Superb Deadspin take on the Josh Brown situation

I think people like things to be very black and white. Unfortunately in these situations it rarely is.

There needs to be a path to help people without destroying their lives further. But that is hard in an image conscious NFL and with a public that is rightly intolerant of domestic abuse accusations.

My company will help people (drugs, domestic issues) if they ask for help. They will not be fired for it as long as they follow thru with getting the help they need. Can the NFL do this...probably not. But it is probably the right thing to do.

lets not blacklist the guy ... LMAO

I think it's up to each team to handle it case by case, but unfortunately king Roger has rules that let him do whatever he pleases because the NFLPA and owners are the two biggest groups of out of touch weirdos not sitting on Capitol Hill.

I don't think paying his alimony is a compelling reason for the team & league to allow him to play now -- but there are some really good points sprinkled in there.

There's a bunch of it in the media and on here - that the moment someone commits a violent act they should be summarily and efficiently removed from the stage, never to be seen again.

As if that will curtail their violence or dissuade others from violence. It's not that impactful and doesn't make anything better. You don't think Josh Brown knew in his clearer moments violence towards his spouse was going to get him booted? It clearly didn't stop him.

The obvious question is whether the NFL wants to clear its ranks of anyone who has committed a violent domestic act, or if the league wants to improve the safety, well being and quality of life for the families of the players that are the league.

I strongly doubt "zero tolerance" is going to persuade the mother of 4, girlfriend of a player to reach out for help in the early stages of an abusive relationship.

But I agree with the writer - it makes people completely removed from the situation to say out loud "never touch a woman."

that they don't actually give to craps about domestic violence. They care about how the league is perceived by the public. Kicking Josh Brown out shows they will not tolerate DV, which is their goal.

The league has absolutely zero interest in protecting the victims of DV. When you realize that, their actions are completely reasonable.

in mind, and that's completely reasonable. the NFL is not a non-profit geared toward eradicating domestic violence.

the league is not an entity with feeling or emotion. it's a going, for profit, concern. You would think their policies are all about perception and putting them in the best light possible. Which is not always the case as the league has some work to do.

If you were to claim a specific person didn't care about domestic violence that's where I'd assume you'd probably be wrong.

I don't care who it is, find me one person besides Carl in CT - seriously - one person who is an NFL owner, front office exec, NFLPA rep, anyone in a decision making or influential who would not condone domestic violence and I'll be surprised.

Are the NFL policies any different than any other professional sports league or even any corporation? Serious question, not sure.

Stream strong. The NFL also doesn't truly care about concussions either - just about appearing to care. The league would die over night if they truly took a hard stance on drugs, crime, domestic violence, and preventing brain trauma.

will accomplish absolutely nothing. Won't make his wife safer, won't stop any other player from abusing his wife, nothing. It will just harm him and his family financially and make other abused wives even less likely to report abuse.

What it will do is allow all the righteous fans and media to feel better about themselves by showing how much they hate domestic violence.....which is what these suspensions are really all about.

Now we can go back to pretending there aren't plenty of other players in the league and even on the Giants who have done far worse but are lucky enough to have not gotten caught (or in the case of Roger Lewis Jr. were caught but not convicted).

That is why I wish the Giants stayed by Brown's side when this new info came out. Say they were aware of the situation and are doing all they can to help both Brown and his ex wife heal.

is don't suspend Josh Brown because it will accomplish nothing?

What about drug suspensions, what do those accomplish?

You don't think a player knowing his career is in jeopardy if he commits a certain act will consider that a deterrent?

In many cases punishments are not designed to solve the behavior they are punishing, but as a deterrent to influence that behavior.

So sure, at some level suspending an NFL player may in fact dissuade a woman from reporting domestic violence because her significant other losing income has an adverse impact on her and her family (if she has one), but how is that any different than how the law handles it? Men in jail can't provide for their wife and kids.

You are asking the NFL to solve a societal problem, hate to sound crass, but it's not the NFL's obligation to eradicate DV, it's their job to make sure the perpetrators of DV are not unpunished by them as their employer and to set a tone where it's clear that DV will not be tolerated.

Beyond that I haven't heard anyone say what they NFL is expected to do.

In comment 13190397 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

You are asking the NFL to solve a societal problem, hate to sound crass, but it's not the NFL's obligation to eradicate DV, it's their job to make sure the perpetrators of DV are not unpunished by them as their employer and to set a tone where it's clear that DV will not be tolerated. .

I disagree....I don't think it's the NFL's (or any employer's) job to make sure those who commit DV are punished. I believe that's the role of the government and criminal justice system.

I think the NFL's job is to organize a 32 team football league.

In comment 13190397 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

is don't suspend Josh Brown because it will accomplish nothing?

I personally am not saying that.
Based on what was revealed in september, I thought the 1 game suspension was appropriate, if not even a little light.

There needs to be punishment for bad behavior. But there should also be systems in place for treatment instead of just washing their hands of the problem.

In comment 13190406 Tesla said:

Quote:

In comment 13190397 pjcas18 said: Quote: You are asking the NFL to solve a societal problem, hate to sound crass, but it's not the NFL's obligation to eradicate DV, it's their job to make sure the perpetrators of DV are not unpunished by them as their employer and to set a tone where it's clear that DV will not be tolerated. . I disagree....I don't think it's the NFL's (or any employer's) job to make sure those who commit DV are punished. I believe that's the role of the government and criminal justice system. I think the NFL's job is to organize a 32 team football league.

So the NFL should have no conduct detrimental to the team clauses. Even really no penalties, suspensions or other discipline for any non on-field infractions. Right?

Do what you want, roll your dice with the law, you skate there we're happy to have you?

Seriously, you sure you've thought this out?

Greg Hardy should be in the league then right? Ray Rice too?

In comment 13190410 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13190397 pjcas18 said: Quote: is don't suspend Josh Brown because it will accomplish nothing? I personally am not saying that. Based on what was revealed in september, I thought the 1 game suspension was appropriate, if not even a little light. There needs to be punishment for bad behavior. But there should also be systems in place for treatment instead of just washing their hands of the problem.

Brown had to undergo therapy and counseling - by law. What is the NFL supposed to do? Open a series of clinics around the country to counsel players who beat their wives? On top of what the law already ordered him to do?

has zero expertise in how to treat those with a propensity toward DV or what is an effective means of deterrance. That's why we have a legal system and a mental health system. The NFL should respect the fact those systems are much more competent. Drugs are a different matter since they can have an effect on play.

I would not suspend any player for off the field conduct....but I would allow a team to get out of a contract for such behavior if they don't want that player on their team anymore. I just don't believe it's the NFL's job to step in for the criminal justice system and "punish" players for off the field conduct.

If Dallas want to have a Greg Hardy on their team I would not stop them. Leave it up to each team to decide what they will tolerate.

I also can't stand the hypocrisy....there's a lot of evidence that Roger Lewis Jr. raped a girl but for some reason it's "ok" for us to root for him but for some other reason it's not "ok" for us to want Josh Brown on the team. Why? Neither was convicted of a crime?

who displayed virtually no contrition, makes plenty of sense. Blacklisting Ray Rice who, contrite or not, coldcocked his wife on camera, makes plenty of sense. Blacklisting Josh Brown because he admitted in writings that he was an abuser and because his wife says it happened 20+ times makes plenty of sense. But you can't get around the fact that Molly Brown and Janay Rice will suffer from this decision, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that the next woman in a similar situation is no more likely, and probably a good deal less likely, to report such abuse. Yes the zero tolerance policy may prod self-aware players to go get help, but they're still likely to be a minority. And if our aim is to address DV, not merely to get it out of the headlines, I don't think this will be effective.

The NFL should accept their product and employees is predicated on violence and has both physical and emotional repercussions in that arena.

Once the league can truly accept that, they will more easily support their employees. It's a good business decision and a good PR decision.

The NFL should start with a confidential intervention program for families that doesn't end with the father or husband in the family out of work if he hasn't committed a crime that warrants incarceration.

things that impact performance or tilt the balance of competition an athlete's way, I do not think the league should step in on other matters, but as many have said before, they've had to because of public pressure and witchhunts.

Both Greg Hardy and Ray Rice would still be employed by the Panthers and Ravens if it weren't for public pressure. We can question why - but neither was ever convicted of a crime. The NFL (or any other sports org) shouldn't play Judge, Jury and Executioner, but they have. We can blame them, or we can blame the new form of public witch hunts, fueled by social media warriors who aim to rectify any wrong they think is out there.

We can say the NFL doesn't care about eradicating DV, and that would be correct, but frankly, neither do the outraged. They just want there to be retribution then they move on to the next case. Domestic violence is no better off nor worse off because of what has transpired.

But people have gotten their pound of flesh and are happy.

In comment 13190417 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 13190410 ron mexico said: Quote: In comment 13190397 pjcas18 said: Quote: is don't suspend Josh Brown because it will accomplish nothing? I personally am not saying that. Based on what was revealed in september, I thought the 1 game suspension was appropriate, if not even a little light. There needs to be punishment for bad behavior. But there should also be systems in place for treatment instead of just washing their hands of the problem. Brown had to undergo therapy and counseling - by law. What is the NFL supposed to do? Open a series of clinics around the country to counsel players who beat their wives? On top of what the law already ordered him to do?

Not saying that at all. All i'm saying is I think the NFL should allow him to get the treatment he needs while remaining employed. Its probably what most corporations in this country would do.

If they can provide some extra assistance to the victims as well, that would be terrific. That is going above and beyond as far as employers go, but the NFL has the resources and a relatively few number of employees that they could do it.

In comment 13190437 Dunedin81 said:

Quote:

who displayed virtually no contrition, makes plenty of sense. Blacklisting Ray Rice who, contrite or not, coldcocked his wife on camera, makes plenty of sense. Blacklisting Josh Brown because he admitted in writings that he was an abuser and because his wife says it happened 20+ times makes plenty of sense. But you can't get around the fact that Molly Brown and Janay Rice will suffer from this decision, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that the next woman in a similar situation is no more likely, and probably a good deal less likely, to report such abuse. Yes the zero tolerance policy may prod self-aware players to go get help, but they're still likely to be a minority. And if our aim is to address DV, not merely to get it out of the headlines, I don't think this will be effective.

What do you suggest?

Isn't it the same challenge our legal system faces? If a woman reports DV her spouse or significant other is locked up for the night in most cases or at least removed from the premises and then subject to our legal system which in many cases could result in incarceration and/or loss of employment.

In the case of the NFL they are IMO really just saying that from an image standpoint they don't find people who have committed certain crimes suitable for employment or representation of their brand. Like most companies would probably do.

How does the NFL decide who's guilty and who's innocent? Is Roger Lewis Jr. innocent because he was found not guilty at his rape trial? Still, if it got to trial there must have been plenty of evidence against him. Ray Lewis was never charged with murder but there's plenty of evidence he was involved in one.

Josh Brown and Ray Rice were never convicted of crimes either....yet both were clear cut cases....but the next one might not be so clear. So how does the NFL decide who is guilty and deserving of punishment and who is not? Will they have a hearing? A trial? What's the standard of evidence needed to convict? Can a losing player appeal?

The NFL has every right to police the conduct of their players - and they should. Every company has the right and obligation to manage the perception of the brand.

And it's not a smarmy gross tactic, it's about keeping the business growing, keeping the employees employed and being successful.

If Mike Vick pleads and gets no jail time, you think the NFL should have said oh well and welcomed him back next game? Bullshit, actions have consequences and public facing employees get punished for doing stupid things.

If the Panthers weren't going to suspend Hardy for throwing his girlfriend down on a bed full loaded guns and attack her, I'm pretty glad public opinion intervened.

And by god we are going to get it. Almost every fan is waiting for the next outrage. Some are early adopters (a handful of BBI posters early on wanted Brown gone) but once an outrage becomes popular enough or in the media other than the contrarians, trolls, and devils advocates we all jump on the outrage bandwagon. It feels good to be in the crowd yelling for blood.

It doesn't really change anything but makes fans feel good.

I don't think it's a zero sum game.

There are times when a team/league is totally tone deaf and the public appetite to cheer for a player who has gone unpunished for something distasteful, if not illegal is valid.

Listening to the more nuanced voices in your clientele isn't assuaging the mob.

it's also a little like "we better let Josh play or he'll beat the shit out of his wife". That doesn't exactly feel like the right thing to do, either.

while I do not condone domestic violence, I've been pretty clear about my position from day 1, I root for laundry.

if the Giants decide Greg Hardy is a good fit and representative of the image they want that's their decision, in between the lines on game day, I want him sacking QB's and wreaking havoc, same with Ray Rice or Josh Brown excelling at their positions.

Having lived through LT, Meggett, Ingram, Pierce, etc. I believe it's more appropriate for me to let the law and the FO handle the legality and morality and I apply my own morals to myself and don't judge others.

When I root for a player I'm rooting for the jersey, not the man. I think what Mike Vick did was disgusting and he deserved to be eaten alive by a pack of wild dogs, but if he could win a championship for the team I root for and they decide to sign him, I'm not going to switch allegiances. Now it's true, we don't often face the moral dilemma of making that choice, but I choose not to even get there. Maybe it's a cop out, but that's my decision and I sleep well at night.

And I almost 100% of the time DO NOT consider athletes role models for me, my kids, or any youth really with very few exceptions.

In comment 13190450 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 13190437 Dunedin81 said: Quote: who displayed virtually no contrition, makes plenty of sense. Blacklisting Ray Rice who, contrite or not, coldcocked his wife on camera, makes plenty of sense. Blacklisting Josh Brown because he admitted in writings that he was an abuser and because his wife says it happened 20+ times makes plenty of sense. But you can't get around the fact that Molly Brown and Janay Rice will suffer from this decision, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that the next woman in a similar situation is no more likely, and probably a good deal less likely, to report such abuse. Yes the zero tolerance policy may prod self-aware players to go get help, but they're still likely to be a minority. And if our aim is to address DV, not merely to get it out of the headlines, I don't think this will be effective. What do you suggest? Isn't it the same challenge our legal system faces? If a woman reports DV her spouse or significant other is locked up for the night in most cases or at least removed from the premises and then subject to our legal system which in many cases could result in incarceration and/or loss of employment. In the case of the NFL they are IMO really just saying that from an image standpoint they don't find people who have committed certain crimes suitable for employment or representation of their brand. Like most companies would probably do.

There isn't a happy or an easy answer. You want to encourage women to report these situations before they become life-threatening without having to worry that their livelihoods will be destroyed, but you can't be seen to be soft-pedaling.

In comment 13190502 Heisenberg said:

Quote:

it's also a little like "we better let Josh play or he'll beat the shit out of his wife". That doesn't exactly feel like the right thing to do, either.

I dont think so.

Its more like we have a remorseful employee who wants to get help. How can we help him do so.

Quote:

... christian : 12:22 pm : link : reply The NFL has every right to police the conduct of their players - and they should. Every company has the right and obligation to manage the perception of the brand.

The problem is not that they discipline their players. It's that their disciplinary decisions are predicated on public outcry and not based on any moral conviction.

Ray Rice and Josh Brown are perfect examples of this. Rice decks his girlfriend and the NFL knows it. The result? Two game suspension. But once the video comes out and the fanbase is furious? Boom. He never plays again. It is protecting the brand like you said, but it is not policing conduct. Josh Brown has a similar story arc.

That's why people get infuriated by the NFL. Time and time again the come off woefully disingenuous in their fight against domestic violence. Their only concern is what happens to their bottom line. If the stories don't come out, the players carry on doing what they're doing on the field, no matter how black and blue their wives are. That's the problem.

but of course that's how it always is in business CYA for the good of the company. Sad but that's the way our society works (or doesn't) at present.

In comment 13190509 ron mexico said:

Quote:

In comment 13190502 Heisenberg said: Quote: it's also a little like "we better let Josh play or he'll beat the shit out of his wife". That doesn't exactly feel like the right thing to do, either. I dont think so. Its more like we have a remorseful employee who wants to get help. How can we help him do so.

Well, I get that and as an employer, I am sympathetic to that point of view. But here's at least part of what the article says.

Quote:

Remember what started so many of the couple’s fights—worries that they didn’t have enough money. Remember that unemployment is a recognized risk factor in increasing the likelihood of domestic violence. Remember that one leader with the National Network To End Domestic Violence said, “If we would say that the first time your partner calls 911 your career is over, her risk of homicide shoots through the roof.” Remember that Molly Brown is already split up from her husband, and that he needs an income to pay his court-ordered child support. Remember, finally, what Molly Brown told the detective on her case.

If that's not saying "if we fire Josh Brown he might kill his wife" then I don't know what other meaning it might have.

Brown has not been adequately punished or rehabilitated in anyway. That comes first. If that includes getting fired so be it.

My sympathies for Molly and her family, but she neglected the future when she was with him, and can't say that it matters more now. Hard as it will be, she will get through it.

In comment 13190510 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

Quote: ... christian : 12:22 pm : link : reply The NFL has every right to police the conduct of their players - and they should. Every company has the right and obligation to manage the perception of the brand. The problem is not that they discipline their players. It's that their disciplinary decisions are predicated on public outcry and not based on any moral conviction. Ray Rice and Josh Brown are perfect examples of this. Rice decks his girlfriend and the NFL knows it. The result? Two game suspension. But once the video comes out and the fanbase is furious? Boom. He never plays again. It is protecting the brand like you said, but it is not policing conduct. Josh Brown has a similar story arc. That's why people get infuriated by the NFL. Time and time again the come off woefully disingenuous in their fight against domestic violence. Their only concern is what happens to their bottom line. If the stories don't come out, the players carry on doing what they're doing on the field, no matter how black and blue their wives are. That's the problem.

Why does the NFL have an obligation to fight domestic violence? Their only obligation should to their brand and their product.

Mel Gibson beats his wife (for example, he probably does, but for example), Sony Pictures or better yet Disney decides F-him we're done working with Mel Gibson, we can't have that image for our movies. So? Who cares, Disney doesn't need to do anything further to fight domestic violence. Do they? People applaud that decision.

Replace Mel Gibson with Johnny Depp, who really probably did beat his wife, can a studio decide they don't want to work with him without doing anything further to fight domestic violence?

What about Amazon or Google? If one of their high profile execs is charged with DV in a high profile case, can they just let the guy go or do they need to do more to fight domestic violence?

I don't get why the NFL can't simply have a policy of not wanting certain "criminals" and I use quotes since I know technically some of these guys were not found guilty for a variety of reasons without "doing more"

North Carolina does not support LGBT bathroom laws, so many sports institutions and other high profile organizations are removing their events from North Carolina.

Why do you think they do that? Because they can't survive without all the LGBT customers? Or is it because of their image? Is that ok to "just" do that or do they need to do more for the LGBT causes?

You can apply this same line of thinking to practically any issue.

if the situation is alleged and not confirmed?

Quote:

If the Panthers weren't going to suspend Hardy for throwing his girlfriend down on a bed full loaded guns and attack her, I'm pretty glad public opinion intervened

As much as I dislike Hardy, there has never been any confirmation of what happened. No video. No confession. He maintains his innocence. So basically, the league suspended Hardy for allegations they reasonably feel were accurate (fueled by public outcry).

In fact, the whole personal conduct trends we've seen in sports leagues has been pretty much mandated by the public, the outraged entity that demands justice.

I don't think we should cater to angry mobs, especially when they've been seen time and again to take snippets of information and make harsh judgments.

Quote:

Why does the NFL have an obligation to fight domestic violence? Their only obligation should to their brand and their product.

They don't, but then stop pretending like you're doing that ("you" being the NFL).

"Disingenuous was the operative word in my post.

In comment 13190534 WideRight said:

Quote:

Brown has not been adequately punished or rehabilitated in anyway. That comes first. If that includes getting fired so be it. My sympathies for Molly and her family, but she neglected the future when she was with him, and can't say that it matters more now. Hard as it will be, she will get through it.

Wait, the goal is to eradicate domestic violence and we're actually victim-blaming? If we don't actually give a shit about Molly Brown other than vague expressions of "sympathy" why are we animated about DV? So we can preen and pretend to be socially enlightened?

Quote:

The problem is not that they discipline their players. It's that their disciplinary decisions are predicated on public outcry and not based on any moral conviction.

It begins and ends there for me. The NFL to it's very core is utterly full of shit. That's what people hate about them in all of this.

In comment 13190569 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

Quote: Why does the NFL have an obligation to fight domestic violence? Their only obligation should to their brand and their product. They don't, but then stop pretending like you're doing that ("you" being the NFL). "Disingenuous was the operative word in my post.

Are they pretending that? Serious question, has the NFL released any statements about their strategy for eradicating domestic violence.

The No More PSA is the only thing I've seen from the NFL. And again not sure that's about fighting DV as much as it is about their image. They took a real PR hit with their handling of Rice and Hardy.

And sure, Hardy maintains his innocence, he was found guilty and then won on appeal when the victim refused to cooperate AFTER she received a cash payment from Hardy.

And there was photographic evidence, taken when the victim was less cooperative too.

I don't think there's much doubt about what he did.

but like I said before I don't have any issue if the NFL or a team decided either way how to handle Hardy, sign him or not, it's up to them.

In comment 13190597 pjcas18 said:

Quote:

In comment 13190569 Mike in Long Beach said: Quote: Quote: Why does the NFL have an obligation to fight domestic violence? Their only obligation should to their brand and their product. They don't, but then stop pretending like you're doing that ("you" being the NFL). "Disingenuous was the operative word in my post. Are they pretending that? Serious question, has the NFL released any statements about their strategy for eradicating domestic violence. The No More PSA is the only thing I've seen from the NFL. And again not sure that's about fighting DV as much as it is about their image. They took a real PR hit with their handling of Rice and Hardy. And sure, Hardy maintains his innocence, he was found guilty and then won on appeal when the victim refused to cooperate AFTER she received a cash payment from Hardy. And there was photographic evidence, taken when the victim was less cooperative too. I don't think there's much doubt about what he did. but like I said before I don't have any issue if the NFL or a team decided either way how to handle Hardy, sign him or not, it's up to them.

the No More campaign was a pretty big deal.

And you don't think that The No More campaign was intended to make people think that the NFL is doing something about DV? And who knows, maybe it did help on the margins.

was about awareness, but I guess it could be seen as fighting DV too.

I thought it was a good PSA.

What else should they do? That's what I don't get.

My comment is strictly that the NFL can punish how they want and they do not have any obligation moral or legal to do anything more.

and I don't see that as hypocritical, disingenuous, or incongruous with how other image conscious businesses work.

with your distinction between working to eradicate domestic violence and trying to create awareness. The point is that they're presenting themselves as an organization on the front lines working to make things better when, for my money, they most certainly are not.

In comment 13190678 Mike in Long Beach said:

Quote:

with your distinction between working to eradicate domestic violence and trying to create awareness. The point is that they're presenting themselves as an organization on the front lines working to make things better when, for my money, they most certainly are not.

My point is I don't think they're presenting themselves as such nor should they. They're a sports league. They should have their own set of guidelines about how they want to handle image sensitive issues and be allowed to do so as they see fit.

If you don't agree with it or like it don't give them your patronage.

But they have zero responsibility and no action that I have seen billing themselves as on the front line working to make things better - outside of their span of control. Which is tiny.

Quote:

If you don't agree with it or like it don't give them your patronage. But they have zero responsibility and no action that I have seen billing themselves as on the front line working to make things better - outside of their span of control. Which is tiny.

Once again, I am not claiming they actually have a responsibility to fix this problem. I'm saying they are acting as if they are on the front lines, when in fact they wouldn't care at all (as you've noted they are entitled to) if the stories/photos/911 calls were never made public. And my overall main point was that is this dishonest representation of themselves that is a turnoff for football fans.

We can agree to disagree.