The Ray Rice Elevator Video

I'll find a link shortly, but the gist is that Peter King's report from way back said that part of the reason for Rice's 2-game suspension was because of Janay's impassioned speech on his behalf (during the interview in which he sat next to her).

As it turns out, according to the Jemele Hill interview, uh, yeah, Janay did not defend Ray worth a shit, and it looks like Roger may have invented more bullshit to support his original bullshit suspension against Ray Rice.

EDIT: Includes link to the aforementioned story:

http://deadspin.com/what-happened-when-janay-rice-met-with-the-nfl-in-june-1664407982

 

I don't think that was unique to King's reporting. Everybody was saying that IIRC.

Anyway, any discussion would just re-hash the idea that King is in Goodell's back pocket. Which is not necessary but certainly fun. In honor of Creosote:

 

Agreed. If I remember correctly, King had plenty of company in reporting things that way.

 

OK, perhaps it was not unique to King. Doesn't make it any less despicable when you read the account Janay gave to Jemele Hill. Good God, it was bad enough when we knew the NFL interviewed her as she sat next to Rice. The fact that the media reported her testimony the way they did (King in particular) is absolutely sickening.

 

I need to read Hill's argument. Not that I want to defend Goodell in anything, but I'm not sure I trust what Janay Rice says now, either.

 

Forget Hill. What Janay Rice is saying in this story is far different from what King reported a few months ago. This is the first I've seen of anyone actually talking to Janay, so I'll take her at her word rather than King reporting what the NFL told him.

I get being skeptical, but damn, this is far from the narrative Goodell has tried to sell us on.

 

Oh, it absolutely is. Seems very clear somebody was lying. I just question the honesty and judgement of both parties.

 

How many others "reported" it this way, and how many others simply repeated King's reporting.

Unless a reporter confirmed the report through their own sources, they did no reporting.

 

1. DD's real name isn't some sort of "insider information" that he has "hinted at". He's made it abundantly clear on a number of threads, most especially the "What Makes This Piece Good" series of posts that he started.

The fact that you post so much on this board, yet somehow have missed this, is as clear an indication of your narcissism as anything else.

B. DD might be totally wrong. He admits as much, and as it's a hypothetical, we'll never know the answer. But, he gave his reasons for what he believes, and they were based on his knowledge and observation of the Ravens and of Rice, and his conversations with the Raven's coaching staff and Rice.

This wasn't just the musings of a 13-year-old in his mom's basement.

If you disagree, say so. But to continue to act like you have superior knowledge of the subject -- and that DD has no knowledge of the situation -- is absurd.

Address the reasons he gives. Has the Ravens offensive line play improved over last year? Do they have a better coaching staff, a better offense, and better game plans, that would allow whoever the featured back was to flourish in the system they are running?

Was Rice in poor physical condition last year, and was he coming into the 2014 season in better physical condition?


When this incident first came to light, I was surprised the Ravens fought so hard on Rice's behalf. I figured they'd be relieved to be off the hook for paying a big salary to an aging back, who's numbers were in decline. I though that it was only personal loyalty -- which Rice appeared to have with the owner, GM, and coach -- that were making them fight for him.

But, DD makes a good argument for why they would have wanted him on the field, and would have expected his performance to rebound.

 

Did you just pull a Peter King special with your numbering/lettering sequence?

 

Somebody here -- I forget who now -- did it by accident a while ago. I thought it was funny, and have adopted it as my own.

 

Everyone loves to pick on King, and he's an easy target, but he's only reporting what someone in the room told him.

Also, even if what Janay Rice wrote accurately reflects what she was asked and said at the hearing (and the hearing officer thinks so), it wouldn't surprise me if King's source believed that's what she said. It's an easy way to justify what turned out to be an unpopular decision.