Mara on Brown: Big difference between allegations

:)

several different takes on what zero tolerance means including sending the guy to the gallows or the rack for punishment.

a big difference between "allegations" and someone getting suspended a game for domestic violence, which he did. Not saying what he did was actually domestic violence - but nevertheless he was suspended. Thus - not implementing the zero tolerance is just a little weird and feels off.

a "zero tolerance" is pretty clear cut. You either did something or you did it. If every issue is not black or white - then don't have a zero tolerance policy.

in that ordinarily you don't know for sure short of a conviction, but in this case, Brown admitted it. i'm really surprised by this from mara. i didn't like the silence very much, but it was better than this.

you say when you're asking if you'd tolerate DV by a player on your team.

We should probably move past it. If it really bothers you, write a letter to Mara. He reads them.

Nobody in the NFL carries a blanket "zero tolerance" policy. Tolerance is directly equivalent to value on the field.

In comment 13084680 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

a "zero tolerance" is pretty clear cut. You either did something or you did it. If every issue is not black or white - then don't have a zero tolerance policy.

What do you consider a Zero tolerance policy?

that having a zero tolerance policy could just extend to punishment and not an expulsion from the team, right?

It means that it won't be tolerated and some form of punishment will be handed out, either a fine, suspension, or a cut.

Look at other no tolerance situations like a no tolerance for bullying. It doesn't mean any student found bullying is expelled and shunned by the elders to wander aimlessly in the woods. It could be detention, a suspension, or possibly and expulsion.

I'm increasingly thinking you only have one interpretation of what zero tolerance means.

In comment 13084701 therealmf said:

Quote:

In comment 13084680 ryanmkeane said: Quote: a "zero tolerance" is pretty clear cut. You either did something or you did it. If every issue is not black or white - then don't have a zero tolerance policy. What do you consider a Zero tolerance policy?

Zero tolerance to me always meant you wouldn't be employed by that company or team if you broke that rule. For example - zero tolerance for sexual harrassment in the work place, etc.

I always took it to mean you have zero chances to screw up.

I'm also not offended by this or anything - I just think it's weird for an organization to have a zero tolerance policy and not act on it.

In comment 13084702 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

that having a zero tolerance policy could just extend to punishment and not an expulsion from the team, right? It means that it won't be tolerated and some form of punishment will be handed out, either a fine, suspension, or a cut.

I disagree..I always took the "zero" as the chances you get, not the tolerance.

I don't. I am a fan of the team and not an investor/owner. I want the team to win and really don't care about a zero tolerance policy. If Brown gives us the best chance to win then I want him on this team.

What if Eli got drunk one night, was playing around and his wife got hurt. She calls the police and now it is out there. Are we standing by a zero tolerance policy? Are we going to cut Eli? We know the answer to that.

So, we dont really have a zero tolerance policy unless we are willing to cut our franchise player for just ONE infraction. Does not matter of Brown is a repeat offender. Zero tolerance means no matter what and no matter WHO.

This is why it is an absolute mistake for an organization to come out and say something stupid like that.

agreed....don't say "there will be a zero tolerance policy" if there isn't one..

Fuck it. On to Dallas.

In comment 13084710 ryanmkeane said:

Quote:

In comment 13084701 therealmf said: Quote: In comment 13084680 ryanmkeane said: Quote: a "zero tolerance" is pretty clear cut. You either did something or you did it. If every issue is not black or white - then don't have a zero tolerance policy. What do you consider a Zero tolerance policy? Zero tolerance to me always meant you wouldn't be employed by that company or team if you broke that rule. For example - zero tolerance for sexual harrassment in the work place, etc. I always took it to mean you have zero chances to screw up. I'm also not offended by this or anything - I just think it's weird for an organization to have a zero tolerance policy and not act on it.

You're wrong. See FMiC above. Or
http://definitions.uslegal.com/z/zero-tolerance-law/

Quote:

I disagree..I always took the "zero" as the chances you get, not the tolerance

But you should then be able to explain an exact punishment for each case. Could it mean death?? I'm being facetious, but it is to prove a point.

My company has a zero tolerance for sexual harassment. Which means it isn't tolerated and there are steps clearly laid out on what happens.

- Review of the situation
- Meeting with supervisor and HR
- Administration of discipline, which can include immediate termination

Schools are the same. You can't just kick any bully out on the street, but most schools now have no tolerance policies on bullying or the like. A local school has a no tolerance policy on weapons. A kid brought a butter knife to school and was suspended 3 days, not expelled.

People going apeshit over the no tolerance comment seem to think the definition means an immediate cut. Why stop there? If it is no tolerance, why not arrest him and send him to the XFL?

You do realize..
FatMan in Charlotte : 2:51 pm : link : reply
that having a zero tolerance policy could just extend to punishment and not an expulsion from the team, right?

It means that it won't be tolerated and some form of punishment will be handed out, either a fine, suspension, or a cut.

Look at other no tolerance situations like a no tolerance for bullying. It doesn't mean any student found bullying is expelled and shunned by the elders to wander aimlessly in the woods. It could be detention, a suspension, or possibly and expulsion.

I'm increasingly thinking you only have one interpretation of what zero tolerance means.

No One knows all the ins and outs of this case I feel that whats done is done and he is being punished for it
none of us have a clue to base the degree of DV that
was committed here .

context. Didn't he INHERIT the problem when he took over and if so, wouldn't that mean it was taken care of BEFORE je took his stance? In other words, since it was dealt with before he assumed the reins, was he supposed to UNDO what had already been decided by the higher ups?

please wait for all of the evidence to be presented?

He got suspended.

If he didn't get suspended then the behavior is being tolerated.

Quote:

It's not being tolerated B in ALB : 3:53 pm : link : reply He got suspended. If he didn't get suspended then the behavior is being tolerated.

I've been trying to say this for awhile now. Really struggling on how people aren't grasping this unless they just want to cut him for some good old-fashioned blood letting.

very few would be in favor of cutting him if he was 27, not 37

But what he said was right.

For those of you who didn't click on the link, a site called U.S. legal definitions defines zero tolerance like this:

Zero tolerance laws impose automatic punishment for infractions of a stated rule, with the intention of eliminating undesirable conduct. Such laws impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or past history. This pre-determined punishment need not be severe, but it is always meted out.

Even in legal mode, McAdoo and the Giants could reasonably say that they were waiting for the League's response before deciding their own. Because the NFL imposed a suspension which hurts Brown and the Giants - even in the absence of prosecution - the Giants can reasonably decide that the point has been made.

is punishable by death, clearly. NO IN BETWEEN!!!!!!

Why people get so hung up on lip service to the media is beyond me.

Because he is employed that means ownership doesn't have a zero tolerance policy? So, lets forget all the forgiveness stuff that everybody should follow since we are all human and make mistakes. Lets just talk about zero tolerance. That means you will not accept those action. That doesn't mean you fire the guy. What if it was manatory that he get counseling and talk to other groups about his situation? Would that mean the Giants still condone his actions if he is employed? Absolutely not. There are other ways to have a zero tolerance policy than just flat out firing someone. How about rehabilitating someone? Doesn't that make more sense than just saying fuck you? Oh, you have a drug problem? Get the fuck out of my house! That action always works. (Rolls eyes).

or because he grabs his wife's wrist.

this whole time. I've always just assumed that the policy referred to tolerating the number zero, as it pertains to the use of it on jerseys, in contracts, on the scoreboard etc..

In regards to the scoreboard the number zero is only tolerated when displayed AFTER any number higher than another zero (example: 10, 20, 30, etc.).

As far as jerseys are concerned the number zero will not be tolerated when used twice after the first number as three digit numbers are not allowed under league rule 78, article 14, subheading 2: "No more than two numerals are to be displayed on any officially worn gameday jersey within the National Football League". Also, a jersey number of two, or "double" zeroes will not be tolerated as this would lead to confusion as to whether or not that player actually exists.

When discussing the "contract" aspect of the policy we've seen, especially this off-season, that the number zero is not only tolerated but doled out generously to whomever may greatly improve the teams chances at a playoff run and subsequent championship.

Can we move on now fellas?

strongly disapproves with your post.

In comment 13084854 Big Blue '56 said:

Quote:

very few would be in favor of cutting him if he was 27, not 37

Age is irrelevant. Cut his ass. So predictable that the same people who roast the cowboys for signing hardy are the ones jumping through hoops to justify the Giants keeping him. Really disappointed by Mara and the hypocrite Mcadoo

That the Giants knew the whole story from the beginning and used it as a bargaining chip to sign one of the best kickers in the league for only 1mil guaranteed?

Now they just have to weather the shitstorm and all is forgotten if Brown kicks well again this year.

is just a bunch of horseshit.

Quote:

So predictable that the same people who roast the cowboys for signing hardy are the ones jumping through hoops to justify the Giants keeping him. Really disappointed by Mara and the hypocrite Mcadoo

How about the people who said take a wait and see approach with Collins and Elliott on Dallas? Both had allegations that were either found to be unsubstantiated or not serious enough to warrant more scrutiny. And I won't be shocked to see Elliott suspended for a game when the league finishes its review.

Do you see hordes of BBI'ers raining on Dallas for that? No. In fact, some people are pissed at Reese for not drafting Collins.

Terrible analogy to Hardy.