Ray Rice

[Fafnir]

That was actually the clip that got SAS pulled from the show --  I think he lost his job entirely.

I thought it was just a suspension and he moved from Radio ESPN to Sirius/XM (while ESPN gets paid for the switch so it wasn't like they cut him loose)

[D.o.s.]

Yeah you could be right. I don't spend very much time paying attention to Stephen A.

Also, in a shocking twist, it appears that the full cast and crew of the NFL office didn't seek out the video very hard, choosing the option of a plausible denial.

[slamtheking]

just a thought that seems to have not been discussed so far:
Should people be penalized at work or the workplace for something they've done outside the workplace that did not result in an arrest or impede their ability to perform their job? 

I'm in  no way advocating for Rice whatsoever.  no excuse for hitting his girlfriend/wife.  none.  no sympathy for what he's going through.  I think his girlfriend/wife should have dumped him when she came to and pressed charges but that's off my topic.

The question I'm putting out for debate is whether or not someone/anyone should lose their job over something they did on their own time that did not result in an arrest or prevent them from working.  Is there a differentiation when this is acceptable and when it's not?  Is it only acceptable when it reflects back on the employer? 

Discuss -- I'm very interested on people's take on this concept.

[fairweatherfan]

just a thought that seems to have not been discussed so far:
Should people be penalized at work or the workplace for something they've done outside the workplace that did not result in an arrest or impede their ability to perform their job? 

I'm in  no way advocating for Rice whatsoever.  no excuse for hitting his girlfriend/wife.  none.  no sympathy for what he's going through.  I think his girlfriend/wife should have dumped him when she came to and pressed charges but that's off my topic.

The question I'm putting out for debate is whether or not someone/anyone should lose their job over something they did on their own time that did not result in an arrest or prevent them from working.  Is there a differentiation when this is acceptable and when it's not?  Is it only acceptable when it reflects back on the employer? 

Discuss -- I'm very interested on people's take on this concept.

When your job is getting fans to voluntarily spend money and attention supporting your employer, a high-profile incident that brings massive amounts of negative attention is impeding your ability to do your job.  So I'd say Rice falls squarely into that category.  (also, wasn't he arrested but just not convicted due to a diversionary program?)

When it doesn't affect your job even in that way, I'd say it's still fine as long as it doesn't violate the terms of your contract.  Different employers might exercise different levels of discretion, but that's their prerogative as the people/organization signing your paycheck.
I believe it'd be tough for most employers to ever find out about an incident that didn't result in an arrest, unless it's at the job site, with other employees, etc.

[Donoghus]

just a thought that seems to have not been discussed so far:
Should people be penalized at work or the workplace for something they've done outside the workplace that did not result in an arrest or impede their ability to perform their job? 

I'm in  no way advocating for Rice whatsoever.  no excuse for hitting his girlfriend/wife.  none.  no sympathy for what he's going through.  I think his girlfriend/wife should have dumped him when she came to and pressed charges but that's off my topic.

The question I'm putting out for debate is whether or not someone/anyone should lose their job over something they did on their own time that did not result in an arrest or prevent them from working.  Is there a differentiation when this is acceptable and when it's not?  Is it only acceptable when it reflects back on the employer? 

Discuss -- I'm very interested on people's take on this concept.

When your job is getting fans to voluntarily spend money and attention supporting your employer, a high-profile incident that brings massive amounts of negative attention is impeding your ability to do your job.  So I'd say Rice falls squarely into that category.  (also, wasn't he arrested but just not convicted due to a diversionary program?)

When it doesn't affect your job even in that way, I'd say it's still fine as long as it doesn't violate the terms of your contract.  Different employers might exercise different levels of discretion, but that's their prerogative as the people/organization signing your paycheck.
I believe it'd be tough for most employers to ever find out about an incident that didn't result in an arrest, unless it's at the job site, with other employees, etc.

I think FWF pretty much nailed my feelings. 

[Moranis]

Strong words from Jason Whitlock

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11488363/jason-whitlock-latest-ray-rice-developments

And Janay Rice has come out today

"I woke up this morning feeling like I had a horrible nightmare, feeling like I'm mourning the death of my closest friend," she wrote in an Instagram post. "But to have to accept the fact that it's reality is a nightmare itself. No one knows the pain that the media & unwanted options from the public has caused my family. To make us relive a moment in our lives that we regret everyday is a horrible thing.

"To take something away from the man I love that he has worked his ass off for all his life just to gain ratings is horrific. THIS IS OUR LIFE! What don't you all get. If your intentions were to hurt us, embarrass us, make us feel alone, take all happiness away, you've succeeded on so many levels. Just know we will continue to grow & show the world what real love is! Ravensnation we love you!"

from http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11493042/janay-rice-defends-ray-rice-criticizes-media-instagram-post

[slamtheking]

just a thought that seems to have not been discussed so far:
Should people be penalized at work or the workplace for something they've done outside the workplace that did not result in an arrest or impede their ability to perform their job? 

I'm in  no way advocating for Rice whatsoever.  no excuse for hitting his girlfriend/wife.  none.  no sympathy for what he's going through.  I think his girlfriend/wife should have dumped him when she came to and pressed charges but that's off my topic.

The question I'm putting out for debate is whether or not someone/anyone should lose their job over something they did on their own time that did not result in an arrest or prevent them from working.  Is there a differentiation when this is acceptable and when it's not?  Is it only acceptable when it reflects back on the employer? 

Discuss -- I'm very interested on people's take on this concept.

When your job is getting fans to voluntarily spend money and attention supporting your employer, a high-profile incident that brings massive amounts of negative attention is impeding your ability to do your job.  So I'd say Rice falls squarely into that category.  (also, wasn't he arrested but just not convicted due to a diversionary program?)

When it doesn't affect your job even in that way, I'd say it's still fine as long as it doesn't violate the terms of your contract.  Different employers might exercise different levels of discretion, but that's their prerogative as the people/organization signing your paycheck.
I believe it'd be tough for most employers to ever find out about an incident that didn't result in an arrest, unless it's at the job site, with other employees, etc.

I think FWF pretty much nailed my feelings. 

thanks guys.  was hoping to get a nice civil discourse on this and seems to be off to a good start.

pretty sound reasoning so far. 

[Roy H.]

Ray Rice is a scumbag.  Now that that's out of the way, though, does anybody have an issue with the arbitrariness of the decision making process here?

* A final decision was handed down here.  Then, the decision is amended upward because of adverse public reaction, and because of a video that showed the assault (rather than just the knocked out victim);

* The punishment is disproportionate to any similar discipline handed down in the past for domestic violence, and players had no notice that they'd be looking at an indefinite ban

The fan, husband, and father in me has no problem with Rice being treated harshly.  The attorney who believes in concepts of due process, notice, etc., thinks that the procedure here was arbitrary and invalid.

[slamtheking]

Ray Rice is a scumbag.  Now that that's out of the way, though, does anybody have an issue with the arbitrariness of the decision making process here?

* A final decision was handed down here.  Then, the decision is amended upward because of adverse public reaction, and because of a video that showed the assault (rather than just the knocked out victim);

* The punishment is disproportionate to any similar discipline handed down in the past for domestic violence, and players had no notice that they'd be looking at an indefinite ban

The fan, husband, and father in me has no problem with Rice being treated harshly.  The attorney who believes in concepts of due process, notice, etc., thinks that the procedure here was arbitrary and invalid.

thanks Roy - this POV is something that had occurred to me during the NFL's decision modification and something I hadn't seen mentioned here

[Donoghus]

Ray Rice is a scumbag.  Now that that's out of the way, though, does anybody have an issue with the arbitrariness of the decision making process here?

* A final decision was handed down here.  Then, the decision is amended upward because of adverse public reaction, and because of a video that showed the assault (rather than just the knocked out victim);

* The punishment is disproportionate to any similar discipline handed down in the past for domestic violence, and players had no notice that they'd be looking at an indefinite ban

The fan, husband, and father in me has no problem with Rice being treated harshly.  The attorney who believes in concepts of due process, notice, etc., thinks that the procedure here was arbitrary and invalid.

The NFL has botched this from the beginning.  From the 2 game suspension to their reactive actions & statements following it.   Now, there is contradicting evidence about whether or not they saw the inside the elevator tape before TMZ released it yesterday morning.   If they didn't, it certainly comes across as inept (hard to believe, IMO.  TMZ could get their hands on it but NFL Security couldn't?)  If they did, then they're plain lying and tried to make this thing disappear but didn't happen because of continued public outcry.  Just screams NFL arrogance. Simmons wasn't too far off last week in his article about Goodell.  Guy has botched issue after issue since becoming commissioner.

Ravens look awful also.  Ed Werder said it best in his tweet yesterday.

Given a choice, the #Ravens defended Ray Rice. Given no other choice, they released Ray Rice

Both the NFL & Baltimore only reacted because of the public outrage over the incident.  People shouldn't be patting either of them on the back because of the "suspended indefinitely" or the team release.

[D.o.s.]

Ray Rice is a scumbag.  Now that that's out of the way, though, does anybody have an issue with the arbitrariness of the decision making process here?

* A final decision was handed down here.  Then, the decision is amended upward because of adverse public reaction, and because of a video that showed the assault (rather than just the knocked out victim);

* The punishment is disproportionate to any similar discipline handed down in the past for domestic violence, and players had no notice that they'd be looking at an indefinite ban

The fan, husband, and father in me has no problem with Rice being treated harshly.  The attorney who believes in concepts of due process, notice, etc., thinks that the procedure here was arbitrary and invalid.

The NFL has botched this from the beginning.  From the 2 game suspension to their reactive actions & statements following it.   Now, there is contradicting evidence about whether or not they saw the inside the elevator tape before TMZ released it yesterday morning.   If they didn't, it certainly comes across as inept (hard to believe, IMO.  TMZ could get their hands on it but NFL Security couldn't?)  If they did, then they're plain lying and tried to make this thing disappear but didn't happen because of continued public outcry.  Just screams NFL arrogance. Simmons wasn't too far off last week in his article about Goodell.  Guy has botched issue after issue since becoming commissioner.

Ravens look awful also.  Ed Werder said it best in his tweet yesterday.

Given a choice, the #Ravens defended Ray Rice. Given no other choice, they released Ray Rice

Both the NFL & Baltimore only reacted because of the public outrage over the incident.  People shouldn't be patting either of them on the back because of the "suspended indefinitely" or the team release.

Agreed, although, I don't think that the Grantland front page is devoid of anything to do with Ray Rice by accident (and that column kind of sucked -- it was a boring rehash of 'but we'll never stop watching football').

[Moranis]

To be fair to the Ravens, there are numerous reports out there that Rice told his teammates that Janay was attacking him and he defended himself.  Couple that with Janay's statements about apologizing for her role, the really minimal punishment by the State of New Jersey, and the NFL's response, I don't think the Ravens were being unreasonable or mishandling things.  I mean are they supposed to do a third investigation after the government and NFL had already done one and handed out punishment.

[Tr1boy]

Can rice sue the casino for releasing the tape?

[Donoghus]

Can rice sue the casino for releasing the tape?

Casino went out of business (believe it closed last week actually) so that would probably be a lost cause.

[D.o.s.]

To be fair to the Ravens, there are numerous reports out there that Rice told his teammates that Janay was attacking him and he defended himself.  Couple that with Janay's statements about apologizing for her role, the really minimal punishment by the State of New Jersey, and the NFL's response, I don't think the Ravens were being unreasonable or mishandling things.  I mean are they supposed to do a third investigation after the government and NFL had already done one and handed out punishment.

The owner cut Rice after seeing the footage, at least according to Ray Lewis. Which means that the owner of the Ravens didn't see the footage until yesterday, which means that, in the most positive light, the ownership decided that they didn't need to/didn't want to investigate what happened inside the elevator, and took Rice at his word.

My suspicion, then, is that they decided Rice was too important to their team and their brand to cut before it was absolutely necessary, and, like the league, decided to perform their best ostrich impressions insofar as the situation was concerned. Therefore: Eff the Ravens.