The Richardson Rule

[Mr. Scot]

In an extremely well-written article, Jourdan Rodrigue suggests the NFL should prohibit non-disclosure agreements within their organization, and name that prohibition after Jerry Richardson.
 

Quote

The sound of silence has a name.

It is synonymous with shame, and the Carolina Panthers know it. Apparently, they've known it for a while.

And now we know it, too, because of the fourth and final item in a series of findings in the investigation into former Panthers owner and founder Jerry Richardson, released by the NFL on Thursday afternoon:

Failure to report doesn't mean "failure to see."

It means failure to speak. Failure to address an apparent wrong.

 

Quote

The investigation found that not only were the initial allegations of workplace sexual and racial misconduct against Richardson substantiated and other "similar matters that have not been the subject of public discussion" found, all of this also went unreported by the organization.

Where are the voices? Who in that building could have stopped this, if they knew about it?

Who in that building could have broken the silence?

 

Quote

Investigator Mary Jo White recommended to the NFL after sharing her findings that nondisclosure agreements that ultimately keep employees from reporting violations of the personal conduct policy, or any abuse by another league employee, be prohibited.

The league could offer no assistance to those alleged victims of Richardson who wished to break the nondisclosure agreements to help with the investigation, prompting one alleged victim to write in Sports Illustrated in April that the investigation was "a farce."

If real structural change that makes a workplace safer is desired by the Panthers and the NFL, they should listen to White's recommendation.

 

Quote

Nondisclosure agreements silence victims and reinforce the power of the abuser, especially if that abuser has substantial means.

They can seem like a way out of a harmful situation for a victim, but ultimately they perpetuate the ability of an abuser to keep hurting others without repercussions.

The abuse can only be stopped by serious punishment.

Sadly, the NFL's penalty for Richardson does not qualify. A $2.75 million fine levied against a man who just sold the team for $2.275 billion is nothing.

 

Quote

It won't lessen the looming shadow of Richardson's statue outside Bank of America Stadium, which the alleged victim in April's report said makes her "feel violated all over again" when she sees it.

It won't take back the suggestive notes she says Richardson wrote to her.

It won't produce the darker secrets that still hide in the silence, ones we might never know unless the league takes retroactive action to dissolve existing nondisclosure agreements.

And that fine won't crumble the systemic power that turned every head, closed every mouth as the abusive behavior continued.

 

Quote

But there is an opportunity for the NFL to make a difference. Prohibiting nondisclosure agreements between league employees is a start.

The monetary equivalent to a slap on the wrist won't do much to stall a legacy that has plowed forward, collected its billions, gotten shoulder pats, "tearful embraces" and sympathy from the commissioner and other NFL owners, and moved on without a word of public apology or repentance.

But a name is a tangible, lasting thing.

This policy can serve as an antithesis to the legacy of the man whose shame inspired it. It can personify a culture of silence, toxic and thick, and in speaking it, be a reminder of why we must break the silence to do what is right.

It needs a name that can serve as a reminder of what harm can come if we don't.

The Richardson Rule.

A policy to end the toxic silence that protected Jerry Richardson

[MountainHeel66]

Bullshit.

There are so many incidents every year of players, and really anyone that holds any amount of celebrity status, getting hit up for money by accusers it would make most people’s heads spin. NDA’s and payoffs happen constantly in the NFL and the majority of the time it’s guys just paying to make people go away even though they did nothing wrong. They do it for reasons that should be painfully obvious in today’s society, even the mere appearance of impropriety or an accusation is enough to destroy a man’s entire career. It’s also far cheaper to make payouts than to pay legal fees and likely end up having to come to an agreement where they pay anyways except now the world and media are involved as well as the lawyers.

Hell, just take Jameis Winston’s recent case as an example. There is no proof, no evidence, no real case outside of a he said/she said, but Jameis is now one step away from potentially losing his entire career and everyone is vilifying him. I think the guy is probably a scum bag and at the very least he is an absolute MORON, but truth be told, there is no proof anywhere outside of constant accusations being made against him. 

What if someone wanted to come out and accuse Luke or Cam of sexual assault tomorrow just to pry money from them. We would all like to think they could fight it but do they really want the accusations in the media and the distractions during the season?? Or would they rather just be able to make it go away and shut up an annoyance!? 

 

Who is going to blame the women, and probably some men, for taking payouts and being totally willing to sign NDA’s when they claim that they’ve been assaulted, raped or otherwise tormented. If they are truly worried about others why aren’t they going to the cops or making issues public? Why are they cool letting it happen to others for a few bucks of compensation?? What about the number of fake accusations and punishment for those individuals??  You want to make some social justice stance over what Jerry did but this sword cuts in many directions and it’s not as black and white as most want to think it is. 

 

You either have to protect all parties involved or you have to leave it be and understand that it’s just a necessary evil. End of story.

[Mr. Scot]

14 minutes ago, MountainHeel66 said:

Bullshit.

There are so many incidents every year of players, and really anyone that holds any amount of celebrity status, getting hit up for money by accusers it would make most people’s heads spin. NDA’s and payoffs happen constantly in the NFL and the majority of the time it’s guys just paying to make people go away even though they did nothing wrong. They do it for reasons that should be painfully obvious in today’s society, even the mere appearance of impropriety or an accusation is enough to destroy a man’s entire career. It’s also far cheaper to make payouts than to pay legal fees and likely end up having to come to an agreement where they pay anyways except now the world and media are involved as well as the lawyers.

Hell, just take Jameis Winston’s recent case as an example. There is no proof, no evidence, no real case outside of a he said/she said, but Jameis is now one step away from potentially losing his entire career and everyone is vilifying him. I think the guy is probably a scum bag and at the very least he is an absolute MORON, but truth be told, there is no proof anywhere outside of constant accusations being made against him. 

What if someone wanted to come out and accuse Luke or Cam of sexual assault tomorrow just to pry money from them. We would all like to think they could fight it but do they really want the accusations in the media and the distractions during the season?? Or would they rather just be able to make it go away and shut up an annoyance!?

Who is going to blame the women, and probably some men, for taking payouts and being totally willing to sign NDA’s when they claim that they’ve been assaulted, raped or otherwise tormented. If they are truly worried about others why aren’t they going to the cops or making issues public? Why are they cool letting it happen to others for a few bucks of compensation?? What about the number of fake accusations and punishment for those individuals??  You want to make some social justice stance over what Jerry did but this sword cuts in many directions and it’s not as black and white as most want to think it is.

You either have to protect all parties involved or you have to leave it be and understand that it’s just a necessary evil. End of story.

Not that simple.

First off, I don't buy the idea that there are people getting paid off for phony stories left and right, especially not today when there's a higher awareness of this sort of thing thanks to incidents like the DUke LaCrosse case.  But for any that do arise, I'm pretty sure the NFL has the means to investigate fake accusations.

But more to the point, Richardson was thoroughly investigated and the evidence says he did it.  Had just one prior person been able to tell their story, maybe it would have stopped there.  Rodrigue is right that NDAs protect abusers and allow them to continue victimizing others.  Richardson himself is proof of that.

As to the whole "hey, just go to the police" argument, yeah a lot of women have tried that.  It's not easy to get a conviction or a judgement against even a common rapist, so imagine what it's like for an average person to go up against someone like Jerry Richardson?  Think the system is gonna be fair and even handed on that front?  Think again. Better still, talk to someone who's been a victim.  They'll tell you it's not so black and white as you're thinking.

And Winston?  Please

[t96]

Scot move on Jesus Christ dude.

[MountainHeel66]

I gave Winston as a RECENT example and said he was a scum bag. I can’t find it, nor do I have the time to do a deep search, but I read an article years ago written by a former player that talked about how teams have departments dedicated to getting in front of accusations and that they receive them about players on a near daily basis. That there are times players have issues handled for them and don’t even know it because other people handle it.

 

Also, none of the people that Jerry accosted HAD TO sign an NDA. No one put a gun to their head, they CHOSE to sign it rather than taking it directly to the NFL. That’s not an abuser being protected. That is just as much an accuser taking a bribe and looking out for themselves and no one else. You think in this day and age it is hard for someone to come out as a abuse victim?? My god the media is dying for excuses to go after people for these sorts of actions.  

And I do know victims. And they have made their own decisions on whether to come out or to push forward with their lives. But virtually all agree that bs claims hurt everyone and that people who get abused and take money for their silence contribute to the problem as much as the abusers. 

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, MountainHeel66 said:

I gave Winston as a RECENT example and said he was a scum bag. I can’t find it, nor do I have the time to do a deep search, but I read an article years ago written by a former player that talked about how teams have departments dedicated to getting in front of accusations and that they receive them about players on a near daily basis. That there are times players have issues handled for them and don’t even know it because other people handle it.

Also, none of the people that Jerry accosted HAD TO sign an NDA. No one put a gun to their head, they CHOSE to sign it rather than taking it directly to the NFL. That’s not an abuser being protected. That is just as much an accuser taking a bribe and looking out for themselves and no one else. You think in this day and age it is hard for someone to come out as a abuse victim?? My god the media is dying for excuses to go after people for these sorts of actions.  

And I do know victims. And they have made their own decisions on whether to come out or to push forward with their lives. But virtually all agree that bs claims hurt everyone and that people who get abused and take money for their silence contribute to the problem as much as the abusers. 

This was not a BS claim.  And there are plenty of other non-BS claims that come out.

And yes, even in this day and age it's still hard to go up against a powerful abuser.  Ask the people who spent years trying to get someone to listen to claims about Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and others.

Yes, BS claims hurt real victims.  So do agreements that protect abusers.

[Mr. Scot]

9 minutes ago, t96 said:

Scot move on Jesus Christ dude.

I realize you don't want there to be any acknowledgement of what Jerry Richardson did, but it's a little late for that.  The whole world knows now.

He wasn't falsely accused.  What he did was indeed a big deal.  And thankfully for all involved, he's going away.

[t96]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

 he's going away.

Not if you keep talking about him... You've started dozens of JR threads this offseason. I have posted exactly zero.

[LinvilleGorge]

Sexual assault is already illegal under the rule of law not just an NFL rule, so I’m sure taking the unnecessary and redundant step of making an NFL rule against NDAs will fix everything, right?

NDAs by their very nature are extremely difficult to ever discover if the signed parties don’t want it to be discovered. This would be nothing but a PR move.

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, t96 said:

Not if you keep talking about him... You've started dozens of JR threads this offseason. I have posted exactly zero.

Just for the heck of it, I did a quick browse of my content going back to late March (my last hundred threads to be specific) and found only four that were about Jerry Richardson.  Of those, they were generally about the team sale, which is the only thing I've started a large number of threads on.

Shall we go back and look at how many posts you've written trying to deny that Richardson was guilty of anything?  Seeing as you have, in fact, been one of his most staunch defenders.

And yes, given that the Richardson era is nearing its end, that he has been prominently in the news for the past 48 hours, that he was fined more than anyone in the history of the NFL (far exceeding even the Patriots fines) and that we're finally about to get some closure on the story, yes it's a valid topic.

Don't like it?  Don't click it.  But if you're going to keep trying to deflect attention from Richardson's guilt, don't get shocked if you're called on it. 

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Sexual assault is already illegal under the rule of law not just an NFL rule, so I’m sure taking the unnecessary and redundant step of making an NFL rule against NDAs will fix everything, right?

NDAs by their very nature are extremely difficult to ever discover if the signed parties don’t want it to be discovered. This would be nothing but a PR move.

Even good ideas don't "fix everything".

As to the topic, it's complicated.  NDAs by nature unfortunately do serve to protect abusers and allow them to continue, but would more victims actually come forward if the NDA was banned or would it simply remove an option for victims to get some form of closure (even a very imperfect one).

Rodrigue makes a pretty compelling case, but this is one of those issues where no easy solutions exist.

Me?  I'm torn.

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Even good ideas don't "fix everything".

As to the topic, it's complicated.  NDAs by nature unfortunately do serve to protect abusers and allow them to continue, but would more victims actually come forward if the NDA was banned or would it simply remove an option for victims to get some form of closure (even a very imperfect one).

Rodrigue makes a pretty compelling case, but this is one of those issues where no easy solutions exist.

Me?  I'm torn.

My point is that NDAs are handled behind closed doors in private. The point is for none of that stuff to ever come to light, including the NDA itself. Banning them would do nothing since they’re already hush hush agreements. People trying to avoid public embarrassment, punishment, and/or possibly criminal charges will still be willing to offer payment for silence and people willing to accept such payments will still sign the papers. People who have put themselves in a position to feel the need to offer an NDA already don’t have much to lose so at the end nd of the day I fully expect that this rule would truly change absolutely nothing at the end of the day. The rule would just be symbolic and I’m not much of a fan of making rules just for symbolic purposes. 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, LinvilleGorge said:

My point is that NDAs are handled behind closed doors in private. The point is for none of that stuff to ever come to light, including the NDA itself. Banning them would do nothing since they’re already hush hush agreements. People trying to avoid public embarrassment, punishment, and/or possibly criminal charges will still be willing to offer payment for silence and people willing to accept such payments will still sign the papers. People who have put themselves in a position to feel the need to offer an NDA already don’t have much to lose so at the end of the day I fully expect that this rule would truly change absolutely nothing at the end of the day. The rule would just be symbolic and I’m not much of a fan of making rules just for symbolic purposes. 

Worth remembering that there are already current rules regulating NDAs, specifically that they're supposed to be reported to the NFL.  The Panthers, and more specifically team counsel Richard Thigpen, broke that rule and could still technically be subject to punishment for it (though I think it's more likely Thigpen and anyone else working in that office get s--tcanned and it stops there).

Had the team reported those agreements, would this have ended differently?  Unknown.  You could probably make a good argument for it.  Unfortunately for all involved, Thigpen was more loyal to Richardson than he was to the rules.

For me, I know if anyone hurt my daughter I'd want to rip their throat out.  Barring that, seeing them nailed to the wall by the law would be the next best option, but we all know that doesn't always happen.

What I think this is most directly a reaction to is the fact that we live in a country where powerful men are used to getting away with things and victims all too frequently get shafted twice, once by their abuser and once by the law.  That really sucks, but it's not an easy thing to fix.

[Cookie Lyon]

2 hours ago, Carolina-Chuck10 said:

Did not read on single word

That's because you're illiterate.