Certainly there has to be consequences to actions like this.
But is it an employers responsibility to punish it's employees?
I don't think that it is. Certainly the NFL can put into place rules that state that if a person is on probation they are ineligible to play in the league, and if they are charged with a crime they can not play (or be paid) until the resolution of that charge.
But where do you cut off this level of punishment?
DUI? Theft? Bar fight? Drugs?
I think it is up to the justice system to lay down the punishment for these types of issues, and stop with the preferential treatment of athletes. Ray Rice was not charged with any crime, how do you justify taking his career away from him? Just because there was a tape? What happens next time when there is no tape? Is just an accusation enough?
Very tough call IMHO. Should Jerry Jones be forced to sell the Cowboys? Should Irsay be forced to sell?
Preferential treatment is the issue to me. Promise if I was busted with OWI and 4 counts of possession I would not get it plead down to simple OWI and time served of two f'n days. Everyone cheered as the ignorant old man who owned the Clippers was forced to sell his team, but not a peep about an NFL owner actually charged with crimes and getting off with a fine that amounts to a quarter to a non billionaire.
Does this go away in a few months until another horrific tape pops up in the tabloids, or some sickening pictures of clear child abuse?
I say force the legal system to do it's job, force the NFL to create rules that make it impossible for people on any kind of probation (including child protective service restrictions) to participate until that probation is cleared. And under no circumstances are felons allowed back into the sport in any capacity.
And not just the NFL ...
= new reply since forum marked as read