A "Rabid Giants Fan" Deals On Greg Hardy

[LittleD]

He has already served a 15 game suspension...

Not strictly true. He was placed and the Commissioner's exempt list and received his salary even though
he wasn't allowed to play. Suspension usually means without pay.

 

[LittleD]

GH's suspension aside, what is starting to bother me with the NFL's new hardline stance is this movement by the NFL to become it's own court of law when it comes to these off field events. I do not think we are too far off from a scenario where a player is suspected of some sort of crime, is never arrested or charged with anything for whatever reason, but the NFL's CSI team determines that the player is guilty based on "their" findings and they dole out their punishment despite the lack of any formal charges or arrest.

The union agreed to allow the NFL to determine conduct policy and establish Conduct Detrimental penalties as part
of the CBA. The NFL is following their working rules contract and players had to agree as part of the CBA
agreement. There would be none of these issues if players would understand and obey the rules they
agreed to.

 

[Silver N Blue]

You're right but then I did a search and it's there under this link. Very strange though.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/26/can-lisa-friel-save-roger-goodell.html

Send it to jj for ammunition

 

[Longboysfan]

I wonder what would happen if Eli was ever accused of anything, that might finally get Mara and Goodell fired.

Unless he holds up a donut shop.....

 

[DogFace]

So, you think this is some conspiracy to stick it to the Cowboys?

I think there's a conspiracy to end lame overused and simplified catch phrases that attempt to render any claims unworthy of debate.
(I started it)

It's also clear there is a massive conflict of interest in this case.

 

[DogFace]

The union agreed to allow the NFL to determine conduct policy and establish Conduct Detrimental penalties as part
of the CBA. The NFL is following their working rules contract and players had to agree as part of the CBA
agreement. There would be none of these issues if players would understand and obey the rules they
agreed to.

Who determines if the rules were broken?
Do they supersede the court system? If so is that reasonable or part of the agreement?

 

[Nova]

They hire her firm to do the investigation, and then not more than 2 weeks ago they give her a job?

Does anyone else in the league see what's wrong with that? It's worse than nepotism.

Starting to get the sense that "ethics" is not the NFL's watchword.

She was hired back in September. The article the quotes are from right after she was brought on in a "get to know you" type piece.

They wanted to emphasize how much she would fight the hot button issue, domestic abuse. Even though she's probably qualified, hiring her was a big PR move as well.

The ironic thing is that they led with talking about how big of a Giants fan she is and how much she knows football. Personally I'd rather have someone with no allegiances to the game conducting investigations.

 

[speedkilz88]

I think most people would rather take the biggest cash payday of their lives than see the other person go to trial where you may lose or where, even if you win, he gets little more than a slap on the wrist.

Good reason to lie in the first place if the biggest cash payday of your life is what you want.

 

[mahoneybill]

Funny I didn't see anything about this on ESPN or NFLN today.

Why bother with the facts..

 

[Plankton]

I think there's a conspiracy to end lame overused and simplified catch phrases that attempt to render any claims unworthy of debate.
(I started it)

It's also clear there is a massive conflict of interest in this case.

No there isn't.

The fandom of an investigator is an issue? Are you really impugning the integrity of someone that you have never met and know nothing about?

Here's the thing - who do you think actually knows more about what happened between Hardy and Holder - someone who interviewed witnesses and actually spoke to Hardy and his attorney, or a fan of the team that Hardy is signed to play for, and has read news articles? The decision made here was born of PR, not bias against the Cowboys. The conflict of interest? Doesn't exist - it's the figment of people wearing tin foil hats.

I suppose Darren Woodson tried to screw the Cowboys throughout his career, as he grew up a huge Pittsburgh Steeler fan, and loathed the Cowboys.

Or, perhaps his fandom is irrelevant to what actually occurred.

No matter the uniform that Greg Hardy was slated to wear this year, this was going to be the result. The NFL was going to make a decision based on winning a PR battle so they can look like they are tough when it comes to domestic violence. That's why they did what they did with Adrian Peterson (BTW, how did Mara or the Giant fan have bias here - Peterson plays for the Vikings). Hardy will appeal, and it will be reduced. I would expect that he will be on the shelf for between 2 and 6 games.

 

[speedkilz88]

The union agreed to allow the NFL to determine conduct policy and establish Conduct Detrimental penalties as part
of the CBA. The NFL is following their working rules contract and players had to agree as part of the CBA
agreement. There would be none of these issues if players would understand and obey the rules they
agreed to.

When the CBA was agreed to the punishment was max 2 games. Goddell has changed it to 6+ since then.

 

[CowboyGil]

No there isn't.

The fandom of an investigator is an issue? Are you really impugning the integrity of someone that you have never met and know nothing about?

Here's the thing - who do you think actually knows more about what happened between Hardy and Holder - someone who interviewed witnesses and actually spoke to Hardy and his attorney, or a fan of the team that Hardy is signed to play for, and has read news articles? The decision made here was born of PR, not bias against the Cowboys. The conflict of interest? Doesn't exist - it's the figment of people wearing tin foil hats.

I suppose Darren Woodson tried to screw the Cowboys throughout his career, as he grew up a huge Pittsburgh Steeler fan, and loathed the Cowboys.

Or, perhaps his fandom is irrelevant to what actually occurred.

No matter the uniform that Greg Hardy was slated to wear this year, this was going to be the result. The NFL was going to make a decision based on winning a PR battle so they can look like they are tough when it comes to domestic violence. That's why they did what they did with Adrian Peterson (BTW, how did Mara or the Giant fan have bias here - Peterson plays for the Vikings). Hardy will appeal, and it will be reduced. I would expect that he will be on the shelf for between 2 and 6 games.

Logic and reasoning?
Aint nobody got time for that!!

 

[Future]

Not strictly true. He was placed and the Commissioner's exempt list and received his salary even though
he wasn't allowed to play. Suspension usually means without pay.

Technically yea. I was arguing with my dad about this last night.

But the "suspension" last year probably cost him millions in contract losses this year. So while he did get paid for last year, he still lost out on a lot of money.

 

[DandyDon1722]

No there isn't.

The fandom of an investigator is an issue? Are you really impugning the integrity of someone that you have never met and know nothing about?

Here's the thing - who do you think actually knows more about what happened between Hardy and Holder - someone who interviewed witnesses and actually spoke to Hardy and his attorney, or a fan of the team that Hardy is signed to play for, and has read news articles? The decision made here was born of PR, not bias against the Cowboys. The conflict of interest? Doesn't exist - it's the figment of people wearing tin foil hats.

I suppose Darren Woodson tried to screw the Cowboys throughout his career, as he grew up a huge Pittsburgh Steeler fan, and loathed the Cowboys.

Or, perhaps his fandom is irrelevant to what actually occurred.

No matter the uniform that Greg Hardy was slated to wear this year, this was going to be the result. The NFL was going to make a decision based on winning a PR battle so they can look like they are tough when it comes to domestic violence. That's why they did what they did with Adrian Peterson (BTW, how did Mara or the Giant fan have bias here - Peterson plays for the Vikings). Hardy will appeal, and it will be reduced. I would expect that he will be on the shelf for between 2 and 6 games.

You assume that just because she's in a position of power, that she is infallible and beyond reproach in any emotional response, especially when she would not, nor could not ever be held accountable. And from your response I can reasonably assume you don't think that people in power EVER, use personal bias in decision making.

LOL - really? I officiated Division I college basketball, a profession and place where you would hope and pray integrity would rise above all else -- and I am telling you flat out I worked with guys who had personal agendas against teams. You knew it going in and you saw it in their calls.

You would not believe that - I was there -- you would be wrong.

So, in this age of political agendas and personal gain - where police are supposed to serve and protect and yet we see case after case of suspect behavior with minorities -- you think that this woman who has a "shine" in her home is absolutely immune to ANY emotional or professional bias?

The naiveté is stunning.

 

[DogFace]

No there isn't.

The fandom of an investigator is an issue? Are you really impugning the integrity of someone that you have never met and know nothing about?

Here's the thing - who do you think actually knows more about what happened between Hardy and Holder - someone who interviewed witnesses and actually spoke to Hardy and his attorney, or a fan of the team that Hardy is signed to play for, and has read news articles? The decision made here was born of PR, not bias against the Cowboys. The conflict of interest? Doesn't exist - it's the figment of people wearing tin foil hats.

I suppose Darren Woodson tried to screw the Cowboys throughout his career, as he grew up a huge Pittsburgh Steeler fan, and loathed the Cowboys.

Or, perhaps his fandom is irrelevant to what actually occurred.

No matter the uniform that Greg Hardy was slated to wear this year, this was going to be the result. The NFL was going to make a decision based on winning a PR battle so they can look like they are tough when it comes to domestic violence. That's why they did what they did with Adrian Peterson (BTW, how did Mara or the Giant fan have bias here - Peterson plays for the Vikings). Hardy will appeal, and it will be reduced. I would expect that he will be on the shelf for between 2 and 6 games.

I'm not sure you understand the concept of conflict of interest. In this case it's not debatable that there is a conflict of interest. But I guess I will anyway because you know "some people".

She has been a lifelong fan of the Giants with her and her family having season tickets for many years.
She painted her apartment in Giants colors. A reasonable person could conclude that she doesn't like the Giants main rivals and therefore shouldn't be allowed to decide cases that could punish these teams. The is very simple and doesn't is idiot term proof (like tinfoil and the like).

Furthermore, does she know more about the case than the prosecuter who chose not to persue the case when he could by law without the witness. An accuser who had inconsistencies in her account and was possibly under the influence of cocaine and alcohol at the time of the event. Which would create plenty of doubt in an actual court of law.

These are some of the things I've read that were possibly wrong with the case. I'm sure you've read all the transcripts and can fill me in on other aspects of the case.

The Darren Woodson example was stupider than the tin foil crap. He was paid by the Cowboys. I'm sure many players have NFL teams they like before they are drafted. I'm sure NFL disciplinary officials or whatever should not. Especially if they are very vested in being a fan. To discount that is to be neive at best.

 

[Plankton]

You assume that just because she's in a position of power, that she is infallible and beyond reproach in any emotional response, especially when she would not, nor could not ever be held accountable. And from your response I can reasonably assume you don't think that people in power EVER, use personal bias in decision making.

LOL - really? I officiated Division I college basketball, a profession and place where you would hope and pray integrity would rise above all else -- and I am telling you flat out I worked with guys who had personal agendas against teams. You knew it going in and you saw it in their calls.

You would not believe that - I was there -- you would be wrong.

So, in this age of political agendas and personal gain - where police are supposed to serve and protect and yet we see case after case of suspect behavior with minorities -- you think that this woman who has a "shine" in her home is absolutely immune to ANY emotional or professional bias?

The naiveté is stunning.

This isn't naivete - it's objectivity.

People here are claiming that there is bias in the decision. The only bias was in favor of PR, not the laundry that a player was wearing.

Adrian Peterson was suspended for the last six games of the 2014 season. He plays for the Vikings - how did a pro-Giant bias influence that decision?

No matter what team Greg Hardy played for, this was going to be the result. The domestic violence situation is very high profile, and is receiving a lot of national attention. The league, and Goodell, after being absolutely skewered by the media, was going to make a statement on this issue. It just happens that Greg Hardy signed with the Dallas Cowboys.

To impugn a person who was a respected prosecutor with eons of experience in this field because they are a Giant fan is silly. If anyone has bias in this, it's a fan of a team.

Seriously, put the tin foil hat away.

 

[DogFace]

No there isn't.

The fandom of an investigator is an issue? Are you really impugning the integrity of someone that you have never met and know nothing about?

Here's the thing - who do you think actually knows more about what happened between Hardy and Holder - someone who interviewed witnesses and actually spoke to Hardy and his attorney, or a fan of the team that Hardy is signed to play for, and has read news articles? The decision made here was born of PR, not bias against the Cowboys. The conflict of interest? Doesn't exist - it's the figment of people wearing tin foil hats.

I suppose Darren Woodson tried to screw the Cowboys throughout his career, as he grew up a huge Pittsburgh Steeler fan, and loathed the Cowboys.

Or, perhaps his fandom is irrelevant to what actually occurred.

No matter the uniform that Greg Hardy was slated to wear this year, this was going to be the result. The NFL was going to make a decision based on winning a PR battle so they can look like they are tough when it comes to domestic violence. That's why they did what they did with Adrian Peterson (BTW, how did Mara or the Giant fan have bias here - Peterson plays for the Vikings). Hardy will appeal, and it will be reduced. I would expect that he will be on the shelf for between 2 and 6 games.

Oh and aren't you one of the people that is always accusing people on here of letting their fandom blind them to the facts of calls, rulings, and other stuff reguarding our team?

Let me guess irony is something you're incapable of seeing?

 

[speedkilz88]

This isn't naivete - it's objectivity.

People here are claiming that there is bias in the decision. The only bias was in favor of PR, not the laundry that a player was wearing.

Adrian Peterson was suspended for the last six games of the 2014 season. He plays for the Vikings - how did a pro-Giant bias influence that decision?

No matter what team Greg Hardy played for, this was going to be the result. The domestic violence situation is very high profile, and is receiving a lot of national attention. The league, and Goodell, after being absolutely skewered by the media, was going to make a statement on this issue. It just happens that Greg Hardy signed with the Dallas Cowboys.

To impugn a person who was a respected prosecutor with eons of experience in this field because they are a Giant fan is silly. If anyone has bias in this, it's a fan of a team.

Seriously, put the tin foil hat away.

I think you missed where Hardy did not get 6 games. And I think you also missed where Judge Doty has already given a verdict that the NFL was out of bounds with the 6 game suspension on Peterson. That they can not retroactively punish players. That they must adhere to their punishment when the transgression happened.

 

[Plankton]

I'm not sure you understand the concept of conflict of interest. In this case it's not debatable that there is a conflict of interest. But I guess I will anyway because you know "some people".

She has been a lifelong fan of the Giants with her and her family having season tickets for many years.
She painted her apartment in Giants colors. A reasonable person could conclude that she doesn't like the Giants main rivals and therefore shouldn't be allowed to decide cases that could punish these teams. The is very simple and doesn't is idiot term proof (like tinfoil and the like).

Furthermore, does she know more about the case than the prosecuter who chose not to persue the case when he could by law without the witness. An accuser who had inconsistencies in her account and was possibly under the influence of cocaine and alcohol at the time of the event. Which would create plenty of doubt in an actual court of law.

These are some of the things I've read that were possibly wrong with the case. I'm sure you've read all the transcripts and can fill me in on other aspects of the case.

The Darren Woodson example was stupider than the tin foil crap. He was paid by the Cowboys. I'm sure many players have NFL teams they like before they are drafted. I'm sure NFL disciplinary officials or whatever should not. Especially if they are very vested in being a fan. To discount that is to be neive at best.

And the woman is paid by the league, not the Giants per say.

At least I am honest enough to admit that I have no idea what happened between Hardy and Holder that night. You seem to think that you know. The prosecutor did decide not to proceed - there's a chance that the testimony would have been thrown out because Hardy would be deprived of the right to confront his accuser. Does that mean nothing happened that night? No, it doesn't. Legally, he has nothing against his name from that night.

The NFL made their decision based on PR - that is very clear. Hardy would have been hammered the same way no matter where he played.

And yes, this is tin foil stuff here.

 

[DandyDon1722]

This isn't naivete - it's objectivity.

To impugn a person who was a respected prosecutor with eons of experience in this field because they are a Giant fan is silly. If anyone has bias in this, it's a fan of a team.

Seriously, put the tin foil hat away.

WHAT! Look what you just wrote then look at the OP - she is A FAN OF A TEAM! And yet you won't take her fandom into consideration but you question our skepticism?
Dude - honestly I wish we all lived in your world free of any agenda or bias. You're the lucky one.

Better just to stop right here.