Ray McDonald Arrested on Domestic Violence, Child Endangerment Charges

[ColtsBlueFL]

Due process exists for a reason. I know that there are things that happen to influence victims and witnesses, and that's too bad. But that doesn't mean we should act like every person who is accused is guilty.

 

The NFL has decided to operate separately from the legal process, where appropriate, and to work on a different standard when it comes to proof, guilt, punishment, etc. Greg Hardy is an example of that; all charges dropped, but he's still suspended, and that's after sitting out almost a full season while the situation was "resolved." And in situations like this, the NFL is treated as if it's responsible for these issues, not the player that has gotten himself in trouble.

 

I'm not sure that the opinions of Rockefeller and McCaskill are relevant or have any influence, when all is said and done. The NFL has already taken significant steps to better address these issues. The pols are now on the record, which is great for them, but it doesn't really make any difference. You're still dealing with a league made up of 2,000 individuals with varied backgrounds and circumstances.

 

Yes, they have and many are happy with the changes.  I have no problem, where's our issue?  I think they can and need to find a way to do better, and you say it's all good?  Just where are we here?

 

Also, seems our 'due process' is whack when it comes to the NFL too...

[ColtsBlueFL]

Two things: 

 

1) I'm pretty sure the Senate can't revoke an entity's tax exempt status because they don't like their employee conduct policy, unless they're deeming them an illegally run or terrorist organization.

 

2) The NFL already surrendered its tax exempt status, mostly because they don't want to have to make public disclosures anymore. All told, it will have little impact on the league's operations, as the league exists as a trade organization and the profits are split between the 32 teams, all of which pay taxes. All this changes is that we don't get to complain about how much money Roger Goodell makes, because it won't be released to the public anymore.

 

To be fair, that was said before the NFL gave it up.  Now the statements go like this-

 

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a press release:

 

The NFL’s sacrifice of its tax exempt status seems more like a PR stunt than a real gain. The tax-exempt status produces a pittance compared to its Congressionally-granted antitrust exemption –- enabling billions in broadcast revenue. The NFL is exempted from laws that govern every other industry and business entity, not to mention huge benefits in state and local subsidies and sweetheart stadium deals. Sacrificing this tax exemption to avoid a distraction -– according to Commissioner Goodell –- should not distract from the real issue: the NFL’s public trust concerning domestic violence, drug use, concussions and other health issues.

[Superman]

Yes, they have and many are happy with the changes.  I have no problem, where's our issue?  I think they can and need to find a way to do better, and you say it's all good?  Just where are we here?

 

Also, seems our 'due process' is whack when it comes to the NFL too...

 

The comment I initially responded to was you saying the NFL doesn't do enough, and it's essentially because they don't want to. That's my issue. I don't think it's fair to hold the NFL responsible for the moral failings of the players, when and where those moral failings exist.

 

I'm not sure what the due process comment means.

[ColtsBlueFL]

The comment I initially responded to was you saying the NFL doesn't do enough, and it's essentially because they don't want to. That's my issue. I don't think it's fair to hold the NFL responsible for the moral failings of the players, when and where those moral failings exist.

 

I'm not sure what the due process comment means.

 

That's fair.  I, some in Congress and many other people feel the recently revised DV policy should be the beginning, not an end point.  It can be better. If the NFL pays lips service to it in Public, but truly says enough is enough, then the stain of continued DV stories will continue to dominate the news at deepen the disdain by many in the public and even some NFL fans.

 

I think I just saw that n the recent DV policy there actually are provisions for counseling and such.  But maybe they will  likely be unused because they are voluntary (??), unlike the drug policy where treatment is mandated.  I think at some point, the league needs to find a way to punish teams (beyond monetary) that sign chronic trouble players that fail to break through.  Things like that are a deterrent- to players and teams.  Right now, there's no deterrent. Teams get away with no issues, and players largely get away with low and reduced sentences.

 

But it is better than before, no question.

[oldunclemark]

"wanted to return to the apartment and asked her to leave. He left to give her some space, the source said, and when he returned, the police had been called."

Sounds kinda peculiar...

On second look....agreed.....

...sounds like there was some kind of argument...and again he has to stay away from her..you cant win those arguements..

..But I don't know he was violent this time

[Superman]

To be fair, that was said before the NFL gave it up.  Now the statements go like this-

 

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) wrote in a press release:

 

The NFL’s sacrifice of its tax exempt status seems more like a PR stunt than a real gain. The tax-exempt status produces a pittance compared to its Congressionally-granted antitrust exemption –- enabling billions in broadcast revenue. The NFL is exempted from laws that govern every other industry and business entity, not to mention huge benefits in state and local subsidies and sweetheart stadium deals. Sacrificing this tax exemption to avoid a distraction -– according to Commissioner Goodell –- should not distract from the real issue: the NFL’s public trust concerning domestic violence, drug use, concussions and other health issues.

 

If that's the real issue, why is Congress trying to threaten the NFL's tax standing and antitrust status? The two are unrelated, and it seems like an undue influence of power -- blackmail? -- to toss out threats like that. When they gave the NFL antitrust exemption, it was in exchange for not competing with high school and college football. When they were talking about blackouts and such, they brought up antitrust, and that seems related, given that the exemption was awarded partially based on conditions for TV programming. But to say "too many of your players have gotten in trouble, we're going to take away your antitrust exemption," that's just totally out of place, IMO.

 

That's how Congress operates, though, holding up unrelated legislation in order to squeeze out concessions in other areas. I'm not sure the NFL needs antitrust exemption anymore, though.

[oldunclemark]

That's fair.  I, some in Congress and many other people feel the recently revised DV policy should be the beginning, not an end point.  It can be better. If the NFL pays lips service to it in Public, but truly says enough is enough, then the stain of continued DV stories will continue to dominate the news at deepen the disdain by many in the public and even some NFL fans.

 

I think I just saw that n the recent DV policy there actually are provisions for counseling and such.  But maybe they will  likely be unused because they are voluntary (??), unlike the drug policy where treatment is mandated.  I think at some point, the league needs to find a way to punish teams (beyond monetary) that sign chronic trouble players that fail to break through.  Things like that are a deterrent- to players and teams.  Right now, there's no deterrent. Teams get away with no issues, and players largely get away with low and reduced sentences.

 

But it is better than before, no question.

I think the NFL does what they can

The courts let Ray Rice go...the courts also let Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald go largely unpunished...

The NFLPA defend the player and attacks the league....no matter what the incident is..or how bad the victim got hit or hurt..

..and the NFLPA union head escapes all scrutiny and media or fan backlash

Any team can suspend a player for domestic violence...but they all duck and wait for Goddell to do something

No suspension or fine is ever going to be seen as 'just' for beating women and children.

The NFL does what they can to be punitive..which often is more than the courts, the union and the teams do.

..

[jvan1973]

I think the NFL does what they can

The courts let Ray Rice go...the courts also let Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald go largely unpunished...

The NFLPA defend the player and attacks the league....no matter what the incident is..or how bad the victim got hit or hurt..

..and the NFLPA union head escapes all scrutiny and media or fan backlash

Any team can suspend a player for domestic violence...but they all duck and wait for Goddell to do something

No suspension or fine is ever going to be seen as 'just' for beating women and children.

The NFL does what they can to be punitive..which often is more than the courts, the union and the teams do.

..

The bears just cut McDonald. That kind of goes against your stance that teams wait for Goodell to hand down punishment.

[DougDew]

To answer Q's about no charges, this happens all of the time. Here's interesting piece to ponder-

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/sports/football/an-accusation-of-abuse-then-special-treatment-for-nfl-player.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C{%221%22%3A%22RI%3A8%22}&_r=0

 

Some thoughts from Senators last December 2, 2014-

 

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

“When a celebrity athlete is charged with committing domestic violence, it uniquely reverberates through society in unique ways,” said Senator Jay Rockefeller,

 

Members of the committee cautioned that players should not “hide” behind collective bargaining agreements to avoid suspensions. Some even suggested that the N.F.L.’s tax-exempt status should be revoked if it does not improve its handling of domestic violence cases.

 

Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, said the domestic abuse issues extend to all of the leagues — and that they must do more to hold players accountable.

 

“Perpetrators know if they can only get their victims to recant, refuse to cooperate, threaten their financial future, threaten the futures of their families’ financial status, or put them on an airplane to Venezuela — if they can accomplish those things — then nothing will happen,” McCaskill said.

 

Troy Vincent, a former N.F.L. player who is now a league executive, testified that the league and its players understand the anger and that reforms are underway. In light of the Rice case, the N.F.L. has announced several measures, including hiring domestic violence experts, introducing more counseling and mandating stricter penalties for players caught committing domestic violence.

 

“We recognize that we have to break the culture of silence,” said Vincent, who choked back tears earlier in the hearing as spoke of abuse in his own home as a child.

 

None of the league commissioners appeared at the hearing — a point that drew the ire of Rockefeller, who will soon retire at the end of his fifth term.

“When witnesses refuse to show up and testify, my experience tells me that they are afraid of something,” Rockefeller said in his opening statement. “Given the scope and severity of this problem, I find their absence troubling.”

 

***********************************************************************************************************************************************************

 

This doesn't sound like a group that is OK with how the Leagues are handling these issues to me.  Someone else will give McDonald a shot, without him receiving any help.

There are so many things wrong with all of your posts in this thread....but I'll address this one.

 

The Senators (and their supporters) are posturing into embarrassing a powerful business into championing the changes they can't get changed via legislation.  They can't get the job done via the means provided for in the Constitution, so they want to berate the NFL...or Apple, or GM, etc.. into making their politically charged social issues criteria for employment within a company.  In this case, they are asking "can your employee prove he is innocent of DV accusations?  We have a single mother claiming such" Do that to several dozen large companies and you've just enacted social policy change outside of the boundaries of legislation.

 

If it came to it, Senate hearings on the matter may eventually be rendered moot by a Supreme Court challenge, so its best not to use the views of politicans or politically-based "information" blogs to judge the legitimacy of NFL actions.

 

In other matters... if the NFL is going to establish a system of justice to go beyond our taxpayer funded system, then it must also provide a system of appeal and rehabilitation.  Not a review by a few NFLPA stiffs, but a real appeal so that someone isn't erroneously convicted  and sentenced to what amounts to an employment death penalty.  The system of appeals in our judicial system is not managed by a union, and neither should the NFLs

 

And no thanks.  I don't want my ticket prices, jersey prices, or pay TV packages funding that system.  As inefficient as it may be, I'll stick with the current taxpayer funded system of determining of someone is guilty of a crime.  Private companies will always have conflicting motives, so they would stink at it more than the judicial system does.

 

Based upon the evidence contained within the article, the Bears were flat wrong to release McDonald at this point.

[Superman]

The bears just cut McDonald. That kind of goes against your stance that teams wait for Goodell to hand down punishment.

 

Second team in six months to cut him.

[Superman]

That's fair.  I, some in Congress and many other people feel the recently revised DV policy should be the beginning, not an end point.  It can be better. If the NFL pays lips service to it in Public, but truly says enough is enough, then the stain of continued DV stories will continue to dominate the news at deepen the disdain by many in the public and even some NFL fans.

 

I think I just saw that n the recent DV policy there actually are provisions for counseling and such.  But maybe they will  likely be unused because they are voluntary (??), unlike the drug policy where treatment is mandated.  I think at some point, the league needs to find a way to punish teams (beyond monetary) that sign chronic trouble players that fail to break through.  Things like that are a deterrent- to players and teams.  Right now, there's no deterrent. Teams get away with no issues, and players largely get away with low and reduced sentences.

 

But it is better than before, no question.

 

Teams can be fined when players are suspended for conduct. It's not a whole lot, but the provision is there: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/169518/inside-slant-making-the-bears-accountable-for-ray-mcdonald

 

Still, I don't see why the team should be held accountable for the player's actions. If the market wants to hold them accountable -- fans won't watch, buy apparel, etc. -- okay. But I don't think a team should be punished because a player does something wrong, off the field, just like I don't think a business should be fined when an employee does something wrong away from work.

 

As for mandatory counseling and such, that's collectively bargained. The NFL unilaterally made the changes to the conduct policy because discipline for player conduct is at the commissioner's discretion, per the CBA. But discipline and treatment are different, and I think compelling an employee to complete therapy/treatment is a step further.

[rock8591]

Ever since Brad Banks, I take all domestic abuse allegations with a grain of salt.

 

What used to be a law to protect wife beaters in tank tops from getting drunk and wildly hitting their wives and daughters...nowadays the typical domestic disturbance call involves a woman hitting at the man, starts breaking his stuff, kicking holes in the wall, etc. The man tries to restrain her by grabbing her (not hitting or punching her). Because he technically did *touch* the woman, the police will take the latter's word 99% of the time.

 

Just watch Judge Judy sometime; you see these cases all the time, such they've pretty much become the norm.

 

I believe Ray McDonald's significant other is loco, just like Erik Walden's ex is loco.

[Gavin]

Ever since Brad Banks, I take all domestic abuse allegations with a grain of salt.

 

What used to be a law to protect wife beaters in tank tops from getting drunk and wildly hitting their wives and daughters...nowadays the typical domestic disturbance call involves a woman hitting at the man, starts breaking his stuff, kicking holes in the wall, etc. The man tries to restrain her by grabbing her (not hitting or punching her). Because he technically did *touch* the woman, the police will take the latter's word 99% of the time.

 

Just watch Judge Judy sometime; you see these cases all the time, such they've pretty much become the norm.

 

I believe Ray McDonald's significant other is loco, just like Erik Walden's ex is loco.

you actually take Judge Judy seriously? Hard for me to take a judge serious who invites cameras into her courtroom and plays to the camera with sarcastic remarks and attitude, Very unprofessional to me

[ColtsBlueFL]

There are so many things wrong with all of your posts in this thread....but I'll address this one.

 

The Senators (and their supporters) are posturing into embarrassing a powerful business into championing the changes they can't get changed via legislation.  They can't get the job done via the means provided for in the Constitution, so they want to berate the NFL...or Apple, or GM, etc.. into making their politically charged social issues criteria for employment within a company.  In this case, they are asking "can your employee prove he is innocent of DV accusations?  We have a single mother claiming such" Do that to several dozen large companies and you've just enacted social policy change outside of the boundaries of legislation.

 

If it came to it, Senate hearings on the matter may eventually be rendered moot by a Supreme Court challenge, so its best not to use the views of politicans or politically-based "information" blogs to judge the legitimacy of NFL actions.

 

In other matters... if the NFL is going to establish a system of justice to go beyond our taxpayer funded system, then it must also provide a system of appeal and rehabilitation.  Not a review by a few NFLPA stiffs, but a real appeal so that someone isn't erroneously convicted  and sentenced to what amounts to an employment death penalty.  The system of appeals in our judicial system is not managed by a union, and neither should the NFLs

 

And no thanks.  I don't want my ticket prices, jersey prices, or pay TV packages funding that system.  As inefficient as it may be, I'll stick with the current taxpayer funded system of determining of someone is guilty of a crime.  Private companies will always have conflicting motives, so they would stink at it more than the judicial system does.

 

Based upon the evidence contained within the article, the Bears were flat wrong to release McDonald at this point.

They already have the new policy and investigation, punishment, appeals in place, as well as counseling etc....  See here-

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24878783/nfl-unveils-new-personal-conduct-policy

 

Note at the end there is an expert committee to review the policy and suggest changes.  Also this-

 

***********************************************************************

Pash said discipline by the commissioner has never been a subject of collective bargaining.

 

"We've had multiple rounds of collective bargaining since the first policy was instituted in 1997, and this policy does nothing more than implement and provide more specificity around what is a historically recognized power of the commissioner to define conduct detrimental to the league and the game of professional football," he said. "That authority has been recognized by the NFLPA as long as there's been an NFLPA."

Not all experts agree the commissioner has the authority to change the personal conduct policy without input from the union.

"I'm sure the NFL will hear from the union in short order that this should have been bargained," said Peter Carfagna, former chief legal officer at the IMG talent agency. "But I think they're on pretty safe ground. It essentially makes it a stronger policy and reinforces that [Goodell] still remains the ultimate authority. They waived the right to grieve over that the last time. So I think it will stick."

 

*******************************************************************************

 

The NFLPA fights this and everything they gave up 4-5 years ago in the CBA.

 

Everything in my posts (except changing punishment to add and additional level for habitual offenders for a deterrent factor, which is allowed according to these items above) was not mine.  It was from all kinds of outside the industry sources from government to study groups.  It is largely felt the NFL isn't well enough keeping it's house clean and nobody else can do it.  I didn't mention these things, but I see their point.  And why would they have an issue with 'football stuff' if it only affected football people?

 

So there is a societal issue still, who's accountable, and who is tasked to address it?

 

Congress can't legislate a fix, judicial system is actually unwitting partner in it, NFLPA is against addressing it (appears), and Supe says NFL isn't responsible to

 

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, and for of those to whom much is given, much is required.  Not just on field athletics.

 

As for everyone's societal part, I just remember the saying of Edward W. Bok I saw when I took my wife and kids to the Bok Tower sanctuary in Lake Wales, FL. -

“Make you the world a bit better or more beautiful because you have lived in it.”

[ColtsBlueFL]

Teams can be fined when players are suspended for conduct. It's not a whole lot, but the provision is there: http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/169518/inside-slant-making-the-bears-accountable-for-ray-mcdonald

 

Still, I don't see why the team should be held accountable for the player's actions. If the market wants to hold them accountable -- fans won't watch, buy apparel, etc. -- okay. But I don't think a team should be punished because a player does something wrong, off the field, just like I don't think a business should be fined when an employee does something wrong away from work.

 

As for mandatory counseling and such, that's collectively bargained. The NFL unilaterally made the changes to the conduct policy because discipline for player conduct is at the commissioner's discretion, per the CBA. But discipline and treatment are different, and I think compelling an employee to complete therapy/treatment is a step further.

 

Since the new policy, if player is found guilty, 6 games, first offense.  Second offense, banned.  No issue.  (unless courts keep upsetting the cart with overturns) So new policy could be already some deterrent,  But what about the guy that's arrested multiple times, yet somehow is never charged or charges dropped for various reasons not necessarily relating to innocence? )wink wink) Would a team be willing to take a risk in signing him?

 

Teams that would  keep signing a habitual offender(s) have given a pass for them to remain in the public eye.   Currently if he doesn't pan out (creates yet another offense), the team can cuts its ties and that's it.  Why did the team sign him? Athletic talent, with almost no risk.  I say, would you sign habitual offender, if during his contract, he fails, and not only do you cut ties with him and lose him on the 53 man roster, you also lose a 4th round (or whatever) draft pick?  Now do you have faith to sign Mr. Habitual Offender and put some skin in the game?  Here's where the rubber meets the road.

 

If Mr. 1 time Offender realizes if he makes to Habitual Offender level (whatever determination that would be), teams will  be really hesitant to sign him anymore, does it affect his demeanor? To me if it does and he remains clean, then he deserves to stay in the NFL.  If it doesn't then he really does need to be out of the league. This is my only thought, all other things mentioned in all posts are from other sources. I'm just looking at a way to weed out the knuckleheads earlier and stronger, and make it less palatable for teams to take risks on such players unless they know he''ll fly right or would be worth the cost.

 

Hopefully the new policy takes hold and no further tweaks are ever necessary.  So far, the jury is still out.  Counseling is in the new policy, but appears voluntary. Only stipulation is punishments could be lessened if used.

 

http://workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/NFL-Conduct.pdf

[oldunclemark]

The bears just cut McDonald. That kind of goes against your stance that teams wait for Goodell to hand down punishment.

\\But the Vikings did, didn't they?....Baltimore did....the union always does..SF did

...everyone runs away from the domestic violence issue....

[oldunclemark]

McDonald never played for the Bears and he was under a non guaranteed contract.

It was easy to cut him. The right thing. But easy to do.

People talk about how everyone deserves a second chance. Do they really?.

For all crimes?. There are TV people who have had domestic violence issues and they're still on the air

[NFLfan]

You know what Ray is guilty of? Continuously putting himself in bad spots and making poor decisions. That's the minimum!

I read all of your posts here. Thanks for sharing the information and the links. The quoted statement is what I agree with most.

As you stated, at the very least, McDonald shows very poor judgement. Why is he visiting this person in the middle of the night? This is someone who has accused him of wrongdoing in the past. If he has to visit her to see their baby or to handle some other matter, he should go in the day and should bring another person with him. Even if it may not have been his intention, it appears that he was trying to intimidate his accuser by going to her place in the middle of the night. The news story in the link below gives a lot more details of what happened. It says he broke her door and wanted to retrieve his TVs. If all of this is true, even if he did not touch her, I would cut him because all of this could have been prevented had he shown better judgment.

Teddy Bridgewater is only 22 years old. He was smart enough to take an advisor with him when he accompanied a high school student to her prom. That is a smart thing to do, just in case someone accuses him of rape, battery, or whatever.

I don't know that I like the idea of punishing teams for signing a player with a checkered past. While I don't want players with character issues on my team, I believe in giving people second and more chances. It is incumbent on the players to avoid putting themselves in these kinds of situations.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_28192274/ray-mcdonald-emergency-recordings-detail-clash-ex-fiancee

[Superman]

Since the new policy, if player is found guilty, 6 games, first offense.  Second offense, banned.  No issue.  (unless courts keep upsetting the cart with overturns) So new policy could be already some deterrent,  But what about the guy that's arrested multiple times, yet somehow is never charged or charges dropped for various reasons not necessarily relating to innocence? )wink wink) Would a team be willing to take a risk in signing him?

 

Teams that would  keep signing a habitual offender(s) have given a pass for them to remain in the public eye.   Currently if he doesn't pan out (creates yet another offense), the team can cuts its ties and that's it.  Why did the team sign him? Athletic talent, with almost no risk.  I say, would you sign habitual offender, if during his contract, he fails, and not only do you cut ties with him and lose him on the 53 man roster, you also lose a 4th round (or whatever) draft pick?  Now do you have faith to sign Mr. Habitual Offender and put some skin in the game?  Here's where the rubber meets the road.

 

If Mr. 1 time Offender realizes if he makes to Habitual Offender level (whatever determination that would be), teams will  be really hesitant to sign him anymore, does it affect his demeanor? To me if it does and he remains clean, then he deserves to stay in the NFL.  If it doesn't then he really does need to be out of the league. This is my only thought, all other things mentioned in all posts are from other sources. I'm just looking at a way to weed out the knuckleheads earlier and stronger, and make it less palatable for teams to take risks on such players unless they know he''ll fly right or would be worth the cost.

 

Hopefully the new policy takes hold and no further tweaks are ever necessary.  So far, the jury is still out.  Counseling is in the new policy, but appears voluntary. Only stipulation is punishments could be lessened if used.

 

http://workplacebullying.org/multi/pdf/NFL-Conduct.pdf

 

What teams are signing habitual offenders?

 

There's Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald, and calling either of them habitual offenders is kind of debatable. Hardy has one offense, which was left in legal limbo due to a variety of issues. McDonald had two accusations, but one of them was thrown out. I know it doesn't look good, but due process is a thing because of the basic fact that an accusation doesn't automatically equal guilt. 

 

So why should a team be held accountable for the actions of an individual? That's what I still don't see a real explanation for. And if you put applied this thinking to the business world, we'd be fining private businesses when their employees break the law. 'You hired Mr. X, who had a prior DV arrest. He was arrested again this weekend. You are now fined $10K.' ??? The NFL already reserves the right to fine teams when they have a bunch of players getting suspended, and I guess I get that, but punitive penalties?

 

I think individuals should be accountable for their actions, not their employers. Ray McDonald is (apparently) a knucklehead with anger management and self control issues. He couldn't stay out of handcuffs for six months, and now he'll probably never get another job in the NFL. Why should the Bears be penalized? I just disagree with this entire idea, on principle. It doesn't make sense to me, and I don't see the justification for it.

[ColtsBlueFL]

What teams are signing habitual offenders?

 

There's Greg Hardy and Ray McDonald, and calling either of them habitual offenders is kind of debatable. Hardy has one offense, which was left in legal limbo due to a variety of issues. McDonald had two accusations, but one of them was thrown out. I know it doesn't look good, but due process is a thing because of the basic fact that an accusation doesn't automatically equal guilt. 

 

So why should a team be held accountable for the actions of an individual? That's what I still don't see a real explanation for. And if you put applied this thinking to the business world, we'd be fining private businesses when their employees break the law. 'You hired Mr. X, who had a prior DV arrest. He was arrested again this weekend. You are now fined $10K.' ??? The NFL already reserves the right to fine teams when they have a bunch of players getting suspended, and I guess I get that, but punitive penalties?

 

I think individuals should be accountable for their actions, not their employers. Ray McDonald is (apparently) a knucklehead with anger management and self control issues. He couldn't stay out of handcuffs for six months, and now he'll probably never get another job in the NFL. Why should the Bears be penalized? I just disagree with this entire idea, on principle. It doesn't make sense to me, and I don't see the justification for it.

 

From the League concerning Conduct Detrimental-

 

"Conduct by anyone in the league that is illegal, violent, dangerous, or irresponsible puts innocent victims at risk, damages the reputation of others in the game, and undercuts public respect and support for the NFL.  We must endeavor at all times to be people of high character; we must show respect for others inside and outside our workplace; and we must strive to conduct ourselves in ways that favorably reflect on ourselves, our teams, the communities we represent, and the NFL.

To this end, the league has increased education regarding respect and appropriate behavior, has provided resources for all employees to assist them in conforming their behavior to the standards expected of them, and has made clear that the league’s goal is to prevent violations of the Personal Conduct Policy."

 

So a question arises.  Has Ray McDonald violated any of this, possibly many times? And teams hiring such a guy now will possibly be circumventing the Leagues goal?  Cannot yet another team hire Ray McDonald right now?

 

My thought, is if a team takes a risk hiring a known ticking time bomb, they are also somewhat culpable and should suffer some damage should that ticking time bomb go off on their watch. That's my justification, and you can disagree, that's fine.  But my thought is not totally baseless, though it will never happen. Now, who also would fall into habitual offender category by definition would be sticky, etc...So again, this will never fly.  But if the league and society was truly desiring of ridding of the problem rather than brush it under the rug, such thoughts and others would need to be entertained.

 

I Feel Ray McDonald should get a fourth chance if someone wants to try and sign him... just not totally risk free for all parties. Either you believe in the guy to help your team and stay clean, or pay a small price for misplaced faith. possibly on second NFL punishment, when player gets banned, team could get the penalty if such a guy was 'habitual offender.  But I'm not investing more (I already did too much) for something that's a pipe dream.  But as off the chart as it may seem, I feel there is method to reduce these things in the league.

 

 

Superman, said:

 

And if you put applied this thinking to the business world, we'd be fining private businesses when their employees break the law. 'You hired Mr. X, who had a prior DV arrest. He was arrested again this weekend. You are now fined $10K.'

 

This can and does indeed happen.  Companies and employees that fail to follow Federal Sunshine laws, for one...

[Superman]

So again, this will never fly.

 

This can and does indeed happen.  Companies and employees that fail to follow Federal Sunshine laws, for one...

 

You'll have to explain the Sunshine laws reference.

 

But the line above is pretty much what I'm saying, for several reasons.

 

And just to clarify something, I know private businesses can be held accountable for the actions of their employees, particularly with fines (if I commit fraud at my job, I lose my license and get fined, and my company can get fined). I don't think my point was as well-formed as it could have been. The difference, in my mind, is that it's not based on whether the employee has committed prior offenses. In my job, for instance, if my license is revoked, then that's it. I can't go work for another company doing the same job. So the whole "repeat offender" thing doesn't really apply.

[DougDew]

They already have the new policy and investigation, punishment, appeals in place, as well as counseling etc....  See here-

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24878783/nfl-unveils-new-personal-conduct-policy

 

 

So there is a societal issue still, who's accountable, and who is tasked to address it?

 

Congress can't legislate a fix, judicial system is actually unwitting partner in it, NFLPA is against addressing it (appears), and Supe says NFL isn't responsible to

 

Playing in the NFL is a privilege, and for of those to whom much is given, much is required.  Not just on field athletics.

 

As for everyone's societal part, I just remember the saying of Edward W. Bok I saw when I took my wife and kids to the Bok Tower sanctuary in Lake Wales, FL. -

“Make you the world a bit better or more beautiful because you have lived in it.”

I agree with your sentiment.  But there is a difference between a person trying to make the world better as an individual and a person trying to make the world better by using their position as CEO to make a business their personal tool for public change. 

 

I suppose if people found out that the gas station attendant we saw every day in local gas station was charged with DV, Shell should immediately fire him because people would stop buying gas from Shell stations if it didn't?  How many consumers actually make decisions like that?

 

So DV abusers or alcoholics are just plain not deserving of a job, or just not as an NFL player because it carries extra social responsibility?  Why?  Because father's are suppossed to use athletes as role models for their kids and not a hard working trash collector or gas station attendant, since, after all, scoring a TD or dunking a basketball has so much more social value than collecting trash.  Heck, the athlete probably didn't even earn their grades in high school or college.

 

People need to get over themselves and know their place in the world.  Its not the responsibility of companies to make changes that elected officials can't.  Social media gangs are trying to embarass big companies into doing just that.  CEOs and Commissioners seem to fall for it, I guess because they have the miguided belief that if they are being perceived as being on the wrong side of a cultural issue that social media says they should be, it is somehow going to impact their business's bottom line....

 

....because the Commissioner believes his own marketing department that tries to market the NFL into being some sort of role-model child raising tool instead of just a way to enjoyably kill a few hours on Sunday.  The NFL needs to know its place a little better than it does.

[OffensivelyPC]

I didn't mean For Goodell to unilaterally impose, but come to the bargaining table.  Maybe the league trades off Commissioner hearing appeals for the added provisions for the additions to the conduct policy.  If all the leverage they have is fines, nothing will ever get solved. And football will continue to get less players in its ranks and a poorer product as the years go on. 

 

OTOH, the whole new DV addition to the conduct policy was unilaterally imposed, that wasn't collectively bargained.  And the NFLPA refused to send any representative to the Senate Hearing on Domestic Violence last December.  Here's the response of a Senator about that-

 

**in a remark directed at the NFL Players Association, Sen. Dean Heller, a Nevada Republican, said: "When you're worried more about getting back on the field, instead of stopping abuse, your priorities are out of order."

 

That Senate hearing was to see where the 4 leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL) and each league sent League and Player reps, (except the NFLPA) to invetigate current policies and to see what could be done in the future.

 

Rockerfeller opened the hearing this way-

 

Rockefeller said he called for the hearing because "until very recently, the leagues' records have not been good" on the issue.

Rockefeller added that "the leagues have done little or nothing in response" when players have been charged or convicted for domestic violence.

Well they could go back to the negotiating table, but the league isn't going to give up the right for commissioner to hear the appeals.  To be honest, that woudlnt' even be a fair trade to be honest, especially considering that just because a guy goes to therapy, doesn't mean he'll actually take it seriously.  Just take Josh Gordon for instance.  I know that isn't a DV example, but the principle is the same.

 

As far as the DV policy, I know it wasn't collectively bargained, but the only policy it implemented (other than saying it was going to take steps to investigate DV and come up with strategies to help players) was that it basically laid out the punishment.  6 games for a first offense, plus or minus given certain factors, and then indefinite suspension for a second.  This is all already in the commissioners powers since he can suspend for conduct detrimental to the league in his discretion.  So he didn't really change or add any new powers, just told the NFLPA how he would handle it in the future.  And I suspect that the NFLPA would challenge any second suspension if it got a guy indefinitely suspended because it was not collectively bargained.  They may not win, but indefinite suspension is pretty significant.  

 

But really, the point is simply that the league can only do so much.  These guys have to want to help themselves, and no mandated therapy is going to change that.

[rock8591]

you actually take Judge Judy seriously? Hard for me to take a judge serious who invites cameras into her courtroom and plays to the camera with sarcastic remarks and attitude, Very unprofessional to me

 

Without getting into too much politics of it...

 

She does a great job, definitely knows what she's doing. I have yet to see an episode where I would have disagreed with the verdict. Most people are unfamiliar with the nature of the show and have not done some cursory research.

[DougDew]

And just to clarify something, I know private businesses can be held accountable for the actions of their employees, particularly with fines (if I commit fraud at my job, I lose my license and get fined, and my company can get fined). I don't think my point was as well-formed as it could have been. The difference, in my mind, is that it's not based on whether the employee has committed prior offenses. In my job, for instance, if my license is revoked, then that's it. I can't go work for another company doing the same job. So the whole "repeat offender" thing doesn't really apply.

Let me go OT a bit and revisit a discussion we've had about personal conduct policies in general. I think your fraud example is a good one. In that situation, the employee was acting in the capacity of a representative of the company (apparently in a position of trust or else you couldn't commit fraud), so the company gets fined in addition to the person getting punished.

But in matters of personal conduct, that capacity is not there. The person is behaving in strictly a personal manner. That is why the company, or the NFL, should not be punished..as you correctly point out.

So if the company should not be punished for its employee acting in strictly a personal manner, why should the company fire that person if they are acting in strictly a personal manner? Apparently, its because it fears that the consumer will hold the company accountable for the personal actions of the employee.

In my opinion, the NFL would have lost much more credibility if it didn't punish the pats for underinflating footballs by 2 psi rather than not punishing McDonald for being accused of "assaulting" his girlfriend. And yet those transgressions are on completely opposite ends of the severity scale. The actual crime is what people wrongly look at and not the capacity of the person. I think people initially react emotionally, but in the end, see the difference and won't cancel their season tickets over a player's personal DV accusation or legal matters, unless they are a militant activist or something similar.

[ColtsBlueFL]

Let me go OT a bit and revisit a discussion we've had about personal conduct policies in general. I think your fraud example is a good one. In that situation, the employee was acting in the capacity of a representative of the company (apparently in a position of trust or else you couldn't commit fraud), so the company gets fined in addition to the person getting punished.

 

What about an employee of a company that takes a hypothetical physician group out to dinner, and then a ball game, and during the ball game convinces the group to buy all of their equipment from his company and in turn they'll even get a little kickback quarterly too if they do so?

 

Company doesn't know anything about it, it was a personal act. And they were just trying to do good for his employer. It wasn't really legal either, but nobody got their face punched in... and it was a purely personal act. So what about that?

 

If/when caught, that company and employee face major (including financial) penalties.  The Company has it's reputation totally sullied.  All by a rogue act of one outside of the office and outside business hours.  The way I see it, you represent, even off hours.  Players are of the NFL, even off hours too, like our bribe guy. Committing illegal violent crimes against another will tarnish the "Brand of the Company {NFL} as much as bribe guy ruined his company by his illegal personal act.

 

NFL says-

 

{exceprts}

Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL.  

{This is} Conduct by anyone in the league that is illegal, violent, dangerous, or irresponsible puts innocent victims at risk, damages the reputation of others in the game, and undercuts public respect and support for the NFL.

{NFL}... has made clear that the league’s goal is to prevent violations of the Personal Conduct Policy.  In order to uphold our high standards, when violations of this Personal Conduct Policy do occur, appropriate disciplinary action must follow.

 

So I don't agree with your assessment, and thus the rest of your argument.

 

 

 

[DougDew]

What about an employee of a company that takes a hypothetical physician group out to dinner, and then a ball game, and during the ball game convinces the group to buy all of their equipment from his company and in turn they'll even get a little kickback quarterly too if they do so?

 

Company doesn't know anything about it, it was a personal act. And they were just trying to do good for his employer. It wasn't really legal either, but nobody got their face punched in... and it was a purely personal act. So what about that?

 

If/when caught, that company and employee face major (including financial) penalties.  The Company has it's reputation totally sullied.  All by a rogue act of one outside of the office and outside business hours.  The way I see it, you represent, even off hours.  Players are of the NFL, even off hours too, like our bribe guy. Committing illegal violent crimes against another will tarnish the "Brand of the Company {NFL} as much as bribe guy ruined his company by his illegal personal act.

 

NFL says-

 

{exceprts}

Everyone who is part of the league must refrain from “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in” the NFL.  

{This is} Conduct by anyone in the league that is illegal, violent, dangerous, or irresponsible puts innocent victims at risk, damages the reputation of others in the game, and undercuts public respect and support for the NFL.

{NFL}... has made clear that the league’s goal is to prevent violations of the Personal Conduct Policy.  In order to uphold our high standards, when violations of this Personal Conduct Policy do occur, appropriate disciplinary action must follow.

 

So I don't agree with your assessment, and thus the rest of your argument.

In your example, the salesman is conducting company business. Hours are not measured in terms of punching a card. And just because there is no punch card, it doesn't mean that he is representing the company 24/7. If he went to visit his pregnant girlfriend for an hour after the sale, then closed another sale with another client and hour after that, then went to his son's little league game after that, there would be breaks in the timeline where he was representing the company and where he was not. Because the timeline is not seamless does not mean someone is on the clock 24/7. Ray McDonald was not representing the Bears or the NFL when he went to visit his GF at 1am..and in the offseason.

Now, Richie Incognito goes to a charity golf event on a Saturday in the offseason where the organizers want members of the Dolphins to attend, and he performs nonfootball conduct...like rubbing a golf club on a female reporter. That is personal conduct also. And because he performs his personal conduct while representing the Dolphins and the NFL, he is subject to the NFLs personal conduct policy. What else are they gonna do, penalize the dolphins 15 yards? They have to have some basis for disciplining personal behavior when representing the NFL when not playing a game. It also applies if he beats up the equipment manager after the game too, or bully's another player about his blocking style while they're talking at a bar at 1 am.

But afterwards, when he goes home, he gets angry and beats up his neighbors car with a baseball bat, that is also personal conduct, but it is not subject to the NFLs policy because he is not acting in the capacity of an NFL player. He's just an angry dude guilty of vandalism. What, an employer can punish someone for that? Dock his paycheck?

Also, if someone hits his wife on a Saturday in the offseason at a Casino, that may be DV, but its not subject to NFL personal conduct policy, nor is someone driving stoned on a Sunday night coming home from their GFs house. In those cases they are just citizens subject to citizen forms of punishment, like arrest and prosecution. The NFL policy should not apply 24/7.

I actually don't think it would be legal to subject an employee to that level of scrutiny as a condition of employment...even if they agreed to it. Something about giving up basic human rights in exchange for a paycheck. You can invoke the antitrust issue by claiming the player has no choice but to agree to the wording in his contract.

To my knowledge the NFL policy does not specifically state that employees are representing the NFL every second of their life 24/7, if its even legal to do so, so its implied there are times when the employee is simply a person....

...but apparently, nobody has figured that out yet.

Yeah, the NFL and talk media pretty much have it all messed up.

[ColtsBlueFL]

In your example, the salesman is conducting company business. Hours are not measured in terms of punching a card. And just because there is no punch card, it doesn't mean that he is representing the company 24/7. If he went to visit his pregnant girlfriend for an hour after the sale, then closed another sale with another client and hour after that, then went to his son's little league game after that, there would be breaks in the timeline where he was representing the company and where he was not. Because the timeline is not seamless does not mean someone is on the clock 24/7. Ray McDonald was not representing the Bears or the NFL when he went to visit his GF at 1am..and in the offseason.

Now, Richie Incognito goes to a charity golf event on a Saturday in the offseason where the organizers want members of the Dolphins to attend, and he performs nonfootball conduct...like rubbing a golf club on a female reporter...that is PERSONAL conduct. And because he performs his personal conduct while representing the Dolphins and the NFL, he is subject to the NFLs personal conduct policy. What else are they gonna do, penalize the dolphins 15 yards? They have to have some basis for disciplining personal behavior as a football p[layer.

But after the event, when he goes home, he gets drunk and angry and beats up his neighbors car with a baseball bat, that is also personal conduct, but it is not subject to the NFLs policy because he is not acting in the capacity of an NFL player. He's just an angry dude guilty of vandalism. What, an employer can punish someone for that?

Also, if someone hits his wife on a Saturday in the offseason at a Casino, that may be DV, but its not subject to NFL personal conduct policy, nor is someone driving stoned on a Sunday night coming home from their GFs house. In those cases they are just citizens subject to citizen forms of punishment, like arrest and prosecution. Employees are not subject to the NFLs personal conduct policy 24/7.

I actually don't think it would be legal to subject an employee to that level of scrutiny as a condition of employment...even if they agreed to it. Something about giving up basic human rights in exchange for a paycheck. You can invoke the antitrust issue by claiming the player has no choice but to agree to the wording in his contract.

To my knowledge the NFL policy does not specifically state that employees are representing the NFL every second of their life 24/7, if its even legal to do so, so its implied there are times when the employee is simply a person....

...but apparently, nobody has figured that out yet.

Yeah, the NFL and talk media pretty much have it all messed up.

 

What if dude was not sales but just an hourly mail boy for the company?  Look people in the spotlight are held to a higher standards. Football players actions on and off the field are reflected as being part of the NFL fraternity.  If you know an average Joe that comes home, hits his wife while drunk and drives away and gets a DUI and thereafter fired, hardly anybody in the world knows.  But if you are Jim Irsay, driving eratic and just having prescription pills out of their Rx containers can get you fines and Suspended. Just Like driving a vehicle, playing in or being part of the NFL is a privilege, not a right. And everybody's actions reflect on the teams and league as a whole, like it or not.

 

Didn't somebody illegally tape voice messages off Donald Sterling's racist rant, a personal rant? And then he had his basketball team placed forcibly for sale?   Just being a person away from the team and stadium, yes?

 

I'm done.

[Superman]

Let me go OT a bit and revisit a discussion we've had about personal conduct policies in general. I think your fraud example is a good one. In that situation, the employee was acting in the capacity of a representative of the company (apparently in a position of trust or else you couldn't commit fraud), so the company gets fined in addition to the person getting punished.

But in matters of personal conduct, that capacity is not there. The person is behaving in strictly a personal manner. That is why the company, or the NFL, should not be punished..as you correctly point out.

So if the company should not be punished for its employee acting in strictly a personal manner, why should the company fire that person if they are acting in strictly a personal manner? Apparently, its because it fears that the consumer will hold the company accountable for the personal actions of the employee.

In my opinion, the NFL would have lost much more credibility if it didn't punish the pats for underinflating footballs by 2 psi rather than not punishing McDonald for being accused of "assaulting" his girlfriend. And yet those transgressions are on completely opposite ends of the severity scale. The actual crime is what people wrongly look at and not the capacity of the person. I think people initially react emotionally, but in the end, see the difference and won't cancel their season tickets over a player's personal DV accusation or legal matters, unless they are a militant activist or something similar.

 

I used fraud because in that case, the company can also be penalized. But if I am convicted of or plead guilty to any felony, field related or not, my license is revoked. Technically, I can't get a new license for at least 7 years. If I were to get a new license, and was hired by a new company, and committed a felony again, the company wouldn't be held responsible because they hired someone who had priors. That's what where I disagree with CBFL.

 

As to the rest, we already know we disagree on this. Some businesses don't want people of ill repute associated with their company, not just because of public image and perception, but sometimes simply on principle. The penalties levied by the league are meant to be a deterrent, and they also serve a personal relations purpose. For whatever reason, that's a foreign concept to you, but we've been down that path already.

 

I never expected the league to opt not to penalize the Patriots, if in fact they were found guilty of misconduct. So yeah, in my eyes, they would have lost a ton of credibility if they didn't act. But they did, so the hypothetical doesn't interest me all that much.

[DougDew]

What if dude was not sales but just an hourly mail boy for the company?  Look people in the spotlight are held to a higher standards. Football players actions on and off the field are reflected as being part of the NFL fraternity.  If you know an average Joe that comes home, hits his wife while drunk and drives away and gets a DUI and thereafter fired, hardly anybody in the world knows.  But if you are Jim Irsay, driving eratic and just having prescription pills out of their Rx containers can get you fines and Suspended. Just Like driving a vehicle, playing in or being part of the NFL is a privilege, not a right. And everybody's actions reflect on the teams and league as a whole, like it or not.

 

Didn't somebody illegally tape voice messages off Donald Sterling's racist rant, a personal rant? And then he had his basketball team placed forcibly for sale?   Just being a person away from the team and stadium, yes?

 

I'm done.

In every event you mentioned, application of the policies defies logic and morality. It is done to prevent emotionally based social activism from causing tangible problems. IOW, giving in to people who would do them wrong because the events offended only their sensitivities. Employers, the NFL, and the NBA act because they get intimidated. Its a shame, because if organizations are concerned about their image, as they say they are, unfairly disciplining their own employees and showing abrupt disloyalty at the first sign of intimidation and extortion from outsiders hurts their image more than anything else.

[DougDew]

As to the rest, we already know we disagree on this. Some businesses don't want people of ill repute associated with their company, not just because of public image and perception, but sometimes simply on principle. The penalties levied by the league are meant to be a deterrent, and they also serve a personal relations purpose. For whatever reason, that's a foreign concept to you, but we've been down that path already.

The problem I see is that people can be branded as a person of ill repute by unjust means, or continuously after they have paid their debt to society. And I think businesses overstep their bounds when they try to determine what exactly defines a person as being of ill repute, and don't have much ability to get it consistently correct any way.

[SteelCityColt]

Well this turned out to be quite a deep and interesting read, well done people ! 

 

So.. a few of my own takes..apologies if I'm rehashing anything here.

 

While I think McDonald from a legal standpoint should have the protection of innocent until proven guilty etc. when it comes to getting cut by the Bears he agreed that he was going to keep his nose clean and for my mind that includes putting himself in a situation where even if something didn't happen he could still be accused of it. I know that's a sad state of affairs but when you're already on thin ice you've got to be smarter than this. Now take Dez Bryant as an example, I don't think he's necessarily a bad guy, but I do think he's a guy with poor judgement. The Cowboys intervened and pretty much babysat him to make sure he couldn't put himself in bad situation which seems to have worked out on the whole. So yeah, I think the Bears not only were justified in what they did but I think it was the right thing to do. If I hire someone on a condition and they don't keep it I don't see that I'm out of line to terminate my side of the agreement. 

 

Swinging round to the whole comparisons to real life.. I'm not sure you can compare an NFL player to a regular Joe. While we can argue about personal rights, civil liberties etc. at the end of the day these aren't normal people. They live in the public spotlight. Again it's like a deal, you get the fame and the money, but you're a role model. For me you need to be held to a higher standard. To delve back into a bad "real world" example. A Dr is just a person like anyone else, does a job, yet I'm sure most people would expect a Dr to have a higher moral framework than most people because of concepts such as the Hippocratic oath. Of course they're just as human as you or me but we will hold them to a higher standard based on their profession. 

[shakedownstreet]

arrested again yesterday evening... 

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12965180/ray-mcdonald-arrested-protective-order-violation

 

CHICAGO -- Police in California arrested former Chicago Bears defensive end Ray McDonald at 5:35 p.m. local time Wednesday for violating a restraining order, the Santa Clara Police Department said.

 

It marked McDonald's second arrest in less than 72 hours. On Monday, authorities booked McDonald on suspicion of domestic violence and child endangerment as a result of an early-morning altercation with his former fiancee, who also is the mother of his child.

[NFLfan]

arrested again yesterday evening...

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12965180/ray-mcdonald-arrested-protective-order-violation

To be fair, he was not arrested for a new incident. This second arrest is for allegedly having violated a restraining order when he went to the woman's home earlier in the week.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I used fraud because in that case, the company can also be penalized. But if I am convicted of or plead guilty to any felony, field related or not, my license is revoked. Technically, I can't get a new license for at least 7 years. If I were to get a new license, and was hired by a new company, and committed a felony again, the company wouldn't be held responsible because they hired someone who had priors. That's what where I disagree with CBFL.

 

As to the rest, we already know we disagree on this. Some businesses don't want people of ill repute associated with their company, not just because of public image and perception, but sometimes simply on principle. The penalties levied by the league are meant to be a deterrent, and they also serve a personal relations purpose. For whatever reason, that's a foreign concept to you, but we've been down that path already.

 

I never expected the league to opt not to penalize the Patriots, if in fact they were found guilty of misconduct. So yeah, in my eyes, they would have lost a ton of credibility if they didn't act. But they did, so the hypothetical doesn't interest me all that much.

 

And the only thing I disagree with you is that one conviction doesn't make you a habitual offender. But It's moot after this McDonald saga.  This new first offense 6 games, 2nd offense indefinite suspension might be all that is needed. 

[NFLfan]

To be fair, he was not arrested for a new incident. This second arrest is for allegedly having violated a restraining order when he went to the woman's home earlier in the week.

Perhaps I am wrong. Did he actually go back to the woman's home yesterday? If he did, it is another incident. The guy is just not very bright.

[shakedownstreet]

Perhaps I am wrong. Did he actually go back to the woman's home yesterday? If he did, it is another incident. The guy is just not very bright.

 

 

apparently not

 

 

 

The restraining order McDonald is accused of violating Wednesday was issued as a result of Monday's case.

[Superman]

And the only thing I disagree with you is that one conviction doesn't make you a habitual offender. But It's moot after this McDonald saga.  This new first offense 6 games, 2nd offense indefinite suspension might be all that is needed. 

 

A "conviction" isn't even really a good barometer. The McDonald situation and the Hardy situation are good examples of that, I think.

[Superman]

While we can argue about personal rights, civil liberties etc. at the end of the day these aren't normal people. They live in the public spotlight. Again it's like a deal, you get the fame and the money, but you're a role model.

 

I agree that they have a different burden, but I think we get to choose who we view as role models. Ray McDonald definitely isn't a role model just because he's an athlete. Tiger Woods isn't a role model, despite being one of the biggest celebrities in sports. I think it's our responsibility to recognize that we don't actually know these people, even if they're on our TVs everyday. I grew up in the Jordan era, and I wanted to play basketball like him and be rich and famous and have my own shoe and Gatorade commercial, but I never really considered him a role model.

 

End of the day, they're people just like we are, with problems and issues and whatnot. They will not live up to whatever ideals we sometimes expect, whether that's behavior off the field, PEDs, on the field performance or integrity, etc. That might seem jaded, but I think it's just the base reality.

 

It's even different for doctors and stuff, because their job is to care for people and their needs. An athlete plays a game, and technically, his trustworthiness or overall character has little impact on my life (assuming I'm not idolizing him). I'd like to know that my doctor is acting with a sound mind, as free from influence as possible, when he prescribes care of whatever kind.

[Superman]

The problem I see is that people can be branded as a person of ill repute by unjust means, or continuously after they have paid their debt to society. And I think businesses overstep their bounds when they try to determine what exactly defines a person as being of ill repute, and don't have much ability to get it consistently correct any way.

 

I think you overstep your bounds when you try to set restrictions on how businesses should determine who they want to be associated with their company. I think an organization is within their rights to determine whether they want a certain individual to work for them or represent them, whether that's on the basis of that person's qualifications or their reputation, or both. You seem to have this idea that because it's difficult or even impossible to apply one standard across the board that no standard should be applied at all. I disagree.