Should Hardy Appeal, or Nah?

[ABQCOWBOY]

Man, I want a guy like you to be commish rather than what we got.

Not me. Somebody who is much, much smarter then me and believe me, there are plenty out there. The NFL needs somebody who is smart enough to understand exactly what the NFL is and why it's successful.

 

[Little Jr]

It may be funny but it's also true. There was a considerable amount of discussion around this case, on this board, before Hardy was ever signed. This is not an issue that has only become important since we signed him. Now, if you want to say that it's gotten even more focus since Hardy has become a Cowboy, I think that's a fair statement but the idea that it's only become important to Cowboy Fans since he's become a Cowboy is not factual. I can't say, one way or the other, about if people have changed opinions. I can say that my opinion has not changed but I don't know about everybody, per say. Just an FYI.

I was around and I find it funny.

 

[JoeKing]

Not me. Somebody who is much, much smarter then me and believe me, there are plenty out there. The NFL needs somebody who is smart enough to understand exactly what the NFL is and why it's successful.

You underestimate yourself if you think you are not smart enough. Less book smarts and more common sense is what is needed. Just be consistent.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

If anything, this thread has proven folks are more than willing to express an opinion based more on emotion than applicable facts.

I believe that trait extends well past this message board's boundaries, from coast to coast and to both borders. The "nice" thing about basing your opinions on emotions is that you don't require facts, you are now free to fervently express your opinion on everything using your shallowest reasoning and baser instincts.

 

[JoeKing]

I believe that trait extends well past this message board's boundaries, from coast to coast and to both borders. The "nice" thing about basing your opinions on emotions is that you don't require facts, you are now free to fervently express your opinion on everything using your shallowest reasoning and baser instincts.

...and that's sadly the way too many live their lives these days.

 

[Rogah]

Yes you did and the bolded part below in your earlier post is what I responded to. You used the lack of 'public outcry' of him being 'actually innocent' as implication he was guilty. I never said you used evidence but I pointed out using the alleged lack of public response to imply guilt is absurd.

No, I am using the lack of public outcry as evidence that the public thinks he is guilty. There has been a lot of debate regarding how the general non-Cowboys-fan views Hardy. My statement is most people (outside this forum) think he is guilty.

To simplify my arguments:

What I am saying: There was no outcry when Hardy was suspended 10 games, therefore the public believes he is guilty. If they thought he was innocent, people would be upset at the huge punishment.

What I am NOT saying: There was no outcry when Hardy was suspended 10 games, therefore he is guilty.

There is a subtle, but very important, distinction in those 2 statements.

All the rest of your post is the same old "People who agree with me are open minded, people who disagree with me are closed minded" silliness.

 

[casmith07]

Personally, I think the NFL over reached by leveraging "conduct detrimental." Conduct detrimental is loosely defined (to be kind) yet is was cited in both the 10-game and 4-game reduction. Nothing changed other than the NFL realizing they over reached (IMO). I would use this along with recent precedent (Rice/Peterson) to further reduce to 2 games (max).

I agree entirely. My two-part advice, on both ends takes that into account.

In my write-up, I would advise him to just let it go and focus on Week 5 -- it's already been a circus and this is one of those hot button issues you want to just go away.

As a practical point, however, and attorney, I would be fighting it because the NFL absolutely has overreached in even the reduction. Hardy should be suspended for no more than 2 games, maximum, in accordance with the ruling by Judge Doty in the Peterson case and in accordance with the pre-Ray Rice policy. Leveraging "conduct detrimental" is essentially the NFL finding a cheap way to attempt to circumvent well-established rules.

 

[Rogah]

There is also the possibility that folks opinions evolve as they inform themselves more and more about the case. I know mine did.

Yes it's amazing how the opinions of this forum "evolved" as Hardy went from:

Panther ----> Free Agent ---> Cowboy

 

[JoeKing]

No, I am using the lack of public outcry as evidence that the public thinks he is guilty. There has been a lot of debate regarding how the general non-Cowboys-fan views Hardy. My statement is most people (outside this forum) think he is guilty.

To simplify my arguments:

What I am saying: There was no outcry when Hardy was suspended 10 games, therefore the public believes he is guilty. If they thought he was innocent, people would be upset at the huge punishment.

What I am NOT saying: There was no outcry when Hardy was suspended 10 games, therefore he is guilty.

There is a subtle, but very important, distinction in those 2 statements.

All the rest of your post is the same old "People who agree with me are open minded, people who disagree with me are closed minded" silliness.

You said that so carefully it appears you are attempting to convince yourself that it's true more than anyone else... b/c I can tell you, no ones is buying what you are selling.

 

[JoeKing]

Yes it's amazing how the opinions of this forum "evolved" as Hardy went from:

Panther ----> Free Agent ---> Cowboy

But is the shift from Panther to Cowboy mutual exclusive to the evolved opinions or is it coincidental? I can only speak for myself. I evolved to my present opinion before he signed with the Cowboys.

 

[Rogah]

You said that so carefully it appears you are attempting to convince yourself that it's true more than anyone else... b/c I can tell you, no ones is buying what you are selling.

Newsflash: I said it carefully because it is obviously something that was misunderstood the first time I said it.

 

[JoeKing]

Newsflash: I said it carefully because it is obviously something that was misunderstood the first time I said it.

Okay, but that's not how it came across. Being understood is obviously important to you. Ironically you misunderstand Hardy. That disconnect is not lost on the many folks that keep hounding you about your position on Hardy. So much so that you repeatedly accuse one person of saying something that someone else said. All the arrows coming your way and you do your best at dodging and deflecting. I wish you well my friend, I just wish you put the same effort forward to understand others as much as you put forth to get yourself understood.

 

[Garrettop]

Since when did public opinion have any sort of cause and effect relationship with the veracity of allegations? Why is it even brought up? Hardy is either guilty of something or not, but "people think he dun it!" is irrelevant here. The fact that the whole thing went away as far as it concerns the legal system, even within our current PC, guilty until proven innocent, machomanhating culture, speaks many more volumes about the alleged victim's veracity than any millions of 'Murkans who think he dun it.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Yes it's amazing how the opinions of this forum "evolved" as Hardy went from:

Panther ----> Free Agent ---> Cowboy

Not amazing, expected.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yes it's amazing how the opinions of this forum "evolved" as Hardy went from:

Panther ----> Free Agent ---> Cowboy

So is this what you are left with? Taking shots at us because we're Cowboys fans?

You won't even argue the inconvenient facts particularly regarding Holder. You ignore them and that in and of itself makes you seem intellectually dishonest. This whining about potential bias in the face of your explicit bias towards facts makes you completely disingenuous.

It's why you're reviled and having people tell you to go away. You going robot explains some things and you don't eat your feedback at all. I'm trying to figure out if it's feigned or if you really are just this antisocial.

 

[Nightman]

Yes it's amazing how the opinions of this forum "evolved" as Hardy went from:

Panther ----> Free Agent ---> Cowboy

What is laughable is that you and Little D have stood on the "He is woman beater" side and even exaggerated his charges in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary. Your whole argument is that he is guilty because he was charged and you don't care what anyone else says or proves. Nicole Holder could come out and say she made it up and you wouldn't change your stance.

That is ignorance by choice.

 

[Kaiser]

Yes it's amazing how the opinions of this forum "evolved" as Hardy went from:

Panther ----> Free Agent ---> Cowboy

This is nonsense. There were multiple threads with long discussions about this topic back in January exactly because most of the informed posters here said they didn't want a guy who beats women on the team but had done their homework about Hardy's case.

Those threads got deleted exactly because of the shoot first, read the facts later crowd. But if you do a search for Hardy's name back in January, you will see this thread about general options for FA signings -

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/which-of-these-free-agent-dl-do-you-guys-want.313832/

There are five posts saying they want Hardy if he is innocent and three that want Hardy who don't mention the legal situation.

There is absolutely no one saying they don't want him who has now changed their tune.

 

[Nightman]

If a video came out and showed he instigated and elevated the physical dispute, I would be disappointed and surprised but I would have no problem saying he was wrong and should be punished. I would still argue the rules of the League should be applied evenly but once we acknowledge that punishment and not banishment is the course of action, then we are just arguing the number of games he should be punished.

That is the funny thing about this whole story. If Goodell gave Rice 4 games initially instead of following the rules with the 2 games this whole controversy would not have erupted. We are just arguing about the extent of the punishment, not whether these men should even be given a second chance. Even the "new" policy is 6 games. Is that really throwing down the hammer of justice?

I have come to terms that my team will have less than honorable men on it. Some are worse than others but drawing that line in the sand sounds like a fools folly.

 

[Jarv]

Not me. Somebody who is much, much smarter then me and believe me, there are plenty out there. The NFL needs somebody who is smart enough to understand exactly what the NFL is and why it's successful.

Don't sell yourself short, but also, it is widely known that Condoleezza Rice has said that it would be her dream job....Funny when many would follow her as president, she wants the commish job.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Don't sell yourself short, but also, it is widely known that Condoleezza Rice has said that it would be her dream job....Funny when many would follow her as president, she wants the commish job.

LOL... Maybe she knows something we don't. Heck, maybe she knows something we are all seeing now. LOL....... It's probably the latter.