Should Hardy Appeal, or Nah?

[JoeKing]

I'm part of a Union. A powerful one at that.
They don't foot the bill for my every transgression. Nor my colleagues. I need to stop my transgressions...

The issue would be going to court to address the manner in which the suspension was handed out under the new policy and not the old policy which was in effect during the incident. So it is in the Unions purview to take up this case should Hardy decide to pursue it.

 

[rpntex]

I personally think it's a coing flip either way, as to whether he does decide to fight further. That being said, I think folks are downplaying the issue of control over when he serves whatever penalty is ultimately passed down. As it stands now, he's going to miss the first four games. If he decides to sue, he's at the mercy of the court as to not only how many (if any) games he sits, but almost as important - WHEN HE SERVES THEM. He has to weigh the very real possisbility that he ends up serving a two-game suspension in weeks 16 & 17, or worse, a four-game suspension and misses the entire stretch run - when he's needed most. People can say that's not a part of his thinking, but I can guarantee you that he not the only one doing the thinking here. Someone on his "team" has thought of this possibility, and you can make certain Hardy has been made aware of it.

Another thing that isn't being considered is his image. At some point he has to begin thinking about rebuilding his public image. Accepting the suspension as it is now would be one way to initiate that process. It's going to take more than that, but it's definitely a step in that direction. I imagine one of his advisors has made sure he's aware of this consideration as well.

I truly think that this is going to be the end of it. I expect him to accept the punishment as it is now, and move forward with the resurrection of his career.

 

[Nightman]

I personally think it's a coing flip either way, as to whether he does decide to fight further. That being said, I think folks are downplaying the issue of control over when he serves whatever penalty is ultimately passed down. As it stands now, he's going to miss the first four games. If he decides to sue, he's at the mercy of the court as to not only how many (if any) games he sits, but almost as important - WHEN HE SERVES THEM. He has to weigh the very real possisbility that he ends up serving a two-game suspension in weeks 16 & 17, or worse, a four-game suspension and misses the entire stretch run - when he's needed most. People can say that's not a part of his thinking, but I can guarantee you that he not the only one doing the thinking here. Someone on his "team" has thought of this possibility, and you can make certain Hardy has been made aware of it.

Another thing that isn't being considered is his image. At some point he has to begin thinking about rebuilding his public image. Accepting the suspension as it is now would be one way to initiate that process. It's going to take more than that, but it's definitely a step in that direction. I imagine one of his advisors has made sure he's aware of this consideration as well.

I truly think that this is going to be the end of it. I expect him to accept the punishment as it is now, and move forward with the resurrection of his career.

That is a fair point, but he also could drop his appeal at any time if things started to look bad.

If he got an injury during the first 4 weeks he drop the appeal to coincide with the injury. It happens in Baseball all the time.

If it was getting towards the end of the year he could always appeal the appeal to delay things until next season.

The criminal case won't be 're-tried' just the procedures of the NFL. He has millions to gain, let alone clearing his record. Any future suspensions will be more severe if he has a record.

 

[loublue22]

what is the downside?

I mean, he shouldn't have a suspension at all, so I'd fight it until there's nothing left to fight

 

[Rogah]

You are not getting out of this debate that easily.

What is it about people in this forum who announce things like "I'm done with you" or "There's no point in debate" and then don't have the fortitude to go away?

If you want to debate, that's fine. That's what the forum is for. Just don't be a KJJ and announce how you're done when you clearly can't stay away, not even for a little while.

Hardy has gone on record as saying that he will likely take the decision of the appeal to court if his suspension is not reduced to two games or less.

Oh really? When did he announce that on record? Exact date, quote and who said it, please.

 

[Rogah]

Why would evidence from a criminal case need to be introduced?

Because the NFL will want to justify why they did what they did.

 

[Kaiser]

Check it out. Thanks!

Great post, I'm hoping for a reduction to 2 games but its a great writeup.

 

[Rogah]

Out of the last 50 cases of DV, 16 times the player received 0 games if they weren't convicted. That is called precedence.

So by your own admission, the precedence is such that the league sometimes gives suspensions and sometimes doesn't.

By the way, since when do you care about precedence????

You want to play judge and jury and base justice on your opinions, but thank goodness your opinion doesn't count in this case.

Well I hate to break it to you, but public opinion counts for a great deal in this case. My own opinion is just one voice, but the overall public opinion does play a role.

 

[JoeKing]

What is it about people in this forum who announce things like "I'm done with you" or "There's no point in debate" and then don't have the fortitude to go away?

If you want to debate, that's fine. That's what the forum is for. Just don't be a KJJ and announce how you're done when you clearly can't stay away, not even for a little while.
Oh really? When did he announce that on record? Exact date, quote and who said it, please.

Before the appeal decision was handed down, it's was reported several times that he wanted the suspension reduced to 2 games or less or he may take it to court. It's a matter of public record... you look it up. Just because you are ignorant of this doesn't make it not so... it's like so many other things you are ignorant of... it's not other folks job to inform you. Do your own homework and inform yourself.

 

[Rogah]

Before the appeal decision was handed down, it's was reported several times that he wanted the suspension reduced to 2 games or less or he may take it to court. It's a matter of public record... you look it up.

Yes that was indeed reported, but that's not what you said. You said (direct quote, your words):

"Hardy has gone on record as saying that he will likely take the decision of the appeal to court if his suspension is not reduced to two games or less." - mrtxstar

Apparently you don't know what the phrase "gone on record" means. It's like so many other things you are ignorant of.

Just because you are ignorant of this doesn't make it not so... it's like so many other things you are ignorant of... it's not other folks job to inform you. Do your own homework and inform yourself.

You are the one who made the claim so it falls on you to support it. I can't prove a negative.

Dude, seriously. Just admit you made an honest mistake. It's really not that big of a deal. You actually look less foolish admitting you made an honest mistake than defending an incorrect statement whilst simultaneously accusing someone else of being ignorant.

 

[JoeKing]

Yes that was indeed reported, but that's not what you said. You said (direct quote, your words):

"Hardy has gone on record as saying that he will likely take the decision of the appeal to court if his suspension is not reduced to two games or less." - mrtxstar

Apparently you don't know what the phrase "gone on record" means. It's like so many other things you are ignorant of.
You are the one who made the claim so it falls on you to support it. I can't prove a negative.

Dude, seriously. Just admit you made an honest mistake. It's really not that big of a deal. You actually look less foolish admitting you made an honest mistake than defending an incorrect statement whilst simultaneously accusing someone else of being ignorant.

When you can't fight the message you resort to attacking the messenger. I found the "Hardy has gone on record" quote from an article talking about his options. Those weren't my words, they words in an article. Rather than informing yourself you still seem to be content in your ignorance and insistence it didn't happen. Just keep your head in the sand and maybe you will never see the evidence that proves you wrong.

http://www.rantsports.com/nfl/2015/...g-hardy-should-take-appeal-decision-to-court/

 

[Nightman]

So by your own admission, the precedence is such that the league sometimes gives suspensions and sometimes doesn't.

By the way, since when do you care about precedence????
Well I hate to break it to you, but public opinion counts for a great deal in this case. My own opinion is just one voice, but the overall public opinion does play a role.

The other cases had convictions, those are the ones that got suspensions

16 out of 50 had no convictions and no suspension
34 out of 50 had convictions or admissions and got 1 to 2 games

 

[Rogah]

When you can't fight the message you resort to attacking the messenger. I found the "Hardy has gone on record" quote from an article talking about his options. Those weren't my words, they words in an article.

And because you're ignorant of the subject matter at hand, you didn't know enough to know that that article (which I would bet exists only in your imagination) was wrong.

It's like so many other things you are ignorant of... it's not other folks job to inform you. Next time I suggest you do your own homework and inform yourself.

 

[JoeKing]

And because you're ignorant of the subject matter at hand, you didn't know enough to know that that article (which I would bet exists only in your imagination) was wrong.

It's like so many other things you are ignorant of... it's not other folks job to inform you. Next time I suggest you do your own homework and inform yourself.

The link to the article is on my previous post. Now apologize.

 

[Rogah]

The other cases had convictions, those are the ones that got suspensions

16 out of 50 had no convictions and no suspension
34 out of 50 had convictions or admissions and got 1 to 2 games

IIRC, Ray Rice had no conviction and had a 2-game suspension. (The indefinite suspension was overturned but not the 2-game suspension)

 

[Rogah]

The link to the article is on my previous post. Now apologize.

Right after you apologize for calling me ignorant multiple times over something when it turns out I was 100% right and you were 100% wrong and that you didn't know enough about the subject matter to realize that maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read on rantsports.com.

 

[Kaiser]

Right after you apologize for calling me ignorant multiple times over something when it turns out I was 100% right and you were 100% wrong and that you didn't know enough about the subject matter to realize that maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read on rantsports.com.

You really aren't in this for the information, are you?

 

[Nightman]

IIRC, Ray Rice had no conviction and had a 2-game suspension. (The indefinite suspension was overturned but not the 2-game suspension)

Rice entered into a plea deal with NJ and admitted his guilt.

 

[Plumfool]

Because the NFL will want to justify why they did what they did.

The photos would have no bearing. And truthfully would open open up a can of worms the NFL might not want. It would show their rush to judgement in the face of public outcry.

That being said If Doty rules that Hardys case should have been heard under the "old rules" GH could very well get zero games. According to those rules.

Disposition of the criminal proceeding
Any Covered Person convicted of or admitting to a criminal violation (including a plea to a lesser included offense; a plea of nolo contendere or no contest; or the acceptance of a diversionary program, deferred adjudication, disposition of supervision, or similar arrangement) will be subject to discipline as determined by the Commissioner. Such discipline may include a fine, suspension without pay and/or banishment from the League.

As we know the highest court dismissed the case. Therefore the discipline received would not be in agreement with the NFL rules.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Another thing that isn't being considered is his image. At some point he has to begin thinking about rebuilding his public image.

Great great point. Behind closed doors this has to have already been discussed and could be the reason we have not heard a peep from Hardy. He has to be more ready than anyone to move on from this. I just hope he is ready to unleash holy hell vs the Pats.