Source: Seahawks DT Reed suspended 6 games. Vikings cornerback Holton Hill received a four-game suspension

[Ethan in Cleveland]

5 hours ago, mannc said:

Every day, district attorneys charge certain suspects with crimes and decide not to charge others, for reasons that are not fully disclosed.  Is that a bad look, too?  

Yes it is

[whatdrought]

15 hours ago, mannc said:

The linked article says almost nothing about the evidence against Reed.  The NFL found that there was insufficient evidence for the league to take action against Hill.  What reason do you have to believe that the evidence against Hill was comparable to the evidence against Reed?  Why would the league treat Reed more harshly than Hill for similar offenses?  Both are stars, although I'll admit that Hill is a bigger one than Reed.   

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for or against this guys suspension, but the fact of the matter is that the Hill situation does not look good for the NFL. They suspended Jimmy Smith for four games for threatening behavior (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000950015/article/ravens-cb-jimmy-smith-suspended-for-four-games) while they took a no-punishment stance with Hill who is on tape saying "you should be afraid of me B word" to a woman he has been convicted of assaulting. Now we have this guy getting suspended for four games for a non-descript  domestic issue. 

 

It's not crazy to imagine that the NFL plays a double standards game with their big stars (*cough* Big Ben *cough*)- the problem is that without more information, this situation smells funny. 

[mannc]

30 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I don't think anyone is arguing for or against this guys suspension, but the fact of the matter is that the Hill situation does not look good for the NFL. They suspended Jimmy Smith for four games for threatening behavior (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000950015/article/ravens-cb-jimmy-smith-suspended-for-four-games) while they took a no-punishment stance with Hill who is on tape saying "you should be afraid of me B word" to a woman he has been convicted of assaulting. Now we have this guy getting suspended for four games for a non-descript  domestic issue. 

 

It's not crazy to imagine that the NFL plays a double standards game with their big stars (*cough* Big Ben *cough*)- the problem is that without more information, this situation smells funny. 

The linked article says very little about what Smith actually did, but it appears to have been a pattern of threatening and abusive behavior over a long period of time--quite different from the evidence against Hill, which seems to have consisted of one fairly vague statement that he apparently did not act upon.  I think the league should be commended for drawing distinctions between different situations and not just slapping a four-game suspension on every player who's accused of something, just to satisfy the virtue-signalling public.  Doling out the same punishment to everyone might look fair on the surface, but it's really not. 

 

Hill has a history of being a bad actor, and I'm sure the league wanted to send a message by side-lining him for some period of time regardless of his star status, but the evidence apparently wasn't there.  I don't agree that that makes the league look bad.  

Edited July 23, 2019 by mannc

[whatdrought]

42 minutes ago, mannc said:

The linked article says very little about what Smith actually did, but it appears to have been a pattern of threatening and abusive behavior over a long period of time--quite different from the evidence against Hill, which seems to have consisted of one fairly vague statement that he apparently did not act upon.  I think the league should be commended for drawing distinctions between different situations and not just slapping a four-game suspension on every player who's accused of something, just to satisfy the virtue-signalling public.  Doling out the same punishment to everyone might look fair on the surface, but it's really not. 

 

Hill has a history of being a bad actor, and I'm sure the league wanted to send a message by side-lining him for some period of time regardless of his star status, but the evidence apparently wasn't there.  I don't agree that that makes the league look bad.  

 

I can agree with you on that- my main point, which you disagree with, is that it’s bad for the “shield” that there’s no reasoning given for high profile decisions like this. But we can disagree with that and I see your point as well. 

[mannc]

13 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

I can agree with you on that- my main point, which you disagree with, is that it’s bad for the “shield” that there’s no reasoning given for high profile decisions like this. But we can disagree with that and I see your point as well. 

Fine.  I think we can agree that, in general, it's bad for the league when high-profile guys like Hill and Reed do bad things and it ends up in the media.  I'm not sure there's a lot Roger can do to make everyone happy in these sorts of situations.  

[3rdand12]

21 hours ago, mannc said:

What's hard to follow?  The league found sufficient evidence that Reed did it and insufficient evidence that Hill did it.  Seems very easy to follow...  

is that what they found ?

Okay .... : )

5 hours ago, mannc said:

Fine.  I think we can agree that, in general, it's bad for the league when high-profile guys like Hill and Reed do bad things and it ends up in the media.  I'm not sure there's a lot Roger can do to make everyone happy in these sorts of situations.  

This is a good  point.

 His employers have plenty to say about his decision making i might suppose. seems eac is it's own case , depending.

Edited July 23, 2019 by 3rdand12

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Lets add another 

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/27245262/vikings-cb-hill-suspended-again-1st-8-weeks

 

EAGAN, Minn. -- Vikings cornerback Holton Hill received a four-game suspension from the NFL on Tuesday for violating the league's policy and program on substances of abuse. This is the second time since April that Hill has been hit with a suspension.

 

 

The second-year cornerback was initially set to miss the first four games of the 2019 season for violating the NFL's policy on performance-enhancing substances. With an additional four-game suspension, Hill is now eligible to return to the Vikings active roster entering Week 9. The entirety of his suspension will be served without pay.

[YoloinOhio]

Both of these guys had character issues pre-draft 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 7/22/2019 at 2:39 PM, mannc said:

they did.  They said there was insufficient evidence that uncharged guy #2 did it.  Unless you're privy to all the information that the league was, you have no basis for suggesting that there is a double standard.

 

I have no basis for saying there isn’t, either.  That’s the point.

The league is basically saying “trust us, we’ve conducted an impartial investigation using an internally clear standard and this is what we found”

 

But the league is also saying “we have no tolerance for domestic abuse”, and it’s a business which explicitly values appearances.
Given those two factors, failure to make the internally clear standard externally clear, so to speak, gives the appearance that punishments are arrived at by rolling dice.

 

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I have no basis for saying there isn’t, either.  That’s the point.

The league is basically saying “trust us, we’ve conducted an impartial investigation using an internally clear standard and this is what we found”

 

But the league is also saying “we have no tolerance for domestic abuse”, and it’s a business which explicitly values appearances.
Given those two factors, failure to make the internally clear standard externally clear, so to speak, gives the appearance that punishments are arrived at by rolling dice.

 

I don't understand your position. The local authorities investigated the child abuse domestic abuse case and couldn't come to a conclusion as to who was responsible for the injury that the child sustained and also the domestic violence aspect of the case. The commissioner's office has its own investigators that not only can review the police investigation but also look into the case themselves. They could not prove that Hill was guilty of anything even with their lower standards of determining guilt or culpability for such offenses. Does that mean that he wasn't guilty? Of course not. But how fair would the process be if a judgment was made not based on the evidence even at a lower standard? 

 

It is not unusual for the authorities to investigate a case/s with conflicting parties and not be able to make a determination as to who did what. The commissioner extensively interviewed Hill. And they concluded that they couldn't determine that he did what he was accused of by his partner. Why would you believe that the league would have an incentive to favor him in this case? It's the opposite of that because of his history of problems. Even with a besmirched reputation which would have made him an easy target for the league the league didn't have enough evidence to conclude he did what he was accused of . 

 

With respect to the highlighted segment I agree with you that the league doesn't have much tolerance for domestic abuse and is sensitive about appearances in that area. However, if there wasn't enough evidence at a lower standard than a criminal standard then it would not have been reasonable/fair for the NFL to punish him because that in itself would have been an example of a tainted process.  

[Doc]

3 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Both of these guys had character issues pre-draft 

 

So did Hill.

[whatdrought]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I don't understand your position. The local authorities investigated the child abuse domestic abuse case and couldn't come to a conclusion as to who was responsible for the injury that the child sustained and also the domestic violence aspect of the case. The commissioner's office has its own investigators that not only can review the police investigation but also look into the case themselves. They could not prove that Hill was guilty of anything even with their lower standards of determining guilt or culpability for such offenses. Does that mean that he wasn't guilty? Of course not. But how fair would the process be if a judgment was made not based on the evidence even at a lower standard? 

 

It is not unusual for the authorities to investigate a case/s with conflicting parties and not be able to make a determination as to who did what. The commissioner extensively interviewed Hill. And they concluded that they couldn't determine that he did what he was accused of by his partner. Why would you believe that the league would have an incentive to favor him in this case? It's the opposite of that because of his history of problems. Even with a besmirched reputation which would have made him an easy target for the league the league didn't have enough evidence to conclude he did what he was accused of . 

 

With respect to the highlighted segment I agree with you that the league doesn't have much tolerance for domestic abuse and is sensitive about appearances in that area. However, if there wasn't enough evidence at a lower standard than a criminal standard then it would not have been reasonable/fair for the NFL to punish him because that in itself would have been an example of a tainted process.  

 

The police didn’t charge Reed either and he’s getting suspended so that’s obviously not a standard. 

 

And Hill might not be guilty of abuse, but he did threaten his girlfriend (girlfriend whom he has previously abused) and if you look above at one of my posts there’s an article about Jimmy Smith getting suspended for threatening behavior. 

 

It’s entirely possible that Hill was innocent and not deserving suspension, while Reed was- the problem is that because all of this was “internal” the default becomes asking us as fans to trust their investigators and their impartiality. While I don’t have a huge issue with that, there has been some major issues under Rog when it comes to discipline that would definitely make questions appear. If you’re a Seahawks fan you can’t say you’re not wondering why one non-criminal allegation is worthy of suspension, and the other isn’t. There’s no transparency and the stakeholders (every football fan) are left up in the air.

 

By the “league knows best” standard, Josh Allen could get accused of assault tomorrow, go uncharged by the police, and then given a 6 game suspension. Are you saying you wouldn’t want to know what led to that decision as our time, money, and energy investment in the 2019 Bills season gets flushed down he drain?

Edited July 24, 2019 by whatdrought

[JohnC]

17 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

The police didn’t charge Reed either and he’s getting suspended so that’s obviously not a standard. 

 

And Hill might not be guilty of abuse, but he did threaten his girlfriend (girlfriend whom he has previously abused) and if you look above at one of my posts there’s an article about Jimmy Smith getting suspended for threatening behavior. 

 

It’s entirely possible that Hill was innocent and not deserving suspension, while Reed was- the problem is that because all of this was “internal” the default becomes asking us as fans to trust their investigators and their impartiality. While I don’t have a huge issue with that, there has been some major issues under Rog when it comes to discipline that would definitely make questions appear. If you’re a Seahawks fan you can’t say you’re not wondering why one non-criminal allegation is worthy of suspension, and the other isn’t. There’s no transparency and the stakeholders (every football fan) are left up in the air.

From a PR standpoint the incentive for the league was to punish Hill who had a disreputable reputation. That would have been the easy thing for the league to do. There was a recording of a threat made by Hill toward his girlfriend. But there were reports that the recording that was presented by the girlfriend was not complete and didn't fully reflect the situation. This case was fully reviewed by police and by the league. Hill was extensively interviewed by the league and gave his version of the events. 

 

Let's face it, Hill is not a sympathetic character. He is a reprobate. He is not the type of character that is going to be given the benefit of the doubt when accused of a transgression. But after an exhaustive process the league concluded that it didn't have enough evidence to discipline him. This was an evidence based cased that in the end the league couldn't come to a conclusion that his actions warranted a punishment. The easy thing to have done is punish this unsavory and unsympathetic character even without adequate evidence for PR reasons. They didn't take the easy out. They acted on the evidence on hand and made a determination. That was the right thing to do. 

 

Edited July 24, 2019 by JohnC

[whatdrought]

33 minutes ago, JohnC said:

From a PR standpoint the incentive for the league was to punish Hill who had a disreputable reputation. That would have been the easy thing for the league to do. There was a recording of a threat made by Hill toward his girlfriend. But there were reports that the recording that was presented by the girlfriend was not complete and didn't fully reflect the situation. This case was fully reviewed by police and by the league. Hill was extensively interviewed by the league and gave his version of the events. 

 

Let's face it, Hill is not a sympathetic character. He is a reprobate. He is not the type of character that is going to be given the benefit of the doubt when accused of a transgression. But after an exhaustive process the league concluded that it didn't have enough evidence to discipline him. This was an evidence based cased that in the end the league couldn't come to a conclusion that his actions warranted a punishment. The easy thing to have done is punish this unsavory and unsympathetic character even without adequate evidence for PR reasons. They didn't take the easy out. They acted on the evidence on hand and made a determination. That was the right thing to do. 

 

 

The other side of that is that Hill is the most exciting player on the most exciting team, helping make the new face of the NFL look good... they had just as much reason not to punish him as they did to punish him. 

Your argument is sound and I don’t necessarily disagree, but the truth is neither of us know the full story on either of these cases- that’s the issue that I see with it. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

54 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

The police didn’t charge Reed either and he’s getting suspended so that’s obviously not a standard. 

 

And Hill might not be guilty of abuse, but he did threaten his girlfriend (girlfriend whom he has previously abused) and if you look above at one of my posts there’s an article about Jimmy Smith getting suspended for threatening behavior. 

 

It’s entirely possible that Hill was innocent and not deserving suspension, while Reed was- the problem is that because all of this was “internal” the default becomes asking us as fans to trust their investigators and their impartiality. While I don’t have a huge issue with that, there has been some major issues under Rog when it comes to discipline that would definitely make questions appear. If you’re a Seahawks fan you can’t say you’re not wondering why one non-criminal allegation is worthy of suspension, and the other isn’t. There’s no transparency and the stakeholders (every football fan) are left up in the air.

 

By the “league knows best” standard, Josh Allen could get accused of assault tomorrow, go uncharged by the police, and then given a 6 game suspension. Are you saying you wouldn’t want to know what led to that decision as our time, money, and energy investment in the 2019 Bills season gets flushed down he drain?

 

Well said.  This is exactly my concern.  It's not beyond belief that a proper, impartial investigation found different evidence in different cases and meted out punishment impartially and fairly.  But the process is 100% opaque.

 

It's all about "I'm from the NFL, and I'm here to help you!" level of trust on the part of fans.

[mannc]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well said.  This is exactly my concern.  It's not beyond belief that a proper, impartial investigation found different evidence in different cases and meted out punishment impartially and fairly.  But the process is 100% opaque.

 

It's all about "I'm from the NFL, and I'm here to help you!" level of trust on the part of fans.

What did the league fail to disclose that you think it should have disclosed?  They aren’t going to release their investigative files, for a lot of reasons.  In fact, they probably couldn’t even if they wanted to.

[JohnC]

8 hours ago, whatdrought said:

 

The other side of that is that Hill is the most exciting player on the most exciting team, helping make the new face of the NFL look good... they had just as much reason not to punish him as they did to punish him. 

Your argument is sound and I don’t necessarily disagree, but the truth is neither of us know the full story on either of these cases- that’s the issue that I see with it. 

With respect to the highlighted segment I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your view. There is no doubt that Hill is a top tier receiver. But he is also the poster child for thuggery and aberrant behavior. This unsympathetic hoodlum is not the type of person that the league wants to offer leniency to. Quite the contrary. He is an easy target to harshly discipline and demonstrate to the their various constituencies (players, management, fans, advertisers etc.) that bad behavior will not be tolerated. There was one problem that stopped the league from holding him to account: They didn't have the evidence to make a determination to punish him. 

 

Is he really guilty or not of what he is accused of? I don't know. What is apparent is that after an exhaustive investigation by the public and league authorities it couldn't be sufficiently proven. If that is the case then the league did the right thing by not punishing him. 

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well said.  This is exactly my concern.  It's not beyond belief that a proper, impartial investigation found different evidence in different cases and meted out punishment impartially and fairly.  But the process is 100% opaque.

 

It's all about "I'm from the NFL, and I'm here to help you!" level of trust on the part of fans.

What was so opaque about the process? How was case this handled differently from other high profile cases? Whether fans trust the system isn't the issue. The issue is whether a fair and robust investigation of this case occurred. It did. You might not like the outcome but the case was judged on the evidence that was gathered. How else was this case to be handled? 

[whatdrought]

21 minutes ago, JohnC said:

With respect to the highlighted segment I respectfully but strenuously disagree with your view. There is no doubt that Hill is a top tier receiver. But he is also the poster child for thuggery and aberrant behavior. This unsympathetic hoodlum is not the type of person that the league wants to offer leniency to. Quite the contrary. He is an easy target to harshly discipline and demonstrate to the their various constituencies (players, management, fans, advertisers etc.) that bad behavior will not be tolerated. There was one problem that stopped the league from holding him to account: They didn't have the evidence to make a determination to punish him. 

 

Is he really guilty or not of what he is accused of? I don't know. What is apparent is that after an exhaustive investigation by the public and league authorities it couldn't be sufficiently proven. If that is the case then the league did the right thing by not punishing him. 

 

What reason did they have for ignoring the phone call and not mentioning it in any of the statements?

 

we don’t disagree on who Hill is, and I do agree that the league was probably very careful, but it goes back to the same problem- we don’t know what they did or didn’t do. We have punishment in one situation and not in another and we don’t have any reason other than “trust us” to explain away the discrepancy. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I’m not accusing the league of mishandling the investigations, I’m just wondering why they don’t make these decisions more clearer. 

 

On the Around the NFL podcast, 4 guys who get checks from the NFL each week had similar overall concerns. 

[JohnC]

2 minutes ago, whatdrought said:

 

What reason did they have for ignoring the phone call and not mentioning it in any of the statements?

 

we don’t disagree on who Hill is, and I do agree that the league was probably very careful, but it goes back to the same problem- we don’t know what they did or didn’t do. We have punishment in one situation and not in another and we don’t have any reason other than “trust us” to explain away the discrepancy. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, and I’m not accusing the league of mishandling the investigations, I’m just wondering why they don’t make these decisions more clearer. 

 

On the Around the NFL podcast, 4 guys who get checks from the NFL each week had similar overall concerns. 

The phone call tape was reviewed. My understanding is that the phone call tape was an abridged tape call. It didn't provide a full account of the phone interaction. Hill had an extensive interview with the league office and explained how that tape was not a full accounting of that particular call. 

 

This case was certainly a high profile case. It was not superficially examined. The investigation took a lot of time. The evidence was inconclusive enough even when the standard for proof was not extremely high. Yet the league came to a decision that they knew in advance would draw the ire of a lot of people who had preconceived notions about the case and the player involved. They did what was right; they acted on the evidence they had to work with.