Hardy interview w/Schefter, full interview on page 17

[t96]

2 hours ago, pantherj said:

I could teach Hardy how to deal with the media in under a minute. No charge. If a member of the media asks you a question about your scandal you answer "no comment", and if they ask again you answer "no comment" again. NEVER talk about your scandal with ANYONE except your lawyer.

"Did you hit that woman?"

No comment.

"Did she hit you with a shoe?"

No comment.

"Did you speed on your motorcycle?"

No comment.

DON'T answer you DUMB poo!

Ahh the Bill Cosby strategy. That's done so well for him in the PR department, huh?

[pantherj]

Just now, thomas96 said:

Ahh the Bill Cosby strategy. That's done so well for him in the PR department, huh?

As well as can be expected for a famous man who is being accused of drugging and raping dozens of women. And he has been making some comments. At any rate "no comment" is absolutely the best option for Cosby, and Hardy. Cosby making comments about his rape scandal would be extremely foolish and make the situation considerably worse. Absolutely keep quiet as far as the media is concerned. Don't pour gas on the fire.

[t96]

1 minute ago, pantherj said:

As well as can be expected for a famous man who is being accused of drugging and raping dozens of women. And he has been making some comments. At any rate "no comment" is absolutely the best option for Cosby, and Hardy. Cosby making comments about his rape scandal would be extremely foolish and make the situation considerably worse. Absolutely keep quiet as far as the media is concerned. Don't pour gas on the fire.

Cosby's been criticized and assumed to be guilty due to his silence, with people suggesting he should defend himself if he's actually innocent and he should be fighting it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't in both Cosby's and Hardy's cases. There's only one thing to say that can be beneficial to you publicly, and that's admitting guilt, showing remorse and showing you're trying to improve yourself and change. However, if you're not guilty then that's not an option. Hardy shouldn't have done this interview in the first place, but answering how he did and saying "no comment" each time would have the same result. It was foolish to set up this interview like he did. It's one thing for league required media sessions and press conferences where the questions are inevitable, but this was absolutely foolish to do.

[CPF4LIFE]

I dont know how people can hop on the "paid her off train" so easily when she barely showed up to the damn bench trial. You already had Hardy guilty in your mind the minute you heard about it. I feel what the guy is going thru he probably doesnt know what the right or wrong move at this point, no matter what he does its not gonna be accepted with open arms. Nobody wants to live there life like that especially when you dont even have a history of incidents like this happening to you.

[pantherj]

1 minute ago, thomas96 said:

Cosby's been criticized and assumed to be guilty due to his silence, with people suggesting he should defend himself if he's actually innocent and he should be fighting it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't in both Cosby's and Hardy's cases. There's only one thing to say that can be beneficial to you publicly, and that's admitting guilt, showing remorse and showing you're trying to improve yourself and change. However, if you're not guilty then that's not an option. Hardy shouldn't have done this interview in the first place, but answering how he did and saying "no comment" each time would have the same result. It was foolish to set up this interview like he did. It's one thing for league required media sessions and press conferences where the questions are inevitable, but this was absolutely foolish to do.

I completely disagree with you. Hardy answering "no comment" to those questions would have been exactly the right decision. "No comment" is certainly a lot less bad than answering, and especially for a guy like Hardy who isn't that bright and might get caught in a lie, or any number of things could go wrong. I just hope for Hardy's sake that he answers no comment from here on out. It's not damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Answering and not answering don't create the same result, hence they are not the same. Certainly not. Answering is very likely to create worse results, and especially for Hardy. Don't give the vultures in the media meat. They're looking to extend the scandal for as long as possible, and new comments allow then to do just that. Extending the scandal is a major negative for Hardy. No comment is the correct answer clearly.

[Mr. Scot]

2 hours ago, NanuqoftheNorth said:

Presumably Hardy did this to set the record straight and help his chances to get picked up by a team.

He had a year to prepare and this is as good as he could do?

Hardy definitely needs a better public relations adviser.

All the best advice in the world won't change anything until Hardy starts wising up himself, and frankly I'm not holding my breath.  The phrase "Greg Hardy used good judgment" gets uttered about as frequently as does "Johnny Manziel showed real humility".

And that's the crux of it all...

Whether or not people think Hardy's been treated unfairly is meaningless.  Football is a game where loads of guys who've done nothing but work hard, give their all and sacrifice their bodies just to try and support their families wind up with nothing.  "Fair" doesn't come with the territory. People can talk all they want about him being done wrong or blackballed or whatever.  None of it means jack s--t.

What does is this: Stupid people do stupid things.

Is anybody on here willing to bet a million bucks that Hardy won't say or do anything really dumb again?  I've asked before and gotten no takers, but the thing is that's what the people who want to bring him back are asking the Panthers to do.

Forget the past.  It's about the future.

One of the most basic rules of running a high risk business like a professional football team is that you never put yourself in the position of having to depend on people who are known to be undependable.  Hardy's got a long history of that.  And I know someone will say "but he's learned his lesson".  I'd love to know what part of that interview gives the impression of somebody who's learned their lesson and/or "gets it".

Throw in that last season, when he really needed to show he'd changed, he instead got worse.

He's just not worth the risk.

Spin it any way you want, folks.  It's not gonna happen.  Nor should it.

[davideinstein]

He's trash.

[TylerVagyler]

Hardy said DV is "almost non-existent in the south".

Has he never watched an episode of Cops? 

[pantherj]

35 minutes ago, TylerVagyler said:

Hardy said DV is "almost non-existent in the south".

Has he never watched an episode of Cops? 

It's a pity that no one is telling Hardy to keep his mouth shut about the scandal. The media can now start up on him all over again. Now if Hardy were intelligent, incredible in an argument, and had a natural talent for influencing the media, then hey maybe make a few comments. Maybe. But Hardy? Hell no.  

[panthers1234]

13 hours ago, top dawg said:

I have consistently said that the bruises/marks are consistent with someone trying to restrain someone, not beat the poo out of them as has been pushed by many. If Hardy wanted to beat the poo out of most people, he could do it. Moreover, but for that unfortunate incident, Hardy doesn't have a history of beating anyone, much less women. That's just the fact of the matter.

The truth of that night is nebulous enough to give him the side eye, but not enough to label him as a woman beater in my estimation. If you're going to label him, call him a dumbass. But that doesn't warrant a lifetime ban from the NFL. 

Have you seen the pictures? Her back is completely bruised, under her chin, and even the bottom of her foot. Not buying the restraint argument. She was clearly thrown around, he may not have thrown a punch but he more than likely shoved and pushed her against objects to cause those bruises. 

[ladypanther]

4 hours ago, TylerVagyler said:

Hardy said DV is "almost non-existent in the south".

Did he really say that?  What an insane comment.  That is true offender speak.

[JawnyBlaze]

He didn't say DV is almost non-existent in the South. He said it is non-existent in most Bible Belt homes. That is almost certainly a true statement.  I wouldn't guess it's less existent than a lot of other areas, but he's probably thinking of the overall more respectful culture of the South.  Wasn't the smartest thing to say, but not untrue and CERTAINLY not "offender speak". Probably the perspective of someone who has never been around DV. 

[imminent rogaine]

7 hours ago, pantherj said:

I completely disagree with you. Hardy answering "no comment" to those questions would have been exactly the right decision. "No comment" is certainly a lot less bad than answering, and especially for a guy like Hardy who isn't that bright and might get caught in a lie, or any number of things could go wrong. I just hope for Hardy's sake that he answers no comment from here on out. It's not damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Answering and not answering don't create the same result, hence they are not the same. Certainly not. Answering is very likely to create worse results, and especially for Hardy. Don't give the vultures in the media meat. They're looking to extend the scandal for as long as possible, and new comments allow then to do just that. Extending the scandal is a major negative for Hardy. No comment is the correct answer clearly.

Why is he even giving this interview in the first place? I would steer as far away from the camera and the microphone as possible. It was already water under the bridge. Him answering questions has brought the issue right back to the national stage; hence, us discussing it after the topic had been dormant for months. If he hadn't been a crappy team-mate in Dallas, he'd already be signed somewhere. Teams will go after a talented guy after the media heat dies down; Hardy is refusing to let that happen for some reason.

[top dawg]

3 hours ago, panthers1234 said:

Have you seen the pictures? Her back is completely bruised, under her chin, and even the bottom of her foot. Not buying the restraint argument. She was clearly thrown around, he may not have thrown a punch but he more than likely shoved and pushed her against objects to cause those bruises. 

That's a possibility. But, you must remember that Hardy had bruising and scratches too. You may not be able to see it as well, but the evidence is there. 

Furthermore, I guess that the transcript of the 911 call means nothing to many of you. It kind of corroborates Hardy's general story, just not the details. 

There is enough evidence here to call it a wash.