NBC: Report: NFL likely to suspend Joseph Randle over February incident

[Idgit]

Well, if the legal system was capable of conducting a proper investigation, the NFL wouldn't have to conduct its own to find out what really happened.

NFL really doesn't need to be in the business of doing criminal investigations. They built their own monster accepting PR responsibility for every single offseason incident when they didn't really have to. This stuff perpetuates itself because you've got 2,000 rich young men hopped up on testosterone and opportunities to get into trouble.

They should be letting police handle these situations and acting accordingly. If they want to counter domestic violence issues, spend money time and effort hleping the cause. Same for gun violence, or whatever the chief issue of the day is. The league can be above the actions of isolated players if they don't keep doing stupid things to keep incidents like Randle's in the spotlight months after they happened in the first place.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I think Randle has more problems than just his back.

Other than the suspension? Losing snaps to DMC would not really be a reason to consider whether or not to appeal.

 

[CowboyGil]

IMO only drawback to him being suspended is the O Line knows him better than McFadden or CMike. But I think DMC and CMike are a better 1-2 punch

 

[CowboyStar88]

IMO only drawback to him being suspended is the O Line knows him better than McFadden or CMike. But I think DMC and CMike are a better 1-2 punch

Don't think that was a problem last week.. Also they Practiced with DMC during Spring/Summer and now 6 weeks into the season

 

[LandryFan]

You really think Budweiser would drop the nfl and let Coors or whoever take over their spot as official sponsor because so and so player wasn't suspended for a crime he wasn't found guilty of? No chance.

Just last season, the league used the "Commissioner's Exempt List" to accommodate the Adrian Peterson situation, if I'm not mistaken. Prior to that incident, very few even knew such a tool existed. It was in reaction to a major sponsor (Hyatt?) threatening to drop their sponsorship of the Vikings if he stayed on the team. At that point in time, Peterson hadn't been found guilty of anything, as I recall. Hardy ended up on the same list. Why? Fear of public backlash (which, in turn, means sponsor backlash). Yes, I think the NFL is extremely mindful of sponsor reaction to these incidents. Political correctness rules these days and the NFL knows it.

 

[tyke1doe]

On a separate note, I'd like to see some criticism come the NFL's way for yet another ridiculous and pathetic handling of a player behavior issue.

The league absolutely sucks at handling these things. There's zero excuse for a February incident being handled in Oct/Nov midway through a season.

I agree. I'm not against the policy, but the timing is simply awful. Imagine if we had actually needed him, and the NFL steps in and says, "Your leading back needs to sit two games".

 

[Vtwin]

The way the NFL reacts to these things...
The way the media reacts to these things....
The way the sponsors react to these things....

Is nothing more than a reflection of ourselves and the society we have created.

It's a sad state of affairs and I hope beyond hope that pendulum starts to swing back the other way.

 

[tyke1doe]

The way the NFL reacts to these things...
The way the media reacts to these things....
The way the sponsors react to these things....

Is nothing more than a reflection of ourselves and the society we have created.

It's a sad state of affairs and I hope beyond hope that pendulum starts to swing back the other way.

I like your post because you said "we" help create this problem.

 

[cowboyblue22]

every body is on a huge kick to cure the world of all its wrongs and make every thing right

 

[Stash]

Well, if the legal system was capable of conducting a proper investigation, the NFL wouldn't have to conduct its own to find out what really happened.

Or perhaps the NFL is the entity making the mistake? The legal system sure told them that they were wrong about Brady, and their own arbitrator told them they were wrong about Hardy.

Based on their track record this far, the league gets no benefit of the doubt from me. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Stash]

I agree. I'm not against the policy, but the timing is simply awful. Imagine if we had actually needed him, and the NFL steps in and says, "Your leading back needs to sit two games".

Same here. The league needs a policy in place, but what they have is just a mess. And the execution is that much worse. I think it's a joke that a billion dollar industry can't get its' act together on this key issue.

 

[erod]

Or perhaps the NFL is the entity making the mistake? The legal system sure told them that they were wrong about Brady, and their own arbitrator told them they were wrong about Hardy.

Based on their track record this far, the league gets no benefit of the doubt from me. Quite the opposite in fact.

He put his fist through a windshield in a dispute with his baby mama.

 

[Stash]

He put his fist through a windshield in a dispute with his baby mama.

From everything I've read, none of her claims were ever confirmed. Do you have any verification that they were proven to be true because I haven't seen that.

 

[erod]

From everything I've read, none of her claims were ever confirmed. Do you have any verification that they were proven to be true because I haven't seen that.

Here's the thing. It's out there, I'm sure, but I don't even care to look for it. Mike Fisher has done stories on it.

I just don't care. He's not good enough too even care. He's disposable.

 

[BoysfanfromCanada]

Just last season, the league used the "Commissioner's Exempt List" to accommodate the Adrian Peterson situation, if I'm not mistaken. Prior to that incident, very few even knew such a tool existed. It was in reaction to a major sponsor (Hyatt?) threatening to drop their sponsorship of the Vikings if he stayed on the team. At that point in time, Peterson hadn't been found guilty of anything, as I recall. Hardy ended up on the same list. Why? Fear of public backlash (which, in turn, means sponsor backlash). Yes, I think the NFL is extremely mindful of sponsor reaction to these incidents. Political correctness rules these days and the NFL knows it.

I think sponsors will threaten to leave, but the nfl is a huge money maker, I doubt they'd go ahead with it. These companies are just trying to improve their pr because they're probably getting pressure on themselves directly for being connected, but they don't want to lose sponsorship

Look at the scandal going on at Fifa, the big sponsors like Coke and Bud are asking Blatter to resign due to the corruption allegations, but they're not ever going to cancel their contract. If they did Pepsi would be lining up to have their name on the biggest tourney in the world

 

[cowboyblue22]

garrett said in his presser this morning randle will not play because of injury this week or practice and that he was excused yesterday to leave on a personal business

 

[Sydla]

On a separate note, I'd like to see some criticism come the NFL's way for yet another ridiculous and pathetic handling of a player behavior issue.

The league absolutely sucks at handling these things. There's zero excuse for a February incident being handled in Oct/Nov midway through a season.

They keep stepping on their crank. You'd think after all these screw ups they eventually would figure out how to do it properly.

 

[LandryFan]

I think sponsors will threaten to leave, but the nfl is a huge money maker, I doubt they'd go ahead with it. These companies are just trying to improve their pr because they're probably getting pressure on themselves directly for being connected, but they don't want to lose sponsorship

Look at the scandal going on at Fifa, the big sponsors like Coke and Bud are asking Blatter to resign due to the corruption allegations, but they're not ever going to cancel their contract. If they did Pepsi would be lining up to have their name on the biggest tourney in the world

You may be right about the sponsors not being serious about pulling sponsorships, but the league doesn't seem willing to call their bluff if it is, indeed, a bluff. All the more reason why the league should have an outside review/sentencing process rather than play judge, jury, and executioner themselves.

 

[superonyx]

He put his fist through a windshield in a dispute with his baby mama.

When players put their fist into the other person it will warrant taking away 2 games of pay.
If Randle wants to break his window because he got mad during an argument then good for him.

I can't wait for the next time the players association and league need to negotiate a new contract. I can't see the players ever giving the league the authority over our countries legal system again.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

I don't completely agree, but there is some logic in what you say. The problem with that logic, though, is that the league as a whole would encounter a lot of lost revenue from sponsors if players weren't punished for some acts outside of football. If the league loses money, then the players, in turn, lose money in the long run.

the league will never lose sponsorship money or ticket sales over stuff like this.

hell, we ourselves love Irvin who was probably as big a bad *** as anyone in the NFL. Fans do not care as long as the players are good.