Brady's appeal decision could come next week

[Echo9]

I don't know if 98% of none Cowboy Fans support him on this or not but I don't think that's the number Goodell should be concerned with. The number he should be concerned with is the percentage of players who will be willing to support him in an improved Rules agreement in the next CBA. He has to have the Unions support and that means that the players must want to see change. That only happens if the players feel as if the NFL, and more to the point, Goodell can be trusted. If there is no trust, no player is going to agree to stiffen penalties because all that does is allow for a bigger hammer for Goodell to beat them with, with no guarantee that he will even be fair about sticking to the agreed upon rules IMO

This is only one bit of anecdotal evidence here so it matters little. My brother in law is a Dolphin fan and hates the Cowboys, yet is convinced that the Hardy suspension is BS. Guess that puts him in the 2%.

 

[Tabascocat]

If Hardy did pay off Holder, is it legally bounded? Can she pop up in the future to stir up more trouble? Did she disappear in the Bermuda Triangle? So many questions..............

 

[ErikWilliamsHeadSlap]

"I can tell you at this point that we are exploring all options the she has at this point including legal remedies up and to including a civil lawsuit." - Daniel Zamora (Nicole Holder's attorney), 7/16/2014

Then, after having Hardy by the short 'n curlies, she conveniently, completely disappeared (figuratively speaking).

Keeping in mind that Hardy had just made $13 million, and would have a lot more money at stake going forward, it is not even remotely plausible that she got the verdict she wanted in the bench trial, threatened to sue, then totally dropped the matter with nary a word of complaint or even a lawyer firing a warning shot across the bow without receiving any payoff.

You realize of course all those options gets the attorney more money. I bet he was exploring the options. He has bills to pay. Just like Nicole Holder. Hence her visit that night.

 

[ErikWilliamsHeadSlap]

This is only one bit of anecdotal evidence here so it matters little. My brother in law is a Dolphin fan and hates the Cowboys, yet is convinced that the Hardy suspension is BS. Guess that puts him in the 2%.

Any normal person with just an average amount of intelligence can see there is no basis for an additional 10 games on top of the 15 already missed.

 

[5Stars]

If Hardy did in fact pay her off for not testifying, then why won't she be charged with extortion? Two wrongs don't make it right.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Hypothetically, if Romo was suspended for deflating footballs, how long would it take to get a ruling?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

These 10 games are with no pay. It'll get reduced.

Right, but the previous suspension was with pay.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is only one bit of anecdotal evidence here so it matters little. My brother in law is a Dolphin fan and hates the Cowboys, yet is convinced that the Hardy suspension is BS. Guess that puts him in the 2%.

All Football Fans should IMO. Next time, it could be their team.

 

[Echo9]

All Football Fans should IMO. Next time, it could be their team.

But aren't 98% in favor of Hardy's suspension? Or did I misread that in the previous posts earlier in the thread? It is possible I misread, but it seemed to be the gist.

 

[Rogah]

If Hardy did pay off Holder, is it legally bounded? Can she pop up in the future to stir up more trouble? Did she disappear in the Bermuda Triangle? So many questions..............

Out of court settlements generally have strict rules by which the party agrees to be completely silent on the matter. Sometimes that rule applies to both parties.

For example, after golden boy Peyton Manning settled his case for sexually assaulting a trainer when he was in college, he then he to give her ever more money after he talked about the incident during an ESPN interview.

 

[Rogah]

You realize of course all those options gets the attorney more money.

Actually I don't realize that - because it's not true.

I bet he was exploring the options. He has bills to pay. Just like Nicole Holder. Hence her visit that night.

He is not a criminal defense attorney. He probably wasn't billing at an hourly rate and probably didn't collect a dime until the cash settlement payout was received, then he took his cut.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Hypothetically, if Romo was suspended for deflating footballs, how long would it take to get a ruling?

Probably about the same time. The difference would be that Romo would have been suspended for an entire season not just 4 games.

 

[Nightman]

Actually I don't realize that - because it's not true.
He is not a criminal defense attorney. He probably wasn't billing at an hourly rate and probably didn't collect a dime until the cash settlement payout was received, then he took his cut.

Rogah and erod just make things up because they were paid off by Nicole Holder.

They will never admit the truth because they were bought off.

Every time they fight someone on the internet they get another $5.

 

[Rogah]

Rogah and erod just make things up because they were paid off by Nicole Holder.

I draw conclusions based on the evidence at hand. But no, I'm sure you're right. She hired a lawyer who specializes in civil suits and negotiations, he said she was going to sue him, she got the ruling she wanted in the bench trial, she had Hardy right where she wanted him, then just completely walked away out of the kindness of her heart. I'm sure she doesn't care about money in the slightest.

Essentially you want people to believe she flopped the nut flush but folded her hand. Sorry, just not even remotely plausible.

 

[Kevinicus]

I draw conclusions based on the evidence at hand. But no, I'm sure you're right. She hired a lawyer who specializes in civil suits and negotiations, he said she was going to sue him, she got the ruling she wanted in the bench trial, she had Hardy right where she wanted him, then just completely walked away out of the kindness of her heart. I'm sure she doesn't care about money in the slightest.

Essentially you want people to believe she flopped the nut flush but folded her hand. Sorry, just not even remotely plausible.

You're terrible at interpreting evidence or even understanding facts though. At least in this case. Critical thinking is lost completely when you ignore established facts for presumptions.

 

[Rogah]

You're terrible at interpreting evidence or even understanding facts though. At least in this case. Critical thinking is lost completely when you ignore established facts for presumptions.

Fact: She hired an attorney that specializes in civil litigation and negotiations
Fact: Hardy was found guilty in the bench trial
Fact: Her attorney said she was going to sue
Fact: Hardy made approx. $13 million from September to December
Fact: The DA, who is closer to this than any of us, stated there was a settlement
Fact: All of a sudden and from out of nowhere, she stopped pursuing the case, filed no lawsuit, and neither she nor her lawyer discusses it with anyone (media, lawyers, prosecutors, etc)

The logical deduction that there had to have been a settlement isn't just staring you right in the face, it is beating you mercilessly over the head with a baseball bat.

 

[Kevinicus]

Fact: She hired an attorney that specializes in civil litigation and negotiations
Fact: Hardy was found guilty in the bench trial
Fact: Her attorney said she was going to sue
Fact: Hardy made approx. $13 million from September to December
Fact: The DA, who is closer to this than any of us, stated there was a settlement
Fact: All of a sudden and from out of nowhere, she stopped pursuing the case, filed no lawsuit, and neither she nor her lawyer discusses it with anyone (media, lawyers, prosecutors, etc)

The logical deduction that there had to have been a settlement isn't just staring you right in the face, it is beating you mercilessly over the head with a baseball bat.

Like I said. You don't understand facts, because some of yours are wrong, and you ignore lots of others. No critical thinking to be found, only what you want to believe.

 

[Rogah]

Like I said. You don't understand facts, because some of yours are wrong, and you ignore lots of others. No critical thinking to be found, only what you want to believe.

Oh really? Which of my above facts are wrong? Please tell me what I have stated as "Fact" in that post which is not true.

I look forward to you ignoring that question.

 

[Wood]

according to florio (I know right) the NFL could be shooting themselves in foot by unnecessarily delaying ruling for Hardy. The judge might not look favorable upon it for NFL behalf.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/09/six-weeks-later-still-no-greg-hardy-ruling/

 

[robjay04]

according to florio (I know right) the NFL could be shooting themselves in foot by unnecessarily delaying ruling for Hardy. The judge might not look favorable upon it for NFL behalf.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/09/six-weeks-later-still-no-greg-hardy-ruling/

I would think that is plausible. I read some of the comments and one stuck out, something like the league is showing how incompetent they are by making someone like Hardy out to be a victim.

I would love if someone would do some research and see how long appeals typically take, I was under the impression it us usuaully 1-2 weeks. I would bet that Hardy has by far the longest appeal yet.