A "Rabid Giants Fan" Deals On Greg Hardy

[Plankton]

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?

How is my fandom coloring my views here at all? If I did, wouldn't I be claiming conspiracy and bias like you are?

 

[DogFace]

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.

She is a fan.
The Giants are a team.
So. Good point.

Again the tinfoil thing is genius. Where did it come from? Tell me more! It's sooooo clever.
I get it the tinfoil people believe in conspiracies and you're equating the people on here to them. That's really very brilliant.
How did you make that connection but not see the inconsistency in the above paragraph ?

 

[Plankton]

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.

The league absolutely overreached on this. There's no question about it, and I have never said otherwise.

The decision was not made because he is a Dallas Cowboy. It was made because he is an accused (though not convicted legally) domestic abuser whose case was the first one to be ruled on after the new domestic violence policy was enacted, and after Goodell put together his task force.

I don't believe for a minute that the league believes that the duration of the suspension will be upheld on appeal - they did it to look tough in the eyes of their critics.

 

[LandryFan]

Good observation - and I wouldn't put it past me to push the envelope a bit, but you know, it's one thing to be a fan, go to games, wear a jersey. I get that. But as an adult - in a position that she holds and the power she apparently wields, does it seem a bit strange that she has built "a shrine?" Doesn't that seem a but off - and if I was Roger, I sure as hell would advise her to tone the Giants stuff down a bit.

Whether you believe in this kind of stuff or not - The optics here from the league are just brutal.

In the eyes of many, perception=reality...the perception that fans can have of the fairness/unfairness of the decisions made by someone who openly roots for a particular team cannot be good for the league. The league was foolish to hire someone whose neutrality/objectivity could even possibly be questioned. Whether she's objective or not, we'll never truly know. I know this, though: She's human and, therefore, not infallible. People can lose objectivity and not even realize it. I would never have hired her.

 

[DogFace]

How is my fandom coloring my views here at all? If I did, wouldn't I be claiming conspiracy and bias like you are?

When did I say anything about your fandom?
You need to read more carefully and pay attention.

 

[Plankton]

She is a fan.
The Giants are a team.
So. Good point.

Again the tinfoil thing is genius. Where did it come from? Tell me more! It's sooooo clever.
I get it the tinfoil people believe in conspiracies and you're equating the people on here to them. That's really very brilliant.
How did you make that connection but not see the inconsistency in the above paragraph ?

The consistency comes from the fact that she was not the one making the decision - it was Goodell.

She was the investigator on the case. Seriously, you're seeing things here that don't exist. Hardy would have received the same suspension no matter what team he played for.

I can see where my earlier statement above would be interpreted in the way that you did. She's approaching her job as a league employee, not as a fan. I am willing to give someone a chance to demonstrate if they have a bias.

 

[speedkilz88]

The consistency comes from the fact that she was not the one making the decision - it was Goodell.

She was the investigator on the case. Seriously, you're seeing things here that don't exist. Hardy would have received the same suspension no matter what team he played for.

I can see where my earlier statement above would be interpreted in the way that you did. She's approaching her job as a league employee, not as a fan. I am willing to give someone a chance to demonstrate if they have a bias.

Your statements appear to be highly hypocritical.

 

[Plankton]

The consistency comes from the fact that she was not the one making the decision - it was Goodell.

She was the investigator on the case. Seriously, you're seeing things here that don't exist. Hardy would have received the same suspension no matter what team he played for.

I can see where my earlier statement above would be interpreted in the way that you did. She's approaching her job as a league employee, not as a fan. I am willing to give someone a chance to demonstrate if they have a bias.

Your statements appear to be highly hypocritical.

That's your interpretation and prerogative.

My statement, as I meant to state it and not word it poorly, is that a person who approaches a situation strictly as a fan is much more likely to demonstrate bias on an issue regarding their team than someone who may be a fan of a rival team, but approaching the same situation as their job.

The bias word against this woman is being thrown around without any knowledge of how she approached the investigation, what evidence was considered, what information was provided by Hardy and his attorney, and what her conclusion was. Keep in mind - she did not adjudicate the league decision on this - Roger Goodell did.

From what I can see, she was a respected prosecutor who was hired as part of a team to investigate these issues. She is hired to do a job, and is paid just as much by the Dallas Cowboys as she is by the New York Giants.

I can't say it enough - the decision, made by Roger Goodell, was done for PR purposes. If Greg Hardy were a Giant, Jet or any other teams' player, faced with the same allegation and evidence, based on the current rancor nationally on the issue and the NFL, he would have received the same suspension.

There is no bias here. The league isn't out to get the Cowboys. They are out to save their PR hide.

 

[erod]

You must not have read the OP. This is about a rabid Giants fan leading the investigation. This talk about the league being upset belongs in antother thread.

So only non-NFL fans need apply for that job?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So only non-NFL fans need apply for that job?

No. I'd be fine with a rabid Cowboy Fan.

 

[foofighters]

who cares? We beat them last year without Hardy.

 

[erod]

who cares? We beat them last year without Hardy.

Dallas has beaten them four times in a row. Soon to be six.

 

[speedkilz88]

No. I'd be fine with a rabid Cowboy Fan.

John Mara would never allow that.

 

[Rogerthat12]

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.

Why? I would want justice and to nail the guy to the wall for such abuse.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

John Mara would never allow that.

A perfect world scenario I suppose.......

 

[speedkilz88]

That's your interpretation and prerogative.

My statement, as I meant to state it and not word it poorly, is that a person who approaches a situation strictly as a fan is much more likely to demonstrate bias on an issue regarding their team than someone who may be a fan of a rival team, but approaching the same situation as their job.

The bias word against this woman is being thrown around without any knowledge of how she approached the investigation, what evidence was considered, what information was provided by Hardy and his attorney, and what her conclusion was. Keep in mind - she did not adjudicate the league decision on this - Roger Goodell did.

From what I can see, she was a respected prosecutor who was hired as part of a team to investigate these issues. She is hired to do a job, and is paid just as much by the Dallas Cowboys as she is by the New York Giants.

I can't say it enough - the decision, made by Roger Goodell, was done for PR purposes. If Greg Hardy were a Giant, Jet or any other teams' player, faced with the same allegation and evidence, based on the current rancor nationally on the issue and the NFL, he would have received the same suspension.

There is no bias here. The league isn't out to get the Cowboys. They are out to save their PR hide.

You just got caught with your own words.

 

[Plankton]

You just got caught with your own words.

No, I just worded it poorly, as I acknowledged.

Thanks for demonstrating your omniscience in knowing what I meant.

 

[Rogah]

Why? I would want justice and to nail the guy to the wall for such abuse.

That's very easy to say when it's a hypothetical, not quite so much in real life.

He was found guilty in the bench trial and given 18 months probation. So if you were the victim and you were offered (for example) $1,000,000 to disappear, I doubt you'd say "no way! I am going to personally see to it that he serves his probation!!"

 

[Rogerthat12]

That's very easy to say when it's a hypothetical, not quite so much in real life.

He was found guilty in the bench trial and given 18 months probation. So if you were the victim and you were offered (for example) $1,000,000 to disappear, I doubt you'd say "no way! I am going to personally see to it that he serves his probation!!"

Sorry, if I was a victim of such abuse, I would nail him to the wall and seek justice and sue him for damages.

Your scenario is a cash grab due to circumstances, if I were a true victim that would not be an option.

 

[speedkilz88]

Sorry, if I was a victim of such abuse, I would nail him to the wall and seek justice and sue him for damages.

Your scenario is a cash grab due to circumstances, if I were a true victim that would not be an option.

And you can still sue after a conviction.