In sports, like in politics, people have their favorite teams. In sports, like in politics, people will apply double standards and embrace hypocrisies, all in the name of circling the wagons around their biases and rooting interests.
That’s absolutely happening in the Rashee Rice case.
Fans of the Chiefs are quick to attack the notion that Rice and the Chiefs have received favorable treatment from the league office via the delayed resolution of his Personal Conduct Policy case. And those same people would be saying something very different if Rice played for another team.
But here’s the basic reality. Rice engaged in a dangerous street race in late March of 2024. The incident was captured on video. In the months since then, the handling of Rice has seemed odd, to say the least.
Various media members have asked, for months, why the league hadn’t done anything. The reason is clear. The NFL’s standard practice is to wait for the resolution of the underlying criminal case before imposing discipline under the Personal Conduct Policy.
Here, Rice was charged with eight felonies. He was not placed on paid leave. That part is easily explained, too; the NFL, despite having the express ability to place a player charged with only one felony on paid leave, typically uses this P.R. tool only when the charge relates to domestic violence.
The situation changed after Rice pleaded guilty to two felonies, resulting in 30 days of jail time (which can be served at any point over the next five years) and five years of probation. The guilty plea was entered on July 17. The next step was to evaluate his case for discipline under the Personal Conduct Policy.
At least one reporter employed by the media outlet of which the NFL will eventually acquire a 10-percent stake has suggested there’s nothing to see here. The league and Rice’s representatives tried to work out an agreed suspension. After they reached an impasse, it was time to schedule a hearing. The disciplinary officer under the Personal Conduct Policy, retired judge Sue L. Robinson, wasn’t available until September 30.
As a result, Rice will be eligible to play until the hearing is held, the punishment is decided, and any appeal (by the NFL and/or by Rice) to the Commissioner or his designee is resolved.
And what of the apples-to-apples comparison to Vikings receiver Jordan Addison, who pleaded guilty on the same day to a misdemeanor with no jail time? He has already been suspended for the first three games of the regular season.
Obviously, his suspension arose under a different policy. He didn’t fight it. It was automatic: Three games for a guilty plea in any case that involves a DUI charge. The procedure under the Personal Conduct Policy takes more time to unfold, especially when the proposed punishment is contested by the player, his representation, and the NFL Players Association.
But there was no reason to delay the process. Although I do not (and never will) believe that the league consciously rigs games for the Chiefs, it’s impossible to rule out a partial erosion of the supposed firewall between the “integrity of the game” and the NFL’s business objectives. The Chiefs quite possibly get more “jump balls” than other teams, either through the exercise of in-game discretion by officials who are aware of the ratings muscle of the Chiefs or, in this case, from the urgency (or lack thereof) displayed by the bureaucrats responsible for the implementation of the league’s in-house justice system.
Just as the league’s standard practice is to delay imposing discipline until the criminal charges have been resolved, the league has a standard practice of finalizing potential suspensions before the start of a given season. As to Rice, the NFL has deviated from that standard practice.
Other teams are looking at the handling of Rice and wondering why the deviation has happened. Why wasn’t the league ready to mobilize immediately upon Rice pleading guilty to multiple felonies? Why didn’t the league insist on the scheduling of a hearing in, for example, early August, so that the case would have been resolved before Week 1?
The league has a well-earned reputation, in matters of player discipline, of getting what it wants, when it wants it. In this case, the league undoubtedly didn’t say, “Let’s slow this down so that Rice is available to the Chiefs for an early-season slate that features six straight games on big platforms.” But the popularity of the Chiefs combined with their presence on YouTube in Week 1, the Fox national 4:25 p.m. ET game in Week 2, NBC in Week 3, the CBS national 4:25 p.m. ET game in Week 4, ABC/ESPN in Week 5, and NBC in Week 6 may have influenced, consciously or not, the failure to insist on the standard practice of finalizing all pending suspensions before the regular-season starts.
That easily could have happened. This case doesn’t require a detailed presentation of evidence. Play the video of the street race and the ensuing crash. Introduce medical records regarding the injuries suffered by the people in other cars. Determine an appropriate punishment. Appeal the decision.
It could have been done by Week 1, if it had been prioritized by those responsible for doing so. It wasn’t.
And that’s the problem. At a time when the tinfoil-hat crowd is looking for evidence to legitimize the misguided conspiracy theories, the NFL tossed a raw steak into the cage.
If anything, the unfounded perception that the league deliberately favors the Chiefs should have compelled the league to ensure that Rice’s case was resolved ASAFP.
And it doesn’t matter, as some have suggested, whether the Chiefs would prefer to have Rice for those early-season games, or whether they’d like to have him serve his suspension and return without the reality of a future absence hanging over the team. The league knows the schedule. Six games, on major platforms. The Chiefs will be at full strength for at least four, if not five. (And, if there’s an appeal, definitely all six.)
That’s the heart of the concern. By not insisting that a clear, undeniable violation of the Personal Conduct Policy that happened in plain sight nearly 17 months ago resulted in a suspension commencing as of Week 1, the league has allowed skeptics (including people employed by other teams) to wonder why the league has departed from its standard practice.
Standard practice. It was followed regarding the decision not to punish Rice until he entered a guilty plea. It was followed regarding the decision not to put him on paid leave. It was not followed regarding the decision to let the disciplinary case linger into the regular season.
The overriding point is this. The league ordinarily gets these cases resolved before the season starts. By not doing it as to Rice, the league has given people a reason to say, “That’s peculiar.”
Look at it this way. If the league had announced Rice’s suspension on Thursday, no one could have raised a credible question about it. It’s standard practice to resolve these suspensions before Week 1. The fact that the incident happened nearly a year and a half ago would have made it even more appropriate for the situation to be resolved before the Chiefs face the Chargers three weeks from tonight in Brazil.
The fact that it wasn’t is odd, because it represents a deviation from standard practice. Which necessarily creates bad optics for the league.
