The other thread is a dumpster fire. I'm sure this will become one as well, but might as well start with a clean slate. I'll at least try to keep the OP updated with any notable news. Feel free to PM me if I miss anything good.
Arrest warrant and potential charges:
Spoiler!
BREAKING: An arrest warrant has been issued for Kansas City Chiefs wide receiver Rashee Rice in connection to his involvement in a multi-vehicle crash on U.S. 75 in Dallas in late March, sources tell WFAA. https://t.co/XL3F7oCuW1
Originally Posted by :
Rice, 23, now faces eight charges in the case -- six counts of collision involving bodily injury, one count of collision involving serious bodily injury and one count of aggravated assault, according to the arrest warrant. All of the charges are felonies.
Collision involving injury carries a penalty of imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for not more than five years or confinement in the county jail for not more than one year, a fine fine not to exceed $5,000 or both. Collision involving serious bodily injury -- a third-degree felony -- carries a punishment of imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice of not more than 10 years or less than 2 years. Aggravated assault -- a second-degree felony -- is punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
TL;DR, his concern was at a 2, and now it's a 4 (out of 10). Still probably not a huge deal, but there are some concerning possibilities. Overall, though, he thinks it all gets pled down to misdemeanors, he misses a couple of games, and he writes some massive checks to those he injured.
#Chiefs WR Rashee Rice and former SMU CB Theodore Knox are being sued for $1 million by two victims of the March 30 crash in Dallas, Texas, for severe injuries, including 'trauma to the brain, lacerations to the face requiring stitches, multiple contusions about the body,… pic.twitter.com/RlDvilVLi6
#Chiefs Patrick Mahomes said he's worked with Rashee Rice throughout the offseason and will continue to do so while the legal process plays out for Rice..
Originally Posted by RedinTexas:
Allowing players to gamble is a mobster's dream come true. All they need is one guy to lose a little too much and get desperate. They don't even offer the guy money. They offer to forgive all of his debt. All he has to do is shave points in a game for them and he's out of debt.
Henry Hill (Goodfellas fame) was involved in a point-shaving scandal with Boston College men's basketball. Henry said all they have to do is get you to shave points once, and they own you. After that they'll demand you shave points in every single game you play. If you won't play along, they'll let it go public that you participated in a point shaving scandal. So the players go along with it and it just gets worse and worse.
The league knows this is how it works and they'll make an example of anyone that violates the rule. The point is not to get the player to never do it again, but to put the fear of God into all of the other players.
So you're saying Kadarius Toney is debt free? :-):-)
Originally Posted by Rausch:
No, the point is to make you think it never happens. That's not how human nature works though.
You slept with a convict at the prison it was a felony and you picked up a sex crime. That's not one you want.
Didn't stop us from walking out 2 people a month for it. Two a month. And that's just the people that got caught. Of course it happens. Everything happens...
I agree that the NFL wants us to think it never happens, but ultimately, what they want is for it never to happen. So, I would disagree, but only in the order of what it is they want. Good point though. [Reply]
And, I doubt anyone is going to know anytime soon, so my personal take is going to be "sit back, relax, and realize I have absolutely no control over anything going on". What will happen will happen, regardless of my personal feelings/opinions on the matter.
But, that's not going to stop the rampant pronouncements of eminent doom from some and gloating from others.
So, the merry-go-round continues . . .
Originally Posted by Couch-Potato:
So... what's the latest with his suspension? Timeline to decision?
Originally Posted by Kiimo:
I'm quite aware of the reasoning, I wasn't born yesterday. I'm saying it's faulty reasoning and there are plenty of people saying actually, it's pretty freaking disingenuous to be out here promoting DraftKings every chance you get and then acting morally outraged when NFL players make a bet. Again, monitor them. They can't bet on games they're in. Fine. He didn't do that.
I think that whole narrative will have changed in five years and we'll look back at Calvin Ridley's ban as even more of an embarrassment.
Look this is not difficult. There is no hypocrisy or conflict with the NFL promoting DraftKings etc....and banning players from betting. Its freaking common sense and the concept isn't unique.
When any company does some kind of raffle or giveaway, lets say a Radio station for example, employees of the station and their family members are barred from entering the contest? Why? Its clear as to why and nobody bitches about that do they?
The whole narrative is stupid. Oh my God players cant gamble!
So what? If they want to gamble so bad they can stop playing in the NFL. People act like its a constitutional right or something. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Look this is not difficult. There is no hypocrisy or conflict with the NFL promoting DraftKings etc....and banning players from betting. Its freaking common sense and the concept isn't unique.
When any company does some kind of raffle or giveaway, lets say a Radio station for example, employees of the station and their family members are barred from entering the contest? Why? Its clear as to why and nobody bitches about that do they?
The whole narrative is stupid. Oh my God players cant gamble!
So what? If they want to gamble so bad they can stop playing in the NFL. People act like its a constitutional right or something.
It's really amazing how difficult this is for you. Who has a problem with these specific changes? Because changes were alread made we should just have zero restrictions? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Kiimo:
Did I say we should have zero restrictions?
So we agree that there should be restrictions and that just because there's been change "unfailingly" doesn't mean that we should have endless change?
NFL players shouldn't be betting on NFL games. As long as they aren't doing that, zero issue with it, but you can't have that conflict of interest. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Kiimo:
Did I say we should have zero restrictions?
What exceptions should we keep? People were complaining about Calvin Ridley getting suspended for betting on the NFL, should players be able to bet on the NFL? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
What exceptions should we keep? People were complaining about Calvin Ridley getting suspended for betting on the NFL, should players be able to bet on the NFL?
Considering he's the one that brought Ridley up, I'm pretty sure his answer would be yes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Considering he's the one that brought Ridley up, I'm pretty sure his answer would be yes.
Which would be epically dumb and will never happen. Players have too many connections with other players, trainers, coaches etc...around the league to allow it even if not betting on their own team. Its like having insider information.
Not going to happen nor should it. I don't care f they bet on baseball, basketball, whatever but not NFL football and probably not college for the same reasons. [Reply]
I'm leaning to him playing the entire year with this cloud hanging over him. We win our third super bowl and then he gets suspended for the first two games of 2025. [Reply]
