Has Voth changed his opinion of Hardy's future?

[WOW!!]

Lack of trust by "Richardson and others in the building" (probably Gettleman) would be the reason.

Trust can be attained if Greg is willing to play for below his market value on a prove it deal.. Gettlemen nor Jerry aren't dumb.. if they can get a top 5 pass rushers on a below market prove it deal they will..

Don't act like Jerry hasn't made a business decision before. . Smitty got away with worse and still got paid by Jerry..

[csx]

I still doubt he comes back but it doesnt sound like a foregone conclusion anymore.

[ThPantherFan]

And exactly what bullshit are you referring to? All I am doing is not buying nothing as something? You know...pretty much not buying into the bullshit.

For example, you claim the majority of the team is lobbying for him to come back. Voth's piece doesn't claim that. It doesn't even name one person. It suggest at least one team leader may have said something....but even that could be hearsay Voth is running with for what if fun piece.

Hardy is done. That ain't bullshit

 

you two gonna screw, aren't you?

[CPF4LIFE]

I love how people think they know what is going on in JRs mind.  You think they live with the man.

[csx]

One thing for sure is that those guys making the decisions are privy to more info than we can ever attain via Google.

[Mr. Scot]

A quick point to the folks who think the Ray Rice decision will help Hardy...

 

Ray Rice filed his court case based on the fact that he had already been suspended without pay once for the same incident.  The NFL was embarrassed when the video came out so they claimed not to know how serious the incident had actually been and suspended Rice indefinitely on the basis of this and the claim that he had lied to them.

 

The judge who heard the case found the NFL's claim that they "didn't know what really happened the first time" to be bulls--t, and vacated the suspension based on that belief.

 

None of that applies to Hardy.

 

Hardy can't claim to be suspended again for the same offense because 1) he got his full paycheck and 2) because he voluntarily agreed to go on the Exempt List.

 

And if you're counting on the NFLPA, remember that Adrian Peterson already appealed his suspension based on the whole 'double jeopardy / rules change' notion, and lost.  Peterson is a way bigger star in the league.  If the Players Association couldn't save him, what makes you think they can save Hardy?

 

Bottom Line: The NFL could indeed ultimately decide not to suspend Hardy, but the more info I see the less chance I see of that happening.

 

And if they do ultimately suspend him for two, four, six, eight games or such, I think you can pretty well count on it sticking.

[TheRed]

A quick point to the folks who think the Ray Rice decision will help Hardy...

 

Ray Rice filed his court case based on the fact that he had already been suspended without pay once for the same incident.  The NFL was embarrassed when the video came out so they claimed not to know how serious the incident had actually been and suspended Rice indefinitely on the basis of this and the claim that he had lied to them.

 

The judge who heard the case found the NFL's claim that they "didn't know what really happened the first time" to be bulls--t, and vacated the suspension based on that belief.

 

None of that applies to Hardy.

 

Hardy can't claim to be suspended again for the same offense because 1) he got his full paycheck and 2) because he voluntarily agreed to go on the Exempt List.

 

And if you're counting on the NFLPA, remember that Adrian Peterson already appealed his suspension based on the whole 'double jeopardy / rules change' notion, and lost.  Peterson is a way bigger star in the league.  If the Players Association couldn't save him, what makes you think they can save Hardy?

 

Bottom Line: The NFL could indeed ultimately decide not to suspend Hardy, but the more info I see the less chance I see of that happening.

 

And if they do ultimately suspend him for two, four, six, eight games or such, I think you can pretty well count on it sticking.

 

Do you really not see the obvious differences between Peterson's situation versus that of Hardy? One guy admitted and was indicted for felony child abuse. The other was facing misdemeanor charges in a case that ended up being dismissed altogether.

[teeray]

A quick point to the folks who think the Ray Rice decision will help Hardy...

Ray Rice filed his court case based on the fact that he had already been suspended without pay once for the same incident. The NFL was embarrassed when the video came out so they claimed not to know how serious the incident had actually been and suspended Rice indefinitely on the basis of this and the claim that he had lied to them.

The judge who heard the case found the NFL's claim that they "didn't know what really happened the first time" to be bulls--t, and vacated the suspension based on that belief.

None of that applies to Hardy.

Hardy can't claim to be suspended again for the same offense because 1) he got his full paycheck and 2) because he voluntarily agreed to go on the Exempt List.

And if you're counting on the NFLPA, remember that Adrian Peterson already appealed his suspension based on the whole 'double jeopardy / rules change' notion, and lost. Peterson is a way bigger star in the league. If the Players Association couldn't save him, what makes you think they can save Hardy?

Bottom Line: The NFL could indeed ultimately decide not to suspend Hardy, but the more info I see the less chance I see of that happening.

And if they do ultimately suspend him for two, four, six, eight games or such, I think you can pretty well count on it sticking.

The part that would apply to Hardy would be the judge saying Goodell didn't have authority to suspending him longer than policy dictated at the time of the offense.

Meaning 2 games and not minimum 6

Other than that it is different circumstances

[Mr. Scot]

Do you really not see the obvious differences between Peterson's situation versus that of Hardy? One guy admitted and was indicted for felony child abuse. The other was facing misdemeanor charges in a case that ended up being dismissed altogether.

 

We're not in the court system anymore.

 

We're in the league's disciplinary process, where the NFL generally gets what they want.

 

And if they want to make an example of Hardy, they'll probably succeed.

[Mr. Scot]

The part that would apply to Hardy would be the judge saying Goodell didn't have authority to suspending him longer than policy dictated at the time of the offense.

Meaning 2 games and not minimum 6

Other than that it is different circumstances

 

Oh, I think he'll get at least four, though I do accept six or more is possible.

 

And yeah, I think it'll stand.

 

 

[TheRed]

We're not in the court system anymore.

 

We're in the league's disciplinary process, where the NFL generally gets what they want.

 

And if they want to make an example of Hardy, they'll probably succeed.

 

I think that depends heavily on the information that the NFL may or may not get to look at in relation to the dismissal of the case. But I disagree with how you simply lump this in with Peterson and Rice. They were both clearly guilty of what they were accused of.

 

The case for Hardy in general has basically been a he said/she said from the beginning.

 

He may or may not be suspended, who knows, but I wouldn't count on the NFLPA just laying down.

[teeray]

Oh, I think he'll get at least four, though I do accept six or more is possible.

And yeah, I think it'll stand.

Again, a lot of this will also depend on what is ruled in Peterson court hearing, which has more implications to Hardy that the Rice ruling.

Judge told NFL in Rice trial that they can't make it up as they go, so they will have to defend their suspension and I imagine it will also end up in a court room.

And there is at least precedent now that the NFLPA attorneys can show the judges ruling which in part said that NFL didn't have authority to suspend Rice longer than what policy dictated at the time of the offense.

We will see.

[Snake]

Again, a lot of this will also depend on what is ruled in Peterson trial, which has more implications to Hardy that the Rice ruling.

 

Judge told NFL in Rice trial that they can't make it up as they go, so they will have to defend their suspension and I imagine it will also end up in a court room.

 

And there is at least precedent now that the NFLPA attorneys can show the judges ruling which in part said that NFL didn't have authority to suspend Rice longer than what policy dictated at the time of the offense.

 

We will see. 

 

Yet this is what the NFL is still trying to do. Honestly how do you suspend a player for doing all the right things and what door does that open. What next? Girl says she is raped, its proven she was not, Player get suspended 12 games because it was bad PR? Every bad PR thing that happens to a  player cant end in suspension and a fine. Honestly, the NFL needs to let these guys go with a slap and what was already done, then set up hardline rules for anyone else that violates them.

[Panther53521]

Can anyone else answer this?

 

Le'Von Bell had a misdemeanor case for marijuana possession pending the whole season, why wasnt he placed on the exempt list?

 

Or is that only Domestic Violence charges?

 

When the NFL bought up this idea about an exempt list, the media mentioned it would be used for all pending charges.