Statement from the Panthers

[Anybodyhome]

A regular suspension forbids a guy from even being around the team.

Hardy wasn't prohibited from being on the facilities or even being at games to cheer teammates on.

He just didn't come around.

 

And your point is what?

 

Do you actually know:

1. Did someone with the team ask him not to be present?

2. Did his agent tell him he shouldn't be present?

3. Did the NFLPA tell him he shouldn't be around?

 

If not, you're assuming quite a bit. Not to mention it's fairly common practice for players to work out on their own unless they're required to be at team facilities.

[t96]

A regular suspension forbids a guy from even being around the team.

Hardy wasn't prohibited from being on the facilities or even being at games to cheer teammates on.

He just didn't come around.

 

He could be at the facilities but couldn't practice with the team or participate in any workout and he could not be at games on the sideline. Same as Gordon when he was suspended this year.

[Mr. Scot]

You have to prove his conduct was detrimental.

Their defense can't just be " he dated a crazy woman"

'Conduct detrimental' can be a really flexible phrase.

I'm sure the commissioner and owners are salivating at the opportunity for the NFLPA to take the NFL to court in defense of a guy accused of domestic violence who settled out-of-court with the alleged victim.

Commish/Owners: "See! See! We're serious about this stuff and its obvious that the union and the players are not!"

Throw up the soft ball and hit it out of the park.

I get what you mean, but didn't they already stand with Ray Rice?

[top dawg]

I took a year of law school and actually got a B in criminal law, but I would love to hear from a criminal attorney at this point.

 

Criminally, I don't think that the league has a case to stand on in reference to any further action.  Now if the civil part is indeed true regarding a settlement, then perhaps that could be grounds for conduct detrimental to the league.  I don't know.  In any event, I still believe that even the civil matter would be a slippery slope for the league to base any appreciable suspension.

 

Hardy is actually in a good spot from the legal and financial standpoint in regards to the league.  Of course he won't be getting any endorsements, but with his earning power, that will hardly preclude him from becoming more of a multimillionaire than he already is.

[tiger7_88]

Not allowing him to play while having fulfilled his obligation on conduct would be discrimination.

NFL trying to pry out info that is a sealed judicial document is a violation of rights

 

Wrong.

 

The NFL is a business and as a business has a right to protect its image.

 

They can't FORCE Hardy and his lawyers to reveal the terms of any settlement, that is true.

 

But they can use their power to prevent him from being part of the league until he reveals all the facts of the case he was involved him.  That settlement is the one document that would reveal the facts of the case as AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES.

[Gin and Juice]

Oh absolutely.

And like any other employer whose employment decision depends on background information, the NFL can tell Hardy and his lawyers to reveal to them the terms of that settlement or Mr. Hardy has the right to become unemployed.

No they can't! You can make a physical part of employment, a background check, or drug test. If nothing comes up on background check then they can't ask you about it. If physical misses a problem, then they can't ask you about it. If you pass the drug test, they can't demand you confess to being dirty, even if you are

[Gin and Juice]

Wrong.

The NFL is a business and as a business has a right to protect its image.

They can't FORCE Hardy and his lawyers to reveal the terms of any settlement, that is true.

But they can use their power to prevent him from being part of the league until he reveals all the facts of the case he was involved him. That settlement is the one document that would reveal the facts of the case as AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES.

That then becomes discrimination

[Mr. Scot]

And your point is what?

Do you actually know:

1. Did someone with the team ask him not to be present?

2. Did his agent tell him he shouldn't be present?

3. Did the NFLPA tell him he shouldn't be around?

If not, you're assuming quite a bit. Not to mention it's fairly common practice for players to work out on their own unless they're required to be at team facilities.

Rivera made it pretty clear he'd be happy to have him around.

And per the terms of the Exempt list, he NFL didn't have the right to tell him not to come around.

[Anybodyhome]

Oh absolutely.

 

And like any other employer whose employment decision depends on background information, the NFL can tell Hardy and his lawyers to reveal to them the terms of that settlement or Mr. Hardy has the right to become unemployed.

 

Hardly.

 

If there was a settlement, more often than not the terms of civil settlements in cases like this are sealed at the request of both parties and the NFL can threaten all they want, at the end of the day they won't get the info unless both parties then go back and petition the same court that sealed the case to unseal it and the judge agrees to it.

 

[Gin and Juice]

Wrong.

The NFL is a business and as a business has a right to protect its image.

They can't FORCE Hardy and his lawyers to reveal the terms of any settlement, that is true.

But they can use their power to prevent him from being part of the league until he reveals all the facts of the case he was involved him. That settlement is the one document that would reveal the facts of the case as AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES.

That then becomes discrimination

[Mr. Scot]

That then becomes discrimination

Only if you can find a constitutional right to play in the NFL somewhere in the Bill of Rights.

Feel free to check, but I'm pretty sure it's not there.

[Anybodyhome]

Rivera made it pretty clear he'd be happy to have him around.

And per the terms of the Exempt list, he NFL didn't have the right to tell him not to come around.

 

So, the head coach gets to call shots like this?

Ask Gettleman, Richardson, Danny Morrison?

I never mentioned the NFL, I mentioned the NFLPA, his agent and representatives of the team as possible parties who thought it might be better if he stayed away.

 

[Gin and Juice]

The NFL is not above the law!

Now, if you do something that can be proven and tarnishes the NFL brand, they can take action whether illegal or legal

[top dawg]

Wrong.

 

The NFL is a business and as a business has a right to protect its image.

 

They can't FORCE Hardy and his lawyers to reveal the terms of any settlement, that is true.

 

But they can use their power to prevent him from being part of the league until he reveals all the facts of the case he was involved him.  That settlement is the one document that would reveal the facts of the case as AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES.

 

It's sealed for a reason, and the NFL can't compel him to reveal anything.  That would be a violation of his rights, and would most certainly open the NFL up to a major lawsuit.