Stampeder charged with 2 counts of assault

Sorry, you are one of the ones that have made the debate a fight, but somehow you question others debating skills. If your definition of a soft cap is different that the CFLS, by all means state what it is. You simply say that being a soft cap means you are allowed to go over, yet you can't explain why if is allowed there are penalties. Penalties mean you have broken the rules, if it were some other term like a tax, I could buy the being allowed part, but it isn't it is a penalty which means 100% that a rule has been broken, just like the record you keep spinning.

You berate me for not providing you with a definition of a soft cap, I won't play your game, I provided you with the definition of the CFL's SMS which is what we are debating. I can't help it if you are too ignorant to understand that by going over the SMS the Riders broke the rules and paid the PENALTY!

No, you provided a link that highlights the audit and fine structure. That is not a definition.

As for defining soft cap...a soft cap is a league SMS that openly permits teams to go over the cap, but by doing so are obligated to predetermined sanctions / penalties. This is often refereed to as a luxury tax, and in some leagues is used as a method of profit sharing (though I don't believe the CFL uses it as direct profit sharing). Going over the cap in said scenario is perfectly within the rules, thus not "cheating," even if done every year. As I have said, if the league wants to change the rules...so be it...I think it would probably be smart, but as it stands the rules of the soft cap are being followed. People might not like the fact that the club went over the cap, but it is still not cheating.

This supports exactly my point...you can not understand what a "soft cap" aka "luxury tax" is. It is there before you...apparently you either did not read it or do not comprehend "openly permits" to a defined scale....in other words, sure, you can spend more if you choose, but it will cost you the fee of X to do so. One team went over the cap, one team paid the luxury tax. Call it a penalty all you want...a penalty is not automatically "cheating," penalties are applied to cheating, mistakes, errors in judgment, etc...not cheating alone....that is the definition you are throwing against the wall and hoping it sticks...but it doesn't...no rule was broken...the rune, as you point out, is that if you go over 4.4 mil in 2013 you pay a tier fee...aka luxury tax. Unless they don't pay it, there was no cheating. You may not like that the cap was broken...fine, I get that...the cap should rules should probably be amended...hey, I have always agreed to that, but right now it is what it is, and the rules of it are being followed

We may differ on what our definition of "ethical" is ... I believe that the handling of this situation is being done correctly and in alinement with what I see/understand the CFL as representing (sports entertainment, our Canadian heritage and peoples, etc)

I am avoiding pointing out any specifics in what I disagree with, as I have stated my opinions (and that is all it is) in other threads regarding those particular offenses. I do not want to see our league turn out like the "National Fellons League" ... If that is what you want, that is your opinion and I support your right to have it. I respectfully disagree with your opinion.

In the past few years, I have lost a measure of respect for certain organizations who seem to have adapted a "win at any cost" attitude, rather than (as I see it) do the responsible thing and bench/suspend a player(s) until their off/on the field conduct or personal legal matters are cleared up.

I will use Chad Johnson as a (relatively) safe example. When the battery charges were placed, he was released by his team and has since "paid his dues" for that error in judgement. For Montreal to give him an opportunity at this time is completely appropriate (IMO), as his personal matters are already cleared up. That being said, I feel there are other reasons (which I have stated elsewhere) why this may backfire against the Als and the CFL as a whole (from a PR stand point).

In the end for me it comes down to the respectability and/or professionalism of the league. Ultimately, I want quality football (anyone who has "followed" my previous posts, knows even when we lose, as long as it was quality football by both teams, I am "happy" for the result) on the field, with players that kids can look up to not only for their talent and ability on field, but also for their ethical and professional maner off the feild as well. I understand that people make mistakes and I don't think they should have to "pay for the rest of their lives" for their mistakes. I do think that they need to responsibly and respectfully go through the process of "making right" for their mistakes and once they have, THEN they can return to some form of "normalicy" (especially if you are a "public" figure). I do not feel the right attitude is ... "we'll look the other way until it's settled in court" or "we'll look the other way until the league decides on disciplinary action" and THEN take public action.

I feel that is unethical. I feel that "silence is consent" - meaning when you fail to act, you are condoning that behavior. Feel free to disagree with me (that is your right).

:cowboy:

P.S. If anyone wants my opinions on the other incidents, feel free to look them up in the appropriate thread. I rarely post here in the offseason, but felt that this situation meritted comment. I am not trying to start a debate/arguement, simply stating my opinion.

Apparently, we are assuming these situations are identical? Not even close. First of all, it is pretty easy to deal with a situation like this in the OFF SEASON. The Butler case is also a no brainer, open and shut, so lets not give too much praise. Not making light of the what happened with the Riders, but they will have there day in court. Tell me, what happens if someone like Cornish is accused of something mid way through the season this year, do you suspend him without hearing the whole story. I doubt it, Cowtown would implode. So maybe start comparing apples to apples, instead of just hating on the Riders. :cowboy:

Simple answer ... yes you do! I would be upset, but Jon Cornish is not the whole team (despite what some might feel) and deserves no different treatment. If my team were to lose games, in part, because of an ethical choice they made, again, I would be upset, but I would respect it. Again this is my opinion. In my opinion it is unethical to leave a player on the team/field while dealing with the previously stated types of issues (I'm not writing the whole list again).

I did not single out a single incident and will not. The Riders are not the only team to have situations like this in recent years. The fact that you assume I'm talking about them, smacks of guilty conscience (IMO).

I have said my opinion and everyone else can debate this forever. This is my opinion and unless someone can provide more than "your just hating on _____", my opinion won't change.

Ethics = Doing the right thing, not because it is the easy thing or because someone is watching, but because it is the RIGHT thing.

:cowboy: