Thoughts on Ray Rice getting (only) a 2 game suspension

[David in FL]

I think the drug policy / PED's suspensions are pretty specific in terms of number of games based on failed tests / incidents, where as player conduct is more subject to interpretation by the commissioner.

And therein lies the issue. Based on the inequity in punishment, it's apparent that the commissioner doesn't consider this attack to be as egregious as smoking a couple of joints. Bad message....

[Slice of Life]

And therein lies the issue. Based on the inequity in punishment, it's apparent that the commissioner doesn't consider this attack to be as egregious as smoking a couple of joints.

Bad message....

Exactly my point. People now think...too bad Gordon didn't just knock out his girlfriend instead of smoking a joint...then he'd only get two games.

[saevel25]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Exactly my point. People now think...too bad Gordon didn't just knock out his girlfriend instead of smoking a joint...then he'd only get two games.

NFL has an increasing punishment policy when it comes to certain drug use.

Quote:

Despite being suspended without pay for two games and losing two additional game checks last season for his earlier violation of the league's drug policy

Gordon was already suspended last year for 2 games due to failed drug tests.

If he fails the drug policy one more time, I believe he will be kicked out of the league.

It is a totally different situation here. Do I believe more than a 2 game suspension is needed, but you can't compare a repeat offender of banned substances to this incident. Gordon already had his 2 game ban, which seems to be the standard entry level punishment. To state that drug use offers a stricter punishment is just not correct in this case because he is a multiple offender of breaking the NFL drug policy.

[Golfingdad]

And therein lies the issue. Based on the inequity in punishment, it's apparent that the commissioner doesn't consider this attack to be as egregious as smoking a couple of joints.

Bad message....

Exactly my point. People now think...too bad Gordon didn't just knock out his girlfriend instead of smoking a joint...then he'd only get two games.

While I don't completely disagree with you guys, I do think you are kind of skewing the facts a tiny bit to fit the outrage.  I think part of the problem lies with the fact that marijuana - which is relatively harmless - gets lumped in with PEDs.  And policing the use of PEDs (and any other type of cheating) has to be at the top of the priority list of a sports league, doesn't it?  If they don't have fairness, then they don't really have a league to begin with.

I was going to continue, but @saevel25 has already said it much better, so I'll quit now. :)

[David in FL]

While I don't completely disagree with you guys, I do think you are kind of skewing the facts a tiny bit to fit the outrage.  I think part of the problem lies with the fact that marijuana - which is relatively harmless - gets lumped in with PEDs.  And policing the use of PEDs (and any other type of cheating) has to be at the top of the priority list of a sports league, doesn't it?  If they don't have fairness, then they don't really have a league to begin with.

I was going to continue, but @saevel25 has already said it much better, so I'll quit now. :)

THE top priority?  No, I don't think so.  It seems to me that there's room for more than one, or even two, "top" priorities.

The question is simply one of perceived equity.  I don't disagree that the use of PED's, and if they want to lump pot in with that, that's fine, is egregious and should be treated as such.  The question is, doesn't the league consider the violent physical assault on a woman at least as reprehensible?

If not, then they truly have no moral compass.

[saevel25]

THE top priority?  No, I don't think so.  It seems to me that there's room for more than one, or even two, "top" priorities.

The question is simply one of perceived equity.  I don't disagree that the use of PED's, and if they want to lump pot in with that, that's fine, is egregious and should be treated as such.  The question is, doesn't the league consider the violent physical assault on a woman at least as reprehensible?

If not, then they truly have no moral compass.

You just can't pick Josh Gordon's case and say, Oh he got 16 games. Yea he got 16 games by being a repeat offender of the drug policy. Now if you want to say, well one failed drug test using Codeine got him his first initial 2 game suspension, and Ray Rice got 2 games for hitting a woman. Then yea I think Rice's suspensions should have been something closer to 5 games or half the season.

[Jakester23]

You just can't pick Josh Gordon's case and say, Oh he got 16 games. Yea he got 16 games by being a repeat offender of the drug policy. Now if you want to say, well one failed drug test using Codeine got him his first initial 2 game suspension, and Ray Rice got 2 games for hitting a woman. Then yea I think Rice's suspensions should have been something closer to 5 games or half the season.

The thing is you can pick Josh Gordon's case or any case for that matter. The NFL could have made the suspension any amount of games. Gordon's suspension is collectively bargained. Roger could have suspended Ray Rice for 5 years if he wanted. He has the power to decide on conduct matters. Big Ben got 5 games for an alleged sexual assault. He wasn't convicted but the league decided he should be punished for that amount of time. Rice should have been gone for the season. If you don't think so give me a reason why?

[Jeremie Boop]

I would say no, unless he admitted to or was convicted of assault or domestic violence he isn't guilty of it and it doesn't go on his record as such.   Based on what I've read he wasn't charged or convicted of any crime.

In order to enter the program you admit guilt. When I was young I got into trouble with some friends and this was offered to us as an option to keep it off our record. By entering the program you admitted to the charge but once you did you were allowed to go to classes or something.

[newtogolf]

In order to enter the program you admit guilt. When I was young I got into trouble with some friends and this was offered to us as an option to keep it off our record. By entering the program you admitted to the charge but once you did you were allowed to go to classes or something.

You agree to a deal where if you complete the program successfully the charge is reduced and you therefore are admitting to the lesser charge not the original one.

[Abu3baid]

Rice should have been gone for the season. If you don't think so give me a reason why?

Was there evidence shared with the public proving that he hit or beat that woman? If the answer is no then on what basis do you want to suspend him the whole season? If the answer is yes, then I think 1 year is just too much! I think 2 games is enough to teach him a lesson, if he does it again then it is a different story!

[David in FL]

Was there evidence shared with the public proving that he hit or beat that woman? If the answer is no then on what basis do you want to suspend him the whole season? If the answer is yes, then I think 1 year is just too much! I think 2 games is enough to teach him a lesson, if he does it again then it is a different story!

It doesn't matter what was "shared with the public".  He did it.  He admitted to doing it.  That's all there is to it.

If you believe that it's ok to beat a woman virtually unconscious once, but if you don't "learn your lesson" the first time, "it's a different story", you live by a different moral standard than I do.

[newtogolf]

It doesn't matter what was "shared with the public".  He did it.  He admitted to doing it.  That's all there is to it.

If you believe that it's ok to beat a woman virtually unconscious once, but if you don't "learn your lesson" the first time, "it's a different story", you live by a different moral standard than I do.

This is news to me, where did he admit to doing it because I haven't seen anything that indicated he did.  If that's the case then he should be jail and unable to play football.

[Abu3baid]

So, you can beat a woman virtually unconscious once, but if you don't "learn your lesson" the first time, "it's a different story"? Again, a different moral compass than I espouse......

Let us just agree first that there is no need to get personal in the debate. My opinion on something I have no control over is not a measure of my moral compass.. I could have easily said he should be suspended for the rest of his career, but hen again that wouldn't be fair would it..? Then the next person that says no it is not fair I would say...."Again, a different moral compass than I espouse......" We are talking here about the employer correct, and not about the law as far as I remember! Let us say that I beat my wife, would my employer go out of its way to dock me pay for doing so? Sounds silly to me! Wide beaters as far as I'm concerned need to be eradicated (phew no one will come defend wife beaters) and they should be punished by the law.. However, as long as the law hasn't done anything to them, docking them 2 games is far as far as I am concerned... If the law jailed him for a week or even for a night then maybe I'll consider a longer suspension..

[David in FL]

This is news to me, where did he admit to doing it because I haven't seen anything that indicated he did.  If that's the case then he should be jail and unable to play football.

He accepted a pre-trial diversion program rather than be prosecuted.  That requires that he accept that what he admit and recognize that his actions were wrong and that he accepts help to avoid doing so again in the future.  It's not a legal plea of guilt, but absolutely admits to the act.

Let us just agree first that there is no need to get personal in the debate. My opinion on something I have no control over is not a measure of my moral compass.. I could have easily said he should be suspended for the rest of his career, but hen again that wouldn't be fair would it..? Then the next person that says no it is not fair I would say...."Again, a different moral compass than I espouse......"

We are talking here about the employer correct, and not about the law as far as I remember! Let us say that I beat my wife, would my employer go out of its way to dock me pay for doing so? Sounds silly to me!

Wide beaters as far as I'm concerned need to be eradicated (phew no one will come defend wife beaters) and they should be punished by the law.. However, as long as the law hasn't done anything to them, docking them 2 games is far as far as I am concerned... If the law jailed him for a week or even for a night then maybe I'll consider a longer suspension..

If you and I see this differently, we definitely have a different moral compass.  I'm not saying that yours is wrong, or mine is right, just that we have a different value system in this case.

And yes.....If I beat my wife, and my employment agreement had a conduct clause, I'd expect to lose my job, no matter what the result from the legal system was.  As an employer, I'd fire someone doing the same even without any kind of personal conduct clause.

[Jakester23]

If you had a job where you were a public figure and a role model for kids (which i think is a joke but it is a fact) your employer might dock you pay or even fire you. Not getting personal but you have some odd views on life if you think its enough to suspend him for 2 games for his action while also being ok with someone getting suspended for a year for smoking some tree.

[Abu3baid]

If you had a job where you were a public figure and a role model for kids (which i think is a joke but it is a fact) your employer might dock you pay or even fire you. Not getting personal but you have some odd views on life if you think its enough to suspend him for 2 games for his action while also being ok with someone getting suspended for a year for smoking some tree.

Yes, but I'm talking about the 95%+ of the public! Umm.. Where exactly did I mention that I agree someone should get suspended 1 year for smoking tree?? Please quote me, then I'll answer..

[Abu3baid]

If you and I see this differently, we definitely have a different moral compass.  I'm not saying that yours is wrong, or mine is right, just that we have a different value system in this case. And yes.....If I beat my wife, and my employment agreement had a conduct clause, I'd expect to lose my job, no matter what the result from the legal system was.  As an employer, I'd fire someone doing the same even without any kind of personal conduct clause.

Fair enough.. We do in this case.. I believe he deserves what he got while you believe he should be fired.. But in reality we both find the act reprehensible! You should be more upset with the legal system for letting him off so easy, but the justice system needs revamping anyways, we still have people who rape and are jailed for a year or two, while I believe they should get the death penalty (as long as they are convicted).

[MS256]

I can understand differences in opinion about how severe a penalty should have been. I can understand that some people would think that the NFL shouldn't have the right to discipline a player for off field incidents. I can even understand that some people may think it's no big deal to hit a woman if she "provoked" him.

But since they do give out penalties: What I can't understand are the implied or expressed presumption of innocence comments, like he might not have done it.

He hasn't even denied that he did it.