You just made an enemy out of Steve Smith. Except by Steve Smith's default settings he was already your enemy, so based on the rule of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" he's actually a pretty good pal of yours now. Glaze up, son.

How many players read sites like Deadspin and KissingSuzyKolber, and does Jeff Baca know that he was once described as someone who "looks like a Christmas ham that wished he could be a real boy"?

The way he gently paws at Marshall at 0:21 just cracks me up. Jay Cutler really *is* a cat.

And if you do choose to read them, you might consider this as an accompanying soundtrack (link is to the first one; my friend Jack made a whole series of them and they are magnificent):

Listen, last month you overhauled your entire comment system to prevent people from posting stomach-churning images of overweight whores shoveling a bunch of diarrhea into their mouths, and now you're doing it yourselves? Make up your mind!

I wouldn't be surprised if it was only 2 games *because* Rice was so forthcoming and apologetic. Goodell loves nothing more than to exert his authority; having a player bow and scrape for forgiveness probably sat very well with him. He punishes defiance more than he punishes actual actions. And as far as the Ravens…

Fans at tonight's game can trade their Ray Rice jerseys for any other player's.

Bottom line is that Goodell is a fucking liar. He saw the tape, made his judgment, and then when the rest of the world saw the tape, Goodell started trying to figure out a way to assert that he *couldn't* have seen the tape. I wouldn't be surprised if next thing they say is that their office *did* have the tape, but…

Sure, but why didn't the league say so at the time? They took a LOT of heat for the two game suspension and it was widely reported that they came to that conclusion AFTER seeing the tape. If they hadn't, they should have identified it as incorrect reporting when it happened, not three months after the fact.

Here's a question, and maybe a lurking lawyer here can answer it - if Rice or the union sues the NFL, can the materials from the NFL's investigation into the incident be obtained as part of discovery? I.e. proof as to whether or not they had seen (or at the very least, were aware of the contents of) the video?

For me, it all comes down to the fact that it was reported in July that they had seen the video, and they said NOTHING. If they hadn't seen it, they should have issued a denial then.

WHY DIDN'T YOU DENY SEEING THE TAPE IN JULY WHEN IT WAS REPORTED THAT YOU HAD, IN FACT, USED THE TAPE AS THE BASIS FOR YOUR DECISION?

The one question I wished they had asked is "at the time the two game suspension was handed out, if you hadn't seen the video, then why didn't you deny reports that you had seen the video?"

That's not how it works at all - it just asks for your email address (and you can even include a few wildcards into that if you're worried about being harvested). It never asks for your password.

More likely they just keep a record of when it was changed, not what it actually was (which they shouldn't be storing as plaintext anyway; they should just be storing the salt + hash)

Good point, that's true.

Please don't think I'm taking the NFL's side here - I'm just saying that prior to the release of the videotape, it was possible to believe (especially given how Janay Palmer responded) that "it wasn't as bad as it looked." But now we all know that it really *was* as bad as it looked.

FUCK and YEAH.

Or what if he only hit her hard enough for her to lose her balance (imagine she was waring heels) and hitting her head on the railing was why she got knocked out. It's plausible, and if they both put forward a story like that, credible.

Given how much attention this got at the time Rice was first suspended, why the fuck didn't the league deny initial reports that they had seen the video?