tiger7_88

So now we need 2? Heh...

What about his shitty route running and his tendency to quit on pays he's not involved in? Did they fix those problems too? Also, have you ever seen DGB play in person? I have. Amazing physical specimen. Lazy on the field unless he knows he has a chance to be part of the play. "Casual" college football fan... lol. Is 28 years as a season ticket holder "casual"?

Indeed, being high is something he's proven to be good at. The next Josh Gordon!

I was assured with 100% confidence yesterday that if Hardy gets suspended now that he will be the victim of workplace discrimination and will sue the NFL. Yep, that's what I was told.

Wait wut? Are you under the impression that these guys play for the shear joy of the game?

After all this time, people STILL think NFL personnel moves are just like their Madden NFL or Fantasy Leagues.

Panic big. Panic early. Waste not a minute.

Well, that would be an interesting point to know, but why should it matter? If the NFL can arbitrarily decide that your "conduct has been detrimental" after two accusations of which you are not found guilty, is it really any less arbitrary to decide that your "conduct has been detrimental" after one accusation of which you are not found guilty?

So you're saying that innocent is NOT innocent? If you are charged twice and not convicted, you are less innocent than if you are only charged once? Interesting theory...

Cool. Gonna be fun to see Hardy and his lawyer sue the local abused women's shelter in whatever city his next team is located.

I do find it hilarious though that there are those of you who believe that if owners chose not to put up with the display and notoriety of feminist and domestic abuse organization picketing their buildings and games by not employing a player that would cause those things to happen, those owners are "discriminating" against the player.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Roethlisberger#2010_suspension As you pointed out, Roethlisberger was INNOCENT, correct?

Hypothetical: An elementary school teacher gets arrested for sexually abusing a neighbors child. Between the time of his/her arrest, the teacher's spouse buys a lottery ticket with the winning numbers and the couple become millionaires. The parents of that child come to a monetary settlement with the elementary school teacher, move from the area, and can no longer be easily found. The criminal charges are dropped. The school system fires the teacher. Is this discrimination?

Wrong. The NFL is a business and as a business has a right to protect its image. They can't FORCE Hardy and his lawyers to reveal the terms of any settlement, that is true. But they can use their power to prevent him from being part of the league until he reveals all the facts of the case he was involved him. That settlement is the one document that would reveal the facts of the case as AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES.

Oh absolutely. And like any other employer whose employment decision depends on background information, the NFL can tell Hardy and his lawyers to reveal to them the terms of that settlement or Mr. Hardy has the right to become unemployed.

Proving there was a settlement is easy. They would have to be filed within the civil court system. Unless, of course, Hardy and his lawyers chose to settle with her person-to-person which, of course, leaves him open to further pressure/blackmail by Ms. Holder in the future. Getting the TERMS of the settlement to be revealed? That is another story.

Neither does Hardy have the "right" to play in the NFL.

I'm sure the commissioner and owners are salivating at the opportunity for the NFLPA to take the NFL to court in defense of a guy accused of domestic violence who settled out-of-court with the alleged victim. Commish/Owners: "See! See! We're serious about this stuff and its obvious that the union and the players are not!" Throw up the soft ball and hit it out of the park.

I get the distinct feeling that many of you are ignorant of this entire situation BY CHOICE. Is that why you keep repeating incorrect and horribly ignorant assertions (see: above)?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/panthers/2014/09/17/greg-hardy-drew-rosenhaus-carolina-panthers-ron-rivera/15762709/ How often did Greg Hardy show up at the team facilities to be with his teammates this season, I wonder? THIS IS THE OPTION GREG CHOSE. HARDY WILL DECIDE IF HE WANTS TO RETURN TO THE FACILITY. Who didn't "stand with" who again?

Looks like SMF would rather pay Hardy all the money we need to use to sign Cam and Kuechly just to prove a point. And then, AFTER Gettleman did that, he'd bitch about that too.

Exactly. Hardy's year-long PAID suspension was a deal between Hardy and his agent and the League. A deal to which he and his agent AGREED. Yet within the craniums of the brainless, somehow this was the Panther's fault.

If Greg Hardy paid the girl a settlement, the civil case (to which I was referring in my post) wasn't dropped, it was adjudicated within the criminal court system.

How could the Panthers have "done this"? The N F of L suspended Hardy, not the Panthers. McDonald was never suspended by the NFL. (Oh, by the way, in case you didn't notice, later in the season when McDonald was under investigation for sexual assault, the 49ers CUT HIM FROM THE TEAM... http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/49ers/2014/12/17/ray-mcdonald-cut-san-francisco-49ers-sexual-assault/20549165/ ). Do you think if the Panthers had "refused" to honor the suspension the NFL would have reacted like "Well, OK... nevermind then!" No, they wouldn't have. If the Panthers had suited up Hardy and sent him on the field, the officials wouldn't have allowed play because an ineligible player would have been on the field. And if the Panthers PERSISTED, they would have likely been fined and forfeited draft picks. And this is what you consider a good idea? Lawdy...

Or settle BEFORE the criminal trial and make the primary witness disappear. I didn't even know that was fuging legal. GENIUS.