I got wrapped into something yesterday, but if you want to watch a single video from yesterday, Adam Schefter was on SportsCenter yesterday morning when this thing broke. Watch the second video. Schefter, who is considered the gold standard of NFL insider stuff, was furious while talking to Hannah Storm about it. And why was he furious? While he won't say it outright, allow me: he (along with a lot of other reporters) was burned horribly by a source.
http://deadspin.com/adam-schefter-is-fed-up-with-the-nfl-1631937239 Here, fundamentally, is what makes this video so significant. Immediately after the initial suspension was handed down, the implication came from the league (though water carriers like Schefter and Peter King, who effectively admitted to a journalistic felony in his piece yesterday) that there was some sort of mitigating circumstance that the public didn't know, and the head tilting was that mitigating circumstance happened in the elevator, in video that was not public. It clearly didn't work, but that was how it went down. Now we see the elevator tape, and there is no mitigating circumstance: Palmer, at worst, spits on him, and his response was to cold cock her. The NFL proceed to make that "it's the poh-lease's fault" statement, which again holds no water. Now we know someone's lying, but the question becomes who and when: * A group of league reporters who have a history of carrying water for the league all got together and concocted one of the most superb concerted cover-ups in journalism history, covering multiple organizations, almost immediately after the news breaks. * The NFL conducted such a shitty investigation that they never even tried to obtain the tape in question, but then lied to the reporters to implicate they *had* seen the tape and there was something there. * The NFL saw the tape, factored it into the two-game suspension, told reporters that they had seen something, and now that it's been released, is lying when they said they never saw it with a bunch of weasel words, thereby hanging a bunch of reporters out to dry. If you believe the first option, you have no knowledge of how reporting works within pro sports (especially the NFL) or you regularly reply to the emails sent to you about a large lottery winnings that they need you to wire them $800 to help claim, to which they'll pay you back $20,000. The question becomes the classic "crime or cover-up?" Because here's where things get interesting: if it's second option, then yeah, at this point the NFL looks even more pathetic than they already are, become even bigger hypocrites, and at this point the biggest problem is just a public relations nightmare becoming worse. If it's the third option, Ray Rice suddenly has a card available, because as Schefter notes, the CBA effectively has a "Double Jeopardy" clause in it. For the NFL to add to the punishment already handed out could violate the CBA and Rice (if he chooses to do so) could force the NFL to go to court to answer some questions they *really* don't want to answer right now. The NFL has turned into a nine-year-old who spins larger-and-larger whoppers until the whole thing collapses, and then *keeps* telling the lies. Though I'll note something interesting: around 4:30 PM CT yesterday, I went on Facebook and checked the trending stories. There were two NFL items, and neither were about Ray Rice. The level of media shitstorm has more to do with the fact that they believe they were lied to than the level of fury from the fans, who predictably disregarded this like every other NFL sin, because, hey, there's football on the box again! I wrote in a Facebook post yesterday that if this video does anything, this is truly a put-up-or-shut-up moment for NFL fans. If you support the sport (regardless of the color jersey you root for), you're endorsing the behavior of these assholes. Do you have a problem with this or don't you? And if you do, are you going to alter your behavior or do you fundamentally not care, because FOOTBALL! On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 8:47 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have not had a chance to read in depth the reactions to the release of > the elevator video of Ray Rice punching his girlfriend, but what I have > read has left me confused. What about that video is being cited as new > evidence that justifies the NFL and the Ravens so profoundly changing their > initial judgements? We knew he had punched her in the elevator, we knew > that she was unconscious when the doors open, and that he callously dragged > her half way out of the elevator. We knew they were the only two people in > the elevator. It has always been certain that he punched her in the > face/head and that this led to her losing consciousness. We knew it was > vicious and ugly and unjustifiable, no matter how much Roger Godell and > Stephen A Smith alluded to hypothetical provocations by the girlfriend. > This is what the somewhat antiseptic term "domestic violence" means - a man > who is almost always bigger and stronger viciously and violently hitting, > punching, kicking a woman. > > Of course Rice should have been more seriously punished in the first place > (despite the reports, this is no more a real life time ban than the NFL's > "new and improved guidelines" call for; if Rice is so inclined, and > maintains a clean legal record, he will be able to apply for reinstatement > in 2 or 3 years), but nothing that happened this morning changed anything. > > Deadspin notes the double talk we have been getting about this from jump > street. The NFL spin at first was that if only the public had seen the > elevator video, we would understand why they gave Rice such a lenient > penalty - implying strongly that the girlfriend had started it and Rice was > only defending himself. Now the NFL claims it never saw that video, and now > that they have they are shocked, shocked to see that Ray Rice punched his > girlfriend into unconsciousness. Bull Shit. > > > http://deadspin.com/someone-is-lying-about-whether-the-nfl-saw-the-ray-rice-1631901404 > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:27 AM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a memo yesterday announcing that >> players found to have committed acts of physical violence will: "Effective >> immediately...be subject to a suspension without pay of six games for a >> first offense, with consideration given to mitigating factors, as well as a >> longer suspension when circumstances warrant." A second offense would >> trigger an indefinite suspension of at least a year, although a player >> could apply for reinstatement. The Los Angeles Times describes this as "the >> strictest mandatory punishment for first-time domestic violence offenders" ( >> http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-domestic-violence-20140829-story.html) >> an evaluation that seems to have quickly become the consensus among the >> sports media. This evaluation is not just inaccurate, it is the complete >> opposite of the truth. Nothing has changed. >> >> I was at the Giants game yesterday afternoon, and heard about this when I >> got home. At first I was impressed, but there were a few terms in the >> actual language that raised a red flag. This morning I spent some time >> looking for any analysis in the media that shared my suspicions, and found >> it (of course, why did I not start there) at Deadspin: >> http://deadspin.com/so-whats-actually-new-about-the-nfls-new-domestic-viole-1628098179. >> Here are some of the main points: >> >> 1. While it sounds like this new policy means a first domestic violence >> offense will result in a mandatory 6 game suspension, that is a (no doubt >> intended) misunderstanding. The suspension will be determined by >> "mitigating factors". This of course was the first red flag term that got >> my attention, since it was the phrase that got Stephen A suspended for a >> week. It is also what Goodell used to justify his 2 week suspension for >> Rice. Included among these mitigating factors was the fact that the legal >> system decided not to convict Rice of a crime (this it self a willful >> distortion of what is going on with a Diversion Program), and the victim's >> change of heart regarding pressing charges, especially her comments at a >> meeting held with her, Goodell, her now-husband and a few other men. >> Mitigating factors would still allow the Commissioner to give a 1 or 2 game >> suspension (the average for all suspensions for domestic violence in the >> history of the NFL apparently has been 1.5 games - see >> http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-domestic-violence-policy-suspensions/?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email), >> or, I suppose, 0 games if those factor are super-mitigating. >> >> 2. While it is being widely reported that a second incident will result >> in a lifetime ban, this is not true. It is an indefinite suspension, from >> which the player can appeal for reinstatement after a year, a reinstatement >> which is frequently granted, assuming intervening good behavior. >> >> So, what the new, "stiffer" policy really amounts to is that for a first >> offense the Commissioner can give a suspension between 1 and 6 games (or >> longer if circumstances warrant), and at least a one year suspension for a >> second offense. >> >> This is, quite literally, no different from the status quo. Goodell >> already had it within his power (the contract gives him almost absolute >> power to discipline personal transgressions not related to drug use) to >> give Rice a 6 game suspension, and chose 2 games specifically because of >> those mitigating factors. And, if Rice were to beat up his wife a second >> time, I doubt anyone things he would have gotten less than a one season >> suspension even without this "new" policy. >> >> I guess the policy does establish a new baseline of 6 games as the de >> facto punishment for a "standard" incidence of physical assault (whatever >> that is). This may increase the average penalty going forward from 1.5 >> games to closer to something like 3 games, once all mitigation is factored >> in. But what I think this policy is really does is provide Goodell with an >> ex post facto justification for his decision in the Rice case. >> >> This is a PR document, pure and simple, designed to make the public think >> the NFL has a new, get tough policy on domestic violence. As Deadpin notes, >> it seems to have been successful. The question to ask Goodell though is >> this: If the current policy (which specifically states it is not >> retroactive) had been in force a month ago, would Rice have received a >> different penalty? I don't know if anyone will get a chance to ask Goodell >> that question, or if he would answer it honestly, but the real answer is >> almost certainly, no. >> >> >> >> >> > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
