NoSaint Posted July 10, 2015 Posted July 10, 2015 Hardy had Harold Henderson handle his appeal not Goodell. Has Goodell ever reduced a suspension that he handled? I ask because I do not knopw the answer to that questioon. im pretty sure he has before, but not HUGE reductions.
YoloinOhio Posted July 11, 2015 Author Posted July 11, 2015 @AdamSchefter: Cowboys DE Greg Hardy, whose suspension was reduced from 10 to 4 games, still is considering appealing it. Decision to come early this week.
Doc Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 His reasoning is that his transgression happened prior to the change in the DV penalty, when it was just 2 games. He may have a case, as unseemly as it may be.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 His reasoning is that his transgression happened prior to the change in the DV penalty, when it was just 2 games. He may have a case, as unseemly as it may be. Yep. People are lumping these rulings and lessening the suspensions as if it were automatic and all the same. But they're not and it's not close. A lot of them were because the NFL was applying rules that were made AFTER the player had committed the crime. They should be reduced. But the Brady case had none of that.
Saxum Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Good news for Panthers: because penalty was reduced from 10 to 4 games they are eligible for compensation pick, a 3rd round according to salary paid by Cowboys.
NoSaint Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 (edited) His reasoning is that his transgression happened prior to the change in the DV penalty, when it was just 2 games. He may have a case, as unseemly as it may be.I thought he very specifically did not say that and instead had some vague convoluted reasoning that said the timing didn't matter - from the recap I read Florio ripped on him some for taking months to conclude and not actually addressing that obvious issue Edited July 11, 2015 by NoSaint
Kelly the Dog Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I thought he very specifically did not say that and instead had some vague convoluted reasoning that said the timing didn't matter - from the recap I read Florio ripped on him some for taking months to conclude and not actually addressing that obvious issue What he said was that it didn't really matter whether it was a new policy or not, that 10 games was too much compared to other similar cases when the incident occurred. But that is what he made the ruling on, that the sentence was out of whack. I'm sure he took into account that Hardy had also been suspended 15 games even with pay. It's impossible not to.
JohnC Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 What he said was that it didn't really matter whether it was a new policy or not, that 10 games was too much compared to other similar cases when the incident occurred. But that is what he made the ruling on, that the sentence was out of whack. I'm sure he took into account that Hardy had also been suspended 15 games even with pay. It's impossible not to. The reduction in penalty by the arbitrator had nothing to do with Hardy sitting out the year with pay. In the Peterson case the same arbitrator didn't consider Peterson sitting out with pay as a punishment. The basis for his ruling is that the offense occurred under a prior disciplinary/punishment standard for that type of offensive. The arbitrator made the determination that the commissioner grossly over punished for that type of behavior under the standard that should have been applied at that time. http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/13238310/nfl-gets-discipline-wrong-again-greg-hardy-reduced-suspension I consider Hardy to be a menace to society. He should be in jail. He is a sick bastaard! The notion that Brady should be punished at the same level that this reprobate is reflects how irrational the the disciplinary system is. The commissioner again demonstrated in handling disciplinary issues that he is incompetent and unqualified in assuming that responsibility. When you have a standard you apply the standard. That isn't a difficult concept to grasp. His habit of making it up as he goes along is continuously reversed when it goes to an outside authority.
NoSaint Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 The reduction in penalty by the arbitrator had nothing to do with Hardy sitting out the year with pay. In the Peterson case the same arbitrator didn't consider Peterson sitting out with pay as a punishment. The basis for his ruling is that the offense occurred under a prior disciplinary/punishment standard for that type of offensive. The arbitrator made the determination that the commissioner grossly over punished for that type of behavior under the standard that should have been applied at that time. http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/13238310/nfl-gets-discipline-wrong-again-greg-hardy-reduced-suspension I consider Hardy to be a menace to society. He should be in jail. He is a sick bastaard! The notion that Brady should be punished at the same level that this reprobate is reflects how irrational the the disciplinary system is. The commissioner again demonstrated in handling disciplinary issues that he is incompetent and unqualified in assuming that responsibility. When you have a standard you apply the standard. That isn't a difficult concept to grasp. His habit of making it up as he goes along is continuously reversed when it goes to an outside authority. I'd question whether the argument that Brady should get less is correct using this reasoning.... I think workplace incidents should receive much more scrutiny from an employer than personal conduct outside the game. That's not to say that murder is less punishable than PED use but in the case of tampering with equipment vs a non-conviction domestic accusation.... I'm not sure it's as obvious as some make it sound for LEAGUE punishment. Morally, I get the tiers are different but in the context of an employer suspending an employee? I think its a more interesting talk than some would allow.
Big C Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I'd question whether the argument that Brady should get less is correct using this reasoning.... I think workplace incidents should receive much more scrutiny from an employer than personal conduct outside the game. That's not to say that murder is less punishable than PED use but in the case of tampering with equipment vs a non-conviction domestic accusation.... I'm not sure it's as obvious as some make it sound for LEAGUE punishment. Morally, I get the tiers are different but in the context of an employer suspending an employee? I think its a more interesting talk than some would allow. I agree. It's the sort of conversation most people wouldn't be able to have because their emotions or moral convictions wouldn't allow them to. Of course, an actual conviction for Hardy would make this a different discussion.
JohnC Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I agree. It's the sort of conversation most people wouldn't be able to have because their emotions or moral convictions wouldn't allow them to. Of course, an actual conviction for Hardy would make this a different discussion. You don't need a criminal conviction to apply a league standard for domestic abuse. There was more than enough evidence in the Hardy case to be confident that a domestic abuse incident occurred. There was a first legal action that convicted then followed by the second court appeal appearance where the victim didn't show. The issue in this case whereby the arbitrator lessened the punishment had to do with the fact that the commissioner didn't follow the punishment standard that was in place. The Hardy case is not necessarily over because the arbitrator's ruling of four games punishment is more than the standard punishment of two games for that category of offense. If Hardy decides to pursue the case he has a good chance to win and get the arbitrator's ruling lessened. In the Ray Rice case even if the legal authorities decided not pursue the assault case the league had more than enough evidence (film) and acknowledgement of the facts of the case by Rice and his mate to make a punishment ruling. The mistake the commissioner made was that he went beyond the established punishment guidelines for that category of offense when he increased the punishment with his followup action. In addition, to demonstrate how contaminated the process was in the Rice case the commissioner claimed that he had additional evidence after his initial ruling that justified his later more severe punishment. The arbitrator in the case concluded that Goodell was not truthful about that matter and maintained the original sentence instead of the more severe sentence.
LeGOATski Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I never followed the Hardy case, but because of this thread, I just read a few articles from last year. This seems like a sloppy case. Especially this part about the judge who ruled on his first trial without a jury : "Judge Thorne Tin, who was in an election year,[26] was co-chair of her law school's Battered Women's Advocacy Project." After the accuser admitted to using cocaine that night, the judge wouldn't allow the prosecutor to keep questioning her about it. lol...I'm sure Judge Becky saw this as a great opportunity to add something to the resume. Mission accomplished. Overall, I think 2-4 games is a good lesson for a guy like Greg Hardy because I'm not saying he's completely innocent, but hopefully young NFL players like him will think twice before getting involved with free-loading cocaine addicts.
Rocky Landing Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 I never followed the Hardy case, but because of this thread, I just read a few articles from last year. This seems like a sloppy case. Especially this part about the judge who ruled on his first trial without a jury : "Judge Thorne Tin, who was in an election year,[26] was co-chair of her law school's Battered Women's Advocacy Project." After the accuser admitted to using cocaine that night, the judge wouldn't allow the prosecutor to keep questioning her about it. lol...I'm sure Judge Becky saw this as a great opportunity to add something to the resume. Mission accomplished. Overall, I think 2-4 games is a good lesson for a guy like Greg Hardy because I'm not saying he's completely innocent, but hopefully young NFL players like him will think twice before getting involved with free-loading cocaine addicts. As I understand it, the only reason the case was dismissed is because the victim/witness made herself unavailable to the prosecutor. He couldn't even find her. And, his office was going to press charges without her. But, without her testimony, there was no case. It was speculated (and this seems most likely) that Hardy had paid her off. Otherwise, a conviction-- at least in the opinion of the DA-- would have been a slam dunk. Regarding the Judge: Not that I don't appreciate your cynicism, but I doubt that a sitting judge would ignore the merits of a case in order to "pad her resume." Be that as it may, it certainly seemed like there was more than enough evidence to convict him in the first trial, before the appeal.
Augie Posted July 11, 2015 Posted July 11, 2015 Any games knocked off for Hardy should be added to Brady, you know, just to keep the math straight.
LeGOATski Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 As I understand it, the only reason the case was dismissed is because the victim/witness made herself unavailable to the prosecutor. He couldn't even find her. And, his office was going to press charges without her. But, without her testimony, there was no case. It was speculated (and this seems most likely) that Hardy had paid her off. Otherwise, a conviction-- at least in the opinion of the DA-- would have been a slam dunk. Regarding the Judge: Not that I don't appreciate your cynicism, but I doubt that a sitting judge would ignore the merits of a case in order to "pad her resume." Be that as it may, it certainly seemed like there was more than enough evidence to convict him in the first trial, before the appeal. It seems that she wanted to ignore any talk about the accuser's cocaine addiction...
NoSaint Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 As I understand it, the only reason the case was dismissed is because the victim/witness made herself unavailable to the prosecutor. He couldn't even find her. And, his office was going to press charges without her. But, without her testimony, there was no case. It was speculated (and this seems most likely) that Hardy had paid her off. Otherwise, a conviction-- at least in the opinion of the DA-- would have been a slam dunk. Regarding the Judge: Not that I don't appreciate your cynicism, but I doubt that a sitting judge would ignore the merits of a case in order to "pad her resume." Be that as it may, it certainly seemed like there was more than enough evidence to convict him in the first trial, before the appeal. I won't argue the merits of it to this specific judge and DA (I don't know anything about their track records) but to simply go with it sounded like a slam dunk according to the DA and thinking judges don't play politics seem like two shaky foundations to form an opinion off of. Of course the DA is incentivized to say "I totally would've won if not for...." Sometimes it's true, and sometimes it's just trying to sound good. A judge also has incentives to shape outcomes to fit a persona they portray. Often simply getting justice but sometimes being the one that's "tough on....(insert whatever crime or group is a hot button)"
LeGOATski Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) I won't argue the merits of it to this specific judge and DA (I don't know anything about their track records) but to simply go with it sounded like a slam dunk according to the DA and thinking judges don't play politics seem like two shaky foundations to form an opinion off of. Of course the DA is incentivized to say "I totally would've won if not for...." Sometimes it's true, and sometimes it's just trying to sound good. A judge also has incentives to shape outcomes to fit a persona they portray. Often simply getting justice but sometimes being the one that's "tough on....(insert whatever crime or group is a hot button)" That judge also new that the outcome of that trial didn't hold much weight. There was no jury and it's the easiest type to appeal. That's the kind of thing a judge can manipulate to fit an agenda with no threat of serious repercussions. Just part of the process. Edited July 12, 2015 by LeGOATski
Peace Frog Posted July 12, 2015 Posted July 12, 2015 Any games knocked off for Hardy should be added to Brady, you know, just to keep the math straight.
Recommended Posts