Ray Rice

[Fosco33]

But now you are mixing in transgressions that impact the ability of the individual to perform their job. In those situations, of course the person should lose their job. I already acknowledged that when I advanced the questions. A lawyer or accountant who embezzles money will lose their license because their dishonesty calls into question whether or not they can do their job honestly. That's not the situation with Rice, nor what I was questioning.

Not entirely. I could easily be fired for a DUI. Or things that are posted on social media. And trust me- my job has nothing to do with any of that. It's a professional service industry.

[pbmax]

Some more thoughts on the pattern of domestic abuse:

The Patterns: http://deadspin.com/the-only-thing-u...hat-1633583402

Blaming themselves or recanting the original charge: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21840635 (link from above story)

I can't find a decent summary of the last point I want to make, so I'll paraphrase and link to the source. When Goodell met with the combatants before deciding discipline, he presumably wanted to hear Janay Palmer's side of the story. He did it with Ray Rice in the room. Also present were Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome, Ravens club president Dick Cass plus Jeff Pash and Adolpho Birch of the league.

Does anyone see a problem with that lineup? Everyone has a vested interest in the financial success of the meeting. Only one person has a truly vested interest in the victim's health. And that person is conflicted at best, compromised as worst. And sitting in the same room with the abuser when speaking to his bosses.

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/07/25/ray-rice-nfl-suspension-ravens/

Goodell should be sanctioned in some way, but not because he doesn't understand domestic abuse or levies minimal sanctions against it. He shouldn't be fired because some NFL Security lackey made him out to be a liar about the tape. Not should he be fired for apparently not asking how NFL Security got a detailed description of the elevator tape without possessing it, something he claims he thought was illegal. Not because he backed himself and the League into a corner by having a pot offense go for a year and a domestic abuse situation go for 2 games.

He should be sanctioned because he is dumb enough to think he knows enough to be judge and jury for the Personal Conduct Policy. Anyone with an ounce of self-awareness would know how big a job that is, how much information they don't have and would look to create a functional structure to guard against being a complete schmuck.

[Rastak]

It kind of makes me sick to my stomach reading Ray Lewis' attempt to contrast his situation and Rice's:



In another one I read he kept harping on the fact that it was someones daughter. someone's sister; and if anyone did that to his daughter or sister there would be trouble. Well, what about it being someones son or brother, and the fact that his life was taken?? Lewis was accepted back with open arms.

With all due respect, and I do respect your takes. Ray Lewis killed no one. I watched that trial and he wasn't remotely connected. There is no way he killed those guys. No way.


Now maybe you have a point as it relates to his lack of candor about the two thugs in his posse that killed those guys, and the fact they were aquitted. I guess if that's your point, perhaps I agree after all. He certainly didn't spill his guts even if he wasn't involved.

[Patler]

Not entirely. I could easily be fired for a DUI. Or things that are posted on social media. And trust me- my job has nothing to do with any of that. It's a professional service industry.

The question is SHOULD you be fired for acts in your personal life unrelated to your job?

[Patler]

With all due respect, and I do respect your takes. Ray Lewis killed no one. I watched that trial and he wasn't remotely connected. There is no way he killed those guys. No way.


Now maybe you have a point as it relates to his lack of candor about the two thugs in his posse that killed those guys, and the fact they were aquitted. I guess if that's your point, perhaps I agree after all. He certainly didn't spill his guts even if he wasn't involved.

Not remotely connected??? Where did his white suit go?

[Rastak]

Not remotely connected??? Where did his white suit go?

There was absolutely no evidence against him. That asshat covered it up though. He shoved them into the limo and tried to hush it all.


Look, courttv is a cool thing and hearing all the testimony is really interesting. He came off as only concerned with his image after two guys were murdered by two thugs in his group.

[George Cumby]

How did his white suit get blood on it? Because he was standing a discrete 30' away?

[sharpe1027]

Forget that it is the NFL. It's an employer. Just like your employer. Forget (for the moment) that it is domestic violence case. It's a violation of our criminal justice standards, like other violations, assault against anyone, drunk driving, whatever.

Under what situations should your employer have the right to gather evidence on their own, review it on their own, and determine "their" punishment for you on their own apart from the determination made by criminal justice system?

It's easy to say "Ban the guy for life!" when it is a rich athlete and he punched his fiancee. By all accounts I have seen, there have been no other incidents and Rice has been described as a model citizen until now. The NFL has banned him.

If you are a licensed professional or tradesman, should your license be suspended for life based on your first criminal transgression when it is not one such as larceny, etc. that impacts your suitability for your profession? If you are a guy, should you lose it for sucker punching another guy in a bar? A female you don't know in a bar? A female acquaintance with whom you have no relationship? Your wife? How about if it is between gay couples? What if it's a wife suckerpunching her husband? Another female? Should you lose your license for life?

I'm not condoning what Rice did, nor the right for the NFL to issue some punishment, but I think we need to consider the when, how and how much in the same manner as we would if it was any of us and our employers.

I buy the NFL product. I have a right to voice my opinion on what they should be doing. They don't have to listen, but the NFL would be stupid to alienate its customers. Other employers are no different. I don't understand your point. It has nothing to do with criminal justice system our professional licenses.

[Patler]

I buy the NFL product. I have a right to voice my opinion on what they should be doing. They don't have to listen, but the NFL would be stupid to alienate its customers. Other employers are no different. I don't understand your point. It has nothing to do with criminal justice system our professional licenses.

So the masses decide the rights of the individual?

The NFL has banned Rice, taken away his ability to play professional football in this country. It's no different than suspending a licensed professional's license, rendering him unable to practice his/her profession.

[sharpe1027]

So the masses decide the rights of the individual?

The NFL has banned Rice, taken away his ability to play professional football in this country. It's no different than suspending a licensed professional's license, rendering him unable to practice his/her profession.

No different? You mean there are some similarities? Let's not overstate things. If your point is that NFL is a monopoly and therefore not comparable to most employers, that's a bit different than what you were saying above about any employers rights.

Your issue seems to be whether the NFL has the right to do what they did. What gives Rice the right to work for the NFL? If they don't want him, should they be forced to hire him?

[Patler]

No different? You mean there are some similarities? Let's not overstate things. If your point is that NFL is a monopoly and therefore not comparable to most employers, that's a bit different than what you were saying above about any employers rights.

Your issue seems to be whether the NFL has the right to do what they did. What gives Rice the right to work for the NFL? If they don't want him, should they be forced to hire him?

He was already hired.

[Cheesehead Craig]

The problem is that you're comparing the NFL to regular jobs. It's an apple and orange comparison. It's well known that the NFL is completely about image and money, so therefore they base their decisions on those items. What an employee does there is completely magnified to the nth degree due to who they work for. It comes with the territory and the players and other employees know it. The same rules don't apply to the regular world as they do for the NFL due to their high profile. I think the comparison you're trying to do is flawed on a basic level. I see what you're looking to accomplish, but I don't think it works.

[3irty1]

There is no sense in pretending the NFL is anything resembling a normal employer. A normal "career" in the NFL is 3 years long and ends abruptly before delivering pizzas forever. The nature of the industry is such that players must always be prepared to never play football again. Before the incident, the league was unquestionably better with Rice in it. His body didn't get injured but his image did and the result is exactly the same, the league thinks it no longer benefits from Rice's contributions. Seeing the NFL's action as a punishment is inaccurate. Ray Rice isn't banned because he hit his lady, he's banned because a video was released to the public of him hitting his lady.

[Maxie the Taxi]

In all likelihood the standard NFL boilerplate contract contains a "morals clause" which is broad and which gives the NFL all kinds of power to have its way in matters like this. Rice voluntarily accepted the terms of his contract in exchange for millions in compensation. It's pretty cut and dried to me.

[Joemailman]

In all likelihood the standard NFL boilerplate contract contains a "morals clause" which is broad and which gives the NFL all kinds of power to have its way in matters like this. Rice voluntarily accepted the terms of his contract in exchange for millions in compensation. It's pretty cut and dried to me.

I think this is right. While the wisdom of allowing Goodell to make these decisions can certainly be questioned, the NFL certainly has the right to suspend a player for behavior they feel is detrimental to the image of the NFL.