<p>“How come we are 8 pages in and I haven’t seen the “s” word?
Everyone knows anabolic steroids increase violent behavior energy every bulked body need to be tested
Men hopped up on steroids hit everyone . Unfortunately even their nearest and dearest”</p>
<p>Hey, I was thinking it, can’t you read my mind?</p>
<p>I also am a little bemused by the fact that some seem to think these guys should be completely average, gentle guys. These players are full of testosterone, stress, and yes, probably steroids. They have an incredibly violent job. How do they leave it all on the field? I am actually surprised there haven’t been more incidents. I don’t know why any of this would be a surprise.</p>
<p>@greenwitch, interesting that you thought Goodell looked “smooth as a politician”. I thought he looked incredibly uncomfortable & awkward. </p>
<p>@awc, I think the difference in these recent abuse cases is that:</p>
<p>1) They involved family members. In a date-rape case, there’s the element of the bimboization (can I copyright that word?) of the victim. The Rice case involved his fiance/now wife. The Peterson case involved his son. </p>
<p>2) Mores change. Witness the recent mass embrace of gay-marriage-- yawn…</p>
<p>Maybe not, but it will decrease the amount of fan purchases that would have or could have been made (in instances where jerseys, etc. were pulled from retail stores, both online and physical stores). I think that is the most likely place people will speak with their money.</p>
<p>The surprise for people would be that if they went to their local police station they would find out that the problem, per capita, is bigger in their own neighborhood, towns and cities than in the NFL. But, people rather not find that out for it is easier to grab onto the visible bandwagon. I gather, after this NFL issue subsidies, that the larger abuse issue in people’s neighborhoods and towns will go unchanged and thus very little will actually be done on the issue.</p>
<p>The fans will just replace with something else from the team. Where one sponsor leaves, another will see an opportunity.</p>
<p>There is only one team and do people really think a city is going to turn its back on its sports team and reduce jobs in its own backyard because of what outsiders say? Yeah, right. </p>
<p>Fans are not stupid - they know that the people behind this are not them, but outsiders who never liked the sport to begin with.</p>
<p>“busdriver, if there were real consequences for domestic violence, I bet they’d learn to control themselves a bit better.”</p>
<p>Maybe. But what is particularly special about domestic violence against partners by the NFL? Why should these players, rolling in violence that is their profession, be held to higher standards than anyone else? Why is it worse that they abuse their partners than all the other people who do? Anyone who actually thinks these guys are actually role models is just being silly. The only reason they are getting reamed is because of bad publicity. To quote awcntdb, they have less of an abuse rate than in most peoples neighborhoods.</p>
<p>I always wondered about that. I made sure my kids never saw athletes as role models, but as employees of a team.</p>
<p>If people think the bad publicity and losing one’s job are effective in reducing abuse, then why not make it system-wide and pin up all abusers in people’s neighborhoods for all to see and make sure joe average loses his job too? Dr. X and Lawyer Y are also not good role models in such a situation. If you think there is an abuse problem now, try this approach on the average family where abuse has taken place and see what happens. </p>
<p>My prediction is there will soon be much fewer reports of abuse, even though it will be still happening at the same rate or higher. It is important to think ahead about consequences, as some remedies do more harm than good. </p>
<p>In fact, I bet you that in the NFL tonight wives who get abused or see their kids punished severely are thinking long and hard about calling the cops, else they lose their house and family and livelihood. People are giving women incentives to keep their mouths shut and do not even realize it. </p>
<p>“I always wondered about that. I made sure my kids never saw athletes as role models, but as employees of a team”</p>
<p>Yes, I can’t imagine my kids thinking of any sports figures as role models. </p>
<p>I remember many years ago, my sister was concerned about Brittany Spears doing some silly thing because she was a role model (she had teenage girls). My response was that if her kids thought Brittany Spears was a role model, they had bigger problems than I could address.</p>
<p>“If people think the bad publicity and losing one’s job are effective in reducing abuse, then why not make it system wide and pin up all abusers in people’s neighborhoods for all to see and make sure joe average loses his job too? Dr. X and Lawyer Y are also not good role models in such a situation. If you think there is an abuse problem now, try this approach on the average family where abuse has taken place and see what happens”</p>
<p>I think abuse would get worse. You add financial stress onto a family, and incidences of abuse increase.
It must be true, I read it on the internet.
But it does make sense.</p>
<p>If you punch a random person, what is your punishment?</p>
<p>If you punch your mother, what is your punishment?</p>
<p>If you punch your wife, what is your punishment?</p>
<p>If you punch your kid, what is your punishment?</p>
<p>Are all of these the same or are they different?</p>
<p>I feel that the reason punching your wife is seen as different is because there is an assumption of “Have you stopped beating your wife? Answer yes or no.” A no-win situation. Bringing up every crime against women since Eve.</p>
<p>Yeah, he probably hit her before. But do we know that? Are there any records pointing to that? Is there any proof that he has always been the aggressor, considering that she admitted to spitting on him? What do you do when it appears to be a fight between two people, but one is a lot bigger than the other? Does it matter in every assault case? Is trial by media appropriate for a pro athlete whose job is to be covered by the media?</p>
<p>Is proof of one incident proof of many previous incidents?</p>
<p>I don’t know, should any random person convicted of assault lose their job? Is it legal to fire someone for behavior outside of the workplace? Is someone with a pattern of domestic abuse curable? Or do we lock the door and throw away the key?</p>
<p>I feel like a year suspension is reasonable, along with proof of attending anger management and conflict resolution training courses. I do think that if there is video evidence, immediate suspension is necessary pending legal resolution. I also think that if someone is accused and is suspended without video evidence, they should recoup lost pay if it is found they are innocent.</p>
<p>It’s complicated, rhandco. But I can tell you that if you even hint of any compassion towards the perpetrator, that will be assumed as defending them, and lack of compassion towards the victim. There are plenty of assumptions going on, and nothing but complete vilification will do.</p>
<p>I can say, without a doubt, that it is has cut the amount of football pregame show watching I’ve done. I can’t dive for the fast forward button on the DVR fast enough when Bob Costas starts pontificating…</p>
<p>this is an article geared toward women, titled How to Prevent Date Rape–posted last week on the NFL Player Engagement site</p>
<p>“Be alert to other unconscious messages you may be giving. Men may interpret your behavior differently from what you intended. Often women and men send strong nonverbal signs of willingness to enter a sexual relationship and unintentional signals that might conflict with their words, and thereby contribute to sexual assault. Be aware of signals you send with your posture, clothing, tone of voice, gestures, and eye contact”</p>
<p>wait, what, thereby contribute to sexual assault!! they have a long way to go…wow.</p>
<p>Yes. A moral clause is common in most professional contracts.This moral clause extends outside the workplace, pretty much to the universe. </p>
<p>However, the questions you cite implicitly raise another point I was subtly making - this is a trial by media and thus there is no logic to the outcomes, so do not expect any. </p>
<p>Note that Goodell first did a 2-game suspension, then instituted a 6-game suspension and then a lifetime suspension. This was not the fans asking for this; this is purely media and interest group-driven. The fans and companies were fine with the 2-game suspension. </p>
<p>Same thing happened in Florida today. First a 1/2 game suspension, then the media clamored and now it is full-game suspension. Same for Petersen - first one game, then a week, then indefinite suspension. This is punishment by how loud the media is. A very dumb way to take decisions. </p>
<p>The problem here is the NFL is trying to satisfy big megaphone interest groups. It is what it is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I kind of disagree that it is complicated. There is nothing complicated about letting the teams discipline its employees and the NFL disciplining as well, if it wants. Zero complication there. This is a case of too many cooks calling the shots, as to what is the correct punishment. And these cooks have nothing to do with the NFL, its fans, or the cities that these teams are in - a certain recipe for disaster, as these cooks have no interest in the people they are affecting. </p>
<p>But in fact they are role models to millions of boys and young men. Football is worshipped in our country.</p>
<p>Should NFL players be held to higher standards? No. All men should be held to the standard “Don’t hit women.” The current troubles are calling attention to the issue in a way that, say, a federal judge beating his wife wouldn’t.</p>
<p>@lindz126 The article is a reprint from Auburn University. Blame them. Anyway, why is the NFL advising people on how to avoid date rape? Don’t date football players would probably be a good start. Are they really role models? They are rich public figures. But, no-one thinks they are good examples of much of anything off the field do they? Hmmm.</p>
<p>No, it is not. People are not lost on the fact that abuse happens.</p>
<p>All this is doing is changing the punishment to one, which will cause the financial dissolution of more families. And instead of helping the family unit, this lose-your-job policy is going to hurt the wives and kids more in the end. Hitting your wife and beating your kids will be a lot easier once families realize they lose everything if they report it. It has to lead to this because no one wants to be poor. I do not find that helpful in the least. </p>
<p>This will be no different than the huge gun control push after the Newtown killings. Short-term attention will lead to even more of what the advocates want to avoid. Recall that gun sales went through the roof afterwards (especially in Connecticut where it happened) and are still through the roof. And sales kept climbing as Congress and the president pushed for more gun control. </p>
<p>In this case, the push for such severe punishment, i.e., price of reporting abuse will be so high for the family, there will be less reporting making more abuse easier to get away with. </p>