We continue to be troubled by the manner in which the tampering charges against the 49ers were handled.  In an era where virtually every (if not actually every) NFL franchise engages in discussions with the agents for players who are the property of other teams, the notion that only one team would find itself in hot water with the league office is simply not fair.

Especially since the league can, if it so chooses, pursue tampering charges even without a specific complaint.

Adding to our belief that the 49ers got a raw deal is the notion, as reported by Dan Pompei of the Chicago Tribune, that the penalty imposed on the team would have been stiffer if linebacker Lance Briggs hadn’t re-signed with the Chicago Bears.

But why should that matter?  Tampering is tampering.  Whether the player with whom a team was tampering later decides in the absence of tampering to sign with another team shouldn’t be a factor in the punishment for tampering.

And while we’re pissing and/or moaning about the handling of the 49ers situation, we also need to point out that Briggs’ agent, Drew Rosenhaus, refused to testify at the tampering hearing.  He surely made the right decision.  He needs to do business with both franchises moving forward; though the Bears might be a bit chafed at his decision to stay on the sidelines, jumping into the middle of the fray would have made a bad situation far worse.

But should any agent be able to tell the league office to take their request for testimony and shove it?

This is an area where the league and the NFL Players Association should try to find an acceptable and appropriate procedure for compelling agents to cooperate in situations of this nature, or risk the imposition of discipline through the union.

Bottom line?  We think that the league should have spent some more timing honing this particular cannon before aiming and firing it at any of the 32 member franchises.