He's not necessarily being disciplined twice for the same thing.  I'm sure both the Ravens and the League will take the position that, when questioned about the event, he significantly understated the violence his actions, a fact only proven with the release of the video, and for that reason he is facing another, not an increased, disciplinary action and /or termination.

 

Was he charged for the crime?  That is the problem with morality policing of bargained union positions.  He took an intervention deal and that causes the problem with his termination.  I don't understand why people are disappointed that people have rights to their money from their binding contract.

 

He is a vile man who needs help.  If he doesn't get help it will not go well for the family.  It is a tragedy outside of the legal union rights he has as part of the bargaining agreement.

---

The Khan Years

Patience, Persistence, and Piss Poor General Managers.

Was he charged for the crime? That is the problem with morality policing of bargained union positions. He took an intervention deal and that causes the problem with his termination. I don't understand why people are disappointed that people have rights to their money from their binding contract.


He is a vile man who needs help. If he doesn't get help it will not go well for the family. It is a tragedy outside of the legal union rights he has as part of the bargaining agreement.

There is not a need for cause to eliminate NFL contracts. A team can clearly cut a guy for looking cross eyed at a coach. Hell Indianapolis cut a guy because he let off a fire extinguisher in the hotel!

---

There is not a need for cause to eliminate NFL contracts. A team can clearly cut a guy for looking cross eyed at a coach. Hell Indianapolis cut a guy because he let off a fire extinguisher in the hotel!

If they cut him after opening day, then his salary for the season is guaranteed per CBA.

---

If they cut him after opening day, then his salary for the season is guaranteed per CBA.

Does the CBA support non-payment for personal conduct violations of the magnitude involved here?

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

Does the CBA support non-payment for personal conduct violations of the magnitude involved here?

Not sure how that is worded in the contract, but that will be Baltimore's argument.

 

A judge will have to sort it out. The wishy washy way the league handled the incident may work in Rice's favor. It will be hard to say the personal conduct magnitude is justifiable to withhold his salary when the league gave him a pass to begin with. The end result of the altercation was already known. The video just turned it into a PR nightmare. It will be hard for the NFL to make a case for flip flopping the interpretation of the CBA based on public outcry. They basically already agreed to pay his salary after the incident was known. It's going to be hard for them to go back on that.

---

Not sure how that is worded in the contract, but that will be Baltimore's argument.

 

A judge will have to sort it out. The wishy washy way the league handled the incident may work in Rice's favor. It will be hard to say the personal conduct magnitude is justifiable to withhold his salary when the league gave him a pass to begin with. The end result of the altercation was already known. The video just turned it into a PR nightmare. It will be hard for the NFL to make a case for flip flopping the interpretation of the CBA based on public outcry. They basically already agreed to pay his salary after the incident was known. It's going to be hard for them to go back on that.

For the moment Baltimore is in the clear, they don't have to pay him while he's suspended.  If a court strikes down the suspension, then he'll probably get the guaranteed portion of the contract. 

 

I think it all comes down to the video (why do we still call it that when everything's digital?) and proving whether or not the league had access to it originally.

---

When you get into the endzone, act like you've been there before.

For the moment Baltimore is in the clear, they don't have to pay him while he's suspended.  If a court strikes down the suspension, then he'll probably get the guaranteed portion of the contract. 

 

I think it all comes down to the video (why do we still call it that when everything's digital?) and proving whether or not the league had access to it originally.

That's the thing. I don't think they can use the video against him.

 

It doesn't change the crime that the NFL already knew he was guilty of. It just changed public opinion and then they changed the way he was punished.

 

The NFL and the ravens showed complacency for the crime he committed and basically agreed to allow him to continue with his contract. It's going to be hard for them to go back on that decision just because video emerged of the crime they already knew he committed.

 

I'm kind of torn because I think Rice is a [BLEEP] but I also don't think the ravens and the NFL should get away scott free for showing the level of complacency they did for his crime. They freaking cheered him afterwards in Baltimore.

---

I just can't buy the new video defense for the NFL.

 

We saw the outside video of him dragging her out and the pictures of her injuries before they made their deal with Rice.

 

I'm not sure what the NFL thought happened in the elevator. I don't think they cared.

 

You didn't need to see the video inside the elevator to know something heinous happened.

 

All the video did was make it real. Seeing the violence has a bigger impact on the conscience than just seeing the results.

 

You didn't need to see what happened in the elevator to realize the crime he committed. His criminal charges didn't change based on the video. It was already assumed by the police that something heinous happened in there. The video has more to do with the ignorant pubic impression of what happened.

 

The only thing that changed was perception. Contracts are based on what happened or what is accepted to happen not perception.

 

The league accepted his actions until they received flack from the public. I don't think that is reason enough to breach a contract.

 

I think they will have to pay Rice for their complacency.

---

I just can't buy the new video defense for the NFL.


We saw the outside video of him dragging her out and the pictures of her injuries before they made their deal with Rice.


I'm not sure what the NFL thought happened in the elevator. I don't think they cared.


You didn't need to see the video inside the elevator to know something heinous happened.


All the video did was make it real. Seeing the violence has a bigger impact on the conscience than just seeing the results.


You didn't need to see what happened in the elevator to realize the crime he committed. His criminal charges didn't change based on the video. It was already assumed by the police that something heinous happened in there. The video has more to do with the ignorant pubic impression of what happened.


The only thing that changed was perception. Contracts are based on what happened or what is accepted to happen not perception.


The league accepted his actions until they received flack from the public. I don't think that is reason enough to breach a contract.


I think they will have to pay Rice for their complacency.

You keep thinking Ravens need reason. They can tell the judge we do not like the guy sowe cut him. If Ray wins then there will be tons of players suing when they are cut. Salary cap cuts would be first in line.

---