Roger G's Wheel of Justice

[Fred in Lynn]

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.

Assuming the "you" in your post is the NFL: Would you find it appropriate for the employer of your spouse to request an interview with you in order to determine whether an out-of-work incident between the both of you should impact her employment?

The problem is the existence of a supplemental discipline program for off-field, non-football issues. Criminal law exists to address illegal activities and legislation regarding employer-employee rights (in addition to union agreements) exists to govern the conditions of continued employment. It's not exactly clear what the current program us supposed to do beyond give everyone the false belief that justice is being served.

 

[twibnotes]

 
That is the same guy that just said this recently right? No mention in the article?
 

I'm not condoning what he said about Erin Andrews. I just thought he made a lot of good points in his recent article.

You can disregard anything good he says bc of his past mistake; that's certainly your right.

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

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.

This is exactly right, except that the NFL isn't the only thing at fault.  Society expects the NFL to punish these people, even though we have a criminal justice system that's supposed to do that too.  I work at a university and we have the same issues - there's some sexual incident on campus that might have been rape or might have not have been rape and some university bureaucrat is supposed to figure out what happened and whether the alleged transgressor should be punished.  When the solution doesn't please somebody (and it never pleases everybody), people get mad.  Its hard enough for the actual criminal justice system to police these things, how can we expect a college dean or Roger Goodell to do it effectively?

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Assuming the "you" in your post is the NFL: Would you find it appropriate for the employer of your spouse to request an interview with you in order to determine whether an out-of-work incident between the both of you should impact her employment?

The problem is the existence of a supplemental discipline program for off-field, non-football issues. Criminal law exists to address illegal activities and legislation regarding employer-employee rights (in addition to union agreements) exists to govern the conditions of continued employment. It's not exactly clear what the current program us supposed to do beyond give everyone the false belief that justice is being served.

 
It is not unusual at all for employers to request interviews with non-employees in the course of internal investigations.  For example, we recently had to interview an employee's wife because her husband was alleging that a current employee was harassing his wife by sending her inappropriate text messages and calling her repeated on her cell phone.  Obviously companies don't have subpoena power so we couldn't make the wife submit to an interview with us, but we asked and were granted permission to conduct the interview to determine what really happened.
 
Plus as you point out the NFL has adopted its personal conduct policy which makes this stuff fair game.  I suppose you can argue about whether or not the NFL has an interest in policing the off-the-field behavior of its players (I think they clearly do, these guys are public figures).  But once you have the personal conduct policy in place almost any investigation into alleged off-the-field issues is going to involve interviews with non-NFL employees.  In DV cases this is of course going to be the spouse.
 
Of course as has been mentioned many times the big difference here is that this was caught on video and if they had just gotten the video they could have avoided having to rely on their story.  But in most cases things aren't captured nicely on video like this.

 

[Average Reds]

Assuming the "you" in your post is the NFL: Would you find it appropriate for the employer of your spouse to request an interview with you in order to determine whether an out-of-work incident between the both of you should impact her employment?

The problem is the existence of a supplemental discipline program for off-field, non-football issues. Criminal law exists to address illegal activities and legislation regarding employer-employee rights (in addition to union agreements) exists to govern the conditions of continued employment. It's not exactly clear what the current program us supposed to do beyond give everyone the false belief that justice is being served.

 
I think you have the dynamic precisely backwards. 
 
There is no right to employment and it's up to the employer to determine what they feel is appropriate to know about their employees.  That is going to differ based on the industry or company, but I can't imagine that an employer wouldn't want to investigate and take action if a high-profile employee was arrested for domestic violence and the evidence was released to the public.  If the employee doesn't think it's appropriate, they are free to look elsewhere for employment.
 
The NFL is in the entertainment business.  The NFL isn't really interested in being a proxy for the criminal justice system, but they can't afford to look as if they have a callous disregard for it either.  So they have instituted their own policies in an attempt to protect their brand.  They get in trouble when they misread the public or when they lie to cover up their mistakes.  They have done both here, which is why there is such a firestorm.
 

This is exactly right, except that the NFL isn't the only thing at fault.  Society expects the NFL to punish these people, even though we have a criminal justice system that's supposed to do that too.  I work at a university and we have the same issues - there's some sexual incident on campus that might have been rape or might have not have been rape and some university bureaucrat is supposed to figure out what happened and whether the alleged transgressor should be punished.  When the solution doesn't please somebody (and it never pleases everybody), people get mad.  Its hard enough for the actual criminal justice system to police these things, how can we expect a college dean or Roger Goodell to do it effectively?

 
This is really a separate issue, but it can easily be addressed.
 
Any college or university who wants to relieve themselves of this burden can do so by eliminating their private police force and allowing the local police to have jurisdiction over the campus.  But if the college/university is not willing to do that, I don't get the complaint about being asked to act as an extension of the criminal justice system.  I mean, you brought that on yourselves when you privatized your security.
 

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Deadspin: All of Goodell's Lies and Halftruths about the Ray Rice Investigation So Far.

 

[dcmissle]

Deadspin: All of Goodell's Lies and Halftruths about the Ray Rice Investigation So Far.

Must read.

I'm of two minds on this. As noted elsewhere, the misdeeds seem to be swallowing the games, particularly as filtered by the media.

On the other, the arrogance and serial lying are dumbfounding and really need to be exposed.

I'm under no illusions. If Goodell gets taken down (and I really doubt he will), the owners will replace him with the very same guy. But no self respecting person who cares about the sport can easily take this lying down. The League is out of control.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

Average Reds - I think you quoted the wrong section of my post. Laws exist to govern the employee-employee relationship, e.g. at-will employment, etc. I wrote that already.

Ralph - That sounds a little different. They'd have to be interviewing the spouse of the accused for the analogy to work. I'm still not sure it is necessary or all that wise to have her appear in front of an employer. Can't they ask the two employees, following up with some burden of proof (phone records), before asking the wife what the husband already confirmed? I'm not sure it's smart because the potential exists that the activity could be or has the possibility of rising to that of a criminal nature. Maybe it could occur in certain circumstances; I've never seen it. In the Rice-NFL scenario, it is wholly improper.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

I'm lying down. I wish no will toward any of them, but I'd be lying if i claimed I cared beyond casual conversation. I can only get so worked up over people I don't know.

Phillip - The fault is in caring what the average person thinks. Of course, that holds if those involved are doing what they're supposed to do according to the applicable moral or legal codes. Doesn't mean it will be smooth sailing, but they'd be able to sleep at night. If they're perpetrating a fraud, then they shouldn't wonder where the angst originates.

 

[Detts]

NFL has informed Ray Rice that it increased suspension because video showed "starkly different" sequence of events than Rice's version.
— Jane McManus (@janesports) September 12, 2014

 

[The Napkin]

So ... did he tell the Ravens one thing and the NFL another? Because otherwise...

 

[johnmd20]

 
NFL has informed Ray Rice that it increased suspension because video showed "starkly different" sequence of events than Rice's version.
— Jane McManus (@janesports) September 12, 2014
 

 
We are through the looking glass here people.

 

[Ed Hillel]

So ... did he tell the Ravens one thing and the NFL another? Because otherwise...

 
We'll find out when the NFLPA appeals!

 

[Pandemonium67]

Also worth reading from Deadspin, thoughts from a former crime reporter:  http://deadspin.com/the-only-thing-unusual-about-ray-and-janay-rice-is-that-1633583402

 

[Harry Hooper]

Wow, check out the attacking comments that Florio/PFT are getting on their site.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

So ... did he tell the Ravens one thing and the NFL another? Because otherwise...

 
....GOODELL IS LYING.
 
My goodness, this keeps getting worse.
 
"We gave him 2 games because he told us the truth."
 
"Now we're giving him indefinite suspension because he lied to us."
 
No, Roger, that doesn't add up.

 

[Myt1]

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 rapingshould they have been interviewed together?  Is it just because Ray and Janay are married now that they should be interviewed together?  
 
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.

They're not separate, though, and that's where the analogies to the police in DV cases and Kobe and his victim break down completely.

Domestic violence crimes are unusual because, by their very definition, they take place between two people in an intimate or family relationship, often living under the same roof. Not so for Kobe and his victim. Janay Rice went so far as to marry her abuser after the crime took place. If you think that she was likely to give a completely different version of the story which would inevitably have become public and gotten back to her husband simply because he was out of the room when she have her statement, I'm sorry, but that just doesn't track the hundreds or thousands of women who every year cover for their abusers in their statements to the police or emergency rooms, even if the abuser is out of the room.

In an instance in which the NFL has no power to offer even the imperfect protections of a shelter or restraining order or arrest or denial of bail, I think it's even less likely to have gone down that way.

Much more briefly, to the extent that the NFL wanted a statement from Janay Rice, and I agree with those who say that the concentration should have been on the video instead, her giving a statement with Ray Rice present was probably the safest way for it to go down. I certainly don't think that's why the NFL did it that way, but there it is.

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?

My point is that the NFL literally has no power to do so, and acting under the illusion that they did wouldn't have helped when they left the building together.

 

[Myt1]

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".  

Yeah. Because that was the point.

 

[Myt1]

Also worth reading from Deadspin, thoughts from a former crime reporter:  http://deadspin.com/the-only-thing-unusual-about-ray-and-janay-rice-is-that-1633583402

The second and third paragraphs of this article probably make my point better than I have about how little the NFL not interviewing Janay Rice separately matters. I don't want to clog up the thread anymore but if anyone else has a question or response, I'm happy to PM about these issues.

 

[OnWisc]

Is anyone else surprised that Goodell didn't send a lackey out there to take the initial brunt of this, which would have given himself more time to come up with a better defense? He obviously would have received criticism for ducking the problem but it's better than having a bunch of his earlier statements being easily refuted by basically every media outlet. Basically, I think it would have been better for him to be called a coward than a liar.

No. The statements he's made so far, and how easily refutable they are, have me convinced that Goodell rarely thinks beyond the end of his next sentence. Whether due to arrogance, obliviousness, incompetence, or a combination thereof, I think he believed that increasing the suspension and declaring the NFL had never viewed the tape would be the end of it. If someone had suggested letting a lieutenant field the initial questions, Goodell's response probably would have been "Huh? Why?" He still seems to come across as more annoyed and defiant than feeling that anything material went wrong.

The NFL's issue is increasingly going to be that even if things legitimately come to light that vindicate aspects of the NFL's process, nobody's going to buy it, because Goodell's credibility is utterly shot with the statements he already made. They could find out that the woman who received the tape and left the voicemail is a Ravens fan and destroyed the tape to protect Ray Rice and it wouldn't make any difference at this point. They made so many missteps in the first few days of this that even if they found the right defense now, it's too late.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

It's theoretically possible this is a subject for its own or a different thread, but since this seems to be the operating thread on Ray Rice and the NFL, I post it here.  This is a somewhat inchoate thought, but it's been rumbling around my head after some discussion in the Ray Rice Cut thread.  
 
There is a perception that controversies that seem to dust up about the NFL several times a year are giving the league a black eye.  Many of us are asking, "how is the league so teflon on all this"?  My operating assumption has been that the league is infected with hubris, and is operating under a faulty assumption that things will always be as good as they are now.  But what they are missing, I have been assuming, is that perception doesn't always creep in incrementally.  Sometimes, it builds and builds without much warning, but then hits a critical mass.  I've viewed these mounting controversies as similar to pushing a beach ball under water deeper and deeper.  Eventually it's going to pop up out of the water.  
 
Simmons published a Goodell must go piece yesterday that, in turn, linked his piece from last week to the effect that Goodell has been a disaster.  http://grantland.com/the-triangle/nfl-the-league-that-never-takes-a-break/  I've really been thinking about it.  And I'm starting to become convinced that my assumptions are simply wrong.  That perhaps all of this stuff, including the Ray Rice controversy -- as unpleasant and unseemly as this all may seem -- is actually good for the league.  Could the teflon metaphor be completely backwards?  Is it really possible that the league is not, but virtue of having this awesome product, prospering  in spite controversies about mishandling a guy that cold cocked his domestic partner?  But it's actually prospering because of it?  That the tape, and sports writers defending or attacking Goodell, and and everyone spending all this time trying to show he is or isn't lying, is all actually helping the league?  Certainly last night's off-the-chart ratings don't do anything to dispel this terrible thought.    http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-sports/releases/view?id=40683
 
So, I got to thinking a little.  Why does the NFL do so much better than the other big US sports.  And a thought occurred to me -- there is some comparison here with big-time European soccer, which also seems to remain teflon despite some crazy stuff.  So, I started thinking, what is it about that sports that have allowed them to prosper so much (not in this country quite yet, but world wide)?  And a somewhat straightforward thought occurred to me.  People watch the games, even if they don't involve their favorite teams.  In fact, if you look back at the latest world cup cycle and ask why soccer seems to be getting a foothold in the USA, it's because people were hooked by watching the USA play, but that hook caused them to watch the other games in the five or six days between the USA games, and to keep watching after the USA was eliminated.  It's the same thing that makes people watch the NCAA basketball tournament and makes CBS continue to pay huge amounts for it, even though ratings for the regular season for college basketball except maybe Duke/North Carolina are dismal.
 
Not many people watch hockey, or baseball, or even the NBA, when their team isn't playing, until maybe the playoffs.  Not enough at least.  But no matter who is playing, there is a huge number of people who watch on Thursday, Sunday night, Monday, and Thanksgiving. Why do people watch football even when their team isn't playing?  Well, it's all the reasons that are talked about frequently for the NFL's dominance -- gambling, fantasy, parity and salary cap, the relatively few number of games, the fact that they are on at distinct times of the week, etc.
 
So, here's where the inchoate idea starts to come in to play.  Is there something about a sport that is watched and enjoyed even without the emotional attachment of a "favorite team" that makes it more likely to benefit from controversy -- even repulsive controversy -- than it would if people were just watching their own team play.  I'm starting to believe the answer to that questions is, most definitely, yes.  But I'm having a hard time explaining why I think that.  The best way I can articulate it is that I think a sport driven primarily by emotional attachment is more likely to be affected by fan perception of justice or fairness.
 
An example perhaps helps here.  Remember the replacement official controversy?  Everyone was up in arms about how crappy the replacement guys were.  And it hit a head when you had that absurd play where one official signaled TD and one signaled catch on a game winning drive, which was talked about for the next 24 hours.  If you were a fan of those two teams (Green Bay and Seattle), you definitely looked at that whole situation one way, and if it had persisted every team's fans would eventually have reached the "what does this mean for fairness with respect to my team" question, which is where things can go sideways.  Me?  I didn't care who won.  I'm a Pats fan.  And while I thought it was shameful, I also was loving the whole thing.  The bumbling refs.  I looked up with the actual rule was.  I wanted to know what the NFL review "command center" in New York had seen, or what they did.  I'm not trying to equate the keystone cops referee scandal with handling of domestic violence.  But I guess what I'm suggesting is that the NFL may be a whole lot more devious and evil than we all have suggested.  People watch pro wrestling.  On some level, this entire story -- right down to the solemn independent investigation and people speculating whether or not anyone is lying -- is all actually good for the league.  A sobering thought.  

 

[dirtynine]

I think that's a great series of thoughts and it holds to an extent - does scandal engage the casual viewer? I'd add, though, that when things get real violent, people get turned off fast. So the replacement refs thing probably plays into your theory. Favre's texting habits, or Rex Ryan's videos? Yeah.  A bar scuffle?  That's likely fine too.  The Vikings on a boat, a DUI arrest... well, it's getting iffy, but without serious bodily harm, I could see many people considering stories like that as compelling wrinkles to the general NFL narrative.  A guy hitting his wife... well, people rightly start to take that pretty seriously.  And on and on until the worst end of the spectrum, something like Belcher.   The league would not survive a steady stream of Rice and Belcher occurrences.  It probably doesn't mind stuff of the Favre/Rex caliber popping up all the time - I think that helps in the way you mention.  The "compelling" part of the Rice story is the Keystone Kops behavior by the commissioners' office, and though that's kind of doing what you mention, I don't think the league is self-aware enough of this concept to be doing it on purpose.  And regardless, this kind of thing (fumbling and bumbling commissioner==record ratings!) isn't a sustainable strategy if it somehow is one.  The story behind the case is obviously not something people want to dwell in.  If these serious, violent type occurrences become any more regular, the league is going to get into a lot of trouble with average "watch any old game" viewers. People like pro wrestling, sure – but I don't think the Benoit story helped the WWE. 

 

[Myt1]

It's theoretically possible this is a subject for its own or a different thread, but since this seems to be the operating thread on Ray Rice and the NFL, I post it here.  This is a somewhat inchoate thought, but it's been rumbling around my head after some discussion in the Ray Rice Cut thread.  
 
There is a perception that controversies that seem to dust up about the NFL several times a year are giving the league a black eye.  Many of us are asking, "how is the league so teflon on all this"?  My operating assumption has been that the league is infected with hubris, and is operating under a faulty assumption that things will always be as good as they are now.  But what they are missing, I have been assuming, is that perception doesn't always creep in incrementally.  Sometimes, it builds and builds without much warning, but then hits a critical mass.  

Snip

There's a lot to unpack here, but I think this general thesis statement is spot on. The Red Sox, for example, are still dealing with the fallout from the collapse and the Bobby V season, and just not being the new shiny thing that was awesome and even a World Series win didn't fix the damage to the brand.

 

[DJnVa]

 
NFL has informed Ray Rice that it increased suspension because video showed "starkly different" sequence of events than Rice's version.
— Jane McManus (@janesports) September 12, 2014
 

 
That means it's for lying?
 
Because their policy doesn't have different levels of DV punishments does it?
 

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

[Adrian Peterson indicted broken out to a new thread]

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

Chris Carter sounds despondent on Countdown and legitimately sounds like he is worried these scandals might ruin the league. Tom Jackson, too. Ray Lewis with a "get off my lawn" speech, players don't respect the game and coaches.

Carter also brings up Lewis' incident and says he shouldn't have been able to play until his case was resolved.

Lewis responds with nonsense about people who know nothing about the situation judge these guys and can ruin lives...but those youngins need to just put their faith in god and it will all work out. Ha

 

[Mloaf71]

Chris Carter sounds despondent on Countdown and legitimately sounds like he is worried these scandals might ruin the league. Tom Jackson, too. Ray Lewis with a "get off my lawn" speech, players don't respect the game and coaches.

Carter also brings up Lewis' incident and says he shouldn't have been able to play until his case was resolved.

Lewis responds with nonsense about people who know nothing about the situation judge these guys and can ruin lives...but those youngins need to just put their faith in god and it will all work out. Ha

 
Carter is the only one that came off looking intelligent on the show when on the topic of domestic and child abuse.  All the other guys said they were raised with abuse and it made them the man they are today.  I thought Key was going to make a good point when he said he never touched his kids but didn't go far enough.
 
Ray Lewis is a moron and I can't help view him through the lens of murder.
 
I'm shocked ESPN let it go as long as they did frankly.

 

[dcdrew10]

Chris Carter sounds despondent on Countdown and legitimately sounds like he is worried these scandals might ruin the league. Tom Jackson, too. Ray Lewis with a "get off my lawn" speech, players don't respect the game and coaches.

Carter also brings up Lewis' incident and says he shouldn't have been able to play until his case was resolved.

Lewis responds with nonsense about people who know nothing about the situation judge these guys and can ruin lives...but those youngins need to just put their faith in god and it will all work out. Ha

I can't believe that Lewis has a forum outside a prison fellowship, but people outside of New England and Pitt seem to eat his schtick up.

 

[DJnVa]

I can't believe that Lewis has a forum outside a prison fellowship, but people outside of New England and Pitt seem to eat his schtick up.

 
America loves a redemption story.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I can't believe that Lewis has a forum outside a prison fellowship, but people outside of New England and Pitt seem to eat his schtick up.

When he talked about how he leads by example and how great he is/was at it, I nearly threw up. Ditka's comments were disturbingly off-base as well, but that's nothing out of the ordinary. For either, I suppose.

 

[rembrat]

 

A woman's advocacy group is flying banners calling for the ouster of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for his handling of the Ray Rice domestic violence case. They'll fly above four different stadiums today and tomorrow. Above, via AP Images, is the day's first, at Cardinals/Giants at MetLife Stadium.
 
The banners, sponsored by UltraViolet, read #GoodellMustGo, and in addition to today's Giants game, they'll be at this afternoon's Saints/Browns game in Cleveland; tonight's Bears/49ers game in Santa Clara; and tomorrow night's Eagles/Colts game in Indianapolis.

 

Link.

 

[Bongorific]

It'll be hilarious if the roof is closed tomorrow night in Indy.

 

[riboflav]

Heard Jonathan Kraft on 98.5 this morning defend Goodell and say he believes everything Goodell has said about the Rice video, 100%.
 
EDIT: So, WTH is the point of the "independent" investigation?

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Heard Jonathan Kraft on 98.5 this morning defend Goodell and say he believes everything Goodell has said about the Rice video, 100%.
 
EDIT: So, WTH is the point of the "independent" investigation?

That was not what I took away from that interview. He avoided directly answering the question, and said that he's always known Goodell to be completely honest. But he did not say that the AP report is false, or that he knows that no one at the NFL watched the video. Actually, I thought his answer was pretty reasonable. Reading between the lines, I had the sense that he was very disappointed in how Goodell handled the Rice situation, but does not think he is lying. I was also impressed by the fact that he did not try to be diplomatic about Adrian Peterson. He said it was as abhorrent to him as what Rice did.

 

[Montana Fan]

 

[CaptainLaddie]

Can we talk about how shitty the Harbaugh brothers are as human beings?  They're both enablers of men who hit women.  Fuck them both so hard.

 

[dcmissle]

So we're not signing ADP when they cut him?

If they cut him, I think now that is a pretty safe bet.

 

[Shelterdog]

Can we talk about how shitty the Harbaugh brothers are as human beings?  They're both enablers of men who hit women.  Fuck them both so hard.

What makes it worse is they spend so much time talking about values. They both tout their integrity all the time but when they might lose a player for a game they cave.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Jerry Jones eloquently speaks:
 

“The support of him shouldn’t in any way be turned as though you are soft or don’t understand the seriousness of physical abuse — that’s wrong. Everyone, the league, everybody involved understand that and we understand the visibility of the games and our players and our organization, the NFL.”
 

 

“Everybody wants what they’re doing and what they are to be thought of as highly as it can be.”
 
“If you are a real leader and significant, then you are going to be critiqued. I think what we’re doing is being critiqued. We’ve got to understand our response and what we need to do. I don’t think being critiqued is necessarily a negative. I think it can cause you to get it together if you’ve been a little light or been less than you want to be.”
 

 

“If in fact we’re being criticized and are on the down part of the curve of being critiqued, we’ve got the ability and the consciousness to get it up and get it turned to where it’s not a positive but more of a plus.”
 

 

[Devizier]

Jerry Jones eloquently speaks:

 
I'm coming up with nothing on my Google Translate.

 

[rembrat]

Jones masterfully talking out the clock as a stratagem. 

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Jones masterfully talking out the clock as a stratagem. 

Filibuster? I thought Jerry hardly even knew her.

 

[Norm loves Vera]

Jerry's gotta be relieved his own "scandal" is not even on the public radar anymore..

 

[Monbo Jumbo]

Good article in the Wash Post a few days ago about the NFL's security apparatus.
 

NFL’s elaborate security network is supposed to protect league from trouble

 
...Wansley is one member of a vast network of problem solvers who work security in one capacity or another for the National Football League. America’s most popular sports league is also one of its more valuable companies, generating about $10 billion in annual revenue, and behind the scenes is an intricate and largely secretive three-layered security force — mainly comprised of former federal agents — in charge of staying in front of the league’s problems.
 
Its emphases are swiftness and thoroughness, its tentacles reaching into states even without an NFL team, its code mostly one of silence. And while its agents can help keep bad actors from ever getting to the league by vetting them beforehand, they are equally if not more valuable in funnelling information back to the league office once problems occur to help make sure NFL leaders are not caught off guard....

 

[uncannymanny]

How many incidents have these guys swept under various rugs?

 

[jose melendez]

Can we talk about how shitty the Harbaugh brothers are as human beings?  They're both enablers of men who hit women.  Fuck them both so hard.

 
In fairness, so is BB (Dillon, Moss--though the case is less clear on both of those guys than Rice) and Tito Francona  (DLowe).
 
I'm willing to bet every team in the NFL and MLB has at least one guy who's been arrested for DV.

 

[Dan Murfman]

Anheuser-Busch has issued a statement about their concern of what has been going on in the NFL.
 

 
We are disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season. We are not yet satisfied with the leagues handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code. We have shared our concerns and expectations with the league.

http://newsroom.anheuser-busch.com/anheuser-busch-statement-on-nfl-sponsorship/

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Anheuser-Busch has issued a statement about their concern of what has been going on in the NFL.
 


http://newsroom.anheuser-busch.com/anheuser-busch-statement-on-nfl-sponsorship/

From a company whose products are likely a contributing factor to more than a few domestic violence cases both within the NFL as well as amongst the league's fan base. And society in general...

 

[Average Reds]

From a company whose products are likely a contributing factor to more than a few domestic violence cases both within the NFL as well as amongst the league's fan base. And society in general...

 
And a company that had (as recently as a few years ago) a senior executive who had killed a woman under circumstances that could only be described as "suspicious."
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Busch_IV#Accident_resulting_in_death_of_Michele_Frederick_.281983.29

 

[glennhoffmania]

From a company whose products are likely a contributing factor to more than a few domestic violence cases both within the NFL as well as amongst the league's fan base. And society in general...

 
Don't be ridiculous.  Beer doesn't kill people.  People who drink beer kill people.