DMN: What they're saying about Cowboys DE Greg Hardy: Suspension, second chances, and more

[iceberg]

It'll never happen but I wish all the photos were leaked to the public. People could then formulate an opinion of their own about whether the visual evidence constitutes abuse.

i think by now people have already made up their mind and any evidence shown will be dismissed, or pounced on, depending on the side but no one will suddenly go "oh, my gosh, i've been wrong all this time".

 

[tyke1doe]

so they have photos that at this late in the game, may or may not exist. so you're saying, as i read it, you have no problem handing a man a 10 game penalty cause photos "may exist" but have yet to be shown?

so this whole the NFL has evidence they've yet to show...

100% sheer and utter bullcrap. if this is what you're holding onto, dude, i suppose any port in a storm regardless of how stupid the port is.

First, you're overreacting. Settle down. Many are so quick to react that they don't comprehend what's actually being said.

Second, I say "may" for my purposes. I don't know what the NFL has. Neither do you. So I'm saying "may" from my perspective. The NFL knows what it has. I don't. You don't.

Third, the NFL hardly ever reveals its hands, particularly if it involves an investigation. You and I likely won't see those pictures unless someone leaks them, just like you wouldn't see the actual results of a drug test. That stuff is confidential.

In conclusion, I'm saying that the NFL likely has evidence of some sort. The NFL understands that it won't be able to win a case without some evidence. If they had NO evidence and proceeded with this case, Hardy's lawyers and the players union will shoot the NFL's case down like so many buckshots through paper.

The NFL has something. Now Hardy's lawyers may dispute the evidence, but the NFL isn't just going off collective memory.

And I'm not even saying that "something" is legitimate. I'm saying that "something" is some testimony, picture, video that can be interpreted to help the NFL's case against Hardy.

 

[tyke1doe]

It'll never happen but I wish all the photos were leaked to the public. People could then formulate an opinion of their own about whether the visual evidence constitutes abuse.

I agree.

 

[tyke1doe]

i think by now people have already made up their mind and any evidence shown will be dismissed, or pounced on, depending on the side but no one will suddenly go "oh, my gosh, i've been wrong all this time".

How do you know this? Many people change their minds if presented with enough evidence.

 

[irishline]

Apparently, the NFL has photos which indicate abuse. I don't know if they do or not. But I doubt very seriously the suspension is based simply on accusations and simply on the dismissal of the charges. Any lawyer can see that would be a losing proposition. The league must have something to base its decision - something legitimate and legal.

We'll see.

And apparently the NFL didn't find any other evidence showing the Patriots were taping anything other than that one walkthrough before they destroyed everything for some odd reason. Excuse me if I don't necessarily take their word for it. If its there let people see it and decide for themselves what occurred, not this "we saw it" line we keep being fed (or "we didn't see it" in the case of Ray Rice).

I agree.

Me too.

 

[iceberg]

First, you're overreacting. Settle down. Many are so quick to react that they don't comprehend what's actually being said.

Second, I say "may" for my purposes. I don't know what the NFL has. Neither do you. So I'm saying "may" from my perspective. The NFL knows what it has. I don't. You don't.

Third, the NFL hardly ever reveals its hands, particularly if it involves an investigation. You and I likely won't see those pictures unless someone leaks them, just like you wouldn't see the actual results of a drug test. That stuff is confidential.

In conclusion, I'm saying that the NFL likely has evidence of some sort. The NFL understands that it won't be able to win a case without some evidence. If they had NO evidence and proceeded with this case, Hardy's lawyers and the players union will shoot the NFL's case down like so many buckshots through paper.

The NFL has something. Now Hardy's lawyers may dispute the evidence, but the NFL isn't just going off collective memory.

And I'm not even saying that "something" is legitimate. I'm saying that "something" is some testimony, picture, video that can be interpreted to help the NFL's case against Hardy.

oh, i'm settled down. no ranting and raving over here just amazement at some things that by this point in time shouldn't amaze me anymore. you see, i'm not living in, or supporting a world of, "maybe". if you're going to punish someone, have evidence and see things through.

otherwise, in my opinion to be sure, this is nothing more than grandstanding for a populace demanding justice, however they can get it.

and that, in my opinion to be sure, is bullcrap.

 

[iceberg]

How do you know this? Many people change their minds if presented with enough evidence.

most don't. i see it all the time. you provide a counter point, they have it covered with "oh yea, but...". they provide their news, the other side counters with a "but that was..."

the simple fact of the matter is most people make up their minds and can twist future news on the subject to fit their initial view. if you've never seen it, um...ok.

 

[tyke1doe]

And apparently the NFL didn't find any other evidence showing the Patriots were taping anything other than that one walkthrough before they destroyed everything for some odd reason. Excuse me if I don't necessarily take their word for it. If its there let people see it and decide for themselves what occurred, not this "we saw it" line we keep being fed (or "we didn't see it" in the case of Ray Rice).

Sorry, but that aint gonna happen. That's not part of any routine investigation. Investigators don't reveal their information publicly, unless someone leaks it.

Besides, Spygate happened more than 10 years ago. This is a new day. New situation.

 

[tyke1doe]

oh, i'm settled down. no ranting and raving over here just amazement at some things that by this point in time shouldn't amaze me anymore. you see, i'm not living in, or supporting a world of, "maybe". if you're going to punish someone, have evidence and see things through.

How do you know the NFL doesn't have evidence?
You aren't a part of the investigation so you don't.

You're reacting based on your limited knowledge.

otherwise, in my opinion to be sure, this is nothing more than grandstanding for a populace demanding justice, however they can get it.

and that, in my opinion to be sure, is bullcrap.

You're entitled to your opinion. But your opinion is limited at best. And so is mine.

 

[Stash]

Apparently, the NFL has photos which indicate abuse. I don't know if they do or not. But I doubt very seriously the suspension is based simply on accusations and simply on the dismissal of the charges. Any lawyer can see that would be a losing proposition. The league must have something to base its decision - something legitimate and legal.

We'll see.

I think that's a big leap in logic, especially when it comes to the league's track record so far.

They've been told that their punishment of Ray Rice was unlawful - even with video evidence of him doing it.

They were then rebuked for their mishandling of Adrian Peterson's issue, which he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge on.

And now, they're trying to hand down punishment for something the courts could not and did not prove Greg Hardy was guilty of.

From where I sit, they're 0-3, and any assumption that they have any idea what they're doing is a false one.

If these alleged 'photos' weren't enough for a prosecutor to pursue a conviction, I don't see how they're enough for the league to make up an arbitrary 10-game suspension.

 

[irishline]

Sorry, but that aint gonna happen. That's not part of any routine investigation. Investigators don't reveal their information publicly, unless someone leaks it.

Besides, Spygate happened more than 10 years ago. This is a new day. New situation.

Oh I agree with you, my comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, more at the NFL's policy of "believe me because I say so".

And yes spygate was a decade ago, still over the last decade that policy of "we saw it, we didn't see it, take our word for it" apparently hasn't changed.

This is a new day, new situation, same NFL response.

 

[DallasEast]

i think by now people have already made up their mind and any evidence shown will be dismissed, or pounced on, depending on the side but no one will suddenly go "oh, my gosh, i've been wrong all this time".

I think specific mindset depends on each individual. I agree that some people stick to an opinion regardless of the relevance concerning more data. Thankfully not everyone shares that type of mindset. Some people do change their minds.

 

[tyke1doe]

most don't. i see it all the time. you provide a counter point, they have it covered with "oh yea, but...". they provide their news, the other side counters with a "but that was..."

the simple fact of the matter is most people make up their minds and can twist future news on the subject to fit their initial view. if you've never seen it, um...ok.

You generalize much.

First, you don't know what most people do. There's no way to know that.

Second, many people wouldn't change their minds. But many people would. It depends on the degree of the evidence.

Take the Ray Rice situation, for example. Many were ready to give him the benefit of the doubt. And then the tapes came out and public sentiment turned against him. If there were a secret tape of Hardy's encounter with his ex, and she was seen throwing herself against the wall, clawing at her own skin and yelling, "I'm going to ruin your career for good!" I'd say many people would change their minds.

I would.

 

[tyke1doe]

I think that's a big leap in logic, especially when it comes to the league's track record so far.

They've been told that their punishment of Ray Rice was unlawful - even with video evidence of him doing it.

They were then rebuked for their mishandling of Adrian Peterson's issue, which he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge on.

And now, they're trying to hand down punishment for something the courts could not and did not prove Greg Hardy was guilty of.

From where I sit, they're 0-3, and any assumption that they have any idea what they're doing is a false one.

If these alleged 'photos' weren't enough for a prosecutor to pursue a conviction, I don't see how they're enough for the league to make up an arbitrary 10-game suspension.

With all due respect, apple and orange comparison.

My comparison is evidence vs. no-evidence.
Your comparison is inconsistent/unfair justice in past cases equates to inconsistent/unfair justice in Hardy's case.

Even with your example, the NFL DID have evidence with respect to Ray Rice's case (it had his own testimony and, later, the video of him punching his fiancé.) and Adrian Peterson's case. That's not in dispute.

I'm not arguing that the NFL handled either case according to its own rules. In fact, I don't think it did.

Nevertheless, it had SOMETHING to base its suspension on. That's MY point. And because that has been consistent, I suspect (though I'm not sure) that the NFL has something in this case. It could be a picture of Hardy's ex with scratches on her face. Maybe those scratches were self-inflicted, maybe not. But that is likely the "evidence" that the NFL is working from.

I can't believe this case would go anywhere if the NFL had absolutely nothing* on which to base its suspension, especially since the case against Hardy was dismissed.

*And by "nothing" I mean the NFL likely has something it can interpret to mean that Hardy did something amiss.

 

[tyke1doe]

Oh I agree with you, my comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, more at the NFL's policy of "believe me because I say so".

And yes spygate was a decade ago, still over the last decade that policy of "we saw it, we didn't see it, take our word for it" apparently hasn't changed.

This is a new day, new situation, same NFL response.

Fair enough.

 

[iceberg]

I think specific mindset depends on each individual. I agree that some people stick to an opinion regardless of the relevance concerning more data. Thankfully not everyone shares that type of mindset. Some people do change their minds.

yea, i've been known to so i guess i'm really just talking about those who make up their minds based on a headline, or that mindset. you and tyke are right about that one.

there. even i can do it.

 

[Stash]

With all due respect, apple and orange comparison.

My comparison is evidence vs. no-evidence.
Your comparison is inconsistent/unfair justice in past cases equates to inconsistent/unfair justice in Hardy's case.

I think showing a clear pattern of ineptitude by the league is more than relevant in this case. They have proven themselves inept in their handling of these cases from the Ray Rice situation to the current day. They get no benefit of the doubt.

Even with your example, the NFL DID have evidence with respect to Ray Rice's case (it had his own testimony and, later, the video of him punching his fiancé.) and Adrian Peterson's case. That's not in dispute.

I'm not arguing that the NFL handled either case according to its own rules. In fact, I don't think it did.

Nevertheless, it had SOMETHING to base its suspension on. That's MY point. And because that has been consistent, I suspect (though I'm not sure) that the NFL has something in this case. It could be a picture of Hardy's ex with scratches on her face. Maybe those scratches were self-inflicted, maybe not. But that is likely the "evidence" that the NFL is working from.

I can't believe this case would go anywhere if the NFL had absolutely nothing* on which to base its suspension, especially since the case against Hardy was dismissed.

*And by "nothing" I mean the NFL likely has something it can interpret to mean that Hardy did something amiss.

I'd like to know what the 'something' they had to base this 10-game suspension on was? Certainly nothing in their own rules of conduct when it transpired, and certainly nothing in their cobbled-together new set either.

The one in place at the time of the accusation was 2-games and their new and improve version says 6. But, somehow, the number 10 comes out of it?

The NFL can 'interpret' laws and personal rights however they want if they want to keep being taken to court and risk eventual government inquiries into their business.

 

[jobberone]

bullcrap.

accusations alone should not warrant a suspension. if that is now the case, all you have to do is cry foul on someone and they're penalized.

I agree if it is a he said she said

 

[DallasEast]

Let's insert some reality into the discussion.

Evidence is not always perceived the same by observers. For example, one trial judge may consider presented evidence was overwhelming damaging while another trial judge might review the exact same evidence and determine it is not as severe as originally thought. Similarly, all business entities do not define presented evidence the same. One business owner may terminate an employee instantly because he or she feels the evidence presented against the employee is too damaging. A competing business owner might feel the employee is being judged too harshly according to the given facts and simply suspend the employee instead.

These are simplified examples but I believe they accurately suggest that evidence is not unilaterally consumed, acknowledged, and acted upon by all. I would like to know what evidence did the North Carolina trial judge and the NFL act upon. It would help me decide whether the trial judge was justified or overly zealous defining the evidence. And it would aid me to weigh how much the evidence pollutes the league's integrity enough to circumvent current conduct policy.

 

[big dog cowboy]

accusations alone should not warrant a suspension.

It shouldn't. Goodell might have a different take.