Greg Hardy's appeal is this week (May 28th)

[JohnnyHopkins]

I think it is interesting that the NFL has to fight this when the NC Court system and the accuser have gone on about their business. From a moral perspective, most people on this board would hate being in a room with this guy if his actions were in fact true per the accuser. I know I would be. A woman beater gets to walk away. But, that is on the NC Court system and they should be the ones that people are pointing their fingers at, not the NFL. The NFL needs to do what they agreed to do in the collective bargaining agreement and stop taking up the moral torch for the masses.

 

[tyke1doe]

Yeah, because he's being tried in a court of public opinion and not on facts. It's a matter of principle for me. The fact that he's a Cowboy irks me a little more, but objectively speaking, it's pretty absurd.

Additionally, I don't believe a CEO, Board member, manager, or Commissioner should be able to wield the magic gavel in any circumstance that can cause an innocent man to be punished under an umbrella term like "conduct detrimental to the league", or basically, image. Obviously, in extreme instances, it's justifiable. Not here.

That's like your boss firing you for someone accusing you of a crime you didn't commit, outside of the workplace. "Tom, that Public Intoxication ticket you got the other night.. well, we're going to have to let you go. I know they dropped all charges, but you have to go or get suspended without pay."

The NFL thinks it's "brand" is more important than the US legal system. That bothers me a lot.

You may not like it, but it happens ALL THE TIME.

A company has a right to protect its image. Even when a situation is unjust or even if an employee has been cleared legally, if the damage to the company's reputation is too great, the employee won't be brought back on board.

 

[boysfanindc]

I also think the NFLPA has realized that they need to fight this.

They not only need too, they want too. It is all about the precedents they allow to be set around the CBA.

They hope and want to take this to court.

 

[jazzcat22]

They will reduce it to 4 games, therefore setting a precedence so they can reduce Brady's games to 1. This will appease the Steeler fans for opening game.

This then makes all happy. Hardy only missing 4 instead of 10, when it should really be 2. But better than 10. Cowboys fans accept it, though still feel ripped off a bit. JJ takes a sip of JWB.

Then the favorites come in to play. Steelers don't face Brady. Steelers fans happy.
Brady 1 game, not 4, Kraft and Brady accept, Goodell did them another favor slap on the wrist. Patriot fans are still angry, still banning honeymoons and such. Can't accept 1 game.
Giants & Eagles fans still a bit upset, though Goodell still got Hardy suspended for at least one of their games, but had to settle. Promises Mara something in return in the future. Promises the Eagles another 3rd rate QB.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

My opinion hasn't really changed on this. I thought it would be two games before the suspension was handed down and I still believe that it will eventually be two games. Maybe less.

 

[EPL0c0]

Hardy shouldn't have to pay for Ray Rice and whatever may have happened with McDonald.

Hardy has a clean history and no official charges. 10 games is absurd.

The flip side is that if the NFL continues to claim that Hardy's explanations are "not credible" then that could bode poorly for Tom Brady.

Otherwise, if they plan to cut Brady's suspension, then no doubt Hardy's would have to be cut as well.

We'll see how "consistant" Goodell and the league are as far as punishments go.

 

[TheDude]

The vast majority of companies don't have a policy in place that limits DV punishment either. If your job had a policy that stated you could only be suspended without pay for 2 weeks, but suspended you for 2 months you would be okay with that? Because that's what is happening.

"In the real world" you can't be punished beyond the maximum punishment be it a job or court, so why is the NFL exempt from this? Can you explain that?

There's c personal conduct policies at all companies. Right to work states (i.e. most jobs) can fire you for essentially any subjective thing they can tie an action to that policy. Even posts on facebook

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The flip side is that if the NFL continues to claim that Hardy's explanations are "not credible" then that could bode poorly for Tom Brady.

Otherwise, if they plan to cut Brady's suspension, then no doubt Hardy's would have to be cut as well.

We'll see how "consistant" Goodell and the league are as far as punishments go.

The Brady issue and Hardy's issue are completely different IMO. I honestly don't think Brady is going to be able to do much, where as in the case of Hardy, I think the NFL is going to get a beat down, once again.

 

[Idgit]

What? If found guilty he could have gone to jail. That is harsher than any amount of games. The only reason these appeals are going to court is that the league is not following the CBA and policies that were in place at the time of the incidents. Judge Doty ruled that the league had to apply the policies in place and sent it back to the arbitrator who has dragged his feet and not issued a new ruling based on the old policies. They aren't going to court to get a judge to overrule the punishments and be more lenient. They are basically saying the league is in breach of contract. It is still the league that will have to hand out the final punishments but they will have to do it by the specific policies that the judge rules apply for that case.

The bench trial conviction was a misdemeanor charge that carried with it a sentence of18 months of probation. He wasn't going to jail.

 

[AzorAhai]

There's c personal conduct policies at all companies. Right to work states (i.e. most jobs) can fire you for essentially any subjective thing they can tie an action to that policy. Even posts on facebook

Thats not what I was talking about in my post. Does whatever company you work for have a domestic violence policy? A specific policy aimed at DV? If they don't then your comparison means jack. It's not complicated, people are just making it so by using their moral compass instead of heads. The NFL had a SPECIFIC POLICY aimed at DV. They cannot circumvent that policy just because it suits them at the time.

I see you didn't answer the question either. If your job had a set max punishment of 2 weeks suspension without pay for a violation of the conduct policy, but instead suspended you for 2 months without pay whats your reaction? By your comment you would obviously willingly accept it right?

 

[Jarv]

The Brady issue and Hardy's issue are completely different IMO. I honestly don't think Brady is going to be able to do much, where as in the case of Hardy, I think the NFL is going to get a beat down, once again.

I agree, Hardy cooperated with the NFL, allowing the courts to release the photos's from evidence after his case was dismissed. Brady, on the other hand, withheld evidence and did not cooperate with the NFL investigation.

 

[big dog cowboy]

They will reduce it to 4 games, therefore setting a precedence so they can reduce Brady's games to 1. This will appease the Steeler fans for opening game.

Why do the Stealer fans need appeased? What makes them so special?

 

[popp1234]

My opinion hasn't really changed on this. I thought it would be two games before the suspension was handed down and I still believe that it will eventually be two games. Maybe less.

I really hope you are right, but I would not be surprised if it is upheld.

 

[phildadon86]

You may not like it, but it happens ALL THE TIME.

A company has a right to protect its image. Even when a situation is unjust or even if an employee has been cleared legally, if the damage to the company's reputation is too great, the employee won't be brought back on board.

If they cared about protecting their image wouldnt Brady have gotten a season long suspension?

 

[EPL0c0]

I agree, Hardy cooperated with the NFL, allowing the courts to release the photos's from evidence after his case was dismissed. Brady, on the other hand, withheld evidence and did not cooperate with the NFL investigation.

Personally, I'd like to see both playing Week 5 so Pats fans can't whine about "If Brady was out there..."

 

[TheDude]

Thats not what I was talking about in my post. Does whatever company you work for have a domestic violence policy? A specific policy aimed at DV? If they don't then your comparison means jack. It's not complicated, people are just making it so by using their moral compass instead of heads. The NFL had a SPECIFIC POLICY aimed at DV. They cannot circumvent that policy just because it suits them at the time.

I see you didn't answer the question either. If your job had a set max punishment of 2 weeks suspension without pay for a violation of the conduct policy, but instead suspended you for 2 months without pay whats your reaction? By your comment you would obviously willingly accept it right?

doesn't have to be a DV policy. Guy I know was fired for telling an off color kardashian joke at dinner that a colleague complained to HR.

Another was fired for making the papers trying to solicit a prostitute.

While I know those items are much more egregious than DV, it all falls under the same personal conduct policy most companies make you sign and acknowledge. If you feel it was a illegitimate termination, you can sue. Those are rarely won against private companies. Whether I would like it or not, that is the way it is.

Most companies don't have a legal code matrix of punishment. Typically it is zero tolerance. The NFL has a union with a labor agreement. Comparing the NFL to a right to work company is a moot point. but you are correct the letter of the labor agreement should supercede all other items.

The point is there have been many more railroaded employees in the private sector than in the NFL. Only difference is NFLPA has more recourse legally. the rest is posteuring

 

[Nightman]

The NFL has already won.

They even have Cowboys fans convinced that taking 6 games would be a "good" outcome because they overcharged him originally with a 10 games.

He should get 0 based on precedence and shop law because there was no conviction.

Hardy is the last player that gets adjudicated under the old rules but the NFL is still playing games since the Peterson appeal to the Eighth Circuit hasn't been heard yet.

 

[Hoofbite]

If they cared about protecting their image wouldnt Brady have gotten a season long suspension?

To think this you'd have to first believe that what Brady did is more damaging to the league's image than the perception of being lenient on DV offenders would be.

 

[AzorAhai]

doesn't have to be a DV policy. Guy I know was fired for telling an off color kardashian joke at dinner that a colleague complained to HR.

Another was fired for making the papers trying to solicit a prostitute.

While I know those items are much more egregious than DV, it all falls under the same personal conduct policy most companies make you sign and acknowledge. If you feel it was a illegitimate termination, you can sue. Those are rarely won against private companies. Whether I would like it or not, that is the way it is.

Most companies don't have a legal code matrix of punishment. Typically it is zero tolerance. The NFL has a union with a labor agreement. Comparing the NFL to a right to work company is a moot point. but you are correct the letter of the labor agreement should supercede all other items.

The point is there have been many more railroaded employees in the private sector than in the NFL. Only difference is NFLPA has more recourse legally. the rest is posteuring

Thats exactly why people trying to compare the two just need to stop. Personal employers usually have a broad policy and can fire you for whatever offense they deem worthy, particularly those without a union. If they did have a set penalty for an offense, they could not punish further than that. It's extremely simple. Nobody in their right mind is going to accept a punishment beyond the maximum punishment and they shouldn't have to.

People always throw the "in the real world" line out, and to me it screams envy. The NFL players do operate in the real world, just not the same one 99% of people get to see. Like everyone else, if they break a rule of their employer, they should be punishable up to the full extent of whatever their conduct policy calls for, not above that.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

My guess is....Reduced to 6 games he comes back in the 7th game full of pee and vinegar, gets a sack and proceeds to tear his acl and we never see him an a Cowboys uniform again.