of the carries, when regularily he'd get like 35%...

that is plain supposition though.

GB12
07-03-2007, 09:26 PM
Eh, we still got Crockett, Fargas, O'neal and Griffith to run the rock. Not to mention the possibility of Michael Bush being used. At this point I guess LaMont will get about 50% of the carries, when regularily he'd get like 35%...

that is plain supposition though.
Yeah, I'm not expecting huge numbers, but he has gained a little value from this.

P-L
07-03-2007, 09:36 PM
Is this because of the DUI? If so it's just another reason for me to dislike Fuhrer Goodell.
So putting not only your life, but the lives of anyone else who is on the road, on the line because you are a stupid idiot doesn't warrant a suspension. I'd bet a majority of people would lose their jobs if their employer found out they got a DUI. Dominic Rhodes is being suspended for four days.

PoopSandwich
07-03-2007, 09:38 PM
So putting not only your life, but the lives of anyone else who is on the road, on the line because you are a stupid idiot doesn't warrant a suspension. I'd bet a majority of people would lose their jobs if their employer found out they got a DUI. Dominic Rhodes is being suspended for four days.

Very good point.

Moses
07-03-2007, 09:45 PM
I wonder what substance he tested positive for...

M.O.T.H.
07-03-2007, 09:56 PM
Dont believe he tested positive for anything...this has to do w/ his DUI. Torrie Cox was also suspened today.

Moses
07-03-2007, 10:05 PM
Dont believe he tested positive for anything...this has to do w/ his DUI. Torrie Cox was also suspened today.

Since when is a DUI related to the substance-abuse program?

Acreboy
07-03-2007, 10:33 PM
Is this because of the DUI? If so it's just another reason for me to dislike Fuhrer Goodell.If he disobeyed the substabnce abuse policy it's his own fault.

Even worse for the Raiders who signed him knowing of this..

M.O.T.H.
07-03-2007, 10:37 PM
“We are very troubled by Dominic Rhodes arrest for DUI,” Colts President Bill Polian said in a statement. “We will have no further comment until the case has been dealt with by the justice system.”

He said Rhodes’ contract expires Feb. 28, when he becomes a free agent, and that the back would be subject to NFL discipline under the substance abuse policy.

This was before he became a Raider.

Mr. Stiller
07-03-2007, 11:01 PM
He abused drinking alcohol by driving.. I'm sure Alcohol is considered a "Controlled Substance" when it's used illegally

MasterShake
07-03-2007, 11:38 PM
Same exact reason Antonio Bryant was suspended 4 games.

Dam8610
07-04-2007, 05:30 AM
So putting not only your life, but the lives of anyone else who is on the road, on the line because you are a stupid idiot doesn't warrant a suspension. I'd bet a majority of people would lose their jobs if their employer found out they got a DUI. Dominic Rhodes is being suspended for four days.

It would warrant a suspension if Leonard Little's actions warranted a lifetime ban. I will be upset over any suspension that has to do with a DUI as long as Lenard Little is allowed to play with no punishment after killing a woman while DUI.

Watchman
07-04-2007, 09:49 AM
I'd bet a majority of people would lose their jobs if their employer found out they got a DUI.


Not sure I agree with that, and I think it is kind of an apples and oranges comparison. Most peoples jobs do not include an employment contract with a morales clause.

Geo
07-04-2007, 11:10 AM
Indeed this was not unexpected, I would be amazed if the Raiders are caught unaware by this development given how likely a scenario it was before the time of his free agent signing.

It's not the end of the world, Dom Rhodes will serve his 4-game suspension and then he'll play. Wasn't too long ago when Travis Henry served a 4-game suspension (2005) for violating the substance abuse policy (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/titans/2005-09-25-henry-suspension_x.htm).

The Raiders signed him for two years, and he'll be a good (rotational) back for them. I still like LaMont Jordan personally, I think he's a good runner who can also catch the ball well, but having Dom there to push him, help carry the load, and pass protect will help. Especially when there's two young quarterbacks at the helm.

bored of education
07-04-2007, 11:50 AM
hahah yessss

gdamac
07-04-2007, 01:14 PM
So putting not only your life, but the lives of anyone else who is on the road, on the line because you are a stupid idiot doesn't warrant a suspension. I'd bet a majority of people would lose their jobs if their employer found out they got a DUI. Dominic Rhodes is being suspended for four days.

I agree that Rhodes should be suspended, but I don't think the average Joe would automatically lose his job, it might happen but I have a buddy who has some many DUIs the court ordered him to put one of those breath testers on his ignition and he kept his job at UPS, and I know they know because they had to move him of driving trucks.

But if the NFL doesn't do anything to Rhodes it's like saying to all the kids who wath the NFL that it's ok to get DUIs, nobody idolizes UPS drivers.

Nice sig by the way, and that's a Yankee fan saying it!

someone447
07-04-2007, 01:29 PM
So putting not only your life, but the lives of anyone else who is on the road, on the line because you are a stupid idiot doesn't warrant a suspension. I'd bet a majority of people would lose their jobs if their employer found out they got a DUI. Dominic Rhodes is being suspended for four days.

Most people wouldn't lose their jobs for a DUI. I would venture a guess that most people would get at most a slap on the wrist. Like I have said in every other thread involving drunk driving. Just about everyone who has ever drank alcohol has driven drunk(since cars were invented). This is not some new phenomenon.

Damix
07-04-2007, 01:34 PM
Dont believe he tested positive for anything...this has to do w/ his DUI. Torrie Cox was also suspened today.


I'm not sure this has to do with his DUI, he can't be punished if he wasn't charged with it, which he wasn't.

M.O.T.H.
07-04-2007, 11:48 PM
He could have already been in the leagues substance abuse program and he violated it with his DUI, leading to his suspension. Quincy Carter was in the program from day 1 in the NFL, it just wasnt known to the public.

tylerb929
07-05-2007, 07:13 AM
I'm not sure this has to do with his DUI, he can't be punished if he wasn't charged with it, which he wasn't.

He can be punished if he wasn't charged, this has been gone over many of times. The NFL is a private organization, and can do as it pleases if it thinks he is causing a bad image.

2nd of all, he was charged, Rhodes pleaded guilty in March to reckless driving and was sentenced to 180 days in jail. But 178 were suspended and he received credit for two days.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 07:15 AM
He can be punished if he wasn't charged, this has been gone over many of times. The NFL is a private organization, and can do as it pleases if it thinks he is causing a bad image.

Why is it the employer's responsibility to tell its employees how to act on their free time? Better yet, why does the employer feel as though it's their responsibility to do so?

tylerb929
07-05-2007, 09:34 AM
Why is it the employer's responsibility to tell its employees how to act on their free time? Better yet, why does the employer feel as though it's their responsibility to do so?

Did I say I agreed with it? No, but its how it works.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 09:58 AM
Did I say I agreed with it? No, but its how it works.

The question wasn't really aimed at you. It's more of a general question to the supporters of the new conduct policy.

CC.SD
07-05-2007, 09:58 AM
Why is it the employer's responsibility to tell its employees how to act on their free time? Better yet, why does the employer feel as though it's their responsibility to do so?

Because in a mass media, spectacle driven enterprise like professional football, image is everything. If a player looks bad, the franchise loses money, so it becomes their responsibility to make sure these guys don't embarass their team.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 10:19 AM
Because in a mass media, spectacle driven enterprise like professional football, image is everything. If a player looks bad, the franchise loses money, so it becomes their responsibility to make sure these guys don't embarass their team.

Which is why the NBA was successful long before the implementation of their conduct policy, and viewership declined as the quality of their product deteriorated? Conduct policies in professional sports step into the boundaries of the rights to privacy and self expression. Players have morals clauses in their contracts, and can be fired by their individual employers for incidents that they deem to be too big of a PR nightmare to retain the player. If the team thinks a player has done something aggregious enough, they will take their own action against the player (see: Albert Haynesworth). There's absolutely no reason for the NFL to step in on an issue like this.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 10:20 AM
ah. yes. so, if i get a DUI during my free time, my work shouldn't be able to fire me, even though such a problem would prevent me from being able to do my job. but you think that because it happened during my free time, they shouldn't have any recourse whatsoever and should be forced to continue to pay me until such time as i was able to work again.

that's utterly asinine.

Oakland is free to fire him if they feel that doing so is the best course of action. Why should the NFL suspend him?

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 10:31 AM
ah. yes. so, if i get a DUI during my free time, my work shouldn't be able to fire me, even though such a problem would prevent me from being able to do my job. but you think that because it happened during my free time, they shouldn't have any recourse whatsoever and should be forced to continue to pay me until such time as i was able to work again.

that's utterly asinine.

Further, I don't happen to know what industry you work in, but this would be more the equivalent of you getting a DUI, your employer deciding that no action needs to be taken against you, but the governing body of the industry you work in deciding (against most past precedents) that you need to be suspended from your job for a quarter of the year as a result. Wouldn't that strike you as a little bit odd?

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 10:40 AM
human resources can fire me for blowing lines at work. why should the owner of the company be able to fire me? or, the manager of my mall kiosk can fire me. why should corporate be able to?

come on. you're better than this.

The teams are the employers, the NFL is the governing body of each individual employer. Al Davis is the owner of the company employing Dominic Rhodes, and he can fire Rhodes at any point for basically any reason thanks to the morals clause in his contract. My question is why should the governing body of the industry go against most (all but one actually, and that came under Goodell's watch as well) of their precedent and suspend the employees for DUI?

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 10:44 AM
that's not true. it would be akin to my division wanting to fire me, or the company wide HR wanting to fire me. the NFL is the company. the teams are parts of that whole. unless you think the colts could decide to give the NFL a big middle finger and go play CFL football if they wanted? your example is similar to the player's union deciding to step in, NOT the league.

So all stock companies are really just a part of the SEC? That's the same basic logic you're using here. Of course all the teams are going to stay with the NFL, it's the best option for all parties involved. That doesn't make the NFL the owner of all of the teams though, just the governing body, and a governing body that since Goodell's arrival is acting against a great deal of its precedents.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 10:50 AM
again. the raiders can't just leave the nfl and decide to join the CFL. your analogy is, quite simply, incorrect.

What's the point of having owners if the franchises aren't seperate entities from the NFL?

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 11:18 AM
you're dodging the question. could any NFL team LEAVE the nfl if it chose to?

I would guess so, given that they're each individual companies. I can't say for sure, given that I don't know of nor do I have access to the agreements between each team and the NFL. If you do, feel free to answer the question.

your comparison relates to a union. it's just not a good analogy.

My comparison relates to a governing body, such as the SEC, which is the example I gave. It's actually a pretty accurate analogy.

the NFL owns all rights to football broadcasts. NOT the individual teams. if the NFL is just a loose coalition of teams, why did EA have to negotiate with the NFL rather than with specific teams for licensing of its game? why couldn't, say, the raiders have opted out and sold their rights to someone else for more money?

You've never heard of collective bargaining? The NFLPA isn't the only side participating in talks when concerning the "Collective Bargaining Agreement" between the NFL and NFLPA. When other unions make their CBAs (and all unions have them), who do you think they make them with? Perhaps the governing bodies of their respective industries?

what's the point of having VPs if there are CEO's and directors?

Any given owner of a company either is or hires a CEO for it. Any given owner of an NFL franchise either is or hires a CEO to run the franchise. The NFL does not own the teams, which is why your analogy doesn't work.

PoopSandwich
07-05-2007, 11:21 AM
Oakland is free to fire him if they feel that doing so is the best course of action. Why should the NFL suspend him?

Because it takes away from his money and doesn't require the team to lose him for 16 games...

A suspension is alot better than the league kicking him out...

I don't know many businesses that would let you get a DUI and not get fired/punished for it.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 11:23 AM
I don't know many businesses that would let you get a DUI and not get fired/punished for it.

Then let the employer punish him, not the governing body. That's my entire point.

PoopSandwich
07-05-2007, 11:24 AM
Then let the employer punish him, not the governing body. That's my entire point.

So if I got a DUI my employer should punish me and I should get out of it completely free from the government? I mean our society would be so awesome if it were like that!!! Someone could own a business and hire a bunch of people as hitmen, and since the government shouldn't punish them, and the employer is a criminal, they would never go to jail!

Grand idea!

The government is the law, the commish is the law, don't break the law.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 11:29 AM
So if I got a DUI my employer should punish me and I should get out of it completely free from the government? I mean our society would be so awesome if it were like that!!! Someone could own a business and hire a bunch of people as hitmen, and since the government shouldn't punish them, and the employer is a criminal, they would never go to jail!

Grand idea!

The government is the law, the commish is the law, don't break the law.

Is the concept of a governing body really this difficult to understand? He's already dealt with the law, it's up to the Raiders to punish him after that.

PoopSandwich
07-05-2007, 11:33 AM
Is the concept of a governing body really this difficult to understand? He's already dealt with the law, it's up to the Raiders to punish him after that.

No it isn't... Do you think teams really want to suspend their players for 4 games? No...

So then the government as you call it steps in and does their job... The NFL has every right to suspend someone who has broken a law, because most of the times teams won't do it... Wasn't Pac Man only suspended like one game compared to the 16 the "Government" gave him.

cardsalltheway
07-05-2007, 11:43 AM
You can't have teams hand out punishments for their own players with the NFL left out of the entire process. You'll have teams that will be strict and keep all their players in line with harsh punishments, and then you'll have teams that will, for the most part, let their players do whatever they want with very little punishment. You have to have an unbiased body that gives out consistent punishments.

ks_perfection
07-05-2007, 11:44 AM
No it isn't... Do you think teams really want to suspend their players for 4 games? No...

So then the government as you call it steps in and does their job... The NFL has every right to suspend someone who has broken a law, because most of the times teams won't do it... Wasn't Pac Man only suspended like one game compared to the 16 the "Government" gave him.

Even if teams wanted their player suspended they don't want to offend him by doing it themselves. If the league does the team doesn't look like the bad guy who's taking 1/4 of his salary away.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 01:34 PM
because you said so? seriously? fine, i'll even take your word for it.

"Crucial to the SEC's effectiveness in each of these areas is its enforcement authority. Each year the SEC brings hundreds of civil enforcement actions against individuals and companies for violation of the securities laws." -http://www.sec.gov/about/whatwedo.shtml

the SEC has brought lawsuits against INDIVIDUALS for violations of its laws. the NFL has, similarly, suspended INDIVIDUALS for violations of its laws. how is this a good comparison that is favorable for your argument again? because i couldn't get fired and get slapped with a lawsuit from the SEC? what?

Does the SEC suspend stock brokers for DUIs? When exactly did I say the NFL should have no enforcement authority? On this particular issue, I feel they're overstepping their bounds. An off the field conduct policy does the same IMO. Is there any governing body outside of sports that even has one of these? A conduct policy for what you can do on your own time? I doubt it, and if there were, I'd be shocked if it wasn't being challenged. I think an individual or group of NFL players should challenge Fuhrer Goodell's policy as well, especially since it completely breaks precedent.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 02:15 PM
does the NFL suspend players for improper stock trading? TERRIBLE example.

A stock broker can get a DUI, an NFL player can't improperly trade stock. If anyone's example is terrible, it's your counter-example here.

the two organizations are NOT the same and have different standards of conduct (that should've been obvious, but apparently it needed to be said outright). the SEC may very well suspend brokers based on drug/alcohol use. i don't want to read their bylaws and find out, mostly because it isn't relevant.

Of course the two organizations are different, the only reason I used the SEC as an example is because it, like the NFL, is a governing body over several corporations, a concept that seemed to escape you and others in this thread until I brought up said example.

the NFL has a cut and dried substance abuse policy. let me repeat that just so you get it this time. the NFL has a substance abuse policy.

A substance abuse policy that, by precedent, DOES NOT INCLUDE DUIs.

a player who agreed to be bound by the NFL rules violated that policy.

How, given my previous statement above?

thus, the NFL suspended that player. this fits your example.

No, it doesn't, and I've stated why more than once now.

this is fair by ANY stretch of employment regulations you could think of.

So it's okay to break precedent just because the new guy wants a tough image? Tell that to a lawyer. This is exactly why I do not like Goodell's reign as commissioner thus far.

gosh... any governing body... that has a say in your personal life... maybe, the government? or was that too easy? should i think a little harder? how about universities? they all have a code of personal conduct for faculty and staff that must be followed both in and out of the classroom. still need more examples? i can keep going.

Are either of these governing bodies over industries? No. These are irrelevant and entirely different examples from the type of governing bodies I'm looking for, and you know as much.

you're welcome to your opinion as always, but is not, in any way, based in fact or reality.

Why? Because it disagrees with yours? At some point you'll find that you, like everyone else, are in fact fallible.

Zim3031
07-05-2007, 02:22 PM
A substance abuse policy that, by precedent, DOES NOT INCLUDE DUIs.


Are you sure?

The illegal use of drugs and the abuse of prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and alcohol (hereinafter referred to as "substances of abuse") is prohibited [ftnt 1] for players in the National Football League ("NFL"). Moreover, the use of alcohol may be prohibited for individual players in certain situations where clinically indicated in accordance with the terms of this Policy.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/drugs/policy/football/index.html
(http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/drugs/policy/football/index.html)

Certainly a DUI is an example of "the illegal use of drugs"

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 02:30 PM
Are you sure?



http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/drugs/policy/football/index.html
(http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/sports/drugs/policy/football/index.html)

Certainly a DUI is an example of "the illegal use of drugs"

Yes I'm sure. Unless, of course, selective use of the policy is allowed, which would almost certainly be grounds for a discrimination suit in just about any case not involving someone who had previously been ordered to stay away from alcohol, or, as put there, "certain situations where clinically indicated". If Leonard Little can kill a woman while DUI (http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040425/news_1s25briefs.html) and never miss a down for it, why is Rhodes suspended for 4 games? Of course, there are several other examples of players not getting suspended for DUIs, Little's case is simply the easiest for me to remember for the egregiousness of it.

Dam8610
07-05-2007, 02:44 PM
Certainly a DUI is an example of "the illegal use of drugs"

Didn't see this before. If anything, under what you put there, a DUI would fall under the "abuse of prescription drugs, over-the-counter drugs, and alcohol (hereinafter referred to as "substances of abuse")" portion of the definition you gave. By the strictest of definitions, I suppose a DUI could be considered "abuse of alcohol", but any reasonable person would know that that particular terminology intended to deal with players who get addicted to a "substance of abuse", such as an alcoholic. Regardless, by precedent, DUI is not included in the NFL's substance abuse policy.

someone447
07-05-2007, 05:58 PM
that's an unbelievably stupid presumption that has absolutely no basis whatsoever in reality. there's a reason no one has taken that comment seriously since the first time you invented it to make yourself feel better about the times you've driven drunk.

further, iirc, you're still in college. why, exactly, should i believe anything you say about what is/isn't allowed once you have a "career job"?

I do not know a single person who hasn't driven drunk. Whether they are my age or parents friends, or even grandparents friends. .08 is hardly anything, yet you are considered legally drunk.

I say that to make me feel better about myself? I've driven drunk 3 times, and each time I wake up in the morning and think, why the **** did I just do that.

Which is why I said I would GUESS that you wouldn't get fired. I probably should have added unless you work with a job that driving or something very much life it.

Try to think of one person that drinks that hasn't driven drunk, good luck finding one. Just think back to not only college, but also look at the percentage of people at any given bar or party(especially new years) and tell me that just about everyone hasn't driven drunk.

marks01234
07-05-2007, 10:17 PM
You can't have teams hand out punishments for their own players with the NFL left out of the entire process. You'll have teams that will be strict and keep all their players in line with harsh punishments, and then you'll have teams that will, for the most part, let their players do whatever they want with very little punishment. You have to have an unbiased body that gives out consistent punishments.

Why not leave it in the hands of the team?

If a particular team shows a constant disregard for character (see the Bengals) then expect them to get the full force of negative publicly. Eventually fans will get fed up and stop spending money on the teams. Also expect a poor team unity and less discpline on the field which will directly lead to more losses.

If I open up a TV factory tomorrow and hire all ex-cons to do my labor to save on costs, nobody is going to care. It doesn't matter if all of them are free on bond or not. I could even hire OJ as my COO. It is my company and the state isn't going to crack down on me for having a "troubled work force". I'll certainly suffer through with unreliable workers but it's my choice and it's my company to run.

bantx
07-06-2007, 11:18 PM
my coach coached him back in highschool

Moses
07-07-2007, 06:31 AM
I do not know a single person who hasn't driven drunk. Whether they are my age or parents friends, or even grandparents friends. .08 is hardly anything, yet you are considered legally drunk.

I say that to make me feel better about myself? I've driven drunk 3 times, and each time I wake up in the morning and think, why the **** did I just do that.

Which is why I said I would GUESS that you wouldn't get fired. I probably should have added unless you work with a job that driving or something very much life it.

Try to think of one person that drinks that hasn't driven drunk, good luck finding one. Just think back to not only college, but also look at the percentage of people at any given bar or party(especially new years) and tell me that just about everyone hasn't driven drunk.

I know plenty of people that haven't driven drunk...

someone447
07-07-2007, 12:45 PM
I know plenty of people that haven't driven drunk...

I know plenty of people who don't drive drunk, but I don't know anyone who hasn't at least once, whether it was in high school, college, or some time later in life.

Smooth Criminal
07-07-2007, 01:32 PM
I fully support this suspension. I believe the NFL players should be held to higher standards than the "common man" because of the attention they get and the fact that they are role models for many people. A DUI is a serious offense and how does it look if Rhodes gets a DUI and nothing happens to him? Alcohol is a drug and driving over the legal limit is what I would consider abuse.

I'm sure a lawyer will try to fight this one for Rhodes but it won't work. The league will win this case and a new precedent will be set that players can be suspended for recieving a DUI.

yo123
07-07-2007, 06:22 PM
Does it really matter? I mean, you could probably put LT behind that line and still have a below average running game.

Moses
07-07-2007, 07:17 PM
I know plenty of people who don't drive drunk, but I don't know anyone who hasn't at least once, whether it was in high school, college, or some time later in life.

I'd say you're probably in the minority in that regard.