The Ray Rice Debacle

soxfan121 · Sep 26, 2014

Shelterdog said:
If the head of security is doing his job he just might not show the quasi legally obtained tape to Goodell-plausible deniability and what not.

When high faulting lawyers are involved people go through all kinds of contortions to not see bad stuff so they can say "I never saw that."

Ed: Also think like a sneaky lawyer. The claim is that someone sent the video to the NFL and the response is "I never saw it"? Why not say we never got it? Perhaps NFL higher ups asked for it, got it, had it summarized for them but never actually saw it.

Not technically a Great Internet Word but holy shit is that a funny typo in context.

And SD's got Troy Brown Bingo - it is entirely believable to me that Goodell was told about the tape by Miller.

Miller saw the tape and reported on it in a memo. Goodell read the memo and never "saw" the tape.

maufman is absolutely right: Miller is getting the high-paying do-nothing job with a sponsor or a big payoff. Miller is the fall guy and Mueller's selection now looks like some pretty awesome obfuscation. The amount of time Mueller is going to write or say Miller is going to be staggering. Miller.

CaptainLaddie · Sep 26, 2014

Yep yep yep. Makes 100% sense, and I hate every bit of it.

mauf · Sep 26, 2014

Average Reds said:
It is not credible to believe that Miller's admin. viewed the video and did not give it to him.

Exactly. Which is why I don't think his denials will save his job, even if they're proven true. (Unless, of course, someone else was running the Rice investigation and he passed the video along, in which case that person will take the fall.)

mauf · Sep 26, 2014

amarshal2 said:
Didn't Goddell say that not only had he not seen the video but as far as he knew none of his people had seen it? It's not credible to argue that his chief of security didn't mention to Goddell that they had the video. Goddell is a liar and is going down. #freesimmoms

If I were running an internal investigation, if I had received information from a questionable source during that investigation, and if that questionably sourced information simply corroborated information I had obtained from other sources, then it is unlikely that I would mention the questionable source in a report to my CEO.

In this particular case, I think it was a huge mistake not to show Goodell the video -- because this was a high-profile case, and it was foreseeable that the video would enter the public domain -- but I can see why a professional could reach a good-faith (if misguided) judgment to the contrary.

Ed Hillel · Sep 26, 2014

Shelterdog said:
Ed: Also think like a sneaky lawyer. The claim is that someone sent the video to the NFL and the response is "I never saw it"? Why not say we never got it? Perhaps NFL higher ups asked for it, got it, had it summarized for them but never actually saw it.

Well, the claims go beyond that, though. Roger has claimed that nobody in his office saw the tape, and he's also claimed that the tape was requested by the NFL and that it was never received. It's going to take some super creative lawyering to finagle the language around that, and even if they think that can make an argument it works on some technicality of legal language, nobody is going to buy it.

Exactly. Which is why I don't think his denials will save his job, even if they're proven true. (Unless, of course, someone else was running the Rice investigation and he passed the video along, in which case that person will take the fall.)

Maybe we've been speaking past each other, but this is exactly what I was saying.

twothousandone · Sep 26, 2014

Is it possible that, since everyone in reality knew exactly what happened in the elevator, when word came that there was video "you can see it if you want," many declined to watch it? I don't think I've seen the video -- I saw the first one, and given the explanations of what's on the second one, I don't have a desire to see it. It still blows up the intended mis-direction of "If I knew it was that, I'd have given a tougher penalty," but with deniability and the fact that it was pretty clear Rice punched out his girlfriend, I can see many in the NFL office saying "no, thanks." (Of course, I have no idea what those folks are like.)

Marciano490 · Sep 26, 2014

twothousandone said:
Is it possible that, since everyone in reality knew exactly what happened in the elevator, when word came that there was video "you can see it if you want," many declined to watch it? I don't think I've seen the video -- I saw the first one, and given the explanations of what's on the second one, I don't have a desire to see it. It still blows up the intended mis-direction of "If I knew it was that, I'd have given a tougher penalty," but with deniability and the fact that it was pretty clear Rice punched out his girlfriend, I can see many in the NFL office saying "no, thanks." (Of course, I have no idea what those folks are like.)

You can see the difference in you choosing to pass on viewing the video and NFL officials doing the same, though, right?

Reverend · Sep 26, 2014

twothousandone said:
Is it possible that, since everyone in reality knew exactly what happened in the elevator, when word came that there was video "you can see it if you want," many declined to watch it? I don't think I've seen the video -- I saw the first one, and given the explanations of what's on the second one, I don't have a desire to see it. It still blows up the intended mis-direction of "If I knew it was that, I'd have given a tougher penalty," but with deniability and the fact that it was pretty clear Rice punched out his girlfriend, I can see many in the NFL office saying "no, thanks." (Of course, I have no idea what those folks are like.)

Then he's still stuck explaining why he only gave a 2 game suspension and his later claim that he would have suspended Rice longer had he known what was on the tape... and the fact that he increased the suspension when the tape was seen by all.

There is no scenario where he didn't fuck up. It's just a matter of determining the flavor of fuck up.

Ed Hillel · Sep 26, 2014

There is no Rev said:
Then he's still stuck explaining why he only gave a 2 game suspension and his later claim that he would have suspended Rice longer had he known what was on the tape... and the fact that he increased the suspension when the tape was seen by all.

There is no scenario where he didn't fuck up. It's just a matter of determining the flavor of fuck up.

And this:

"We requested from law enforcement any and all information about the incident, including the video from inside the elevator. That video was not made available to us.”

soxfan121 · Sep 26, 2014

Papelbon's Poutine said:
It's perfectly reasonable for you or anyone else not to want to watch the video. The difference between you and RG is it was his fucking job to watch the video before laying down the suspension. Even if he didn't want to and neglected his responsibilities out of some kind of squirmishness (or whatever) he should have known what was on it. He apparently did neither or did one of those and still laid down a weak suspension. For that he should get canned. And This is still before all the lying and double talk since the public outcry.

No, it certainly is not. His job is to do what the owners (in this case, Steve Bisciotti) tell him to do.

This myth that Roger Goodell has decision-making power or integrity simply has to stop. He's a hand-puppet. He's a Goodell-Bot. He does what the owners tell him, when the owners tell him. Bisciotti told him it was a two-game suspension, so he gave Rice a two-game suspension.

They told him to lie; he lied. They told him to hold another press conference; he held another press conference.

He's a fucking red herring. The owners are who you should be upset with and railing on.

HomeRunBaker · Sep 26, 2014

soxfan121 said:
No, it certainly is not. His job is to do what the owners (in this case, Steve Bisciotti) tell him to do.

This myth that Roger Goodell has decision-making power or integrity simply has to stop. He's a hand-puppet. He's a Goodell-Bot. He does what the owners tell him, when the owners tell him. Bisciotti told him it was a two-game suspension, so he gave Rice a two-game suspension.

They told him to lie; he lied. They told him to hold another press conference; he held another press conference.

He's a fucking red herring. The owners are who you should be upset with and railing on.

Thank you. Thank you. And Thank you!

Everyone is in bed with everyone here as this cash cow continues to roll. Goodell...the owners...the sponsors...everyone who has a significant financial stake is in the circle. The media continues to try and try to dig up more "stuff" none of which is potent enough to do any damage to the product.

Hey media! Just go away why don't ya.

SumnerH · Sep 27, 2014

I'm not saying the owners don't deserve derision, but if you take a job where you get millions of dollars to sell out your values and do whatever other people say, you deserve to take shit for that. It's the price you pay for the money; you knew it and signed up for it.

dcmissle · Sep 27, 2014

BigSoxFan said:
All of the SoSH lawyers are nodding in agreement.

As in, "this is the business we have chosen"?

I get it that most people hate lawyers, and I think they do so for one very understandable reason: the average person's encounter with the law is not pleasant. It's a fucking divorce, or it's a kid getting charged with some foolishness. It's not, help me take my company public, which will make me a couple of hundred million.

I can only tell you how I would have approached this if I were Mueller. I would have said, first, you probably don't want to hire me because if my report is exculpatory, many will not believe it because of my firm's association with the NFL and prior association with Cass. But -- if you do hire me, the investigation is going to leave no stone unturned, and the findings will be made public. My integrity is not for sale, and my name is not going on a whitewash.

I think most lawyers capable of running this inquiry would feel the same way. And it is not unreasonable to expect the same from Goodell when the owners have given him almost dictatorial power of matters of discipline.

It should not be terribly difficult to expose the lies here. More challenging than if a grand jury were impaneled, but far from impossible.

HomeRunBaker · Sep 27, 2014

dcmissle said:
As in, "this is the business we have chosen"?

I get it that most people hate lawyers, and I think they do so for one very understandable reason: the average person's encounter with the law is not pleasant. It's a fucking divorce, or it's a kid getting charged with some foolishness. It's not, help me take my company public, which will make me a couple of hundred million.

I can only tell you how I would have approached this if I were Mueller. I would have said, first, you probably don't want to hire me because if my report is exculpatory, many will not believe it because of my firm's association with the NFL and prior association with Cass. But -- if you do hire me, the investigation is going to leave no stone unturned, and the findings will be made public. My integrity is not for sale, and my name is not going on a whitewash.

I think most lawyers capable of running this inquiry would feel the same way. And it is not unreasonable to expect the same from Goodell when the owners have given him almost dictatorial power of matters of discipline.

It should not be terribly difficult to expose the lies here. More challenging than if a grand jury were impaneled, but far from impossible.

Of course it wouldn't be terribly difficult to expose the lies......that's why Mueller was immediately deemed the man for the job by Goodell/owners. What a fun shit show this is going to be.

crystalline · Sep 27, 2014

dcmissle said:
I can only tell you how I would have approached this if I were Mueller. I would have said, first, you probably don't want to hire me because if my report is exculpatory, many will not believe it because of my firm's association with the NFL and prior association with Cass. But -- if you do hire me, the investigation is going to leave no stone unturned, and the findings will be made public. My integrity is not for sale, and my name is not going on a whitewash.

I think most lawyers capable of running this inquiry would feel the same way. And it is not unreasonable to expect the same from Goodell when the owners have given him almost dictatorial power of matters of discipline.

There's a big difference between delivering a whitewash and more subtle influence on the final report. Take the Incognito report as an example. It wasn't a whitewash: the Dolphins were shown to be bad actors. But the report mainly blamed players and low-level coaches and exonerated the owners and head coach. That's the kind of thing people worry about the Rice report. If the facts are moderately bad, the security chief will be blamed and attention deflected from Goodell. If the facts are really bad, Goodell will be blamed and pushed out. And no matter what, details that incriminate any owners will be played down.

I also think there's a difference between lawyers like you- presumably with a stable job at a firm with a decent set of existing clients or a steady flow of business - and Mueller who just moved from a public sector job into a high-paying private sector job. That revolving door is greased by money, full stop. Mueller took the job to get paid, and the managers that hired him made a calculation that he'd be a net profit to the firm, and he does not bring a big book of business with him so he has to create it. Forget about who Mueller's client is - is he easily going to throw a head of a big corporation under the bus without first exhausting routes to blame employees? Call me a cynic.

soxfan121 · Sep 27, 2014

SumnerH said:
I'm not saying the owners don't deserve derision, but if you take a job where you get millions of dollars to sell out your values and do whatever other people say, you deserve to take shit for that. It's the price you pay for the money; you knew it and signed up for it.

Well of course. The job description is quite clear on this point - "be the front person for a cabal of billionaires and take any heat, bullets or criticism aimed at your billionaire bosses. In return you will be paid the amount found in Paul Allen's loose change jar."

I'm saying that people criticizing Goodell don't understand what his job is or who gives him direction.

Papelbon's Poutine said:
His job is to do what the owners as a whole tell him to do, not to allow each individual to determine sanction for his players. While he may be beholden to a certain few more than others, Steve Biscotti isn't exactly a Kraft, a Jones or a Mara.

I think you're going a little far with the bolded. Did Benson tell him to suspend Payton and everyone else during Bountygate? Did Jones and Snyder tell him to slap down cap penalties on them?

Uh, the Saints bountygate case had a potentially direct, negative financial outcome for the owners. CTE lawsuits would love to have it on record that the NFL did nothing of substance about a "program" that targeted and aimed for head injuries. That would cost the owners billions, not the millions they are spending to make the problem (and the brain damaged ex-players) go away.

Cap penalties were imposed because all the teams were told no shenanigans that weakened the owners case in the CBA negotiations - again, a matter of billions - and Jones/Snyder flouted that directive. So the rest of the club hit them with a penalty. No sanciton by the "league office" involved Goodell less than this one.

The mistake here is to assume he has any power at all. He has none. He works for billionaires who want to remain billionaires. So when something potentially opens them up to lawsuits (bountygate) or screws up the CBA (cap penalties), then the Goodell-Bot is programmed and sent out to make a statement.

Be mad at Roger all you want. Just know that every word directed at the NFL Chief Punching Bag does zilch to address the actual problem (the owners who make the rules).

EDIT: Lastly, I find it hilarious that after ALL this, you chose to minimize Bisciotti's role - which is pretty damned clear - as being "not as powerful" as some other owners. Have you followed the actual news here? Bisciotti determined the length of the original Rice suspension and is making Goodell face the firing squad in the aftermath.

I'd hate to see what a "powerful" owner could do.

The Napkin · Sep 27, 2014

Papelbon's Poutine said:
His job is to do what the owners as a whole tell him to do, not to allow each individual to determine sanction for his players. While he may be beholden to a certain few more than others, Steve Biscotti isn't exactly a Kraft, a Jones or a Mara.

I agree with you 100% that he is a hand puppet, I'm not arguing that. And yes, I think the owners deserve plenty of blame too and I don't think they are exactly coming out clean as a whistle hear - it is not a secret that he works for them. But if he's telling the truth (which I find highly doubtful) and he never saw the video, I would imagine he has gotten a phone call from one of the heavyweights saying "hey fuckhead, why didn't you see it and have a conference call about it?".

Well it certainly wouldn't have been Kraft who did this.

soxfan121 · Sep 28, 2014

The Rice incident - like the other 25-odd domestic violence incidents involving NFL players over the past decade - was not a "collective interest" situation. It was an individual team situation. SoSH Football is working on a story about the League's history of discipline and there was nothing unique about the Rice incident - other than the video tape. Rice, like others before him, was arrested and charged with a crime and the NFL did what it usually does - light suspension, sometimes League imposed, sometimes Team imposed. As detailed in the Brandon Marshall article, it used to take three arrests to earn a one-game suspension. In this way, the Rice suspension was probably seen as "progressive" by the League Office.

But it is now clear that Goodell took Bisciotti's order on the Rice suspension; there was no free will or thinking involved. The Ravens - who built their marketing campaigns around Rice - wanted a light suspension. In the absence (at the time) of a "collective interest" (unlike Bountygate, for example), Goodell did what Bisciotti wanted and issued a two-game suspension.

Until the TMZ video, there was nothing affecting the "collective interest" of the 32 billionaires. Thus, one (Bisciotti) could tell the NFL (Goodell) what to do and how to do it. Once the tape went public, the 32 billionaires were advised that they looked "soft" on DV and then Goodell was told to suspend Rice indefinitely.

Bisciotti has done everything but yell "I ORDERED THE CODE RED!" and yet people keep trying to pin this on his lackey, Goodell. Suggesting that Goodell is anything but a lackey is misguided and incorrect. He's a puppet, taking orders from one or thirty-two billionaires.

Start blaming the right people. Bisciotti and the Ravens deserve much more blame. Goodell is a red herring.

Devizier · Sep 28, 2014

Wouldn't the appropriate analogy be a CEO in a company jointly held by 32 independent shareholders? Goodell shouldn't be taking orders from a single owner. That's a weak sauce explanation.

JimBoSox9 · Sep 28, 2014

soxfan121 said:
The Rice incident - like the other 25-odd domestic violence incidents involving NFL players over the past decade - was not a "collective interest" situation. It was an individual team situation. SoSH Football is working on a story about the League's history of discipline and there was nothing unique about the Rice incident - other than the video tape. Rice, like others before him, was arrested and charged with a crime and the NFL did what it usually does - light suspension, sometimes League imposed, sometimes Team imposed. As detailed in the Brandon Marshall article, it used to take three arrests to earn a one-game suspension. In this way, the Rice suspension was probably seen as "progressive" by the League Office.

But it is now clear that Goodell took Bisciotti's order on the Rice suspension; there was no free will or thinking involved. The Ravens - who built their marketing campaigns around Rice - wanted a light suspension. In the absence (at the time) of a "collective interest" (unlike Bountygate, for example), Goodell did what Bisciotti wanted and issued a two-game suspension.

Until the TMZ video, there was nothing affecting the "collective interest" of the 32 billionaires. Thus, one (Bisciotti) could tell the NFL (Goodell) what to do and how to do it. Once the tape went public, the 32 billionaires were advised that they looked "soft" on DV and then Goodell was told to suspend Rice indefinitely.

Bisciotti has done everything but yell "I ORDERED THE CODE RED!" and yet people keep trying to pin this on his lackey, Goodell.

I agree with everything written in this post.

Suggesting that Goodell is anything but a lackey is misguided and incorrect. He's a puppet, taking orders from one or thirty-two billionaires.

Start blaming the right people. Bisciotti and the Ravens deserve much more blame. Goodell is a red herring.

Here's where you lose me. Going from A to B is reductive, treats blame as zero-sum when there is a surfeit for everyone, and lets Goodell off the hook more than he deserves. Like the folks trying to draw a flawed line between Rice and Bountygate, you're extrapolating from a single incident with Biscotti and Goodell to a larger definitive statement about the Commish that doesn't hold up. The owners are the Board of Directors and the totality of the shareholders; Goodell's job is to grow the financial interest of the latter and prevent problems from bubbling up to the former. Should said bubbling occur, he is expected to dispense of it as well as could reasonably be hoped. Biscotti gives marching orders, but I doubt he's interested in day-to-day details of implementing those orders. Lackey or no, if Goodell sees a path being charted towards a PR Titanic it's his job to say so and stop it from happening. He failed spectacularly.

Advocating for more blame to the Ravens and Biscotti is more than groovy with me. The need to couple it with advocating for less blame to Goodell does not compuID-10T1001010010

snowmanny · Sep 28, 2014

Also, he could have got the video through a source that was not law enforcement, but chose not to because any other source would not be reliable. But when he saw the video from another source he immediately decided it was reliable and adjusted the suspension.

dcmissle said:
I get it that most people hate lawyers, and I think they do so for one very understandable reason: the average person's encounter with the law is not pleasant. It's a fucking divorce, or it's a kid getting charged with some foolishness. It's not, help me take my company public, which will make me a couple of hundred million.
.

This is not why people don't like lawyers. People don't like lawyers because they act like lawyers.

soxfan121 · Sep 28, 2014

amarshal2 said:
Bisciotti and the Ravens deserve the most blame. The DV apology tweet from Janay was the most ridiculous thing anybody has done in this massive cluster fuck.

I don't think you or any media outlet have in any way proven that Bisciotti "ordered" the two game suspension or that Goddell had no choice. I think it's clear Bisciotti strongly requested the suspension be held to two games but Goddell had a choice to ignore the request that he didn't take. He had free will and the ability to think. Bisciotti is 1 of 32. He is not the only boss or the only voice that counts. Until you can prove (or at least credibly suggest) that the other owners were in on it you really can't support this "no free will" argument.

I once worked in an organization where at least thirty-two people were my "boss". If anyone of those individuals "strongly requested" I do something, I didn't poll the others before complying.

Goodell is an employee; his employer, Steve Bisciotti, "strongly requested" Goodell suspend Rice for two games.

The history of the NFL League Office on "violent behavior" suspensions shows a history of team and league suspensions, with no rhyme or reason to explain why one and not the other, except for individual owner preference for how the discipline was publicly announced.

Do you really think that the boss allows the PR Flak Jacket to make decisions, without consultation, about their multi-million dollar assets? What evidence do you have that Goodell is free to make decisions without regard to individual and collective "guidance" from his bosses? Goodell has to comply with the CBA on PED/drug suspensions; no discretion there. Bountygate was to protect all 32 owners from financial liability. Cap penalties for two organizations violating a collusion agreement was owner-on-owner crime. Spygate was a violation of written League Rules (we're not doing this again - stupid rules, but rules are rules).

Things proscribed in writing or affecting all the teams and their profit margins require collective decisions; individual player discipline, for things not explicitly covered in the CBA, is a "wheel of justice". Individual owners "strongly request" how the League discipline their players and Goodell complies. Its the only possible conclusion when you look at the wildly varying applications. Roethlisberger got four games based on an accusation; countless players have not even been fined for accusations; many players haven't been fined when formally charged. Convictions usually earn a suspension, but not always. Some teams suspend players themselves; some teams always let the League handle it.

I think the history of NFL discipline proves the owners operate in this way; consistent when it's written down or risking their money, inconsistent when it's not a formal policy and doesn't hurt the business.

The only reason Ray Rice was suspended and Greg Hardy was not is that the owners (Bisciotti and Carolina's Jerry Richardson) involved "strongly requested" the discipline Goodell would apply. What Rice did (on video) pales in comparison to what Hardy was convicted of in July by a Judge.

Harry Hooper · Oct 19, 2014

La Canfora

Former Ravens running back Ray Rice remains suspended indefinitely following the publication of the video of him striking his now-wife, Janay, in a casino elevator, but he could be reinstated within the next four weeks, sources said.
An appeal hearing date has been set, with a final decision expected to come in an expeditious manner thereafter, and all of that could be resolved by mid-November, which would conceivably allow Rice to sign with another team this season.
...
Rice has maintained he did not lie in his testimony to Commissioner Roger Goodell, and his legal team will make the case that even under the NFL's new domestic violence policy, and as a first-time offender, Rice should be suspended a maximum of six games, which has already passed. Furthermore, they will make the argument that the video tape of Rice's actions were available to the team and the league throughout the process of determining his discipline, and thus nothing changed whatsoever with the case from the time Rice was suspended two games, until eventually being suspended indefinitely, save for TMZ obtaining and posting the video.

HomeRunBaker · Oct 19, 2014

I wonder who could use an experienced lead back heading into the playoffs. Anyone? Bueller?

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) · Oct 19, 2014

HomeRunBaker said:
I wonder who could use an experienced lead back heading into the playoffs. Anyone? Bueller?

The problem with your post is that there is a very legitimate question whether or not Ray Rice is good at football anymore. Performance usually falls behind reputation and the last time ray rice played football he was terrible.

Mystic Merlin · Oct 19, 2014

The Pats aren't signing Ray Rice, HRB.

Judge Mental13 · Oct 19, 2014

No, but the Bills might.

BannedbyNYYFans.com · Oct 19, 2014

Judge Mental13 said:
No, but the Bills might.

The Bills would never have any type of association with a RB linked to violence against his wife.

soxhop411 · Oct 22, 2014

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 7s7 seconds ago
Per league source, Roger Goodell will testify in the Ray Rice appeal hearing.

https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/525083942991720449

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 7m7 minutes ago
Roger Goodell is being forced to testify at the Ray Rice hearing by judge's ruling, per source.

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/525082483709456384

mwonow · Oct 22, 2014

soxhop411 said:
ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 7s7 seconds ago
Per league source, Roger Goodell will testify in the Ray Rice appeal hearing.

https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/525083942991720449

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 7m7 minutes ago
Roger Goodell is being forced to testify at the Ray Rice hearing by judge's ruling, per source.

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/525082483709456384

Has Peter King already declared RG the winner?

Marciano490 · Oct 23, 2014

soxhop411 said:
ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk 7s7 seconds ago
Per league source, Roger Goodell will testify in the Ray Rice appeal hearing.

https://twitter.com/ProFootballTalk/status/525083942991720449

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 7m7 minutes ago
Roger Goodell is being forced to testify at the Ray Rice hearing by judge's ruling, per source.

https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/525082483709456384

Under penalty of perjury.

dcmissle · Oct 23, 2014

It is hilarious that in a matter presided over by a federal judge -- when the Commissioner claims to have been misled by Rice's initial account of the event -- that the Commissioner wasted even a breath attempting to avoid the witness chair.

Judge has since ruled that Cass and Ozzie must testify, Bisciotti and Harbaugh do not. And that makes perfect sense -- Cass and Ozzie were the individuals running point on this for the Ravens.

This appear to be not a witch hunt, but a thoughtfully and narrowly focused search for the truth as it relates to Rice's claim. And that is something the NFL should think about very carefully.

rembrat · Oct 23, 2014

Does he resign before he takes the stand? Or is it fullsteam ahead never mind the icebergs, Captain!

Ed Hillel · Oct 23, 2014

That Mueller report is due any day now, right? I'm assuming that will get postponed indefinitely.

GBrushTWood · Oct 23, 2014

rembrat said:
Does he resign before he takes the stand? Or is it fullsteam ahead never mind the icebergs, Captain!

If he was going to resign, it would have happened the week the story mushroomed in September. I will be floored if he leaves at this point. My best guess is that they scapegoat the head of NFL security as the sacrificial lamb to public scrutiny.

Anybody have any idea what is the best case scenario re: the Rice hearing? Again, I will be surprised if Goodell admits any more knowledge at this point....he's all in with the ignorance story.

Marciano490 · Oct 23, 2014

GBrushTWood said:
If he was going to resign, it would have happened the week the story mushroomed in September. I will be floored if he leaves at this point. My best guess is that they scapegoat the head of NFL security as the sacrificial lamb to public scrutiny.

Anybody have any idea what is the best case scenario re: the Rice hearing? Again, I will be surprised if Goodell admits any more knowledge at this point....he's all in with the ignorance story.

All in with regards to the media. If the man is going to lie before a federal judge, he's got major cajones.

dcmissle · Oct 23, 2014

The best case scenario for Rice is a declaration that the longer suspension is wrongful, which would result in immediate reinstatement as he long ago served the two- game penalty.

Rice has filed a grievance against the Ravens for terminating his contract, but that will be heard in a separate proceeding.

The smart play here for the League and team is to settle both. We'll see if people get smart on this.

Marciano490 · Oct 23, 2014

dcmissle said:
The best case scenario for Rice is a declaration that the longer suspension is wrongful, which would result in immediate reinstatement as he long ago served the two- game penalty.

Rice has filed a grievance against the Ravens for terminating his contract, but that will be heard in a separate proceeding.

The smart play here for the League and team is to settle both. We'll see if people get smart on this.

The indefinite suspension part was stupid to begin with. Obviously, it would have to end at some point, and when it did the controversy over its length would be revived. They should've just said 8, 10, 12 games straight off. If they reinstate him now, it'll stink far and wide, and everyone will know something was up.

Harry Hooper · Oct 24, 2014

Why won't the NFL settle out of court on this one?

soxfan121 · Oct 24, 2014

Harry Hooper said:
Why won't the NFL settle out of court on this one?

What is Rice's motivation to settle? If he thinks he's been wronged, the only solution is to get a ruling. He's already persona non grata and his declining performance - not his elevator punching skills - will keep him off a roster. The only thing left for Rice is to "clear his name".

I'd be surprised if he settled "out of court". And disappointed. Because despite his actions, Ray Rice has the best chance of blowing the lid off the NFL's coverup.

dcmissle · Oct 24, 2014

Harry Hooper said:
Why won't the NFL settle out of court on this one?

See the NCAA and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The rules governing everybody else don't apply to us; we'll tough it out.

mauf · Oct 24, 2014

The NFL knows it has to reinstate Rice. It would prefer to be compelled to reinstate him than do so voluntarily. I don't expect a settlement.

I would expect Goodell to testify evasively, but truthfully. His testimony here needs to be consistent with what he tells Mueller, and he'll get caught (and forced out) if he lies to Mueller. So there's no incentive to lie, but there is every incentive to avoid getting nailed down on particulars.

dynomite · Oct 24, 2014

maufman said:
The NFL knows it has to reinstate Rice. It would prefer to be compelled to reinstate him than do so voluntarily. I don't expect a settlement.

I would expect Goodell to testify evasively, but truthfully. His testimony here needs to be consistent with what he tells Mueller, and he'll get caught (and forced out) if he lies to Mueller. So there's no incentive to lie, but there is every incentive to avoid getting nailed down on particulars.

Yep. People should avoid playing drinking games that include the Commish saying:
- "I don't recall." and
- "I don't want to speculate."

Harry Hooper · Oct 24, 2014

soxfan121 said:
What is Rice's motivation to settle? If he thinks he's been wronged, the only solution is to get a ruling. He's already persona non grata and his declining performance - not his elevator punching skills - will keep him off a roster. The only thing left for Rice is to "clear his name".

I'd be surprised if he settled "out of court". And disappointed. Because despite his actions, Ray Rice has the best chance of blowing the lid off the NFL's coverup.

He won't suit up for the Ravens, but Rice will settle for time served and get reinstated, and possibly get some suspended $ back.

DanoooME · Oct 24, 2014

Harry Hooper said:
He won't suit up for the Ravens, but Rice will settle for time served and get reinstated, and possibly get some suspended $ back.

Will he even suit up for anyone? Even ignoring the fact that his game has really gone downhill the past year plus (3.1 YPC for him and the team last year, Baltimore as a team has rebounded to 4.5 YPC this year without him notably with a couple of changes to the O-line), does anyone want to touch him in fear of media/fan backlash? I can't see the value of having him on the roster outweighing the outside BS the team would have to put up with. Even the teams at the bottom of the list in rushing (Detroit, Arizona, San Diego, Giants, Carolina) are all having mostly health issues, so it's not like he'd be a long term fill in for any of them.

Average Reds · Oct 24, 2014

If I were a betting man, I would guess that this ends with a settlement where Rice is reinstated and is paid his salary for the year minus the original two game suspension.

But I do not believe that Rice will ever play another down in the NFL.

Van Everyman · Oct 24, 2014

maufman said:
The NFL knows it has to reinstate Rice. It would prefer to be compelled to reinstate him than do so voluntarily. I don't expect a settlement.

I would expect Goodell to testify evasively, but truthfully. His testimony here needs to be consistent with what he tells Mueller, and he'll get caught (and forced out) if he lies to Mueller. So there's no incentive to lie, but there is every incentive to avoid getting nailed down on particulars.

Any word on whether ESPN has assigned Bill Simmons to cover this hearing?

The Ray Rice Debacle

JAG

dj paul pfieffer

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Member

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Wants to be startin somethin

Well-Known Member

Urological Expert

for king and country

Wants to be startin somethin

JAG

bet squelcher

Malt Liquor Picker

Deflatigator

bet squelcher

Member

JAG

wise ass al kaprielian

Member

JAG

Member

Member

will you be my friend?

Member

JAG

Well-Known Member

bet squelcher

T&A

Member

Scoops McGee

Member

news aggravator

Member

Urological Expert

Deflatigator

Member

Wants to be startin somethin

New Member

Urological Expert

Deflatigator

Urological Expert

Well-Known Member

JAG

Deflatigator

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers

Member

Well-Known Member

above replacement level

Member

Member