What Cowboys Are Saying About Hardy

[gmoney112]

This is the essence of my question.

Let me see if I can explain it better:

Hardy is before Henderson. He says he shouldn't be suspended at all because he didn't abuse this young lady. He cites the fact that the case was thrown out of court. Since there is no violation of the NFL's policy, there should be no suspension.

Henderson comes back and says, "You're being suspended for 8 games."

Hardy doesn't like the fact that he's not only getting eight games, but that he shouldn't be suspended at all because he didn't violate the league's policy.

He goes before a federal judge. He basically argues that based on the NFL's policy, if he had committed a domestic violence offense, he should be suspended two games. But because he didn't do anything, he shouldn't be suspended at all.

Can the judge rule on this matter? If the judge can rule that the NFL isn't following its policy in suspending Hardy for 10 games when he should get 2, can the federal judge also rule that he shouldn't get any suspension because he didn't violate the league's policy at all?

I see both as the same question. Or am I wrong?

In your previous post, you were right, there was physical evidence that the entire world saw of the encounter. That's a huge difference. You can't really spin a video of a player punching a woman in the face.

I see what you're saying, and yes I'd imagine he can say that. He's not getting his case "re-tried", he already got the best possible result for his case, which was charges dismissed. But the Federal Judge will certainly have to weigh on some of these judgments, just because the case at hand soley relies on them. It's a weird case.

I'd imagine that's a perfectly reasonable option to pursue for Hardy's camp, and one they're probably going to try. The problem they're going to run into, is the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause. I haven't looked it up very closely, but I imagine it's an umbrella statement or PR clause basically, in layman's terms, "if you make us look bad" then you are subject to certain recourse.

Like Fuzzy went into, and he's obvious got more expertise on the subject than I cuz he's a pretty smart dude, the NFL is a trust. This isn't an "employer", the Dallas Cowboys are his employer. We could fire Hardy (cut him) for basically any reason, just like any company can fire an employee. I'm not *that* privy to the CBA, but I imagine the NFL firing a team's employee by itself, has to have some burdens to go through.

This case is interesting and Hardy's camp is probably going to be arguing, is how can "conduct" be "detrimental" when it was proven in a court of Law that he was actually innocent of the charges? The "conduct" that's "detrimental" was negative PR, and that's a result of news outlets running with the story, not because of any of his action.

Doty is a federal judge and he's going to uphold the opinion of the highest Court in this charge, which I believe was just "dismissed." Doty's going to look this over and see that The District Court, the lowest court in this case, and the most commonly appealed, had the ruling dismissed in Superior Court. It's a unique situation, and I don't know all the evidence, but from what I've picked up reading about is, unlike the AD and Rice cases, there just wasn't very much evidence, and the victim was just pretty terrible all around.

It's going to be interesting because Doty has to decide whether, and in normal circumstances would be deemed irrelevant, if the District Court's judgment (that was eventually overturned in a higher court) is sufficient reason to apply this "conduct detrimental to the league" clause to Hardy, as it led directly to the source of most of the negative PR, or if he's going to go purely on the higher Court's opinion. This situation is interesting as it arises from a DV incident, or accusation, in which there wasn't much a case, and in which a lower Court is overturned whose conviction that was eventually dismissed that was the direct catalyst for the clause the NFL is trying to nail Hardy under. They're also trying to get him under a "newer policy", that allows stricter recourse.

First, I think 10 games is completely out of the question, and while there may be a suspension, the fact the charges were dismissed on the grounds of insufficient evidence, makes 10 games look pretty absurd. This is actually going to play in our favor a bit in Federal Court, because it looks like an abuse of power (especially with the NFL's history in Federal Court), for the sake of a positive public relation standing. Undue punishment based on perception doesn't sit well in a court of law, in the case of a normal employer who have legal recourse to do whatever they want, a trust is a different scenario.

If they can prove his suspension falls under the old policy, I think the worst case scenario is 6 games. Best case scenario is Doty (if he hears it) takes the opinion of the Superior Court, opinions that the District Court made a mistake and Hardy shouldn't be held responsible, and that under "conduct detrimental to the league" Hardy's innocence and the Court's mistake, the "conduct" wasn't "detrimental" because of Hardy's actions and lays the smacketh down on the NFL for their kangaroo court behavior.

It's going to be interesting to see what happens. It's kinda funny that all these factors are probably going to come into play in a ruling that just has to determine whether this is according to some words in an agreement. The fact that it's a trust, there was little credible evidence, the fact this comes from such a vague/umbrella term such as "conduct detrimental to the league", and if this clause's terms applies to a man who was literally "guilty until proven innocent" makes this an interesting case. The Federal Court has the ability to set a real precedent here.

 

[Oh_Canada]

But the problem Hardy faces isn't on the field. So it's understandable that they heap praise on him based on what he's doing in practice and the locker room.

This doesn't surprise me at all.

No it isn't, you think players will effuse praise on a player who doesn't deserve it? Have you ever played sports? Guys who work hard are not going to generously hand out praise on a teammate simply for PR reasons.

 

[tyke1doe]

I'd imagine that's a perfectly reasonable option to pursue for Hardy's camp, and one they're probably going to try. The problem they're going to run into, is the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause. I haven't looked it up very closely, but I imagine it's an umbrella statement or PR clause basically, in layman's terms, "if you make us look bad" then you are subject to certain recourse.

Again, I think my views about Hardy's situation are pretty well known (I think he's culpable in some ways). I don't really want to rehash that argument.

But ... if he indeed had his case dismissed (which is undisputable) then how can conduct be detrimental?

I understand and support what the league is trying to do in terms of detrimental conduct. But the PR thing gives me cause for concern. It's too broad.

Unless the league has information that Hardy did something wrong or engaged in detrimental conduct, I don't think he should be suspended based on mere image.

 

[tyke1doe]

No it isn't, you think players will effuse praise on a player who doesn't deserve it? Have you ever played sports? Guys who work hard are not going to generously hand out praise on a teammate simply for PR reasons.

I think you're missing what I'm saying.

I have no doubts that their praise is genuine concerning his locker room habits.

I'm saying that their praise of Hardy's locker room habits IS NOT TO BE INTERPRETED that they support his off-field issues.

Tim Tebow praises his fellow teammates for their play. That doesn't mean he stands behind the activities that they do off-the-field.

 

[Doomsday101]

No it isn't, you think players will effuse praise on a player who doesn't deserve it? Have you ever played sports? Guys who work hard are not going to generously hand out praise on a teammate simply for PR reasons.

Dez on Claiborne and Carr

“Those are two great corners. I’m lucky to go up against two guys like that because they’re great especially Mo. He’s going to be one of the best corners in this league. They’re both physical. Brandon Carr is already one of the top guys. I feel like guys are going to be talking about him more this year because he is that great player. I feel like by me going against him, it makes me better. It makes it that much more easier for me when I go out there and play every Sunday.”

Last year was the same thing with players and coaches talking about Claiborne being stronger and doing great and then then season hit.

I know Hardy is a proven player on the field no question but players when talking to the media say much different things than they do behind closed doors.

 

[gmoney112]

Again, I think my views about Hardy's situation are pretty well known (I think he's culpable in some ways). I don't really want to rehash that argument.

But ... if he indeed had his case dismissed (which is undisputable) then how can conduct be detrimental?

I understand and support what the league is trying to do in terms of detrimental conduct. But the PR thing gives me cause for concern. It's too broad.

Unless the league has information that Hardy did something wrong or engaged in detrimental conduct, I don't think he should be suspended based on mere image.

It's an interesting situation. The NFL will probably insist the previous conviction in lower court was sufficient to meet the standards for "conduct detrimental", laying the burden on the judicial process. I really have no idea how it will play out, but if you're interested in legal cases, this will probably be fun to watch. How a conviction in a lower court, eventually dismissed, can prove detrimental conduct in the issue of this kind of trustt, and how that process reflected on that image and whether the previous conviction, albeit overturned, can prove actionable.

My hope is in Federal Court, they find some way to instill some kind of "time served" judgment. I don't really know, since apparently, I think, the CBA and Player's Union agreed to the procedures. I also don't know whether a kind of excessive punishment argument is allowed in this instance, given his previous suspension while the legal process ran its course.

I do know Judge Doty, in particular, has grown tired of the NFL's bologna, and apparently he's reached/is reaching the point where he doesn't want to take on new cases, so maybe he just renders a judgment that kinda puts the NFL in its place. Who knows.

 

[erod]

I think if Hardy's suspension gets reduce to four games, there will be a huge backlash by all of the women's groups.

Reducing it to 8 games would be fine by me.

The law doesn't work that way. What were the rules at the time of the incident?

By rule, he should get no suspension at all for a first time offense.

I'm sure that's the dilemma.

 

[Idgit]

Dez on Claiborne and Carr

“Those are two great corners. I’m lucky to go up against two guys like that because they’re great especially Mo. He’s going to be one of the best corners in this league. They’re both physical. Brandon Carr is already one of the top guys. I feel like guys are going to be talking about him more this year because he is that great player. I feel like by me going against him, it makes me better. It makes it that much more easier for me when I go out there and play every Sunday.”

Last year was the same thing with players and coaches talking about Claiborne being stronger and doing great and then then season hit.

I know Hardy is a proven player on the field no question but players when talking to the media say much different things than they do behind closed doors.

I actually believe Dez believed exactly what he was saying about Mo at the time he said it. With the injuries following two seasons, he just turned out to be wrong.

From my experience, players don't heap praise on players they don't think highly of. And given that Hardy's teammates in CAR said the same things, and that he then went on to absolutely back that all up with production on the field, it's pretty safe to say that this is a guy who works hard and plays passionately.

Hardy's problems are more with turning that switch off when he's in the real world.

As to the DV issues, you'll notice nobody around Hardy, including team officials, makes the case that he's actually innocent of his issues. He very definitely (in my book) was involved in an altercation whether the charges were dismissed or not. It was what it was: a misdemeanor domestic violence issue that probably went both ways and where he had the overwhelming physical advantage. It got out of control and was resolved between the two very dysfunctional parties. Once that happened, there wasn't enough to continue with through the courts for what only amounted to a probable probationary sentence for the player, anyway. It was a huge mistake that cost him 15 games and a big offseason contract (for at least one season, anyway). He's a great player who's getting a second chance in the league, as a result.

 

[Doomsday101]

I actually believe Dez believed exactly what he was saying about Mo at the time he said it. With the injuries following two seasons, he just turned out to be wrong.

From my experience, players don't heap praise on players they don't think highly of. And given that Hardy's teammates in CAR said the same things, and that he then went on to absolutely back that all up with production on the field, it's pretty safe to say that this is a guy who works hard and plays passionately.

Hardy's problems are more with turning that switch off when he's in the real world.

As to the DV issues, you'll notice nobody around Hardy, including team officials, makes the case that he's actually innocent of his issues. He very definitely (in my book) was involved in an altercation whether the charges were dismissed or not. It was what it was: a misdemeanor domestic violence issue that probably went both ways and where he had the overwhelming physical advantage. It got out of control and was resolved between the two very dysfunctional parties. Once that happened, there wasn't enough to continue with through the courts for what only amounted to a probable probationary sentence for the player, anyway. It was a huge mistake that cost him 15 games and a big offseason contract (for at least one season, anyway). He's a great player who's getting a second chance in the league, as a result.

the point of my comment is player publicly will put a spin on things but behind closed doors things can often be different. I'm not saying that is or is not the case with Hardy and how players feel

 

[Idgit]

the point of my comment is player publicly will put a spin on things but behind closed doors things can often be different. I'm not saying that is or is not the case with Hardy and how players feel

I know, I went off on a tangent a bit there on the Hardy thing.

I don't agree with you on the other, though. I think Dez honestly thought at that point that Mo was going to be a good player. From my experience, if a player is saying something specific about another player, it's often a pretty good sign that that guy is going to develop. If more than one player is saying the same thing about that guy, it means that a lot of them are thinking it or it's showing up on tape and the coaches are saying it. If it's a bunch of generic fluff about hard work and being a good teammate, then I take that with a large grain of salt.

 

[Aven8]

That he's good??

The dude looks massive I do know that.

 

[Redball Express]

Honestly, nobody's gonna throw him under the bus in the media. Players rarely say a bad thing about each other, especially team mates.
I'm not saying he's not welcome or wanted on the team but never trust the media.

Oh my..

You mean I can't trust Stephen A Smith?

Or Spags?

Or fat butt from SI?

Or Bradshaw on Fox?

Or Boomer on ESPN Game Day?

Or Aikman on Fox?

Or Moose on Fox?

Or Jaws on Monday Night Countdown?

Or any of those Babe's down on the sidelines desparately doing interviews?

None of that?