Obama SHOCKED by Ray Rice case.

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Obama SHOCKED by Ray Rice case.

 While I have not watched Meet the Press on Sunday in quite a number of years, I did happen to see portions of it regarding this one :

www.msnbc.com/msnbc/obama-shocked-ray-rice-domestic-violence-video

President Obama was reportedly “shocked” when he saw newly released footage from February showing former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice punching and knocking his fiancée unconscious in an elevator.

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough told host Chuck Todd on Sunday’s “Meet the Press” that he and Obama have “talked generally” about the National Football League’s controversial handling of the domestic violence case that has rocked the nation.

“The president was shocked by what he saw, let’s put it that way,” said McDonough. When asked how Obama thought the NFL handled the situation overall, McDonough said, “I don’t want to get into a characterization of that right now.  But I think we all know that Ray Rice being suspended indefinitely seems to be exactly the right thing.”

Last Monday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said he didn’t know if Obama saw the footage but that the commander-in-chief had been following the controversy.

“This administration and this president do believe strongly that the scourge of violence against women is something that needs to be aggressively combated,” said Earnest. “I don’t want to comment on the individual decisions made, in this case, by an individual football team. But you have seen the president and the vice president make very forceful public comments in talking about how important it is for men in particular to step up and step forward and make clear that violence against women is something that is not and cannot be tolerated.”

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell initially suspended Rice, 27, for just two games after video surfaced on Feb. 19 showing the athlete dragging Janay Palmer, now his wife, out of an elevator at the Revel hotel-casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

The NFL only announced the football player’s indefinite suspension from the league on Sept. 8 — after the second video from the same incident was released by TMZ. In that video, Rice is clearly seen punching Palmer in the face. The league claims it had not seen the second video until just before issuing the suspension, although a law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity,  told the Associated Press that the league received the videotape of the assault in April.

Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York said on Sunday’s “Face the Nation” that Goodell should resign if he lied about what the NFL did and didn’t know. Gillibrand was one of 16 female senators who previously sent a letter to Goodell last week calling on him to institute a zero-tolerance policy for domestic violence. She added that the way the NFL handled the situation was “awful” and that it could lead to congressional hearings. 

In addition to the letter sent by Gillibrand, last week, several lawmakers, including Republican Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and 12 Democrats on the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee also demanded answers from Goodell and the NFL. The influential National Organization for Women, has gone as far to call on Goodell to resign.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
 I just have one thing to

 I just have one thing to say about the way the NFL handled this, they fucked up. Badly. Rice should have been suspended for the season. Then forced to go to special therapy with his wife and have other treatment.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
He shouldn't have been

He shouldn't have been suspended at all. The NFL isn't part of the justice system. If they don't want to have his name associated with the league, they can 'fire' him. But they have no business imposing penalties.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:He shouldn't

Vastet wrote:
He shouldn't have been suspended at all. The NFL isn't part of the justice system. If they don't want to have his name associated with the league, they can 'fire' him. But they have no business imposing penalties.

Fire or suspend, who cares. Contracts for these players are so long and so thick on words that they could "fire" him for spitting on the sidewalk. They have every right to suspend him.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
They may be legally entitled

They may be legally entitled for now, but they certainly don't have the right. This is effectively vigilantlism, which is illegal. It is the state which bears responsibility for law and order, not corporations. Being punished this way also effectively circumvents the double jeapordy laws, and allows for multiple punishments for the same crime.

It sets dangerous precedent. Every year that goes by, corporations involve themselves more. Allowing this to continue is ridiculous.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:They may be

Vastet wrote:
They may be legally entitled for now, but they certainly don't have the right. This is effectively vigilantlism, which is illegal. It is the state which bears responsibility for law and order, not corporations. Being punished this way also effectively circumvents the double jeapordy laws, and allows for multiple punishments for the same crime. It sets dangerous precedent. Every year that goes by, corporations involve themselves more. Allowing this to continue is ridiculous.

I'm sure that located in the stack of papers which you need a team a lawyers to figure out, is a clause, "We can kick your ass off the team or out of the NFL if you violate any of our requirements or rules, not limited to but including, knocking your wife out cold in an elevator..."

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Irrelevant. Contracts that

Irrelevant. Contracts that violate the law are unenforcable.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Irrelevant.

Vastet wrote:
Irrelevant. Contracts that violate the law are unenforcable.

I don't see how this is vigilantlism


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
An organization, not part of

An organization, not part of the justice system, is making laws and punishing violations of those laws without any accountability or oversight. How is it not vigilantism?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4114
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
    The wife needs

    The wife needs therapy as much as Ray Rice for putting up with that shit.  I would never strike my girl friend, it's just not in me to do something like that and I have had huge arguments with her.   Once, about nine years ago I became so angry with her that I picked up my very beautiful electric guitar and smashed it to pieces ( hung the remains on the wall as "art" ) but never touched her. I just wouldn't.

 

    If I ever did become violent with her she would not put up with it for a fucking second.

  

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3805
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:He shouldn't

Vastet wrote:
He shouldn't have been suspended at all. The NFL isn't part of the justice system. If they don't want to have his name associated with the league, they can 'fire' him. But they have no business imposing penalties.

I'm shocked I actually agree with you. I'm surprised the players union hasn't stood up against the public lynching.

The media is to blame here as well. The average NFL fan would prefer the courts determine any punishment. But a small group of radical feminists that don't even watch football have hijacked the issue. It is like having Westboro Baptist tell companies what they should do.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:An

Vastet wrote:
An organization, not part of the justice system, is making laws and punishing violations of those laws without any accountability or oversight. How is it not vigilantism?

Taking the law in to your own hands" is a term used for people who take laws created by society and then act as judge, jury and executioner, in other words a vigilante.

The NFL has rules and regulations they create concerning the way a player acts on and off the field. These are not LAWS.

So one of those rules is "no drugs". If a player smokes weed and they catch them, they can be kicked off the team, suspended or even kicked out of the league (if a repeat offender).

How is this any different than a company who has a rule of no tolerance for any drug use? Does that mean the company is taking the law in to their own hands? No it doesn't; and the same goes for any thing else, drinking, wife beating, etc.

All they have to do is say "it is having a negative effect on the performance of the player, the team, the fans, etc" and when you start to change the amount of money a team is making or their chances to get to the Super Bowl then you are screwed.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Taking

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Taking the law in to your own hands" is a term used for people who take laws created by society and then act as judge, jury and executioner, in other words a vigilante.

Which is exactly what the NFL is doing.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
The NFL has rules and regulations they create concerning the way a player acts on and off the field. These are not LAWS.

Yes they are:

law/lô/
noun
the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
So one of those rules is "no drugs". If a player smokes weed and they catch them, they can be kicked off the team, suspended or even kicked out of the league (if a repeat offender).

Drugs have a direct impact on performance, and can result in injury, death, and an unlevel playing field. The use of drugs must be regulated by companies to protect the clients, employees, and customers of businesses; as well as the businesses themselves.
Domestic disturbances are well outside such parameters. The NFL has no business doling out punishments for things that don't concern them. Especially when there hasn't even been a trial. Unless the US has decided innocent until proven guilty, double jeopardy, and vigilantism have gone out of style, the NFL is way out of line.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
All they have to do is say "it is having a negative effect on the performance of the player, the team, the fans, etc" and when you start to change the amount of money a team is making or their chances to get to the Super Bowl then you are screwed.

Domestic disturbances are well outside the criteria of effecting the team, the league, or anything else in the NFL.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5424
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Drugs have a

Vastet wrote:
Drugs have a direct impact on performance, and can result in injury, death, and an unlevel playing field. The use of drugs must be regulated by companies to protect the clients, employees, and customers of businesses; as well as the businesses themselves. Domestic disturbances are well outside such parameters. The NFL has no business doling out punishments for things that don't concern them. Especially when there hasn't even been a trial. Unless the US has decided innocent until proven guilty, double jeopardy, and vigilantism have gone out of style, the NFL is way out of line.  

The entire purpose of the NFL is to promote the popularity of football for the profit of its member teams. Absolutely anything that affects the image or popularity of the sport concerns the NFL. Safety is only a concern of the NFL to the extent that the lack of safety may negatively impact the sports popularity or open them up to lawsuits. Which is why the NFL had a relatively small reaction to the initial story, but when the public reacted negatively, they responded more forcefully. If any of my employees did something like this, I would can their asses so fast their head would spin. The NFL is probably hoping that the emotion over this story calms down and Rice can make a comeback like Ray Lewis or Michael Vick or the numerous other football players who broke the law. Ultimately, the NFL doesn't give a shit except to the extent that the publicity harms their brand.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5424
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Besides, why should laws

 Besides, why should laws be solely the purview of government? I find laws that are imposed solely on people who agree to abide by them far more tasteful. Ray Rice has to option to voluntarily cease being a part of the NFL at any given moment in time, and the NFL has the option to cease allowing Rice to be part of their organization at any given moment. Any punishment inflicted by the NFL is implicitly consented to by Rice. The NFL has zero police power to inflict their punishment against someone unwilling as the government does on a regular basis. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Drugs have a direct impact on performance, and can result in injury, death, and an unlevel playing field. The use of drugs must be regulated by companies to protect the clients, employees, and customers of businesses; as well as the businesses themselves. Domestic disturbances are well outside such parameters. The NFL has no business doling out punishments for things that don't concern them. Especially when there hasn't even been a trial. Unless the US has decided innocent until proven guilty, double jeopardy, and vigilantism have gone out of style, the NFL is way out of line.  

The entire purpose of the NFL is to promote the popularity of football for the profit of its member teams. Absolutely anything that affects the image or popularity of the sport concerns the NFL. Safety is only a concern of the NFL to the extent that the lack of safety may negatively impact the sports popularity or open them up to lawsuits. Which is why the NFL had a relatively small reaction to the initial story, but when the public reacted negatively, they responded more forcefully. If any of my employees did something like this, I would can their asses so fast their head would spin. The NFL is probably hoping that the emotion over this story calms down and Rice can make a comeback like Ray Lewis or Michael Vick or the numerous other football players who broke the law. Ultimately, the NFL doesn't give a shit except to the extent that the publicity harms their brand.  

I'm watching closely the shit going on in Tallahassee with Winston. FSU is fucking things up.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:
The entire purpose of the NFL is to promote the popularity of football for the profit of its member teams. Absolutely anything that affects the image or popularity of the sport concerns the NFL.

They are quite capable of letting him go. That's the only action they should be able to take.

Beyond Saving wrote:
If any of my employees did something like this, I would can their asses so fast their head would spin.

You could very well see a wrongful dismissal suit as a result. You certainly would here. You don't have just cause until conviction. If the charges are dropped or the person is found innocent then you've persecuted them without justification.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Besides, why should laws be solely the purview of government? I find laws that are imposed solely on people who agree to abide by them far more tasteful.

Technically, by living in the US you agree to abide by US law.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The NFL has zero police power to inflict their punishment against someone unwilling as the government does on a regular basis. 

No. They are more limited, but they don't have 0 power. They can affect business decisions and ban people from NFL events. And the government doesn't punish the unwilling, as I showed above.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
The entire purpose of the NFL is to promote the popularity of football for the profit of its member teams. Absolutely anything that affects the image or popularity of the sport concerns the NFL.
They are quite capable of letting him go. That's the only action they should be able to take.
Beyond Saving wrote:
If any of my employees did something like this, I would can their asses so fast their head would spin.
You could very well see a wrongful dismissal suit as a result. You certainly would here. You don't have just cause until conviction. If the charges are dropped or the person is found innocent then you've persecuted them without justification.
Beyond Saving wrote:
Besides, why should laws be solely the purview of government? I find laws that are imposed solely on people who agree to abide by them far more tasteful.
Technically, by living in the US you agree to abide by US law.
Beyond Saving wrote:
The NFL has zero police power to inflict their punishment against someone unwilling as the government does on a regular basis. 
No. They are more limited, but they don't have 0 power. They can affect business decisions and ban people from NFL events. And the government doesn't punish the unwilling, as I showed above.

I see what you are getting at but American business and US Government laws don't function in this manner. Companies let employees go for a variety of reasons and can manipulate the story to fit their needs. The NFL is always going to dump a player if they need to save their image. The NFL does have that right to protect their brand. Hell look at what happened to Tiger Woods when he had an affair. All the sponsors dropped him because of the image conflict. The NFL is doing the same thing.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Being dropped by sponsors is

Being dropped by sponsors is in no way comparable to being suspended. Tiger was still eligible to play.

Unless you're in management or you're a contracted worker, there needs to be a good reason in order to be fired.

The NFL is a contract based organization, so it can end contracts based on the terms of those contracts, which I assume means the NFL can in fact 'fire' the guy over this incident.

A regular business can not even do that. If any business fired someone over a domestic disturbance, they'd be liable for a wrongful dismissal suit.

If the person is convicted and sentenced, the business gets the reason they need when the employee doesn't show up for work, since the employee is in jail. They do not have the right to fire them just because they allegedly or actually committed a crime

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5424
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:They are quite

Vastet wrote:
They are quite capable of letting him go. That's the only action they should be able to take.

Why? Why is the maximum possible punishment acceptable, but a lesser one not?

 

Vastet wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
If any of my employees did something like this, I would can their asses so fast their head would spin.
You could very well see a wrongful dismissal suit as a result. You certainly would here. You don't have just cause until conviction. If the charges are dropped or the person is found innocent then you've persecuted them without justification.

I could. That is probably why the NFL is just suspending him. I don't give a shit about following stupid laws. Although, with the video evidence it would probably be an easy case to win. Beating your girlfriend doesn't put you into a magical protected class in US law. The only thing I would have to prove is that I wasn't firing him because he is black. Although from an NFL perspective, I can almost guarantee they have a morality clause in the contract. It is very common in sports, entertainment, politics and other publicity driven fields. 

 

Vastet wrote:
Technically, by living in the US you agree to abide by US law.

To an extent. Although my agreement to abide by US law is far less voluntary than any contract I make. It is relatively difficult for me to leave and the US asserts their authority over me mostly because I was born here. So to an extent I passively agree, as opposed to Ray Rice actively asserting his agreement to abide by the NFLs rules. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
The NFL has zero police power to inflict their punishment against someone unwilling as the government does on a regular basis. 
No. They are more limited, but they don't have 0 power. They can affect business decisions and ban people from NFL events. And the government doesn't punish the unwilling, as I showed above.

I never said they have zero power. That is irrelevant. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5424
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Being dropped

Vastet wrote:
Being dropped by sponsors is in no way comparable to being suspended. Tiger was still eligible to play. Unless you're in management or you're a contracted worker, there needs to be a good reason in order to be fired. The NFL is a contract based organization, so it can end contracts based on the terms of those contracts, which I assume means the NFL can in fact 'fire' the guy over this incident. A regular business can not even do that. If any business fired someone over a domestic disturbance, they'd be liable for a wrongful dismissal suit.

Not under US employment law. All employment is assumed to be "at will" unless a contract specifies otherwise. That means that either party can terminate employment for almost any reason. I could fire someone because I don't like their socks, or as recently confirmed by a judge, Hooters can fire someone for getting too fat. The only exceptions are people who are in protected classes (race, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation or pregnancy) Also, an employee may be protected by whistleblower status, which means you can't fire someone for reporting illegal activity within your company. You might receive unemployment benefits, but I can fire someone for looking at me funny. I have no obligation to even tell anyone why unless the accusation is made that it was discriminatory to one of the protected classes.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13134
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Why? Why

Beyond Saving wrote:
Why? Why is the maximum possible punishment acceptable, but a lesser one not?

Because of the way contract workers are treated by law. Which I personally don't like.
And really, indefinite suspension is a greater punishment than release. He's still stuck to a contract this way, with obligations and limitations and no pay.

Beyond Saving wrote:
To an extent. Although my agreement to abide by US law is far less voluntary than any contract I make. It is relatively difficult for me to leave and the US asserts their authority over me mostly because I was born here. So to an extent I passively agree, as opposed to Ray Rice actively asserting his agreement to abide by the NFLs rules.

It may be as difficult for Ray to get another job of anything like equal pay as it would be for you to move to another country. Probably more so, since you are a person of modest wealth who's successfuly run at least one profitable business for a reasonably long time. Most Western countries would happily allow you to immigrate, and he's stuck in a contract that almost certainly includes a no-compete clause that effectively bans him from football altogether.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Not under US employment law. All employment is assumed to be "at will" unless a contract specifies otherwise. That means that either party can terminate employment for almost any reason. I could fire someone because I don't like their socks, or as recently confirmed by a judge, Hooters can fire someone for getting too fat. The only exceptions are people who are in protected classes (race, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation or pregnancy) Also, an employee may be protected by whistleblower status, which means you can't fire someone for reporting illegal activity within your company. You might receive unemployment benefits, but I can fire someone for looking at me funny. I have no obligation to even tell anyone why unless the accusation is made that it was discriminatory to one of the protected classes.

Another reason to be glad I don't live there then. You can't fire someone for getting fat or looking at you the wrong way here. You need a reason directly tied to the success of your business. If they steal from the business or treat customers like shit or refuse to work or miss shifts, you have a reason to fire them.
You don't have reason to fire them if they assaulted someone or drove drunk or smoked drugs in their off hours. Not unless they go to jail and can't show up for work.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Being dropped

Vastet wrote:
Being dropped by sponsors is in no way comparable to being suspended. Tiger was still eligible to play. Unless you're in management or you're a contracted worker, there needs to be a good reason in order to be fired. The NFL is a contract based organization, so it can end contracts based on the terms of those contracts, which I assume means the NFL can in fact 'fire' the guy over this incident. A regular business can not even do that. If any business fired someone over a domestic disturbance, they'd be liable for a wrongful dismissal suit. If the person is convicted and sentenced, the business gets the reason they need when the employee doesn't show up for work, since the employee is in jail. They do not have the right to fire them just because they allegedly or actually committed a crime

I have found that the PGA rules and regulations for players outside the game are limited and not made public when personal situations are involved. I found several players on the PGA tour in the last ten years who had DUI's, domestic violence and drug charges and none of their troubles were addressed publicly by the PGA.

A company can fire a person for any reason they want and if they needed to (as I have personally experienced), make shit up about performance. The NFL can release any one for a variety of reasons also and since there is no lawyer jumping at suing the NFL for his release I'm going to say that they were legally justified for their course of action.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline

Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5424
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Being dropped by sponsors is in no way comparable to being suspended. Tiger was still eligible to play. Unless you're in management or you're a contracted worker, there needs to be a good reason in order to be fired. The NFL is a contract based organization, so it can end contracts based on the terms of those contracts, which I assume means the NFL can in fact 'fire' the guy over this incident. A regular business can not even do that. If any business fired someone over a domestic disturbance, they'd be liable for a wrongful dismissal suit. If the person is convicted and sentenced, the business gets the reason they need when the employee doesn't show up for work, since the employee is in jail. They do not have the right to fire them just because they allegedly or actually committed a crime

I have found that the PGA rules and regulations for players outside the game are limited and not made public when personal situations are involved. I found several players on the PGA tour in the last ten years who had DUI's, domestic violence and drug charges and none of their troubles were addressed publicly by the PGA.

A company can fire a person for any reason they want and if they needed to (as I have personally experienced), make shit up about performance. The NFL can release any one for a variety of reasons also and since there is no lawyer jumping at suing the NFL for his release I'm going to say that they were legally justified for their course of action.

The PGA does not employ golfers and does not pay golfers. Professional golfers pay the PGA for the privilege of playing in their tournaments and the golfers only make money if they place in the money. Many PGA players actually lose significant amounts of money playing the tour every year. So while they can, and occasionally do, ban players from their events for periods of time, they have less interest in doing so and zero power to seek other options.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Being dropped by sponsors is in no way comparable to being suspended. Tiger was still eligible to play. Unless you're in management or you're a contracted worker, there needs to be a good reason in order to be fired. The NFL is a contract based organization, so it can end contracts based on the terms of those contracts, which I assume means the NFL can in fact 'fire' the guy over this incident. A regular business can not even do that. If any business fired someone over a domestic disturbance, they'd be liable for a wrongful dismissal suit. If the person is convicted and sentenced, the business gets the reason they need when the employee doesn't show up for work, since the employee is in jail. They do not have the right to fire them just because they allegedly or actually committed a crime

I have found that the PGA rules and regulations for players outside the game are limited and not made public when personal situations are involved. I found several players on the PGA tour in the last ten years who had DUI's, domestic violence and drug charges and none of their troubles were addressed publicly by the PGA.

A company can fire a person for any reason they want and if they needed to (as I have personally experienced), make shit up about performance. The NFL can release any one for a variety of reasons also and since there is no lawyer jumping at suing the NFL for his release I'm going to say that they were legally justified for their course of action.

The PGA does not employ golfers and does not pay golfers. Professional golfers pay the PGA for the privilege of playing in their tournaments and the golfers only make money if they place in the money. Many PGA players actually lose significant amounts of money playing the tour every year. So while they can, and occasionally do, ban players from their events for periods of time, they have less interest in doing so and zero power to seek other options.

Players get banned for performance drugs (believe it or not), not following etiquette and using equipment which doesn't follow the regulations. I searched google and found 6 players banned from play for short periods of time because of those subjects in the last six years.