Stricter penalties in the NFL for domestic violence

[MattTuck]

6 game suspension for 1st offense, lifetime ban for 2nd offense.

Not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, the NFL has to protect the brand, and the cynical side of me says that these new penalties are just cowing to public pressure and trying to win back female fans (a fast growing part of the fan base). On the other hand, Yeah, it is obviously something we don't want players to be doing, and this makes sense to punish bad behavior.

But isn't that what the court system is for? and why carve out a special exception for domestic violence? Why not expand the criteria for any crime/action that besmirches the reputation of the league, team or player. Whether it is domestic violence, performance enhancing drugs, drug/gun charges, DUI, public fighting or intoxication, etc.

[FlashUNC]

The NFL did this because of the completely predictable backlash from the completely tone deaf punishment of Rice. (The same guy, who, in his first public remarks about the incident, talked about how life knocks you down and you take to take the hits and get up. God that was galling.)

They're suspending the best receiver in the league for a year for drugs, yet Rice punches his fiance out in an elevator and gets two games. Or, if you're Greg Hardy and bash your girlfriend's head into a toilet and then throw her on a pile of machine guns (which is a thing that totally happened), you don't hear anything yet.

And my friends wonder why I don't really watch the games anymore.

[pinoymamba]

money is the motive...

[firerescuefin]

They're suspending the best receiver in the league for a year for drugs, yet Rice punches his fiance out in an elevator and gets two games. Or, if you're Greg Hardy and bash your girlfriend's head into a toilet and then throw her on a pile of machine guns (which is a thing that totally happened), you don't hear anything yet.

Josh Gordon is multi multi time offender....that has chosen weed over a lucrative NFL career. He had serious problems with it in college and hasn't got any better. He didn't take "a hit of the bong"...and find himself suspended. The consequences of his missteps are spelled out in the CBA ....the one that the players agreed to. He is not a victim.

I don't disagree with you about Ray Rice or the initial punishment. It should have been spelled out like it is now. I have no problem with the current stance. There is language that the lifetime ban can be appealed after 1 year....FWIW.

He admitted they stepped on their own peepee with the original discipline issued to Rice. The backlash was predictable and not unjustified, but the comparison to Josh Gordon is not a good one IMO

[Shortsocks]

I Find the NFL to be a mostly repulsive origination.

How these players are held to a pretty much ridiculously low standard is hilarious. Millions of kids look up to these guys and it seems that's TONS of them are horribly scary dudes.
It's run obviously by money, which is the way it will always be, but I'm happy they've done this. Needs to be done more.

Below is a link to utsandiego' police database if NFL players.

http://www.utsandiego.com/nfl/arrests-database/

[Climb01742]

Domestic violence, whether against a woman or children, is a unique crime. The revised policy essentially says, you get one punch but not two. I know it may seem too draconian but I'm not sure I'd give any player even one punch. For any DV incident, I'd argue for at least a one year ban, maybe two. I just can't see any excuse for ever laying a hand on a woman or child. It is a crime of another order of magnitude from drugs, fights, even DUI.

[verticaldoug]

I Find the NFL to be a mostly repulsive origination.

How these players are held to a pretty much ridiculously low standard is hilarious. Millions of kids look up to these guys and it seems that's TONS of them are horribly scary dudes.
It's run obviously by money, which is the way it will always be, but I'm happy they've done this. Needs to be done more.

Below is a link to utsandiego' police database if NFL players.

http://www.utsandiego.com/nfl/arrests-database/

According to FBI stats, about 3991 arrests per 100,000 in the U.S. per year or 3.99%

Looking at the database for 2013, 54 arrests for 1696 NFL players or 3.18%. NFL arrests just get publicity to stand out in our minds, but overall, U.S. society is just a big police blotter.....

I do agree the high profile players should be held to a higher standard, but that may never happen unless society demands it. My mind still boggles that Jameis Winston could win the Heisman trophy with the allegation of rape hanging over his head (870 sports 'Journalists' voted. He won with 80%). But I digress.

I always liked Ray Rice. He is a local boy, deemed too small who went to a second rate program at the time (Rutgers) and still made it to the NFL on hard work. I hope he turns it around and sees the light. The one thing I know about domestic violence is sometimes you just can't tell who the guy is that does it. It is a very insidious crime.

[pdmtong]

they got ray rice wrong but they got #99 right - 9 games.

two year debacle of weapons, stabbings, DUI and the LAX bomb threat - good riddance idiot.

that with bowman recovery means no NFC championship and someone else playing int SB 50 in Levi's. look for the gritting teeth in khaki's...

Meanwhile my team may have finally found a decent QB...albeit a rookie. #4 Carr.

[cat6]

Yes!

[soulspinner]

The NFL did this because of the completely predictable backlash from the completely tone deaf punishment of Rice. (The same guy, who, in his first public remarks about the incident, talked about how life knocks you down and you take to take the hits and get up. God that was galling.)

They're suspending the best receiver in the league for a year for drugs, yet Rice punches his fiance out in an elevator and gets two games. Or, if you're Greg Hardy and bash your girlfriend's head into a toilet and then throw her on a pile of machine guns (which is a thing that totally happened), you don't hear anything yet.

And my friends wonder why I don't really watch the games anymore.

Best receiver gets a year for something not a crime in Denver, man assaults a someone half his size, which is a crime everywhere, I call BS.

[oldpotatoe]

6 game suspension for 1st offense, lifetime ban for 2nd offense.

Not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, the NFL has to protect the brand, and the cynical side of me says that these new penalties are just cowing to public pressure and trying to win back female fans (a fast growing part of the fan base). On the other hand, Yeah, it is obviously something we don't want players to be doing, and this makes sense to punish bad behavior.

But isn't that what the court system is for? and why carve out a special exception for domestic violence? Why not expand the criteria for any crime/action that besmirches the reputation of the league, team or player. Whether it is domestic violence, performance enhancing drugs, drug/gun charges, DUI, public fighting or intoxication, etc.

Agree-arrest, try and if found guilty, appropriate punishment, ie;jail..then suspend or fire them..hit them n the wallet..

[1centaur]

I did not read the language of the new rule, but I hope the domestic violence label requires a legal conviction, not a mere charge or a league determination. There are many anecdotes of women using the domestic violence label to gain an upper hand in a dispute because of the presumption of guilt that can surround the charge, even if both parties were engaged in physical violence against each other.

I find it somewhat quaint in a society that stridently asserts gender equality in all things regardless of apparent exceptions that the implicit inequality behind the domestic violence presumption is embraced. Bigger, stronger applies to many man on man situations and not to all man on woman situations. Does society even propose an appropriate response in the moment of physical attack by a woman on a man? Cover up and take it (JayZ)? Grab her gently and restrain her (no thumb bruises please)? Run out the door today, tomorrow and forever while filing for divorce? Hide in the bathroom? None of these would society expect of a man being attacked by a man (if anything, the opposite). The sexism vs. reality behind the domestic violence presumption is a problem with the legal system that is amplified by an extra-legal system that can deny a player his career and millions under a permanent cloud of Google-found opprobrium.

I have no problem with banning some big guy smacking around some little lady because she is an easy victim and he has no impulse control. If this encourages football players to marry really calm and nice women all the better. But any system with an implicit inclination to guilt will have problems. The NFL should at least also equally punish players with assault and battery convictions and thereby dilute the gender component.

[Md3000]

Wow.

So if a football player beats up his wife and she would happen to be just as tall, it would be okay, cos that's "equality"? You wrote three paragraphs, and in every single one you blame the woman, not the man.

[dekindy]

Ray Rice's fiancé forgave him and became his wife, so why can't we?

How many people are penalized at their jobs for domestic violence?

Percentage of NFL players committing domestic violence any higher than the overall population? My guess is that it is lower, but that is just my guess.

Be careful, soon racism will be alleged!

Isn't everyone innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law? Shouldn't a criminal conviction have to occur first? Otherwise, what is the standard?

[1centaur]

Wow.

So if a football player beats up his wife and she would happen to be just as tall, it would be okay, cos that's "equality"? You wrote three paragraphs, and in every single one you blame the woman, not the man.

I bent over backwards to be explicit and comprehensive to avoid such a knee jerk reaction, but your limbo bar is far too low. You completely failed to comprehend what I wrote. Maybe "little lady" as a cultural reference is too old for you. How about I simplify it to a ridiculous level: I have no problem punishing behavior that fits the common conception of domestic violence. I bet we agree on that. None of what I wrote is in disagreement with that simple thought.

[Md3000]

You misunderstand equality in law I think. It means men and women have equal rights and esteem, and deserve equal treatment and respect. It has absolutely nothing to do with whoever is taller, or stronger. In domestic violence cases, women need to be protected MORE than men in order to protect equality. The same goes for children.

My apologies for the knee jerk reaction. Yes we agree on punishment where punishment is due. But even when you're explicit and comprehensive, something like "Little lady" definitely makes me itchy. Maybe you are from another generation where that was more normal, but if you have read a newspaper in the last 30-40 years you should also know that in this day and age its insensitive and patronizing.

[HenryA]

I did not read the language of the new rule, but I hope the domestic violence label requires a legal conviction, not a mere charge or a league determination. There are many anecdotes of women using the domestic violence label to gain an upper hand in a dispute because of the presumption of guilt that can surround the charge, even if both parties were engaged in physical violence against each other.

I find it somewhat quaint in a society that stridently asserts gender equality in all things regardless of apparent exceptions that the implicit inequality behind the domestic violence presumption is embraced. Bigger, stronger applies to many man on man situations and not to all man on woman situations. Does society even propose an appropriate response in the moment of physical attack by a woman on a man? Cover up and take it (JayZ)? Grab her gently and restrain her (no thumb bruises please)? Run out the door today, tomorrow and forever while filing for divorce? Hide in the bathroom? None of these would society expect of a man being attacked by a man (if anything, the opposite). The sexism vs. reality behind the domestic violence presumption is a problem with the legal system that is amplified by an extra-legal system that can deny a player his career and millions under a permanent cloud of Google-found opprobrium.

I have no problem with banning some big guy smacking around some little lady because she is an easy victim and he has no impulse control. If this encourages football players to marry really calm and nice women all the better. But any system with an implicit inclination to guilt will have problems. The NFL should at least also equally punish players with assault and battery convictions and thereby dilute the gender component.

This is a good look at the situation as it develops these days.
It seems that government (or some groups) is/are attempting to shift off the responsibility to enforce criminal laws into the private sphere. Into the court of public opinion, but with a stinger added with pressure on organizations to make their constituents toe the line. The effect is to form kangaroo courts without accountability and the obliteration of due process and the rule of law.

See more of this in the so called "campus rape" problem. We have adequate laws to prosecute crimes that you may not even know are crimes. The big ones we often have covered more than one way. Hate crimes, hate speech laws that create special classes of victims and special classes of perpetrators. That on top of whatever has been the common law and the common law codified over the centuries.

Many seem to applaud this development as progress and justice. But I can promise you that if you were the one who was getting the bums rush version of "justice" when you were innocent you'd sing a different tune.

What this is turning into is a Star Chamber proceeding where you are guilty and have no right to a fair hearing or defense, only a sentence being imposed.

We have a judicial system based on law that is housed on our Constitution and has been tuned over hundreds of years. Much of that tuning has revolved around due process, fairness and justice - not a rush to a conviction. And certainly not just a rush to judgment by public opinion and a kangaroo court conviction.

[HenryA]

You misunderstand equality in law I think. It means men and women have equal rights and esteem, and deserve equal treatment and respect. It has absolutely nothing to do with whoever is taller, or stronger. In domestic violence cases, women need to be protected MORE than men in order to protect equality. The same goes for children.

My apologies for the knee jerk reaction. Yes we agree on punishment where punishment is due. But even when you're explicit and comprehensive, something like "Little lady" definitely makes me itchy. Maybe you are from another generation where that was more normal, but if you have read a newspaper in the last 30-40 years you should also know that in this day and age its insensitive and patronizing.

No.
Traditionally, protected classes are made that because they are weaker and less able to take care of themselves - like the very young and very old, mentally or physically incompetent. For some weaker members, society needs to give additional protection.

However we seem to have run that idea into the ground by diluting the qualification of weakness to be replaced with one of political classification or for "social justice". Both are very bad ways to make law.

This guy's wife simply needed to go make a complaint to the authorities. If the guy did something unlawful he will be charged and can have a trial. A real trial in a real court. A real conviction. Not what you think and not what I think and not what a sports writer thinks. What a jury finds. Or a plea deal if he knows he's gonna get hammered.

[Admiral Ackbar]

domestic abuse is deplorable, and i totally believe high profile athletes and sports celebrities should be held accountable for their actions on a higher level than your average joe. i would never, nor would i ever want want my kids watching a sport with admitted rapists, wife beaters, habitual drunk drivers, and generally violent individuals on the field, they do not deserve that privilege. and i have no problem with the idea of them receiving suspension and bans. in fact I'm not sure how you could feel otherwise.

and henry, your comment on "the so called 'campus rape' problem" is ridiculous. that is a huge, huge, problem across the US. something like 30% of female college students admit to being sexually assaulted during their time at school. and if the victim does come forward the blame is often placed to the "you shouldn't have put yourself in that situation" "you shouldn't have dress provocatively" its not their fault. sure you may view the laws in place to prosecute these offenses to be suitable, and they may be in practice but the justice system is often extremely unfair to those who are the victims of domestic abuse and most especially sexual assault. "social justice" exists because "real" justice does not do the job suitably. just look at the number of cases with colleges and universities attempting to cover up, or distort the truth of there being rather widespread instances of sexual assault and rape on campus.

md3000 hit the nail on the head

[93legendti]

6 game suspension for 1st offense, lifetime ban for 2nd offense.

Not sure how I feel about this.

On the one hand, the NFL has to protect the brand, and the cynical side of me says that these new penalties are just cowing to public pressure and trying to win back female fans (a fast growing part of the fan base). On the other hand, Yeah, it is obviously something we don't want players to be doing, and this makes sense to punish bad behavior.

But isn't that what the court system is for? and why carve out a special exception for domestic violence? Why not expand the criteria for any crime/action that besmirches the reputation of the league, team or player. Whether it is domestic violence, performance enhancing drugs, drug/gun charges, DUI, public fighting or intoxication, etc.

Agreed.

If the player is convicted in a court of law, does he get out for practices and games? If not, why the need for a suspension/ban?

If the player is acquitted, is the NFL claiming it is better equipped to judge guilt and innocence than the legal system?

[sjbraun]

The NFL has the right to do whatever it wishes with its serfs, err employees.
They can set standards of conduct and consequences for when those standards are violated. Many companies have similar requirements. Why is this a big deal?

[ptourkin]

This is a good look at the situation as it develops these days.
It seems that government (or some groups) is/are attempting to shift off the responsibility to enforce criminal laws into the private sphere. Into the court of public opinion, but with a stinger added with pressure on organizations to make their constituents toe the line. The effect is to form kangaroo courts without accountability and the obliteration of due process and the rule of law.

See more of this in the so called "campus rape" problem. We have adequate laws to prosecute crimes that you may not even know are crimes. The big ones we often have covered more than one way. Hate crimes, hate speech laws that create special classes of victims and special classes of perpetrators. That on top of whatever has been the common law and the common law codified over the centuries.

Many seem to applaud this development as progress and justice. But I can promise you that if you were the one who was getting the bums rush version of "justice" when you were innocent you'd sing a different tune.

What this is turning into is a Star Chamber proceeding where you are guilty and have no right to a fair hearing or defense, only a sentence being imposed.

We have a judicial system based on law that is housed on our Constitution and has been tuned over hundreds of years. Much of that tuning has revolved around due process, fairness and justice - not a rush to a conviction. And certainly not just a rush to judgment by public opinion and a kangaroo court conviction.

This is offensive but it's probably due to the cable news channel you watch or the talk radio you listen to and the websites you consume. One in five college women reported being sexually assaulted in a 2007 survey commissioned by the DOJ (not Eric Holder-- the Bush era DOJ, so don't start.)

Due process applies to a judicial system. Nothing in the NFL policy or the college policies denies anyone due process in a court of law. There are no "star chambers" except maybe in the minds of some who are clinging to the past.

[soulspinner]

An illuminating thread that exposes interesting views.

[rugbysecondrow]

Professionally, a DUI a criminal conviction can derail many careers, so too should it in the NFL. The NFL sells not the game but the NFL brand. Period. The players are a cog in that brand so long as they are all pulling in the direction of the brand. If not, you gone.

Regarding the campus rape, many colleges are using student tribunals to determine guilt and punishment (suspension, expulsion from university) without actual due process. I take rape very seriously, we all should, but it is because of this that the process and the punishment needs to be just as serious. The new California law being proposed regarding rape/sex and consent is a scary notion to me. The fact that universities will be the deciding, based on a non-criminal definition, whether somebody has or has not been raped is huge.

http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_26427010/campus-sexual-assault-yes-means-yes-bill-clears http://time.com/3222176/campus-rape-the-problem-with-yes-means-yes/

I do think that if you assault a woman or assault a man, the punishment should be the same. Physically harming somebody is just as bad regardless of the gender of the victim. I think Rice should have been punished more. Also, I am no expert, but it seems that in many domestic violence cases, they are rarely cut and dry, and often involve actions by both parties and drugs/alcohol, which really makes a mess of a situation.

EDIT: As an aside, I think the stats on sexual assault are often misstated. From the 2007 study, 1 in 5 have experienced and attempted or completed sexual assault. Sexual assault includes: both battery (unwanted touching achieved by physical force or incapacitation of the victim) and rape (vaginal, oral, anal, or object penetration achieved by physical force or incapacitation of the victim. Regarding perception: When asked if they considered the incident to be rape, a significantly higher percentage of physically forced victims (40%) answered affirmatively, compared to only 25% of the incapacitated assault victims

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf
I post this from the study because I (as the father of soon to be two daughters) find it is important to understand the problem you are attempting to solve.


This is offensive but it's probably due to the cable news channel you watch or the talk radio you listen to and the websites you consume. One in five college women reported being sexually assaulted in a 2007 survey commissioned by the DOJ (not Eric Holder-- the Bush era DOJ, so don't start.)

Due process applies to a judicial system. Nothing in the NFL policy or the college policies denies anyone due process in a court of law. There are no "star chambers" except maybe in the minds of some who are clinging to the past.

[Climb01742]

An illuminating thread that exposes interesting views.

Indeed, and why change is so hard.

[1centaur]

For those who might wonder if I am ancient, "little lady" was used not as a phrase I would utter sincerely (I actually pulled it from a John Wayne line I laughed at when I was a kid) but as an exemplar of the attitude that women are unequal. We are getting so PC that it apparently demands turgid writing styles to clarify that one is on the "right" side of every issue in every way and I hate that writing style, but for some who are unwilling to accept good will in others it is necessary.

I view domestic violence laws as trying to correct an historic injustice: that assault and battery as defined in the outside world is somehow let off in a marriage because these things happen and husbands get angry. They are about puncturing the relationship bubble. Good, and bad for society that they let this injustice exist in the first place. If the laws were about physical weakness there would be equivalent laws outside of marriage - women are just as relatively weak in such circumstances. But there seems to be no equivalent "can't hit a woman" law in society.

The fact that women actually have been charged under domestic violence laws is further proof of this. The law can be used to protect all people from A&B under the cover of marriage.

What is fascinating and depressing to me is that I effectively said, watch out for cases that lack real merit but get emotional momentum with those making a determination about somebody's livelihood. Everybody on here should fully agree with this, unless they think cases that lack merit do not exist.

I also said that domestic violence laws carry an unacknowledged patina of sexism because they are perceived as protecting the weak yet do not have equivalents among other members of society who are actually relatively weak but of the same gender. 280 pound guy beats up 150 pound guy; the difference vs. beating up a woman is what? Let's see a gender-free standard of what constitutes an unfair fight, rather than say a gender makes you weak (or strong). Frankly from my point of view I'd rather see greater penalties for ALL physical altercations that are not self defense.

As for revealing attitudes, I agree but in a different way.

[Climb01742]

1centaur,

I 'know' you, as it were, so my comment wasn't directed toward you.

But while I tend to agree with your points, I can't fully buy in because violence toward women is too complex of a mix of power, male self image, and history. Other forms of A&B don't, in most cases, carry as many complicating motives and emotions.

The video of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious partner out of the elevator, to my eye at least, denotes many troubling power relationships. On just one point: would you ever move someone you loved, who was incapacitated, the way he did? I grant you I'm playing psychiatrist without a license, but he looks like he's moving an object, not a human being. Which to me, speaks volumes. I can be off base here, obviously, but this case is emblematic of why this form of violence is unique, troubling, and makes some men uncomfortable because it is not just about violence but the place of men in society.

[Md3000]

This is a good look at the situation as it develops these days.
It seems that government (or some groups) is/are attempting to shift off the responsibility to enforce criminal laws into the private sphere. Into the court of public opinion, but with a stinger added with pressure on organizations to make their constituents toe the line. The effect is to form kangaroo courts without accountability and the obliteration of due process and the rule of law.

................

We have a judicial system based on law that is housed on our Constitution and has been tuned over hundreds of years. Much of that tuning has revolved around due process, fairness and justice - not a rush to a conviction. And certainly not just a rush to judgment by public opinion and a kangaroo court conviction.

Ironic how many people glorifying the Constitution's history admire the fact that it's been tuned to represent the times we lived in... but only up to around 1970! These "defenders" of the Constitution don't want to see it being adjusted at all to the changing demographics, cultural patterns, health issues, and other aspects of modernity.

I don't understand where this narrative about "star chambers" and "kangaroo courts" comes from? Maybe I watch the wrong TV channel, but the NFL as a body can punish whoever is affiliated with them for whatever they think is wrong, it has nothing to do with due process. If you don't agree with that or if you think that's unfair, then don't play in the NFL. In fact, the term "kangaroo court" doesn't always have a negative connotation. If I remember correctly it comes from baseball and describes the informal self regulatory mechanism of the league.

One more thought ; to say "well if the woman in question doesn't go to the police, then nothing is wrong" is a bit too easy. Just like in the campus rape cases, domestic violence is so hard to fight because it is so hard to pinpoint. Many women are afraid to speak out about it, or know the police won't take it serious. Just like in some of the posts above, even when men are completely uninformed about the case in question, the woman already has the stacks against her. (1. "many women use domestic violence charge for their own benefit" 2. "its only cos they're shorter and weaker than the man' 3. "she married him, so its her own fault/responsibility" 4. "if she doesnt go to police, theres nothing we have to do") Even women themselves make these excuses by the way.

In related news, Senator Gillibrand is releasing a book soon about her work as one of the congresswomen on Capitol Hill and described (verbal) sexual harassment by fellow colleagues. Although she was clearly hurt by some of the comments, it was indicative of the embarassment women have on the subject that she felt she needed to mention the culprits AGE. As if the fact that you're in your 80s makes it OK to be like that cos you "don't know any better".

[Md3000]

Your posts are becoming more comprehensive! (to me)


What is fascinating and depressing to me is that I effectively said, watch out for cases that lack real merit but get emotional momentum with those making a determination about somebody's livelihood. Everybody on here should fully agree with this, unless they think cases that lack merit do not exist.

I think cases that lack merit DO exist, but I think they are certainly not in the majority. Also, the fact that a case has been judged of lacking merit does not necessarily make it so, given the difficult field we're operating in. Marriage has many hidden power structures. It's difficult to unearth the true meaning behind the cases.



I also said that domestic violence laws carry an unacknowledged patina of sexism because they are perceived as protecting the weak yet do not have equivalents among other members of society who are actually relatively weak but of the same gender. 280 pound guy beats up 150 pound guy; the difference vs. beating up a woman is what? Let's see a gender-free standard of what constitutes an unfair fight, rather than say a gender makes you weak (or strong). Frankly from my point of view I'd rather see greater penalties for ALL physical altercations that are not self defense.

The difference between "280lbs guy vs 150lbs guy" and "280lbs guy vs 150 woman" is that over hundreds of years, in the courts a case like that would always be ruled in the man's favor. Which is exactly why this needs special attention.

[Len J]

What seems to be (mostly) missed in this conversation is that the NFL is in the business of entertainment, and can set whatever rules and punishments and adjudication methods it can negotiate with it's workforce.

I have a friend who just became an NFL umpire after several years officiating in college....he had an interesting observation,..... Unlike college, everyone in the NFL works for the same organization, and all benefit if the organization succeeds, and it shows in the way they interact. They have a product, and they all want it protected.

Is the underlying measurement level that resulted in Gordon's 1 year ban absurd, sure. Is the use of the B sample solely for validation of use (as opposed to validation of levels) absurd, sure..... But both were mutually agreed to in the last collective bargaining agreement. The other point is that Gordon is a multiple repeat offender.... And a 3rd time loser on drug testing, the penalty for which is specified in the CBA, again, mutually agreed to. He has a problem and I hope he gets help.

Re Rice, what really happened in that elevator? Presumably, there is a tape and again presumably, the NFL saw that. Presumably, Rice & his wife explained that to the NFL. Was I abhorred when I saw the tape of him dragging her out of the elevator?... Yes, I was. Can I envision a series of events in the elevator that are more understandable than the general presumption that he knocked her out?...., as someone that watched my parents physically abuse each other for too many years, yes I can. Does that excuse Rice?.... Of course not, but it might explain the 2 games as opposed to what I'd expect.

The NFL had no published penalties for anything like this.... Sure they should have, but I'm glad they took the time to develop some as a result of this.

In the end, they did what they did partially because it's the right thing to do and partly because not doing it was bad for the product. IME, most things have multiple drivers v

Len

[verticaldoug]

The difference between "280lbs guy vs 150lbs guy" and "280lbs guy vs 150 woman" is that over hundreds of years, in the courts a case like that would always be ruled in the man's favor. Which is exactly why this needs special attention.

Just to echo MD3000, women are about 2.5x more likely to be the victim of intimate partner violence, and 2x more likely to be murdered. In fact, 1 in 3 women who is the victim of homicide is murdered by either a current or former partner.

With greater education and more activism, the overall incidence of domestic violence has been declining, but more can be done.

[pdmtong]

Nice going ray macdonald, idiot. figure out another way to solve your issues.
and, the 9ers surely are hosed now.

[HenryA]

I'll skip the ad hominem attack method concerning where and how some of us come by our information and how our thought processes are formed and just stick to the point. Well not completely skip it - I will remind you that it is very rude and generally effective only to indicate that you have no defensible position in the argument or discussion.

There is plenty of law to cover the crimes that we speak of in this thread. If its not working to suit you, you have the option of working to make the system function better. Creating a kangaroo court system that decides people's fates without due process or any real fairness is deplorable.

What are you gonna do - have everyone convicted in the court of public opinion and fired from their jobs? Did I hear that one of you got picked up for DUI recently? Shouldn't you lose your job and be shunned and ostracized by all who know you? Oh, you were found not guilty? They had the wrong guy? Well that's too bad. Good luck with the job hunt! Maybe your family will come home soon.

Just because the current system does not return the kind of justice you think is correct does not give you the right to create some new backdoor system that does it the way you want.

Witch hunts!
Trial by Ordeal!
Hold them under water and if they live they were innocent!

Now, that's what I'm talking about.

And just for clarification: I don't care at all about pro sports. Not a bit. Have not watched a game for several decades.

[ptourkin]

This idea of "witch hunts and kangaroo courts" is a mischaracterization unless you are talking about this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/13/us/how-one-college-handled-a-sexual-assault-complaint.html?_r=0
Is there a specific process that you're referring to or just a general sense?

I'm interested in hearing which specific incidents or systems you are referring to. Additionally, as has been pointed out, this is a policy of an entertainment company with a reputation to protect-- its public profile is its currency. Colleges need to create a safe learning environment and for years the balance has tipped the other way. Have you protested for the rights of all the documented ignored victims?

Similarly, I find it relevant where one gets their information and news. The complaint about diminished job prospects for those arrested for domestic violence is telling. How about those who have diminished job prospects because of gender, sexual orientation, class or other category? You don't hear those concerns from the news outlets that promoted the fundraiser for the the Ferguson police officer accused of shooting Mike Brown. It matters and it's telling.

How about justice for all of the other people wrongly accused and imprisoned after misconduct by a court of law? Those wrongly given the death penalty - a fate far worse than losing a job? We don't hear about this from the same sources that worry about young men "wrongly" accused of sexual assault. The source does matter.

[cfox]

It's not a freakin' kangaroo court...it's a private entity with leeway to apply a collectively bargained personal conduct policy. I'm not sure why anyone thinks Rice was punished just because he was accused of a crime. He was sanctioned because he was guilty of the crime...he admitted his guilt. If the NFL decides it doesn't want guys in the league who are found guilty of such crimes, I think it's great. If he were sanctioned just because he girlfriend said he hit him, and it was never proven, that would be a problem (the Ben Roethlesberger situation borders on this*).

As a side note, I'm sick of people talking of "second chances" for these NFL zipperheads. I hear that from a lot of the blabbing morons who comment on the NFL. Take Michael Vick: he was making millions before he went to jail for his horrific crimes. He was given a "second chance" to make more millions in the NFL. How many regular schlubs would be given a second chance in their old careers after serving time for multiple felonies? Would a partner in an accounting firm be given his old job back? He'd be lucky to get a job at Home Depot through a halfway house.


*I think big ben is a sleazebag

[soulspinner]

1centaur,

I 'know' you, as it were, so my comment wasn't directed toward you.

But while I tend to agree with your points, I can't fully buy in because violence toward women is too complex of a mix of power, male self image, and history. Other forms of A&B don't, in most cases, carry as many complicating motives and emotions.

The video of Ray Rice dragging his unconscious partner out of the elevator, to my eye at least, denotes many troubling power relationships. On just one point: would you ever move someone you loved, who was incapacitated, the way he did? I grant you I'm playing psychiatrist without a license, but he looks like he's moving an object, not a human being. Which to me, speaks volumes. I can be off base here, obviously, but this case is emblematic of why this form of violence is unique, troubling, and makes some men uncomfortable because it is not just about violence but the place of men in society.

So well articulated.

[Elefantino]

On the NFL in general:

If you have not read "League of Denial" and still have questions about the motive(s) of the NFL, you should read it. It is beyond damning. (Disclaimer: One of the authors used to work for me)

The NFL is as corrupt and calculating as any message-driven political/media propaganda organization. It is the perfect sport for our America, for myriad reasons.

[cfox]

Anyone see the new, leaked video of Rice pummeling his fiance? Based on that video I have a very difficult time believing that was an isolated incident, a "bad night for Ray Rice" as his apologists have phrased it. It looked to me like his fiance was the one who had the bad night. The guy should be in jail.

Anyway, it's very interesting to me the extent to which other NFL players are calling out Ray Rice, some in very harsh language. You never see these guys, that are effectively frat brothers, do that. Good for them.

Is the NFL hogtied now? Can they revisit Rice's punishment because of "new evidence"? For the record, the NFL claims it did not see he video until today.

[FlashUNC]

For the record, the NFL claims it did not see he video until today.

Which is incredible Orwellian doublespeak. They claimed in July when the punishment was levied (through various and sundry friendly league reporters) that they had seen everything the cops did, including the interior video footage. So either they watched Ray deliver two overhand lefts to his fiance and then stand over her doing nothing while she was unconscious and decided "meh, no big deal," or they lied about seeing it the first time around and levied a punishment without all the information.

[malcolm]

On the NFL in general:

If you have not read "League of Denial" and still have questions about the motive(s) of the NFL, you should read it. It is beyond damning. (Disclaimer: One of the authors used to work for me)

The NFL is as corrupt and calculating as any message-driven political/media propaganda organization. It is the perfect sport for our America, for myriad reasons.

I've not read it but certainly will look for it.

I'm asking this because I respect your opinion. Do you think the NFL is any more corrupt than any other pro sports organization? and do you think they are any more corrupt that any other big sports organization in any other country say FIFA?

[rugbysecondrow]

Rice has just been cut by the Ravens. They should have done it sooner. IMO

[FlashUNC]

Rice has just been cut by the Ravens. They should have done it sooner. IMO

Yup. Day late and a dollar short.

[Tony T]

Not sure if this was mentioned here, but I was surprised that "Rice was charged with felony assault in March, but after Janay Palmer declined to testify against her husband, charges were reduced to court-supervised counseling"

Either TmZ has better investigators than the Police, or the video was not enough evidence to convict.

[Louis]

Rice has just been cut by the Ravens. They should have done it sooner. IMO

So how long until he says "I'm really, really, really sorry" and is signed by another team?

[fuzzalow]

Rice has just been cut by the Ravens. They should have done it sooner. IMO

I do not follow the NFL. But I am not surprised that an organization and business that makes as much money as this does is chameleon-esque in how it views governance of its players versus the value of that player to the spectacle.

Rice is a thug. And his poor fiancé-cum-wife that chose to abdicate her self-respect in staying a punching bag rather than risk losing a nice meal ticket gets beat in this deal also. Too bad for her when a loser is taken as a winner because he has a pro contract.

This guy is a PR disaster and won't get picked up by another team, is this correct? He's not banned so he might still find work?

[marley]

She dumps him when the money runs out and he can not get another contract - other than coaching Pop Warner

[Louis]

Let's face it, violence is an inherent part of the game, and these guys have been protected by the high-school & college systems from day one.

[rugbysecondrow]

Let's face it, violence is an inherent part of the game, and these guys have been protected by the high-school & college systems from day one.

Players are no different than regular blokes who treat women poorly and abuse them. The spotlight on them unearths much of what happens daily in society, but which goes unnoticed. I am glad he got caught, punished, punished again and will likely be punished forever, to some degree. Get drunk and hurt somebody, you don't get to hit the reset button, no matter how sorry you are.

Cheers

Paul

[tuxbailey]

I do not follow the NFL. But I am not surprised that an organization and business that makes as much money as this does is chameleon-esque in how it views governance of its players versus the value of that player to the spectacle.

Rice is a thug. And his poor fiancé-cum-wife that chose to abdicate her self-respect in staying a punching bag rather than risk losing a nice meal ticket gets beat in this deal also. Too bad for her when a loser is taken as a winner because he has a pro contract.

This guy is a PR disaster and won't get picked up by another team, is this correct? He's not banned so he might still find work?

I am not saying that she is not staying with him because of the money, but have you read about codependency when one is in an abusive relationship. Often times it is very difficult to extract from an abusive relationship due to the control exerted by the abuser. In Rice's case, he is not only physically dominant but financially as well.

[malcolm]

Let's face it, violence is an inherent part of the game, and these guys have been protected by the high-school & college systems from day one.

Louis do you think violence on the field as part of the game carries over to the personal life? Lots these guys seem to be married and stay that way for a long time with no troubles. I do think, particularly for some of the stars that the being sheltered and held above the law or rule of others since probably middle school lends itself to some issues.

[Louis]

Louis do you think violence on the field as part of the game carries over to the personal life?

I think there's a decent chance that unfortunately the answer is yes, but haven't seen any official studies (which I assume have been done for sports like football, hockey, boxing, etc.).

Edit:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do%20violent%20sports%20cause%20beha vior%20problems

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/does-on-field-violent-behavior-lead-to-off-field-violence

[fuzzalow]

I am not saying that she is not staying with him because of the money, but have you read about codependency when one is in an abusive relationship. Often times it is very difficult to extract from an abusive relationship due to the control exerted by the abuser. In Rice's case, he is not only physically dominant but financially as well.

Yes, you point out very valid issues that make my initial response sound rash and even judgmentally pejorative of Mrs. Rice. I guess her normal human reaction is to gloss over the really bad traits and play it out for the upside and hope for the best. Lotsa prestige, money, lifestyle & codependencies riding in that relationship however abusive it may be so understandable how it tough to walk away from.

I think we as a society do this to ourselves. We coddle, enable, indulge and excuse the behaviour of gifted athletes from a very young age. Why do we find it out of character when these athletes do whatever impulse crosses their stunted-to-normative-society brains. Yes, there are intelligent athletes but IMO they are the exception and not the norm.

[malcolm]

I think there's a decent chance that unfortunately the answer is yes, but haven't seen any official studies (which I assume have been done for sports like football, hockey, boxing, etc.).

Edit:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do%20violent%20sports%20cause%20beha vior%20problems

http://www.humankinetics.com/excerpts/excerpts/does-on-field-violent-behavior-lead-to-off-field-violence

It wouldn't surprise me. I was an ER doc for many years and the amount of domestic violence you see is staggering and I'm sure most ER docs have stories of repeat incidents involving the same patient. Abusive relationships are complex and difficult for those not involved to understand even superficially.

[Md3000]

Yes, you point out very valid issues that make my initial response sound rash and even judgmentally pejorative of Mrs. Rice. I guess her normal human reaction is to gloss over the really bad traits and play it out for the upside and hope for the best. Lotsa prestige, money, lifestyle & codependencies riding in that relationship however abusive it may be so understandable how it tough to walk away from.

I think we as a society do this to ourselves. We coddle, enable, indulge and excuse the behaviour of gifted athletes from a very young age. Why do we find it out of character when these athletes do whatever impulse crosses their stunted-to-normative-society brains. Yes, there are intelligent athletes but IMO they are the exception and not the norm.

Dont forget that even if she would have "Walked away from the relationship" that almost never means an abused woman can actually get away from the husband. Most domestic abuse has a high level of fear and intimidation, she can break up with him, but he will most likely keep following her and harassing her. Yes you can go to the police for a restraining order and whatnot but that also brings all your affairs in the public sphere and in a lot of cases the man gets benefit of the doubt if there's no clear evidence. So this may have absolutely nothing to do with his money or prestige at all.

[pdmtong]

For the record, the NFL claims it did not see he video until today.

Why did it take today's video to cut him?

How did they think she became unconscious so he could caveman her out of the elevator? Punch? Choke? Does it make any difference?

If TMZ could get the video, the NFL could get the video.
Someone is hiding something.

[avalonracing]

Why did it take today's video to cut him?

How did they think she became unconscious so he could caveman her out of the elevator? Punch? Choke? Does it make any difference?

If TMZ could get the video, the NFL could get the video.
Someone is hiding something.


And the public outcry is ridiculous. See him drag a woman out because he hit her no big deal, they have to see hit happen to be disgusted.

And check this out, I'm in Baltimore and I have a woman friend who overhead two women talking in a city doctors' office today. The women were saying that the woman Rice hit "deserved it for getting in his face".

[cfox]

Why did it take today's video to cut him?

How did they think she became unconscious so he could caveman her out of the elevator? Punch? Choke? Does it make any difference?

If TMZ could get the video, the NFL could get the video.
Someone is hiding something.

100% right. It's absurd; we all saw the aftermath, he admitted punching her out...actually seeing him do it shouldn't really change anything. I guess the visual is just so visceral and over the top, the ravens/nfl knew there was no pr gloss that could cover that up or let the story fade (their wet dream). They are acting like it's only really bad because we've now seen him do what he already admitted to. Ludicrous.

[Louis]

If TMZ could get the video, the NFL could get the video. Someone is hiding something.

NFL either had it and tried to minimize the contents, or they didn't try very hard to see it, because they knew if they did see it they would have to do something about it. Either way, the NFL looks bad.

Related comment: It will be interesting to see how the whole Peter King aspect of this plays out. He originally reported this summer that the NFL had seen the video. They did not deny it at the time, but the NFL now says that they never saw it.

http://deadspin.com/has-peter-king-read-his-own-reporting-on-the-ray-rice-f-1631901579

[Rada]

There should to be an independent investigation on this. If Goodell saw this before today, which I highly suspect he did, he needs to go.

[jlwdm]

NFL either had it and tried to minimize the contents, or they didn't try very hard to see it, because they knew if they did see it they would have to do something about it. Either way, the NFL looks bad.

Related comment: It will be interesting to see how the whole Peter King aspect of this plays out. He originally reported this summer that the NFL had seen the video. They did not deny it at the time, but the NFL now says that they never saw it.

http://deadspin.com/has-peter-king-read-his-own-reporting-on-the-ray-rice-f-1631901579

Peter King is looking like a fool.

Jeff

[FlashUNC]

Peter King is looking like a fool.

Jeff

Given how Peter King is a mouthpiece for the league, I'm sure that was someone inside the league office this summer that told him that. And he needs to out that source now if that source is now telling him something else. Can't have it both ways.

But it seems ol' Peter is clearly falling on his sword to protect those who either lied to him, or told him the truth and are now backpedaling because this is a royal PR disaster for the league.

[Nooch]

someone on my feed this morning presented the argument that fans (and radio, for that matter) haven't shamed Chris Brown the way they've shamed Ray Rice -- how is one high profile case of domestic violence different from the other? Because we've seen the video?

Should Chris Brown's label have canned him for beating the crap out of Rhianna? Probably. But why didn't they? Because all they saw was the 'after' and not the 'act'? Or is it somehow more violent because Rice is a big football player and not a 'little' singer/dancer/performer? There appears to be a double standard at play here...

(asking for the sake of discussion -- I've no dog in this fight)

[Elefantino]

The verbal gymnastics in this mea culpa are breathtaking ...

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l84/gmmtwo/Screenshot2014-09-09062827_zpsa5ad04b4.png

[fuzzalow]

^ Mr. King running with that based on one source. But, as noted, an impeccable source! Mr. King might have meant "impeccable" in reference to his sources style of dress or the type of expense account lunches he enjoyed with his source. C'mon, we can all play parse-the-sentence!

Good, hard-nosed investigative journalism! :rolleyes: [sarcasm]

[pdmtong]

Harbaugh - Ray Rice

Harbaugh - Ray McDonald

[Fishbike]

And what about does this incident say about are society when Rice gets a standing ovation after the incident when he runs on the field in an exhibition game? What perverse self-gratification do fans get by purporting to support violently criminal behavior?

[harlond]

What's interesting about King's explanation is that he admits his source did NOT tell him the league had seen the tape. Rather he told him he "assumed" they had seen it and they "had to" have seen it. So King misrepresented what his source told him.

[bobswire]

Harbaugh - Ray Rice

Harbaugh - Ray McDonald

Jim Harbaugh had nothing to do with Ray Rice,McDondald is his and as yet to be fully vetted.

Some good posts on this subject at NinerNation,another forum I attend.
http://www.ninersnation.com/2014/9/8/6124505/nfl-ravens-handling-of-ray-rice-situation-leaves-me-conflicted

[rugbysecondrow]

Folks over the age of 17 have no frame of reference to who Chris Brown and Rhianna are. I couldn't tell you a song, I couldn't pick them out of a line-up.

Here is the difference, Ray Rice hurt the Ravens brand and it hurt the NFL brand. Chris Brown, hurt Chris Brown's brand. This isn't about morality. This isn't about women's rights, it is about image and money. Rice was was an asset, until he wasn't. Chris Brown is still an asset.



someone on my feed this morning presented the argument that fans (and radio, for that matter) haven't shamed Chris Brown the way they've shamed Ray Rice -- how is one high profile case of domestic violence different from the other? Because we've seen the video?

Should Chris Brown's label have canned him for beating the crap out of Rhianna? Probably. But why didn't they? Because all they saw was the 'after' and not the 'act'? Or is it somehow more violent because Rice is a big football player and not a 'little' singer/dancer/performer? There appears to be a double standard at play here...

(asking for the sake of discussion -- I've no dog in this fight)

[Nooch]

Eh, I wouldn't necessarily say that (re: no one over 17) -- just put on any top 40 station and you're bound to run into both of them.

For frame of reference (http://www.tmz.com/2011/02/24/rihanna-photos-brutal-beating-chris-brown-attack-police-attack/)

But, I see what you're saying, regarding the bigger organization and why this "matters" more to them..

[cfox]

On a tangential note, yesterday Penn State had its (Sandusky) sanctions removed by the NCAA. Unreal. That whole ordeal made my stomach turn; the sick crimes committed, the doddering old fool with a God complex, the ham fisted cover up, and the chanting rabble of moron students and alumni.

[Bruce K]

All true but (I believe) there is no one left from that debacle so maybe part of the thinking is why punish those who are innocent?

The flip side is that everyone there knew what they were getting into when they were hired or enrolled so why change now?

The cynic in me says follow the money. Penn State is a big brand with lots of dollars at stake for both the school and the surrounding community

BK

[Louis]

Penn State is a big brand with lots of dollars at stake for both the school and the surrounding community

Too big to fail - where have I heard that before?

[Ahneida Ride]

Too big to fail - where have I heard that before?

I know !

[unterhausen]

On a tangential note, yesterday Penn State had its (Sandusky) sanctions removed by the NCAA. Unreal. That whole ordeal made my stomach turn; the sick crimes committed, the doddering old fool with a God complex, the ham fisted cover up, and the chanting rabble of moron students and alumni.

I recently saw Graham Spanier out playing with the oompah band that he plays with and I had to go get another beer instead of spitting on him. It's all back to normal here in Happy Valley, makes me sick. If we could somehow excise the cancer of football and basketball from the academy, everyone would be better off. Rice is just the tip of the iceberg, our whole education system is being poisoned by sports. It was a nice sideline at first, now we have acheived a situation where administrators like Spanier are afraid to cross the football coach because they would be fired. People talk about how much money the football program brings in (which is creative accounting in the first place) as if it matters in the slightest. Corrupting institutions of higher learning is not worth the money.

And Penn State is a $4 billion institution. Someone divide that by the $60 million the football program brings in and tell me we couldn't get rid of those criminals and be better off for it.

Sad thing is, I love to watch football.

[Elefantino]

Interesting, isn't it, that the kids were out in force last night chanting "WHERE'S THE STATUE?!?!?!" ... and these weren't some kids from Cleveland or New York (you know, "outside agitators"). These were Penn State students.

Presumably they meant the statue of Paterno himself, and not one that would be more anatomically in line with what many think of now when they think of the JoePa years.

[verticaldoug]

I recently saw Graham Spanier out playing with the oompah band that he plays with and I had to go get another beer instead of spitting on him. It's all back to normal here in Happy Valley, makes me sick. If we could somehow excise the cancer of football and basketball from the academy, everyone would be better off. Rice is just the tip of the iceberg, our whole education system is being poisoned by sports. It was a nice sideline at first, now we have acheived a situation where administrators like Spanier are afraid to cross the football coach because they would be fired. People talk about how much money the football program brings in (which is creative accounting in the first place) as if it matters in the slightest. Corrupting institutions of higher learning is not worth the money.

And Penn State is a $4 billion institution. Someone divide that by the $60 million the football program brings in and tell me we couldn't get rid of those criminals and be better off for it.

Sad thing is, I love to watch football.

I've looked at the athletic budget of Penn State in detail before. All the revenue stays within athletics and zero goes to general funds. If I recall correctly, of the 120mm budget, total student athletic scholarships are only around 12mm (10%). The biggest beneficiaries are the coaches.

[Louis]

Now AP's been indicted:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/11514522/adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings-indicted-child-case

[MattTuck]

Now AP's been indicted:

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/11514522/adrian-peterson-minnesota-vikings-indicted-child-case

Well I'm sure that new policy, that was so well thought out, will cover this. :rolleyes:

[Louis]

It really is a tough (I would say brutal) sport.

NYT Story (http://nyti.ms/1m0LmXo)

In Court Documents, N.F.L. Cites High Rate of Brain Trauma

By KEN BELSONSEPT. 12, 2014

The National Football League, which for years disputed evidence that its players have a high rate of severe brain damage, has stated in federal court documents that it expects nearly a third of retired players to develop long-term cognitive problems and the conditions would emerge at “notably younger ages” than the general population.

The data were prepared by actuaries hired by the league and provided to the U.S. District Judge presiding over the settlement between the N.F.L. and 5,000 former players who sued the league for hiding the dangers of concussions from them.

“Thus, our assumptions result in prevalence rates by age group that are materially higher than those expected in the general population,” the report, prepared by the Segal Group for the N.F.L., said. “Furthermore, the model forecasts that players will develop these diagnoses at notably younger ages than the generation population.”

The statements are the league’s most unvarnished admission yet that the sport’s professional participants sustain severe brain injuries at far higher rates than the general population. They also appear to confirm what researchers and scientists have said for years: That playing football increases the risk of developing neurological conditions.

[MattTuck]

Peterson was out, then back in, now out again. Nike pulls his jerseys.

Budweiser says to NFL: Get your damn act together.


Goodell seems protected by the owners, but if this ridiculousness continues, there probably needs to be a high profile scapegoat.

I find this whole thing incredibly fascinating from a leadership and organizational perspective.

[bobswire]

Peterson was out, then back in, now out again. Nike pulls his jerseys.

Budweiser says to NFL: Get your damn act together.


Goodell seems protected by the owners, but if this ridiculousness continues, there probably needs to be a high profile scapegoat.

I find this whole thing incredibly fascinating from a leadership and organizational perspective.

Budweiser!?! Hey Bud ,Alcohol and violence go hand in hand, pot calling kettle black.

[93legendti]

Where is the outrage?

"The official account shows that Hope Solo extended her shutout record to 73 games as the U.S. women’s national team beat Mexico 4-0 in a friendly Thursday night in Rochester, N.Y. But as the NFL grapples with its domestic-violence crisis, Solo, who has been accused of the same crime, continues to play for her pro soccer team as well as the national team as she awaits trial in November. Solo has pleaded not guilty to two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence in an alleged assault of her half-sister and 17-year-old nephew last summer in Kirkland, Wash."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/09/19/hope-solo-and-the-domestic-violence-case-no-one-is-talking-about/

[Louis]

Never got the video.

[FlashUNC]

Where is the outrage?

"The official account shows that Hope Solo extended her shutout record to 73 games as the U.S. women’s national team beat Mexico 4-0 in a friendly Thursday night in Rochester, N.Y. But as the NFL grapples with its domestic-violence crisis, Solo, who has been accused of the same crime, continues to play for her pro soccer team as well as the national team as she awaits trial in November. Solo has pleaded not guilty to two counts of misdemeanor domestic violence in an alleged assault of her half-sister and 17-year-old nephew last summer in Kirkland, Wash."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2014/09/19/hope-solo-and-the-domestic-violence-case-no-one-is-talking-about/

http://www.7littlewords.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Redherring.jpg

[beeatnik]

^Haha.

Violence is violence. But Hope Solo is not a reflection of a social ill. She's just a chick who went off. Equating her with wife (partner) battering is pretty effing moronic. 93Legend, you've probably never seen a man hit a woman he "loves."

[verticaldoug]

Actually, Hope Solo is married to a former football player and there was an incident in November of 2012 where he was arrested after a physical altercation with Hope. He was released by a judge for lack of evidence and they married the next day. (where have I heard a story like this before?)

Hope was arrested and booked for assault against her sister and nephew. She goes on trial later this year. She is a great goalie but strikes me as a head case. (I don't know if any of you remember the drama around 2012 Olympics)

[93legendti]

^Haha.

Violence is violence. But Hope Solo is not a reflection of a social ill. She's just a chick who went off. Equating her with wife (partner) battering is pretty effing moronic. 93Legend, you've probably never seen a man hit a woman he "loves."

Violence is violence. You're right.

I love the hypocrisy. I understand the daggers out for the NFL.


Btw, I didn't write the article. It seems WashPo thinks violence is violence:

" Aren’t women’s soccer players just as much role models as male football players? The goalkeeping record is an an important one, both for Solo and for women’s soccer, but does it really trump an accusation of domestic violence? Why is the notion of awaiting due process so inconsistently applied? And why aren’t more people talking about the fact that domestic violence isn’t simply an issue of men against women?"

[firerescuefin]

.

[Rada]

I've seen this going around a bit and am curious if it's true. If it is true, how do we demand that guys who go on a field and beat one another’s brains out have a higher standard of morality than those we elect at the highest levels of authority in our countries government.

https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/p526x296/10698533_764571320282421_5723336983823370128_n.jpg ?oh=f8f86deaa01625f5992343983344e5ac&oe=548F20E0

[ptourkin]

Yes, as this story says, domestic violence in women's soccer is such a widespread problem. Blatant hypocrisy! I'm indignant.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/09/hope_solo_domestic_violence_it_is_very_very_stupid _to_compare_the_soccer.html

[firerescuefin]

Yes, as this story says, domestic violence in women's soccer is such a widespread problem. Blatant hypocrisy! I'm indignant.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/09/hope_solo_domestic_violence_it_is_very_very_stupid _to_compare_the_soccer.html

If Hope Solo is a domestic abuser, as it is defined by the law, should she be on the field?

Yes or No

No one is arguing that Women's soccer has a domestic abuse problem or comparing it to the NFL.

[bobswire]

If Hope Solo is a domestic abuser, as it is defined by the law, should she be on the field?

Yes or No

No one is arguing that Women's soccer has a domestic abuse problem or comparing it to the NFL.

Yes or No ? No more or less than you or I would/should be denied work because of our domestic problems. I'd rather a guy or gal keep working and get help rather than fired and left to his or hers own devices on the street.

[ptourkin]

If Hope Solo is a domestic abuser, as it is defined by the law, should she be on the field?

Yes or No

No one is arguing that Women's soccer has a domestic abuse problem or comparing it to the NFL.

It's a red herring and a diversion. Hope Solo was, in fact the victim of some kind of assault by the lovely Jerramy Stephens, a former NFL player, but it's not at all clear that the incident she was booked for had anything to do with domestic violence. It looks like a party that turned into a brawl. Again, we've only seen this false equivalence thing from more sensational media outlets looking for clicks and people who aren't comfortable with the discussion of a problem in our culture and their favorite Sunday couch watching.

http://thesportspectacle.com/2014/09/21/sexism-hope-solo/

[firerescuefin]

It's a red herring and a diversion. Hope Solo was, in fact the victim of some kind of assault by the lovely Jerramy Stephens, a former NFL player, but it's not at all clear that the incident she was booked for had anything to do with domestic violence. It looks like a party that turned into a brawl. Again, we've only seen this false equivalence thing from more sensational media outlets looking for clicks and people who aren't comfortable with the discussion of a problem in our culture and their favorite Sunday couch watching.

http://thesportspectacle.com/2014/09/21/sexism-hope-solo/

You're not referencing the incident that people are worked up about. She beat up her sister and her 17 year old son. The NFL isn't bringing this up....fans are. NFL are a bunch of money grubbing dirtbags. Solo should be riding the pine. That's my opinion.

[oldpotatoe]

[QUOTE=firerescuefin;1626676 NFL are a bunch of money grubbing dirtbags. That's my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Mine too and how is the NFL tax exempt?

[ptourkin]

Mine too and how is the NFL tax exempt?

It's the closest thing many Americans have to church on Sunday. Maybe it falls into the same exemption.

[1centaur]

I thought that article (vaguely) about Solo was appallingly confused both in logic and emotion. It tries to tie together vague aspersions and negative emotions with a melange of distantly related facts into a cohesive point and fails massively. I have found over time that when the phrase "false equivalence" is used dismissively there is often more equivalence than is being recognized.

I think there are two elements at play for the NFL and for Solo's team: what should they do as members of society, and what should they do as businesses.

As members of society I am inclined to say they should let the law play out for all crimes. If they perceive that their employees have a particular tendency to commit a certain crime, then as good citizens I don't think it's wrong to impart admonitions and a culture to turn that around.

As businesses, they have to worry about their reputations/perceptions among the people who pay their bills. That's a much more open playing field. They could choose to fire people upon the first accusation by anybody. They could choose to let the law decide. They could choose to do nothing (pretty dumb). They probably ought to do something between the first two because that's fair to all parties and will be perceived as such by most people. The players' union will negotiate that balance point. The process should be predictable and swift.

That's it. No selfish cover-up, no pandering to those with a political agenda, no trying to fix old perceived injustices. Gender indifferent. And in that light, Rice and Solo can find their equivalence. They either did or did not commit a crime, that crime either is or is not part of a notable pattern for the league/employer, the degree of the crime either is or is not a detriment to the employer to such an extent that it requires extra-legal punishment in order to maximize the value of the business.

It matters not for this discussion whether Rice and Solo's actions are both bad enough to deserve employment punishment, only that the process has nothing to do with gender. Men should not try to protect men, women should not try to protect women. The law should protect victims; businesses should both follow the law and protect their interests. The public will let those businesses know what their interests are.

[rugbysecondrow]

Rant:

Football is entertainment, the players are actors. Some are better than others, but they are role players there strictly for entertainment.

The phoney indignation by the NFL, their teams and "fans" is pretty ridiculous. The fact that Ray Rice was suspended 2 games for domestic abuse, then the video was release and he was suspended indefinitely shows the NFL has no back bone and no concept of what they are doing. Aside from the fairness issue that the man was punished twice for the same act, it is all an act by the NFL. Adrian Peterson is arrested for child abuse...suspended from his team, his future there likely over. I am saying it is a farce to pretend we care and to make a villain of man like this. It is reality TV, provided by ESPN and the other sports outlets, and trumpeted for ratings. Nobody really cares about Ray Rice, Peterson or other players.

Life was better before we pretended to care about what these men do, or don't do. When I watch player A pass a ball, player B make a tackle, do I actually care if they are "good people"? We pretend to know them, but we know nothing about them.

This is the first year I actually don't care about football. The NFL has ruined their product for me, and it needs a course correction. The notion that they are now suspending players for being bad guys is pretty ridiculous.

It seems to me that many people use these players as a scapegoat, it is makes us feel like better people to point out how bad these other people are.

[Tony T]

NYT: Ray Rice Suspension Overturned in Arbitration (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/29/sports/football/ray-rice-suspension-overturned-in-arbitration.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news)
In a defeat for the N.F.L. and Commissioner Roger Goodell, a former federal judge has overturned the indefinite suspension of Ray Rice, the former Baltimore Ravens running back who was videotaped knocking out his fiancée in a hotel elevator.

The decision Friday handed down by Barbara S. Jones, a onetime district court judge, was confirmed by a member of the N.F.L. Players Association.

[abalone]

I thought it was a really bad thing what Ray Rice did, but his wife and family did forgive him. And his not being in the NFL hurts not only his career, but also the family's financial well-being, including his daughter.

I think its time to allow him to be punished, but also allow him a pathway to work and get his life and career back in order for himself and his family.

[Louis]

I'll be surprised if he plays again this year. Currently he's more toxic than Vick, Lewis, or any number of others who returned to play.

However, next year, I'd say he probably will be picked up by some team desperate for a running back.

[oldpotatoe]

I thought it was a really bad thing what Ray Rice did, but his wife and family did forgive him. And his not being in the NFL hurts not only his career, but also the family's financial well-being, including his daughter.

I think its time to allow him to be punished, but also allow him a pathway to work and get his life and career back in order for himself and his family.

bing, bing, bing, we have a winner. Girlfriend/sparring 'partner', now wife, sees the 'light' in the tunnel. Wonder what she will do next time he smacks her?

Money buys some good lawyers, professional story tellers.

[saab2000]

While not defending the actions of Ray Rice, the NFL sure blew this one. The argument that actions by the commissioner are random and inconsistent and that he makes it up as he goes along are very real and legitimate complaints.

The NFL needs to lose its tax exempt status and Goodell is useless. Whether or not he resigns or is fired is another story as he has been good for the owners, and he's just a mouthpiece for their businesses.

I love football but the business of the NFL and the NCAA seem rotten to the core.

[malcolm]

While not defending the actions of Ray Rice, the NFL sure blew this one. The argument that actions by the commissioner are random and inconsistent and that he makes it up as he goes along are very real and legitimate complaints.

The NFL needs to lose its tax exempt status and Goodell is useless. Whether or not he resigns or is fired is another story as he has been good for the owners, and he's just a mouthpiece for their businesses.

I love football but the business of the NFL and the NCAA seem rotten to the core.

Agreed
I'm not sure why anything is tax exempt except thoroughly vetted legitimate charities.

[Climb01742]

And why should billionaires who own teams worth north of a billion ever get taxpayer dollars to build stadiums where the debt is public but the profit private?

[PQJ]

Agreed
I'm not sure why anything is tax exempt except thoroughly vetted legitimate charities.

And why should billionaires who own teams worth north of a billion ever get taxpayer dollars to build stadiums where the debt is public but the profit private?

Because b------t walks and $$ talks.

[1centaur]

And why should billionaires who own teams worth north of a billion ever get taxpayer dollars to build stadiums where the debt is public but the profit private?

At some level, the taxpayers benefit from the economic activity of building the stadium and putting on shows there on the 357 days a year that the football team is not playing. That the team is worth more because of the new stadium might suggest the taxpayers should own some part of the upside, but then again the tax rolls do better because the team is there so should the owner get some of that action?

One side or the other might get more out of the negotiation than they should, but both sides should win. And the net worth of the team owner is irrelevant to the fairness of the negotiation.

[gasman]

At some level, the taxpayers benefit from the economic activity of building the stadium and putting on shows there on the 357 days a year that the football team is not playing. That the team is worth more because of the new stadium might suggest the taxpayers should own some part of the upside, but then again the tax rolls do better because the team is there so should the owner get some of that action?

.

I always wonder if the tax base increase really covers the cost of the bonds for the stadiums. The Olympics clearly cost a lot for the host country that is never recouped. How much revenue do the stadiums generate from non-football related activities ? Don't most of the revenue that the owners receive from TV contracts ?.
I don't know as I haven't seen the numbers.

[1centaur]

I agree with that concern. The "art" of estimating economic benefit seems to have a poor history of even vague accuracy, with the Olympics being a good example. Every article I have ever read on estimated vs. actual outcomes was negative on actuals.

There are all sorts of "soft" benefits to create appeal to the community that may vote on the bonding. Stadium sites may be in undesirable neighborhoods so a stadium decreases future crime. Recent stadia have been done with permanent retail attached to increase the tax base and share the parking. Hockey/basketball stadia are more intuitively appealing because they can hold more events (concerts, gymnastics, figure skating, expos) than a giant football stadium, which might be lucky to also host a soccer team.

There is an interesting wiki on multi-use stadia, which was a trend and now is not one because compromised stadia are so not ideal for their sports. There is plenty to read on stadium financing, with plenty of ego on both sides of the negotiating table and voters presumably thinking in many cases that mostly others will pay to bring in the project and the glory of a team. Ironically, perhaps, if only the upper tax paying classes voted on stadium financing bonds I speculate we'd see more no votes.

[verticaldoug]

The 'art' in stadium financing is making sure all the upside accrues to the private parties while leaving the municipality with a break even proposition at best. The always promised increased business activity doesn't materialize otherwise there would be no need to raise sale tax and hotel levies to pay for public bonds. Even the knock-on effects touting urban redevelopment etc, are largely a myth. The biggest issue is all the increased revenue is 'leaked' to outside interests. (the nfl, the players etc)

Camden Yards in Baltimore (Ironic full circle back to the Ravens where this thread started) promised urban renewal, yet more businesses are boarded up now than when the project started.

Cowboy Stadium in Arlington is touted as a great success, yet after all the easy money was taken out (luxury box receipts, naming rights etc) to the private interests, the city was left funding approximately $300mm. Luckily for Texas, it is in the middle of a oil boom, otherwise, sales tax receipts would not be so rosey.

Cincinnati approved $540mm for a new stadium to revitalize the city, instead they have cut services and sold a public hospital to pay down the debt. A negative result as opposed to all the positive promised.

The more recent the deal in general the more rotten it is for the city. You can google and look at all the controversy surrounding Viking Stadium in the Twin Cities. I can hardly wait for the Buffalo Bills and Washington Slurs to begin discussions about new stadiums. Sure to be a new high water mark in financial shenanigans.


(if you are using the terms 'art' and 'soft' to describe benefits to the municipalities, you can be certain these do not exist. If there were real financial benefits, these would be more widely touted.)

[1centaur]

When I see academics projecting economic benefits my skepticism meter gets high. I would have difficulty as mayor negotiating a stadium contract because I don't believe theoretical benefits are worth much. I would be inclined to not grant financial benefits to team owners until the bonds are paid off, which means I'd lose the contract to another location.

There are of course financial benefits to the city. The question is net financial benefits. Stats and facts can be used to paint a variety of stories by people with agendas on both sides.

[saab2000]

I heard an interview on one of the NPR shows a few years ago on this specific subject. The guy being interviewed had written an economics PhD thesis (at a legitimate institution) on the specific topic of stadium funding and public economic benefits and his discoveries were that the net benefit that is often touted by billionaire owners doesn't materialize, even over a longer period of time.

He factored in construction and neighboring businesses and full time jobs and even the economic benefits of a city having players spending a lot of money in the area and said it just doesn't add up to have public funding for privately owned sports venues.

It was an interesting conversation and he wasn't against sports or teams or whatever. He just tried to use actual data he had accumulated to argue that privately owned teams should pay for their own facilities. I happen to agree with that and agree even more after hearing his argument.

The odd thing is that, having grown up in NE Wisconsin, I'm a big Packer fan, a team that is owned by the City of Green Bay, WI. That's a bit of a unique situation and in that case there is almost certainly an economic benefit of having the team there and having it publicly owned. Green Bay is tiny compared with virtually all other NFL cities.

So maybe I'm a bit hypocritical on this but as a taxpayer I'd rather see my money spent on infrastructure and education and not subsidizing billionaire businesses like NFL or MLB teams.

[malcolm]

I heard an interview on one of the NPR shows a few years ago on this specific subject. The guy being interviewed had written an economics PhD thesis (at a legitimate institution) on the specific topic of stadium funding and public economic benefits and his discoveries were that the net benefit that is often touted by billionaire owners doesn't materialize, even over a longer period of time.

He factored in construction and neighboring businesses and full time jobs and even the economic benefits of a city having players spending a lot of money in the area and said it just doesn't add up to have public funding for privately owned sports venues.

It was an interesting conversation and he wasn't against sports or teams or whatever. He just tried to use actual data he had accumulated to argue that privately owned teams should pay for their own facilities. I happen to agree with that and agree even more after hearing his argument.

The odd thing is that, having grown up in NE Wisconsin, I'm a big Packer fan, a team that is owned by the City of Green Bay, WI. That's a bit of a unique situation and in that case there is almost certainly an economic benefit of having the team there and having it publicly owned. Green Bay is tiny compared with virtually all other NFL cities.

So maybe I'm a bit hypocritical on this but as a taxpayer I'd rather see my money spent on infrastructure and education and not subsidizing billionaire businesses like NFL or MLB teams.

OT a bit but I saw an article about the packers the other day that basically said if you got on the list for season tickets now it would be a touch over 100 years before you got them.

[soulspinner]

I heard an interview on one of the NPR shows a few years ago on this specific subject. The guy being interviewed had written an economics PhD thesis (at a legitimate institution) on the specific topic of stadium funding and public economic benefits and his discoveries were that the net benefit that is often touted by billionaire owners doesn't materialize, even over a longer period of time.

He factored in construction and neighboring businesses and full time jobs and even the economic benefits of a city having players spending a lot of money in the area and said it just doesn't add up to have public funding for privately owned sports venues.

It was an interesting conversation and he wasn't against sports or teams or whatever. He just tried to use actual data he had accumulated to argue that privately owned teams should pay for their own facilities. I happen to agree with that and agree even more after hearing his argument.

The odd thing is that, having grown up in NE Wisconsin, I'm a big Packer fan, a team that is owned by the City of Green Bay, WI. That's a bit of a unique situation and in that case there is almost certainly an economic benefit of having the team there and having it publicly owned. Green Bay is tiny compared with virtually all other NFL cities.

So maybe I'm a bit hypocritical on this but as a taxpayer I'd rather see my money spent on infrastructure and education and not subsidizing billionaire businesses like NFL or MLB teams.

FWIW love that The Pack beat the Brady ranting Bellecheck boys.........