Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Marshall's lawyer: NFL's method 'unprofessional'

By Lee Rasizer, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 5, 2008 at 8:42 p.m.
Updated August 5, 2008 at 8:42 p.m.

Text size  

More Denver Broncos

More stories »

A heads-up would have been nice.

Instead, Brandon Marshall’s lawyer said Tuesday he was apprised second hand that his client would be suspended three games by the NFL, with a chance to have the penalty pared to two contests if Marshall abides by league criteria.

He called the league’s methods “unprofessional and inappropriate.”

“The best part of this is we get to appeal this suspension to the very commissioner who chose to suspend him in this fashion,” Denver-based attorney Harvey Steinberg said.

Steinberg said he’s had substantial, “almost daily” contact with the league and that “at no time did they ever tell us they were even considering a two-game suspension or what they were considering. They just said it was under advisement.”

Steinberg took issue just as vehemently with the penalty itself.

“The NFL lacked substantial evidence to confirm that any type of violation of the player conduct policy would even allow for discipline by the commissioner,” he said.

There initially was speculation that Marshall’s penalty could have been four games but may have been reduced by information presented at the player’s hearing in front of Goodell last month.

That’s no consolation for Steinberg.

“That may all be true but my position is that I don’t think he should have been suspended at all,” he said. “Some might suggest, hey, this was going to be a four-game suspension and as a result of matters we presented on behalf of Brandon it was cut down to two. But that’s irrelevant to me. It’s like the innocent guy who goes to jail for five years and someone says it was originally going to be 10. It should be nothing.”

Steinberg’s belief is primarily based on the fact Marshall has yet to be convicted of a crime. Still, the league’s code of conduct states a conviction isn’t necessary since players “are held to a high standard” and that conduct detrimental to the league is subject to discipline “even where the conduct itself does not result in a conviction of a crime.”

Marshall was arrested three times within a year-long span beginning in March 2007. A drunken-driving trial is pending. One domestic violence case was dismissed; a second has yet to produce a formal charge.

“If you read the policy it says you have to have one prior incident coupled with the commissioner finding that in fact there was misconduct in violation of the policy. And there’s no way for this commissioner to have made that decision if he was dealing in a fair and even-handed manner.”

Steinberg previously was vocal publicly last season in ex-Broncos running back Travis Henry’s drug case, which likely won him few fans at the league’s Park Ave. offices. Henry eventually averted a suspension.

The lawyer was asked whether coming out so strongly a second time may hurt Marshall’s chances on appeal.

“If that’s the case, they need to bring in an independent arbiter and let him decide this,” he responded.

Comments

  • August 5, 2008

    10:08 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Dynamicdave writes:

    It's my opinion that Marshall should be suspended for 2 games. However, I also feel that the league leaked information to the wrong people (someone else told me it was to Adam Scheffler) before informing the Broncos and Marshall and his attorney. That is, in my books, a violation. They had no right to go to the press before notifying the actual person involved. I would appeal it also, on those grounds, as well.

  • August 5, 2008

    10:28 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jvill writes:

    An independent arbiter is exactly right.

    The very fact that Goodell is the one and only person accountable for these decisions is ludicrous. If he's going to have dumbfoundingly vague guidelines, that makes them even MORE open for interpretation, which means you need more people on the record and accountable for interpretation and consensus.

    We have complex and rigid laws in this country, and yet we still have 9 guys on the Supreme Court to sort out the sticky stuff (and they tend to split votes a lot). There should be a committee, and not one man, that makes these conduct decisions like at any other large organization or institution. Just consulting others is not enough.

    This should be followed by an appeals process that is actually worth more than a piece of buttered toast. In appeals instances where the accused must tuck their tails and return to the principles office to plead their case again, Goodell has an INHERENT INTEREST in NOT overturning his own decisions because it has the potential to make him appear to have been sloppy in his decision-making process. How can one not be biased toward one's own previous decisions? The man is the commissioner, but he ain't Marcus Aurelius, even if he thinks so.

    And if he was indeed "distracted" by the ridiculous Brett Favre Celebrity Fun Show to the detriment of the Broncos issues being treated speedily, that's a) favoritism and b) the man is a bottleneck. If true, more reasons to make the commissioner's role an escalation point only.

    The new conduct code push was a good first effort, but Goodell needs to amend it. This is the NFL, not baseball or basketball. It's starting to become embarrassing.

  • August 6, 2008

    1:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    azis1100 writes:

    I would file a civil suit against Goodell, and another one against the NFL.

    Why? Well there are three things they are dealing with in this suspension the way I understand it. These would be two DV related arrests and a DUI arrest.

    Now lets break these down:
    1) DUI-court date was set (Sept) with a initial not-guilty plea.
    NFL rules state you cannot be suspended for your first DUI, you may be fined and/or placed in a substance abuse program.

    2) 1st DV arrest-charges dropped by DA due to lack of evidence.
    NFL rules state you can be suspended for your first DV.

    3) 2nd DV arrest-charges have not been filed, but still can be.
    This arrest was in 2007 and the statute of limitations clock is ticking fast. Normally, when a DA waits this long to file charges it is due to the fact that they have a very weak case.

    DUI-pending, DV-charges dropped, DV-charges never filed.
    I would serve this suspension and then I would start dropping lawsuits left & right.