Matt Jones' suspension makes some question NFL's policies

December 10, 10:01 AMSports ExaminerPaula Duffy

Previous Next

4 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Sports Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Matt Jones, Jacksonville Jaguars wide receiver lost his appeal related to the suspension handed down by the NFL for violating its drug policy. He did not test positive for banned substances, rather he was set down for being arrested on a drug charge. That happened in July when he was taken into custody by police after being found in his automobile with cocaine and marijuana.

If you recall, Miami Dolphins linebacker Joey Porter squawked loudly that the NFL suspended players in an inconsistent manner and he wondered aloud why Jones was allowed to remain in uniform. He compared the cases of Steve Smith and Larry Johnson to that of Jones. Smith was suspended by his own team for injuring a teammate during a fight in training camp. LJ was suspended by his team after a third charge of assault was made against him in a relatively short period of time.

Porter's complaint led to a discussion of whether there was favoritism in the way the league decided to punish athletes. I can't say with any degree of certainty that his suspicions have no basis in fact but I can point out a couple of distinctions in these cases.

Jones was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor in Florida and offered a drug diversion program to further reduce the severity of the crime. So much so that if he successfully completes it his record would be wiped clean. On the NFL side of this picture, the league issued a suspension but it wasn't immediate. They waited until the criminal side had worked with Jones and his attorney to reach that drug diversion program accommodation.

Jones, like all other athletes in the league, appealed his suspension. It was only this week that the decision of the arbitrator was handed down. Until that happens the league has no standing to act on a suspension under the terms of its collective bargaining agreement with the players' union. His team did not suspend him because the NFL took the lead under its drug program.

Smith and Larry Johnson violated the personal conduct policy of the league that provides for immediate discipline at the discretion of the commissioner although a grievance procedure is offered to the athletes in question. They can also be disciplined by their teams and at their discretion can be deactivated as the Chiefs did to LJ. The personal conduct policy is meant to address the public perception of the league. It believes in protecting the NFL shield at all costs. Here is what Roger Goodell had to say on that subject:

It is serious to our brand. People expect certain behavior with people associated with the NFL."

Others have pointed to the immediate action taken against Mike Vick and Plaxico Burress as more evidence of unbalanced application of discipline. I only have to point out that Vick violated league behavior rules, like Smith and LJ. If the Giants didn't act on Burress' situation the league would have under its personal conduct rules but they were spared that. Vick and Burress didn't trip the wire on the drug policy that has mandatory punishment but allows for players to remain eligible to play football while the appeals process takes its course. And until charges were filed or an indictment was filed the NFL and the Giants took no action on Vick and Burress.

Yet another instance in which the drug policy allowed a player to stretch out his appeals process throughout the majority of the season is that of former Broncos running back Travis Henry. His positive test happened in at the end of the 2007 pre-season but it wasn't until early December of that year that a final decision was rendered. His appeal worked and his played out the rest of the season in Denver.

Discretionary policies are by their very nature subject to human interpretation and are applied by teams and the league in a manner that isn't the same every time. The drug policy has a specified process to be followed. Is it fair? I guess the players can petition their union to change the rules of the CBA the next time it comes up. But according to all indications, the owners and players will be battling over what percentage of the league's gross revenues are set aside for players' salaries. I'm not sure any one of them will want to make a stink about this issue if they face a reduction in that cap number.