Should Hardy Appeal, or Nah?

[Rogah]

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

Pre trial diversion =/= conviction.

Nice try at moving the goalposts though.

 

[Rogah]

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.

What are you talking about? The NFL suspended the guy for 10 games. If those pictures are as bad as Goodell says there are, the only party that looks bad is Hardy himself. Goodell actually comes out looking good for being as tough on the guy as possible.

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

Good luck with that.

 

[Nightman]

Pre trial diversion =/= conviction.

Nice try at moving the goalposts though.

you are so lame

you bring up Rice knowing it was overturned because of the old rules vs new rules and then try to lean on it for precedence for Hardy's case

and a pre-trial diversion can be looked at as a plea deal by the NFL. he had to complete certain steps for the charges to be eventually dropped. it's like a PBJ.
plus Rice admitted it

just give up, it's too easy swatting you away

 

[Rogah]

you are so lame

I politely and respectfully informed you there was no conviction in the Ray Rice incident.

You really don't have to resort to personal attacks just because someone exposed the flaws in your logic. Why does the truth hurt you so much?

you bring up Rice knowing it was overturned because of the old rules vs new rules and then try to lean on it for precedence for Hardy's case

The indefinite suspension was overturned, but the 2-game suspension was not.

and a pre-trial diversion can be looked at as a plea deal by the NFL. he had to complete certain steps for the charges to be eventually dropped. it's like a PBJ.
plus Rice admitted it

just give up, it's too easy swatting you away

You talked about precedence for NFL DV punishment without a conviction. I accurately pointed out that there was no conviction for Ray Rice. So now you're moving the goalposts, trying to say a pre-trial diversion + dropped charges = a conviction.

Your logic is faulty. You want to claim dropped charges for Ray Rice is a conviction. But you also want to claim a guilty conviction plus dropped charges for Greg Hardy is not a conviction.

The fact that you respond with personal attacks (as per your usual mode of disagreeing with someone) does nothing to change the flaws in your logic.

I'm sorry it hurts so much.

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

Societies views change as time goes by.....And 'We won't give pause until the blood is flowing. So why don't we just admit it!'


Of course appeal, you'd have to, in this institution.

 

[JoeKing]

Societies views change as time goes by.....And We won't give pause until the blood is flowing. So why don't we just admit it!

LOL, what? Are you just trying to be profound?

 

[SilverStarCowboy]

LOL, what? Are you just trying to be profound?

We all feed on tragedy.

 

[Plumfool]

I politely and respectfully informed you there was no conviction in the Ray Rice incident.

You really don't have to resort to personal attacks just because someone exposed the flaws in your logic. Why does the truth hurt you so much?

The indefinite suspension was overturned, but the 2-game suspension was not.

You talked about precedence for NFL DV punishment without a conviction. I accurately pointed out that there was no conviction for Ray Rice. So now you're moving the goalposts, trying to say a pre-trial diversion + dropped charges = a conviction.

Your logic is faulty. You want to claim dropped charges for Ray Rice is a conviction. But you also want to claim a guilty conviction plus dropped charges for Greg Hardy is not a conviction.



The fact that you respond with personal attacks (as per your usual mode of disagreeing with someone) does nothing to change the flaws in your logic.

I'm sorry it hurts so much.

The reason why Rice was punished by the NFL was because he was sanctioned by the courts. The rules the NFL had in place included "the acceptance of a diversionary program" as cause to discipline a player. Ray Rice while not convicted did accept such a program.

GH's case was dismissed by a higher court. Therefore no conviction. A judge will not ignore that.

 

[JoeKing]

We all feed on tragedy.

What? "We all"? You don't speak for me so stop with the fallacious empiricism. BTW, that really is a good Tool tune. Good call, bro.

 

[Rogah]

The reason why Rice was punished by the NFL was because he was sanctioned by the courts. The rules the NFL had in place included "the acceptance of a diversionary program" as cause to discipline a player. Ray Rice while not convicted did accept such a program.

GH's case was dismissed by a higher court. Therefore no conviction. A judge will not ignore that.

Ok I'll put you in the "he will get it reduced to 0 games" camp when it's time for the I told you so's.

 

[Stash]

I think Hardy has a tremendous case and a great chance for success.

If, as this article contends, the NFL is trying to split his 4-game suspension between domestic violence and conduct detrimental (hiding in plain sight), the Double Jeopardy defense would work quite well.

As much for Hardy's sake, I think the NFLPA owes it to its' members to take up the fight here and to prevent the NFL from administering player discipline based not on established rules, but on public outcry.

I have no problem with rules, no problem with strict rules, but a big problem with rules made up as you go.

And that's clearly what this entire fiasco has been.

 

[Plumfool]

Ok I'll put you in the "he will get it reduced to 0 games" camp when it's time for the I told you so's.

That's a bit pharisaical considering what you told bkight13 earlier.

And seeing that you're ignoring points of fact, which indicates you're emotional on this topic, there's no need to further to discuss this.

 

[Bullflop]

I don't think Hardy has anything to lose by appealing his four-game suspension. Not doing so would only ensure the verdict that a four game suspension would be his fate. The established precedent was set at a two game suspension whenever his case came into question. I think there's a reasonably good chance that the four game suspension might very well be reduced to two as the most likely adjustment.

 

[reddyuta]

yes i do but i think he will just accept it now and move on.

 

[Doomsay]

I feel like you read half my post and decided what you you were going to post before finishing it. Realistic? Great, I said possible. That was a possible not probable figure. Ok? Good.

His head is exploding at the prospect of Hardy's reduced suspension, now at parity with tall-tale Tom's, potentially being even less than that of his team's lying QB. That is all this is about.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

How long would the entire process take?

I'd just take the 4 game suspension at this point.

Well, yeah I agree.... But....

Hardy has a per game bonus of 500,000 and incentives for hitting sack numbers. Not appealing would be just like giving up on the possibility of 3.8 million extra. How much hassle is an appeal for the chance if that?

That's big chunk o' cheddah

 

[JoeKing]

That's big chunk o' cheddah

...yep. Who's going to just let that go without a fight? I'm amazed some of you folks are actually for that.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

...yep. Who's going to just let that go without a fight? I'm amazed some of you folks are actually for that.

Yeah man.... ***** that!!

 

[Nightman]

...yep. Who's going to just let that go without a fight? I'm amazed some of you folks are actually for that.

3m+ at stake and he doesn't have to pay his lawyers and he has a really good chance to win

 

[tyke1doe]

If he's not guilty of beating this woman, he MUST appeal.
In this climate, you simply can't risk not appealing.
If you accept a two-game suspension, people will assume you are admitting some capability in the case.
If she was indeed crazy and set you up, then you have to appeal it.