DT would have never been known for crap like this.

[honda522]

Proof that DT was better overall. On and off the field.

Charm won't work for Taylor this time - NFL - Yahoo! Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-taylorarrest050610)

[Chiefster]

Wow; just wow!

[Ryfo18]

LT's always been in trouble. The NFL is getting a bad rap b/c of a select few current and former players.

[honda522]

LT's always been in trouble. The NFL is getting a bad rap b/c of a select few current and former players.
Yea, and Pacman is back again. He signed with the Bungls the other day.

[stricken721]

I read somewhere earlier today where somebody was arguing taking him out of the HOF. If that's the case they should probably take OJ Simpson out of the hall too. There's never any excuse for anybody, let alone an athlete to act like this.

[matthewschiefs]

I read somewhere earlier today where somebody was arguing taking him out of the HOF. If that's the case they should probably take OJ Simpson out of the hall too. There's never any excuse for anybody, let alone an athlete to act like this.

Ojs act was far far worse then LTs so if they were to take LT out then they would have to take Oj out to.

[stricken721]

Ojs act was far far worse then LTs so if they were to take LT out then they would have to take Oj out to.


Exactly. But in all honesty I wouldn't say murder is far far worse than rape. Don't get me wrong murder is a horrible thing but if it's worse than rape it's not too far off.

[honda522]

I read somewhere earlier today where somebody was arguing taking him out of the HOF. If that's the case they should probably take OJ Simpson out of the hall too. There's never any excuse for anybody, let alone an athlete to act like this.
You can't take something like that away. It just wouldn't be right. Though someone like him might deserve it.

[AkChief49]

You can't take something like that away. It just wouldn't be right. Though someone like him might deserve it.
Why? A far less crime of gambling(not at all condoning it, or the fact that he lied about it for about 10 years) has kept one of the best players ever out of the baseball Hall of Fame. As far as OJ, I'm all for tossing him out too. Although he was never convicted for murder, everyone knows he got away with it. LT has not been convicted in a court of law yet either. His previous character issues will certainly not help him. Character does and should count for something.

[Hayvern]

I read somewhere earlier today where somebody was arguing taking him out of the HOF. If that's the case they should probably take OJ Simpson out of the hall too. There's never any excuse for anybody, let alone an athlete to act like this.

I would have no problem taking them out. The NFL comes down so hard on these players when they are active, but after they stop playing they can literally get away with murder?

In the very least, they should have an asterisk on their plaque in Canton describing what they did.

[Ryfo18]

I don't think you can justify taking a guy out of the hall after he was ruled innocent for murder. I realize he probably did it, but still.

[honda522]

Why? A far less crime of gambling(not at all condoning it, or the fact that he lied about it for about 10 years) has kept one of the best players ever out of the baseball Hall of Fame. As far as OJ, I'm all for tossing him out too. Although he was never convicted for murder, everyone knows he got away with it. LT has not been convicted in a court of law yet either. His previous character issues will certainly not help him. Character does and should count for something.
You can't take away something someone earned. It is unethical. Even though he doesn't deserve, he has it now.

It would be like taking away someones college degree if they found out they were cheating over 10 years ago on it. They earned it, no one has the right to take it away, but you they might not get a job because of it.

[Hayvern]

I don't think you can justify taking a guy out of the hall after he was ruled innocent for murder. I realize he probably did it, but still.

No, but a conviction for Armed Robbery, and Kidnapping would probably do it.

Let's not forget, he is serving at least 9 years right now.

[Hayvern]

You can't take away something someone earned. It is unethical. Even though he doesn't deserve, he has it now.

It would be like taking away someones college degree if they found out they were cheating over 10 years ago on it. They earned it, no one has the right to take it away, but you they might not get a job because of it.

I don't disagree, however, putting a notation along with their name would be appropriate.

[honda522]

I don't disagree, however, putting a notation along with their name would be appropriate.
I'll :bananen_smilies046: to that.

[Connie Jo]

I read somewhere earlier today where somebody was arguing taking him out of the HOF. If that's the case they should probably take OJ Simpson out of the hall too. There's never any excuse for anybody, let alone an athlete to act like this.

Well, this was a controversial subject back during the OJ Simpson trial as well...whether or not he should be un-inducted.

Although I know some disagree, my feeling is this...

1) Their 'alleged' crimes were not committed during their NFL career.
2) Their crimes have no connection to their accomplishments on the field that led to their induction years ago.
3) Regardless of their immoral off field personal behavior in later years...the fact remains they were once great athletes deserving of their inductions, and the inductions shouldn't be revoked.
4) Living life and time passing changes people, sometimes for the worse...the men they ended up being, weren't necessarily the same men who earned & deserved their HOF Inductions.
5) I don't believe it's right or just to revoke a HOF Induction years later due to unrelated crimes. IMO one has nothing to do with the other.

[AkChief49]

You can't take away something someone earned. It is unethical. Even though he doesn't deserve, he has it now.

It would be like taking away someones college degree if they found out they were cheating over 10 years ago on it. They earned it, no one has the right to take it away, but you they might not get a job because of it.
Unethical? as opposed to what these clowns have pulled off? and you're crying unethical? Gee, I guess my parents, when they took the motorcycle(I earned it) away for a couple weeks ,and or put me on restriction taking away my freedoms(how dare they!) were being unethical. Even though I broke their rules.
How in the world does someone earn anything if they cheat to get it? Whatever happened to consequences? After all, even a lawyer can get disbarred.

[Connie Jo]

Unethical? as opposed to what these clowns have pulled off? and you're crying unethical? Gee, I guess my parents, when they took the motorcycle(I earned it) away for a couple weeks ,and or put me on restriction taking away my freedoms(how dare they!) were being unethical. Even though I broke their rules.
How in the world does someone earn anything if they cheat to get it? Whatever happened to consequences? After all, even a lawyer can get disbarred.

A lawyer is disbarred for violating the law, or forsaking an oath taken towards justice. If someone is caught cheating on their bar exam from 10 years prior, then yeah, I can see as to where disbarrment would be deserved, and would not be unethical, rather the cheater themselves were the one who was unethical 10 yrs prior. The swearing in of an attorney and law degree was not earned if someone cheated to acquire it.

Same would hold true IMO for any degree...if a person is found to have cheated to obtain their degree, then it was not earned, should be revoked in that case.

That all said...as far as an athlete inducted into the HOF being charged with a criminal act years after their induction...I don't agree they should have their HOF status revoked...for the reasons mentioned in my previous post. They didn't cheat to be inducted into the HOF...they sacrificed their bodies, time, life in some aspects, for many years to earn a place into the HOF. Those sacrifice's stands alone, and should have nothing to do with their unrelated life years later if charged with a crime.

Now...if a HOF inductee should years later be revealed to be a Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, well...that's a entirely different scenerio, and set of circumstances.

[tornadospotter]

Well, this was a controversial subject back during the OJ Simpson trial as well...whether or not he should be un-inducted.

Although I know some disagree, my feeling is this...

1) Their 'alleged' crimes were not committed during their NFL career.
2) Their crimes have no connection to their accomplishments on the field that led to their induction years ago.
3) Regardless of their immoral off field personal behavior in later years...the fact remains they were once great athletes deserving of their inductions, and the inductions shouldn't be revoked.
4) Living life and time passing changes people, sometimes for the worse...the men they ended up being, weren't necessarily the same men who earned & deserved their HOF Inductions.
5) I don't believe it's right or just to revoke a HOF Induction years later due to unrelated crimes. IMO one has nothing to do with the other.
If the glove does not fit! You must not convict!

[Connie Jo]

If the glove does not fit! You must not convict!

HA! I'll never forget that trial, haha. I bought a small TV to put in my restaurant/tearoom's work kitchen, so I and my co-workers could watch the trial daily. There were so many people who pre-judged and had OJ guilty from day one. I wanted to be impartial and make my own decision based upon watching the trial daily as if I were one of the jurors.

I won't declare 100% he did it, because quite frankly I wasn't present and didn't see who did it, anything is possible, even if it doesn't appear as such. Although I will say it's likely a 90% chance he did do it. Had I been a juror, however...I too would have had to find him not guilty. There was some shadow of doubt in my mind with watching the trial daily, and the law states "beyond a shadow of doubt". In clear conscience I would've had to vote not guilty considering the law, rather not based upon my 90% 'gut' feeling.

I remember well the day OJ tried the glove on...stupid move by the prosecution. Somewhat same theory applies...don't ask a question as a trial lawyer if you don't know what the answer will be.

As my fav recording artist wrote once upon a time, in his song lyrics of 'Only God Knows Why'..."people get what they put in, and people get what they deserve"..........eventually, if not sooner that is.

OJ got some of what he deserved in many aspects, including losing his credibility & social standing attempting to live life following the trial, he's in jail now too...and he'll get his final punishment on Judgement Day...if he murdered her that is. :)

Edit PS: I learned not to trust everything the news media reports as a result of watching the OJ trial too, haha. I'd watch news coverage that evening following watching the trial that day, and it was horrible the way the news media put a spin on the day's trial events, twisted testimony...depending on whether or not they were in favor of the prosecution or defense. Even CNN's coverage couldn't be trusted to be accurate. :(