Thread: Kevin Burnett rips Roger Goodell

How much do you make burnett? You can't afford your own freaking addiction program?

Freaking ridiculous, me me me attitude.

How about this you selfish bastard, take a nice paycut so people (that make a tiny fraction of your salary) can go to the games.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

San Diego Chargers linebacker Kevin Burnett delivered a verbal hit to Roger Goodell earlier this week, calling the commissioner a "blatant liar" in an interview with a San Diego radio station.

Burnett said Goodell doesn't measure up to former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who Burnett said was willing to sit down with the players and reach a compromise. He said Goodell essentially represents the owners' interests, not the players'.

http://m.espn.go.com/nfl/story?storyId=6229285

Out of his entire interview this is the line I focus on. Of course Goodell represents the owners interests. That's what he's being paid by them to do. Anyone who thinks that he's looking out for the players interests has got his head stuck in the sand. Even the injury issues have more to do with owner costs for medical expenses, salaries earned when disabled, and the cost of a replacement for the injured than they do with the player's safety itself.

This has been one of my points all along when I argued that the players did not want this work stoppage. The owners would like us all to believe that they have bargained in good faith all along but the facts would prove differently if the cards were all laid on the table. The players walked out because the owners have not bargained in good faith and they're angry about being so disrespcted. That's a pretty natural feeling to have.

What this comes down to is what do the fans believe? Looking at it head on, and pushing away all the smoke, it's the owners who gain the most from misstatements of fact and half truths. In fact they have two people on their payroll, Goodell and Pash, who are doing just that in order to gain fan support for the owners cause.

What NFL player is being paid to do the same? No one, right? Is NFLPA sending out letters to fans stating their case in detail? The owners are trying to protect themselves against fan backlash because in reality they know that they brought this on themselves by their arrogant attitude and bad faith negotiation. They'll do anything in their power, inculding lie, to make sure the burden of blame is placed on the players and not them.

Blah blah blah, me me me, blah blah blah.

Originally Posted by The Benjamin

"If a guy has a drug problem, give him an alternative, don't just say, 'Hey, stop doing drugs. Stamp. Six games.' ... You put them in a drug program," he said. "OK, anybody can stick somebody in a nuthouse, but what else are you doing? What programs are you putting in place?"

waah. If a guy has a "drug problem" then perhaps he shouldnt be playing football...you know, since he has a PROBLEM. You think that airline pilot that fails a drug test is simply gonna be put in a "program" and welcomed back with open arms? Not quite...he will get fined, lose his job, get arrested if it causes something to happen on the job, and maybe even end up in jail. So be thankful you guys are physically gifted enough to HAVE a job that wants you back after you claim to kick a drug problem.

He also said that the NFL needs to take care of players outside of football if it wants to punish players for things they do off the field.

"Because they suspend players outside of playing football. Is that their responsibility? No. They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well," he said. "In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. ... That's what bothers me."

What bothers me is douchebags like you think that you deserve special treatment for being douchebags. You want it written in your contract...then fine, let it say you are banned from the NFL if you are a douchebag off the field, thatll solve the problem. You think that mcdonalds cashier is gonna have their job waiting for them after they get arrested for a felony? So why should the NFL be any different.

So yeah Burnett...save your pity party, and stop expecting special treatment simply because you are an athlete.

Originally Posted by Dagan81

I think that some of what Kevin Burnett said holds some credence. If you're going to suspend someone over a drug issue, make that person do his time in a psychiatric/drug rehabilitation hospital so he can get well. It's that simple. However, I do agree that most jobs for the average person do terminate the employees who test positive for illegal substances, so in that instance, players should thank their lucky stars that the owners have enough interest vested within these players to foot the bill toward rehabilitating them so that they can get back to being productive again.

That being said, can we still play "Brett Favre, the Pinata" since the issue of drugs came up again?

Dags, it's not so much interest for that players well being as it is interest in their own bank accounts and the money they have tied up in the guy.

Originally Posted by soulman

Dags, it's not so much interest for that players well being as it is interest in their own bank accounts and the money they have tied up in the guy.

Which is wrong why?

Do you not insure your valuable assets?

what a moron:

Because they suspend players outside of playing football. Is that their responsibility? No. They want us to be upstanding citizens, but if you want us to be upstanding citizens, you have to understand your role as well," he said. "In my contract, it says nothing about me being an upstanding citizen. ... That's what bothers me."

Actually *all* NFl contracts have a "good citizen" and subject to rules and conduct detrimental to the team and league.. guess kevin either can't read or never read his own contract.. players like this do nothing to help their cause

Originally Posted by blinddeafmute

Which is wrong why?

Do you not insure your valuable assets?

Yes, but they really can't insure their players health in the traditional sense. By that I mean that they aren't being indemnified against a players injury. At least I don't think so. I never said that it was wrong BDM. All I was doing was pointing out that their concern for their own financial welfare is usually much greater than for the players well being.

Note that I said usually, not always. I'm sure some owners think differently. George Halas paid all of Brian Piccolo's medical expenses even when he knew that he would never play football again and I'm sure that over the years others have done the same.