pageok
pageok
pageok
NFLPA Won't Appeal Haynesworth Suspension:

An Associated Press story indicates that the NFL Players Association will not challenge Haynesworth's suspension after all. Said NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw: "We represent both players here, and it is best for all concerned that we let the suspension stand." Still no word on potential criminal charges or a civil suit, but Andre Gurode is expected to practice today, and could be available for Sunday's game.

UPDATE: Haynesworth will not face criminal charges, according to this report, but he may yet face a civil suit, and the Tennessee Titans are considering whether to release him.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. NFLPA Won't Appeal Haynesworth Suspension:
  2. Haynesworth Apologizes, Will Not Appeal:
  3. Largest Suspension in NFL History:
JosephSlater (mail):
As someone who used to represent unions, I think this is the right call. Unions are in an interesting position, legally and morally, in these sorts of cases -- and read more broadly to include cases in which one member of the bargaining gets into a fight or other conflict with another, these cases are not uncommon.

Unions have a legal duty to represent fairly both the victim and the attacker. That duty can be satisfied by doing a competent investigation into the facts and then making a reasonable decision about what to do. So, if one party really is guilty and the other innocent, the union can choose to represent the innocent party and but not the guilty (although a union might still claim that the penalty was excessive).

Of course, most labor cases don't feature conclusive video evidence showing what actually happened, so the factual investigation was easy. But the union also made the right call on not appealing the penalty, IMHO.
10.5.2006 11:29am
HLSbertarian (mail):
If it weren't for Haynesworth's refusal to appeal, the union definitely would have fought this as excessive - they don't want the precedent.
10.5.2006 11:35am
HLSbertarian (mail):
...on the other hand - not to underestimate the outrageousness of NFL players, but this is about as bad as on-the-field conduct is likely to get, barring something ludicrous. Having a 5-game precedent as a cap of sorts for these kinds of violations might be good for a union looking to keep punishments short in general.
10.5.2006 11:38am
JosephSlater (mail):
HLSbertarian:

How do you know the union "definitely would have fought this"? A supposition on your part, or do you know some of the ... um ... players in this saga?
10.5.2006 11:39am
HLSbertarian (mail):
JS: The news stories over the week reported that the union was itching to appeal and was trying to convince Haynesworth to change his mind. That, and the NFLPA has a history of appealing nearly everything to avoid unfavorable precedents (though, admittedly, mot of the time only one player is involved).
10.5.2006 12:03pm
JosephSlater (mail):
HLSbertarian:

Fair enough. I would only note that unions don't need the consent of a disciplined player to challenge the severity of a penalty. Anyway, I still think the union made the right call.
10.5.2006 1:21pm
Duffy Pratt (mail):
"this is about as bad as on-the-field conduct is likely to get, barring something ludicrous."

This wasn't ludicrous?
10.6.2006 12:52pm