Ray McDonald released

[Stoney]

Has just been released by the 49ers. Would be a great addition to our D-Line. Is he still eligible to play?

[Superman]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12042939/san-francisco-49ers-release-ray-mcdonald-amid-sexual-assault-investigation

[deedub75]

Seriously?

[IndyD4U]

accused of sexual assault and has had numerous "behavior issues" 

 

No Thanks

[Superman]

Has just been released by the 49ers. Would be a great addition to our D-Line. Is he still eligible to play?

 

We're not adding Ray McDonald. 

[Flash7]

He's probably released due to the allegations of sexual assault? I thought I read something this morning.

[jskinnz]

Has just been released by the 49ers. Would be a great addition to our D-Line. Is he still eligible to play?

 

Dear God...

 

Do you understand why he was released?  Have you paid attention to the people & the reasons the Colts have released themselves?

 

Ray McDonald will not be a Colt.

[jvan1973]

Has just been released by the 49ers. Would be a great addition to our D-Line. Is he still eligible to play?

um, no

[Gavin]

Nope

[crazycolt1]

Has just been released by the 49ers. Would be a great addition to our D-Line. Is he still eligible to play?

Do you think there might be a reason he was released or did you even think that far?

[TheGeneral69]

I'd take him. I want a winning team. Who cares if they screw around a little.

[jvan1973]

I'd take him. I want a winning team. Who cares if they screw around a little.

sexual assault isn't "screwing around a little"

Jskinnz will surely address this properly

[snkdy]

Wait, so he was accused of assaulting yet another woman? Jeez, good riddance.

[PeterBowman]

he will not be a Colt but could eventually be the "victim" of sexual assault if found guilty.

[twfish]

I'd take him. I want a winning team. Who cares if they screw around a little.

Wow man......

[COLTS449]

He hasn't been charged for anything. IMO the 49ers only released McDonald for their image, but if they weren't out of the playoff hunt I doubt they would have released him anyway. Wait to bash him when the facts come out and he's charged. Anyone can be accused of anything.

[Superman]

He hasn't been charged for anything. IMO the 49ers only released McDonald for their image, but if they weren't out of the playoff hunt I doubt they would have released him anyway. Wait to bash him when the facts come out and he's charged. Anyone can be accused of anything.

The question was whether the Colts should pick him up. I think waiting to bash is fine and fair, but you don't rush out and put in a waiver claim on him, either.

[DougDew]

Well.  If the judicial system exhonerates (sp?) him or he is found innocent of the charges, like previously apparently, I guess its the 49ers loss.  If he is incarcerated for a period of time, he obvioulsy would not be able to earn any playing time and it would be a waste of any money invested to sign him.

 

After he gets out of prison, serving the time the governing legal system believes is sufficient given the evidence and severity of the crime determined by a fair trial, the Colts, like any NFL team, should work him out for potential employment if he fills a need at the time.

 

Is there any other way to see it at this point?

[Stoney]

Dear God...

Do you understand why he was released? Have you paid attention to the people & the reasons the Colts have released themselves?

Ray McDonald will not be a Colt.

Just curious but do you start off every thing you say with "dear god"? Other than that I obviously did not know he's been in trouble with the law. I've been busy lately

[Stoney]

I didn't know he's in trouble people, you guys can all calm down. But unless he's proven guilty and until that point, I would personally accept him on the team..

[Stoney]

Seriously?

No that was a joke. What's he been charged with?

[Coffeedrinker]

I'd take him. I want a winning team. Who cares if they screw around a little.

This quote epitomizes much of what is wrong with this world... the complete lack of morals and scruples.  The attitude of "I don't care what he did as long as he can help the Colts win."  Or minimizing a despicable act like it's no big deal.

 

If the Colts winning means so much, then some people need to get a life.

[Coffeedrinker]

Well.  If the judicial system exhonerates (sp?) him or he is found innocent of the charges, like previously apparently, I guess its the 49ers loss.  If he is incarcerated for a period of time, he obvioulsy would not be able to earn any playing time and it would be a waste of any money invested to sign him.

 

After he gets out of prison, serving the time the governing legal system believes is sufficient given the evidence and severity of the crime determined by a fair trial, the Colts, like any NFL team, should work him out for potential employment if he fills a need at the time.

 

Is there any other way to see it at this point?

The judicial system does not find people innocent of charges, they only tell if they are not guilty.

 

There is a big difference.

[Superman]

Is there any other way to see it at this point?

 

Yes.

[jskinnz]

I'd take him. I want a winning team. Who cares if they screw around a little.

 

Dear Lord in Heaven - I think you have a different definition of screwing around than I and pretty much the rest of the free world.

[jskinnz]

Just curious but do you start off every thing you say with "dear god"? Other than that I obviously did not know he's been in trouble with the law. I've been busy lately

 

A Dear God response from me only goes to those who have written things that are factually inaccurate or so completely off base that it defies all logic.  Like in this instance - suggesting that someone who was previously accused of beating a women and now has been accused of sexual assault would be a good addition to the Colts.

[DougDew]

The judicial system does not find people innocent of charges, they only tell if they are not guilty.

 

There is a big difference.

Yes, I know.  It was too late to edit my comment.

[DougDew]

Yes.

Yes, but all other ways invite trouble.

 

I guess I’ll say the same thing as before. 

 

At this point, it seems like there is a good chance that he will be least pre-occupied with his legal problems, possibly even incarcerated for a long time, which would put him at a high risk of not being available to earn his paycheck.  Therefore, I wouldn’t sign him because of this risk.

 

If cleared of whatever charges he may receive, for whatever reason, I would see if he fits the team’s needs and sign him if his workout was favorable.

 

If he is convicted of a crime, whatever it may be, I’ll let the professionals who are trained to inflict justice onto a criminal do so without my team commenting (always done in a way that is favorable to the team, IOW, grandstanding).  Once released, I would see if he fits the team’s needs and sign him if his workout was favorable,  provided that he wasn't 80 years old by then.

 

Put that policy in writing and nobody can really complain about a decision.  Its impartial.  The players personal actions are not subject to discipline by the wimsy of moral winds.  The only people who would complain are the ones that want powerful organizations to fund their particular partiality for them, whatever it may be at the time.

[Superman]

Put that policy in writing and nobody can really complain about a decision.  Its impartial.  The players personal actions are not subject to discipline by the wimsy of moral winds.  The only people who would complain are the ones that want powerful organizations to fund their particular partiality for them, whatever it may be at the time.

 

As the owner of an organization, I have the right to hire the people I want to hire. I can't discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or age. But if I don't like the person, I don't have to hire him, and I can fire him. If I think he's a slime-ball, I don't have to hire him, and I can fire him. My personnel decisions don't have to be impartial, and that goes for pretty much every company and organization.

 

I'm not saying anything in particular about Ray McDonald, but your way of thinking on this topic is your way of thinking. It's not grounded in fact or in practice. Teams release players and avoid players on so-called "moral" grounds all the time. That's the prerogative of the people who run the organization. You call it "the whimsy of moral winds," but in reality, it's comes down to the people who run the teams to determine whether they want to employ a person who has been accused of or associated with improper or criminal activity, in this case, domestic violence and sexual assault.

 

You can pretend that there's no other way to look at this situation because of your own personal viewpoints, but that's just not the case. That the Niners released McDonald because of an investigation highlights this fact.

[Bluefire4]

I'm tired of this "somebody gets released.. maybe the Colts should pick them up" cycle.

[rock8591]

No charges were even FILED, much less anyone found guilty of anything. IMO Ray Mac got a raw deal, just like how people went out of their way to pile on Ben Roethlisberger, Duke Lacrosse, etc when all they have to eat is crow.

 

"local law authorities said they were investigating McDonald on suspicion of sexual assault"

 

"The victim alleged she was possibly sexually assaulted a day prior"

 

 

Very wishy-washy language, as if someone's trying to dig for dirt where none is; HOPING to find dirt in other words.

[TheGeneral69]

Dear Lord in Heaven - I think you have a different definition of screwing around than I and pretty much the rest of the free world.

 

I guarantee just about every great player in the NFL has done something bad at some point. Ray Lewis killed a man. If social media was popular back then as it was now, Ray Lewis would get the Aaron Hernandez treatment.

And Ray Rice beat his wife and people wanted the Colts to sign him.

 

So, Dear Lord in Heaven..... Maybe it would be a good thing if the colts got a real man on their team

[buccolts]

I guarantee just about every great player in the NFL has done something bad at some point. Ray Lewis killed a man. If social media was popular back then as it was now, Ray Lewis would get the Aaron Hernandez treatment.

And Ray Rice beat his wife and people wanted the Colts to sign him.

 

So, Dear Lord in Heaven..... Maybe it would be a good thing if the colts got a real man on their team

 

Anytime a player is available, you can find SOMEONE who's interested in the Colts signing him. So, that's meaningless.

 

Oh, and 'real man'? ..... funny stuff. 

[jvan1973]

I guarantee just about every great player in the NFL has done something bad at some point. Ray Lewis killed a man. If social media was popular back then as it was now, Ray Lewis would get the Aaron Hernandez treatment.

And Ray Rice beat his wife and people wanted the Colts to sign him.

So, Dear Lord in Heaven..... Maybe it would be a good thing if the colts got a real man on their team

wow

[Indycrazy1287]

No charges were even FILED, much less anyone found guilty of anything. IMO Ray Mac got a raw deal, just like how people went out of their way to pile on Ben Roethlisberger, Duke Lacrosse, etc when all they have to eat is crow.

"local law authorities said they were investigating McDonald on suspicion of sexual assault"

"The victim alleged she was possibly sexually assaulted a day prior"

Very wishy-washy language, as if someone's trying to dig for dirt where none is; HOPING to find dirt in other words.

No kidding. Everyone acts like he's a serial killer, personally I think he's a pretty damn good d lineman and he would be an upgrade to our run defense no doubt.

[jskinnz]

I guarantee just about every great player in the NFL has done something bad at some point. Ray Lewis killed a man. If social media was popular back then as it was now, Ray Lewis would get the Aaron Hernandez treatment.

And Ray Rice beat his wife and people wanted the Colts to sign him.

 

So, Dear Lord in Heaven..... Maybe it would be a good thing if the colts got a real man on their team

 

You have to be trolling and don't really believe this.  Have to be...

[DougDew]

As the owner of an organization, I have the right to hire the people I want to hire. I can't discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or age. But if I don't like the person, I don't have to hire him, and I can fire him. If I think he's a slime-ball, I don't have to hire him, and I can fire him. My personnel decisions don't have to be impartial, and that goes for pretty much every company and organization.

 

I'm not saying anything in particular about Ray McDonald, but your way of thinking on this topic is your way of thinking. It's not grounded in fact or in practice. Teams release players and avoid players on so-called "moral" grounds all the time. That's the prerogative of the people who run the organization. You call it "the whimsy of moral winds," but in reality, it's comes down to the people who run the teams to determine whether they want to employ a person who has been accused of or associated with improper or criminal activity, in this case, domestic violence and sexual assault.

 

You can pretend that there's no other way to look at this situation because of your own personal viewpoints, but that's just not the case. That the Niners released McDonald because of an investigation highlights this fact.

Agreed, the right to hire who you want can be described as either a moral right or a legal right.  All of the chatter seems to be about who has the morally superior position.  I would take morality out of my personnel policies, because morality can be subjective, therefore the policy will constantly be criticized by someone. 

 

I mentioned in another thread how all of the high profile personal conduct cases that have been discussed over the years have been rooted in social issues, Rice (dv), Incognito (bullying), Vick (animal rights)...etc.

 

I just don't understand why a CEO of a company would tolerate nonaffiliated organizations using his/her private company as a springboard for advocating their cause. So many see it the opposite, that it is the responsibility of corporations to champion social issues, defined my whoever's version of morality is expressed louder, and they need to be boycotted or shaken down if they don't.  I just think it is odd for any company to go along with that approach.

 

Maybe company's don't realize that's exactly what they're doing.

 

What I would do, intead of firing my employee to send the message they want me to send, I would sit down with the group, understand what message they want me to send, then charge them a fee for them to use my company's visibility as their messenger.  That may seem harsh, but its better than the alternative, which is doing what they want me to do out of fear of being shaken down. 

 

Its just a matter of charging groups a fee to use my company's visibilty as a messnger instead of opening it up to being shaken down by vocal opinion, essentially opening up my company to being used as a free vehicle for their message.  That's fair.

[ztboiler]

No charges were even FILED, much less anyone found guilty of anything. IMO Ray Mac got a raw deal, just like how people went out of their way to pile on Ben Roethlisberger, Duke Lacrosse, etc when all they have to eat is crow.

 

"local law authorities said they were investigating McDonald on suspicion of sexual assault"

 

"The victim alleged she was possibly sexually assaulted a day prior"

 

 

Very wishy-washy language, as if someone's trying to dig for dirt where none is; HOPING to find dirt in other words.

Ray McDonald is a pililar of the D Line and you could argue that he and Justin Smith are the 2 real pillars of that defense.  Quick justification for that:  They've been missing Willis, Bowman, Dorsey and A. Smith most of the year, yet have still been salty on D.  The constants are what they are able to do with McD and J. Smith.

 

Why does that matter?  You are ascerting that something wish-washy is going on, where as it actually looks pretty clear cut.  The 49ers have held onto a pillar as long as they can, but they now have new or complete information that makes it compelling to part ways with a pillar.  You don't much need a court of law to know guilt or innocence when an NFL team - particulary once accustomed to dealing with sketchy moral characters - releases a pillar.

[Valpo2004]

No charges were even FILED, much less anyone found guilty of anything. IMO Ray Mac got a raw deal, just like how people went out of their way to pile on Ben Roethlisberger, Duke Lacrosse, etc when all they have to eat is crow.

 

"local law authorities said they were investigating McDonald on suspicion of sexual assault"

 

"The victim alleged she was possibly sexually assaulted a day prior"

 

 

Very wishy-washy language, as if someone's trying to dig for dirt where none is; HOPING to find dirt in other words.

 

I agree with this.  But this is what the grovelling to the social justice warriors has done to the NFL.  An unsubstantiated allegation of any violence towards a woman leads to this.  

 

Meanwhile Josh Brent is back in the NFL.

 

So just remember NFL players . . . if you are gonna kill or hurt an innocent person just makes sure it's a man and you'll be ok.  No one cares about them.

 

All of that said I wouldn't sign anyone new with an allegation like that against them until the courts have decided either to not press charges or they have been found not guilty at trial.  I just wouldn't let go of someone just because of an allegation.  

[DougDew]

Staying on topic.......there certainly seems to be something going on with the SF organization.  As much as I believe the NFL policy is misguided, this release certainly does seem to be a bit premature considering the stage at which the legal process is at right now.

 

From the Singeltary antics, the Harbaugh issue that started last year, Kaep's performace falling off of a cliff; Aldon's Smith's problems, apparently moles in the locker room that snitch on the HC, something certainly seems wrong with the organization.  I don't know if blaming the current HC is the real answer.

 

Perhaps SF is a team that is simply full of more than its share of bad apples and bad attitudes, but purging the roster of its good players/bad apples would result in a team that is 2-14 for several years. 

 

It sure seems like an organization that has trouble making clear decisions.  Maybe they are walking a fine line between having the kinds of players it needs to win, and maintaining an image that's consistent with NFL policy. 

 

Maybe Harbaugh treats his players like children for a reason, like maybe they need to be treated that way.