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:It's as if Goodell has a bigger vault of dirt on the owners than Levin's vault on celebs.
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:Meh, I'd be surprised if this weren't the case. They'll strongly support him until the moment they don't. There are a lot of qualifiers in those comments.
If the furor dies down over the next week, then the investigation can turn up whatever it needs to and exonerate Goodell and the owners and the commissioner will happily move forward. But if Goodell remains front page news and still dominates the NFL storyline a week from now, I imagine the owners will realize that even if the investigation finds he didn't view the tape, people aren't going to buy it and he'll be out. Nothing has moved the needle on public opinion so far, and this investigation may not either (in fact, should the announced findings be favorable to Goodell, it could actually be viewed as more bullshit cover up and hurt the league even more). But if he's lasted this long into the week, why not see if he can make it to another news cycle and people lose interest.
Or, once some of an organization's operations and PR people start explaining to the owners how tone-deaf they sound, the party line may change.
I do have full faith in the investigation to turn up whatever will best suit the storyline the NFL decides to run with on this.
Fluid, but not in the direction decent people should hope for.Average Reds said:I'm going to repeat what I have said a bunch of times over the past few days. Goodell is lying. His lies are being exposed every minute of every day. The only question is whether the NFL owners care. Right now, they don't. But the Polian videos - where he flatly contradicts himself after (quite obviously) being reached by someone connected with the league - tells me that the situation is fluid.
Ralphwiggum said:What a fucking clown. He was under the impression she became unconscious after falling? Does it matter whether the punch knocked her out or whether he knocked her down and the floor knocked her out?
Harry Hooper said:
It wasn't announced at the time, but the elevator got a 2-weekend suspension as well.
Scriblerus said:
Then, after the video came out, they shut the casino down indefinitely.
He finally took a stand!! I do wonder where he comes down on getting lattes during baseball playoff games.DrewDawg said:Simmons calls for Goodell to step down: http://grantland.com/the-triangle/roger-goodell-need-to-step-down/
How about: because it undoubtedly put Janay Rice through more pain and anguish than if they had interviewed her separately?Myt1 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.
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: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.
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: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.
scotian1 said: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
Rice's alleged "ambiguity" during his meeting with Goodell may also emerge as an issue in Rice's expected appeal of the league's decision on Monday to suspend him indefinitely. A league disciplinary letter outlining the reasons for Monday's suspension has still not been received by Rice or his representatives, two sources said Thursday. After the letter is received, Rice is planning on filing an appeal of Goodell's suspension of an indefinite number of games.
scotian1 said: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
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
Steam coming out of my ears. I cannot believe this shit. I've been pretty measured throughout, but this is beyond the pale. Absolutely shameful.
The worst part of this is that this prick dinosaur owner wouldn't permit attribution. "Let's get an owner anonymously to float a trial balloon and see how how flies." I'm slightly heartened by the fact that it probably isn't Kraft given that he already stepped in it once and is too smart to do it again. Man would I love to know who signed up to float this putrid turd to the WSJ.
I think this pretty much confirms that the league's decision to embed two owners in the investigation is exactly what it seems to be.
Edit: Clarity
changer591 said:
All I'm trying to say is that when you have both sides of a fight telling a story that doesn't make it sound as terrible as it obviously was (based on the second video), a person, who is not that sensitive to how domestic violence cases are and how the one being abused could be persuaded to act in a certain way, can easily feel like they are doing the "right" thing by suspending someone for 2 games. Yes, I used the phrase "punched her", but perhaps Ray and Janay phrased it all in a different manner.
It's clearly apparently that Goodell isn't aware of what happens in domestic violence cases, and honestly, neither am I...I've learned quite a bit in the past few days about what consequences there are besides the obvious physical ones for domestic abuse. I've learned that it's not as simple as "Why didn't she just leave him/report him/etc." And yes, I do expect someone like the commissioner of the NFL to understand the different aspects of DV. I hope no one thought I was defending Goodell, but rather just presenting a situation where someone who isn't learned about a subject can fall into a hole (which he obviously has), and a sequence of unfortunate events can cause that hole to just get deeper. However, I do also feel like he is not a liar just because I would hope to believe he's gotten to his position because he had the basic intelligence to know that lying about something like not seeing a video in this day and age and getting away with it is ridiculous.
Edit: One last thing...and this I still don't get. Hypothetically (I sound like Rice's lawyer now), if he was attacked, and had to defend himself by shoving her away, and she fell and hit her head...would that be classified as domestic abuse? I just see a lot of gray area on what the story that was told to Goodell at the beginning could have. Hindsight is 20/20 though and seeing the video, it's obvious there was no gray area.
Further Edit again: But yeah, I see what you were saying...if he was defending himself, why suspend him at all? I understand what you're getting at now. A little slow late in the work day.
You have a serious thing for false dichotomies.Pete Williams said:You people need to find another hobby. Goodell isn't going anywhere. This will be a non-story in a week.
And if you really feel the need to get mad about someone, get mad at Ray Rice. You know, the one who actually hit a woman.
There is no Rev 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.
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:...
If the furor dies down over the next week, then the investigation can turn up whatever it needs to and exonerate Goodell and the owners and the commissioner will happily move forward.
...
Or, once some of an organization's operations and PR people start explaining to the owners how tone-deaf they sound, the party line may change.
...
It is, I'm fact, a huge breach of protocol.Myt1 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.
That really rings true to me. Great point.Fred in Lynn said: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 think that's why it's resonating differently with me than with others.Average Reds said:It is, I'm fact, a huge breach of protocol.
I'm actually very surprised because you are such a process guy.
I don't think that's in any way undoubted.86spike said:How about: because it undoubtedly put Janay Rice through more pain and anguish than if they had interviewed her separately?
changer591 said:Can I ask if this is a likely scenario? The only reason I ask is because I feel like so many of these posts don't consider what I feel are realistic possibilities of what may have happened.
singaporesoxfan said: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 completely agree with this.DennyDoyle'sBoil said: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.
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'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.
The Napkin said:You know, have we talked about the fact that she possibly doesn't really even remember what happened? I mean she was knocked out cold. Do we think it's a stretch that she was told she started it by Ray and that's part of why she feels so responsible?
Hambone 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 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:I think that's why it's resonating differently with me than with others.
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.
Tartan said:You have a serious thing for false dichotomies.
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.
Scriblerus said:Of course, after this fiasco, my guess is that any future victim will either lawyer up or more realistically, refuse to report.
twibnotes said: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
“What a bitch,” Minihane said. “I hate her. What a gutless bitch. Seriously, go away. Drop dead. I mean seriously, what the hell is wrong with her? First of all, followup. Secondly, the guy admitted he did it. He told reporters he threw a couple of pipe bombs. So how is that social media’s fault?
“I hate her. I seriously hate her so much. Yeah, only if it wasn’t for social… social media is the reason she has a big house. Shut up. Shut up.”
In 2009, the NFL wrote up a job description, obtained by CBS News, that defined for teams the responsibilities of the team security director.
The description says the director is required to conduct: "personal visits to local casinos, night clubs, etc. requesting the cooperation of the establishments' management in the event a player or team employee is perceived as a potential problem."
A former NFL team security director who does not want to be identified told CBS News that in his career, there was never a case where he sought surveillance tapes from hotels, nightclubs or local law enforcement and did not obtain it.