jabroni, he's already been found guilty in a court of law nearly 2 months ago.

http://espn.go.com/...-counts-domestic-violence

while your statement that the legal process isn't done with hardy is technically sorta correct, your next line that 'suspend people before they are found guilty' is completely retarded.

the point that i was trying to make is that there will be many many questions that'll need to be answered in regards to suspensions in the NFL. mike and mike were talking about it this morning. they mentioned that the idea that folks could be fired/suspended just upon the accusation of another person is crazy and the basis of innocent until proven guilty is one the main tenets of what our country is built upon. but they couldn't understand why hardy was still playing, he's already had his day in court. they also admitted that if one of them (M&M) were to be accused of 'insert crime here', they'd very likely be suspended until the thing gets resolved. there's a big difference between criminal matters and the law and employer/employee relations.

i understand you're a panthers fan, and i think that it's making you biased in your opinion, and also blinding you to facts.

to clarify - i think the NFL needs to set standards/rules in order to become more consistent with their decisions. when can the NFL suspend someone? on a mere accusation? on a guilty verdict? or only once the appeals process has been exhausted? thereshouldn't be different lines in the sand for different players.