Legal thoughts on Odell

[happyrid]

I took a little time to do a bit of research on Odell's situation with the NFL this morning and I want to clarify some common misconceptions that I keep seeing on the board. Granted, this in NFL law, not the type of stuff that was on the bar exam, but being an attorney, it is a bit easier to sift through some of the language, so I'm pretty confident in my interpretation of the NFL's policies.

Here is the one thing nearly everyone seems to be missing in the many Odell threads, [b]the procedures, rules, punishments and standards for players in the substance abuse program are completely different than those for guys who are in trouble with the law.[/b]

Thus, statements about Jared Allen, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, etc. are irrelevant. Those guys are being punished under a completely different set of rules.

So, what are the[b] differences[/b]?

[b]1. What is punishable. [/b] Obviously, to get suspended due to disciplinary problems, there generally needs to be a conviction. Pacman didn't technically have a conviction, but they used the fact that he purposely hid arrests from the team as a technicality to bust him for a huge amount of incidents. Anyway, if the issue at hand was violation of the personal conduct policy, then the fact that Odell was never convicted of anything in the GA incident would be critical. But, he is not under that policy. He is under the substance abuse policy. When Odell violated the NFL's substance abuse policy twice, he put himself in a really, really bad position. At that point, the standards of what was punishable behavior became MUCH stricter. Thus, when he got the DUI, he was punished not because he violated the law, but because he violated the terms of the agreement he made with the league to avoid drinking. So, the punishment was stricter than anyone else on the Bengals who got a DUI (Deltha, Steiny, etc.). Those guys were punished under a different program.
[b]
2. Standards of proof.[/b] Odell has to do more than the average player. He not only has to follow the LAW, but he also has to follow the REQUIREMENTS OF HIS REHAB PROGRAM. This is directly related to point 1 and somewhat overlaps, but I want to concentrate on the Monticello incident, which I believe is the basis for his 2nd year of suspension. Again, people keep pointing out that charges were dropped. But, from the viewpoint of him following his rehab program (a requirement for reinstatement), he was not allowed to drink alcohol. So, even if the NFL determined that he didn't have a gun or kick a guy in the face, if they looked into the facts, investigated, and made the simple determination that he was present at the party and was drinking, it would be proof that he had violated his rehab program requirements.

[b]3. Conditions of reinstatement.[/b] So, lets assume that the commish feels that there is proof that Odell is still a drinker. Probably by investigation into the GA incident, but also likely confirmed by other surveillance, interviews, etc. Under the rules of the substance abuse policy, Goodell is not supposed to let him back in if he has violated the conditions of his rehab. So, again, it is not a question of if he was convicted for anything. Odell is 21, so there is nothing against the law about him drinking. But, that is not relevant. He is held to a higher standard.

Overall, there is a very good argument that the Commish has in fact followed the NFL rules that are in place. Odell had to do more than just not get arrested and do more than just pass his drug tests. Arguably, if the NFL feels that he didn't do every single thing that his rehab required (staying sober and not being out drinking late at night in his 1st week out of rehab, for example), they are within their rights to deny his resinstatement. When people make comparisons and talk of writing letters to the league, etc. they need to keep these facts in mind. Many are arguing the facts under one policy (legal trouble) when an entirely different set of standards (rehab requirements for substance abuse violations) apply.

[i]Disclaimer: Wouldn't be a legal opinion if I didn't throw a disclaimer in here. I think the policy is too strict. It just doesn't seem fair that stuff like being involved in shootings, fighting, wife beating, etc. is not punished as strictly as violations of the substance abuse policy. My personal opinion is that Odell had been punished enough and if he was back drinking he should have had his supsension extended 1 month or something but not for an entire season. It's not fair, but it is what it is. Goodell applied the law on the books in the way he saw fit and I don't see the chances of appeal being very good if the NFL does in fact have proof that he violated his program's requirements by drinking. [/i]

[happyrid]

can someone please erase 2 of my posts. my internet has been acting crazy and I think I submitted the same post 3 times somehow. sorry.

[-GoBengals-]

if there is another incident it should be let known, it seems even odell isnt told why, or he wouldnt be appealing, what you write is true... but isnt the point either. the media would be on an odell fuckup of any kind like stink on the browns. even if it was via taddletail, etc.. some a-hole somewhere would have the scoop and dish it immediately..

[|Lucid|]

Hopefully we will learn more from Goodells disposition once the appeal has completed.

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='Lucid' post='518053' date='Jul 28 2007, 12:25 PM']Hopefully we will learn more from Goodells disposition once the appeal has completed.[/quote]


with the lack of anwer FOR the suspension i cant imagine much more of a response from an appeal...



PS: didnt someone else appeal and get it knocked down? allen maybe?

[|Lucid|]

The only defference is that part of the appeals process is that he has to issue a written disposition which fully explains the position. I don't think he was reuired to do anything of the sort for the initial decision.

Not that this means WE can expect many details.. But hopefully more than just "No".

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='Lucid' post='518057' date='Jul 28 2007, 12:32 PM']The only defference is that part of the appeals process is that he has to issue a written disposition which fully explains the position. I don't think he was reuired to do anything of the sort for the initial decision.

Not that this means WE can expect many details.. But hopefully more than just "No".[/quote]


sweet...


i bet TJ photoshopped pictures of odell doing heroin and sent them to the commish. cant be trusted...

[happyrid]

[quote name='GoBengals' post='518055' date='Jul 28 2007, 12:29 PM']with the lack of anwer FOR the suspension i cant imagine much more of a response from an appeal...
PS: didnt someone else appeal and get it knocked down? allen maybe?[/quote]

He did, but again, that was the personal conduct policy which is an entirely different animal than the substance abuse program.

As for your point about another incident, I don't believe there has to be any type of incident for him to not meet the standards of his rehab program. It could be as simple as the NFL finding that Odell has been going to bars, quietly having a few drinks without getting in any trouble and then taking a cab home. Something like this could have happened and it wouldn't be considered an "incident." He could have had a few beers at that part in Monticello, then said, "sorry gents I must go home as I plan on getting up early tomorrow to help tutor troubled youths," and that still would have violated his rehab requirements.

His agreement stated that he had to give up drinking alcohol to get reinstated. And the NFL does not have to prove that he has drank beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence or by any other normal legal standard. Goodell just has to believe it and if he believes that Odell has relapsed at all since leaving the rehab facilities, he can suspend him.

It doesn't seem like a fair rule. If a grown man has a few drinks and doesn't hurt anytbody or drive drunk or anything, it shouldn't be held against him. But, in this case it is. The only parallel I could think of in criminal law would be that some people have strict probation requirements. For some, it would be a violation of probation to have even a drop of alcohol. Or to hang out with known criminals. Or for a petter ass to be within 1000 yards of a school, etc.

[Soundwave]

[quote name='happyrid' post='518083' date='Jul 28 2007, 01:26 PM']He did, but again, that was the personal conduct policy which is an entirely different animal than the substance abuse program.

As for your point about another incident, I don't believe there has to be any type of incident for him to not meet the standards of his rehab program. It could be as simple as the NFL finding that Odell has been going to bars, quietly having a few drinks without getting in any trouble and then taking a cab home. Something like this could have happened and it wouldn't be considered an "incident." He could have had a few beers at that part in Monticello, then said, "sorry gents I must go home as I plan on getting up early tomorrow to help tutor troubled youths," and that still would have violated his rehab requirements.

His agreement stated that he had to give up drinking alcohol to get reinstated. And the NFL does not have to prove that he has drank beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence or by any other normal legal standard. Goodell just has to believe it and if he believes that Odell has relapsed at all since leaving the rehab facilities, he can suspend him.

It doesn't seem like a fair rule. If a grown man has a few drinks and doesn't hurt anytbody or drive drunk or anything, it shouldn't be held against him. But, in this case it is. The only parallel I could think of in criminal law would be that some people have strict probation requirements. For some, it would be a violation of probation to have even a drop of alcohol. Or to hang out with known criminals. Or for a petter ass to be within 1000 yards of a school, etc.[/quote]
How does 2 dui's not fall under the substance abuse policy? He originally got 4 games because it fell under the substance abuse policy rules for stage 2, and somehow managed to get it knocked down to 2 games.

[cwing]

[quote name='GoBengals' post='518050' date='Jul 28 2007, 12:20 PM']if there is another incident it should be let known,[/quote]

Not sure but I beleive the additional information you and I would like to see cannot be released. Any/all personnal information would violate Odell's rights. I am very sure Odell will never say anything contrary to "I have complyed".

All those legals issues are another matter as they are in fact ------ public record. Addictions are not. It would be the same as releasing medical information which can only be done with player approval.

[AlphaBengal]

This situation is rather odd. Odell had to have violated his suspension guidelines or missed a drug test. If thats the case then we really can't moan and groan about him being suspended for another year. On the other hand, if Odell was clean the entire time and perfect citizen then he should have been re-instated.

I hope we get him back, because our defense is average at best.

[Jeb]

[quote name='happyrid' post='518083' date='Jul 28 2007, 01:26 PM']He did, but again, that was the personal conduct policy which is an entirely different animal than the substance abuse program.

As for your point about another incident, I don't believe there has to be any type of incident for him to not meet the standards of his rehab program. It could be as simple as the NFL finding that Odell has been going to bars, quietly having a few drinks without getting in any trouble and then taking a cab home. Something like this could have happened and it wouldn't be considered an "incident." He could have had a few beers at that part in Monticello, then said, "sorry gents I must go home as I plan on getting up early tomorrow to help tutor troubled youths," and that still would have violated his rehab requirements.

His agreement stated that he had to give up drinking alcohol to get reinstated. And the NFL does not have to prove that he has drank beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence or by any other normal legal standard. Goodell just has to believe it and if he believes that Odell has relapsed at all since leaving the rehab facilities, he can suspend him.

It doesn't seem like a fair rule. If a grown man has a few drinks and doesn't hurt anytbody or drive drunk or anything, it shouldn't be held against him. But, in this case it is. The only parallel I could think of in criminal law would be that some people have strict probation requirements. For some, it would be a violation of probation to have even a drop of alcohol. Or to hang out with known criminals. Or for a petter ass to be within 1000 yards of a school, etc.[/quote]

1) Odell should waive his right to privacy if there is no incident. Get the media involved. Use them.

2) Odell is a self-proclaimed alcoholic. He has a disease. Wouldn't it be favorable to submit to the commissioner that his client is being discriminated against because of this disease? If worded correctly then wouldn't the commissioner at least have to think twice about getting in a legal trap with US employment laws? (no contract supercedes US law)

[membengal]

Great post, happy. Dead on.

As an attorney myself (insert all appropriate legal disclaimers), the hardest part about what Goodell is doing is that it is damn near impossible to divine just what the standard is, or know if you are running afoul of it. Certainty, frankly, or something close to it, is what allows attorneys to advise their clients. What Goodell is doing is injecting a massive dose of the unknown into the proceedings, and it feels, in two loaded legal terms, both arbitrary and capricious. I say that, by the way, happy, because Goodell has not let us know what under what standard he has extended Odell's suspension. If it's the substance policy, well, then that would make sense. If it was for the unproven and ultimately dropped GA shenanigans a few months back, that would be something else entirely.

And, ultimately, I think Thurman has next to no recourse.

[|Lucid|]

People need to realize that Thurman has not had his suspension extended. He has struck out. He has failed out of the third stage of the substance abuse program and has, in effect, been banished from the NFL. He has the right to request reinstatement once per year. But he basically is relying on the commissioner to "be nice and let him come back". It doesn't matter if he has totally cleaned himself up and has done everything right. All Goodell needs is to believe, personally, that it is not in the interest of the league to reinstate Odell, and that's that.

Odell can appeal, but the Goodell will make the final and lone decision on that as well. By doing this he is not "making things up as he goes along" or doing anything which exceeds the scope of his power as commisioner. Personally, I think it is bullshit, and Odell should be allowed to play. But there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. If Goodell wants to impose double standards in his decisions to reinstated banned players, there is nothing anyone can do about it short of a law suit, and I don't see that happening since you would have to [b]prove[/b] malice/bias/prejudice which is next to impossible.

[|Bunghole|]

[i]This is from an email I had forwarded to me from Kim Williams, whom is the CEO of NFL Network (and has an office across the hall from Goodell, and works directly under him), and is a friend of a friend...and unfortunately, it doesn't shed much light on anything and it also isn't complete....somehow it got cut off....fwiw...[/i]





Technically, Odell Thurman wasn't suspended again, his application for
> reinstatement was denied... he had been suspended for a year for the
> 2006 season for violating the substance abuse policy
>
>
>
> This is from the substance abuse policy as to what happens when applying
> for reinstatement after a 1-year suspension...
>
>
>
> 1. Reinstatement.
>
> 1. Criteria: After the completion of the one-year banishment
> period, the Commissioner, in his sole discretion, will determine if and
> when the player will be allowed to return to the NFL. A player's failure
> to adhere to his Treatment Plan during his banishment will be a
> significant consideration in the Commissioner's decision of whether to
> reinstate a player. A player seeking reinstatement must meet certain
> clinical requirements as determined by the Medical Director and other
> requirements as set forth

[|Lucid|]

[quote name='Bunghole' post='518340' date='Jul 29 2007, 12:30 AM'][i]This is from an email I had forwarded to me from Kim Williams, whom is the CEO of NFL Network (and has an office across the hall from Goodell, and works directly under him), and is a friend of a friend...and unfortunately, it doesn't shed much light on anything and it also isn't complete....somehow it got cut off....fwiw...[/i]
Technically, Odell Thurman wasn't suspended again, his application for
> reinstatement was denied... he had been suspended for a year for the
> 2006 season for violating the substance abuse policy
>
>
>
> This is from the substance abuse policy as to what happens when applying
> for reinstatement after a 1-year suspension...
>
>
>
> 1. Reinstatement.
>
> 1. Criteria: After the completion of the one-year banishment
> period, the Commissioner, in his sole discretion, will determine if and
> when the player will be allowed to return to the NFL. A player's failure
> to adhere to his Treatment Plan during his banishment will be a
> significant consideration in the Commissioner's decision of whether to
> reinstate a player. A player seeking reinstatement must meet certain
> clinical requirements as determined by the Medical Director and other
> requirements as set forth[/quote]

I have posted this entire section of the substabce abuse policy in the other Odell thread.

[marvs]

It was first reported on July 13, 2006, that Bengals middle linebacker, Odell Thurman would miss the season's first four games for violating the league's substance abuse policy. On September 25, Odell Thurman was pulled over and charged with a DUI extending his four game suspension to a full season (the irony here is that he was pulled over driving Chris Henry's SUV). It was reported on July 26, 2007, that Odell wouldn't be reinstated and thus spending another full season suspended -- thus the name was born, Chancellor Goodell.

649 days and a 15-17 record later (three times the losses than Thurman has experienced in his NFL career, ironically), Odell Thurman is officially reinstated into the NFL.


_______________
Marvin

This is a comprehensive addiction portal focusing on topics of alcohol and drug abuse. [url="http://www.alcoholaddiction.org"]http://www.alcoholaddiction.org[/url]