Roger Goodell is in hot water

[jbindm]

Unless it can be proved that he either saw the tape of the punch or knew that the tape existed and opted not to acknowledge it, he's not going anywhere. Right now he's got public support from, among others, Jerry Jones, the Rooney family, John Mara, Jerry Richardson, and Robert Kraft. That's a group with a whole hell of a lot of sway around the league and team owners.

 

[CycloneErik]

Godell was quoted during the Saint's scandal as saying, "Ignorance is not an excuse."


He is a hypocrite and a liar. He needs to go.

That last part would make for a good politician. Next career?

 

[jdoggivjc]

Unless it can be proved that he either saw the tape of the punch or knew that the tape existed and opted not to acknowledge it, he's not going anywhere. Right now he's got public support from, among others, Jerry Jones, the Rooney family, John Mara, Jerry Richardson, and Robert Kraft. That's a group with a whole hell of a lot of sway around the league and team owners.

"Ignorance is not an excuse." - Roger Goodell

 

[Wesley]

He gone if recent headlines are correct. Blew the best job he ever had.

 

[jbindm]

"Ignorance is not an excuse." - Roger Goodell

Ok, so he's a hypocrite. My point was that hypocrite or not, he's made a ******** of money for the team owners who employ him, and the heaviest hitters in that ownership group have all publicly shown support for him in the wake of the scandal. That means that for him to lose their support, some hard evidence proving that he either saw or had immediate access to the video is going to have to surface. And I don't think that'll happen. He'll survive this. As long as the dollars keep rolling in there's no truly compelling reason for the team owners to dump him at this time.

 

[kingcy]

He gone if recent headlines are correct. Blew the best job he ever had.

I doubt he will ever have to work again.

 

[Mr Janny]

Well, there goes another NFL argument all shot full of holes.

They claim that they never asked the casino for the video, and it's not their practice to go through anyone but law enforcement to obtain such things, but the NFL's own job description for their security people talks about chumming up to casinos, hotels, and nightclubs so they can get warning on incidents with players. It's just becoming a farce, at this point. Either the NFL had seen the video or they purposely didn't acquire it, because they knew it existed. There's just no other explanation. They can't even claim that Ray was ambiguous on telling them what happened, because there are now multiple accounts that confirm that Ray told them exactly what happened.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-sec...doubt-on-claims-nfl-never-saw-knockout-video/

 

[Acylum]

Whoever said it's always the attempted cover-up that gets you was dead-on.

 

[3TrueFans]

Well, there goes another NFL argument all shot full of holes.

They claim that they never asked the casino for the video, and it's not their practice to go through anyone but law enforcement to obtain such things, but the NFL's own job description for their security people talks about chumming up to casinos, hotels, and nightclubs so they can get warning on incidents with players. It's just becoming a farce, at this point. Either the NFL had seen the video or they purposely didn't acquire it, because they knew it existed. There's just no other explanation. They can't even claim that Ray was ambiguous on telling them what happened, because there are now multiple accounts that confirm that Ray told them exactly what happened.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-sec...doubt-on-claims-nfl-never-saw-knockout-video/

Looks like we found our scapegoat, crisis averted!

 

[Clonefan32]

Whoever said it's always the attempted cover-up that gets you was dead-on.

See, and that's what I just don't get here. Why would you want to cover all of this up for Ray Rice? I just don't get the benefit in putting yourself out on a limb (which he has clearly done) all to justify a smaller penalty for Ray Rice? I mean, I could maybe see if these were allegations regarding some of the top stars in the league-- Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, etc.-- but to jeopardize the integrity of the league to keep Ray Rice on the field makes no sense.

Also, perhaps the most on point thing I've seen on this topic, was a simple tweet from Jonathan Vilma: "I know firsthand the commissioner will go to great lengths to "gather all evidence" but he purposely did not in this instance. Appalling." I think this is a wonderful point, in that he left no stone unturned in Bountygate, because he knew about the concussion litigation, but now he's more than content being blissfully ignorant in the case of a woman getting knocked unconscious.

 

[Mr Janny]

See, and that's what I just don't get here. Why would you want to cover all of this up for Ray Rice? I just don't get the benefit in putting yourself out on a limb (which he has clearly done) all to justify a smaller penalty for Ray Rice? I mean, I could maybe see if these were allegations regarding some of the top stars in the league-- Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, etc.-- but to jeopardize the integrity of the league to keep Ray Rice on the field makes no sense.

Also, perhaps the most on point thing I've seen on this topic, was a simple tweet from Jonathan Vilma: "I know firsthand the commissioner will go to great lengths to "gather all evidence" but he purposely did not in this instance. Appalling." I think this is a wonderful point, in that he left no stone unturned in Bountygate, because he knew about the concussion litigation, but now he's more than content being blissfully ignorant in the case of a woman getting knocked unconscious.

I think it's because Goodell and the NFL are truly surprised at the reaction the initial 2 games suspension got. Look at past cases of domestic violence, during Goodell's tenure. I think the longest anyone's been suspended for a domestic violence incident is a single game with most not receiving any league punishment at all. I think they honestly thought that a 2 game suspension was appropriate, compared to what they normally meted out. Don't forget that NFL exec who went on Mike And Mike right afterward and defended the punishment, saying that most businesses wouldn't give any punishment at all. I truly think the NFL was caught completely flat footed by the reaction to their punishment, and everything since then has been PR/damage control, which has now gotten out of their control. We may never see a smoking gun, and the likeliest thing is to have some underling fall on his sword, but it's pretty clear to me that the NFL was not prepared for the response they got to this situation.

 

[roundball]

See, and that's what I just don't get here. Why would you want to cover all of this up for Ray Rice? I just don't get the benefit in putting yourself out on a limb (which he has clearly done) all to justify a smaller penalty for Ray Rice? I mean, I could maybe see if these were allegations regarding some of the top stars in the league-- Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, etc.-- but to jeopardize the integrity of the league to keep Ray Rice on the field makes no sense.

Also, perhaps the most on point thing I've seen on this topic, was a simple tweet from Jonathan Vilma: "I know firsthand the commissioner will go to great lengths to "gather all evidence" but he purposely did not in this instance. Appalling." I think this is a wonderful point, in that he left no stone unturned in Bountygate, because he knew about the concussion litigation, but now he's more than content being blissfully ignorant in the case of a woman getting knocked unconscious.

According to this article, which cites an NFL owner as the source, Goodell was concerned about the perception that he was "going after" Rice's fiancee if he conducted an in-depth investigation. It wasn't that he was protecting Rice, it was him guarding his own image by not wanting to be viewed as questioning her story.

Not that it makes anything better.

 

[Clonefan32]

I think it's because Goodell and the NFL are truly surprised at the reaction the initial 2 games suspension got. Look at past cases of domestic violence, during Goodell's tenure. I think the longest anyone's been suspended for a domestic violence incident is a single game with most not receiving any league punishment at all. I think they honestly thought that a 2 game suspension was appropriate, compared to what they normally meted out. Don't forget that NFL exec who went on Mike And Mike right afterward and defended the punishment, saying that most businesses wouldn't give any punishment at all. I truly think the NFL was caught completely flat footed by the reaction to their punishment, and everything since then has been PR/damage control, which has now gotten out of their control. We may never see a smoking gun, and the likeliest thing is to have some underling fall on his sword, but it's pretty clear to me that the NFL was not prepared for the response they got to this situation.

This makes some sense, but still doesn't explain their action if they new the video existed. If they knew there was a video and knew TMZ had gotten their hands on the original video and published it, why would they ever think the elevator video wouldn't become public? Or did they figure it would and not anticipate the backlash? Or did they genuinely think people would buy their line of crap on not seeing it, Lois Lerner style?

 

[Clonefan32]

According to this article, which cites an NFL owner as the source, Goodell was concerned about the perception that he was "going after" Rice's fiancee if he conducted an in-depth investigation. It wasn't that he was protecting Rice, it was him guarding his own image by not wanting to be viewed as questioning her story.

Not that it makes anything better.

That sounds like another awful attempt by the NFL to spin this positively. He was protecting the fiancée but not investigating it, accepting Ray's story, and giving him a slap on the wrist?

 

[Mr Janny]

This makes some sense, but still doesn't explain their action if they new the video existed. If they knew there was a video and knew TMZ had gotten their hands on the original video and published it, why would they ever think the elevator video wouldn't become public? Or did they figure it would and not anticipate the backlash? Or did they genuinely think people would buy their line of crap on not seeing it, Lois Lerner style?

I don't think they thought there would be as strong a reaction to the second video as there was. Think about it, if their belief is that the second video doesn't show anything that we don't already know, then all it is is a confirmation, and nothing to be scared/worried about surfacing. We saw that some folks felt that way earlier this week when the tape was released and the reaction by some was "Well, what do you think happened? We already knew he hit her." I think that's exactly the general response that the NFL was expecting, and either didn't expect such a backlash or realized it was coming too late to get all of their tracks covered.

 

[roundball]

That sounds like another awful attempt by the NFL to spin this positively. He was protecting the fiancée but not investigating it, accepting Ray's story, and giving him a slap on the wrist?

I suggest reading the article. This isn't the NFL talking, it's a team owner. It's possible the owner is feeding this reporter a load of ********, or that Goodell was feeding the owners ******** when he informed them of his conversations with the Rices, but at least it's some actual investigative journalism and not a bunch of jump-to-conclusions conjecture.

The "smoking gun" will arise if any of these morons had their conversations through email/text messages.

 

[Mr Janny]

I suggest reading the article. This isn't the NFL talking, it's a team owner. It's possible the owner is feeding this reporter a load of ********, or that Goodell was feeding the owners ******** when he informed them of his conversations with the Rices, but at least it's some actual investigative journalism and not a bunch of jump-to-conclusions conjecture.

The "smoking gun" will arise if any of these morons had their conversations through email/text messages.

Who do you think the NFL is? Those two are basically one and the same.

 

[3TrueFans]

I think it's because Goodell and the NFL are truly surprised at the reaction the initial 2 games suspension got. Look at past cases of domestic violence, during Goodell's tenure. I think the longest anyone's been suspended for a domestic violence incident is a single game with most not receiving any league punishment at all. I think they honestly thought that a 2 game suspension was appropriate, compared to what they normally meted out. Don't forget that NFL exec who went on Mike And Mike right afterward and defended the punishment, saying that most businesses wouldn't give any punishment at all. I truly think the NFL was caught completely flat footed by the reaction to their punishment, and everything since then has been PR/damage control, which has now gotten out of their control. We may never see a smoking gun, and the likeliest thing is to have some underling fall on his sword, but it's pretty clear to me that the NFL was not prepared for the response they got to this situation.

At first there were actually people like Adam Schefter that got on TV and asked if Goodell was lenient enough to Ray Rice.

 

[twocoach]

This makes some sense, but still doesn't explain their action if they new the video existed. If they knew there was a video and knew TMZ had gotten their hands on the original video and published it, why would they ever think the elevator video wouldn't become public? Or did they figure it would and not anticipate the backlash? Or did they genuinely think people would buy their line of crap on not seeing it, Lois Lerner style?

Come on. Does anyone REALLY need to see a video to figure out how a woman ended up getting dragged unconscious out of an elevator and her husband admits to hitting her? Goodell and the NFL went too easy on the initial punishment and it has blown up in their faces.

 

[Mr Janny]

In the end, I think this is a case of the NFL severely underestimating the public's expectations/reaction, and then doing a very poor job of doing damage control.