LeSean McCoy allegations

[BillnutinHouston]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Your trust in the consistency and faithfulness of Roger Goodell, and the competency of the NFLPA in enforcing the toothless CBA, is mystifying, bizarre, and otherworldly, and while I will not call you a very silly person for thinking as you do, I would not disagree with someone who did.

 

Is this the kinder, gentler DC Tom?

[Augie]

1 minute ago, BillnutinHouston said:

 

Is this the kinder, gentler DC Tom?

Certainly less succinct. 

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, BillnutinHouston said:

 

Is this the kinder, gentler DC Tom?

 

It's the cowed, scolded DC Tom.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

37 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Your trust in the consistency and faithfulness of Roger Goodell, and the competency of the NFLPA in enforcing the toothless CBA, is mystifying, bizarre, and otherworldly, and while I will not call you a very silly person for thinking as you do, I would not disagree with someone who did.

 

Understood, but I have a lot of faith in McCoy's attorney's ability to have an ....informal informational discussion....with Roger Goodell

4 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Of course she is/does.  The gravy train has ended and she needs money.

 

Do the talk shows pay for appearances?  Anyone know?

 

[Doc]

39 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Your trust in the consistency and faithfulness of Roger Goodell, and the competency of the NFLPA in enforcing the toothless CBA, is mystifying, bizarre, and otherworldly, and while I will not call you a very silly person for thinking as you do, I would not disagree with someone who did.

 

Only an idiot would think Goodell can suspend without any evidence. 

 

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Do the talk shows pay for appearances?  Anyone know?

 

Yes they do.  It's all "entertainment."

[BringBackOrton]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Only an idiot would think Goodell can suspend without any evidence. 

Wrong.  Goodell can, quite literally, do whatever he wants.

[Lurker]

Just now, BringBackOrton said:

Wrong.  Goodell can, quite literally, do whatever he wants.

 

Yes.  But the owners also very adverse to bad-PR. 

 

I could see Shady's lawyer bringing a nasty, high-profile case against the NFL that the league would (obviously) like to avoid...

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

Yes.  But the owners also very adverse to bad-PR. 

 

I could see Shady's lawyer bringing a nasty, high-profile case against the NFL that the league would (obviously) like to avoid...

I never underestimate the stupidity of the NFL.

[Kelly the Dog]

52 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

It's the cowed, scolded DC Tom.  

Did you mean to say, "You're not an idiot?"

[DC Tom]

19 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Wrong.  Goodell can, quite literally, do whatever he wants.

 

The amazing thing is that, paraphrasing, "Goodell can do whatever he wants" is actually written into the CBA.

13 minutes ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Did you mean to say, "You're not an idiot?"

 

No, I can still call people idiots.  I just can't mean it.

[Ned Flanders]

16 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Yes.  But the owners also very adverse to bad-PR. 

 

I could see Shady's lawyer bringing a nasty, high-profile case against the NFL that the league would (obviously) like to avoid...

Please, this cat's out of the proverbial bag.  The bad-PR is already percolating.

 

What would be worse for the NFL, Shady's lawyer bringing a case against the league or every media outlet in the country playing pictures of the woman's battered face while the person she accuses of being involved is doing jumping jacks at SJF?

 

The bottom line is, Shady, at some point, will be "under investigation," which cuts a very wide swath and can be interpreted liberally by Goddell.  Look, I hope Shady's innocent here too, but to pretend that Goodell is handcuffed by "lack of evidence" here is pure fantasy.  

[eball]

1 minute ago, Ned Flanders said:

t to pretend that Goodell is handcuffed by "lack of evidence" here is pure fantasy.  

 

I think at this point it's pretty much reality.  Shady was nowhere near the crime scene and what evidence does exist suggests he has been trying to peacefully remove gold digger from the premises for some time.  There is nothing besides gold digger's "I think he set me up" comments, and even Goodell isn't stupid enough to let that form the basis for discipline (or placement on the exempt list).

 

Until the assailant is apprehended or some other new evidence turns up, nothing is going to happen to Shady.

[DC Tom]

19 minutes ago, eball said:

...even Goodell isn't stupid enough...

 

Reminder: Goodell gave Ray Rice a 2-game suspension for domestic violence, and 14 more games for the video of it going public.

 

Yes, yes he is.

 

 

[Steptide]

30 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I think at this point it's pretty much reality.  Shady was nowhere near the crime scene and what evidence does exist suggests he has been trying to peacefully remove gold digger from the premises for some time.  There is nothing besides gold digger's "I think he set me up" comments, and even Goodell isn't stupid enough to let that form the basis for discipline (or placement on the exempt list).

 

Until the assailant is apprehended or some other new evidence turns up, nothing is going to happen to Shady.

I agree with this. It's been a week and a half and we haven't heard a shred of evidence against Mccoy. Even his ex said she wasn't sure it was Mccoy. So guessing this is all gonna lead no where 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, BringBackOrton said:

Wrong.  Goodell can, quite literally, do whatever he wants.

 

Without evidence of some wrong-doing, he can't up and suspend anyone he wants.  Now, how long he suspends someone is inconsistent, but there needs to be grounds for it.

 

In this case specifically, he has nothing other than an unsubstantiated claim by a jilted ex-GF.  Judging by the fact that it's been over 10 days and the ex and her lawyer need to parade themselves out in public again, it tells me the cops have found nothing to link him to the crime, so she's doing her best to set herself up for a civil suit, which Shady feared she'd do.

[Lurker]

25 minutes ago, Ned Flanders said:

Please, this cat's out of the proverbial bag.  The bad-PR is already percolating.

 

What would be worse for the NFL, Shady's lawyer bringing a case against the league or every media outlet in the country playing pictures of the woman's battered face while the person she accuses of being involved is doing jumping jacks at SJF?

 

The bottom line is, Shady, at some point, will be "under investigation," which cuts a very wide swath and can be interpreted liberally by Goddell.  Look, I hope Shady's innocent here too, but to pretend that Goodell is handcuffed by "lack of evidence" here is pure fantasy.  

 

Not really.   In today's 10 second attention span world, the "cat's" already receding into yesterday's news.  Hence, the need for Cordon's lawyer to go on CBS today and rekindle their claims.

 

About 20 pages back I advocated for McCoy's lawyer to make a statement to cut off the one-sided media positioning in this case.   I'll now admit that I was wrong.   Shady's silence is making the story go away rather than be litigated in the press (the old "...sound of one hand clapping" strategy seems to be working). 

 

OTOH, if Goodell were to suspend McCoy without credible evidence of his involvement, I suspect Shady and the NFLPA would launch a deep-pockets test case against the commissioner's God-like status and unlimited powers.    It could get messy, as any suspension would essentially end McCoy's playing career.    So go big, or go home on using that high-powered attorney he hired...   

 

[Fadingpain]

13 minutes ago, Steptide said:

I agree with this. It's been a week and a half and we haven't heard a shred of evidence against Mccoy. Even his ex said she wasn't sure it was Mccoy. So guessing this is all gonna lead no where 

It depends.  Proper criminal investigation work isn't done overnight.  And these cops are in Atlanta, GA.  I suspect they aren't the best.  It could take longer than you think.

 

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lesean-mccoy-nfl-star-ex-girlfriend-convinced-he-was-involved-in-her-attack/

 

https://globalnews.ca/video/4343489/attorney-of-nfl-star-lesean-mccoys-ex-girlfriend-speaks-out

 

I call BS on the following:

 

"Cordon's attacker wanted the same expensive jewelry her ex-boyfriend has been demanding she give back, Graham said. When McCoy gave them to Cordon in 2016 for her birthday, she posted about it on her Instagram account.

 

"When she said to this person 'Hey, I don't have it, it's in a safety deposit box." He accepted that. I'm not certain what type of burglar would accept something like that," Graham said."

 

 

So, what's up with this apparent "acceptance" then?...

 

 

 

A kid.  Like say...a friend of the son's?

[BringBackOrton]

7 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Without evidence of some wrong-doing, he can't up and suspend anyone he wants.  Now, how long he suspends someone is inconsistent, but there needs to be grounds for it.

 

Link me the evidence requirement in the CBA, please.

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

The amazing thing is that, paraphrasing, "Goodell can do whatever he wants" is actually written into the CBA.

 

No, I can still call people idiots.  I just can't mean it.

Absence of a just cause standard is a terrible thing.

 

The NFLPA dun goofed.

[Doc]

6 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Link me the evidence requirement in the CBA, please.

 

Show me a case where a player was suspended based solely on what a victim thought happened?

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Show me a case where a player was suspended based solely on what a victim thought happened?

That's not the argument.  Answer my question.

Edited July 20, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[Hapless Bills Fan]

27 minutes ago, Steptide said:

I agree with this. It's been a week and a half and we haven't heard a shred of evidence against Mccoy. Even his ex said she wasn't sure it was Mccoy. So guessing this is all gonna lead no where 

 

Apparently, with the lure of paid talk show appearances to motivate her, the ex has returned to believing McCoy was involved.  Or maybe her lawyer is back to believing that, but not, you know, explicitly SAYING it.

[JoshBarnett]

The News connected with her lawyer today and we expressly asked about the "backtracking" last week. Here is what she said. 

 

Graham said she wanted to clear up any confusion that stemmed from an interview she did last week that left some believing she and her client were backtracking on their assertion that McCoy was somehow involved in the incident.

 

“I mentioned that I had a conversation with our client about the ‘criminal burden of proof,’ which is a higher standard than a civil burden of proof, and ‘probable cause’ – legal terms,” she said. “At this time, there is circumstantial evidence, which is not significant enough probable cause for an arrest; so, I said you can't blame Mr. McCoy without additional evidence.

 

“This matter is under investigation, and we should allow the City of Milton Police and their detectives to do their job. I think either the way I said that, or the way it was interpreted caused some confusion to suggest that my client was backtracking. She is not. I was just trying to explain the legalities of the incident.”

 

https://buffalonews.com/2018/07/20/lawyer-ex-girlfriend-absolutely-thinks-lesean-mccoy-had-role-in-home-invasion-assault/

 

For the record, this does not require a subscription. That is how we have handled all of the McCoy stories, making them free. 

 

[Doc]

2 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

That's not the argument.  Answer my question.

 

Sure it's the argument!  If you can't provide me an example of what I asked for, your argument is null and void.

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, Doc said:

 

Sure it's the argument!  If you can't provide me an example of what I asked for, your argument is null and void.

That's retarded.

 

I've never hit anyone with my car.  Does that mean I can't?

 

I expected better.  Not everything has established precedence, because, you know, it has to happen first.  I expected so much better.

[26CornerBlitz]

3 minutes ago, JoshBarnett said:

The News connected with her lawyer today and we expressly asked about the "backtracking" last week. Here is what she said. 

 

Graham said she wanted to clear up any confusion that stemmed from an interview she did last week that left some believing she and her client were backtracking on their assertion that McCoy was somehow involved in the incident.

 

“I mentioned that I had a conversation with our client about the ‘criminal burden of proof,’ which is a higher standard than a civil burden of proof, and ‘probable cause’ – legal terms,” she said. “At this time, there is circumstantial evidence, which is not significant enough probable cause for an arrest; so, I said you can't blame Mr. McCoy without additional evidence.

 

“This matter is under investigation, and we should allow the City of Milton Police and their detectives to do their job. I think either the way I said that, or the way it was interpreted caused some confusion to suggest that my client was backtracking. She is not. I was just trying to explain the legalities of the incident.”

 

https://buffalonews.com/2018/07/20/lawyer-ex-girlfriend-absolutely-thinks-lesean-mccoy-had-role-in-home-invasion-assault/

 

For the record, this does not require a subscription. That is how we have handled all of the McCoy stories, making them free. 

 

Seems to me that she's angling for a civil judgment with the preponderance of evidence standard.   With no assailant, I can't see a successful civil suit unless there's security system, email, or phone record evidence that will show McCoy's culpability.

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

That's retarded.

 

I've never hit anyone with my car.  Does that mean I can't?

 

I expected better.  Not everything has established precedence, because, you know, it has to happen first.  I expected so much better.

 

So in your mind, anyone can accuse a player of something and boom, the Commish can suspend him without anything needing to be proven?  Yeah, that's so not retarded.

[LikeIGiveADarn]

6 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So in your mind, anyone can accuse a player of something and boom, the Commish can suspend him without anything needing to be proven?  Yeah, that's so not retarded.

 

Somebody PLEASE accuse Tom Brady of kicking their dog.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

That's retarded.

 

I've never hit anyone with my car.  Does that mean I can't?

 

I expected better.  Not everything has established precedence, because, you know, it has to happen first.  I expected so much better.

 

Can I say I believe you are both correct? 

 

The CBA is very vague on an evidentiary requirement.  It says a criminal proceeding is not required for discipline to occur.  It says there will be an investigation and the player must be "found to have engaged in" conduct detrimental, but it doesn't specify what standard of evidence or proof will be required for that finding to occur.  It explicitly allows the commissioner very broad powers.  He may act "when the commissioner believes" bad **** happened.  He is "not guided by the same legal standards and considerations that would apply in a criminal trial"

 

To say the NFLPA goofed on this one, is not an exaggeration.

On the other hand, if he wants to keep his "big stick" (and stay commissioner), the commissioner can not flagrantly misuse his broad powers.  In the case of Zeke Elliot, he let a criminal investigation and an NFL investigation take their course before he acted.  There was evidence tying Elliot to several incidents, which the prosecutor did not feel rose to the burden of proof needed for a criminal trail, especially with the victim acknowledged to have lied in one instance. 

 

So far, as far as I know, there is no case of the commissioner acting in the absence of an investigation.  Indeed a case could still be made that he has skirted inaction in several cases.

 

 

 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

So in your mind, anyone can accuse a player of something and boom, the Commish can suspend him without anything needing to be proven?  Yeah, that's so not retarded.

Read the CBA.  Maintain an educated position on the matter.

 

I'll help.

 

"Under Article XI of the NFL’s CBA, “action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football” may only be appealed to the commissioner."

 

"The lack of a just cause provision also implicates where the burden of proof lies in appeals of League discipline. Without a just cause standard, the burden of proof lies upon the party challenging the discipline. See In re Logan-Hocking (Ohio) Local School District Bd. of Educ., 122 Lab. Arb. 550, 557-58 (2006). That is to say, the disciplined employee, which in most instances operates through his certified collective bargaining representative, here, the NFLPA, has the burden of showing that the discipline was arbitrary or capricious."

 

"Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline."

 

"Leave with Pay–A player may be placed on paid administrative leave pursuant to the Commissioner Exempt List under either of the following circumstances: ... Second,when an investigation leads the Commissioner to believe that a player may have violated this Policy by committing any of the conduct identified above , he may act where the circumstances and evidence warrant doing so

 

AKA Goodell can suspend you.  FOR ANYTHING.  And the burden of proof is on the player, or the PA, to fight it.  And you can only appeal, to, you guessed it, the Commissioner.

 

Does that sound retarded?  Of course.  Did the NFLPA agree to it?  You betcha.

 

Better luck next time.  Do your homework.

Edited July 20, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

34 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

A kid.  Like say...a friend of the son's?

 

I thought it was of strange how the kid disappeared during/after the event based on the 911 recap. 

 

The only facts we think we know are:

1) McCoys nick name is Shady

2) this chick seems to be living in his house

3) he doesn’t seem to want her living there

4) there are pictures of her face badly beaten 

5) incognito hacked into the disabled security cam and watched the whole thing go down...

 

 

ok last one may be speculation...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, BringBackOrton said:

Read the CBA.  Maintain an educated position on the matter.

 

I'll help.

 

"Under Article XI of the NFL’s CBA, “action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football” may only be appealed to the commissioner."

 

OK, so what was with all Zeke Elliot's court actions appealing his suspension then?

[BringBackOrton]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Can I say I believe you are both correct? 

 

The CBA is very vague on an evidentiary requirement.  It says a criminal proceeding is not required for discipline to occur.  It says there will be an investigation and the player must be "found to have engaged in" conduct detrimental, but it doesn't specify what standard of evidence or proof will be required for that finding to occur.  It explicitly allows the commissioner very broad powers.  He may act "when the commissioner believes" bad **** happened.  He is "not guided by the same legal standards and considerations that would apply in a criminal trial"

 

To say the NFLPA goofed on this one, is not an exaggeration.

On the other hand, if he wants to keep his "big stick" (and stay commissioner), the commissioner can not flagrantly misuse his broad powers.  In the case of Zeke Elliot, he let a criminal investigation and an NFL investigation take their course before he acted.  There was evidence tying Elliot to several incidents, which the prosecutor did not feel rose to the burden of proof needed for a criminal trail, especially with the victim acknowledged to have lied in one instance. 

 

So far, as far as I know, there is no case of the commissioner acting in the absence of an investigation.  Indeed a case could still be made that he has skirted inaction in several cases.

 

 

 

 

 

Not possible.  You and I are correct and Doc is mistaken.  Goodell has no handcuffs in the CBA.  He has no requirement of "evidence" such as Doc suggested.  

 

Just because he hasn't done it (PR nightmare and would be really stupid), doesn't mean he can't. 

[The Wiz]

3 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lesean-mccoy-nfl-star-ex-girlfriend-convinced-he-was-involved-in-her-attack/

 

https://globalnews.ca/video/4343489/attorney-of-nfl-star-lesean-mccoys-ex-girlfriend-speaks-out

 

I call BS on the following:

 

"Cordon's attacker wanted the same expensive jewelry her ex-boyfriend has been demanding she give back, Graham said. When McCoy gave them to Cordon in 2016 for her birthday, she posted about it on her Instagram account.

 

"When she said to this person 'Hey, I don't have it, it's in a safety deposit box." He accepted that. I'm not certain what type of burglar would accept something like that," Graham said."

 

 

So, what's up with this apparent "acceptance" then?...

 

 

He accepted the answer by pistol whipping her.

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, so what was with all Zeke Elliot's court actions appealing his suspension then?

They appealed to Goodell, lost, then tried to sue the league.

 

Here's the timeline:  http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/20353065/ezekiel-elliott-dallas-cowboys-officially-appeals-six-game-suspension

 

"The hearing will be held on Aug. 29. Per the NFL's personal conduct policy, the hearing will be before commissioner Roger Goodell or a person designated by him."

 

Henderson (appointed by Goodell) heard the appeal:

 

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/8/18/16141526/ezekiel-elliott-suspension-appeal-explained-nfl-domestic-violence

 

Elliott officially filed an appeal with the league on the Tuesday after he was suspended. The hearing began on Aug. 29 and concluded on Aug. 31. On Tuesday, Sept. 5, Henderson announced his decision on Elliott’s appeal. The suspension was upheld.

Henderson released a statement regarding his decision.

"As his designated Hearing Officer in this matter, my responsibility is to determine whether the Commissioner's decision on discipline of Mr. Elliott is arbitrary and capricious, meaning was it made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances,” Henderson said, via Adam Schefter. “It is not the responsibility, nor within the authority of, the Hearing Officer to conduct a de novo review of the case and second guess his decision.”

 

There's that "capricious and arbitrary" language again.  AKA Shut up NFLPA, we own you.

 

Zeke and the PA sued the league.

 

The NFLPA and Elliott’s attorneys filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Eastern Texas to vacate any suspension that may be handed down after the appeals process, citing “the most fundamentally unfair arbitral processes conceivable.”

On Friday, Sept. 8, Judge Amos Mazzant, a federal court judge in Texas, ruled on a motion for a temporary restraining order or an injunction to block Elliott’s suspension until Elliott’s lawsuit against the NFL is completed. Mazzant ruled in Elliott’s favor and issued the injunction.

 

And then lots of legal "emergency injunctions" and jurisdictions nonsense that were delay tactics.  All to fall to the simple truth.  The NFLPA gave Goodell the dictatorship through their own stupidity.

[Lurker]

34 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Read the CBA.  Maintain an educated position on the matter.

 

I'll help.

 

"Under Article XI of the NFL’s CBA, “action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football” may only be appealed to the commissioner."

 

"The lack of a just cause provision also implicates where the burden of proof lies in appeals of League discipline. Without a just cause standard, the burden of proof lies upon the party challenging the discipline. See In re Logan-Hocking (Ohio) Local School District Bd. of Educ., 122 Lab. Arb. 550, 557-58 (2006). That is to say, the disciplined employee, which in most instances operates through his certified collective bargaining representative, here, the NFLPA, has the burden of showing that the discipline was arbitrary or capricious."

 

"Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline."

 

"Leave with Pay–A player may be placed on paid administrative leave pursuant to the Commissioner Exempt List under either of the following circumstances: ... Second,when an investigation leads the Commissioner to believe that a player may have violated this Policy by committing any of the conduct identified above , he may act where the circumstances and evidence warrant doing so

 

AKA Goodell can suspend you.  FOR ANYTHING.  And the burden of proof is on the player, or the PA, to fight it.  And you can only appeal, to, you guessed it, the Commissioner.

 

Unless the league can make a case for Shady's direct or indirect CONDUCT, it will not be able to invoke Article XI...        

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Read the CBA.  Maintain an educated position on the matter.

 

I'll help.

 

"Under Article XI of the NFL’s CBA, “action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football” may only be appealed to the commissioner."

 

"The lack of a just cause provision also implicates where the burden of proof lies in appeals of League discipline. Without a just cause standard, the burden of proof lies upon the party challenging the discipline. See In re Logan-Hocking (Ohio) Local School District Bd. of Educ., 122 Lab. Arb. 550, 557-58 (2006). That is to say, the disciplined employee, which in most instances operates through his certified collective bargaining representative, here, the NFLPA, has the burden of showing that the discipline was arbitrary or capricious."

 

"Players convicted of a crime or subject to a disposition of a criminal proceeding (as defined in this Policy) are subject to discipline."

 

"Leave with Pay–A player may be placed on paid administrative leave pursuant to the Commissioner Exempt List under either of the following circumstances: ... Second,when an investigation leads the Commissioner to believe that a player may have violated this Policy by committing any of the conduct identified above , he may act where the circumstances and evidence warrant doing so

 

AKA Goodell can suspend you.  FOR ANYTHING.  And the burden of proof is on the player, or the PA, to fight it.  And you can only appeal, to, you guessed it, the Commissioner.

 

Does that sound retarded?  Of course.  Did the NFLPA agree to it?  You betcha.

 

Better luck next time.  Do your homework.

 

"when an investigation leads the Commissioner to believe that a player may have violated this Policy by committing any of the conduct identified above , he may act where the circumstances and evidence warrant doing so..."

 

Like I said, the NFL investigates each matter.  If they find enough evidence to suspend a player, they can and usually do.  If they don't, they can't and don't.  For as much flak as I've given Goodell for suspending Bills players, they all did something which precipitated the suspension.  I'd say the only thing inconsistent is the number of games given, but something has to have happened for something to be done about it. 

 

In this case, unless the NFL finds that Shady was linked to the assault, they can do nothing to him.  Cordon can scream to high heaven that he was involved, but without proof, Goodell's hands are tied.

[Lurker]

41 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

I thought it was of strange how the kid disappeared during/after the event based on the 911 recap. 

 

The only facts we think we know are:

1) McCoys nick name is Shady

2) this chick seems to be living in his house

3) he doesn’t seem to want her living there

4) there are pictures of her face badly beaten 

5) incognito hacked into the disabled security cam and watched the whole thing go down

 

6) His dog's name Henny...

[BringBackOrton]

4 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

"when an investigation leads the Commissioner to believe that a player may have violated this Policy by committing any of the conduct identified above , he may act where the circumstances and evidence warrant doing so..."

 

Like I said, the NFL investigates each matter.  If they find enough evidence to suspend a player, they can and usually do.  If they don't, they can't and don't.  For as much flak as I've given Goodell for suspending Bills players, they all did something which precipitated the suspension.  I'd say the only thing inconsistent is the number of games given, but something has to have happened for something to be done about it. 

 

In this case, unless the NFL finds that Shady was linked to the assault, they can do nothing to him.  Cordon can scream to high heaven that he was involved, but without proof, Goodell's hands are tied.

Says who?

 

The Commissioner has to say he believes Shady may have violated the policy.  Boom.  Shady suspended.  

 

Shady appeals, says Goodell is being arbitrary and unfair.  Goodell hears the appeal.  Says no.  Boom.  Shady suspended.

 

You are demonstrably incorrect.  There is no defender to "protect" Shady from Goodell doing what he wants with the CBA as his sword.  There is no requirement for evidence or what evidence may be or what evidence is grounds.  That is NOT in the CBA.  You have not read the CBA.

6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Unless the league can make a case for Shady's direct or indirect CONDUCT, it will not be able to invoke Article XI...        

Who do they need to make a case to Lurker?  

Edited July 20, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[JinxedBill1]

Regardless of outcome, I think its Ridiculous that someone can lose money/employment before being found guilty of an action/crime.

 

What happened to innocent before found guilty?