Ray Rice's Domestic Abuse Presser Sends Wrong Message (1 Viewer)

[Todd Andrews]

Wife and I are in a friendly league with some Facebook friends of hers. We took Rice as our RB3, I couldn't pass him up in whatever round it was. No one said anything. Monday after the video breaks, commish tells my wife he couldn't believe we drafted Rice and that we still haven't dropped him. I had already queued up a bunch of WW claims dropping Rice so I had no inclination to drop him right away just to appease this ####wit. Yesterday he tells my wife if we don't drop Rice, he's suspending us from the league on "morals" grounds. I want to tell this guy off so bad.

We picked up Malcolm Floyd.

What an idiot commissioner.

Fantasy football is just that: it's a fantasy. It has NOTHING to do with real life. I'd own Charles Manson if he averaged a TD a game. If Josef Stalin was a decent QB he'd be on my waiver wire. Hell, if Heinrich Himmler was a proficient field goal kicker I'm taking him.

If Jerry Sandusky could take it hard to the hole for me every Sunday, he would be the captain of my team!1

 

[Todd Andrews]

[sean] Payton was suspended because it "happened on his watch." Goodell, meet Karma.

What was the quote? "If you didn't know, you should have."

Please let this cost Goodell his balls.

Please Lord Jeebus.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

As I wrote on Monday, if they can prove Goodell lied about this, he's done.

That being said, almost nothing about this story makes any sense to me. Why didn't they act on the video if they had it? Why only a 2 game suspension? Why lie about the video? The NFL is one of the smoothest best run private organizations in the USA. To put it all at risk over one running back? I don't get it.

I'm pretty certain that the NFL is not lying about seeing this video. They had the clearer original with sound and not this blurry cell phone copy.

 

[Sammy3469]

As I wrote on Monday, if they can prove Goodell lied about this, he's done.

That being said, almost nothing about this story makes any sense to me. Why didn't they act on the video if they had it? Why only a 2 game suspension? Why lie about the video? The NFL is one of the smoothest best run private organizations in the USA. To put it all at risk over one running back? I don't get it.

I'm pretty certain that the NFL is not lying about seeing this video. They had the clearer original with sound and not this blurry cell phone copy.

Well that is true

 

[squistion]

Keith Olbermann ‏@KeithOlbermann 57m

COMMENT: After report authorities sent NFL #RayRice tape in April all that remains for Roger Goodell is "Bye Felicia" http://j.mp/1AzXtMi

 

[T Bell]

That being said, almost nothing about this story makes any sense to me. Why didn't they act on the video if they had it? Why only a 2 game suspension? Why lie about the video? The NFL is one of the smoothest best run private organizations in the USA. To put it all at risk over one running back? I don't get it.

The scenario that probably applies here is that the NFL, noting Rice is a first time offender and otherwise a "good guy" (not to mention a star player) is punished. Ray's expressing remorse and saying the right things about going to counseling, etc., etc. The punishment in the abstract seems reasonable under the overall circumstances (including the victim still being with him and defending him).

The male-led NFL views the video which is ugly, but hey, that's what it looks like when someone knocks someone else out, right? What did you expect to see? Plus, the video of him moving her limp body out of the elevator is already out there, and that's bad enough.

That was the NFL's first reaction, but in hindsight, probably even before the video was actually publicized by TMZ, the NFL probably had some second thoughts. It was of course too late.

That's more or less how I think it happened.

 

[jonessed]

Keith Olbermann ‏@KeithOlbermann 57m

COMMENT: After report authorities sent NFL #RayRice tape in April all that remains for Roger Goodell is "Bye Felicia" http://j.mp/1AzXtMi

If the police gave the NFL the video they will have a record of it. I don't trust an anonymous police source that won't give their name or the receiver's name. If evidence was shared, it will be documented.

 

[Guest]

Keith Olbermann ‏@KeithOlbermann 57m

COMMENT: After report authorities sent NFL #RayRice tape in April all that remains for Roger Goodell is "Bye Felicia" http://j.mp/1AzXtMi

If the police gave the NFL the video they will have a record of it. I don't trust an anonymous police source that won't give their name or the receiver's name. If evidence was shared, it will be documented.

IMO AP not reporting this if they don't find the source credible and think the recording is authentic.

 

[T Bell]

Keith Olbermann ‏@KeithOlbermann 57m

COMMENT: After report authorities sent NFL #RayRice tape in April all that remains for Roger Goodell is "Bye Felicia" http://j.mp/1AzXtMi

If the police gave the NFL the video they will have a record of it. I don't trust an anonymous police source that won't give their name or the receiver's name. If evidence was shared, it will be documented.

Unless they weren't allowed to share it - I'm not aware of the NFL having any subpena powers, and even if Ray Rice's privacy was waived under the CBA, the victim's wasn't.

 

[jonessed]

Keith Olbermann ‏@KeithOlbermann 57m

COMMENT: After report authorities sent NFL #RayRice tape in April all that remains for Roger Goodell is "Bye Felicia" http://j.mp/1AzXtMi

If the police gave the NFL the video they will have a record of it. I don't trust an anonymous police source that won't give their name or the receiver's name. If evidence was shared, it will be documented.

Unless they weren't allowed to share it - I'm not aware of the NFL having any subpena powers, and even if Ray Rice's privacy was waived under the CBA, the victim's wasn't.

It's possible the police department leaked it illegally. The article is quite vague. Anonymous source leaked video to anonymous person through unspecified channels.

 

[fatness]

The law enforcement official, speaking to the AP on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation, says he had no further communication with any NFL employee and can't confirm anyone watched the video. The person said they were unauthorized to release the video but shared it unsolicited, because they wanted the NFL to have it before deciding on Rice's punishment.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-source-says-rice-video-sent-nfl

 

[fatness]

Leaks all over the place

Ray Rice spat in the face of Janay Palmer the night he punched her in a hotel elevator, one current and one former security staffer at the Revel hotel told "Outside the Lines." Three current or former security staffers, who spoke with "Outside the Lines" this week on the condition of anonymity, described additional details of the ugly scene captured on video. Two of the men were on duty the night of the assault, while a third had full access to the security video, which he said he has watched dozens of times.

One former staffer said Rice, the former Baltimore Ravens running back, spat in his then-fiancée's face twice, "once outside the elevator and once inside," prompting her to retaliate with movements that were ultimately countered with a knockout punch. According to the men, as Rice punched Palmer, the elevator the couple rode was rapidly approaching the hotel lobby just two floors above the casino floor. A security staffer, dispatched from his lobby post, saw Rice starting to drag his fiancée, who appeared to still be unconscious, out of the elevator.

"Get him away from her! Get him away from her!" the first responder was told by another security officer over a radio, one former security staffer told "Outside the Lines." The staffer had full access to the security footage.

"The first thing he [Rice] said is, 'She's intoxicated. She drank too much. I'm just trying to get her to the room,'" one staffer said.

"When she regained consciousness she said, 'How could you do this to me? I'm the mother of your kid,'" that same staffer told "Outside the Lines."

With his fiancée still groggy, Rice dialed somebody on his cellphone and said, "I'm getting arrested tonight," the staffer said. Police arrived in 10 to 15 minutes.

That former staffer estimates that 25 to 30 Revel security staffers saw the security camera footage of Rice striking Palmer. All of the staffers who spoke with "Outside the Lines" say they were not contacted by anyone from NFL security or the Ravens and they are not aware of any current or former co-workers who have been.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

That last quote is mind-boggling.

 

[T Bell]

It seems Goodell isn't the only guy involved in this mess who was more worried about appearances than good behavior.

Have a nice career, Ray. I'd say you're done.

 

[Tom Servo]

Gabriel Morency ‏@sportsrage

goodell has just told the washington post ' he will NEVER resign '

Dear Roger -That's the spirit!

Sincerely,

Dan Snyder

 

[flapgreen]

Damn

 

[T Bell]

Gabriel Morency ‏@sportsrage

goodell has just told the washington post ' he will NEVER resign '

Dear Roger -That's the spirit!

Sincerely,

Dan Snyder

I just hope they have enough fuel left in the gas cans to burn his body beyond recognition after he suicides in the bunker.

 

[Koya]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

 

[T Bell]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

I'm not willing to assume ineptitude on the part of the NFL when it comes to running investigations. I don't know of a private organization in the US that has more highly qualified people working for it, or devotes more resources, to run background checks.

Goodell/the NFL either saw the tape and lied about it or wifully avoided doing everything he/they could to get ahold of the tape. Now it seems law enforcement forwarded it to them anyway, despite their best efforts to NOT see the tape. I wouldn't put it past whoever that lower level employee was to have refused to forward it to someone and to have buried it if she (horrible that it's a woman, BTW) knew that her bosses didn't want to get ahold of it.

 

[Christo]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

 

[Daywalker]

What is Goodell/NFL's motivation throughout this? Is it that domestic abuse is so common that coming down harshly on Rice to begin with sets a precedent the league did not want to deal with?

 

[T Bell]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

 

[Koya]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

They weren't "required" to do it at all. However, they consistently do EXTENSIVE investigations and look to put down the Hammer. "Somehow" in this case, it appears as if they didn't want to know the truth. In addition, this is a league that not only has conducted VERY thorough investigations and thrown down the hamnmer, but they have extensive suspensions for weed etc., but certainly don't seem to have cared too much about domestic violence.

To your second point, regardless of what the NFL, as an employer, a league, a brand, does, the fact that a man can assault his wife with such verocity and gets a pretrial intervention is perhaps the most disturbing thing about this whole mess.

Harvey "Im (more of a) lawyer (than Woz)" Levin nailed it:

 

[T Bell]

What is Goodell/NFL's motivation throughout this? Is it that domestic abuse is so common that coming down harshly on Rice to begin with sets a precedent the league did not want to deal with?

It's not that well thought out. I just think they treated this like a run-of-the-mill off field problem, gave a more or less prescribed punishment for a first time offender, and didn't at all consider at the time the fact that domestic violence is being recognized socially as a growing problem and the almost assured public exposure of the video would hugely inflame the public about this case. That's what I think this boils down to.

 

[Parrothead]

HOO GIRL

 

[njherdfan]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL prides itself on not having to follow laws and "protecting the shield" to police the morality of its players.

 

[Koya]

What is Goodell/NFL's motivation throughout this? Is it that domestic abuse is so common that coming down harshly on Rice to begin with sets a precedent the league did not want to deal with?

A lot of huge questions right now. That's why this sad affair has become so interesting. What WAS the rationale for Roger? I mean, NFL players have led dog fighting rings, killed people while driving... and they get creamed for smoking weed or taking the wrong pep pill. Why, in this one case, would they seemingly want to throw it under the rug?

It really makes no sense on so many levels. Would it have been so awful from the NFL's perspective to watch the tape, give a much more appropriate punishment, and move on?

Only semblance of a reason that I could think of is that this is an issue that affects a lot more NFL players than we realize and/or the NFL does not want to bring attention to what might be a real issue league wide. Thats the ONLY thing I can think of, because the lack of investigation / want to get to the bottom of it and mete out a harsh penalty is in utter contradiction to the actions of the NFL since Goddell took the reigns.

 

[Parrothead]

Ray Rice's lawyer-- "Ray beat the ##### because he's gay-- I dare you to suspend him Roger"

 

[Zow]

As I wrote on Monday, if they can prove Goodell lied about this, he's done.

That being said, almost nothing about this story makes any sense to me. Why didn't they act on the video if they had it? Why only a 2 game suspension? Why lie about the video? The NFL is one of the smoothest best run private organizations in the USA. To put it all at risk over one running back? I don't get it.

Because the NFL didn't (and still doesn't) actually care about domestic violence. Even if, by some miracle, the NFL isn't lying, Goodell decided that the video of Rice dragging his unconscious fiance out of an elevator warranted a 2 game suspension. I don't think Goodell thought she knocked herself out.

It's not just the NFL. The country that failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment has a whooole lot of tolerance for domestic violence.

Well, here's the other deal - the Ray Rice scenario is incredibly common and, IMO, it's really ####### hard to deal with. Here's the steps of a standard DV case:

1. Couple, usually after several drinks of alcohol or lines of the drug of their choice, starts to argue over something stupid. It gets physical.

2. The female either calls the police if she can or the neighbors hear the dispute and call.

3. Police arrive. Woman is crying and has some injuries. Gives an account of man hitting her. Police document some injuries. Man is either gone from scene or is present but doesn't say much of anything (if he does, it's a minimalization of what occurred). Facts are such that a conviction is likely.

4. Man gets charged with a DV offense. Man speaks to a lawyer and realizes that a DV offense could net him some jail time and has some pretty significant collateral consequences, such as potential consequences with his professional license or the inability to possess a weapon.

5. Man a woman reconcile but emotion trumps rationality. Man has some tangible benefit to their family (usually financial). Woman quickly discovers that if her man gets convicted, she/her family will indirectly suffer from the collateral consequences. Plus things are pretty good now. Woman just wants case to go away.

6. Man and woman speak to man's attorney. Man's attorney advise woman to talk to prosecutor.

7. Woman goes to prosecutor and begs prosecutor to drop the case or at the very least go lenient on him. Tells story of how man is reformed, etc. Indicates that if prosecutor doesn't she will either not show up for court and, if she's subpoenaed, she'll show up and deny allegations.

8. Prosecutor gets follow up call from man's attorney who knows full well the victim's position. Looks to cut a deal.

There's literally no rock solid choice for the prosecutor here. Should he or she:

1. Prosecute the case fully knowing full well that it is against the victim's wishes, that the victim may indirectly suffer, and that he may lose if his victim doesn't cooperate?

2. Cut a deal which looks too lenient to the public whom don't understand the incredible difficulty of this situation and doesn't deter this guy from future behavior?

3. Dismiss the case, which is frankly what all parties would prefer, but really puts no check on this potential batterer?

I imagine Goodell was in a similar position. Except I'd argue that he owed even less of a duty to punish here since, you know, he doesn't represent society but instead an athletic corporation.

This might be your best post. Ever.

I figure after handling over a thousand of these I had a shot at it.

 

[Christo]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[Zow]

That being said, almost nothing about this story makes any sense to me. Why didn't they act on the video if they had it? Why only a 2 game suspension? Why lie about the video? The NFL is one of the smoothest best run private organizations in the USA. To put it all at risk over one running back? I don't get it.

The scenario that probably applies here is that the NFL, noting Rice is a first time offender and otherwise a "good guy" (not to mention a star player) is punished. Ray's expressing remorse and saying the right things about going to counseling, etc., etc. The punishment in the abstract seems reasonable under the overall circumstances (including the victim still being with him and defending him).

The male-led NFL views the video which is ugly, but hey, that's what it looks like when someone knocks someone else out, right? What did you expect to see? Plus, the video of him moving her limp body out of the elevator is already out there, and that's bad enough.

That was the NFL's first reaction, but in hindsight, probably even before the video was actually publicized by TMZ, the NFL probably had some second thoughts. It was of course too late.

That's more or less how I think it happened.

Agree 100%

 

[Koya]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

And my take?

 

[Zow]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

I don't think the question has a clear-cut answer. I'm sure the sports law "rule" here is something subjective like "taking action for the good of the league" or some ####.

 

[Koya]

That being said, almost nothing about this story makes any sense to me. Why didn't they act on the video if they had it? Why only a 2 game suspension? Why lie about the video? The NFL is one of the smoothest best run private organizations in the USA. To put it all at risk over one running back? I don't get it.

The scenario that probably applies here is that the NFL, noting Rice is a first time offender and otherwise a "good guy" (not to mention a star player) is punished. Ray's expressing remorse and saying the right things about going to counseling, etc., etc. The punishment in the abstract seems reasonable under the overall circumstances (including the victim still being with him and defending him).

The male-led NFL views the video which is ugly, but hey, that's what it looks like when someone knocks someone else out, right? What did you expect to see? Plus, the video of him moving her limp body out of the elevator is already out there, and that's bad enough.

That was the NFL's first reaction, but in hindsight, probably even before the video was actually publicized by TMZ, the NFL probably had some second thoughts. It was of course too late.

That's more or less how I think it happened.

Agree 100%

We have all been, to some degree or another, in a situation where we knew we didn't want to know. Or didn't want to know more.

It's becoming more and more clear to me (at this juncture, admittedly a moving target) that was the case here. The only questions are... why? and what DID they know that had them "feel" they didn't want to know more (or was it someone's job to know the truth and filter how much the decisions makers ever knew. "You don't want to know this, boss. Trust me"

 

[Christo]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

And my take?

You answered correctly: "They weren't "required" to do it at all."

So why isn't NOW out there calling for the police chief and DA to resign?

 

[Koya]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

I don't think the question has a clear-cut answer. I'm sure the sports law "rule" here is something subjective like "taking action for the good of the league" or some ####.

This is not about the requirement of the NFL.

It's about, among other things, a complete inconsistency with how Goddell has acted in prior investigations vs. this particular one... and then, why this one would be treated so differently.

This willful ignorance and the rationale behind it / potential cover up are the issues. Not the moral nor legal obligation of the NFL to investigate nor mete out punishment.

 

[T Bell]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

Actually it does to everyone but an avowed contrarian like yourself. Feel free to argue the point you're going to argue in any event, Christo. I know you're itching to.

 

[Koya]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

And my take?

You answered correctly: "They weren't "required" to do it at all."

So why isn't NOW out there calling for the police chief and DA to resign?

Oh, I'm not about to try to explain NOW. I can't figure out one woman, my wife. An organization that represents "all" of them? No freakin' way.

 

[Christo]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

I don't think the question has a clear-cut answer. I'm sure the sports law "rule" here is something subjective like "taking action for the good of the league" or some ####.

No one out there who's calling for Goodell's head gives a #### about "the good of the league."

 

[T Bell]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

And my take?

You answered correctly: "They weren't "required" to do it at all."

So why isn't NOW out there calling for the police chief and DA to resign?

NOW is a disaster of an organization. I don't know that they even define mainstream feminism anymore.

That said, it sounds to me like there have been criticisms leveled towards law enforcement's handling of this case, but less attention's been paid to them because the NFL angle is higher profile.

 

[Christo]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

Actually it does to everyone but an avowed contrarian like yourself. Feel free to argue the point you're going to argue in any event, Christo. I know you're itching to.

 

[Koya]

This has been ugly from the start. But damn, it's beginning to get interesting.

As of now, it certainly appears that the NFL / Rog didn't want to see it.

Hey, it may have been sent, but that doesn't mean I watched it!

Or - we didn't ask the police for something we knew would not be provided. What? Hotel security aren't police? I'm sure they must abide by the same rules. Either way, I didn't see it.

So, if Rog is not utterly lying here, he may just be terrible at his job. Because this hardly seems like a "thorough" investigation where they wanted to hear the truth and more like do what it takes to make it appear like the NFL would take a stand, but god forbid the real story come out.

As is usually the case, the cover up could cause more lasting damage than the crime. Especially since the NFL didn't do anything wrong at all, terrible as Rice's acts were... until the (apparent) cover up.

Why was the NFL required to do more than the police/prosecutors? You know, the ones who let him off with pretrial intervention--which is apparently only usually given for "victimless" crimes.

Because the NFL doesn't defer to law enforcement in making its own disciplinary decisions.

That doesn't answer the question.

And my take?

You answered correctly: "They weren't "required" to do it at all."

So why isn't NOW out there calling for the police chief and DA to resign?

Oh, I'm not about to try to explain NOW. I can't figure out one woman, my wife. An organization that represents "all" of them? No freakin' way.

FWIW, that one woman (wifey) believes

1. Rice shouldnt be banned forever, but needs more punishment

2. The most important thing is that Rice never does this again / his wife is healthy and ok

3. To your point (and one I expressed earlier), the biggest fault here other than Rice, is the Prosecutorial folks who definitely saw the whole video and gave him a slap on the wrist.

Scarily logical.

 

[fatness]

Official NFL statement about the video

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So why isn't NOW out there calling for the police chief and DA to resign?

I'm not sure the prosecutor isn't going to see such "calls".

 

[culdeus]

What is Goodell/NFL's motivation throughout this? Is it that domestic abuse is so common that coming down harshly on Rice to begin with sets a precedent the league did not want to deal with?

Trying to squeeze one last season out of him in a dynasty league?

 

[Koya]

Official NFL statement about the video

Oops, truth.

 

[otello]

Playbook says sponsors must start bailing.

 

[T Bell]

Playbook says sponsors must start bailing.

Goodell will be gone long before that happens. There are phone calls going on right now about that I'm sure. Fire Goodell, promise reforms, and everyone saves face and continues doing business.

 

[otello]

Playbook says sponsors must start bailing.

Goodell will be gone long before that happens. There are phone calls going on right now about that I'm sure. Fire Goodell, promise reforms, and everyone saves face and continues doing business.

I think that a company will bail first, which will lead to the real pressure on Goodell.

 

[T Bell]

Playbook says sponsors must start bailing.

Goodell will be gone long before that happens. There are phone calls going on right now about that I'm sure. Fire Goodell, promise reforms, and everyone saves face and continues doing business.

I think that a company will bail first, which will lead to the real pressure on Goodell.

The companies really don't want to bail on the NFL - the advertising exposure that you get via the NFL is second to none. They may issue press releases saying they're "reevaluating their relationship with the NFL", but that'll just be saber rattling and I don't even think it'll come to that. A Goodell firing will be a nice clean bow to put on this that saves everyone's face and, more importantly, their lucrative economic relationships.