Free Donte

First of all, know that I'm not just looking to stir up trouble here.  This isn't a controversy-for-clicks deal.  I really believe these things.

With that said, it's not hard to see that I'm out of step with, well, everything I've read so far.  I'm not really sure why that is.  Generally, I'm a law and order kind of guy, probably more so than many of you.  But there are some things about this Donte suspension that really bother me.  In no particular order:

The "indefiniteness" of the term.  This seems arbitrary and capricious to me.  It feels like the action of an individual who knows he answers to no one, and so doesn't even have to think before he acts.

The nature of what Donte did has been known almost since the day it happened.  The facts were out there, Donte didn't dispute them and the only thing left was judicial resolution.  Goodell has had ample time to determine an appropriate punishment. 

The idea that this is a "make up" call.  This really, really disturbs me:

No one is bound to ask Goodell, either, if the suspension of Stallworth is apt punishment for the wide receiver. In their heart of hearts, most people who felt Stallworth's sentence was light, and perhaps the product of his financial wherewithal, knew that Thursday's ruling was the right thing to do.

That's from ESPN's Len Pasquarelli, writing about the suspension yesterday.  The NFL should not be in the business of righting perceived wrongs by the justice system.  It is fair to consider how the two punishments fit together.  For example, if an individual's conduct merits a two-year ban, but he serves one year in jail, I think it's only right to consider that "time served" and tack on only one additional year.  With a resolution in the Vick case fast approaching, we'll see if Goodell agrees.

But the appropriate punishment should be determined apart from the judicial outcome.  Goodell should not now be proposing a harsher sentence because the courts were "too lenient."

The weighing of wrongs.  What Donte did was wrong.  He has, at least in his public statements and a civil settlement, accepted responsibility for his actions.  He should never have been driving that night after having had that much to drink.

But this was also an accident.  A terrible accident, mostly caused by his carelessness, but an accident nonetheless.  I'm not sure how much better that would make me feel if it had been my loved one he killed, but the outcome here is not the best way to determine how Donte should be treated by the league.  By the courts, yes, by the league, no.

Consider a hypothetical.  What if everything about that night had been the same, except instead of killing the pedestrian, Donte had merely broken his leg?  His "personal conduct" -- what the league claims to be regulating -- would have been exactly the same, and yet it's doubtful Goodell would be treating his case even remotely the same way.

That is, I feel, because this is not about personal conduct.  It's about public perception.  It's about the NFL protecting its brand from the kind of fan disenchantment the NBA struggled with for so long the last decade. 

It is, in short, about business, not justice. 

Now I know some of you will argue that the NFL has every right to protect its business.  Fine.  What bothers me is when the language of justice is used to justify the protection of profits.

- - - - - -

What I think should have been done instead.  I'm not anti-suspension, by any means.  I believe a one-year ban and a significant -- say $500,000 -- fine to be passed along to MADD would be a fitting punishment.  And Goodell may end up there eventually, once he finally decides whether it's thumb up or down.

But what's most important is that the punishment should have been time-delimited, the language should have taken into account Stallworth's conduct since the accident, and Goodell should recognize that citing the "integrity" of the league is a laughable contention.