Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Greg Hardy Suspended 10 Games


Caleb3502

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I didn't read the specific article or honestly really know the player and situation, but in general I support really tough suspensions.  If enough people have to serve them, it will stop most of these kinds of off-field issues.  Some people, nothing will stop - but that's life.  They just won't get the privilege of playing in the NFL.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow is right, signed him to a decent sized one year contract then only get to play 6 games.  Sucks for the Cowboys!

 

It's prorated. They play him for the games he plays.

 

And of course, there will be appeals, which haven't been totally going the NFL's way lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's prorated. They play him for the games he plays.

And of course, there will be appeals, which haven't been totally going the NFL's way lately.

Pleased to hear that Hardy did not get a slap on the wrist. The suspension may be reduced on appeal but probably not by much.

Does Le'veon Bell have the right to appeal his suspension?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In keeping with the general theme of comments involving threads like this:

 

I've personally looked at all of the internet based evidence and concluded the judicial system is a farce, incompetent in this case; and that Goodell is nothing more than a rich bilionaire lacky who covers up any misconduct when he can...because that's what rich business people do and that's how they get to be rich in the first place.

 

I vigorously call for Goodell's resignation because my impartial, unbiased, review of the evidence that I could find in the public arena tells me that Hardy should have been suspended 12 games..not 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I actually wasn't expecting this. Weren't the charges dropped?

 

Charges don't have to be in place legally for the NFL to take action on its own.    That's part of the new CBA.

 

The NFL has had a very long investigation in place.    They must think they have quite a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statement by the NFL.


 


The NFL's investigation concluded that Hardy violated the Personal Conduct Policy by using physical force against Nicole Holder in at least four instances. First, he used physical force against her which caused her to land in a bathtub. Second, he used physical force against her which caused her to land on a futon that was covered with at least four semi-automatic rifles. Third, he used physical force against her by placing his hands around Ms. Holderâs neck and applying enough pressure to leave visible marks. And fourth, he used physical force to shove Ms. Holder against a wall in his apartmentâs entry hallway.


"The net effect of these acts was that Ms. Holder was severely traumatized and sustained a range of injuries, including bruises and scratches on her neck, shoulders, upper chest, back, arms and feet," Commissioner Goodell wrote. "The use of physical force under the circumstances present here, against a woman substantially smaller than you and in the presence of powerful, military-style assault weapons, constitutes a significant act of violence in violation of the Personal Conduct Policy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I actually wasn't expecting this. Weren't the charges dropped?

 

The NFL no longer connects itself to the US judicial system and the burden of Guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - and pleas, and buyouts... etc...

 

The NFL does it's own investigations now... and the burden of proof is- "Is it more likely he did it or not?"

 

Preponderance of the evidence.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and again..nothing from the NFLPA......wife beaters..abusers./.child molesters...in their union ,...in their ranks...and they defend them//real unions would not back an offender like this

I agree. This wasn't just an argument over who's cooking dinner. This is serious stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the NFL is using the photos it obtained of the abuse as its reason for such a harsh suspension. Unlike the Rice case, they made sure they saw the photos which some reporters are saying makes what Rice did look like a slap on the cheek. Apparently there are choke marks on the woman's neck. I really hope the suspension is upheld but the NFL does not have a good track record of its suspensions being upheld so we will see ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and again..nothing from the NFLPA...

...wife beaters..abusers./.child molesters...in their union ,...in their ranks

...and they defend them//real unions would not back an offender like this

All unions defend their members regardless of the infraction. That is part of their job. Just because they defend their members doesn't mean they condone the actions of the member. In a case like Hardy, most unions would never have to get involved. The charges were dropped against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

probably why they imposed 10 games to start with. it'll likely end up at 6-8 games

I don't understand why the NFL doesn't get a backbone with stuff like this.  Make a decision and stick with it.  The whole back and forth crap and then changing the ruling is lame IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All unions defend their members regardless of the infraction. That is part of their job. Just because they defend their members doesn't mean they condone the actions of the member. In a case like Hardy, most unions would never have to get involved. The charges were dropped against him.

I agree with you. I was going to write a similar statement. Regarding your last statement, dropping the charges does not mean he did not commit those acts. (I don't think that is what you are saying.) What he was alleged to have done was horrific and therefore he should receive some punishment. There has to be some deterrent against such acts. However, I don't blame the union for defending the player. We may not like it but that is their job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you. I was going to write a similar statement. Regarding your last statement, dropping the charges does not mean he did not commit those acts. (I don't think that is what you are saying.) What he was alleged to have done was horrific and therefore he should receive some punishment. There has to be some deterrent against such acts. However, I don't blame the union for defending the player. We may not like it but that is their job.

Yeah, I'm sure he did it. But in most jobs you won't be fired or punished by your employer with out being found guilty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you. I was going to write a similar statement. Regarding your last statement, dropping the charges does not mean he did not commit those acts. (I don't think that is what you are saying.) What he was alleged to have done was horrific and therefore he should receive some punishment. There has to be some deterrent against such acts. However, I don't blame the union for defending the player. We may not like it but that is their job.

I don't think that he's not guilty of some wrongdoing, but I also don't think there's any concrete evidence either. And I'm not the type who usually defends players in cases like this. I don't think this is some Ray Rice case. The alleged victim was high on coke and Hardy was the one who called the cops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was 8 game suspension for DV under the new policy?

 

I think it was 6 but it doesn't matter, they've never applied that new policy.  They made it up but every single player since then has been regarded as some sort of exception.

 

The NFL is literally making it up as it goes along in order to appease people.  

 

Their system is about as much farce as the Nuremberg Trials which was another incident where people just sort of made stuff up as they went along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought it was 8 game suspension for DV under the new policy?

 

People should actually read the policy. 

 

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2014/12/10/0ap3000000441637.pdf

 

With regard to violations of the Personal Conduct Policy that involve assault, battery,

domestic violence, dating violence, child abuse and other forms of family violence, or sexual assault

involving physical force or committed against someone incapable of giving consent, a first offense

will subject the offender to a baseline suspension without pay of six games, with consideration given

to any aggravating or mitigating factors. The presence of possible aggravating factors may warrant a

longer suspension. Possible aggravating factors include, but are not limited to, a prior violation of

the Personal Conduct Policy, similar misconduct before joining the NFL, violence involving a

weapon, choking, repeated striking, or when an act is committed against a particularly vulnerable

person, such as a child, a pregnant woman, or an elderly person, or where the act is committed in the

presence of a child. A second offense will result in permanent banishment from the NFL. An

individual who has been banished may petition for reinstatement after one year, but there is no

presumption or assurance that the petition will be granted.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the NFL doesn't get a backbone with stuff like this.  Make a decision and stick with it.  The whole back and forth crap and then changing the ruling is lame IMO.

 

They have a backbone, and are implementing the policy.  The new policy calls for a 6 games suspension without pay for a first offense, and a lifetime ban from the NFL on a second offense.  However, this is also in the policy-

 

"A six-game suspension would be without pay and the length of the penalty could increase in these cases: an employee was involved in a prior incident before joining the NFL; violence involving a weapon; choking, repeated striking, or when the act is committed against a pregnant woman; or in the presence of a child."

 

The Commissioner used to hear the appeals, now it goes to an independent arbitrator.  To me, if the NFL can show Hardy did commit DV and it involved choking, or repeated hitting, the suspension can't be lessened or it undermines the punitive value of a policy of a private orgaization strictly designed to deter future acts of such nature.

 

I saw an article stating Josh Gordon gets a longer sentence for drinking on a plane the Hardy.  But Gordon is a repeat offender, and sentences were lessened on that recently so it takes many many infractions to get uge punishment.  DV requires just 2 to be banned for life.  Next time Hardy  'loses it' on a female, he's gone from the NFL for good. So I don't want to here from a stupid USA Today article that the NFL's priorities haven't really changed.  But the NFL now has a policy that has endorsements of many groups inside and outside the NFL.  They are going to go 'by the book' in using it from here out as well.  So the NFL has done it's part, IMO.

 

EDIT: I see Superman has posted relevant part of the DV policy as well.  :thmup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't really agree with these kinds of bans when he has already been out all of last year as well. And detrimental....he was a footnote compared to Rice. 

 

Oh please, just stop it!  He got paid 13.1 million for exempt list while and investigation was held.  And no one can watch this and say it was a footnote to Rice-

 

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11513357

 

Here's Mike Golic on the matter-

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612Car3jSJM

 

Right on Mr. Golic!

 

It's worthy to note Bill Parcells called in to the show, and they asked him his thoughts.  He also sided with Mike Golic 100%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charges don't have to be in place legally for the NFL to take action on its own.    That's part of the new CBA.

 

The NFL has had a very long investigation in place.    They must think they have quite a case.

 

Actually, the interesting thing is the DV policy was Not_Part_Of the new CBA.  This was policy unilaterally imposed by the League.  The NFLPA was going to appeal to arbitration or the National Relations Board at one point as well.  Maybe they still are, but it will be hard for them to force the NFL to back off this, I believe.

 

I think the NFLPA thinks it is a new item that needs collective bargaining, and the League feels it is just an addendum to a policy already in place.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/10/nflpa-criticizes-unilateral-imposition-of-personal-conduct-policy/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the interesting thing is the DV policy was Not_Part_Of the new CBA.  This was policy unilaterally imposed by the League.  The NFLPA was going to appeal to arbitration or the National Relations Board at one point as well.  Maybe they still are, but it will be hard for them to force the NFL to back off this, I believe.

 

I think the NFLPA thinks it is a new item that needs collective bargaining, and the League feels it is just an addendum to a policy already in place.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/10/nflpa-criticizes-unilateral-imposition-of-personal-conduct-policy/

 

Thanks....   nice find.

 

I thought for sure I had read otherwise....    apparently not.

 

Good to know....    I expect the NFL will appeal and might even win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh please, just stop it! He got paid 13.1 million for exempt list while and investigation was held. And no one can watch this and say it was a footnote to Rice-

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:11513357

Here's Mike Golic on the matter-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=612Car3jSJM

Right on Mr. Golic!

It's worthy to note Bill Parcells called in to the show, and they asked him his thoughts. He also sided with Mike Golic 100%

I heard Golic on the radio this morning before going to work. I agreed with him 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...