Roger G's Wheel of Justice
- Thread starter amarshal2
- Start date
I'm thinking that maybe he has been keeping owners too informed. That they knew as much as he did and supported his way forward. Otherwise, I think he'd already be under the bus.Monbo Jumbo said:
The part that bothered me was that lower level people will lose their jobs but Goodell is safe. It's a good thing they changed the rules since bounty-gate.OnWisc said:
Dang, I really felt that by posting on an Internet sports message board dedicated to the Red Sox, I was doing my part to effect change in the NFL. But now my eyes are open.
Simmons calls for Goodell to step down: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/roger-goodell-need-to-step-down/
Ralphwiggum said:
It wasn't announced at the time, but the elevator got a 2-weekend suspension as well.
He finally took a stand!! I do wonder where he comes down on getting lattes during baseball playoff games.DrewDawg said:
I'm as annoyed with the league and commissioner as the next guy, but are people really of the opinion that interviewing the Rices together was some huge breach of protocol? Like she was going to say something different if the husband she lied with was out of the room and wouldn't find out what she said if she told the truth and her version were cited as part of the reason for the suspension?
There's more than enough here to actually complain about.
There's more than enough here to actually complain about.
How about: because it undoubtedly put Janay Rice through more pain and anguish than if they had interviewed her separately?Myt1 said:
Sorry, but you've got to interview them separately. Not even a question.
Just stunned that it didn't happen. But being stunned at each new instance of incompetence in this case seems to be something of a pattern.
Just stunned that it didn't happen. But being stunned at each new instance of incompetence in this case seems to be something of a pattern.
Rice claims he told Goodell everything in June interview.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11509397/ray-rice-told-nfl-roger-goodell-june-had-hit-wife
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/11509397/ray-rice-told-nfl-roger-goodell-june-had-hit-wife
The conventional wisdom is that you don't interview a victim with an abuser because if there is ongoing violence in the relationship, the victim won't feel safe telling the truth with the abuser in the same room.Myt1 said:
It's a good rule to follow in medical and police investigations. Should it hold to the NFL? Probably.
It's been mentioned one or two times before but it bears repeating that when Rice hit Janay, there was no "Oh Shit" moment when he wonders what he has done. It does appear, quite frankly, that this was not a new thing in this relationship. I mention this not because it should play a part in the suspension but only in context of yes, I think RG should have spoken to Janay individually at some point.
It probably was the biggest breach of protocol. Here's the NJ manual for interviewing techniques for domestic violence incidents for police. You'll notice that the first step in the manual is "Separate the Parties and Interview the Victim Out of the Suspect's Hearing". I don't think Goodell had malign intentions in interviewing them together but doing so was the clearest indicator that he didn't understand how to deal with domestic violence situations.Myt1 said:
http://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/njpdresources/dom-violence/module-four-student.pdf
Even when intimidation is not an issue, interviewing witnesses together is a bad idea. People have a natural tendency to harmonize their stories when they're in the same room. When there is an imbalance of power (for example, a supervisory relationship) or when one witness may be intimidated by another, separation is a necessity. You still may not get the truth, but you definitely aren't getting it if they're in the same room.
And also the issue of re-traumatizing the victim as others have mentioned...
And also the issue of re-traumatizing the victim as others have mentioned...
scotian1 said:
For what it's worth, I don't think that article says Rice is saying that. It says that four people with knowledge of the meeting says Rice acknowledged hitting her, and a fifth said he used the word "slapped."
Do employers typically interview spouses before deciding on discipline? What makes the NFL think it can or should do this? They shouldn't have interviewed her with Rice, they shouldn't have interviewed her alone, they shouldn't have interviewed her at all.
I'll bet the NFL folks rue the day they decided to seek the moral high ground by bringing off-field activities into their realm of justice. (They tried and they failed. The lesson is "never try.") Our society has a criminal justice system to deal with those who break its rules. It's been in place and rather successful for 230-odd years (that's for you, AR). Sports leagues have a tough enough time trying to enforce discipline within the scope of on-field events. Goodell and his counterparts in other sporting leagues have few skills related to overseeing a system of laws and administering justice. There's no reason to believe they would be able to know how to properly create and navigate supplemental punishments to the legal systems of society.
Of course, the incompetence I've described above is different from willful deceit, if that's what is proven to have happened.
I'll bet the NFL folks rue the day they decided to seek the moral high ground by bringing off-field activities into their realm of justice. (They tried and they failed. The lesson is "never try.") Our society has a criminal justice system to deal with those who break its rules. It's been in place and rather successful for 230-odd years (that's for you, AR). Sports leagues have a tough enough time trying to enforce discipline within the scope of on-field events. Goodell and his counterparts in other sporting leagues have few skills related to overseeing a system of laws and administering justice. There's no reason to believe they would be able to know how to properly create and navigate supplemental punishments to the legal systems of society.
Of course, the incompetence I've described above is different from willful deceit, if that's what is proven to have happened.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Right. Now compare this to the thoughtful exchange we had the other night about learning and realizing what we don't know. Goodell isn't doing well in this regard.
changer591 said:
Well, look at it this way--you are already doing something that Goodell and the league did not do: Asking questions because you recognize your own ignorance.
Goodell, as has been repeatedly stated, made $44 million last year. He could basically lose the annual salary of any numbers of domestic violence experts in his couch cushions and not notice. Now imagine what his budget for dealing with shit like this is.
You have a serious thing for false dichotomies.Pete Williams said:
Edit: One liners don't add much to the conversation, so how about this: you have made it clear that you think Goodell is a good commish. You cite the popularity and financial state of the league under his watch as proof. That's legit.
But what is your response to his handling of the Ray Rice situation? Because this thread isn't just page after page of people gleefully calling Goodell names. It's page after page of people criticizing how he has completely bungled a situation that they consider to be important. Calling that a circlejerk, resorting to false dichotomies, adds jack shit to that conversation. If you think Goodell's handling of this situation has been fine, say so. If you think he fucked up but that that doesn't outweigh his strengths, say so, but for the love of christ make your case. Don't drop in and pretend you're above the conversation when all you contribute are masturbation jokes.
There is no Rev said:
In the end, that may be the worst part about all of this -- the opportunity lost. If they didn't go into full blown protect the shield mode, the league could have actually been a force for good this week.
The good part that domestic violence understanding is better today than it was before the second tape came out. It's just really a shame that has to be in spite of the league, not because of it.
October is a couple of weeks away, and then all the breasts cancer awareness stuff kicks in, with pink accessories and all of that. I can definitely see people trying to tie in domestic violence issues when that starts... More of a general 'awareness of women's issues' than just breast cancer, because I feel like there will be renewed vocalization of the hypocrisy of raising so much money for breast cancer issues while doing so little for the issue of violence against women.OnWisc said:
It is, I'm fact, a huge breach of protocol.Myt1 said:
I'm actually very surprised because you are such a process guy.
I think that's why it's resonating differently with me than with others.Average Reds said:
The NFL doesn't have a witness protection program or restraining orders or witness subpoena power. It doesn't have the power to respond to a call, get both sides of the story separately, and lead Ray Rice away in handcuffs. It doesn't have the power to hold a dangerousness hearing and keep Rice in jail without bail pending trial.
I'm not convinced that the NFL gets any statement at all from Janay without Ray Rice present. And I'm not convinced that if her story is different out of Rice's presence than it was while in his presence that she'd be safe once that came out as a reason for a lengthier suspension. Self selection issues notwithstanding, there is evidence, for example, that women who get restraining orders, are actually more likely to be killed by their abusers.
And by interviewing them together, you get to observe their behavior together while talking about the incident.
More simply, I can't imagine many things more terrifying than Roger Goodell trying to run a cop's DV response playbook months (or however long it was) after a DV incident. He'd probably have gotten her killed in the NFL HQ parking lot.
I get your point Myt that it might have dangerous repercussions to interview her alone. But the fact that domestic abuse victims' groups were criticizing the decision to interview the two together really gave me pause.
I think that Fred not Lynn's point really makes sense, that there was no need to interview Janay Palmer at all. Any interview together is likely compromised for all the reasons others have listed, and moreover it doesn't strike me that Goodell has enough experience that observing their behavior together would tell him anything - if anything, it appears to have given him the wrong impression, leading to the overly light initial punishment.
Really, this seems to be an area where Goodell should have just realized he was out of his depth - which no one would have blamed him for - and gotten some professional advice on how to best conduct any pre-disciplinary hearing.
I think that Fred not Lynn's point really makes sense, that there was no need to interview Janay Palmer at all. Any interview together is likely compromised for all the reasons others have listed, and moreover it doesn't strike me that Goodell has enough experience that observing their behavior together would tell him anything - if anything, it appears to have given him the wrong impression, leading to the overly light initial punishment.
Really, this seems to be an area where Goodell should have just realized he was out of his depth - which no one would have blamed him for - and gotten some professional advice on how to best conduct any pre-disciplinary hearing.
I think it's legit to interview her as a fact witness. That is, if you don't know what happened, or there's a dispute, you have to hear both sides and make a finding. She wasn't only the victim. She was one of two people in the elevator. But that's exactly why they should have moved heaven and earth to get the tape -- to avoid needing her at all.
Also, I get the sense that far more than that happened it the meeting. She was needed for one or two questions -- what happened in the elevator? And that should have been asked without Rice there to see if their stories differed. Of course she may have declined to be interviewed alone, in which case the NFL should have just asked her to leave. Also, it sounds like she was also asked for her opinions on what should happen or how she felt about the situation. That's completely inappropriate in my view. I guess it's probable that it was Rice's lawyer, not the NFL, that wanted her there for that purpose. But it also sure seems like the NFL and the Ravens lapped it up like a dog drinking water on a sunny day. And of course the Ravens ran with it, tweeting about her regrets.
Also, I get the sense that far more than that happened it the meeting. She was needed for one or two questions -- what happened in the elevator? And that should have been asked without Rice there to see if their stories differed. Of course she may have declined to be interviewed alone, in which case the NFL should have just asked her to leave. Also, it sounds like she was also asked for her opinions on what should happen or how she felt about the situation. That's completely inappropriate in my view. I guess it's probable that it was Rice's lawyer, not the NFL, that wanted her there for that purpose. But it also sure seems like the NFL and the Ravens lapped it up like a dog drinking water on a sunny day. And of course the Ravens ran with it, tweeting about her regrets.
singaporesoxfan said:
Based on the actions and statements from the NFL this week, I have no reason to believe that Goodell will ever believe he's out of his depth and accepted professional advice.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if he tried to make this all go away by donating $500 to the charity of NOW's choice. I'd only be surprised if he wore a white ribbed tank top to his next interview, because I'm convinced he sleeps in a tie.
The only thing I'm waiting for is the announcement that they will be hosting a sensitivity webinar that all players are encouraged to attend, then schedule is for 3pm on a Sunday.
I'm confused about your reasoning. Doesn't it make sense that someone who has been attacked should not be interviewed with the person who has said to have attacked them? If, for instance, this were Kobe and the girl he was accused of raping…should they have been interviewed together? Is it just because Ray and Janay are married now that they should be interviewed together?Myt1 said:
I feel like a person (who has been attacked, raped, abused, held hostage etc…) is going to react in an entirely different way, being put in the same room in an interview, than they would be interviewed separately. In fact, I would assume that the potential for an entirely new trauma, in and of itself, would be reason enough alone to keep those two people separate…no?
All that said, it all comes off as Godell playing police officer…with a complete misunderstanding of how to handle two people properly in this situation… mainly because he has no training or even the most basic of understanding of what one should do in a DV situation.
The Napkin said:
Possible. Also possible he apologized and told her he really loved her. Victims do report feeling responsible for abuse suffered at the hands of another person, even if they aren't knocked unconscious. The "why I stayed/why I left" stuff is worth reading about, even if to get a sense of the psychology involved. It isn't "normal" thinking.
Hambone said:
In this sea of seriousness, here's Hambone with the party barge. Party on, Ham.
I'm not sure there is much benefit to talking with Janay Palmer in July. But if I do talk to her, doing so with her abuser present is simply a horrible idea. You are not going to get any real information from her. You're not going to be able to read anything from their combined body language (unless you are an expert at these things, which we know Goodell is not) and you could easily create circumstances that would place her at increased risk in the process.Myt1 said:
Plus there's the point that they/we/everyone already knew what happened and if they had any doubts they could have easily obtained the video evidence from the elevator. (Which we know they had in their possession.)
Interviewing them together indicates that Goodell had already made up his mind about what he wanted to do and was simply looking for cover. The fact the he then tried to float the narrative concocted by Rice's lawyer to select members of the media (the tape indicates that Janay was the instigator) solidifies this belief.
Exactly. The interview begins to look more like a meeting to "get everyone's story straight" than anything having to do with getting at the truth. They had the video. They knew, or had access to know, the truth and chose to ignore it. Putting Janay into the room with Ray and all the NFL brass puts her in a position where it would be very difficult for her to say "leave me out of this" or "I've seen the tape, and that's not what happened".
Then, after the meeting, the message is basically that although Ray was wrong to hit her, she brought it on herself. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the NFL was more concerned about "protecting the shield" than about protecting actual people. Of course, after this fiasco, my guess is that any future victim will either lawyer up or more realistically, refuse to report.
Also, to Myt's point about seeing them together, one look at the way Rice reacts to knocking her out on that video is a pretty good indicator of how they "get along".
Then, after the meeting, the message is basically that although Ray was wrong to hit her, she brought it on herself. I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the NFL was more concerned about "protecting the shield" than about protecting actual people. Of course, after this fiasco, my guess is that any future victim will either lawyer up or more realistically, refuse to report.
Also, to Myt's point about seeing them together, one look at the way Rice reacts to knocking her out on that video is a pretty good indicator of how they "get along".
Minihane's piece on the Rice affair is the best I've read by a long shot. Realize some may not like the guy, but it's worth a read.
http://m.weei.com/sports/boston/general/kirk-minihane/2014/09/11/what-has-ray-rice-incident-reminded-us-we-should-be-a
http://m.weei.com/sports/boston/general/kirk-minihane/2014/09/11/what-has-ray-rice-incident-reminded-us-we-should-be-a
Tartan said:
Obvious troll Pete Williams has been banned for obvious trolling.
Move along folks, nothing to see here.
Scriblerus said:
You mean a failure to report domestic violence? The rates of reporting it are low already. That study, and many others like it, would estimate for every Ray Rice in the NFL there are four domestic abusers who have yet to be revealed*. The magnitude and frequency of the abuse is the not likely the same but is that much comfort to the likely other victims?
Perhaps you are saying because of the $ stake here the victim has even less incentive than normal to report it. That I can understand but I'm not sure I buy.
*It doesn't quite work like that.
Article on NFL security procedures: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-security-procedures-cast-doubt-on-claims-nfl-never-saw-knockout-video/