NFL & Media Become Big Brother

[Pilgrim]

Wonder how many employers will fire somebody for being accused of domestic violence? Not convicted in a court of law mind you, but just being accused of something that might be recent or might have taken place years ago. Granted, the Ray Rice situation is a bit different if he's violated a clause in his contract. Now Adrian Peterson has lost his job for using a switch in his 4 year old, and Reggie Bush is in hot water for just talking about spanking his daughter if and when the need arises in the future. Rice and Peterson may not play again this year, or ever despite not having been allowed their due process in the legal system to play out. One would hope they and all the other NFL players caught up in this DV turmoil would be allowed the same consideration that was given to hall of fame linebacker Ray Lewis after he was involved in a murder case several years ago. As for Reggie Bush, they should just leave him and his family alone.

Bush Says Original Remarks On Child Discipline Taken Out Of Context « CBS Detroit

Of course the politicians have to get involved, and are now threatening the non-profit status of the NFL due to the bad publicity.

 

[xiggi]

The videos in the rice incident and the photos in the peterson case are all you need. It's a job not a jail sentence so the court doesn't really play into it.

 

[layoutshooter]

No trial, no conviction, no job. YEP, GOOD idea! Betcha it would NOT be like this if it was a WOMAN who was doing the beatings. Don't fool yourself, it happens, A LOT! It's a sham, as most everything is today.

There is NO good answer. We protect thugs from the time they can throw or catch, then get mad when they act like thugs.

We reward law breakers, and punish law abiding citizens. We reward sloth, punish hard work.

Any wonder what this place is screwed up?

Video tape means NOTHING. THIS "thug" was caught on video, given a "chance" , in court, which he should have NEVER been given. What does he do his FIRST DAY OUT? Attacks his girlfriend, THEN, attacks another inmate.

 

[Turtle]

I'll ignore the issue of women NFL football players beating their domestic partners to a pulp and get right to it... In the first incarnation of the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy (renamed in 2000 from the previous 1997 Violent Crimes Policy - one that was instituted specifically to address the outrage over domestic violence) the NFL Commissioner had to wait until the legal justice system had completed its due process before imposing any punishment. As a result of this ineffectiveness, and amid pressure to change, the NFL worked with the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) to develop the current Personal Conduct Policy which does not require the criminal justice system to play out before imposing punishments.

Today, the Personal Conduct Policy allows the Commissioner to fine, suspend, or banish players for engaging in conduct detrimental the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League. What constitutes conduct detrimental is very broad, but specifically includes: “the use or threat of violence; domestic violence and other forms of partner abuse.”

Whether or not the Personal Conduct Policy and the punishments enforced in its name are legally consistent with federal antitrust and labor laws is not entirely clear, and it's why Congress is involved. This is because the Policy is not incorporated into the League’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), nor is it incorporated into the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, or even the Standard Player Contract. As such, any suspension or fine given under the Policy is potentially open to attack as an illegal restraint of trade in violation of antitrust law.

Because there are multiple sources dealing with player suspensions and Commissioner discipline, and because the Policy has never been challenged in court it is not entirely clear how these multiple sources interact and which trumps the others in cases where they conflict. Before applying the rules to Ray Rice, each potential source of discipline needs to be laid out and simplified as best as possible.

Article 46 of the CBA outlines the procedure for Commissioner Suspensions for conduct detrimental, but it does not explain what constitutes conduct detrimental nor does it reference the Personal Conduct Policy. Basically, Article 46 of the CBA requires that the Commissioner will provide prompt written notice of a fine or suspension, which may be appealed to the Commissioner within three days. Finally, and very importantly, Article 46 prevents double punishment from the Commissioner and the team for “the same act or conduct.”

Section 8.13 of the NFL Constitution provides that the Commissioner complete authority to suspend players, after notice and hearing, for conduct detrimental. Section 8.13 also provides that the Commissioner “shall have the authority to change, reduce, modify, remit, or suspend” any discipline imposed.

Paragraph 11 of the Standard Player Contract, which is incorporated into the CBA allows a team to terminate a player’s contract if, in the sole judgment of the team, the player has engaged in personal conduct reasonably judged by the team to adversely affect or reflect on the team. Paragraph 15 of the Standard Player Contract states that the player “acknowledges his awareness” that he may be suspended by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental.

So you've got three sources for punishment, and as for which one trumps which, Article 2 of the CBA provides that the CBA “supersedes NFL Constitution or any other document affecting terms and conditions of employment,” and that “the NFLPA and the NFL waive all rights to bargain with one another concerning any subject covered or not covered in this Agreement for the duration of this Agreement, including the provisions of the NFL Constitution and By-laws.”

So, while the the Personal Conduct Policy is not directly referenced by the CBA, it was developed in cooperation with the NFLPA. Meanwhile, the CBA which supersedes the NFL Constitution, also states that the NFL and NFLPA waive all rights to bargain over any provision of the Constitution, unless a change to the Constitution would significantly alter employment conditions of NFL players. Simple, right?

Well, now we're back to Rice's indefinite suspension. First, as mentioned above, the entire Personal Conduct Policy could be challenged under antitrust law. Second, it does not appear that the proper procedures were followed to allow for an indefinite suspension. And third, Rice may have been punished twice for the same conduct.

When Roger Goodell suspended Ray Rice indefinitely after the elevator videotape was released, he appeared to do so without any meeting or hearing with Ray Rice. Article 46 of the CBA does not require a hearing prior to issuing a suspension, a hearing is only guaranteed by the CBA for an appeal. However, the Standard Player Contract (incorporated into the CBA), and the NFL Constitution requires a hearing. Of course, Rice was given a hearing and an opportunity to appeal when he was originally suspended for two games.
So the question becomes, for what detrimental conduct was Rice suspended indefinitely? More specifically, was it for the same “act or conduct” which he was already suspended for two games?

Rice was suspended for two games, and accepted the punishment without appeal. Then, for the same infraction of the Personal Conduct Policy, he was further suspended indefinitely. Even though Rice did not appeal the two game suspension, the two games is arguably the full and complete disposition of the dispute.

Meanwhile, all of this has cemented into the hearts and minds of the public that NFL players are chiefly violent, and that domestic abuse amongst NFL players runs rampant. So much so that it has spawned articles asking the question, "Are head injuries and concussions the cause of NLF domestic abuse?"

This despite the cold, hard fact that domestic abuse among members of the NLF is a fraction of that of the general public. Comparatively speaking, NLF-related domestic abuse is non-existent. (It reminds me of the push, for safety, for the chiiiildren for cryin' out loud!, to get speed limiters on all trucks over 26,000 GVW, despite the fact that carriers with speed limiters have a 2.8 percent greater frequency of accidents than carriers without the limiters, but I digress).

---------

And then there's this article on corporal punishment. It's the kind of news reporting that just drives me nuts, because it is crafted not by the Five Ws, but by the writer's on bias, done specially to get people riled up and change to her side.

First up, "Corporal punishment is technically legal in all 50 states." The use of "technically legal" is a trick, because it implies and infers a legal loophole, something that you can get away with, but is morally and/or ethically wrong. You shouldn't do it. Don't do it. It's wrong. It's really, really wrong.

Next up, "Federal data collected for 2009, the most recent available, estimates 184,527 students without disabilities were physically disciplined in schools across the country that year." That's a large number, one that should be shocking. And they weren't merely spanked, they were "physical disciplined," which is worse.

Then, in the same paragraph, the race card gets played to further enrage the reader. "The numbers reveal boys are more likely than girls to receive corporal punishment, and it was disproportionately applied to blacks." I love how that one is worded - "the number reveal" - meaning that's just how it is, that's the way it goes.

And "it was disproportionately applied to blacks," meaning blacks are singled out and targeted more than whites to receive corporal punishment, despite the fact that the numbers do not reveal that at all. Schools nowadays have so many zero-tolerance policies that when you commit A, you'll get punishment B, no matter what.

Another to pen that sentence is, "The numbers reveal blacks are more likely than whites to act in a manner warranting corporal punishment, and it was disproportionately applied to boys versus girls." But that wouldn't get people nearly as outraged.

And finally, "Dozens of studies have examined the effect of corporal punishment or child abuse on behavior and mental health, with mixed results." Yet despite the inconclusive studies with the mixed results, she managed to cherry pick in an example of how corporal punishment is bad, bad, bad and get it squeezed into the oh-so-limited space of the digital edition.

But then again, the writer, Tracy Connor, used to be the main cog in the NY Daily News, yellow journalism at its finest. She's well aware that people remember details better when they are read in a newspaper versus a digital edition, and knows the digital edition needs to push buttons outside the Five Ws in order to make the point take hold in the subconscious that she wants to be remembered.

 

[cheri1122]

About that "cold hard fact that domestic abuse among members of the NFL is a fraction of that of the general public"
claim: says who?
I'd believe that it's not reported, but not that it's not happening. Or that it happens less among pro football players - the guys who have been catered to and treated like demigods since they were in high school. You really believe they treat women with respect? Or restraint when they're angry? I don't.
It's not reported because from the minute the players are part of the NFL, their wives/girlfriends are made to understand that the money train depends on keeping him in the game, and embarrassing "the club" is grounds for expulsion. They know that filing charges against him will cost them [literally] a fortune, whether the penalty is suspension [docked pay] or termination [huge financial hit]. Why would they commit financial suicide?! Women with a whole lot less to lose don't want their man punished, it defies logic to believe that a pro football wife would throw away the future millions she will get for keeping her mouth shut.
That's if she doesn't believe his remorse and sworn promises that it won't happen again, but most women do, because the alternative is painful and scary.
If Rice hadn't assaulted his wife in a public place that was under surveillance, and an employee [of the casino] hadn't shared the video with outsiders, and TMZ hadn't published it, no one would know about this incident, either. Outside of the few in the NFL who were directly involved in Rice's career, and they sure wouldn't publicize it.
When it comes to some crimes, you have to know that what's reported is the teensiest tip of the iceberg, and domestic violence among pro athletes is one of those crimes.
When women who have nothing to lose won't report it, why would women who have everything to lose?

 

[Turtle]

So, clearly when you ask, "Says who?" you do so with dripping disingenuousness, since you don't care what the source of the numbers are, as you have, without knowing the source, already found a way to dismiss them and discredit them. The most important thing is that your belief remain in tact, solid and unshakable. The truth, whatever it may actually be, takes a back seat to the belief. Interesting.

Let me ask you this...

Do you think NFL players who engage in domestic abuse (partner or children) instantly stop the abuse when they are no longer in the NFL?

In the case of a battered wife certainly, the gravy train stops for passenger pickup when the player is no longer playing, and the wife can report the abuse, take at the very least half of what he has, and leave knowing he won't abuse her any longer. Women who remain in an abusive relationship after the player has finished playing has far more to lose by staying than by reporting it and leaving with the cash. Yet, the numbers you find so incredible include both current and former NFL players. If your belief is correct, there should be some disparity, at the very least a couple of percent, between the current and former players, but there isn't any.

The problem you'll have is, the sociological studies support the numbers (at least the studies that were done by those without an agenda looking for predetermined numbers, unlike the ones done by the National Coalition Against Violent Athletes (ncava.org) who have a bone to pick so they make sure their studies show what they want them to show). A really good source from a lot of fronts is a college textbook for sociology and psychology classes called Social Issues in Sport-2nd Edition by Ron Woods but at the bargain basement college textbook price of $94 (eBook is only $52, tho, however you can probably grab it for like $15 or $20 used on Amazon). If you're interested in sports and the roles it plays in society, I highly recommend it, but it's a textbook, not a novel, and it reads like a textbook.

It contain 2 chapters where it consolidates the studies on athlete violence and crime into real-world realities. It's not reticent to present both the flattering and the unflattering of sports, because that's the whole point of the book - to teach exactly how sports and society deal with each other, for good or bad. It shows a serious problem on college campuses with athletes, for example, where athletes make up only 3 percent of the student body but account for 19% of sexual assaults and 35% of domestic assaults on college campuses, plus 33% of campus sexual assaults. Furthermore, and it's a stat you should be all giddy about, is the fact that the general population has a conviction rate of 80% for sexual assaults, while the rate for athletes is only 38%.

But those numbers don't correlate with professional athletes, and it's a mistake to make such an extrapolation. Professional sports organizations tend to select athletes for their off-the-field performance as much as their on-field performance. No professional sports team wants to take on a problem child. They don't want or need the aggravation and distraction, which is one of the reasons why serious crimes (other than for some reason weapons charges) are lower amongst professional athletes than the peer population of adult males. They are largely weeded out before the are offered a pro contract. Truck drivers have far fewer incidents of drunk driving and illegal drug use than the general population, and for the same reasons, they're weeded out from the start.

But the perception, and the deeply held belief, that pro athletes are just rampant domestic abusers is there, and likely will remain there. It doesn't help much that, at least in 2008 (and the current numbers are about the same), the percentage of African Americans in the NFL is 66% and in the NBA is 77%. With such dominance also comes some jealousy and suspicion on the part of whites about violent black men since they see violent behavior on the football field or the basketball court, and whites already believe blacks are more violent, anyway. In addition, of the 1,600 daily newspapers published in the United States, fewer than half a dozen (that's a whopping total of six, for those who are still reading this) have African American sport editors in cities where there are pro franchises. So, the United States has Caucasian American sport journalists writing for a Caucasian American audience that already has a prejudiced view of African American men, and the sports headlines of violent black men just feed the fear and cement the beliefs.

If Michael Vick had been named Bubba Johnson and was a good ol' by from Tennessee, he'd have been given $50 and time served and nary a headline, and most people still wouldn't give a furry rat's behind about dog fighting.

Joyce Williams-Mitchell is the executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition of Battered Women’s Service Groups. and an African American woman who hates that the violent image of athletes is being perpetuated. She says, “It is a myth! Most batterers are men who control women through their profession, and they include police officers, clergymen, dentists, and judges. Athletes get the headlines, though, and an unfair public rap. Men from every profession (regardless of race) have the potential to be batterers.”

Keep in mind that the average man in his late 20s is about nine times more likely to be arrested than an NFL player for any cause.

 

[cheri1122]

You're right about one thing: I had no idea what your source is. I didn't look for stats [as I usually do], because I know they cannot be an accurate reflection of what is happening. Women don't report domestic violence for the same reason they don't report rape: their own psychological best interest. They know it will prolong the ugliness, punishing them all over again in the process, and they will not just refrain from reporting it, but will often actively deny it.
I'm not convinced that the NFL could 'weed out' the perpetrators, even if they tried, which, so far, they haven't much. Not that I think they should be in the business of looking for it, but their attitude is colored by the desire to protect their assets, which includes their players.
DV is a hidden crime - not practiced in public, or in front of witnesses. This I know from personal experience: even close friends and family may not be aware, though they may well suspect. And nobody really wants to open that can of worms. Except, of course, for some groups [mostly former victims] who make it their crusade.
To answer your question, no, I don't think the abuse stops when a player is no longer playing. But the woman's reasons for staying are not all about the money. They love the man, and he promises [very convincingly] to stop, and they believe it, because it's what they want to believe.
DV will continue, among all socioeconomic classes, until men understand that having the power to abuse someone is akin to having the power to do any ultimately self destructive thing: it may not be evident for some time, but in the end, it will harm you most of all.

 

[Turtle]

I'm not convinced that the NFL could 'weed out' the perpetrators, even if they tried, which, so far, they haven't much. Not that I think they should be in the business of looking for it, but their attitude is colored by the desire to protect their assets, which includes their players.

First, when you say "they haven't much," on what, exactly, are you basing such a conclusion? They certainly can't weed out 100% of them, clearly, but neither can trucking carriers or the FMCSA regulations weed out 100% of the drug and alcohol abusers. But it does a pretty good job, to the point where DIU citations among truck drivers is a fraction of that of the general driving public. And it ain't because DIUs are under-reported.

The NFL in fact makes a considerable effort to weed out potential problems, and it's become even more important that they do that these days because every incident gets multiplied in the minds of some people as being out of control. I know several people who have played college football, and three of them were drafted into the NFL, so I am aware of how it works, what all the NFL looks at when deciding to draft someone. I'm also aware of the things you can do in college that will absolutely get you removed from draft consideration. If you get in trouble in college, the NFL will instantly have some serious reservations about drafting you. They don't just draft people based on the numbers on the field, there are multiple interviews that take place, not only with the player in consideration, but with his family and friends, including girlfriends and ex-girlfriends. If the guy has friends and girlfriends who are wild and crazy, his association judgement will come into question. That has an effect on his draftability. You'd clearly be surprised at just how how closely and how much they look into the personal lives of these potential assets.

It's easier in baseball, where they start to learn the kid's maturity level and how he thinks when they're in high school. Many are further weeded out in the minors, so that by the time they get to the Big Leagues they're ready to be there and will offer few problems with their off the field activities. My dad was a scout first for the Cardinals and then the Reds, so I got to see that process up close and personal.

To answer your question, no, I don't think the abuse stops when a player is no longer playing. But the woman's reasons for staying are not all about the money. They love the man, and he promises [very convincingly] to stop, and they believe it, because it's what they want to believe.

So then, the incidence of reporting domestic abuse should be the same for former players as that of the general public, because both groups have the same motivations for both reporting and not reporting. They are no longer assets to be protected, and the woman no longer is constricted because of possible financial consideration (in fact, just the opposite), so the numbers should be, at the very least, the same as the general public. Yet the numbers reported are significantly less. I seriously doubt it's because the woman loves her former NFL football player more or believes him more than any other wife believes her abuser. The more likely conclusion is the one that matches reality, that men with a mentality and propensity towards domestic violence tend to be removed from the ranks of the NLF before they even get there in the first place, and are just as unlikely to engage in domestic abuse after they leave the sport.

DV will continue, among all socioeconomic classes, until men understand that having the power to abuse someone is akin to having the power to do any ultimately self destructive thing: it may not be evident for some time, but in the end, it will harm you most of all.

I'm going to assume that's a general "you" and not me specifically.

 

[davekc]

I just know there is a story here somewhere about women abusing men.

 

[cheri1122]

Turtle: You can't compare the DOT's efforts to remove alcohol from driving to the NFL's efforts to remove DV from it's ranks, [as one of many things that can harm it's image and cost money when sponsors defect], because alcohol is socially acceptable, while DV is not. [I'm not even going to make the easy snide remark about 'except in parts of Ky & WV', because I know better. It exists among ALL socioeconimic groups, no exceptions]. People drink in public, but they don't abuse their partners, physically or verbally, in public - it's frowned upon by others, and they know it.
The NFL adds layers of reasons for men to be abusive: the players are treated as demigods whose wish is someone's command, so they often develop an inflated sense of their own worth. At the same time, they're put under a lot of pressure to perform [in public], which can make anyone short tempered - especially if they're having a less than stellar period. Finally, they are frequent victims of head trauma, which is known to have a psychological effect, and often a detrimental effect on coping skills.
The women, I've already described: their whole life is about making him [and his team] happy. If the marriage ends, their alimony may well be predicated on a nondisclosure agreement, as is typical for big money contracts. Even if it isn't, what does an ex have to gain by reporting or disclosing abuse? The women don't want pity or sympathy, or secretive judgement [surely, she provoked it], they just want to get on with their lives. This too, I know.
And: no, the "you" wasn't meant for you personally - you don't seem to have any need to control women. The men who do are something I've learned to spot, usually from miles away. I only wish the liars were so easy to spot, lol.

 

[muttly]

I just know there is a story here somewhere about women abusing men.

A story abusing a young man anyway...
Hope Solo and the domestic violence case no one is talking about - The Washington Post

 

[cheri1122]

Wonder how many employers will fire somebody for being accused of domestic violence? Not convicted in a court of law mind you, but just being accused of something that might be recent or might have taken place years ago. Granted, the Ray Rice situation is a bit different if he's violated a clause in his contract. Now Adrian Peterson has lost his job for using a switch in his 4 year old, and Reggie Bush is in hot water for just talking about spanking his daughter if and when the need arises in the future. Rice and Peterson may not play again this year, or ever despite not having been allowed their due process in the legal system to play out. One would hope they and all the other NFL players caught up in this DV turmoil would be allowed the same consideration that was given to hall of fame linebacker Ray Lewis after he was involved in a murder case several years ago. As for Reggie Bush, they should just leave him and his family alone.

Bush Says Original Remarks On Child Discipline Taken Out Of Context « CBS Detroit

Of course the politicians have to get involved, and are now threatening the non-profit status of the NFL due to the bad publicity.

You wonder how many employers would fire somebody for being accused of domestic violence? For those employers whose employees are very public representatives of the company, and there is convincing evidence already circulating over the internet [like Rice's elevator vid], the answer is every single one of them.
The pay is phenomenal, but it's clearly understood: embarrass the people who sign the checks, and it's over.
I find it sad that Reggie Bush says he's a big believer in learning from the mistakes of others, but he continues to discipline his children [or intends to] the same way he was disciplined, without bothering to understand whether it's an effective techniques, or a mistake. There is a growing pile of research that says it's not effective, and the only people who contradict that say "It's how I was raised, and I turned out ok." That's hardly convincing evidence, in my book.

PS The NFL should never have been tax exempt to begin with - it's past time to rectify that error.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle: You can't compare the DOT's efforts to remove alcohol from driving to the NFL's efforts to remove DV from it's ranks, [as one of many things that can harm it's image and cost money when sponsors defect], because alcohol is socially acceptable, while DV is not. [I'm not even going to make the easy snide remark about 'except in parts of Ky & WV', because I know better. It exists among ALL socioeconimic groups, no exceptions]. People drink in public, but they don't abuse their partners, physically or verbally, in public - it's frowned upon by others, and they know it.

Well, (A), yes I can compare the DOT's efforts to remove alcohol from driving to the NFL's efforts to remove domestic violence (and other criminal behavior) from it's ranks, because I just did, and because they do it in roughly the same manner, i.e., up front to eliminate the problem, and because the end results are comparable, and (B), to my knowledge it is not socially acceptable anywhere in this country to drink and drive. I didn't compare socially acceptable drinking to socially unacceptable domestic abuse, that would be apples to oranges. Rather, I compared socially unacceptable driving under the influence to socially unacceptable domestic abuse. And I did so not even because they are comparable to each other, which they are, but because their results are comparable in how they both weed out as much of the potential offenders as possible.

The NFL adds layers of reasons for men to be abusive: the players are treated as demigods whose wish is someone's command, so they often develop an inflated sense of their own worth. At the same time, they're put under a lot of pressure to perform [in public], which can make anyone short tempered - especially if they're having a less than stellar period. Finally, they are frequent victims of head trauma, which is known to have a psychological effect, and often a detrimental effect on coping skills.

I see you're still hanging tuff on the position that NFL players are more violent at home than are their peers outside of football, and that it just doesn't get reported for financial and PR purposes, so you're gonna rationalize it all out, even to the point of completely dismissing the fact that players who have a propensity for violence and breaking the rules in general are weeded out as best they can and never enter the league in the first place. It's something that doesn't fit with your belief, so it gets disbelived or ignored. Interesting.

Incidentally, the notion that "the players are treated as demigods whose wish is someone's command" is so far from the reality that it's not even funny. It may be true for some fans, but certainly not for the teams. The NFL is very much a "what have you done for me lately" kinda league. There are precious few guaranteed contracts, and if you don't perform, see ya. You can have a stellar year last year, and not even make the team this year. You can make the team and then get cut mid-season, and your paycheck gets cut right along with you. A lot of players were indeed treated as demigods in college, and those same guys get a rude awakening when they arrive at training camp. The average shelf life of an NFL player is 6 years and that's the ones who make the opening day roster. Those who are added later, because of injury or someone getting cut, the career averages drop to about 3.5 years. So much for your wish is my command.

The women, I've already described: their whole life is about making him [and his team] happy. If the marriage ends, their alimony may well be predicated on a nondisclosure agreement, as is typical for big money contracts.

The NFL Constitution and the Standard Player Contract both prohibit the inclusion of any nondisclosure agreement with respect to the reporting of a crime or of a violation of the morals clause. Even if it didn't prohibit it, the wife certainly wouldn't be bound by a player's contract, nor would such a prohibition hold up in any prenuptial agreement. A victim of a crime cannot be coerced into legal silence. It's a crime to even attempt to do so.

Even if it isn't, what does an ex have to gain by reporting or disclosing abuse? The women don't want pity or sympathy, or secretive judgement [surely, she provoked it], they just want to get on with their lives. This too, I know.

Well, you're the one who tried to make the case that domestic abuse happens frequently in the NFL, but that it just doesn't get reported as often because, among other reasons, the wife has a financial incentive in not seeing her player-husband lose his job. I pointed out that once he leaves the NFL, that incentive is no longer there, and in fact there is an even greater incentive of a larger personal gain in reporting the abuse, leaving and taking most of his money - she not only gets the money, but she won't be abused any longer. So, what does the ex-wife have to gain by reporting or disclosing the abuse? Piles and piles of cash. But all that's moot, since the domestic abuse rate (and the divorce rate) among ex-NFL players is very low compared to the general public.

None of your assertions about domestic abuse among NFL players are backed up by anything other than your own beliefs, wants and wishes. Even the head injuries rationale falls short. It's a logical question to ask, and a valid hypothesis, but to reach a conclusion about it without having enough data one way or the other is a little dangerous. Thus far there is no link between head injury and domestic violence, not even the repeated head injuries that football players incur from the time they are little kids, through high school, college and the pros. Head injuries, particularly that of the frontal lobes, can and does cause violent behavior, that much we know. So it's logical to assume those with head injuries are more likely to engage in domestic abuse. But there is still not a direct link between increased violence from head injuries and domestic abuse. The handful that it happens to is certainly pointed out, but those with injuries and especially CTE tend not to abuse their partners or families, but themselves, often committing suicide. Even those who really want there to be a connection (those who think football should either be a non-contact sport or that it should be illegal for anyone under 18 to play), and are actively looking for one, cannot come up with one.

And: no, the "you" wasn't meant for you personally - you don't seem to have any need to control women. The men who do are something I've learned to spot, usually from miles away. I only wish the liars were so easy to spot, lol.

OK, good. That's what I thought. No, I don't have a need to control women. I know that's not possible.

 

[Turtle]

I find it sad that Reggie Bush says he's a big believer in learning from the mistakes of others, but he continues to discipline his children [or intends to] the same way he was disciplined, without bothering to understand whether it's an effective techniques, or a mistake. There is a growing pile of research that says it's not effective, and the only people who contradict that say "It's how I was raised, and I turned out ok." That's hardly convincing evidence, in my book.

The growing pile of research that says corporal punishment is ineffective is largely research done by people who are against corporal punishment. It gets set right next to the larger pile of research that shows it is effective. The largest pile of evidence for ineffectiveness is that for "time out." There's a reason corporal punishment is legal by statute in all 50 states. There's also a fine line between corporal punishment and abuse, like the difference between a spanking or a whuppin' and that of a beating. There have been reams and reams of research on the effectiveness of corporal punishment, analysed to death by academia, and so far the only real conclusions is that with corporal punishment you get immediate compliance and better long-term behavior modification as a result, and the link between corporal punishment and full-blown child abuse by the parent. Not that corporal punishment necessarily leads to child abuse, but that those who never spank their kids rarely if ever graduate to child abuse, but those who do spank are the ones that escalate it to child abuse, albeit in very small percentages.

Our feelings on corporal punishment are inextricably tied to how we were raised, which makes "I was spanked as a kid and I turned out OK," as valid as any other evidence. Heck, I was spanked as a kid, and look at the adorable little fuzzball I turned out to be.

PS The NFL should never have been tax exempt to begin with - it's past time to rectify that error.

Why? The NFL was given tax-exempt status in 1942 as a trade organization so that it could better promote the teams, the league and the industry in the thick of the US entry into WWII, to help with morale here at home in giving people a distraction from the war effort. The NFL also sold a lot of war bonds during that time. The NHL and the PGA are also non-profits, as is the LPGA and men's and women's tennis associations. MLB used to be, until 2007 when they gave it up voluntarily, because of a change in the tax code that would have required baseball to disclose the salaries of its executives. The NBA has always been for-profit, but there are 10 sports leagues in all with annual revenue over $10 million that are tax-exempt. MLB's tax status has been tax neutral since they gave up the tax-exempt status, meaning they've paid no more in taxes than they did when they were exempt.

The NFL generates between $9 and $10 billion a year, but removing the tax-exempt status would bring in hardly any additional tax revenue at all. That's because the only part of the NFL that has tax-exempt status is the league office, which doesn't engage in any business activity and doesn't generate any income. Most years they operate at a loss. Last year they ended the year with a $9 million surplus. They are funded solely by the teams. The teams, on the other hand, already pay handsomely in taxes on the revenue from ticket sales, merchandise sale, national sponsorships, and TV, radio and online contracts.

If Senator Cory Booker, Democrat (of course) of New jersey gets his way, all ten professional sports teams with revenues greater than $10 million annually will have to give up their tax-exempt status. If that happens, it will mean between $9 and $11 million a year in tax revenue. The bill is called the Booker said the money, he used the figure of $100 million over a decade so it would sound like a lot of money, would be earmarked strictly for state domestic abuse programs. That amounts to $200,000 per year per state, the perfect amount of money that can get governmentally squandered and wasted and just disappear without anyone saying anything, and it'll do no one any good - the perfect bread-and-butter feel-good legislation of Democrats. Pshaw, you say? The bill is called the Securing Assistance for Victim Empowerment Act (SAVE). <snort>

It's not likely to pass, any more than the same hobby horse bill that Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (a state without any tax-exempt professional sports leagues) keeps repeatedly introducing and repeatedly failing to get any co-sponsors. Neither is the separate bill from Senator Maria Cantwell, Democrat of Washington state who introduced a bill to strip the N.F.L. of its tax-exempt status because the Washington Redskins, who aren't even remotely close to Washington state, refuses to change their name. That's so feel-good that it reminds me of the city councilman who wanted to change the name of Coon Rapids because he felt raccoons were offensive. It sparked such an outrage from the townsfolk that the city council dumped that stupid oak leaf and brought back Rocky Raccoon as the official Coon Rapids logo.

 

[layoutshooter]

Nuthin like a good larruping to straighten a kid out!

 

[Ragman]

Speaking of punishing a child . . .



Texas soldier beat toddler to death for soiling diaper: police

 

[layoutshooter]

Sounds like a disgusting family to me. That is not punishment. It does sound like the proper testing was not done on this guy when he entered the army.

 

[LDB]

Speaking of punishing a child . . .

Texas soldier beat toddler to death for soiling diaper: police

And yet rather than saying this calls for capital punishment we'll see comments denigrating him being a Texan or we'll see comments denigrating him as a soldier, oh, and we'll see emphatic comments against the death penalty as well.

 

[xiggi]

He might even be a spammer.

 

[cheri1122]

Well, (A), yes I can compare the DOT's efforts to remove alcohol from driving to the NFL's efforts to remove domestic violence (and other criminal behavior) from it's ranks, because I just did, and because they do it in roughly the same manner, i.e., up front to eliminate the problem, and because the end results are comparable, and (B), to my knowledge it is not socially acceptable anywhere in this country to drink and drive. I didn't compare socially acceptable drinking to socially unacceptable domestic abuse, that would be apples to oranges. Rather, I compared socially unacceptable driving under the influence to socially unacceptable domestic abuse. And I did so not even because they are comparable to each other, which they are, but because their results are comparable in how they both weed out as much of the potential offenders as possible.
DUI is a socially unacceptable behavior that is done in public, many times repeatedly. Not comparable to a behavior done in private, with the victim having reason to deny it. I'll grant the NFL would like to weed out potential offenders, but if they even have DV on their list, it's not a high priority. And of the behaviors that are, [drugs, DUI, weapons], the success rate is underwhelming, judging by the frequency of news reports.

I see you're still hanging tuff on the position that NFL players are more violent at home than are their peers outside of football, and that it just doesn't get reported for financial and PR purposes, so you're gonna rationalize it all out, even to the point of completely dismissing the fact that players who have a propensity for violence and breaking the rules in general are weeded out as best they can and never enter the league in the first place. It's something that doesn't fit with your belief, so it gets disbelived or ignored. Interesting.

Incidentally, the notion that "the players are treated as demigods whose wish is someone's command" is so far from the reality that it's not even funny. It may be true for some fans, but certainly not for the teams. The NFL is very much a "what have you done for me lately" kinda league. There are precious few guaranteed contracts, and if you don't perform, see ya. You can have a stellar year last year, and not even make the team this year. You can make the team and then get cut mid-season, and your paycheck gets cut right along with you. A lot of players were indeed treated as demigods in college, and those same guys get a rude awakening when they arrive at training camp. The average shelf life of an NFL player is 6 years and that's the ones who make the opening day roster. Those who are added later, because of injury or someone getting cut, the career averages drop to about 3.5 years. So much for your wish is my command.

The players are treated as demigods by the public, if not the NFL. Strangers buy them drinks, ask for autographs & photos - they are given the best tables in restaurants, etc. Even their childhood friends are impressed with their status. Signing million dollar contracts has to have an inflationary effect on one's ego - that's human nature.

The NFL Constitution and the Standard Player Contract both prohibit the inclusion of any nondisclosure agreement with respect to the reporting of a crime or of a violation of the morals clause. Even if it didn't prohibit it, the wife certainly wouldn't be bound by a player's contract, nor would such a prohibition hold up in any prenuptial agreement. A victim of a crime cannot be coerced into legal silence. It's a crime to even attempt to do so.

I referred to a divorce agreement, not the player's contract, or even a prenup. That 'victim of a crime' factor wouldn't come into play until/unless the crime is proven, so a nondisclosure could absolutely forbid disclosures of a 'personal/relationship' nature.

Well, you're the one who tried to make the case that domestic abuse happens frequently in the NFL, but that it just doesn't get reported as often because, among other reasons, the wife has a financial incentive in not seeing her player-husband lose his job. I pointed out that once he leaves the NFL, that incentive is no longer there, and in fact there is an even greater incentive of a larger personal gain in reporting the abuse, leaving and taking most of his money - she not only gets the money, but she won't be abused any longer. So, what does the ex-wife have to gain by reporting or disclosing the abuse? Piles and piles of cash. But all that's moot, since the domestic abuse rate (and the divorce rate) among ex-NFL players is very low compared to the general public.

Again: you're ignoring the fact that domestic abuse is a crime women very often will not report. They already know the outcome: leave him, throw your life [and the kids] into turmoil, and plan to support all of you on your own [at least for some time, and forever if he's just a regular joe who is also a vindictive guy].
Statistics on DV are worthless, it's like looking for icebergs by scanning the water's surface.

None of your assertions about domestic abuse among NFL players are backed up by anything other than your own beliefs, wants and wishes.

Beliefs, yes. Wants and wishes? Why would I want or wish for it? I've got no dog in this hunt - it's just what I think, and why I think so.

Even the head injuries rationale falls short. It's a logical question to ask, and a valid hypothesis, but to reach a conclusion about it without having enough data one way or the other is a little dangerous. Thus far there is no link between head injury and domestic violence, not even the repeated head injuries that football players incur from the time they are little kids, through high school, college and the pros. Head injuries, particularly that of the frontal lobes, can and does cause violent behavior, that much we know. So it's logical to assume those with head injuries are more likely to engage in domestic abuse. But there is still not a direct link between increased violence from head injuries and domestic abuse. The handful that it happens to is certainly pointed out, but those with injuries and especially CTE tend not to abuse their partners or families, but themselves, often committing suicide. Even those who really want there to be a connection (those who think football should either be a non-contact sport or that it should be illegal for anyone under 18 to play), and are actively looking for one, cannot come up with one.

Again: if it isn't reported, and even the victims deny it, how valid are the stats? And if the stats aren't valid, how can any connection be made that would withstand scrutiny?
What I said about head injuries is based on both fact and personal observation: traumatic brain injuries can affect behavior, and there's no lack of anecdotal evidence that a short fuse is a common effect. It seems reasonable to suppose that people who suffer head injuries at a greater rate would exhibit more such behaviors, whether their wives admit it or not.
And BTW: I don't think anything about football "should" be changed, I just think the 'benefits' are overstated, and the obsession over it is nuts. And the public shouldn't have to finance their playgrounds, either.

OK, good. That's what I thought. No, I don't have a need to control women. I know that's not possible.

Oh, it's possible - just not advisable.