Hardy's suspension raises questions about disciplinary process

[CelibatePimp]

 

1.  What standard of proof applies?

In the statement announcing Hardy’s 10-game suspension, the NFL simply said that the “decision is based on findings that are supported by credible corroborating evidence independent of Ms. Holder’s statements and testimony, such as testimony of other witnesses, medical and police reports, expert analyses, and photographs.”  But under what standard is the evidence deemed to be credible, especially with Nicole Holder not cooperating due to the settlement she received?

 

The idea that the NFL can simply decide what happened without any clear test of the evidence is a potential problem for other players — especially for players who didn’t do what they’re accused of doing.  A subjective belief by a prosecutor-turned-league-employee that “credible corroborating evidence” exists isn’t enough.  Every prosecutor who brings charges against a defendant believes that “credible corroborating evidence” exists; the challenge becomes finding a fair and objective way to determine whether the evidence really is credible.

 

2.  Does Hardy’s punishment mesh with the league’s pre-Ray Rice policies?

But Hardy’s behavior happened before any of those changes were made.  Setting aside what he did (assuming that he is indeed guilty), Hardy is entitled to be treated the way he would have been treated under the NFL’s existing approach to domestic violence at the time the behavior occurred.  That’s a basic notion of fairness that applies in many settings, to the benefit of everyone.

 

Rules can’t be changed after the fact to apply looking backward to things that already have happened.  Otherwise, folks can get away with making up the rules as they go.  Which is what many have repeatedly accused the NFL of doing over the past several months.

 

3.  Why don’t players get credit for time served?

 

Though paid for the games that happened before the charges are resolved, players primarily want to play football — a reality NFL executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent conceded in a conversation last year with Peterson.

“You were away from the game,” Vincent told Peterson.  “You were not participating, even though it was a paid leave.   You were not participating.  And ballplayers know their shelf life.”

 

Why not give the player credit for the games missed during paid leave, and then impose a fine reflecting the number of games he ultimately was suspended after the case was resolved?  Hardy, for example, missed 15 games in 2014 with pay.  If the final punishment is 10 games, the NFL should fine him the equivalent of 10 of the game checks he received.

 

Instead, the league believes Hardy should miss 25 games for behavior that previously would have resulted in a two-game suspension.  And even though the NFL has since realized that a two-game suspension isn’t enough in situations of this nature, the standard penalty at the time of Hardy’s incident was two games.

 

Read the full article here

 

Mike Florio raises important questions. It's not a case to absolve Hardy of any blame, he however deftly touches on, without mention, the Commissioner's abuse of power and inconsistent adherence to the NFL's own rules.

 

 

[Montsta]

It's actually 27 games, two of them being in the playoffs.

[countryboi]

I can see number 3 being a HUGE talking point in the near future and going in to the next CBA

[CelibatePimp]

I can see number 3 being a HUGE talking point in the near future and going in to the next CBA

 

To me it's one of those things, it makes too much sense not to have it that way. The article alludes to the fact that this has more to do with PR than actually trying to combat DV. I feel like some judge should take Goodell to task during one of these appeals.

[O-Ther]

Glad it's somebody else's headache now.

[imminent rogaine]

 

 

 

..Mike Florio raises important questions. It's not a case to absolve Hardy of any blame...

 

 

You aren't doing it right. It's supposed to go like this: "Mike Florio thinks beating women is perfectly fine. He should be fired immediately."

[jasonluckydog]

27 games for a person who was basically found not guilty. .crazy

If I was an NFL player I would buy myself a body camera and wear it 24/7 to protect myself

[tiger7_88]

I stopped reading after "Mike Florio".

[Jangler]

When you throw in Peterson and Rice....Hardy really got a shitty deal. And the Panthers in the process.

[AceBoogie]

To me it's one of those things, it makes too much sense not to have it that way. The article alludes to the fact that this has more to do with PR than actually trying to combat DV. I feel like some judge should take Goodell to task during one of these appeals.

It's all about PR, the league disn't give a poo about domestic violence until it threatened their pockets. Hardy is being made the example.

[CelibatePimp]

27 games for a person who was basically found not guilty. .crazy

If I was an NFL player I would buy myself a body camera and wear it 24/7 to protect myself

 

A lot of people like to cite Ray McDonald of CHI as someone who got off easy. Well for starters he was not charged in any of the two instances.

 

However, in the second instance where he was accused of rape, he had evidence from his home security system which suggested the contrary. He was never charged and since sued the woman for an excess of $25mil.

[tondi]

The NFL knows this will never hold up but they don't care because all they really care about is looking tough on guys who are accused of abusing women.  When this penalty gets substantially reduced the NFL will be able to shrug its shoulders and say "Don't look at us we did what we could".  This prevents them from any criticism from those whose opinion they appear to be terrified of. 

[PanthersUnited]

I just have one simple question, What the hell ever happened to the whole "domestic violence is now 6 game suspension" policy change? Where in the fug did Hardy's 10 game suspension come from?

This makes about as much sense as a judge sentencing a shoplifter to 10 years in prison when the MAX punishment is 5 years. Why 10 games? Who made this decision and who is this dictator like leader that can just punish players above what the official max punishment is?

The NFL is becoming a Wild Wild West. How can you just months ago declare the MAX punishment for domestic abuse is 6 games then you just out of nowhere punish a player 10 plus games suspension?

[Paintballr]

There is a reason why this 10 game suspension is in the news and headlines, then when he appeals and wins and its reduced the NFL will barely make it a headline and it wont be a big story. This is all PR