CJ Spillman’s sexual assault investigation will test the Dallas Cowboys and the NFL’s new outlook on the domestic violence policy.
‘Zero tolerance’ is the phrase that the Cowboys and NFL are running with, but can an accusation really get you deactivated?
The bigger question to be asked, is should an accusation of a crime get you deactivated?
The accusations against Spillman comes on a week in which Cowboys coach Jason Garrett told players of the team’s zero-tolerance policy when it comes to domestic violence, according to local media reports.
If a player is involved in a domestic violence case, they won’t play, regardless of due process, The Dallas Morning News reported.
I believe due process should be extended to every athlete accused of any crime. The NFL and other league shouldn’t bench or deactivate a players just because he ‘allegedly’ did something wrong, or has ‘accusations’ placed upon him.
The 49ers are allowing Ray McDonald to continue to play despite his arrest on an accusation of felony domestic violence.
No charges have been filed in the incident involving McDonald. Neither the team nor the league has levied any discipline in the case, and the starter has played the first four games of the season.
Should McDonald be forced to sit at home until the police decide the defensive tackle is guilty. Why has it taken so long to make that determination.
In the investigation levied against Spillman, it should be noted that he hasn’t been charged or arrested for anything, so until more details are known he should be given the benefit of the doubt as well.
Considering how quickly Gloria Allred became involved, you can not rule out this being a set or publicity stunt. Allred was aware of a player being accused of rape yet allowed to play the following day before the league or the media was even aware.
Allred’s presence in the case alone should allow due process to play out. Cowboys head coach Jason Garrett said it best when explaining why Spillman has yet to be deactivated.
“We’ve been very clear with our team about consequences that there will be if there is a situation where charges or arrests are made for a crime. We’ve been clear about that. That doesn’t apply in this particular case.
“You have to be careful with just accusations and allegations in this situation. When someone is officially charged or arrested for something, that’s when it becomes a different situation in our minds. For now, he’s a member of our football team and will take part in everything we do to this point.”
Handing down punishment based simply off of accusations or allegations will set a bad precedent for athletes. A woman or man scorned can use the threat of an allegation to blackmail or sway an athlete into giving them anything they want.
I can only imagine how many NFL, MLB or NBA players could end up being the subjects of extortion based off the fear of someone calling the police on them.
Should CJ Spillman or any other athlete be allowed to do his job while facing accusations? I believe so. CJ Spillman has rights, the same right afforded to the person accusing of him of a deplorable crime.
A conviction should get you suspended or deactivated, not the severity or nature of the crime.
Sports leagues use a combination of factors in determining how to treat accused and convicted players, including Collective Bargaining Agreements that are shaped by years of negotiations between union leaders, commissioners and ownership as well as arbitration rulings.
Despite the bad rap the NFL gets, of the four major leagues – the NBA, NFL, MLB and NHL – the NFL is the only one to have a specific policy on domestic violence, though they have adjusted it completely over the past month.
Yes you can have a defined code of conduct, but you can’t put a definition on accusations and alleged acts.
Since Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher killed Kasandra Perkins and himself, 10 players have been arrested for domestic violence.
Four were cut by their teams including Ray Rice. What happens to the other six who may not have been formally charged or convicted.
Who’s responsible for a player that has his charges dropped, but can’t recoup lost earnings or his reputation. Does the high expectations from various sports leagues mean that being accused of a crime is just the same as committing it?
On the flip side, we understand that the victim or accuser in such cases is likely terrified or afraid of the person who punched, kicked or slapped them.
We understand that a person being too scared to coöperate or press charges still can be deemed victim.
But does that mean that the privilege of playing a professional sport eliminates an athletes right to due process or reasonable doubt?
Should the leagues hand out 2-4 game suspensions just because a player is accused of an act? Athletes who are convicted or reach a plea deal of guilt should be punished accordingly. Such is the Ray Rice case.
An athlete accused of violent acts is going to lose his case in the court of public opinion anyway, that same public opinion shouldn’t dictate inactivity as well.