Seems David Strn is taking a page from the new NFL commish on players behavior.

Suspensions of three total eight games

NEW YORK -- Brandon Rush of the Indiana Pacers was suspended for five games by the NBA on Friday for violating the league's drug agreement, while Tyreke Evans of the Sacramento Kings and Kenny Hasbrouck of the Miami Heat drew suspensions for driving offenses.

Rush was suspended without pay for five games for violating the terms of the NBA/NBPA Anti-Drug Program. He started 64 games for the Pacers last season and averaged 9.4 points.

Pacers president Larry Bird said in a statement that the organization would support Rush.

http://sports.espn.go.com...id=5503818

This is a good move by the NBA. We gotta hold the players to a high standard.

JellyBean said:

This is a good move by the NBA. We gotta hold the players to a high standard.

I agree.........

What do you mean following in the NFL's footsteps?

Graycap23 said:

JellyBean said:

This is a good move by the NBA. We gotta hold the players to a high standard.

I agree.........

+1

I've never agreed with the sports figure as role model stance. But I do believe that the position they are put in professionally and financially (even the bench warmers get paid more than 9/10 of American's to just play basketball) should require them to live their personal lives to a certain standard. If they want to do stupid shit after they've retired, fine. It's their money, fame and good name to waste. But while they're part of the league and in the public eye I have no problem with them being suspended or fined for acting a fool.

And that's what following in the NFL's footsteps meant, SNDLS. Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the NFL, has been very proactive and some would say excessively harsh in doling out punishment WITHIN the game for players transgressions OUTSIDE the game.

[Edited 8/27/10 14:48pm]

JellyBean said:

This is a good move by the NBA. We gotta hold the players to a high standard.

? Than currently?

Cerebus said:

Graycap23 said:

I agree.........

+1

I've never agreed with the sports figure as role model stance. But I do believe that the position they are put in professionally and financially (even the bench warmers get paid more than 9/10 of American's to just play basketball) should require them to live their personal lives to a certain standard. If they want to do stupid shit after they've retired, fine. It's their money, fame and good name to waste. But while they're part of the league and in the public eye I have no problem with them being suspended or fined for acting a fool.

And that's what following in the NFL's footsteps meant, SNDLS. Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the NFL, has been very proactive and some would say excessively harsh in doling out punishment WITHIN the game for players transgressions OUTSIDE the game.

[Edited 8/27/10 14:48pm]

Boo-hoo.

They are free to quit and seek other employment if they don't like it.

I have no tears, empathy or sympathy.

They are there by choice.

JellyBean said:

This is a good move by the NBA. We gotta hold the players to a high standard.

I don't know if we have to hold them to a high standard when we ourselves don't do hold ourselves to high standards, but we need to hold them RESPONSIBLE for their criminal/rule/law breaking actions for sure.

SCNDLS said:

What do you mean following in the NFL's footsteps?

He means being tough on players that fuck up off the field.

RebirthOfCool said:

SCNDLS said:

What do you mean following in the NFL's footsteps?

He means being tough on players that fuck up off the field.

But the NBA has been doling out fines and suspensions for failing drug tests, that's not new. I don't see how this particular case is different or special. I guess, I don't get the correlation to the NFL.

RebirthOfCool said:

I don't know if we have to hold them to a high standard when we ourselves don't do hold ourselves to high standards, but we need to hold them RESPONSIBLE for their criminal/rule/law breaking actions for sure.

SCNDLS said:

RebirthOfCool said:

He means being tough on players that fuck up off the field.

But the NBA has been doling out fines and suspensions for failing drug tests, that's not new. I don't see how this particular case is different or special. I guess, I don't get the correlation to the NFL.

I think what he means is that Stern is coming out ahead of the judicial process and handing out punishments for just getting into trouble, regardless of is they're clear of all charges or not.

SUPRMAN said:

Cerebus said:

+1

I've never agreed with the sports figure as role model stance. But I do believe that the position they are put in professionally and financially (even the bench warmers get paid more than 9/10 of American's to just play basketball) should require them to live their personal lives to a certain standard. If they want to do stupid shit after they've retired, fine. It's their money, fame and good name to waste. But while they're part of the league and in the public eye I have no problem with them being suspended or fined for acting a fool.

And that's what following in the NFL's footsteps meant, SNDLS. Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the NFL, has been very proactive and some would say excessively harsh in doling out punishment WITHIN the game for players transgressions OUTSIDE the game.

[Edited 8/27/10 14:48pm]

Boo-hoo.

They are free to quit and seek other employment if they don't like it.

I have no tears, empathy or sympathy.

They are there by choice.

Umm, yeah. I didn't say otherwise. I'm just going to assume that's your general opinion and not a response to what I said.

RebirthOfCool said:

I think what he means is that Stern is coming out ahead of the judicial process and handing out punishments for just getting into trouble, regardless of is they're clear of all charges or not.

That's something I don't like. Punishing someone who hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.

RebirthOfCool said:

JellyBean said:

This is a good move by the NBA. We gotta hold the players to a high standard.

I don't know if we have to hold them to a high standard when we ourselves don't do hold ourselves to high standards, but we need to hold them RESPONSIBLE for their criminal/rule/law breaking actions for sure.

My job is not presented to the viewing public as enternainment on a near constant basis, nor is it used to sell an infinite number of products. My job will not make me a celebrity or create opportunities for me to earn money other than my salary. I do think there is a difference and they should be held to a higher standard by their employer in regards to their public behavior. Because if I do something foolish it's not making the evening news and every sports blog around the country. With them, it most definitely is.

uPtoWnNY said:

RebirthOfCool said:

I think what he means is that Stern is coming out ahead of the judicial process and handing out punishments for just getting into trouble, regardless of is they're clear of all charges or not.

That's something I don't like. Punishing someone who hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.

Yeah, GODdell walks a fine line with that shit. I can see on one hand but then again, if they weren't charged with shit, then how can you get punished?

uPtoWnNY said:

RebirthOfCool said:

I think what he means is that Stern is coming out ahead of the judicial process and handing out punishments for just getting into trouble, regardless of is they're clear of all charges or not.

That's something I don't like. Punishing someone who hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.

It depends. I think Ben Rothlisberger's punishment (although it's likely to be reduced by a couple weeks) is fair. Dude made the same mistake multiple times. And that's what these commissioners are trying to get across. You represent your league as a "professional" athelete, so just don't even put yourselves in situations where you know you could get in trouble. Even if they're not found guilty of a crime, being arrested and/or investigated multiple times still allows for stereotypes to be perpetuated. "Spoiled, overpayed athletes who think they're above the law." Since these occurences are actually very few and far between in relation to total number of players, it seems like most of these guys get it.

Cerebus said:

RebirthOfCool said:

I don't know if we have to hold them to a high standard when we ourselves don't do hold ourselves to high standards, but we need to hold them RESPONSIBLE for their criminal/rule/law breaking actions for sure.

My job is not presented to the viewing public as enternainment on a near constant basis, nor is it used to sell an infinite number of products. My job will not make me a celebrity or create opportunities for me to earn money other than my salary. I do think there is a difference and they should be held to a higher standard by their employer in regards to their public behavior. Because if I do something foolish it's not making the evening news and every sports blog around the country. With them, it most definitely is.

But your job does require you to perform responsibly and professionally, unless you're your own boss and you just don't give a damn. And if you do something that's foolish enough, it just MIGHT make the evening news. This is a new age and era as far as media outlets go. But athletes are held to higher standards by the minions that buy into their status. That's on them.

RebirthOfCool said:

Cerebus said:

My job is not presented to the viewing public as enternainment on a near constant basis, nor is it used to sell an infinite number of products. My job will not make me a celebrity or create opportunities for me to earn money other than my salary. I do think there is a difference and they should be held to a higher standard by their employer in regards to their public behavior. Because if I do something foolish it's not making the evening news and every sports blog around the country. With them, it most definitely is.

But your job does require you to perform responsibly and professionally, unless you're your own boss and you just don't give a damn. And if you do something that's foolish enough, it just MIGHT make the evening news. This is a new age and era as far as media outlets go. But athletes are held to higher standards by the minions that buy into their status. That's on them.

It's just not the same and it doesn't matter who buys into it. There isn't a 24-hour television network or a thousand websites dedicated to what I do for a living. In my opinion, it should be the responsibility of those EXTREMELY well paid atheletes to keep any reporting done on them relating to their sports, not their personal lives. I actually hate reality tv about athletes, too. I'll admit I like Shaq VS, though.

Cerebus said:

RebirthOfCool said:

But your job does require you to perform responsibly and professionally, unless you're your own boss and you just don't give a damn. And if you do something that's foolish enough, it just MIGHT make the evening news. This is a new age and era as far as media outlets go. But athletes are held to higher standards by the minions that buy into their status. That's on them.

It's just not the same and it doesn't matter who buys into it. There isn't a 24-hour television network or a thousand websites dedicated to what I do for a living. In my opinion, it should be the responsibility of those EXTREMELY well paid atheletes to keep any reporting done on them relating to their sports, not their personal lives. I actually hate reality tv about athletes, too. I'll admit I like Shaq VS, though.

That depends, what do you do for a living? I hope it's not Camp Counselor LOL. And Shaq vs is cool, too bad he stole the idea from Steve Nash .

uPtoWnNY said:

RebirthOfCool said:

I think what he means is that Stern is coming out ahead of the judicial process and handing out punishments for just getting into trouble, regardless of is they're clear of all charges or not.

That's something I don't like. Punishing someone who hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.

Why?

They don't have a right to be a professional athlete? They voluntarily submit to being disciplined.

Where's the problem?

RebirthOfCool said:

uPtoWnNY said:

That's something I don't like. Punishing someone who hasn't been found guilty in a court of law.

Yeah, GODdell walks a fine line with that shit. I can see on one hand but then again, if they weren't charged with shit, then how can you get punished?

Because they submit to being disciplined by the league.

It's what they signed up for.

What does a court of law have to do with it?

That's not the only cause for discipline.

It certainly has the effect of getting their attention.

There is no entitlement to play professional sports.

If you don't like the rules, walk away.

Cerebus said:

SUPRMAN said:

Boo-hoo.

They are free to quit and seek other employment if they don't like it.

I have no tears, empathy or sympathy.

They are there by choice.

Umm, yeah. I didn't say otherwise. I'm just going to assume that's your general opinion and not a response to what I said.

Actually it's both.

[Edited 8/27/10 18:57pm]

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Yeah, GODdell walks a fine line with that shit. I can see on one hand but then again, if they weren't charged with shit, then how can you get punished?

Because they submit to being disciplined by the league.

It's what they signed up for.

What does a court of law have to do with it?

That's not the only cause for discipline.

It certainly has the effect of getting their attention.

There is no entitlement to play professional sports.

If you don't like the rules, walk away.

Wrong. They signed up to play the sport. How you think otherwise is truly ridiculous. No one signs up to get disciplined. And the court of law has a lot to do with it, especially if no crime was committed. How you don't understand that is beyond me.

SUPRMAN said:

Cerebus said:

Umm, yeah. I didn't say otherwise. I'm just going to assume that's your general opinion and not a response to what I said.

Actually it's both.

Cool. I'm pretty sure what I've written in that post is in complete agreement with your response.

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

Because they submit to being disciplined by the league.

It's what they signed up for.

What does a court of law have to do with it?

That's not the only cause for discipline.

It certainly has the effect of getting their attention.

There is no entitlement to play professional sports.

If you don't like the rules, walk away.

Wrong. They signed up to play the sport. How you think otherwise is truly ridiculous. No one signs up to get disciplined. And the court of law has a lot to do with it, especially if no crime was committed. How you don't understand that is beyond me.

Of course they signed up for it.

IF they did not, they could sue the league.

Why doesn't anyone fight the league if it's not something they've voluntarily contracted to agree to?

They would win an injunction to stay any discipline, and showing that they never signed up for being discipline and/or sanctions by the league (as opposed to say a team) would give them the win because it would be violating their contract as the penalty affects their salary.

If no crime is committed, your employer can't fire you? If no crime is committed your employer can't discipline you if you agreed to be disciplined when you were hired? Do you think you would win if you sued your employer for imposing discipline such as suspending you without pay?

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

Because they submit to being disciplined by the league.

It's what they signed up for.

What does a court of law have to do with it?

That's not the only cause for discipline.

It certainly has the effect of getting their attention.

There is no entitlement to play professional sports.

If you don't like the rules, walk away.

Wrong. They signed up to play the sport. How you think otherwise is truly ridiculous. No one signs up to get disciplined. And the court of law has a lot to do with it, especially if no crime was committed. How you don't understand that is beyond me.

By the way, no is saying they can't play a sport, or any sport (except of course, the professional league they play for) they just can't do it in the NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL/MSL/PGA or whomever

[Edited 8/27/10 19:26pm]

SUPRMAN said:

RebirthOfCool said:

Wrong. They signed up to play the sport. How you think otherwise is truly ridiculous. No one signs up to get disciplined. And the court of law has a lot to do with it, especially if no crime was committed. How you don't understand that is beyond me.

Of course they signed up for it.

IF they did not, they could sue the league.

Why doesn't anyone fight the league if it's not something they've voluntarily contracted to agree to?

They would win an injunction to stay any discipline, and showing that they never signed up for being discipline and/or sanctions by the league (as opposed to say a team) would give them the win because it would be violating their contract as the penalty affects their salary.

If no crime is committed, your employer can't fire you? If no crime is committed your employer can't discipline you if you agreed to be disciplined when you were hired? Do you think you would win if you sued your employer for imposing discipline such as suspending you without pay?

Of course not, they didn't sign up for it. In fact, if you can prove that NFL players sign up for professional sports to be disciplined, I'll pay your mortgage for 1 year. Deal?

And players have fought the league om a myriad of league latters, with discipline being one of those as well, it's called the players union. You obviously aren't into football.

Who said anything about being fired? Name a player GODell fired. We're talking suspensions.

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

Of course they signed up for it.

IF they did not, they could sue the league.

Why doesn't anyone fight the league if it's not something they've voluntarily contracted to agree to?

They would win an injunction to stay any discipline, and showing that they never signed up for being discipline and/or sanctions by the league (as opposed to say a team) would give them the win because it would be violating their contract as the penalty affects their salary.

If no crime is committed, your employer can't fire you? If no crime is committed your employer can't discipline you if you agreed to be disciplined when you were hired? Do you think you would win if you sued your employer for imposing discipline such as suspending you without pay?

Of course not, they didn't sign up for it. In fact, if you can prove that NFL players sign up for professional sports to be disciplined, I'll pay your mortgage for 1 year. Deal?

And players have fought the league om a myriad of league latters, with discipline being one of those as well, it's called the players union. You obviously aren't into football.

Who said anything about being fired? Name a player GODell fired. We're talking suspensions.

Voice of reason here.

RebirthOfCool said:

SUPRMAN said:

Of course they signed up for it.

IF they did not, they could sue the league.

Why doesn't anyone fight the league if it's not something they've voluntarily contracted to agree to?

They would win an injunction to stay any discipline, and showing that they never signed up for being discipline and/or sanctions by the league (as opposed to say a team) would give them the win because it would be violating their contract as the penalty affects their salary.

If no crime is committed, your employer can't fire you? If no crime is committed your employer can't discipline you if you agreed to be disciplined when you were hired? Do you think you would win if you sued your employer for imposing discipline such as suspending you without pay?

Of course not, they didn't sign up for it. In fact, if you can prove that NFL players sign up for professional sports to be disciplined, I'll pay your mortgage for 1 year. Deal?

And players have fought the league om a myriad of league latters, with discipline being one of those as well, it's called the players union. You obviously aren't into football.

Who said anything about being fired? Name a player GODell fired. We're talking suspensions.

No one signs up to be disciplined.

But if you allow yourself to be disciplined when you sign up to play a sport, that is what these athletes have done.

It comes with the privilege of playing pro sports.

Yes, as a RAIDERS fan, I know something, including about being disciplined.

So why do players accept the discipline that they did not sign up for as part of the privilege of playing a sport?

Because it's contractual. They may fight over procedural issues, but why is Big Ben giving up six game checks because Goodell told him to?

Why not fight to keep that million+?