Ray Rice Supspended 2 Games

[papasmurfbell]

Man, the Ray Rice case has become a real "tar baby" across the news, media, talk shows, etc.

The ramifications and implications are farther reaching than I think anyone, including Roger Goodell, might have anticipated.

 

As an objective Raven fan, I am becoming increasingly concerned over the matter and the distraction leading into a new season.

 

This is not good karma for a team that whiffed last year and is seeking player leadership, character and chemistry for this season.

Goodell created a cluster Ef. Ho wcould he have not seen this coming? If he didn't then he is not qualified for his job.

[thesteelhurtin]

Conspiracy theory ?

I guess so and I'm not one who normally gets into conspiracy theories but as golic said now he can suspend Isray for 4 games and say see I punished him more then Rice. Oh well no matter how this Pouncey stuff plays out at least I know he is only looking at 2 games max.

[papasmurfbell]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/28/nfl-v-p-adolpho-birch-struggles-to-justify-ray-rice-suspension/

 

 

NFL V.P. Adolpho Birch struggles to justify Ray Rice suspension

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has not yet spoken publicly on the controversial two-game suspension given to Ravens running back Ray Rice for assaulting his wife. But one of Goodell’s top deputies, NFL V.P. of labor policy and government affairs Adolpho Birch, went on the radio this morning in an attempt to explain. It did not go well.

Birch’s appearance on this morning’s Mike & Mike was so bad — so totally incapable of justifying the relatively light punishment handed to Rice — that host Mike Greenberg felt the need after the interview to address the listeners who had contacted the show to express their frustration with Birch’s evasions. Greenberg said he was frustrated by Birch’s evasions, too.

“I’m a little taken aback by the conversation, to be honest with you. The reaction is overwhelming and no one seems to think that he did a particularly good job of answering the questions,” Greenberg said minutes after the interview with Birch ended. “I do not feel that most people listening to that discussion feel they got an adequate explanation of how they arrived at two games.”

So how did the NFL arrive at two games for Rice? Well, Birch didn’t really have much of an answer. At one point he said the NFL was “bound in large part by precedent in prior cases.” But Birch said that just moments after insisting that prior cases — particularly the suspension of Ben Roethlisberger after he was accused of (but not criminally charged with) sexual assault — couldn’t be compared to the Rice case.

Birch also refused to answer whether the NFL is aware of information that isn’t available to the general public, such as surveillance camera footage beyond what has been widely distributed showing Rice dragging his unconscious then-fiancee out of an elevator. But Birch insisted that a two-game suspension without pay isn’t a minor punishment.

“It is multiple games and hundreds of thousands of dollars. I think it’s fair to say that doesn’t reflect that you condone the behavior,” Birch said.

But the question isn’t whether the NFL condones a player beating up his wife. The question is whether the NFL is willing to take severe disciplinary actions against a player who beats up his wife. And the answer to that question is a resounding, “No.” The NFL hands out longer suspensions for everything from getting caught smoking pot repeatedly, to taking Adderall without filling out the necessary paperwork to — in the case of Roethlisberger — being accused of crimes without any arrests or charges. For the NFL to come down harder on pot smokers, Adderall users and players who weren’t evan arrested than it came down on Rice is baffling and requires an explanation.

Birch may have been trying to explain, but he failed. Greenberg said that in the minutes after the interview, the show got thousands of reactions via Twitter and email and that, “I can’t find a single one of them that said, ‘Well, that explained it for me.’ Literally not a single one.”

After Birch’s unsuccessful attempt to to explain the suspension, it’s time for Goodell to step up. NFL fans want to know why Ray Rice got off easy, and they want to hear it from Goodell.

It is getting worse.

[thesteelhurtin]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/28/nfl-v-p-adolpho-birch-struggles-to-justify-ray-rice-suspension/

It is getting worse.

hopefully this is a stepping Stone to get Him out of there. The owners have to be getting fed up with him. He should be suspended for conduct detrimental to the league.

[ForceEight]

I cannot physically understand the reason for all the hoopla about how easy Rice got off. The only meaningful comparison I've seen so far is to Pryor and his five games, which is more a testament to the corruption in the NCAA and the NFL's connections to it than it is anything to do with the league itself.

 

Since the suspension, the descriptions of what happened to Janay have only gotten worse. Rice "uppercut" her. He "knocked her around half to death". There is very factually zero evidence of any of this, and just as much evidence that Rice was defending himself from her and drunkenly went too far (as did she, apparently). The prosecutors seemed to agree with that.

 

So, those things being said, someone please explain to me the outrage, and not within the confines of comparisons to other suspensions; getting suspended for PEDs is not an apples to apples look, especially since PEDs are very literally considered to be "cheating" at the game for which they are employed and from which these suspension decisions are made.

 

And, before you answer, please consider that I am just as staunchly against domestic violence as anyone. I think it is disgusting, and I think that men or women who beat their spouses or loved ones should absolutely be thrown in jail.

 

That being said, please consider how the incident falls within that category, and help me understand all this outrage?

[thesteelhurtin]

I cannot physically understand the reason for all the hoopla about how easy Rice got off. The only meaningful comparison I've seen so far is to Pryor and his five games, which is more a testament to the corruption in the NCAA and the NFL's connections to it than it is anything to do with the league itself.

 

Since the suspension, the descriptions of what happened to Janay have only gotten worse. Rice "uppercut" her. He "knocked her around half to death". There is very factually zero evidence of any of this, and just as much evidence that Rice was defending himself from her and drunkenly went too far (as did she, apparently). The prosecutors seemed to agree with that.

 

So, those things being said, someone please explain to me the outrage, and not within the confines of comparisons to other suspensions; getting suspended for PEDs is not an apples to apples look, especially since PEDs are very literally considered to be "cheating" at the game for which they are employed and from which these suspension decisions are made.

 

And, before you answer, please consider that I am just as staunchly against domestic violence as anyone. I think it is disgusting, and I think that men or women who beat their spouses or loved ones should absolutely be thrown in jail.

 

That being said, please consider how the incident falls within that category, and help me understand all this outrage?

I think most of the outrage is over Ben amd Pryor. If you are going to suspend them that long over "conduct detrimental to the league" then why not stay the course and do the same thing here. Pryor had no business beimg suspended and to give another guy six games when he was only questioned by the police then to turn around give Rice two games kind of says the NFL doesn't really care about it. Guys get suspended for knocking someone out in the field of play for almost as long as rice. So its either they don't care, they are setting up israys suspension, or they are showing favoritism to the ravens. No matter how you look qt it something is fishy

[thesteelhurtin]

Everyone knew when Ben was suspended it would come back to haunt the NFL in one way or another.

[papasmurfbell]

 

Since the suspension, the descriptions of what happened to Janay have only gotten worse. Rice "uppercut" her. He "knocked her around half to death". There is very factually zero evidence of any of this, and just as much evidence that Rice was defending himself from her and drunkenly went too far (as did she, apparently). The prosecutors seemed to agree with that.

 

So, those things being said, someone please explain to me the outrage, and not within the confines of comparisons to other suspensions; getting suspended for PEDs is not an apples to apples look, especially since PEDs are very literally considered to be "cheating" at the game for which they are employed and from which these suspension decisions are made.

 

And, before you answer, please consider that I am just as staunchly against domestic violence as anyone. I think it is disgusting, and I think that men or women who beat their spouses or loved ones should absolutely be thrown in jail.

 

That being said, please consider how the incident falls within that category, and help me understand all this outrage?

1 The prosecutor said nothing of the sort. He agreed to allow a 1st time offender into a program instead of going for a prosecution. That happens all the time for assaults, drugs, dui, and all sort of other crimes.

 

2 I have to agree that with a league that has 21 of the 32 teams with at least one DV perpetrator on the roster that the league while strong arming on so many fronts doesn't see it as an issue. This was a case where the commissioner could have began to take a stand. Unlike many DV cases in the league where they happen at home this one happened in a public place and TMZ got the video and everyone got to see it. Basically I think the league has misdirected priorities.

[ForceEight]

1 The prosecutor said nothing of the sort. He agreed to allow a 1st time offender into a program instead of going for a prosecution. That happens all the time for assaults, drugs, dui, and all sort of other crimes.

 

2 I have to agree that with a league that has 21 of the 32 teams with at least one DV perpetrator on the roster that the league while strong arming on so many fronts doesn't see it as an issue. This was a case where the commissioner could have began to take a stand. Unlike many DV cases in the league where they happen at home this one happened in a public place and TMZ got the video and everyone got to see it. Basically I think the league has misdirected priorities.

The prosecutor never said anything one way or another, other than that in light of all the evidence considered, the intervention program was justified. I said that it seemed that way because of that fact, along with Rice's attorney saying that it was a result of multiple factors including his lack of a record and the evidence and "compelling reasons".

 

It's not just domestic violence that the league has misdirected priorities about. It's any crime. Their suspensions do not align well with what the criminal justice system (which is somewhat of a mockery itself, so why are we comparing, anyway?) has decided certain offenses are worth.

 

That being said, I've yet to understand the outrage against Rice, other than the snowball effect of outrage because outrage already exists. Why is a two-game suspension light? If this is the response towards Rice, where's the anger towards Suggs, whose wife claimed that he dragged her outside of a moving car, poured bleach on her, punched her in the neck, etc. on different occasions (and let's not use the past as a filter; some of this was less than two years ago).

 

There is simply no public evidence that we should be as angry towards Rice and the league as we (as a country) seem to be, taking in to context these other things. I'm not happy that he seems to have clocked his fiance. Neither is she presumably, but she was happy with him entering the program and not pressing charges, and subsequently marrying him. I just still don't understand the outrage.

[thesteelhurtin]

The prosecutor never said anything one way or another, other than that in light of all the evidence considered, the intervention program was justified. I said that it seemed that way because of that fact, along with Rice's attorney saying that it was a result of multiple factors including his lack of a record and the evidence and "compelling reasons".

 

It's not just domestic violence that the league has misdirected priorities about. It's any crime. Their suspensions do not align well with what the criminal justice system (which is somewhat of a mockery itself, so why are we comparing, anyway?) has decided certain offenses are worth.

 

That being said, I've yet to understand the outrage against Rice, other than the snowball effect of outrage because outrage already exists. Why is a two-game suspension light? If this is the response towards Rice, where's the anger towards Suggs, whose wife claimed that he dragged her outside of a moving car, poured bleach on her, punched her in the neck, etc. on different occasions (and let's not use the past as a filter; some of this was less than two years ago).

 

There is simply no public evidence that we should be as angry towards Rice and the league as we (as a country) seem to be, taking in to context these other things. I'm not happy that he seems to have clocked his fiance. Neither is she presumably, but she was happy with him entering the program and not pressing charges, and subsequently marrying him. I just still don't understand the outrage.

she was happy with it because if he doesn't pay he doesn't get paid.

[papasmurfbell]

The prosecutor never said anything one way or another, other than that in light of all the evidence considered, the intervention program was justified. I said that it seemed that way because of that fact, along with Rice's attorney saying that it was a result of multiple factors including his lack of a record and the evidence and "compelling reasons".

 

It's not just domestic violence that the league has misdirected priorities about. It's any crime. Their suspensions do not align well with what the criminal justice system (which is somewhat of a mockery itself, so why are we comparing, anyway?) has decided certain offenses are worth.

 

That being said, I've yet to understand the outrage against Rice, other than the snowball effect of outrage because outrage already exists. Why is a two-game suspension light? If this is the response towards Rice, where's the anger towards Suggs, whose wife claimed that he dragged her outside of a moving car, poured bleach on her, punched her in the neck, etc. on different occasions (and let's not use the past as a filter; some of this was less than two years ago).

 

There is simply no public evidence that we should be as angry towards Rice and the league as we (as a country) seem to be, taking in to context these other things. I'm not happy that he seems to have clocked his fiance. Neither is she presumably, but she was happy with him entering the program and not pressing charges, and subsequently marrying him. I just still don't understand the outrage.

That is the point. You said the prosecutor agreed he was defending himself. In that the prosecutor only said he agreed to the diversion program how do you know what the prosecutor knows or thinks?

 

I was the one who brought up Suggs when Rice married his fiance. I could not tell you what was in her head as to why she decided to marry him. Suggs did it to get off of his DV case. To a degree it seems to have worked for Rice also. Again 21 of 32 teams have a woman beater on theri roster. I bet I could take 32 Rite Aids and it would not get to 15 DV accusations in their employees. There is a DV culture in the NFL and it has existed for quite some time. How about the league start dealing with that instead of tapping a QB on the head? Again misplaced priorities. If the league had last week back I bet they would have gone 4 games now. Curious what womens rights groups are planning now.

[ForceEight]

she was happy with it because if he doesn't pay he doesn't get paid.

 

He's already been paid, so I don't think that holds any water.

 

That is the point. You said the prosecutor agreed he was defending himself. In that the prosecutor only said he agreed to the diversion program how do you know what the prosecutor knows or thinks?

 

I was the one who brought up Suggs when Rice married his fiance. I could not tell you what was in her head as to why she decided to marry him. Suggs did it to get off of his DV case. To a degree it seems to have worked for Rice also. Again 21 of 32 teams have a woman beater on theri roster. I bet I could take 32 Rite Aids and it would not get to 15 DV accusations in their employees. There is a DV culture in the NFL and it has existed for quite some time. How about the league start dealing with that instead of tapping a QB on the head? Again misplaced priorities. If the league had last week back I bet they would have gone 4 games now. Curious what womens rights groups are planning now.

 

I see where we're confused. I didn't mean that the prosecutors seemed to agree he was defending himself in that sentence; I meant it in reference to the previous one, that there was no evidence one way or another to really agree upon anything further than the program.

 

I also agree that Suggs did it to get them off his case. It probably seems like Rice did the same, but I don't get that same vibe--I guess that's the best way I can put that. It's not as though she's getting a whole lot more out of it (again, Rice has already been paid), and they certainly seemed happy enough both before and after.

 

Based on what you're saying, the outrage is coming from the idea that Rice wasn't made an example out of. That the NFL decided not to show the world how much it's against domestic violence by giving Rice an absurdly long suspension or docking him something more than he already was. I get that. It comes from, as you've said, how misguided their suspensions seem to be sometimes, especially as it pertains to treatment of players/people who do things much worse or much less terrible, as the case may be (see: Will Hill being on our roster, for example).

 

I never saw anyone showing anger towards Ben's suspension, or Vick getting a year, or the inevitable year that Gordon's going to get. I never saw anyone throwing a fit about Meriweather's suspension from his head-hunting against the Bears, either. They all got what they deserved, paid for it, came back, or whatever.

 

But I've also never seen much of an argument that Rice's suspension should be longer, or that there is precedent for it, or that it's inherently soft, either, considering his circumstances versus the others above. I get that domestic violence is an issue. I get that Rice should not have hit his fiance (if he did, etc.), regardless of whether or not she had hit him. I get that the league's use of suspensions as punishment for off-the-field crime is a wildly imperfect system that has no clarity and is frustrating as hell, especially since it seems to be coming from the decision of one person. And I get that women's rights activists are going haywire about this, especially as it relates to Stephen A.'s comments the other day that Janay "provoked" him (which is never an excuse for reciprocal violence, yet continues to be the overlooked value here; if everyone is so dead set on the idea that he clocked her without video evidence, why is no one mentioning the likelihood that she had walloped him, too?).

 

I just don't see how this specific situation is so outrageous compared to the others, and why people are so angry at Rice, the Ravens, and/or Goodell for it.

[Robjr83]

That is the point. You said the prosecutor agreed he was defending himself. In that the prosecutor only said he agreed to the diversion program how do you know what the prosecutor knows or thinks?

 

I was the one who brought up Suggs when Rice married his fiance. I could not tell you what was in her head as to why she decided to marry him. Suggs did it to get off of his DV case. To a degree it seems to have worked for Rice also. Again 21 of 32 teams have a woman beater on theri roster. I bet I could take 32 Rite Aids and it would not get to 15 DV accusations in their employees. There is a DV culture in the NFL and it has existed for quite some time. How about the league start dealing with that instead of tapping a QB on the head? Again misplaced priorities. If the league had last week back I bet they would have gone 4 games now. Curious what womens rights groups are planning now.

 

I'm sure not all RiteAids carry 52 male employees. Your telling me if 32 RiteAids having a total of 1,664 employees that only 15 would have prior DV claims? 1%

[thesteelhurtin]

 

He's already been paid, so I don't think that holds any water.

 

 

I see where we're confused. I didn't mean that the prosecutors seemed to agree he was defending himself in that sentence; I meant it in reference to the previous one, that there was no evidence one way or another to really agree upon anything further than the program.

 

I also agree that Suggs did it to get them off his case. It probably seems like Rice did the same, but I don't get that same vibe--I guess that's the best way I can put that. It's not as though she's getting a whole lot more out of it (again, Rice has already been paid), and they certainly seemed happy enough both before and after.

 

Based on what you're saying, the outrage is coming from the idea that Rice wasn't made an example out of. That the NFL decided not to show the world how much it's against domestic violence by giving Rice an absurdly long suspension or docking him something more than he already was. I get that. It comes from, as you've said, how misguided their suspensions seem to be sometimes, especially as it pertains to treatment of players/people who do things much worse or much less terrible, as the case may be (see: Will Hill being on our roster, for example).

 

I never saw anyone showing anger towards Ben's suspension, or Vick getting a year, or the inevitable year that Gordon's going to get. I never saw anyone throwing a fit about Meriweather's suspension from his head-hunting against the Bears, either. They all got what they deserved, paid for it, came back, or whatever.

 

But I've also never seen much of an argument that Rice's suspension should be longer, or that there is precedent for it, or that it's inherently soft, either, considering his circumstances versus the others above. I get that domestic violence is an issue. I get that Rice should not have hit his fiance (if he did, etc.), regardless of whether or not she had hit him. I get that the league's use of suspensions as punishment for off-the-field crime is a wildly imperfect system that has no clarity and is frustrating as hell, especially since it seems to be coming from the decision of one person. And I get that women's rights activists are going haywire about this, especially as it relates to Stephen A.'s comments the other day that Janay "provoked" him (which is never an excuse for reciprocal violence, yet continues to be the overlooked value here; if everyone is so dead set on the idea that he clocked her without video evidence, why is no one mentioning the likelihood that she had walloped him, too?).

 

I just don't see how this specific situation is so outrageous compared to the others, and why people are so angry at Rice, the Ravens, and/or Goodell for it.

what evidence was there in the Ben case. There wasn't an outrage because Ben got 6 games on the words of chicks one who qas hammered and gave the police 5 different stories and another who bragged about it and her brither even said she was lying. Its about being consistent. He suspended Pryor for no reason at all. He didn't break the law or anything just entered the draft early.

[ForceEight]

What about if the video wasn't present? Think about that in terms of the Donald Sterling case, too, for example. What sort of punishment would you feel is justified, and do you think there would be the level of outrage that we have now?

[dc.]

I don't think you can compare Pryor because it's not the same kind of case. You also cannot generally compare to PEDs or other drugs. That's a much larger discussion. I think some of those penalties are too harsh, but it's not comparable to this case.

 

You can be bound by precedent without being bound by all precedent. Precedent means related cases - violence, domestic violence, fights, etc. Not any other suspension ever.

 

 

As for "conduct detrimental," and the Ben comparisons - Ray had one incident, fessed up and has taken steps to adjust behavior. To my recollection, Ben had accusations, opportunities to adjust, and then more accusations. So there is some difference there at least, in the league's eyes, of best efforts.

 

 

Ultimately, as I said earlier, I just don't get people straining this into "he beat his wife." He hit - in a fight - his girlfriend/wife. That is not ok at all. But it's also a bit different from "beating his wife." When other players have been in fights, they get one game if anything. It is perfectly valid to ask, does it matter that the other person in the fight was a woman? Maybe it does. I am not sure.

[papasmurfbell]

 

He's already been paid, so I don't think that holds any water.

 

 

I see where we're confused. I didn't mean that the prosecutors seemed to agree he was defending himself in that sentence; I meant it in reference to the previous one, that there was no evidence one way or another to really agree upon anything further than the program.

 

I also agree that Suggs did it to get them off his case. It probably seems like Rice did the same, but I don't get that same vibe--I guess that's the best way I can put that. It's not as though she's getting a whole lot more out of it (again, Rice has already been paid), and they certainly seemed happy enough both before and after.

 

Based on what you're saying, the outrage is coming from the idea that Rice wasn't made an example out of. That the NFL decided not to show the world how much it's against domestic violence by giving Rice an absurdly long suspension or docking him something more than he already was. I get that. It comes from, as you've said, how misguided their suspensions seem to be sometimes, especially as it pertains to treatment of players/people who do things much worse or much less terrible, as the case may be (see: Will Hill being on our roster, for example).

 

I never saw anyone showing anger towards Ben's suspension, or Vick getting a year, or the inevitable year that Gordon's going to get. I never saw anyone throwing a fit about Meriweather's suspension from his head-hunting against the Bears, either. They all got what they deserved, paid for it, came back, or whatever.

 

But I've also never seen much of an argument that Rice's suspension should be longer, or that there is precedent for it, or that it's inherently soft, either, considering his circumstances versus the others above. I get that domestic violence is an issue. I get that Rice should not have hit his fiance (if he did, etc.), regardless of whether or not she had hit him. I get that the league's use of suspensions as punishment for off-the-field crime is a wildly imperfect system that has no clarity and is frustrating as hell, especially since it seems to be coming from the decision of one person. And I get that women's rights activists are going haywire about this, especially as it relates to Stephen A.'s comments the other day that Janay "provoked" him (which is never an excuse for reciprocal violence, yet continues to be the overlooked value here; if everyone is so dead set on the idea that he clocked her without video evidence, why is no one mentioning the likelihood that she had walloped him, too?).

 

I just don't see how this specific situation is so outrageous compared to the others, and why people are so angry at Rice, the Ravens, and/or Goodell for it.

We have not seen the video in the elevator. It maybe nothing it may look bad. Again 1st offense this is what a DA regardless of who it is does 99% of the time.

 

Rice married her the day after his indictment. That screams to me the Suggs effect.

 

I think that is the issue. There isn't a precedent when it comes to DV. I think it is something Goodell needs to start taking far more seriously.

 

 

 

I'm sure not all RiteAids carry 52 male employees. Your telling me if 32 RiteAids having a total of 1,664 employees that only 15 would have prior DV claims? 1%

Rite Aid is not th ebest example but it was the first company with a bunch of locations that popped into my head. Also there are more than 1 guy on a bunch of these rosters who have DV. We know Suggs and Rice alone on the Ravens. Some teams have a few.

 

 

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/04/jovan_belcher_murder_suicide_no_seriously_the_nfl_really_does_have_a_domestic.html

No, Seriously, the NFL Really Does Have a Domestic Violence Problem

On Monday, two days after Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher murdered his girlfriend and then committed suicide, I wrote about domestic violence and the NFL. In that post, I looked at a San Diego Union-Tribune database of NFL arrest records and searched for incidents domestic violence or sexual assault. I found that 21 of 32 NFL teams, at one point this year, had employed a player with a domestic violence or sexual assault charge on his record.

That’s a pretty striking factoid, but it doesn’t necessarily mean anything statistically. I estimated that about 2 percent of rostered NFL players in 2012 have been charged with an intimate violence crime. (This estimate assumes the standard 53-man roster.) How do NFL players stack up to the public at large?

The data are inconclusive. The most recent year for which the Bureau of Justice Statistics has comprehensive arrest data is 2010. That year, according to the Union-Tribune database, 8 NFL players were charged with intimate violence crimes, which equates to 4.7 players out of 1000. (The numbers are similar for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.) According to the BJS Arrest Data Analysis Tool, in 2010, approximately 600 out of every 100,000 men—6 out of 1,000—were arrested for “other assaults,” a category that includes but is not limited to non-rape intimate violence crimes. This includes all men, not just those in the NFL age bracket; it also includes all assaults, not just intimate violence assaults.

There’s no single source that contains indisputable numbers on domestic violence and its perpetrators. (Discrepancies can occur based on survey methodology and other factors.) The recent Bureau of Justice Statistics report “Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2010” found that, from 2009 to 2010, 5.9 out of 1,000 women fell victim to intimate violence crimes—defined as rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, or simple assault committed by a current or former spouse or significant other. (The data were derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the most authoritative source in existence for information about the nature of crime incidents.) Two out of 1000 married women were victims of those sorts of crimes. However, the report also includes incidents that were never reported to the police. Another BJS report found that about 46 percent of intimate partner crimes from 2006-2010 were never reported.

Obviously, the NFL arrests database doesn’t include crimes that weren’t reported to the police, which makes it hard to compare NFL arrests against the NCVS statistics. What has been shown in research is that professional athletes are much less likely to be convicted of intimate violence crimes than are non-athletes. In a 1997 study, Northeastern University’s Jeffrey Benedict and Alan Klein found that the athletes in their sample who were charged with sexual assault were only convicted 31 percent of the time, compared with a 54 percent conviction rate for the general population. In 1995, Maryann Hudson at the Los Angeles Times found that athletes charged with domestic violence were only convicted 36 percent of the time, compared with a 77 percent general conviction rate. In a 2010 Harvard Law Review article, Bethany Withers wrote that “conviction rates for athletes are astonishingly low compared to the arrest statistics. Though there is evidence that the responsiveness of police and prosecution to sexual assault complaints involving athletes is favorable, there is an off-setting pro-athlete bias on the part of juries.”

Does the NFL have a domestic violence problem? Perhaps not, if you strictly interpret that question to mean, Can you prove conclusively that the rate of domestic violence charges against NFL players exceed the national average? But that’s an excessively narrow interpretation. The NFL does have a problem in the inconsistency with which it treats offenders and minimizes their alleged crimes. NFL executives and coaches talk tough on domestic violence but don’t really follow through. On Monday, I mentioned that 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh told his players that he will forgive them for anything except striking a woman. Well, in 2008, Ahmad Brooks literally punched a woman in the face, allegedly giving her a black eye and causing her to black out. Brooks is now starting for the 49ers. In a recent SI.com story about Brooks’ outstanding play, the assault is referred to euphemistically as “past troubles.” (For what it's worth, the woman Brooks allegedly punched was a stranger he encountered on the street, so let's count this as "violence against women" rather than "intimate violence.")

Teams have an incentive to hire and play the best players, regardless of how they behave off the field. The courts don’t seem to be doling out justice, either. So who’s going to take responsibility?

It needs to be Commissioner Roger Goodell, who recently expressed the need for the NFL “to do some things to combat this problem.” What should he do? In the next CBA, the NFL should codify specific player behavior guidelines that establish clear disciplinary consequences for domestic violence.

Of course, you don’t want to subject a player to unwarranted punishment if the charges against him are eventually dismissed. But in her Harvard Law Reviewarticle, Bethany Withers suggests that disciplinary bodies can examine 911 calls and police incident reports to establish a pattern of abusive behavior. She notes that the police had made seven domestic dispute-related visits to former Broncos wide receiver Brandon Marshall’s house before he first stood trial. Marshall was eventually acquitted in that case “despite the fact that seven photographs of the mouth, face, neck, eye, and thigh of Rasheedah Watley, the alleged victim, taken on two different occasions were entered as evidence of Marshall’s guilt,” Withers writes. This March, Marshall was accused of punching a woman at a nightclub. (His attorney claimed in May that the receiver has been cleared of those charges, but the NYPD disagreed with that characterization.) [Update, 10 p.m.: The NYPD has confirmed to me that the Marshall case is still ongoing.]

What sort of punishment has Marshall gotten from the NFL? The receiver was suspended for three games by Goodell in 2008, but it was reduced to one game on appeal. To put that into perspective, players who take Adderall get suspended for four games. Does the NFL have a problem with violence against women? From where I sit, the answer is obvious.

 

 

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19705044/goodell-committed-to-stemming-nfls-dui-domestic-violence-arrests

 

 

"We are going to do some things to combat this problem because some of the numbers on DUIs and domestic violence are going up and that disturbs me," Goodell said. "When there's a pattern of mistakes, something has got to change."

He's done a bang up job on that.

[varaven45]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/07/28/nfl-v-p-adolpho-birch-struggles-to-justify-ray-rice-suspension/

It is getting worse.

 

That's what I was referencing in my comments about Goodell not having anticipated the fallout you just described . It's a tar baby and it ain't going nowhere anytime soon .

[thesteelhurtin]

I don't think you can compare Pryor because it's not the same kind of case. You also cannot generally compare to PEDs or other drugs. That's a much larger discussion. I think some of those penalties are too harsh, but it's not comparable to this case.

 

You can be bound by precedent without being bound by all precedent. Precedent means related cases - violence, domestic violence, fights, etc. Not any other suspension ever.

 

 

As for "conduct detrimental," and the Ben comparisons - Ray had one incident, fessed up and has taken steps to adjust behavior. To my recollection, Ben had accusations, opportunities to adjust, and then more accusations. So there is some difference there at least, in the league's eyes, of best efforts.

 

 

Ultimately, as I said earlier, I just don't get people straining this into "he beat his wife." He hit - in a fight - his girlfriend/wife. That is not ok at all. But it's also a bit different from "beating his wife." When other players have been in fights, they get one game if anything. It is perfectly valid to ask, does it matter that the other person in the fight was a woman? Maybe it does. I am not sure.

Accusations not arrests so its better to hit a woman which rice has admitted to then get accused of something. No matter how you slice it the player who got arrested got charged and plead down got less of a punishment then someone who was just accused.

[vmax]

I didn't see one mark on her.

 

What's funny is everybody is all caught up in this and hasn't seen a thing....other than him dragging her out of the elevator.

I'm starting to get suckered into this because of all the self rightious media trying to turn him into some kind of monster who gets off on beating women....actually this crap is starting to turn me back into Rice's corner.

 

For myself, I believe he hit or shoved her..because he was drunk and not himself and .that she was so drunk that it didn't take much to put her out.

I also feel strongly that there is no excuse in hitting a woman....it's flat out very wrong....even if she provokes it.

If he hit her then here's what makes it worse: He's 227 pounds of solid muscle. No way she can hit him and hurt him.

Whatever comes, take it on the chin. It can't hurt as much as running 1 NFL play.

 

Steele...stop defending Rthlsssbrrrgrrr. They are plenty of photos of him drunk...wasted...and then the flashing stuff which is sick and disturbing behaviour...and the long line of skanks who say he tagged them....this is horny 13 year old male pre pubiscent bathroom shit....only real disturbing in a grown 6'6" man. He's got issues.

Edited July 28, 2014 by vmax

[element]

i feel like he should have received a 4-5 game suspension, but as a fan im not complaining lol.

[thesteelhurtin]

I didn't see one mark on her.

 

What's funny is everybody is all caught up in this and hasn't seen a thing....other than him dragging her out of the elevator.

I'm starting to get suckered into this because of all the self rightious media trying to turn him into some kind of monster who gets off on beating women....actually this crap is starting to turn me back into Rice's corner.

 

For myself, I believe he hit or shoved her..because he was drunk and not himself and .that she was so drunk that it didn't take much to put her out.

I also feel strongly that there is no excuse in hitting a woman....it's flat out very wrong....even if she provokes it.

If he hit her then here's what makes it worse: He's 227 pounds of solid muscle. No way she can hit him and hurt him.

Whatever comes, take it on the chin. It can't hurt as much as running 1 NFL play.

 

Steele...stop defending Rthlsssbrrrgrrr. They are plenty of photos of him drunk...wasted...and then the flashing stuff which is sick and disturbing behaviour...and the long line of skanks who say he tagged them....this is horny 13 year old male pre pubiscent bathroom shit....only real disturbing in a grown 6'6" man. He's got issues.

so because he partied and hooked up with a bunch of chicks he deserved to be suspended I'm over the Ben suspension. There needs to be consistency and the last two that got suspended for conduct detrimental to the league got 5 and 6 game suspensions which is what I believe Rice deserved. He has admitted to hitting her

[cravnravn]

1 The prosecutor said nothing of the sort. He agreed to allow a 1st time offender into a program instead of going for a prosecution. That happens all the time for assaults, drugs, dui, and all sort of other crimes.

 

2 I have to agree that with a league that has 21 of the 32 teams with at least one DV perpetrator on the roster that the league while strong arming on so many fronts doesn't see it as an issue. This was a case where the commissioner could have began to take a stand. Unlike many DV cases in the league where they happen at home this one happened in a public place and TMZ got the video and everyone got to see it. Basically I think the league has misdirected priorities.

You cant honestly say there was DV from that TMZ clip that everyone has seen.

[vmax]

so because he partied and hooked up with a bunch of chicks he deserved to be suspended I'm over the Ben suspension. There needs to be consistency and the last two that got suspended for conduct detrimental to the league got 5 and 6 game suspensions which is what I believe Rice deserved. He has admitted to hitting her

 

No he hasn't

[papasmurfbell]

You cant honestly say there was DV from that TMZ clip that everyone has seen.

He hit his GF. What is your definition of DV?