Quote Originally Posted by mraynrand View Post
not necessarily, but I suppose it could. No, I was just making the point that it's a bad idea generally to suspend a guy before conviction. Wrong indictments are made all the time. So what does the player get if the indictment is wrong? Do they get to replay the game?
The only justice in business other than what's bound by the law is colored green. The NFL is obligated to fulfill their contract with the player, which is why they're paying him, but if his presence on the field is bad for the brand, I think their decision is an easy one. Cops who are under investigation are given paid leave. Doctors get their license suspended pending investigations. If the player is ultimately convicted, they'll stop paying him too but not before. If it's a bogus indictment then perhaps the player has recourse against his accusers or the state/fed but the NFL is an innocent victim here and it needs to minimize its damages.

It's a bad situation for both the player and the league. The league needs to do what it can to protect itself, and the player needs to focus on keeping his ass out of jail. Neither of those needs suggest the player should be showcased before hundreds of millions of people.