Have a legal question? Better call Stri.
And, sports these days are full of legal questions. It’s a good thing we now have one of the best legal minds on the payroll here at BSB. So, here’s the first installment of “Better Call Stri,” where try and get some insight into the legal rationale of some of these crazy off-the-field sports stories that seem to be coming up at a ridiculous rate these days (I “blame” social media and the 24-hour news cycle, but we can blame them for everything, right?)
Anyway, this whole Ray Rice thing has been run into the ground, so I will save any soapboxing or pointless self-aggrandizing comments like “where I come from, we don’t hit our women” or “my parents raised me to treat all people with respect.” Those serve no purpose in useful conversations other than to waste time with the obvious.
No, what I am fascinated by – and want to get Stri’s legal opinion on – is just how could the most powerful sports league in the nation (if not the world) screw this up so badly?
To me, there are two key aspects of this story – (1) why did Goodell come down on Rice so lightly in the first place, and (2) why is he now claiming not to have seen the tape?
So, counselor, mind if we start with the second one first because this is the part that I honestly cannot even wrap my head around?
First, let us establish some givens before we embark here. One, let us assume that Roger Goodell – for whatever you think of him – is a highly intelligent man or, at the VERY least is surrounded by highly intelligent people. Two, let us also assume that his $44 million annual salary does actually ensure that everything he does is keeping the best interests of the league (and by “league,” I simply mean its 32 owners) paramount. So, why would he say he didn’t see the tape?
Can we first dismiss out of hand that he saw it and is now lying about it? That would be inanely stupid, and if that is the case, then it is not worth talking about anything else because we are just dealing with flat stupidity. There is no way he would think he could get away with a bald-faced lie of that caliber.
So, now we are working under the assumption that he actually did not see a tape of which he admits to having knowledge at the time of his ill-fated decision to suspend Rice for 2 games. Why didn’t he see the tape? Are we really to believe that he – and all the power/money that his league wields – was simply unable to get his hands on it? We know that the casino had it. We know that the police had it. We know that Rice (or, at least his lawyers) had it. And, we know that it only took TMZ less than a month to get it. So, can we really believe that they COULD NOT get it? At the very least, they could have said to Rice, “you are suspended until you show us the tape and then we will decide on when to reinstate you.”
So, the only next logical step is that they CHOSE not to view the tape. This is the part that I really need some input here, Stri. Why would they choose not to see it? They know it is out there. They probably know that it is going to come out. And, they know that their level of punishment will be – fairly or unfairly – judged based almost exclusively on the level of emotional reaction that this tape will stir up in the general public. So, why not?
The only logical conclusion I can come up with here is plausible deniability. Am I right here, counselor? Did Goodell decide that he wanted plausible deniability about the contents of the tape before taking action on the suspension. And, if so, why?
That “why” is the perfect segue into the first question posed at the beginning here – Why did Goodell come down so lightly on Ray Rice in the first place – tape or no tape? Why did the guy who has legitimately earned a reputation of unwavering commitment to “law and order,” to the point of nearly alienating his entire labor force, now come down so SOFT on a player?!? Who is Ray Rice and why is Goodell picking Rice as the one for whom he risks it all? Why is he so hellbent on giving Rice a punishment that is, AT BEST, on the LIGHTEST possible side of defensible and, at worst, a conscious slap in the face to all those affected and/or appalled by domestic violence in any form? Why is this so important to him to let Rice off easy that he had to go out of his way to attain plausible deniability of a potential “smoking gun?”
Stri, any ideas?
Did they think that they could get away with letting the facts come out, weighing public opinion, and then thinking they could just alter their course to maintain alignment with public sentiment? The “new” policy on domestic violence may be evidence of this way of thinking – along with the indefinite suspension of Rice after the tape riled up such an incredible reaction.
Did Goodell, a strong family man, just get swayed by the pleadings of a victim – a wife – to not be punished more by taking away her livelihood? Did he believe that her husband had never done it before and would certainly never do it again. Or, did he just find a soft spot for a “first-time offender,” who was, by all accounts, a pillar in the community (which seemed definitely to be true to me, living here during his entire career) and his pleading wife? Was this punishment just a lenient judgment from a bleeding-hearted family man? While it sound unlikely that this is the case, I guess it is not out of the realm of possibility that Goodell simply felt bad that this happened, saw it as a heat-of-the-moment mistake by an otherwise good man. BUT… even if Goodell was swayed by the soon-to-be Mrs. Rice and her “first-time-offender” of a husband, doesn’t he have advisors? Isn’t he surrounded be a swath of people whose only job is to “protect the shield,” particularly from negative publicity? Where were they?
Or, maybe we should get all “conspiracy theory” here and say that this all had to do with Jim Irsay. Maybe Goodell wanted to go light on Irsay, but did not want to risk total mutiny by continuing to levy harsh penalties to players, while not doing the same to those who pay his salary? So, he let Rice of light, thought it would blow over before he gave Irsay a slightly harsher punishment (though much lighter than he probably deserves), and that’s that.
Or, is it something else that I have not even thought of?
Either way, there is not a reason that I can think of that could possibly explain the fact that this very savvy and experienced public leader broke the ultimate tenets of restoring and retaining public image: (a) get out in front of a controversy and, going hand-in-hand with that, (b) always make sure that you have ALL the information. Right? What am I missing here, esteemed gentleman of the law?
