Ray Rice Video Released

[SteveMax58]

Video evidence is obviously a very powerful substitute for "just the facts".

Like somebody mentioned above, if we had video evidence of Vick and/or his buddies slamming wounded fighting dogs into the pavement until death, he wouldn't be quite so lovable today.

I think the difference for me is that I understand that seeing the video is more impactful than not seeing the video. The average person will certainly have a more visceral reaction to seeing a woman cold-cocked vs being told that it happened (or seeing the aftermath as we did earlier in this story). This is also true for me, I find it even more disturbing to see it. The same is true for war stories, child abuse, car accidents, etc.

But having said all that, when one is in a role of authority and rule-enforcement, one should understand (or go to whatever lengths needed to understand) the reality of the rule/law/what-have-you being broken intellectually when you are the one deciding such punishments. So even if the said broken rule/law is extremely disturbing, the punishment shouldn't feel any more or less appropriate after seeing the video if one took a sober, reasoned approach to determining the punishment level in the first place. So when I hear Goodell say he "got it wrong", I'm hearing "I didn't understand what a person being knocked out looks like". And in today's "information overload" society and all the resources available to better understand ANY topic one wants to research....that just strikes me as not taking this case very seriously from the onset.

Again, not saying John Q Public should have this "burden of research" before forming an opinion...just that the people responsible for rule enforcement/punishment should.

[DaddyTorgo]

I don't think animal torture or beating your wife unconscious is the same as playing football, nor do I think we should excuse that conduct from football players. Is that really what you're saying? Do you agree with Vick? We should give him a pass because people tackle him in a sport (a sport he chooses to pay, mind you)? Fuck that. That is the dumbest thing I've ever read. But it shows Vick's criminal mindset. I've seen photos and videos of the result of animal torture, and domestic violence. It's not the same as football. Vick is monster who continues to be a danger to society, and not just animals. Yes, you can get injured if you choose to play football, and Vick probably thinks that the animals and abused women ultimately deserve what happen to them, so he sees those things similarly.

And aren't you a pretty big football fan? Aren't you a part of that "system"? If you believe what you wrote here, and you don't give a shit and support football anyway, I don't know what to think.

Oh wait - I didn't read CU's post as thinking we should give these guys a pass. If that's what his intent was, then I don't agree with that AT ALL.

I do agree that it conditions these guys mentally in a certain way though, quite probably a way that leads some of them towards that type of behavior.

That doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's an attempt to...trace back the causes of it.

The one thing I didn't quite agree with him on (although i glossed over it) was equating their CHOICE to play football and get paid to animal/domestic abuse (where the other party doesn't have a choice).

[Suburban Rhythm]

I've got a ton of respect for William Gay on this

On The Steelers: William Gay wants to help Ray Rice (http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2014/09/08/Steelers-William-Gay-wants-to-help-Ray-Rice/stories/201409080199)

Cornerback William Gay, whose mother was shot and killed in an act of domestic violence, said he will reach out to Rice, whom the Ravens released Monday after a video showed him knocking out his fiancee with a punch in an elevator earlier this year.


I probably couldn't be so magmanimous

[molson]

Oh wait - I didn't read CU's post as thinking we should give Vick a pass. If that's what his intent was, then I don't agree with that.

I do agree that it conditions these guys mentally in a certain way though, quite probably a way that leads some of them towards that type of behavior.

That doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's an attempt to...trace back the causes of it.

The one thing I didn't quite agree with him on (although i glossed over it) was equating their CHOICE to play football and get paid to animal/domestic abuse (where the other party doesn't have a choice).

I'm not sure that was what CU was saying, but it definitely was what Vick was saying.

And ya, I agree on the rest. Even if you think the injuries are equal and inevitable (which I think is silly, and it doesn't even get into emotional toll of being a victim of crime), There's the consent and the legality part. If football were illegal, and Vick forced people to play until they suffered those kinds of injuries similar to animal torture and domestic violence, the comparison might be more apt. But how he talks is just how criminals rationalize their violent behavior. They live with themselves every day, after all, it's really hard to own all that and what they've done. So its someone else's fault, and they're the real victims.

[Logan]

I think the difference for me is that I understand that seeing the video is more impactful than not seeing the video. The average person will certainly have a more visceral reaction to seeing a woman cold-cocked vs being told that it happened (or seeing the aftermath as we did earlier in this story). This is also true for me, I find it even more disturbing to see it. The same is true for war stories, child abuse, car accidents, etc.

I think I talked about this in the Sterling thread, but I'll mention it again (and hey, we have a Rice and Rutgers involved!): Every detail of the manner in which Mike Rice abused the Rutgers basketball team was known in November 2012. It was reported across mainstream media at the time he was suspended. Fast forward six months, the video gets leaked, he gets fired, the AD gets fired, and the university President nearly loses his job as well.

Video and audio always matter.

[TroyF]

Oh wait - I didn't read CU's post as thinking we should give these guys a pass. If that's what his intent was, then I don't agree with that AT ALL.

I do agree that it conditions these guys mentally in a certain way though, quite probably a way that leads some of them towards that type of behavior.

That doesn't make it RIGHT, but it's an attempt to...trace back the causes of it.).

Ok, so what causes all of the other domestic violence in this country? And what other excuses can other people use?

I disagree with about 98 percent of his post. If we lives in a world where 80 percent of football players beat theor wives and 10 percent of the rest of society did, I would agree. I think you will find the numbers are not that clear cut. We just hear about Ray Rice and Chris Brown because of the celebrity factor. Visit a womens shelter and you will see real quick how widespread this problem is.

[DaddyTorgo]

Ok, so what causes all of the other domestic violence in this country? And what other excuses can other people use?

I disagree with about 98 percent of his post. If we lives in a world where 80 percent of football players beat theor wives and 10 percent of the rest of society did, I would agree. I think you will find the numbers are not that clear cut. We just hear about Ray Rice and Chris Brown because of the celebrity factor. Visit a womens shelter and you will see real quick how widespread this problem is.

Oh I agree.

I'm not saying it excuses it or explains a significant % of it or anything like that.

Believe me, I fully believe that it's a widespread, serious problem, and I'm not trying to minimize it or explain it away.

Maybe my thought wasn't fully like...formed. It was more of a commentary about that NFL players MAY HAVE A TENDENCY TO BE (aka "not in all cases") even more desensitized to violence than members of society at large. In many cases this may result in nothing because they're decent human beings. In some cases (the shitbags) it gives them this excuse to rationalize (as Vick does) their shitbag criminal behavior.

[DaddyTorgo]

This just in - some shitbags still don't get it.

NFL overreacted on Ray Rice, Floyd Mayweather says - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/boxing/story/_/id/11498043/nfl-overreacted-ray-rice-floyd-mayweather-says)


LAS VEGAS -- Floyd Mayweather Jr. says he believes the NFL should have stuck with its original discipline of Ray Rice, saying the league was overly influenced by new video showing Rice knocking out his then-fiancee in an Atlantic City, New Jersey, casino elevator.

The boxing superstar -- who has had his own domestic abuse issues -- said Tuesday that he didn't think the original two-game suspension should be changed because of the video.

Floyd Mayweather Jr. -- who has had his own domestic abuse issues -- said Tuesday he didn't think Ray Rice's original two-game suspension should be changed by the NFL because of video.

"I think there's a lot worse things that go on in other people's households, also," Mayweather said. "It's just not caught on video, if that's safe to say."

No shitbag...it's not safe to say. DIAF. Literally. Please do. Now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

No shitbag...it's not safe to say. DIAF. Literally. Please do. Now.

We'll disagree here (shocking I know)

I don't believe there's a single bit of new evidence in that video, nothing that the NFL didn't already know.

If it was 2 games previously, it should be 2 games now.
If it was 6 games previously, it should be 6 games now.

I don't like Mayweather much tbh, but that's kinda how I take his quote.

[DaddyTorgo]

We'll disagree here (shocking I know)

I don't believe there's a single bit of new evidence in that video, nothing that the NFL didn't already know.

If it was 2 games previously, it should be 2 games now.
If it was 6 games previously, it should be 6 games now.

I don't like Mayweather much tbh, but that's kinda how I take his quote.

I don't think the increased suspension is because they didn't know - I agree with you there. It's totally a PR/optics move. But it's not a court of law, so that's understandable/legally okay/whatever.

And if it results in the more appropriate punishment being handed out in the end that's all that matters to me frankly.

I can't read the quote from him in that excerpt - which is completely an attempt to trivialize domestic violence - as anything other than absolutely morally reprehensible and disgusting.

[jeff061]

We'll disagree here (shocking I know)

I don't believe there's a single bit of new evidence in that video, nothing that the NFL didn't already know.

If it was 2 games previously, it should be 2 games now.
If it was 6 games previously, it should be 6 games now.

I don't like Mayweather much tbh, but that's kinda how I take his quote.

That's a reflection of the NFL's horrible and hypocritical handling of this. Not Mayweather's degree of shit baggery(which is off the charts), where he's saying everyone hits their ladies so go easy on Ray. It should have been a year+ before. I'm glad something motivated them to change it. It shouldn't stand for posterity's sake like you seem to be saying.

[molson]

It must be nice to be Floyd Mayweather. He can say whatever the fuck he wants. I wonder how many would agree with him publicly if they could. I choose to think some would, but not that many. But I don't see pro football players as violent warriors who can't control themselves in regular society. A handful are criminals, most aren't.

But speaking of the combat sports, tremendous timing by the UFC to sign Thiago Silva this week. Aggravated battery charges against him were dropped this week after his wife fled the country instead of coopering with the prosecution. But many people heard him threaten to shoot up a jiu-jitsu Center and kill his wife. I guess at some level, I can see how that creates a tricky situation for an employer. But I still don't get it, especially the hurry to sign him this week without letting some time and treatment go by to ensure this guy's not a ticking time bomb. Even if you're motivated solely by money, he's no Floyd Mayweather. I guess they have no interest in improving their image.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't believe there's a single bit of new evidence in that video, nothing that the NFL didn't already know.

If it was 2 games previously, it should be 2 games now.
If it was 6 games previously, it should be 6 games now.

Agreed. Though, obviously Rice is going to be out of the game for longer than the suspension rules for first time offense on domestic violence simply because no one is going to want to pick him up. However, what's the point of creating a domestic violence standard if you are just going to forget about them the first chance you get?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I don't think the increased suspension is because they didn't know - I agree with you there. It's totally a PR/optics move. But it's not a court of law, so that's understandable/legally okay/whatever.

And if it results in the more appropriate punishment being handed out in the end that's all that matters to me frankly.

I can't read the quote from him in that excerpt - which is completely an attempt to trivialize domestic violence - as anything other than absolutely morally reprehensible and disgusting.

FTR, I used the word "quote" improperly.

I was referring to where he was paraphrased "said Tuesday he didn't think Ray Rice's original two-game suspension should be changed by the NFL because of video." The basic principle here I agree with: the video changes exactly nothing afaic.

The actual direct quote that followed is a different matter and is fair game for criticism.

I'll own any heat I get from botching my phrasing, gave the wrong impression of what I meant & puts any misinterpretation on me, completely.

[DaddyTorgo]

FTR, I used the word "quote" improperly.

I was referring to where he was paraphrased "said Tuesday he didn't think Ray Rice's original two-game suspension should be changed by the NFL because of video." The basic principle here I agree with: the video changes exactly nothing afaic.

The actual direct quote that followed is a different matter and is fair game for criticism.

I'll own any heat I get from botching my phrasing, gave the wrong impression of what I meant & puts any misinterpretation on me, completely.

You guys seem to be missing that the NFL isn't a court of law - they're not bound by the legal system. They can change their minds whenever they want - insofar as it's something they feel they can defend under the CBA versus the NFLPA.

[JonInMiddleGA]

You guys seem to be missing that the NFL isn't a court of law - they're not bound by the legal system. They can change their minds whenever they want - insofar as it's something they feel they can defend under the CBA versus the NFLPA.

No, that point isn't missed.
I didn't say they couldn't.
I'm agreeing with the contention that they shouldn't.

[SteveMax58]

I think I talked about this in the Sterling thread, but I'll mention it again (and hey, we have a Rice and Rutgers involved!): Every detail of the manner in which Mike Rice abused the Rutgers basketball team was known in November 2012. It was reported across mainstream media at the time he was suspended. Fast forward six months, the video gets leaked, he gets fired, the AD gets fired, and the university President nearly loses his job as well.

Video and audio always matter.

I don't disagree they matter. But that's because the people making such decisions are making them for pure PR/business purposes instead of "doing the right thing".

And I guess thats fine at the end of the day except that I'm bothered by the idea of the accepted dishonesty that this creates in society. And the side effect of ambiguity on when its acceptable for mouthpieces to be honest vs dishonest.

[NobodyHere]

Something I don't understand here is that why is the NFL receiving so much heat for this but the court system is receiving so little. I'm not seeing too many calls for every Baltimore court officer to resign like they are for Goodell and the Ravens management. The courts gave Rice a lighter punishment then what the NFL initially did.

Also what's the NFLPA's stance in all this? Will they accept a player being punished twice? Especially when the second punishment exceeds the standard of 6 months for a first offense set forth recently by Goodell?

(This was Rice's first offense right?)

[ISiddiqui]

No, that point isn't missed.
I didn't say they couldn't.
I'm agreeing with the contention that they shouldn't.

Agreed again... a sign of the apocalypse? ;)

[flere-imsaho]

I'm not sure that was what CU was saying, but it definitely was what Vick was saying.

I appreciate what CU Tiger wrote, but it mainly underscores that Vick's an idiot and anyone with sympathy for his argument, as stated, is also an idiot.

Here's why, bottom-line: Football players get remunerated for the abuse they suffer. Vick's dogs didn't. Now, we may argue that football players don't remunerated as much as they should for this abuse, but that's, by comparison, a minor point. Football players consent to the treatment, and get paid (often handsomely) for it.

The mindset of someone who would think the analogy Vick posits is remotely viable is absolutely beyond me.

But speaking of the combat sports, tremendous timing by the UFC to sign Thiago Silva this week. Aggravated battery charges against him were dropped this week after his wife fled the country instead of coopering with the prosecution. But many people heard him threaten to shoot up a jiu-jitsu Center and kill his wife. I guess at some level, I can see how that creates a tricky situation for an employer. But I still don't get it, especially the hurry to sign him this week without letting some time and treatment go by to ensure this guy's not a ticking time bomb. Even if you're motivated solely by money, he's no Floyd Mayweather. I guess they have no interest in improving their image.

I think we forget that these are all part of the entertainment industry. As such, the absolute bottom line to the tolerance here regards whether or not it impacts how many people will watch the spectacle. We may wish/hope that these entertainment bodies might require certain conduct standards as a matter of course, but the fact (as you point out) that these incidents don't cause an appreciable drop in viewership (or other engagement) shows that we really don't wish/hope that much (as a general population).

No, that point isn't missed.
I didn't say they couldn't.
I'm agreeing with the contention that they shouldn't.

I agree. It may or may not have been a bad decision and/or policy, but making a different decision later serves only to compound, not clarify, the problem.

It would be another thing entirely if Goodell announced tomorrow that the policy was being changed to, say, a year suspension.

[miami_fan]

Something I don't understand here is that why is the NFL receiving so much heat for this but the court system is receiving so little. I'm not seeing too many calls for every Baltimore court officer to resign like they are for Goodell and the Ravens management. The courts gave Rice a lighter punishment then what the NFL initially did.

There is nothing new with a rich guy (especially an athlete) getting a light sentence for a crime. Roger Goodell is Mr. Law and Order who built a reputation for hammering players at the hint of lawlessness.

Also what's the NFLPA's stance in all this? Will they accept a player being punished twice? Especially when the second punishment exceeds the standard of 6 months for a first offense set forth recently by Goodell?

(This was Rice's first offense right?)

Why would the NFLPA do anything to take the heat off of Goodell? I would think they would be fine using Rice as a sacrificial lamb for their own purpose of trying to remove the punishing power from Goodell.

[Logan]

Something I don't understand here is that why is the NFL receiving so much heat for this but the court system is receiving so little. I'm not seeing too many calls for every Baltimore court officer to resign like they are for Goodell and the Ravens management. The courts gave Rice a lighter punishment then what the NFL initially did.


Jersey, not Baltimore, FYI. The incident took place at the (former) Revel casino in Atlantic City.

And here's what that prosecutor has been up to:

New Jersey prosecutor who let Ray Rice off the hook is throwing the book at a young mother of two | WashingtonExaminer.com (http://washingtonexaminer.com/new-jersey-prosecutor-who-let-ray-rice-off-the-hook-is-throwing-the-book-at-a-young-mother-of-two/article/2553028)

Atlantic County Prosecutor Jim McClain approved an application for admitting Rice into New Jersey’s Pre-Trial Intervention program that allowed the NFL star to avoid jail time. Instead, Rice has to undergo counseling and will be immediately incarcerated if he does something else wrong.

Meanwhile, McClain is working to put 27-year-old mother of two Shaneen Allen — herself a first-time offender — into jail for at least three years, maybe even a decade.

Allen didn’t punch anyone out in an elevator. She simply didn't know that her Pennsylvania concealed-carry permit was not valid in New Jersey.

In October 2013, Allen was pulled over for a minor traffic offense. She dutifully informed the officer of her gun and presented her concealed-carry permit. She was arrested.

Allen had a gun because she had been robbed twice in 2013 and feared for her children. Following her arrest, and McClain’s insistence that she face the maximum possible penalty for her oversight, Allen reportedly lost her job.

Judge Donio is also tied to the Allen case. He accepted McClain’s decision to deny Allen entry into the same pre-trial program Rice was allowed to enter.

[DaddyTorgo]

Dirtbag judicial system.

[BishopMVP]

I can't read the quote from him in that excerpt - which is completely an attempt to trivialize domestic violence - as anything other than absolutely morally reprehensible and disgusting.That's not how I read the quote at all. Horrible messenger, and later he tries to make himself look less guilty, but his message in that quote is essentially the same as 20 people are saying in this thread - that domestic violence is a huge societal issue, but people allow it to be swept under the rug as long as it goes on behind closed doors. The NFL suspended Ray Rice 2 games for hitting a woman, and at least a full season because a video of it came out - that's not really up for debate.

[JPhillips]

The Examiner doesn't provide enough detail for me to get angry about the comparison. Does the office routinely deny the program for gun offenses? Is there a policy or direction form the state DOJ pushing for tough gun sentences or prohibiting the intervention policy? Has this particular prosecutor been consistent about sentencing policy?

I'd also want to get the police report so I could see more specifics about the arrest.

My experience has told me that when you see something that's an obvious one-sided outrage, you should hold off until more facts are released.

[molson]

Ya, it's very possible that this prosecutor was just a coward and didn't feel like doing the work of taking on the unified front of a defendant/victim/expensive private counsel (that does happen a lot), but I think people over-estimate what kinds of sentences people get for this type of domestic violence incident, and what kind of sentences regular people get for DUIs and DUI manslaughters. The video is disturbing, but there were no broken bones or permanent injuries. Prosecutors get TONS of cases of men simply punching their wives and girlfriends and occasionally knocking them out. I imagine a good number of them go through some kind of diversion program on the first offense.

As for the gun thing, obviously that's a "point of emphasis" in places like New Jersey and New York that want to be really, really tough on guns.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The Examiner doesn't provide enough detail for me to get angry about the comparison. Does the office routinely deny the program for gun offenses? Is there a policy or direction form the state DOJ pushing for tough gun sentences or prohibiting the intervention policy? Has this particular prosecutor been consistent about sentencing policy?

I had mostly the same questions, so far the one thing I've found is a guest op-ed in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/10/ray-rice-shaneen-allen-gun-column/13862831/) which references at least two other similar cases

This at least appears to be a rather intentional & specific effort (all the way back to refusal to recognize the permit from a neighboring state) to chill gun ownership & possession that is otherwise legal..

[BillJasper]

The Examiner doesn't provide enough detail for me to get angry about the comparison. Does the office routinely deny the program for gun offenses? Is there a policy or direction form the state DOJ pushing for tough gun sentences or prohibiting the intervention policy? Has this particular prosecutor been consistent about sentencing policy?

I'd also want to get the police report so I could see more specifics about the arrest.

My experience has told me that when you see something that's an obvious one-sided outrage, you should hold off until more facts are released.

This is from the comments section from National Review, so take it with a grain of salt:

Shaneen Allen was arrested carrying a concealed weapon in NJ without a permit, which is a violation of the state's Graves Act and has mandatory sentencing provisions, (the judge cannot reduce the charge or sentence). Allen's gun also was loaded with hollow-point bullets, which in NJ is an additional felony charge. The prosecutor can use prosecutorial discretion and waive the Graves Act. However, in this case McCain did not waive the Act because she violated one or more of his four criteria: the gun is unsecured, loaded, has hollow-point bullets, or there’s a bullet in the chamber. In this case Allen violated at least three of McCain's four criteria, (a .380 Bersa Thunder is semi-auto so a round probably was not chambered--at least I hope not).

Ray Rice was charged with 3rd degree aggravated assault, also a felony. However there is no Act or mandatory sentencing provisions associate with this charge. In NJ a third degree crime has a presumption of non-incarceration if the defendant has no prior record, and one is often eligible for a diversion program, (however, in NJ on is not eligible for diversion for animal cruelty cases).

From what I know about the Atlantic County prosecutor’s office, and what I understand from Judge Donio's public statements as reported in the press, they would prefer less restrictive mandatory sentencing and give the presiding judge more discretion during sentencing. Also, Allen could plea to the recommended sentence then appeal the denial of the Graves Act waiver. Then the judge could allow either pretrial intervention or probation. However, Allen would still be consider a convicted felon and have to wait at least 10 years to have the charge possibly expunged.

Note: In NJ hollow-point bullets are strictly regulated. In that hollow-point bullets cannot be possessed legally outside private property. If hollow-point bullets are being transported they must be held in a locked container other than the glove box, and they must not be loaded in a firearm.

Also, in a November 2008 then Attorney General Anne Milgram wrote a directive to assure uniform enforcement of the Graves Act. In it Milgram wrote:

"A prosecuting agency shall not move for or approve a sentence of probation except for extraordinary and compelling reasons that take the case outside the heartland of the legislative policy to deter unauthorized gun possession (~, the defendant has no prior involvement with the criminal justice system, the firearm was unloaded, and the circumstances make clear that the firearm posed no risk to officer or public safety), so that imposition of a state prison term would constitute a serious injustice that overrides the need to deter others from unlawfully possessing a firearm."

Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ray Rice vs. Shaneen Allen | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/387474/prosecutorial-indiscretion-ray-rice-vs-shaneen-allen-ian-tuttle)

[DaddyTorgo]

This is from the comments section from National Review, so take it with a grain of salt:



Prosecutorial Indiscretion: Ray Rice vs. Shaneen Allen | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/387474/prosecutorial-indiscretion-ray-rice-vs-shaneen-allen-ian-tuttle)

Aaah well that makes some sense.

Still think the penalty for domestic violence needs to be much harsher, even for first-time offenses.

In fact...why not mandatory jail-time for domestic violence?

[flere-imsaho]

I'm against mandatory anything. These mandatory sentencing guidelines always seem to arise out of dissatisfaction with the judicial system, neatly ignoring the idea that a judge is the person best-placed to make a, er, judgment on individual cases.

Sure, some judges don't do a good job. But that's where the root cause is, and where it should be solved. Not with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing means we've given up on improving our judicial system.

[BillJasper]

In fact...why not mandatory jail-time for domestic violence?

There probably should be.

[SteveMax58]

I've got a ton of respect for William Gay on this

On The Steelers: William Gay wants to help Ray Rice (http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2014/09/08/Steelers-William-Gay-wants-to-help-Ray-Rice/stories/201409080199)



I probably couldn't be so magmanimous
While I think what Rice did is disgusting, I do think we need to really think about our society's reactive "pitchfork & stoning" approach to these things. Its the kneejerk, reaction to the public reaction thing I'm referring to really.

Ideally, he would be legally/criminally charged more than he was (or at least there's a good argument for that). But then what? He should be fired from his job? Ok...should he be unable to ever do "that" job again? Ok...what other jobs should he be banned from beyond football?

I'm certainly not defending this guy but there does come a point where I think we need to acknowledge that we work with people that do what Ray Rice did, or perhaps better put, is the way Ray Rice's situation being handled the same way everybody in society should be handled? Should those (non-famous) people all be fired as well? Maybe, but then why just that job? Why not ban him/them from working at all? After all, if they are "bad for business" here, aren't they going to be "bad for business everywhere"?

I just don't subscribe to the "privilege to play in the NFL" part of this argument at all. It is a business, like all other businesses, where your performance (politics aside) gets you sustained employment, not some lottery drawing (genetics aside). You can certainly make rules around who is permitted to work there, but it just seems we have become a society that wants to say "you don't deserve to work if you do x". Well, what do we want all people who have ever done this (or similarly outlived their jail sentence) to do if they cannot work any more? Lifetime jail sentences? Prison camps for life?

I know this is bordering hyperbole (if not downright jumping over that line) but I think its worth debate/discussion to say that (perhaps) there already is a system to punish (or remove) people that do bad things. And under what justification do we selectively choose who gets additional punishment....by who the media covers?

[molson]

I'm against mandatory anything. These mandatory sentencing guidelines always seem to arise out of dissatisfaction with the judicial system, neatly ignoring the idea that a judge is the person best-placed to make a, er, judgment on individual cases.

Sure, some judges don't do a good job. But that's where the root cause is, and where it should be solved. Not with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing means we've given up on improving our judicial system.

I tend to agree with that, but I think that means we also need to accept that sentences aren't going to be consistent, especially across different judges. People get really riled up when they perceive inequity there, and I understand why, but if we rely on human discretion, that's unavoidable. There are mechanisms in most states to disqualify judges without needing to show cause, if one side thinks the judge is just too harsh or too lenient on a certain kind of case, for example.

[stevew]

I've got a ton of respect for William Gay on this

On The Steelers: William Gay wants to help Ray Rice (http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/steelers/2014/09/08/Steelers-William-Gay-wants-to-help-Ray-Rice/stories/201409080199)



I probably couldn't be so magmanimous



Gay tried to hit a woman in the open field, but he whiffed and she ran right past him.

[Blackadar]

Gay tried to hit a woman in the open field, but he whiffed and she ran right past him.

That is so wrong. We know the woman ran over him, not around him!

Adrian Peterson Runs Over William Gay - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmrAyU3HcU0)

[ISiddiqui]

I'm against mandatory anything. These mandatory sentencing guidelines always seem to arise out of dissatisfaction with the judicial system, neatly ignoring the idea that a judge is the person best-placed to make a, er, judgment on individual cases.

Sure, some judges don't do a good job. But that's where the root cause is, and where it should be solved. Not with mandatory sentencing. Mandatory sentencing means we've given up on improving our judicial system.

Agreed with all of this. I mean you have the Ray Rice thing, but then you have a case where a wife slaps her husband in a fight, while the cops are over because a neighbor has called, and she has never done it before and is horrified that she has done it - its domestic violence. Does it deserve jail time?

[Logan]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BREAKING: AP Source: Law enforcement official sent copy of Ray Rice tape to NFL executive in April</p>&mdash; The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/509806406934204416">September 10, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-25067-And-Here-We-Go-Joker-gif-Imgur-x71M.gif

[Logan]

AP Newsbreak: Source says Rice video sent to NFL (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-source-says-rice-video-sent-nfl)

The person played The Associated Press a 12-second voicemail from an NFL office number on April 9 confirming the video arrived. A female voice expresses thanks and says: "You're right. It's terrible."

[molson]

Exciting. I hope this gets worse for the NFL just for my own personal amusement.

[Logan]

NFL statement:

"We have no knowledge of this. We are not aware of anyone who possessed or saw the video before it was made public on Monday. We will look into it."

[kingfc22]

NFL statement:

"We have no knowledge of this. We are not aware of anyone who possessed or saw the video before it was made public on Monday. We will look into it."

NFL PR spin machine just hired on 100 more people.

[BillJasper]

AP Newsbreak: Source says Rice video sent to NFL (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-newsbreak-source-says-rice-video-sent-nfl)

Ruh roh!

[stevew]

Goodell hopefully will have to step down if this keeps snowballing.

[molson]

But why, NFL? Why is Ray Rice playing so damn important?

[BillJasper]

But why, NFL? Why is Ray Rice playing so damn important?

A very good question.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Clearly someone is going to get fired after all of this.

It always seemed pretty obvious someone in the NFL saw the video. Peter King reported in July. So did that ESPN reporter (sorry, I forget her name). In her story she even described being told exactly what happened - Rice punching his wife and her head hitting the railing. That's a pretty detailed and accurate account of what was on that video.

As much as I enjoy football, the NFL as an organization, is pretty damn arrogant and annoying.

[BillJasper]

Clearly someone is going to get fired after all of this.



I don't have the same issues with Goodell that many fans do. But, ultimately, this mess is his responsibility. I think this will damage his authority and ability to negotiate with the Players Association going forward.

Any investigation led by him will be meaningless to the general public.

[Honolulu_Blue]

I don't have the same issues with Goodell that many fans do. But, ultimately, this mess is his responsibility. I think this will damage his authority and ability to negotiate with the Players Association going forward.

Any investigation led by him will be meaningless to the general public.

I don't have issues with him either really. I don't think he will get fired, but someone will. There has to be a fall guy (or women) for this.

[Toddzilla]

Ray Rice is punished by not being allowed to get any more brain damage

[BillJasper]

Part of me wonders if there isn't a wink-wink deal between the Players Association and the League on the issue of domestic violence?

[cartman]

Do they realize he is no relation to Jerry Rice?

[cartman]

Commissioner Goodell, why weren't you able to watch the tape?

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/JFvujknrBuE?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/JFvujknrBuE?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

[BillJasper]

Commissioner Goodell, why weren't you able to watch the tape?

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/JFvujknrBuE?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/JFvujknrBuE?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

:lol:

Carrie Fisher was so hot back then. Too bad I hadn't hit puberty yet!

[mckerney]

Something, something, "Ignorance is no excuse," and, "If he didn't know what was going on, he should have."

[path12]

I don't have issues with him either really. I don't think he will get fired, but someone will. There has to be a fall guy (or women) for this.

Besides Janay?

Still don't buy for a minute that the NFL didn't see the tape. It's always the cover-up that gets 'em.

[BillJasper]

According to security people from the hotel, it was Rice that spit on Palmer. Not the other way around.

[larrymcg421]

But why, NFL? Why is Ray Rice playing so damn important?

This is what I asked earlier. He is not a face of the league that they need. Even ignoring the moral implications, their actions make no sense at all.

[path12]

Sure is looking all of a sudden like folks are scrambling to distance themselves from Roger.

I did not think his job would be in jeopardy over this but am starting to wonder.

[thesloppy]

SOURCE SAYS RICE VIDEO SENT TO NFL (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_RICE_VIDEO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-10-16-54-27)

[thesloppy]

SOURCE SAYS RICE VIDEO SENT TO NFL (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_RICE_VIDEO?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-09-10-16-54-27)

oops, of course this was already posted long ago...

[dzilla77]

I am late to this thread, but my only thought is this:
If the NFL (and Ravens) got the police report (I am pretty sure they did) and it stated that Rice punched his fiance (I am pretty sure it did), why did they need to wait for a video to come out showing the incident before taking the appropriate response of indefinitely suspending him (and cutting him)?

Goodell should lose his job regardless of whether or not the NFL saw the video before this week, because its clear that the only reason they took the actions they did this week is to protect the image of the NFL, not because they actually believe the actions of Ray Rice warrant the punishment.

[Buccaneer]

Part of me wonders if there isn't a wink-wink deal between the Players Association and the League on the issue of domestic violence?

Probably the exact same deal with HGH as well.

[Buccaneer]

I don't have issues with him either really. I don't think he will get fired, but someone will. There has to be a fall guy (or women) for this.

I rather like Goddell because he came in taking harder stances and punishments, which Tag never did much. That's why I was surprised that he only slapped Rice's wrist.

[Matthean]

Probably the exact same deal with HGH as well.

Likely the "You can do it, just don't be stupid about it" deal.

[BillJasper]

I rather like Goddell because he came in taking harder stances and punishments, which Tag never did much. That's why I was surprised that he only slapped Rice's wrist.

Except for domestic violence. I was watching ESPN earlier and they said there had been 56 incidents of domestic violence since Goodell took over and every one ended with a slap on the wrist at most.

[Mota]

First of all, I agree with the punishment. It was horrible, and he deserves to be punished. No man should hit a woman. The way he treated her limp body after she was unconscious was disgusting. I think it was worse than the actual strike.

Now we did see on the video that she punched him at least two times before he punched her. Let's say she knocked him out cold with one of those punches. Would she be banned from her career and reviled around the world, or would people make fun of him and use the video as a "blooper reel" of some sorts?

[BishopMVP]

So you have a "law enforcement source" who was unauthorized to release the video sending it unsolicited to the NFL... Not only should the Roger Goodell not have watched the video, the person that sent it should be fired, whether the Rice case was active at the time or not.

[Blackadar]

So you have a "law enforcement source" who was unauthorized to release the video sending it unsolicited to the NFL... Not only should the Roger Goodell not have watched the video, the person that sent it should be fired, whether the Rice case was active at the time or not.

Do tell why Goodell should have NOT watched the video which is seemingly the singular piece of evidence given the NFL's drastic change in Rice's punishment.

[TroyF]

Do tell why Goodell should have NOT watched the video which is seemingly the singular piece of evidence given the NFL's drastic change in Rice's punishment.

Seriously? If the NFL knew the tape was released by someone who was not allowed to release it, there is no way in hell they should have watched it. You don't get to break law so you can get the truth.

Before you go crazy on me, understand, I think Goodall should lose his job. I think the owner of the Ravens deserves a massive fine and that anyone and I mean anyone who was involved in this fiasco should lose their jobs.

I felt that way BEFORE this video came out by the way. 2 games was disgusting from the start.

What really is starting to get to me now is everyone focusing on Goodall and the NFL. Look, the police thought so much of the video they gave Ray Rice a deal where this won't even go on his record if he goes through the court ordered counseling sessions. These people saw the damned video and there is no debate about it.

Fire Goodall, boycott the NFl, scrap the entire NFL and cease to allow football to exist as a sport. . . you are still going to have the prosecutors and the judge giving mild slaps on the wrist.

[DaddyTorgo]

Yeah, but did the cops/prosecutor let him off easy because of who he was?

Either they did and they should be fired, or they didn't and they should be fired for not taking their jobs seriously.

[henry296]

Add legislators who write the laws that allow these sentences. There was an article today with quotes from prospector who said is was normal based on the existing laws and if he went to trial the worst punishment would be probation.

[DaddyTorgo]

Add legislators who write the laws that allow these sentences. There was an article today with quotes from prospector who said is was normal based on the existing laws and if he went to trial the worst punishment would be probation.

Yep!

[TroyF]

Add legislators who write the laws that allow these sentences. There was an article today with quotes from prospector who said is was normal based on the existing laws and if he went to trial the worst punishment would be probation.

Exactly. This SHOULD be a chance for the groups against domestic violence to start screaming for the laws to change and for prosecutors and judges who sentence like this to be thrown out on their asses.

Instead, everyone is focused on Goodall and everyone seems to be focused on "did he see the tape or not?"

WHO GIVES A CRAP? He should lose his job because he gave Rice two games for something that clearly deserved more. Focus on the laws and the prosecutors. Those are the changes that will help EVERYONE long term. Or we could just focus on getting Goodall out so the NFL can hire another good old boy to be their figurehead and the .000000001 percent of the population who beats their wives AND plays in the NFL will think twice about hitting a women.

What this thing has taught me is that if I want to throw a full throttle, violent punch at a date in Atlantic City, I won't even have to worry about it being on my record, much less actual jail time. Goodall is reeling and the NFL is reeling. Feel free to throw more jabs at them people. . . just save the haymaker for those who deserve it just a touch more.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong. . .

[BishopMVP]

Do tell why Goodell should have NOT watched the video which is seemingly the singular piece of evidence given the NFL's drastic change in Rice's punishment.Because it could compromise an active case in the criminal justice system? Now, it doesn't matter in this case because domestic abuse is a slap on the wrist in the court system (again, why is the media outrage focused on the NFL here? For the same reason it keeps showing the video - because the letters NFL get ratings, but I digress.) But imagine if someone in Fall River District Court decides to leak all the Aaron Hernandez home surveillance video to the NFL. Admittedly I'm not an expert in the judicial system (feel free to chime in here Molson!), but I'd guess that not only does that give good grounds for an appeal, it might even be enough to get the evidence thrown out of the initial trial and be the difference between a conviction and a Not Guilty verdict.

I could just imagine the headlines - NFL Star Ray Rice gets off with probation after punching his wife - and here's the video his lawyer got thrown out because the NFL improperly obtained it! (TMZ does really long headlines, right?)

[miami_fan]

Seriously? If the NFL knew the tape was released by someone who was not allowed to release it, there is no way in hell they should have watched it. You don't get to break law so you can get the truth.

Before you go crazy on me, understand, I think Goodall should lose his job. I think the owner of the Ravens deserves a massive fine and that anyone and I mean anyone who was involved in this fiasco should lose their jobs.

I felt that way BEFORE this video came out by the way. 2 games was disgusting from the start.

What really is starting to get to me now is everyone focusing on Goodall and the NFL. Look, the police thought so much of the video they gave Ray Rice a deal where this won't even go on his record if he goes through the court ordered counseling sessions. These people saw the damned video and there is no debate about it.

Fire Goodall, boycott the NFl, scrap the entire NFL and cease to allow football to exist as a sport. . . you are still going to have the prosecutors and the judge giving mild slaps on the wrist.

Wait, now sports leagues should not review information from sources not authorized to release it? When that information reflects badly on the league? This sort of thing has been happening for years. Why would the NFL decide this is the case to stop reviewing unauthorized evidence?

I, for one, am not focusing any less on the law enforcement. If you want to fire them, that works for me as well. We can do both. There have been posts about how insignificant domestic violence is taken not just by law enforcement but the general public. Seeing how this is a thread primarily about this case and the NFL, I think it is very fair to have the full focus on the NFL's handling of it, especially since Goodell has taken such a hard line on so many other issues.

[Desnudo]

I feel like the NFL Is writing a case study in how not to manage a crisis. Incredulality.

NFL Announces "Independent Investigation" Into Ray Rice Handling (http://deadspin.com/nfl-announces-independent-investigation-into-ray-rice-h-1633323057)

[DaddyTorgo]

I feel like the NFL Is writing a case study in how not to manage a crisis. Incredulality.

NFL Announces "Independent Investigation" Into Ray Rice Handling (http://deadspin.com/nfl-announces-independent-investigation-into-ray-rice-h-1633323057)

LOL yeah.

"Independent" my ass.

[Desnudo]

Also when is someone going to sack up and start naming names, unnamed law enforcement official handled video to unnamed secretary to unarmed commissioner. Unbelievable the cowardice.

[bhlloy]

I really would have more sympathy for Goodell if it wasn't for the bountygate scandal, where basically there was very little evidence and players testifying that there was no bounty system and he still suspended Payton for a year. What goes around comes around - if you want to be judge, jury and executioner, don't complain and say "I'm just a commissioner" when something like this happens

[Blackadar]

LOL yeah.

"Independent" my ass.

When it's Mara and Rooney heading the investigation, you can be assured that it will be conducted with integrity. The NFL has no owners more respected than the Mara and Rooney families and Robert Kraft (NE Pats). That these are the guys doing it says quite a bit.

[mrtourette]

Also when is someone going to sack up and start naming names, unnamed law enforcement official handled video to unnamed secretary to unarmed commissioner. Unbelievable the cowardice.

I dunno, seems pretty brave to go in unarmed.

[mrtourette]

When it's Mara and Rooney heading the investigation, you can be assured that it will be conducted with integrity. The NFL has no owners more respected than the Mara and Rooney families and Robert Kraft (NE Pats). That these are the guys doing it says quite a bit.

Why is it NFL owners carrying out the investigation? There's still a conflict of interest.

[Blackadar]

Why is it NFL owners carrying out the investigation? There's still a conflict of interest.

Because the NFL, as a private entity, isn't going to let someone just snoop around their organization in some "fact finding" mission. They're letting the former FBI director head the investigation, so it's not just a self-serving exercise.

That Art Rooney is involved isn't necessarily a good thing for Goodell. They're not exactly happy with him for numerous reasons. The Steeler players were the only group to vote against the latest collective bargaining agreement and the owners know why. Remember the whole "Tomlin on the field" incident last year and how everyone thought the Steelers would lose a draft choice? They didn't, in part because the Rooney family publicly said they would appeal (and it's a bigger deal when it's a team/owner appealing than a player) if they did get penalized, which was a shot across the bow of the USS Goodell. The organization has privately said they felt their players were unfairly targeted for fines for hits. In short, Goodell isn't exactly beloved in Pittsburgh. I'm not saying they're looking to boot him, but they're not close to him like they were with Tagliabue and Rozelle.

In short, the lead is independent and the guy appointed has the backing and reports to two of the most respected owners in pro sports, one of which is not a fan of the current commish. I'm not sure what else you could expect.

[panerd]

Why is it NFL owners carrying out the investigation? There's still a conflict of interest.

He's a Steeler fan so his guy will definitely be unbiased.

[DaddyTorgo]

When it's Mara and Rooney heading the investigation, you can be assured that it will be conducted with integrity. The NFL has no owners more respected than the Mara and Rooney families and Robert Kraft (NE Pats). That these are the guys doing it says quite a bit.

It's not an independent investigation when it's overseen by the owners though. They have a financial stake in the league's continued success. Heck - I like Kraft, but I wouldn't want him overseeing it either. Those guys would absolutely do whatever to ensure that nothing damages the league/their handpicked commish.

[cuervo72]

Exactly. This SHOULD be a chance for the groups against domestic violence to start screaming for the laws to change and for prosecutors and judges who sentence like this to be thrown out on their asses.

Pretty sure they've been screaming for a while, but few have cared to pay attention.

[Dutch]

I admit I'm a little confused on the whole, "I don't want to press charges against my spouse/s.o." and the law says, "Cool"...even when there is evidence a crime was committed.

[Logan]

What is the best way the league should handle these "pending" cases? I know the Niners are coming under fire a bit for the McDonald case (the Hardy one carrying a guilty verdict but subject to appeal seems like an entirely different story). I was thinking maybe once charges are filed, half of every game check of that player gets held in escrow, with the other half being money they can live off of, for up to 12 weeks (totaling 6 game checks, or the current punishment for a first offense) or until a verdict is reached, whichever comes first. If they are convicted or take a deal, the money is forfeited and they get suspended actual games; if they're found not guilty, the money is returned.

I would also incorporate this into a larger system where teams lose draft picks of varying degrees for any players who committed violent crimes while on their roster (including if a player is cut immediately). The teams should be accountable as well if they're employing violent criminals.

[Desnudo]

It's not an independent investigation when it's overseen by the owners though. They have a financial stake in the league's continued success. Heck - I like Kraft, but I wouldn't want him overseeing it either. Those guys would absolutely do whatever to ensure that nothing damages the league/their handpicked commish.

If they'd just said investigation...

[mrtourette]

Because the NFL, as a private entity, isn't going to let someone just snoop around their organization in some "fact finding" mission. They're letting the former FBI director head the investigation, so it's not just a self-serving exercise.

That Art Rooney is involved isn't necessarily a good thing for Goodell. They're not exactly happy with him for numerous reasons. The Steeler players were the only group to vote against the latest collective bargaining agreement and the owners know why. Remember the whole "Tomlin on the field" incident last year and how everyone thought the Steelers would lose a draft choice? They didn't, in part because the Rooney family publicly said they would appeal (and it's a bigger deal when it's a team/owner appealing than a player) if they did get penalized, which was a shot across the bow of the USS Goodell. The organization has privately said they felt their players were unfairly targeted for fines for hits. In short, Goodell isn't exactly beloved in Pittsburgh. I'm not saying they're looking to boot him, but they're not close to him like they were with Tagliabue and Rozelle.

In short, the lead is independent and the guy appointed has the backing and reports to two of the most respected owners in pro sports, one of which is not a fan of the current commish. I'm not sure what else you could expect.

An independent enquiry/investigation. If it isn't going to be independent, and you're right that it's unrealistic to expect it to be, the don't call it independent.

[mrtourette]

What is the best way the league should handle these "pending" cases? I know the Niners are coming under fire a bit for the McDonald case (the Hardy one carrying a guilty verdict but subject to appeal seems like an entirely different story). I was thinking maybe once charges are filed, half of every game check of that player gets held in escrow, with the other half being money they can live off of, for up to 12 weeks (totaling 6 game checks, or the current punishment for a first offense) or until a verdict is reached, whichever comes first. If they are convicted or take a deal, the money is forfeited and they get suspended actual games; if they're found not guilty, the money is returned.

I would also incorporate this into a larger system where teams lose draft picks of varying degrees for any players who committed violent crimes while on their roster (including if a player is cut immediately). The teams should be accountable as well if they're employing violent criminals.

Yeah it certainly is a tough one. You can't just go around suspending every player accused of a crime, but if you wait for that player of to be charged by the authorities or to be found accountable by an internal investigation then potentially you're letting them continue playing throughout a public trial just because the beaucratic cogs don't turn fast enough.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's not an independent investigation when it's overseen by the owners though.

But by that same logic, is there really any such thing as an "independent investigation"?

Had a discussion prompted by a totally unrelated subject earlier this week, about how notions such as "neutrality" or "unbiased" are really near impossibilities. An arbitrator or mediator (the point of that discussion) come to the table with the biases of their life experiences, similar to an independent investigator. They too are being paid by someone, effectively creating someone/some entity they are beholden to in some respect.

Typically, if someone has the requisite skill making them proficient in a subject, they can't be truly impartial, neutral or independent. They are tainted, to some degree, by everything they've learned previously.

The best that can be hoped for is "as close to impartial" as can be achieved. You're welcome to question whether Mueller satisfies that description adequately but let's not forget that the same doubts could be applied to an investigator chosen by NOW or by DOJ or by a jury of twelve randomly selected people off the street.

[DaddyTorgo]

But by that same logic, is there really any such thing as an "independent investigation"?

Had a discussion prompted by a totally unrelated subject earlier this week, about how notions such as "neutrality" or "unbiased" are really near impossibilities. An arbitrator or mediator (the point of that discussion) come to the table with the biases of their life experiences, similar to an independent investigator. They too are being paid by someone, effectively creating someone/some entity they are beholden to in some respect.

Typically, if someone has the requisite skill making them proficient in a subject, they can't be truly impartial, neutral or independent. They are tainted, to some degree, by everything they've learned previously.

The best that can be hoped for is "as close to impartial" as can be achieved. You're welcome to question whether Mueller satisfies that description adequately but let's not forget that the same doubts could be applied to an investigator chosen by NOW or by DOJ or by a jury of twelve randomly selected people off the street.

It's not Mueller I take issue with, it's the "oversight" by two of the "good ole boys" network.

[Logan]

There are also a lot of connections between Mueller's firm and the NFL, in terms of already working with NFL teams, former partners being employed by teams and the league, etc. That doesn't mean they can't conduct an investigation - after all, you'll probably find connections with any large firm - but those are typically disclosed prior to the investigation being launched. And maybe they are and we just don't see it in the media.

[Logan]

It's not Mueller I take issue with, it's the "oversight" by two of the "good ole boys" network.

Especially when Mara has already said he doesn't think Goodell's job should be in jeopardy.

[Desnudo]

Especially when Mara has already said he doesn't think Goodell's job should be in jeopardy.

I'm sure the "independent" consultant won't consider that opinion as a guiding factor.

[molson]

I can understand why the NFL would want to hire someone to let them know how and what they fucked up here from a PR standpoint. But I don't quite get why it's otherwise necessary, or why we all should have some stake and demand a more "neutral" investigation. What is this all about? That the NFL didn't suspend Ray Rice for enough games at first? That's the big harm? I hope this all doesn't distract from the real villain here, Ray Rice. I'm just hoping he doesn't make his triumphant return to the NFL next year, doing heartfelt interviews about second chances.

People say the video shouldn't have made a difference, but the public outcry wasn't the same until that video came out, and we all had the information about what Rice did. Rice got standing ovations in Baltimore, was drafted in fantasy leagues, was going to play this year. Sure, most people thought the suspension was light, but there wasn't this level of anger. If he were suspended 8 games, I think that would have been viewed as a strong response. If it were a year, there would be vocal opinion that the NFL over-reacted, and the usual player complaints about Goodell ("how can they suspend somebody for a year when the court is dismissing the charges!!!") The video changed things for the public, just like it changed things for the NFL. (and the fact that it changed things for the public is WHY it changed things for the NFL) A lot of these incidents involving NFL players are going to earn a much more emotional reaction from the public if we had video of them doing it.

It looks like somebody in the NFL saw the video, that doesn't mean they all did. But even if they did, I'm not sure what difference that should make (except the lying about it now part). Like everybody says, it didn't provide any new information. They just utterly botched the suspension length and the public reaction. If they made it 8, they would have been fine. I'm just glad that one way or another, Rice is out of the league for the moment.

[Logan]

I think this investigation is much more about the video that was allegedly received, who got it, where it went, who knew about it, etc. All the things that the NFL has denied having/knowing about, so the investigation is to "clear" them if you will.

[miami_fan]

What is the best way the league should handle these "pending" cases? I know the Niners are coming under fire a bit for the McDonald case (the Hardy one carrying a guilty verdict but subject to appeal seems like an entirely different story). I was thinking maybe once charges are filed, half of every game check of that player gets held in escrow, with the other half being money they can live off of, for up to 12 weeks (totaling 6 game checks, or the current punishment for a first offense) or until a verdict is reached, whichever comes first. If they are convicted or take a deal, the money is forfeited and they get suspended actual games; if they're found not guilty, the money is returned.

I would also incorporate this into a larger system where teams lose draft picks of varying degrees for any players who committed violent crimes while on their roster (including if a player is cut immediately). The teams should be accountable as well if they're employing violent criminals.

I thought this provision was already in the personal conduct policy?:confused:

[Thomkal]

The NBA's Paul George not helping the situation:

Paul George Tweeted Some Controversial Comments On Ray Rice Case (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/paul-george-ray-rice_n_5803610.html)

[Dutch]

I thought this provision was already in the personal conduct policy?:confused:

That's an odd one...doesnt that then hold the fans responsible too? Season ticket holders would be fairly upset by that.

[miami_fan]

Goodell gets tough, protects NFL brand - USATODAY.com (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/2007-04-10-2350024441_x.htm)

Here is a quote from the article that references what I talked about before.

As should Goodell's other major adjustment of the policy: NFL teams will be responsible for the conduct of their employees, and will be subject to discipline for any transgressions. That is a big departure from the policy of previous years.

"It will put ownership on the players to watch their conduct on and off the field," Williams added. "Also, there's an incentive on the team. The team would put more emphasis on the type of guys they bring into the locker room. As a whole, it puts pressure on both the player and the team, which is good."

[Dutch]

They have fat pockets...discount tickets everytime somebody fucks up.

[gstelmack]

So we have:

Baltimore Ravens Fans Wear Ray Rice Jerseys to Game vs. Steelers | Bleacher Report (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2195763-baltimore-ravens-fans-wear-ray-rice-jerseys-to-game-vs-steelers?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial&hpt=hp_t2)

and

Several Ravens players: We wanted to get the win for Ray Rice - CBSSports.com (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24706135/several-ravens-players-we-wanted-to-get-the-win-for-ray-rice)

And from Wednesday Ozzie Newsome admits Rice told him exactly what was shown in the video:

Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome: Ray Rice didn't lie to me - NFL.com (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000392742/article/ravens-gm-ozzie-newsome-ray-rice-didnt-lie-to-me)

What a mess.

[Matthean]

This was pretty much my takeaway from last night. Ray is going to end up okay out of all of this relatively speaking. The woman married him and defends the him. People are way too forgiving in this case, and the NFL is making itself such an easy target that Ray will appear to be the nicer guy.

[gstelmack]

I'm actually surprised - well maybe not surprised, disappointed would be a better term - at all the support Rice continues to get for cold-cocking his fiancée.

I am also interested in how Newsome's contradiction of Goodell plays out going forward. It gets back to what was originally said - the video contains exactly what Rice told them originally. The NFL has tried to backtrack with "he said he slapped her", but I'm not sure that's going to fly.

And to bring it full circle, yes I remain amazed that a prosecutor would not prosecute based on that video, the legal system should not be getting off as easy as they seem to be with the NFL taking all the heat and attention. Do laws need to get fixed here?

[molson]

We all knew he knocked her unconscious. This wasn't some secret that only the NFL and the Ravens knew. Everyone saw the video of him dragging her out of the elevator.

I was catching up on some NFL preview podcasts and I heard Mike & Mike previewing the Ravens. They knew at the time that he had knocked her unconscious. They mentioned the 2 game suspension, but spent most of their time talking about how Ray Rice hit the wall last year and probably wasn't a contributor anymore.

[DaddyTorgo]

Ah yes, and once again on Mayweather. Rachel Nichols with the balls to ask the hard questions.

Mayweather, On Being A Serial Woman Beater: "Only God Can Judge Me" (http://deadspin.com/mayweather-on-being-a-serial-woman-beater-only-god-c-1634290732)

[Thomkal]

Don't have a link for you, but just said on NFL Network that Rice is going to appeal his suspension-due to double jeopardy-can't be tried twice on same charge.

[cuervo72]

Well, not in an actual court of law you can't. This is the NFL though, Ray.

[Toddzilla]

Did you see that awesome catch by Marshall last night? Holy crap...wait, Ray who?

[Buccaneer]

I just read something that summed it up for me: the use of violence on a child will teach the child fear and violence. This will perpetuate the culture of violence, I believe, and not make things better.

[TroyF]

Did you see that awesome catch by Marshall last night? Holy crap...wait, Ray who?

The same Brandon Marshall who has himself been arrested on domestic violence charges twice. By all accounts, he's fixed his issues and is even talking about it now. My gut tells me very few NFL fans even remember those charges and had I not been a Broncos fan, I would have forgotten them myself.

I remember the details of the case. This is from wiki:

"On March 26, 2007, Marshall was arrested in the Highlands Ranch suburb of Denver on suspicion of domestic violence after his girlfriend reported that following a domestic dispute, Marshall prevented a taxi she was in from leaving his house.[82] Charges from the incident were later dismissed on May 25, 2007, after Marshall completed anger management counseling.[83]"

Supposedly the girl was so fearful of Marshall she later hid in the bushes on the side of the house. The sentence and the punishment were pretty much the same as Ray. Marshall got 3 games (a DUI charge added some time on) and had his other charges dismissed and not on his record.

But, yeah, what a catch. What a win for Floyd. What a smash hit for Chris Brown. . . we didn't start the fire. . . (that was for QS)

[BillJasper]

I just read something that summed it up for me: the use of violence on a child will teach the child fear and violence. This will perpetuate the culture of violence, I believe, and not make things better.

+1

[mckerney]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Spielman: &quot;We feel very strongly as an organization that this is disciplining a child.&quot;</p>&mdash; Ben Goessling (@GoesslingESPN) <a href="https://twitter.com/GoesslingESPN/status/511592731185922048">September 15, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

http://blog.timesunion.com/beer/files/2014/07/PicardFacepalm.jpg

[mckerney]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Spielman: Decision to play Peterson has nothing to do with him as a football player.</p>&mdash; Ben Goessling (@GoesslingESPN) <a href="https://twitter.com/GoesslingESPN/status/511594485340336128">September 15, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Really? If it had been Matt Asiata instead of Peterson they wouldn't have been able to cut him fast enough.

[Logan]

Really? If it had been Matt Asiata instead of Peterson they wouldn't have been able to cut him fast enough.

Saw on Twitter that last year, the Vikings cut TJ McDonald within hours of a domestic violence charge.

And how dumb for Spielman et al to say "this is discipline". I mean, they don't need to say that to make their larger point. If/when Peterson gets convicted of something, their stance will be on the record. There's just no upside to saying that.

[Lathum]

I just read something that summed it up for me: the use of violence on a child will teach the child fear and violence. This will perpetuate the culture of violence, I believe, and not make things better.

plus a billion.

[thesloppy]

The same Brandon Marshall who has himself been arrested on domestic violence charges twice. By all accounts, he's fixed his issues and is even talking about it now. My gut tells me very few NFL fans even remember those charges and had I not been a Broncos fan, I would have forgotten them myself.

Marshall is now a panelist on 'Inside the NFL' (along with Ed Reed) and spoke somewhat frankly on the subject. He was pretty forward about it, took direct questioning from all the other panelists, and seemed to have a pretty healthy understanding of his actions, both past and current....but it was still pretty much a lofted softball. They didn't get into much detail at all, and Marshall never had to directly address his actions other than vague references to "my issue", but I give Marshall credit for at least always trying to handle his dirty laundry publicly over the years, and being upfront about his struggles.

...as an aside, why would a team (or the player himself) consent to having an active player serving as a commentator on a weekly talk show halfway across the country?

[cartman]

Oof. If this is true, it doesn't bode well for the current Ravens regime or Goodell.

How the Ray Rice scandal unfolded between the Baltimore Ravens, Roger Goodell and the NFL - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11551518/how-ray-rice-scandal-unfolded-baltimore-ravens-roger-goodell-nfl)

[Jas_lov]

Goodell needs to resign immediately. Ozzie Newsome should be fired. Steve Bischotti should be forced to sell the club. They all need to go. The new commissioner should declare on Day 1 that Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson and Greg Hardy are banned for life. Any future domestic violence incident will carry a lifetime ban.

[mrtourette]

Oof. If this is true, it doesn't bode well for the current Ravens regime or Goodell.

How the Ray Rice scandal unfolded between the Baltimore Ravens, Roger Goodell and the NFL - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11551518/how-ray-rice-scandal-unfolded-baltimore-ravens-roger-goodell-nfl)

Also seems to paint Rice in a relatively positive light (for someone who hit his fiance and then dragged her unconscious to their hotel room).

[Matthean]

Hope Solo says "Hi."

[Ben E Lou]

Also seems to paint Rice in a relatively positive light (for someone who hit his fiance and then dragged her unconscious to their hotel room).There are those who believe that there should be no second chances, but if everything in that article is true, it appears that Rice would be close to being the poster child for "deserves a chance to redeem himself." According to the article, he tearfully confessed to a friend the very next day, told multiple higher-ups exactly what had happened, with no sugar-coating, took it upon himself to tell a group of high school kids what he'd done and begged them to be a better man than he was, and had been a model citizen who'd done a good bit of charity work before the incident. In short, it reads like a dude who did something awful and completely out of character in a drunken state, deeply regretted it, and told the truth about it.

And then his superiors decided to try to sweep it under the rug. "Hey, Ray Lewis blew over, Jamal Lewis blew over. This was a lesser crime and he's a good guy who screwed up. This will blow over, too!"

And then when that went wrong, plan B of said superiors was to throw Rice under the bus, suggest that he'd tried to shield the truth, and promise him a nice job down the road when this whole thing blows over if he'll just play along. Sending a text to him offering a job minutes after saying publicly that they'd never seen the video (which they had), that it was "violent and horrifying," and he had lied to them...that right there is some J.R. Ewing-level stuff. Wow.

The story that ESPN is putting out there gives a lot more context to Janay's angry statement in the aftermath of the Ravens' statement, too. Overall, it provides some pretty reasonable answers to many of the "why" questions that have dogged the set of facts that we knew/suspected all along.

[Coffee Warlord]

And now ESPN changing their tune AGAIN on who had/saw/said what.

This is just a total cluster.

[Logan]

I agree with Ben that the job offer stuff, given the timing, was very telling.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is just a total cluster.

Things like that can happen when the number one priority is to invent (and maintain) controversy above all else.

The three things we can (and should) be sure of are these:
1) Ray hit Janay
2) The Ravens were intent on minimizing the p.r. damage
3) The media wanted as much controversy as possible.

The first has been known for a relatively long time, the second was surely suspected by anybody with a brain. The third, well, awareness & understanding seem to be more limited (not around here necessarily but overall)

[cartman]

The Ravens owner is basically calling the OTL report a complete fabrication from Ray Rice's camp. The plot thickens.

Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti says ESPN Ray Rice report manufactured by Rice's camp - ESPN (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11570685/baltimore-ravens-owner-steve-bisciotti-says-espn-ray-rice-report-manufactured-rice-camp)

[Blackadar]

Goodell needs to resign immediately. Ozzie Newsome should be fired. Steve Bischotti should be forced to sell the club. They all need to go. The new commissioner should declare on Day 1 that Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson and Greg Hardy are banned for life. Any future domestic violence incident will carry a lifetime ban.

Or not. That seems absurdly over the top.

[gstelmack]

Isn't Rice also going to claim in his appeal that the elevator video was edited?

[Arles]

This whole thing is a mess. I agree with Bisciotti to a point in that the "Outside the Lines" ESPN report was pretty much all pro-Rice. The only blurb about the team was that they contacted Harbaugh essentially 3 hours before the story went live. I have a hard time believing they were still "in the discovery" phase of their story as most good reporters would be when they contact the other side for perspective.

ESPN wants to roast Goodell/owners as it sells stories and gives the "high and mighty" reporters something to bloviate/act outraged about. The Ravens want to do some damage control as this Rice situation is really the first situation where domestic violence actually ended up with a real penalty in the NFL. Most of these situations have been swept under the rug to this point - there certainly have never been a suspension like what happened to Rice before.

My opinion on this whole thing is there was a culture of "slaps on the wrists" for domestic assaults and football players going back to the 90s. The league and teams had worked under this system. The TMZ Rice video forced this system to change forever and wasn't something either the Ravens or the league saw coming. I'm sure the Ravens downplayed the Rice event internally when it happened and the league didn't really take it seriously as there never was an outcry before this. There was a piss poor domestic violence "penalty system" going back to when Brandon Marshall got a game for a fight with his wife in 2007, Shawne Merriman choked out his girlfriend in 2009 (no suspension) and even Dez Bryant punching his own mother in the face with no suspension (2012). Why would anyone think Rice would get more than two games given the prior precedent? A precedent that ESPN and other media outlets didn't appear to have a problem with before the Rice video.

This kind of reminds me of the steroid outrage in the early 2000s in baseball. All reporters have known for a decade that domestic violence issues in the NFL rarely garner more than a game or two suspensions. And, all the way up until this Rice incident, the media as a whole didn't seem to have a big issue with it. For ESPN and the media to now act outraged at how the NFL handles domestic violence is a little disingenuous as no one cared before Rice.

The NFL deserves some egg on their face for the way they minimized these events in the past (and the Rice event itself once it happened), but the media doesn't have a strong leg on to claim outrage when they looked the other way as players choked out their wives and beat their kids for the past decade with few substantial penalties.

[Toddzilla]

Point of clarification...

ESPN does not want to roast Goodell, the owners, or the NFL.

OTL wants to roast Goodell, the owners, and the NFL.

[Blackadar]

This whole thing is a mess. I agree with Bisciotti to a point in that the "Outside the Lines" ESPN report was pretty much all pro-Rice. The only blurb about the team was that they contacted Harbaugh essentially 3 hours before the story went live. I have a hard time believing they were still "in the discovery" phase of their story as most good reporters would be when they contact the other side for perspective.

ESPN wants to roast Goodell/owners as it sells stories and gives the "high and mighty" reporters something to bloviate/act outraged about. The Ravens want to do some damage control as this Rice situation is really the first situation where domestic violence actually ended up with a real penalty in the NFL. Most of these situations have been swept under the rug to this point - there certainly have never been a suspension like what happened to Rice before.

My opinion on this whole thing is there was a culture of "slaps on the wrists" for domestic assaults and football players going back to the 90s. The league and teams had worked under this system. The TMZ Rice video forced this system to change forever and wasn't something either the Ravens or the league saw coming. I'm sure the Ravens downplayed the Rice event internally when it happened and the league didn't really take it seriously as there never was an outcry before this. There was a piss poor domestic violence "penalty system" going back to when Brandon Marshall got a game for a fight with his wife in 2007, Shawne Merriman choked out his girlfriend in 2009 (no suspension) and even Dez Bryant punching his own mother in the face with no suspension (2012). Why would anyone think Rice would get more than two games given the prior precedent? A precedent that ESPN and other media outlets didn't appear to have a problem with before the Rice video.

This kind of reminds me of the steroid outrage in the early 2000s in baseball. All reporters have known for a decade that domestic violence issues in the NFL rarely garner more than a game or two suspensions. And, all the way up until this Rice incident, the media as a whole didn't seem to have a big issue with it. For ESPN and the media to now act outraged at how the NFL handles domestic violence is a little disingenuous as no one cared before Rice.

The NFL deserves some egg on their face for the way they minimized these events in the past (and the Rice event itself once it happened), but the media doesn't have a strong leg on to claim outrage when they looked the other way as players choked out their wives and beat their kids for the past decade with few substantial penalties.

"Blame the media" isn't much of an answer here.

First of all, you need to get your facts right. The charges against Merriman were dismissed within a week. Dez Bryant never "punched" his mother in the face - he allegedly hit her in the face with a baseball cap. Marshall's case was dismissed. This doesn't mean that the incidents weren't domestic violence, but there's a huge difference between hitting someone with a baseball cap and cold kocking someone in an elevator.

Domestic violence is often a "he said, she said" scenario with no tape to back it up. There's nothing for the media to report to drive a reaction, which is what the media does. The supposed victims often don't want to prosecute so unless there's visible injury there's very little to go on. The best the prosecution can do is often get the alleged assailant to take some sort of class because they have no chance of winning in court.

Rice's case was different. There was video evidence of the immediate aftermath and that involved an unconscious woman being dragged out of an elevator. Even without the video in the elevator, everyone could figure out what happened in this case. There was something tangible to go on for the media, the NFL, the Ravens and everyone else. If a QB can get suspended for 6 games for a sexual assault with no eyewitnesses, no physical evidence and no charges ever being filed, then there was enough evidence in this case to suspend Rice for a lengthy period of time. Most observers felt that Rice would get a similar treatment - 6 to 8 games. Instead, the Ravens and the NFL tried to sweep this under the rug and the media justifiably pointed out the general outrage at this slap on the wrist. That outrage was already being reported on by the media and, of course, it blew up when the elevator video appeared. But this wasn't media outrage, it was the outrage of the general public.

Blaming the media is absolute hogwash. The media prints / reports on what will sell hits and what the public will respond to. Without something to elicit a visceral reaction by the public, there's really no story. So if you want to blame someone for past "slap on the wrist" actions, blame yourself and the rest of the public. The media didn't look the other way in past cases. Everyone did, including you and me.

As for the OTL report, I didn't watch it. But I did see a press conference where Harbaugh was talking about it directly after it aired in regards to the report he wanted Rice off the team and was overruled. I did not see the entire thing so this may be out of context, but what I did see was Harbaugh talking about how they met and decided not to do so. He didn't say he didn't want Rice off the team. He said something very telling - along the lines of "once the meeting is over and a decision is made, everyone has to be on board". Which was a clear signal to me that there was some dissent in that meeting as to Rice's future with the team. So I'm not sure that I entirely believe Bisciotti.

---

This isn't addressed directly to Dutch, but everyone...

On the flip side, it is important to take a measured reaction to domestic violence and how it impacts everyone. A lifetime banning people for one incident of domestic violence is an absurd overreaction to this. People from all walks of life have disputes and occasionally those disputes become physical - often by both parties. Violence is most often reciprocal. An absolutist and extreme policy applied to all domestic violence cases not only doesn't help things, it also created a one-sided viewpoint of a much more complex issue. Remember, studies show that domestic violence is started almost as often by women as it is by men.

Think about it this way - if domestic violence cases could only be prosecuted against men and not women, do you think the rate of violence initiated against men would go up or down? What kind of legal problems would that create against men? How does that impact their ability to defend themselves against violence?

Now apply that to a football player. If his career would be over with one supposed incident, how would that impact them? Do you think that if their playing career was over with one incident, would that make them more or less likely to do something more extreme when an incident happened? What does that policy do to their ability to defend themselves? What does that policy do to women who may be afraid to report more mild forms of domestic violence because they know it will be the end of their loved one's career?

This is a complex issue and can involve some very extreme variations on the scope and circumstances of any given case. Trying to apply a "one size fits all" policy and a simplistic "men shouldn't hit women" viewpoint does a disservice to everyone and reflects a real lack of understanding of the variables that come into play in each incident.

[gstelmack]

ESPN has never been known for proper investigative journalism, have they? I mean, they will never attribute other news outlets for breaking stories, for example.

So yeah, I agree with "This whole thing is a mess".

[Arles]

"Blame the media" isn't much of an answer here.

First of all, you need to get your facts right. The charges against Merriman were dismissed within a week. Dez Bryant never "punched" his mother in the face - he allegedly hit her in the face with a baseball cap. Marshall's case was dismissed. This doesn't mean that the incidents weren't domestic violence, but there's a huge difference between hitting someone with a baseball cap and cold kocking someone in an elevator.
First, Marshall accepted a plea to take "anger management classes" and as part of that plea, the wrongful imprisonment charges were dropped (basically blocked her from getting into a taxi after an altercation). I'm pretty sure that would have levied a suspension now. Especially given he was arrested in 2005 and 2004 for domestic violence. Second, Dez was charged and arrested for striking his mother and that would have qualified for the current "domestic violence" policy. The point is that these events have been going on for years. If you don't like the Marshall or Bryant examples, look up Ray McDonald and Chris Cook of the San Francsico 49ers, Tony McDaniel and Kevin Williams of the Seattle Seahawks,Santonio Holmes of the Chicago Bears, Erik Walden of the Indianapolis Colts, Donte Whitner of the Cleveland Browns, Randy Starks of the Miami Dolphins and Frostee Rucker of the Arizona Cardinals. All have all been arrested for domestic violence or related charges since 2005 and very few have served any substantial suspensions for it. The league and media really didn't care until the Rice incident made them care.

Domestic violence is often a "he said, she said" scenario with no tape to back it up. There's nothing for the media to report to drive a reaction, which is what the media does. The supposed victims often don't want to prosecute so unless there's visible injury there's very little to go on. The best the prosecution can do is often get the alleged assailant to take some sort of class because they have no chance of winning in court.
There have been plenty of arrests and pleas/convictions that have gone unpunished to this point. Again, no one cared in the NFL or the mainstream media until the Rice case. Heck, if the Rice "strike" doesn't happen, there's a good chance Greg Hardy and Jonathan Dwyer are on the roster right now.

Blaming the media is absolute hogwash. The media prints / reports on what will sell hits and what the public will respond to. Without something to elicit a visceral reaction by the public, there's really no story. So if you want to blame someone for past "slap on the wrist" actions, blame yourself and the rest of the public. The media didn't look the other way in past cases. Everyone did, including you and me.
I'm not blaming the media for football players hitting their wives. I'm saying, much like with steroids, they were complicit in allowing the league to have a "slap on the wrist" policy for decades and never blinked. All the people clamoring for Goodell to lose their jobs in the media didn't blink an eye when Erik Walden beat his girlfriend so bad she was in the hospital all weekend and was put up on felony charges - charges later dropped when the girlfriend changed her statement, was paid hush money and went on her way. So, it's a little disingenuous for them to go hard after Goodell for allowing a domestic policy that only suspended Rice 2 games when that was one of the longer suspensions for domestic violence ever levied to this point.

As for the OTL report, I didn't watch it. But I did see a press conference where Harbaugh was talking about it directly after it aired in regards to the report he wanted Rice off the team and was overruled. I did not see the entire thing so this may be out of context, but what I did see was Harbaugh talking about how they met and decided not to do so. He didn't say he didn't want Rice off the team. He said something very telling - along the lines of "once the meeting is over and a decision is made, everyone has to be on board". Which was a clear signal to me that there was some dissent in that meeting as to Rice's future with the team. So I'm not sure that I entirely believe Bisciotti.
What bothers me about this is people act like the league "should have acted differently" with Rice before seeing the video when he said he struck his fiancee. The media, league and public had come up with a consistent process of no more than a game or two for some pretty awful domestic violence attacks. Heck, back in 1997, 47 players were charged with domestic violence and not one served a suspension. In 2001 and 2008 the NFL also had dozens of incidents with no suspensions. We as the public and the media did not hold the NFL to the proper standard for punishing domestic violence and thankfully the Rice video came out and changed that going forward. And, while I don't think Goodell has done a very good job going back to the Saints situation, I think everyone (media, public, NFL, teams, players) needs to look in the mirror and share the blame for the piss poor system the NFL had. This isn't just Goodell's fault.

On the flip side, it is important to take a measured reaction to domestic violence and how it impacts everyone. A lifetime banning people for one incident of domestic violence is an absurd overreaction to this. People from all walks of life have disputes and occasionally those disputes become physical - often by both parties. Violence is most often reciprocal. An absolutist and extreme policy applied to all domestic violence cases not only doesn't help things, it also created a one-sided viewpoint of a much more complex issue. Remember, studies show that domestic violence is started almost as often by women as it is by men.

Think about it this way - if domestic violence cases could only be prosecuted against men and not women, do you think the rate of violence initiated against men would go up or down? What kind of legal problems would that create against men? How does that impact their ability to defend themselves against violence?

Now apply that to a football player. If his career would be over with one supposed incident, how would that impact them? Do you think that if their playing career was over with one incident, would that make them more or less likely to do something more extreme when an incident happened? What does that policy do to their ability to defend themselves? What does that policy do to women who may be afraid to report more mild forms of domestic violence because they know it will be the end of their loved one's career?

This is a complex issue and can involve some very extreme variations on the scope and circumstances of any given case. Trying to apply a "one size fits all" policy and a simplistic "men shouldn't hit women" viewpoint does a disservice to everyone and reflects a real lack of understanding of the variables that come into play in each incident.
I will take another "flip side". According the different research studies on the subject, between 25% and 35% (dep on which study you like) of actual incidents of domestic violence end up with charges filed. So, there's a good chance nothing comes from 70% of the domestic violence incidents involving NFL players. So, if you happen to end up in one of the remaining 30% that ends up with you accepting a plea or going to court with legit evidence, then I think a 6-game ban seems reasonable. Yes, some players will get a raw deal every now and then, but that happens with drug use too. One thing is for sure, with this current policy and the teeth in it, players will be aware and most will try to avoid it all together.

[Blackadar]

First, Marshall accepted a plea to take "anger management classes" and as part of that plea, the wrongful imprisonment charges were dropped (basically blocked her from getting into a taxi after an altercation). I'm pretty sure that would have levied a suspension now. Especially given he was arrested in 2005 and 2004 for domestic violence. Second, Dez was charged and arrested for striking his mother and that would have qualified for the current "domestic violence" policy. The point is that these events have been going on for years. If you don't like the Marshall or Bryant examples, look up Ray McDonald and Chris Cook of the San Francsico 49ers, Tony McDaniel and Kevin Williams of the Seattle Seahawks,Santonio Holmes of the Chicago Bears, Erik Walden of the Indianapolis Colts, Donte Whitner of the Cleveland Browns, Randy Starks of the Miami Dolphins and Frostee Rucker of the Arizona Cardinals. All have all been arrested for domestic violence or related charges since 2005 and very few have served any substantial suspensions for it. The league and media really didn't care until the Rice incident made them care.

You missed the point entirely. Your examples have none of the visceral impact that the Ray Rice video had. Remember, there was video evidence of the aftermath that generated a pretty large narrative. None of the cases you cited had the video evidence to define the problem so it could be discussed from common ground.

We agree that the league didn't care. They didn't have reason to. It just interfered with business. But precious few (if any) of these cases resulted in convictions, so the problem was easily swept under the rug. And even when they resulted in convictions it didn't matter. Take, for example, Greg Hardy. Yes, he's "guilty" but he's still awaiting trial. Why? Because in NC you can go before a judge and if he convicts you, you can still go in front of a jury. So he's guilty but he's not yet guilty. And this is one of the very few cases where the victim is actually willing to testify. In the vast majority of the cases, they weren't.

The media didn't care because we didn't care. The media throws shit at a wall and if something sticks, they report on it again. In every one of those cases, they reported it pretty extensively. These cases were on ESPN. They were in the newspaper. They were on the web. You know what? People didn't give a crap and so the story died.

So stop blaming the media. I didn't see you posting extensively about NFL domestic violence cases. I wasn't either. It's because it wasn't an issue - or not much of one. In a "he said, she said" world, there's little discussion to be had because there's little common ground. It's not an interesting narrative for the general public. Once someone sees the Rice tape, then there's common ground from which to launch a discussion. The media reports on this, but WE create the discussion. Or not.

There have been plenty of arrests and pleas/convictions that have gone unpunished to this point. Again, no one cared in the NFL or the mainstream media until the Rice case. Heck, if the Rice "strike" doesn't happen, there's a good chance Greg Hardy and Jonathan Dwyer are on the roster right now.

Agreed. But this doesn't help your point. Again, see the particulars of the Hardy case. If he remained convicted, I believe he would have been suspended...my guess is for 4-6 games.

I'm not blaming the media for football players hitting their wives. I'm saying, much like with steroids, they were complicit in allowing the league to have a "slap on the wrist" policy for decades and never blinked. All the people clamoring for Goodell to lose their jobs in the media didn't blink an eye when Erik Walden beat his girlfriend so bad she was in the hospital all weekend and was put up on felony charges - charges later dropped when the girlfriend changed her statement, was paid hush money and went on her way. So, it's a little disingenuous for them to go hard after Goodell for allowing a domestic policy that only suspended Rice 2 games when that was one of the longer suspensions for domestic violence ever levied to this point.

I think this is very, very different than the steroid case. Many of the baseball writers who currently vote on HOFers knew these guys were on the juice and said nothing. It was never reported on at all. They were absolutely complicit in not reporting their suspicions until after things got so absurd the general public started talking about it. Then they turned on these same poster boys and now treat them as pariahs. TMLB did the same (don't tell me they didn't know what was going on in their own locker rooms). In short, they are the worst kind of turncoats and (unfairly, in my opinion) ostracized certain players when the entire system was guilty.

But with your next comparison (Walden), you're again making a false equivalence. Was there video of Eric Walden beating his girlfriend? She went to the hospital with a bump on her head and an injured hand - injuries that could be consistent with her being the instigator and him defending himself. Which, by the way, is what she later claimed - what is true is only known to her and Walden. In the Rice case, we have an unconscious woman being dragged from an elevator. Do you not understand the difference?

By the way, the media did go after Goodell after the two game suspension. He was roundly criticized long before the in-elevator video was seen. It was on ESPN, websites, etc. It blew into a monster post-video, but pre-video it was still news.

What bothers me about this is people act like the league "should have acted differently" with Rice before seeing the video when he said he struck his fiancee. The media, league and public had come up with a consistent process of no more than a game or two for some pretty awful domestic violence attacks. Heck, back in 1997, 47 players were charged with domestic violence and not one served a suspension. In 2001 and 2008 the NFL also had dozens of incidents with no suspensions. We as the public and the media did not hold the NFL to the proper standard for punishing domestic violence and thankfully the Rice video came out and changed that going forward. And, while I don't think Goodell has done a very good job going back to the Saints situation, I think everyone (media, public, NFL, teams, players) needs to look in the mirror and share the blame for the piss poor system the NFL had. This isn't just Goodell's fault.

Again, what constitutes domestic violence, who instigates it (men are arrested at a far higher percentage though women are instigators almost half the time), what it involves and so on is a pretty massive range. It's like me pushing you in the chest vs beating you near to death. They're both assault, but they're not really the same thing. Furthermore, most of the cases cited were settled without charges. Should players be suspended on the mere accusation of domestic violence? It's a complex issue.

I've been very critical regarding Goodell because he's incredibly inconsistent and that creates an inherent problem with fairness. The Saints got screwed. Big Ben got screwed. In both cases it may have been the best thing for the team/player, but the punishments were over-broad given the facts of each case. In this case, he should have acted differently because he had direct visual evidence of the aftermath of what happened. Never mind that they somehow neglected to look at the in-elevator video - which is inexcusable - but they had the exterior tape and that was damning enough. They had PROOF of the aftermath. If there was no exterior video I'd agree with your assertion that Goodell shouldn't have acted differently. But in this case with ironclad evidence in hand, he had every reason to set a precedent - something he's done to others with far less evidence - and failed to do so. His two-game slap on the wrist is absolutely 100% his failure. Had he acted with care rather than trying to sweep it under the rug, he would have slapped Ray Rice with a 6 to 8 game suspension. And you know what? There wouldn't be half as much of an uproar because Rice would have been substantially punished.

But back to the media, you act like it's their job to champion every moral rights case. They're in business, just like the NFL. They're going to report on what gets advertising dollars. If they report that Joe Football slaps his wife around and no one gives a shit, it's not they're job to continue to report on it. They did they're job. It didn't resonate with the public. It didn't sell advertising. It didn't get clicks. That's not their fault. That's on the public.

They're also not omnipotent. As I keep saying, these "he said, she said" cases don't make for a good narrative. What would happen if the NFL tried to make Eric Walden a poster boy for abuse, only to find out that his girlfriend actually did instigate it? You can't be the boy who cried wolf in the media. People get fired for that. People get sued for that.

I will take another "flip side". According the different research studies on the subject, between 25% and 35% (dep on which study you like) of actual incidents of domestic violence end up with charges filed. So, there's a good chance nothing comes from 70% of the domestic violence incidents involving NFL players. So, if you happen to end up in one of the remaining 30% that ends up with you accepting a plea or going to court with legit evidence, then I think a 6-game ban seems reasonable. Yes, some players will get a raw deal every now and then, but that happens with drug use too. One thing is for sure, with this current policy and the teeth in it, players will be aware and most will try to avoid it all together.

The new policy is dumb because it's one size fits all. In short, now every player will not take a plea and go to anger management classes. Every player will plead not guilty and they'll stick with that through hell and high water. They'll convince their girlfriends / wives / SOs to change their story with money, love or whatever else. So unless there are serious injuries and/or another Ray Rice video, these cases will end up being dismissed for lack of evidence. You'll get the occasional Greg Hardy case where the victim is willing to testify, but for every one of those there will be dozens that won't. I believe the net result of this policy will be that fewer cases will be reported, even fewer will go to trial and even fewer will result in convictions. Why? Because the penalty is so severe that it's worth fighting every step of the way. Victims won't get helped. People won't get the treatment they need to help stop this kind of thing. And it will go back to getting swept under the rug with this one-size-fits-all policy rather than being the ongoing discussion point that would be helpful considering the complexities of this issue.

[CU Tiger]

Ive stayed out of this since my earlier rant, because I didnt want to steer the entire discussion away from the toic at hand.

Given the last few posts I think it is aceptable to jump back in.

I will maintain that the NFL has a much, much bigger issue with domestic violence than anyone wants to let on. Its an issue that has existed for decades. There have long been innuendos to players wives and dark glasses.

I'm not condoning it, Im juust saying it exists.

The shield really, really doesnt want this can to get opened. But it is approaching on too late.

In my opinion to punish the actions, while a positive step, is reactionary and too late. We need to get in front of the mentality, educate, address and try to prevent. Any statistic would be supposition at best, but I think its very plausible that the incidence rate is 3-4x that of the balance of the population. How we fix it and keep the game we all love, I am not smart enough to answer.

But football is a game of violence, it is a release for so many of its members. Those who handle it the right way channel the anger and release it xclusively between the lines. not everyone can turn it on an off. I'm not sure that there arent PTSD elements at work..but again thats speculative and Im not educated enough to have anything more than a guess there.

One final side bar. Ive saw the notion of "equality" thrown around in this argument a few times regarding the justification for striking a combatative female. I just cant accept that belief. Culture, upbringing, whatever in my world you do not hit a woman. Period. If she hits you, you walk away. You get away from the situation. Men are physically suprior to woman cross the species. This isnt really debateable, it isn't a fair fight. It cant be. I hope every parent of a teenage son is teaching them this lesson. Because in the end if the 2 trade blows, the justice system will skewer the male every time. if for no other reason than this, young males have to know they cant strike women.

I liken it to the "dangerous dog breed" argument. I dont care that the ta cup chihuahua has the highest incidence rate of bites when it doesnt have the ability to injur.

[Blackadar]

One final side bar. Ive saw the notion of "equality" thrown around in this argument a few times regarding the justification for striking a combatative female. I just cant accept that belief. Culture, upbringing, whatever in my world you do not hit a woman. Period. If she hits you, you walk away. You get away from the situation. Men are physically suprior to woman cross the species. This isnt really debateable, it isn't a fair fight. It cant be. I hope every parent of a teenage son is teaching them this lesson. Because in the end if the 2 trade blows, the justice system will skewer the male every time. if for no other reason than this, young males have to know they cant strike women.

While women may be biologically the weaker sex, they aren't helpless or harmless. Men are victims of domestic abuse at a very high percentage and it goes unreported and unrecognized. It's a very real thing and the "walk away" mentality just continues the cycle of violence and victimization. While I hate the MRA's whining about most things, in this they're right and the only way to correct the problem of domestic violence is to first recognize that it happens quite often.

Also, treating women as weaker or excusing their abuse because they're "hormonal" or more prone to irrationality is also another symptom of misogyny.

That the judicial system hasn't caught up to the realities of domestic violence doesn't mean that you continue to perpetrate a wrong. In short, if someone attacks you, you have every right to defend yourself. The sex of the attacker is irrelevant.

On a personal note, in terms of domestic violence, I have seen more women as the aggressors than men. I've seen both, but for example I've only once seen a man openly strike a woman in public and he was beat down quickly by other men. Yet I've seen on many occasions women assaulting men in public, some via simple slaps (my brother's wife use to do this on a regular basis), others who were full on kicking, hitting and (yes) biting. I don't think either is acceptable. Abuse is abuse, no matter which sex is dishing it out.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is a complex issue and can involve some very extreme variations on the scope and circumstances of any given case. Trying to apply a "one size fits all" policy and a simplistic "men shouldn't hit women" viewpoint does a disservice to everyone and reflects a real lack of understanding of the variables that come into play in each incident.

We aren't often in agreement around here but even at the risk of such an oddity causing you to completely rethink yourself, you deserve better than being out on what is likely to be an unpopular limb by yourself.

+1

[Dutch]

This isn't addressed directly to Dutch, but everyone...

I'm guessing he meant Arles.

[Mota]

While women may be biologically the weaker sex, they aren't helpless or harmless. Men are victims of domestic abuse at a very high percentage and it goes unreported and unrecognized. It's a very real thing and the "walk away" mentality just continues the cycle of violence and victimization. While I hate the MRA's whining about most things, in this they're right and the only way to correct the problem of domestic violence is to first recognize that it happens quite often.

Also, treating women as weaker or excusing their abuse because they're "hormonal" or more prone to irrationality is also another symptom of misogyny.

That the judicial system hasn't caught up to the realities of domestic violence doesn't mean that you continue to perpetrate a wrong. In short, if someone attacks you, you have every right to defend yourself. The sex of the attacker is irrelevant.

On a personal note, in terms of domestic violence, I have seen more women as the aggressors than men. I've seen both, but for example I've only once seen a man openly strike a woman in public and he was beat down quickly by other men. Yet I've seen on many occasions women assaulting men in public, some via simple slaps (my brother's wife use to do this on a regular basis), others who were full on kicking, hitting and (yes) biting. I don't think either is acceptable. Abuse is abuse, no matter which sex is dishing it out.

Thank you for this comment.

It's no excuse for a man to hit a woman, but she did hit him twice before then. If she felt protected because he would never strike her, how many times would she have hit him?

Just because it doesn't hurt as much physically when a woman strikes a man, doesn't mean that it doesn't hurt just as much in other ways.

I don't believe in domestic abuse in any way, and it can come in many forms.

[Easy Mac]

Point of clarification...

ESPN does not want to roast Goodell, the owners, or the NFL.

OTL wants to roast Goodell, the owners, and the NFL.

to further hammer home the point, ESPN suspended Bill Simmons 3 weeks for calling Roger Goddell a liar. That's one more week than Ray Rice got for punching someone.

[SirFozzie]

And two more weeks then Stephen A Smith got for saying women sometimes provoke men into being hit.

[DaddyTorgo]

Where can we go in the interim to see Simmons' reaction? Is he tweeting up a storm?

[molson]

There's probably some written ESPN "journalist" rule of conduct Simmons technically violated, but it's still funny to see them pretend they're the NY Times or something when this stuff happens:

ESPN addresses text-message mishap in Ravens story | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/23/espn-addresses-text-message-mishap-in-ravens-story/)

Here's Every Edit ESPN Has Made To Its OTL Ray Rice-Ravens Report (http://deadspin.com/heres-every-edit-espn-has-made-to-its-otl-ray-rice-rave-1638729696)

I actually like ESPN, but I don't like when they take themselves so seriously, and I'm going to miss Simmons' podcast. I don't follow football too closely but his podcast predicting the NFL lines every week gives me the gist of everything going on.

[SirFozzie]

Where can we go in the interim to see Simmons' reaction? Is he tweeting up a storm?

He's been barred from tweeting, FB, everything. Give it a couple days for folks to get interviews with him (or for his associates to "leak" stuff to the press.

But the reaction on twitter is interesting.

[Groundhog]

I think Simmons did cross the line as far as public comments re: your employer goes, but I've had the feeling that there's been tension there for awhile now that only get worse the bigger a name that Simmons becomes. ESPN are trying to send a message here, but Simmons is more important to ESPN than vice versa.

[DaddyTorgo]

He's been barred from tweeting, FB, everything. Give it a couple days for folks to get interviews with him (or for his associates to "leak" stuff to the press.

But the reaction on twitter is interesting.

I mean I guess he could just quit and do what he wants on Twitter/FB, but I find it a scary precedent that he's letting his employer control his Twitter/FB activity.

[Groundhog]

I mean I guess he could just quit and do what he wants on Twitter/FB, but I find it a scary precedent that he's letting his employer control his Twitter/FB activity.

I imagine these days in that industry social media activity is covered in employee contracts.

[DaddyTorgo]

I imagine these days in that industry social media activity is covered in employee contracts.

Yeah, I imagine you're right. But if he's got a personal twitter/fb page how could they exercise jurisdiction over that?

i mean given - if he used that then he'd get fired I imagine, but still.

[cuervo72]

Is he banned from Kimmel during that time?

[stevew]

Seemed like he was a touch more animated than normal but his take on Roger was spot on.

[molson]

I like Simmons a lot, but one thing I'd love to ask him (along with most other members of the media), is where was their outrage before the video came out? Like Goodell, they all knew what happened in that elevator. But the whole situation was barely addressed in the Simmons NFL preview podcasts I listened to. Simmons only became angry about it after it became the cool thing to do in the media. It's fun to pile on when you feel you have moral superiority to and you feel like that momentum is behind you.

[stevew]

Foiled Dola, I think his contract is up at the end of the year. I feel like he's way bigger than ESPN, but the connections he needs are all there. Also did Cousin Sales get anything?

[Suicane75]

Yeah, I imagine you're right. But if he's got a personal twitter/fb page how could they exercise jurisdiction over that?

i mean given - if he used that then he'd get fired I imagine, but still.

Donald Sterling was forced to sell his property because of something he said in the privacy of his own house. Shit is getting out of whack.

[Fidatelo]

Donald Sterling was forced to sell his property because of something he said in the privacy of his own house. Shit is getting out of whack.

Yep, we are moving to a real witch-hunt society. The Ray Rice/Adrian Peterson cases are one thing since they do not deny their actions. In those scenarios I believe it is fine to judge those actions however we see fit. But people calling for the heads of some of the other players that deny the allegations against them before the justice system has run it's course (Ray McDonald, etc) is out of line.

If i was an NFL player right now I'd be shitting my pants at the thought of breaking up with my girlfriend. All she has to do is throw out some allegations and dude is gonna be suspended for weeks or possibly released before it ever gets cleared up.

[Autumn]

Certainly there's a disturbing aspect to the "witch hunt" aspect, I agree. But to play devil's advocate, that comes about because of a real disconnect between where American society is heading and the values and beliefs of these pockets, say professional sports, CEOs, owners, etc. Guys like Sterling are far out of line with what is becoming acceptable ways to talk about race in our society, and I'm not sure that a guy like that is ever going to get that until they get clobbered over the head. Maybe hitting people in their paycheck and their livelihood is what is needed to get a message through to professional athletes, or sports owners, etc. Our society isn't going to continue to operate as though domestic violence or racism are no big deal. Making it a big big deal in these cases may get that fact through.

There may be collateral damage, like a player getting suspended when they didn't really deserve it. But number one, why don't we wait until that actually happens even once to worry about it. Number two, there has been collateral damage to others for decades. Even Rice's wife still is more worried about her husband's career than her safety. If ten guys who make a million or more a year lose some of their paycheck who shouldn't, I can't say that we're worse off as a society if it means changing attitudes towards domestic violence and maybe getting some people out of danger.

We know nobody's changed Donald Sterling's mind or Ray Rice's mind about race or violence. But there is an intermediate step I think in changing society which involves changing what is okay to say. It's changing the atmosphere kids are growing up in.

That said, another issue is that we are still learning as a society how to live in this new world of no privacy. Somebody saying racist stuff in their own home and suffering professionally because of it, celebrities being called out for things that in the past would have been private, these are new lines we're going to have to draw, and I agree that it isn't clear how to draw them. Probably it will be younger people than me who settle that.

[Suicane75]

My problem lies more in the fact that the whole of society thinks it's any of their business about any of this shit. I understand with social media and what not that it's a lot more of an all encompassing world than it was even 10 years ago and everyone has an outlet to be heard and everyone thinks their voice is important, when really, to me at least, it isn't.

I read an interesting article after Robin Williams died about griefing. Basically it talked about how everyone and anyone had to voice how much they loved the guy when the truth is most of those people who made twitter and facebook posts probably hadn't thought about Robin Williams in years, but everyone had to let everyone else know how much they loved him and how it affected them.

Ok, I'm losing my train of thought here, lol. I guess what I'm saying is, What Ray Rice, Donald Sterling or anyone else does, doesn't affect 99.9% of the people who shout about it from the mountain top, and 99.9% of those people weren't spending money on the NBA or NFL, nor did they probably have any idea who Sterling or Rice even was to begin with.

It's a virtual mob mentality, being led by the people who's idea of deep philosophical discussions are the back and forths they have on YouTube or Yahoo comment sections.

[molson]

If i was an NFL player right now I'd be shitting my pants at the thought of breaking up with my girlfriend. All she has to do is throw out some allegations and dude is gonna be suspended for weeks or possibly released before it ever gets cleared up.

There would still have to be a criminal charge. And it's definitely true that in some situations, there is probable cause for a misdemeanor domestic battery based on nothing more than the alleged victim's word. So in those situations, it's always been the case that you could be arrested, have bail and conditions of release, have the crime with the potential of jail time hanging over your head. And the state can do all of that to you if the girlfriend is a good enough liar, but we still see the right to continue playing football as being the most important right of all.

With felony charges, you don't have that concern. There can be no probable cause determination for a felony charge based on the alleged victim's word alone, there has to be some injury. Yes, it's possible for the alleged victim to injure herself and then make up a story, but that's always been the case. In those situations, the government can arrest you, impose a higher bail, more stringent release conditions, and have years of prison over your head. But once we threaten the ability to play football, that again becomes the most important right of all.

So many people in America would have collateral consequences if they had a violent criminal charge pending against them. I don't get why the right to play football is so important. A mailman or a teacher or a government attorney who loses his job over a pending case is so much more fucked financially than any football player.

So I think the exempt list is great. You keep getting paid, you don't get sent out there to represent your team and the NFL until you no longer have these violent charges hanging over your head.

[BillJasper]

Roger Goodell reportedly wants to meet with Charlie Strong | CollegeFootballTalk (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/25/roger-goodell-reportedly-wants-to-meet-with-charlie-strong/)

[Thomkal]

Roger Goodell reportedly wants to meet with Charlie Strong | CollegeFootballTalk (http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/25/roger-goodell-reportedly-wants-to-meet-with-charlie-strong/)

In case you didn't see the updates (came after you posted), they are now reporting that this is a false report.

[whomario]

I like Simmons a lot, but one thing I'd love to ask him (along with most other members of the media), is where was their outrage before the video came out? Like Goodell, they all knew what happened in that elevator. But the whole situation was barely addressed in the Simmons NFL preview podcasts I listened to. Simmons only became angry about it after it became the cool thing to do in the media. It's fun to pile on when you feel you have moral superiority to and you feel like that momentum is behind you.

Assuming you refer to the 2nd video (i have to admit that as a very casual NFL follower i have no idea if or what was known before the 1st) Simmons did address it prior to that, ripping into Goodell pretty scathingly in a Sept 4th column. (and others on Grantland have as well). Among other issues, he has quite a bit to say on the Ray Rice situation and how it blends in with other decicions by Goodell :

The League That Never Sleeps « (http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nfl-the-league-that-never-takes-a-break/)

And somehow, Goodell escaped the spring and summer relatively unscathed, save for anyone still seething about his Earnest Byner–level fumbling (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5rQmdKKQgI) of Ray Rice’s situation. The commish needed five months to determine a verdict, then bungled that verdict so gravely that he (a) improbably offended every single type of football fan (especially female fans), (b) had to send team owners an after-the-verdict letter to apologize for screwing up the first verdict, and (c) speed-rushed a harsher domestic violence policy that’s loaded with easy-to-exploit loopholes (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/01/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-domestic-violence-dewayne-wickham/14922149/).

Who knew a league could yield that much mileage out of PED suspensions, failed drug tests, domestic disputes, fights, arrests and other sordid fodder for the ESPN Ticker–TMZ–Sports Blog–Twitter Moral Majority era? Who knew we could drag five solid months of headlines out of a soundless 49-second TMZ video (http://www.tmz.com/videos/0_c5nk3w3n/)? Who knew the same league could juggle this many lawsuits? Who knew so many key players could be suspended for the same opening week? Who knew so many decisions could NOT make sense, and that we’d have so much fun complaining about how they didn’t make sense? Who knew we could love a league when the answer to the question, “Does the NFL truly and honestly care about its players and its former players?” seems to be so clearly, “Not really, no”?

lots of other stuff in there on other issues related to the overall theme

[BillJasper]

As far as this law enforcement guy who sent the tape and the NFL, wouldn't there be some paper trail that he sent this tape? Surely, he didn't just drop in a mailbox to the NFL offices?

[stevew]

http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?storyId=12009808&src=desktop&rand=ref~%7B"ref"%3A"http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FhENqwTvzYF%3Fcn%3DcmVjb3NfbmV0d29ya19kaWdlc3RfYWN0aXZl"%7D

[Logan]

The Mueller report is out. Quick synopsis...did not find that anyone at the NFL saw the video before it was shown by TMZ. Also believes the NFL should have done more to obtain the evidence besides relying on law enforcement.

Robert Mueller Report (http://robertmuellerreport.com/)

[molson]

From the summary at the end.

"Our findings demonstrate the weaknesses inherent in the League’s longstanding practice of deferring to the criminal justice system with respect to the investigation of facts and the imposition of discipline under the Personal Conduct Policy. Discipline should be imposed on the basis of the specific nature of the player’s conduct, not solely or necessarily on the disposition of a criminal case."

It does seem like we're moving in that direction. On the one hand, it's not always going to be easy for the NFL to do their own investigation of off-field conduct when they don't have the same powers of law enforcement, but on the other hand, they're not bound by the same burdens of proof or constitutional limitations that a government is. And really, when TMZ drops something in their lap, they don't need to wait around for a player's criminal attorney to drag things out, and they don't need to defer to the sweet deal the attorney made with some overworked prosecutor who can't afford to try everything.

[BishopMVP]

With the Ravens coming in to Foxboro (again), I'd just like to note that while Ray Rice is a pariah who may never play again due to from everything I can tell one terrible, but isolated, incident, Terrell Suggs is still starring despite a history of domestic violence, including dragging his wife alongside a moving car with their children in it and pouring bleach on his wife and son. Terrell Suggs, domestic violence: Like his teammate Ray Rice, the Ravens linebacker was accused of beating up his wife. But in his case, there was no video. (http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/09/terrell_suggs_domestic_violence_like_his_teammate_ray_rice_the_ravens_linebacker.html)