- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,238
- Reaction score
- 8,002
- Points
- 113
And where's the white suit he was wearing? Gone. Innocent people don't get rid of their clothes. He and Baby Ray should be cell mates.
Last edited:
Don't think Ray Rice will be defended anymore...
- Thread starter SteelerinMD
- Start date
And where's the white suit he was wearing? Gone. Innocent people don't get rid of their clothes. He and Baby Ray should be cell mates.
uh-oh. looks like all that appealing to the female demographic may come back to bite Rog in his ginger ***.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...n-calls-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-resign
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...n-calls-nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-resign
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,067
- Reaction score
- 524
- Points
- 113
Looks like congress doesn't believe the commish either
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0910-comissioner-letter-doc-tmz.pdf
"Nor has there been a full explanation as to whether the video was requested of others, such as Mr. Rice's attorney or the casino where the incident occurred (and if not, why not), or whether any employees, agents, or consultants of the league or any of its teams outside of your office had access of the video prior to September 8."
http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk/tmz_documents/0910-comissioner-letter-doc-tmz.pdf
"Nor has there been a full explanation as to whether the video was requested of others, such as Mr. Rice's attorney or the casino where the incident occurred (and if not, why not), or whether any employees, agents, or consultants of the league or any of its teams outside of your office had access of the video prior to September 8."
Haven't caught up on the last few posts yet, but, do you still believe this? In light of the reports being discussed in the other thread and the evidence given to the AP by the cop, it's ok to change your mind ...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 1,861
- Reaction score
- 1,070
- Points
- 113
LOL at the Ray Rice defense force. Just watched a reporter on TV breakdown the video and how Rice spit in her face twice and that was what she was reacting to when she lunged at him and then he knocked her the ****** out. That somebody contacted security and told them to get Ray away from her as soon as possible. And there was a witness who said her first words when she woke up were, "How could you do this to the mother of your child?" And that Ray then called somebody on his cell phone and said, "I'm getting arrested."
Hmm looks to be a metric s%$t ton of distractions for the ratbirds tomorrow night.....
All we need now is someone saying they gave the video to Hairball and we will be SET....
All we need now is someone saying they gave the video to Hairball and we will be SET....
**** that ... Ozzie himself says that what Rice told the Ravens matched pretty much exactly what appears in the video. So, they knew EXACTLY what happened and if they knew, the NFL/Commish knew ... So, why did they need the video surfacing in order to raise the suspension? Shoulda gave a bigger suspension in the first place.
H
Hollywood Bags
Guest
Yes I do. This so-called law enforcement official needs to come forward. Sounds like he needs to be fired and prosecuted.
Whether he needs to be fired and/or prosecuted has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the video was in the possession of, or seen by ANYONE in the NFL. Fire him, convict him, that's still a red herring in regards to there being evidence that the NFL had possession of the video.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,460
- Reaction score
- 1,150
- Points
- 113
it would appear that according to a voicemail left by a very nice secratary at the offices of the NFL, as well as the statement of someone from law enforcement, that the NFL HAD the ************* tape waaaayyyyyyyy the **** back in April. What was that you were saying again? *****.
Joe
I
Idioteque
Guest
Thing is, Rog covered his bases. When interviewed this week, he responded clearly:
"No one in the NFL, to my knowledge..."
He now has plausible deniability, as he can claim that some secretary is the only one proven to have received the tape without his knowledge. The problem with THAT, however, is that it's basically a plea of ignorance/incompetence. It's implying that his company is so askew that some random person got hold of this coveted evidence and sat on it under his nose
The way I see it, Rog can probably beat the "liar" tag, but not the "incompetent" one.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 12,926
- Reaction score
- 17,489
- Points
- 113
This has gotten crazy now. You go from 2 games to out of the league and never playing again. Not because Ray did some additional crime, but because Goodell is afraid of twitter,
Goodell needs to go. If the owners didn't know before, they know now that he is just an empty suit who tries to appease the media at every turn.
Maybe revenues have gone up, but under Goodell, mothers now think that their kids will get brain damage and die if they play, or they will become out of control woman beaters.
This is what happens when you have a leader who would rather get atta boys from the media than do his job of leading and speaking for those who elected him.
ESPN had a fictional show called Playmakers that did not paint the league in positive light. Tagliabue got that show cancelled quickly. That's what a leader does. Goodell probably would have asked for a guest spot on that show.
Goodell allowed the media to create this firestorm. If he had any balls, he would have said from the start that the 2 game suspension was the best he could do because penalties for domestic violence were not negotiated. When the media got mad at the new video, he should have stuck to his guns and said that penalties for domestic violence would be negotiated with the union and policies would be in place for the future. The media would have called him names, but it would have went away.
The second video changed nothing. Everyone knew what happened. It was just a pretext to tear into the league again. The media loves nothing more than to destroy somebody or something by self righteous indignation.
But Goodell showed fear and the media smelled the blood and went for the kill. He's weak. He's no advocate for the NFL, he's an advocate for himself.
Goodell needs to go. If the owners didn't know before, they know now that he is just an empty suit who tries to appease the media at every turn.
Maybe revenues have gone up, but under Goodell, mothers now think that their kids will get brain damage and die if they play, or they will become out of control woman beaters.
This is what happens when you have a leader who would rather get atta boys from the media than do his job of leading and speaking for those who elected him.
ESPN had a fictional show called Playmakers that did not paint the league in positive light. Tagliabue got that show cancelled quickly. That's what a leader does. Goodell probably would have asked for a guest spot on that show.
Goodell allowed the media to create this firestorm. If he had any balls, he would have said from the start that the 2 game suspension was the best he could do because penalties for domestic violence were not negotiated. When the media got mad at the new video, he should have stuck to his guns and said that penalties for domestic violence would be negotiated with the union and policies would be in place for the future. The media would have called him names, but it would have went away.
The second video changed nothing. Everyone knew what happened. It was just a pretext to tear into the league again. The media loves nothing more than to destroy somebody or something by self righteous indignation.
But Goodell showed fear and the media smelled the blood and went for the kill. He's weak. He's no advocate for the NFL, he's an advocate for himself.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 12,310
- Reaction score
- 19,430
- Points
- 113
Funny thing is, if it is found out Goodell instituted the indefinite suspension simply because the video came out, that Goodell saw the video or knew it's content as suggested in the AP report, Ray Rice may be eligible to play real quick. I am sure he would appeal and most likely win. He was given a punishment by the NFL. If they already knew the contents of the video, no legitimate legal authority would allow the indefinite suspension to stand.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2014
- Messages
- 10,530
- Reaction score
- 6,220
- Points
- 113
As far as I am concerned this whole thing should have been over after the two game suspension. While I did not agree work with the suspension it is what it is. From all accounts it seems that rice told what happened and everyone saw him dragging her out of the elevator so the new video should not have been so shocking. Since the original suspension it seemed rice and his wife were doing everything they were supposed to (counseling and what not). I think rice would win a law suit and I hope Goodell goes down. The problem is the Ravens also botched the whole thing. I still think at least the league had the video. All it will take us a couple of owners with some balls to take a stand and I think others will follow. I see that the case is going to be investigated by the ex fbi director so hopefully he is not influenced by the league.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,238
- Reaction score
- 8,002
- Points
- 113
Goodell botched this horribly. Had he given Rice a 6 game or even a year suspension, no one but Ravens fans would be complaining. When this video came out he's be fully vindicated for doling out a harsh punishment.
As previously mentioned, I do think the video makes a difference because Rice and his lawyer (with Janay's help) tried to make it out like it was a much more mutual altercation, and that she was the violent aggressor. Rog being Rog was more than happy to cover his eyes and swallow that story.
Ohhh, I wasn't talking about Rog. I was referencing Bollywood Hag's contention that the cop who supplied the NFL the video needs to be fired/prosecuted. Rog must go. As he told the Saints "ignorance is not an excuse". Willful ignorance to manufacture plausible deniability is less of one.
1. I am sure after the immediate firestorm dies down, the NFLPA will bring this point up. Essentially you have punished Rice twice for the same infraction. Not saying that the NFLPA is weak on the issue of DV, but rather that to let the obvious double punishment go unchallenged would make them appear to be a weak union who doesn't stand up for their members.
2. Goodell couldn't have followed this course of action because he was already eyeing up the possibility of using the Personal Conduct Policy to punish Domestic Violence, Assault offenders in the future. He saw the Rice situation as a way to expand his powers by using the public outrage to put the union in a position where they couldn't object to the fact that such a policy hadn't been collectively bargained. It backfired on him, as with his decision to not see the video. Now he looks like a liar at worst or an incompetent boob in the least.
You mean the ex-FBI Director who was part of the George W. Bush administration with Goodell's father-in-law? Yeah, we can count on him to be impartial. Not like he was hand picked to help cover up Rog's incompetence or willful negligence.
This threat is so ridiculous and mainly due to Hollywood Bags. It doesn't matter if you saw the video or not. If you knew it existed and knew what was on it (per the police), then seeing it is not needed. Could Rog and the Rats have gotten it directly from the casino if they asked for it? The casino says yes and they were not approached by either for the tape. Rog and the Rats only reacted after the video was shown to the public but they knew of the video. They knew what was on the video. They just didn't try very hard to get a copy to actually view months ago. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. Thread over. They are guilty and Rog needs to go.
I mean when Rog said that a life time ban is now on the table, I was like WTF? Is that part of his "new" policy on domestic abuse? If it is not, then it is not on the table. You can't now treat Rice any differently than the policy you created right after giving him the 2 game suspension. I believe the new policy gives a 6 game suspension (not sure on that, though). If so, then that is all Rice should get. Then the question will be is will anyone pick him up. They did with Vick and others who served prison time so I would assume someone will pick Rice up.
I mean when Rog said that a life time ban is now on the table, I was like WTF? Is that part of his "new" policy on domestic abuse? If it is not, then it is not on the table. You can't now treat Rice any differently than the policy you created right after giving him the 2 game suspension. I believe the new policy gives a 6 game suspension (not sure on that, though). If so, then that is all Rice should get. Then the question will be is will anyone pick him up. They did with Vick and others who served prison time so I would assume someone will pick Rice up.
H
Hollywood Bags
Guest
All the more reason to suggest Roger never saw the tape.
H
Hollywood Bags
Guest
The law enforcement official does need to be fired. He was not authorized to distribute this tape. Period.
Now, Roger might need to take the fall, but it still doesn't change anything I said.
H
Hollywood Bags
Guest
"Anyone in the NFL" is a rather broad statement. The NFL is a large organization. If only Rita the housekeeper saw it, would you still consider that to be "The NFL new about it"?
H
Hollywood Bags
Guest
I agree with this.
I
Idioteque
Guest
Yes, and I'd consider the NFL pretty damned incompetent for placing Rita in a position to (a) see the tape, and (b) remain the ONLY one to see it and hold it under the NFL's nose for months despite heavy scrutiny?
And when it comes down to it, how likely is the scenario I just described?
If If was a fifth we'd all be drunk. Fact is that according to the AP the video was received by an NFL exec., not Rita the housekeeper. So, I'd consider in the possession of an NFL exec. to mean the NFL knew about it. It is likely that this person (or more likely, his secretary) will be a sacrificial lamb for Roger's willful negligence.
P.S. thanks for pointing out the typo/spelling error as that was truly relevant to the debate.