Jim Harbaugh Says Ray McDonald Will Play On Sunday

[Marvin49]

Yup...was only a matter of time before the false equivalence comments popped up.

Ray Rice was investigated and the facts are known. Adrian Peterson isn't even denying it and most importantly we have photographic evidence and details of the incident. Even Greg Hardy was CONVICTED (tho he's on a appeal).

We have NONE of that for Ray McDonald.

As I've said all along...if he did this I want him gone.

Here's my question...if he's guilty or if the evidence looks really damning, I've already told you what I think they should do. Gone. That day. I'm not talking about waiting for the justice system to complete its process...I'm talking about having ANY information (which I suspect the 49ers already do).

Lets go the other way...what are peeps here going to say if it turns out the 49ers were RIGHT? What if he DIDN'T do it? What if this whole thing drug his name through the mud and he's innocent. Who stood on the "right" side then?

Do you think ,the Vikings would have suspended Adrian Peterson if this was just an accusation and there were no facts, no investigation, and no pictures? This has been going on for weeks and my guess is that the Vikings knew about it long before last week...when he played.

Please.

So where did these mysterious bruises on her neck and arm come from..they just randomly appeared on her? And if thats not enough he also had police called to the house in may and sources have said they had a volatile relationship.

I don't know.

THAT'S THE POINT.

Neither do we, but there was a 911 call and he was arrested. More than enough for most 'ordinary' jobs to get suspension (sometimes with pay and sometimes without). The Vikes were willing to do the right thing. The Niners should as well.

There you go with false equivalence.

Most jobs wouldn't even know it happened, let alone suspend someone.

The Vikings "did the right thing" even though they KNEW this was going on AND let him play in week 1. They didn't suspend him until there were details, pictures, and it became public. They were perfectly fine letting this just go along before anyone in the media knew.

I am not demonizing them, but please don't hold them up as some standard that others aren't living up to. They knew this was going on.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Like I mentioned allready this was taken to court and they dismissed it. The DA pushed a SECOND time and this just came up today.

 

[loafoftatupu]

Lets go the other way...what are peeps here going to say if it turns out the 49ers were RIGHT? What if he DIDN'T do it? What if this whole thing drug his name through the mud and he's innocent. Who stood on the "right" side then?


Please.

First, not all of us are claiming he should sit. Myself included. My single issue here is that there is nothing wrong with thinking that he is guilty and that he should sit.

Second, it would take some pretty serious evidence to prove that this was all just to drag his name through the mud and for me to believe that anyone went out of their way to smear the greatness of Ray McDonald. This is not some stalker one night stand we are talking about, he is marrying her.

Third, without the information, avoiding prosecution is not proof that McDonald was setup and that's what were saying here right? Either he was setup, or he abused his girl. Whether it was defending himself or not, the girl was interviewed and had marks on her neck and arms. That pretty much limits the likely possibilities.

What is more LIKELY?.... That RM had a dispute with his girl? Was defending himself from her and went a little far?

Or that someone went out of their way to generate bruises on a pregnant girl, possibly herself, to smear the image of a very small name football player everywhere but SF?

No one has said RM didn't harm her (except momma of course) All that has been said is that the truth will come out.

I'm not jumping on McDonald, nor the Niners for playing him. But I think that it is likely that he was involved in an incident in which he harmed his girl. The Niners are all about acting on convictions, not whether or not the event happened. Two totally separate things. They are waiting to see if RM is in trouble with the law.

I have not once said the guy deserves to sit right now. But nobody owes McDonald anything if he doesn't get prosecuted/convicted. People are sharing opinions, not implenting consequences. If information develops in which an elaborate setup of RM is discovered, all anyone can do is say they were wrong.

So what is more likely? Because if you really think about it, the variables surrounding the event only really offers a couple possibilities.

 

[Marvin49]

Lets go the other way...what are peeps here going to say if it turns out the 49ers were RIGHT? What if he DIDN'T do it? What if this whole thing drug his name through the mud and he's innocent. Who stood on the "right" side then?


Please.

First, not all of us are claiming he should sit. Myself included. My single issue here is that there is nothing wrong with thinking that he is guilty and that he should sit.

Second, it would take some pretty serious evidence to prove that this was all just to drag his name through the mud and for me to believe that anyone went out of their way to smear the greatness of Ray McDonald. This is not some stalker one night stand we are talking about, he is marrying her.

Third, without the information, avoiding prosecution is not proof that McDonald was setup and that's what were saying here right? Either he was setup, or he abused his girl. Whether it was defending himself or not, the girl was interviewed and had marks on her neck and arms. That pretty much limits the likely possibilities.

What is more LIKELY?.... That RM had a dispute with his girl? Was defending himself from her and went a little far?

Or that someone went out of their way to generate bruises on a pregnant girl, possibly herself, to smear the image of a very small name football player everywhere but SF?

No one has said RM didn't harm her (except momma of course) All that has been said is that the truth will come out.

I'm not jumping on McDonald, nor the Niners for playing him. But I think that it is likely that he was involved in an incident in which he harmed his girl. The Niners are all about acting on convictions, not whether or not the event happened. Two totally separate things. They are waiting to see if RM is in trouble with the law.

I have not once said the guy deserves to sit right now. But nobody owes McDonald anything if he doesn't get prosecuted/convicted. People are sharing opinions, not implenting consequences. If information develops in which an elaborate setup of RM is discovered, all anyone can do is say they were wrong.

So what is more likely? Because if you really think about it, the variables surrounding the event only really offers a couple possibilities.

I don't think we are that far apart.

I wouldn't have had an issue if they sat him. Just kinda annoyed by the outrage and false equivalence. The "Vikings did the right thing, so should the Niners" crowd. Of course they are entitled to their opinion. Not suggesting otherwise...I just think it's shortsighted and biased.

All of these other peeps we are talking about have had their day with law enforcement. The investigation concluded. It hasn't even been two weeks for Ray. The "Vikings did the right thing" argument is particularly lame in light of the fact that they've known the was going on for months, played him in week one, and only sat him when this all went public. Yeah. Real message senders those Vikings.

I don't think the Niners need to wait for a final word of law as some think they are suggesting by using their "due process" line. I think they already have a good idea what happened since that have spoken with Ray and unlike Ray and Janay Rice and the elevator, 50% of the team AND their wives were at the party in question to celebrate his birthday. I'm pretty sure they have a clear picture and are waiting only for the police to release their report of the incident. It was reported yesterday that this isn't uncommon for the police investigation to take this long when there are this many witnesses to interview.

As I've said before though, I have zero rock solid evidence of that. That's simply my opinion because it's the only thing that makes the 49ers behavior make sense to me.

If it were me knowing what little I know as fact, I'd likely have sat him down as well...which is precisely why I think they know alot more than I do.

 

[Front7vLOB]

Just to differentiate the two situations:

AP: has been indicted by a grand jury after a long investigation. An investigation AP and the Vikings were surely aware of

Ray McDonald: was arrested and now an investigation is being conducted..

Ray has not been charged. There is an investigation. If charges are brought by the SJPD, then I say the 49ers should deactivate/suspend him... Until then, I think he should play. The Vikings are not on moral high ground here. AP's situation is completely different from McDonalds. Just as Hardy's is a lot different from McDonald.

Again, not saying he shouldn't be punished once he is charged (which is a pretty drastic ultimatum considering how the NFL would have treated this 5 years ago-- McDonald wouldn't be punished until after a trial)

 

[GeekHawk]

So where did these mysterious bruises on her neck and arm come from..they just randomly appeared on her?

I don't know.

THAT'S THE POINT.

That's not a point. That's denial. A lot.

 

[loafoftatupu]

If it were me knowing what little I know as fact, I'd likely have sat him down as well...which is precisely why I think they know alot more than I do.

I completely understand the Niners behavior. York was pretty clear in that he knew no matter what happened that there would be criticism. He was direct im saying that he would rather get the hassle associated with playing the guy, rather than being wrong and acting on information he doesn't really have.

It was a no-win situation to begin with, I'm not sure how I would have handled it. There was always the option of sitting him with pay, sort of like the popo does with a police shooting, but we aren't talking about a shooting here. The FO likely put some trust into what McDonald said, warning him that if he screwed them that it would have penalties with it.

It's easy to assume that RM screwed up and he probably did at some level, but if he doesn't get prosecuted, ultimately it won't matter to the team whether the incident happened or not. There is a strong chance that nothing develops from this whole thing. I am confident if the team finds out that there was malice and RM denied it that it will be the last time they give a player the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Marvin49]

That's not a point. That's denial. A lot.

Saying "I don't know" the answer to a question that nobody not connected to the situation is a denial? Jeez.

That's sad. Assume guilt or you're in denial. Nice logic there. Do you even hear yourself?

 

[Marvin49]

If it were me knowing what little I know as fact, I'd likely have sat him down as well...which is precisely why I think they know alot more than I do.

I completely understand the Niners behavior. York was pretty clear in that he knew no matter what happened that there would be criticism. He was direct im saying that he would rather get the hassle associated with playing the guy, rather than being wrong and acting on information he doesn't really have.

It was a no-win situation to begin with, I'm not sure how I would have handled it. There was always the option of sitting him with pay, sort of like the popo does with a police shooting, but we aren't talking about a shooting here. The FO likely put some trust into what McDonald said, warning him that if he screwed them that it would have penalties with it.

It's easy to assume that RM screwed up and he probably did at some level, but if he doesn't get prosecuted, ultimately it won't matter to the team whether the incident happened or not. There is a strong chance that nothing develops from this whole thing. I am confident if the team finds out that there was malice and RM denied it that it will be the last time they give a player the benefit of the doubt.

Could be right, but I don't think they are just taking his word for it. 25+ players were there plus wives. I doubt Ray is the only one they talked to.

 

[loafoftatupu]

If it were me knowing what little I know as fact, I'd likely have sat him down as well...which is precisely why I think they know alot more than I do.

I completely understand the Niners behavior. York was pretty clear in that he knew no matter what happened that there would be criticism. He was direct im saying that he would rather get the hassle associated with playing the guy, rather than being wrong and acting on information he doesn't really have.

It was a no-win situation to begin with, I'm not sure how I would have handled it. There was always the option of sitting him with pay, sort of like the popo does with a police shooting, but we aren't talking about a shooting here. The FO likely put some trust into what McDonald said, warning him that if he screwed them that it would have penalties with it.

It's easy to assume that RM screwed up and he probably did at some level, but if he doesn't get prosecuted, ultimately it won't matter to the team whether the incident happened or not. There is a strong chance that nothing develops from this whole thing. I am confident if the team finds out that there was malice and RM denied it that it will be the last time they give a player the benefit of the doubt.

Could be right, but I don't think they are just taking his word for it. 25+ players were there plus wives. I doubt Ray is the only one they talked to.

I was aware of 25+ people being there. Yet not a one of them has an explanation for the bruises on momma's neck or why the police were called.

But their stories are all consistent "I didn't see anything Mr. York.

 

[RationalNiner]

I've changed my mind on private life shit.

If someone is a convicted rapist and recently free but did an amazing job at whatever job I was hiring he or she for, I wouldn't care as long as they did their job without issue.

If McDonald, AP, or any of the other off-field trouble guys do their job perfectly fine, I'd allow them on the field. Let the law deal with punishing them.

My main goal in any organization I run would be results, not being the most liked.

 

[chris98251]

I've changed my mind on private life shit.

If someone is a convicted rapist and recently free but did an amazing job at whatever job I was hiring he or she for, I wouldn't care as long as they did their job without issue.

If McDonald, AP, or any of the other off-field trouble guys do their job perfectly fine, I'd allow them on the field. Let the law deal with punishing them.

My main goal in any organization I run would be results, not being the most liked.

So if the bottom line is money over morality or the safety of the women employees at your place of business, if they get attacked it must be their fault cause this guy does his job so well.

 

[RationalNiner]

I've changed my mind on private life shit.

If someone is a convicted rapist and recently free but did an amazing job at whatever job I was hiring he or she for, I wouldn't care as long as they did their job without issue.

If McDonald, AP, or any of the other off-field trouble guys do their job perfectly fine, I'd allow them on the field. Let the law deal with punishing them.

My main goal in any organization I run would be results, not being the most liked.

So if the bottom line is money over morality or the safety of the women employees at your place of business, if they get attacked it must be their fault cause this guy does his job so well.

Re-read what you quoted, "do their job without issue."

 

[chris98251]

I've changed my mind on private life shit.

If someone is a convicted rapist and recently free but did an amazing job at whatever job I was hiring he or she for, I wouldn't care as long as they did their job without issue.

If McDonald, AP, or any of the other off-field trouble guys do their job perfectly fine, I'd allow them on the field. Let the law deal with punishing them.

My main goal in any organization I run would be results, not being the most liked.

So if the bottom line is money over morality or the safety of the women employees at your place of business, if they get attacked it must be their fault cause this guy does his job so well.

Re-read what you quoted, "do their job without issue."

You're saying without issue, but use a rapist as an example of who you would hire. If he has an issue at work it's a little late for the victim if he chooses to have an issue there isn't it.

 

[RationalNiner]

I've changed my mind on private life shit.

If someone is a convicted rapist and recently free but did an amazing job at whatever job I was hiring he or she for, I wouldn't care as long as they did their job without issue.

If McDonald, AP, or any of the other off-field trouble guys do their job perfectly fine, I'd allow them on the field. Let the law deal with punishing them.

My main goal in any organization I run would be results, not being the most liked.

So if the bottom line is money over morality or the safety of the women employees at your place of business, if they get attacked it must be their fault cause this guy does his job so well.

Re-read what you quoted, "do their job without issue."

You're saying without issue, but use a rapist as an example of who you would hire. If he has an issue at work it's a little late for the victim if he chooses to have an issue there isn't it.

Yeah I am sure he will rape all the women at work, one by one, in front of everybody.

But on the real, rapists are most likely to repeat their crimes in the immediate years after their release. If a convicted rapist is crime free for at least 5-7 years after his release and has his life in order, I would take a gamble on him if he were someone that provided enough value (value with all things considered, even psychological impact on other employees) to where I would feel it would be an overall substantial benefit to the organization.

Say there is someone that was so intelligent, his mind and only his mind alone could cure cancer with enough time. That person is however a murderer or rapist. What do you do?

 

[chris98251]

Yeah I am sure he will rape all the women at work, one by one, in front of everybody.

But on the real, rapists are most likely to repeat their crimes in the immediate years after their release. If a convicted rapist is crime free for at least 5-7 years after his release and has his life in order, I would take a gamble on him if he were someone that provided enough value (value with all things considered, even psychological impact on other employees) to where I would feel it would be an overall substantial benefit to the organization.

Say there is someone that was so intelligent, his mind and only his mind alone could cure cancer with enough time. That person is however a murderer or rapist. What do you do?

No not in front of everyone, they typically seem to stalk and get them alone and vulnerable.

I would not risk the other employees that are performing their jobs and making me money to pad my pocketbook. Would you be upfront with them or hide the history, it would violate the persons rights your hiring with disclosure I would think, although he would be a registered sex offender so I guess it's allowed. Being upfront would risk the employees you have walking out on you for one guy that seems very smart that might bring you something if you're not wrong about him, but at the loss of other employees and things they could bring if you're truly in a research lab environment.

I am betting since money is the goal it would be hidden, whatever the risk to others.

 

[RichNhansom]

To me this is not that complicated.

The Niners FO should be able to make some kind of statement that re-assures the NFL and the fan base they believe that RayMac is not guilty. They need to be able to stand behind they're employee and if they cannot do this then they should be taking action. That action at this point should be to sit him. Probably with pay but make at least a statement that you are willing to do the right thing. What they have done to this point sends the message they are willing to look the other way if it means better production on the field.

Now Marvin won't like this but the above statement doesn't apply to every team. It applies to the Niners because of recent events. If the Seahawks had multiple violent type arrests over the last couple years and something like this popped up I would be questioning my FO. At some point you have to assume this isn't just bad luck. There is something else going on that pretty obviously goes deeper than just luck.

As a fan isn't there a point where you want your FO to take a stand?

Under the current circumstances I would want my FO to be playing things like this on the cautious side. Not the other way around. The message being sent to the fans, the NFL and to the players is a negative one and gives no-one any reason to believe this behavior will be ending soon.

As a Seahawk fan this tells me that Dial and Carradine are not capable of carrying RayMac's jock. Obviously those guys are not the super hero replacements the Niners fan base seems to think they are. If they were, then this wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Uncle Si]

First the Vikings, now the Panthers.
Late or not...its the right move

 

[Front7vLOB]

To me this is not that complicated.

The Niners FO should be able to make some kind of statement that re-assures the NFL and the fan base they believe that RayMac is not guilty. They need to be able to stand behind they're employee and if they cannot do this then they should be taking action. That action at this point should be to sit him. Probably with pay but make at least a statement that you are willing to do the right thing. What they have done to this point sends the message they are willing to look the other way if it means better production on the field.

Now Marvin won't like this but the above statement doesn't apply to every team. It applies to the Niners because of recent events. If the Seahawks had multiple violent type arrests over the last couple years and something like this popped up I would be questioning my FO. At some point you have to assume this isn't just bad luck. There is something else going on that pretty obviously goes deeper than just luck.

As a Seahawk fan this tells me that Dial and Carradine are not capable of carrying RayMac's jock. Obviously those guys are not the super hero replacements the Niners fan base seems to think they are. If they were, then this wouldn't be an issue.

1) you never, ever make public statements when there is an ongoing investigation. I understand the Seahawks publicly defended Lynch recently, but the climate has changed and the 49ers would be foolish to come and say, "here are the facts and this is why McDonald is innocent." The 49ers would get more backlash doing that than playing him tonight and not saying anything.. When there was an investigation with Kap, the 49ers initially did not comment on the incident until months into the investigation when the media was getting ancy... We are not there yet with Ray McDonald

2) the 49ers don't have "multiple violent arrests" in recent years as you just implied. You make it sound like the culture of the 49ers locker room is cultivating this behavior. I call BS. Ray McDonald fell in the draft for character issues. Ahmad Brooks was drafted in the Supplemental Draft for character issues. Sure, you can question the FO for taking chances on them, but their incidents with the law are not the result of a "bad" locker room.

3) I don't know how many times this needs to be pointed out, but Ray McDonald's situation is in the early stages while AP and Hardy have been under investigation/scrutiny for months. I'm not saying the 49ers should not take action once charges are brought, I'm just saying everyone just has to wait a week or 2 for the DA to make it's case

4) as a 49ers fan, your weird obsession of wanting Ray off the field makes it seem like you don't think other teams can hold the 49ers jock when Ray is on the field.. See how 2 can play that game? This isn't about the 49ers trying to protect their star player or protect their chances of a playoff run. We are in the early stages of all this and at this moment it doesn't make sense to make irrational decisions just to appease a riled up fan base

 

[RichNhansom]

To me this is not that complicated.

The Niners FO should be able to make some kind of statement that re-assures the NFL and the fan base they believe that RayMac is not guilty. They need to be able to stand behind they're employee and if they cannot do this then they should be taking action. That action at this point should be to sit him. Probably with pay but make at least a statement that you are willing to do the right thing. What they have done to this point sends the message they are willing to look the other way if it means better production on the field.

Now Marvin won't like this but the above statement doesn't apply to every team. It applies to the Niners because of recent events. If the Seahawks had multiple violent type arrests over the last couple years and something like this popped up I would be questioning my FO. At some point you have to assume this isn't just bad luck. There is something else going on that pretty obviously goes deeper than just luck.

As a Seahawk fan this tells me that Dial and Carradine are not capable of carrying RayMac's jock. Obviously those guys are not the super hero replacements the Niners fan base seems to think they are. If they were, then this wouldn't be an issue.

1) you never, ever make public statements when there is an ongoing investigation. I understand the Seahawks publicly defended Lynch recently, but the climate has changed and the 49ers would be foolish to come and say, "here are the facts and this is why McDonald is innocent." The 49ers would get more backlash doing that than playing him tonight and not saying anything.. When there was an investigation with Kap, the 49ers initially did not comment on the incident until months into the investigation when the media was getting ancy... We are not there yet with Ray McDonald

Not saying they should state the facts. They can do what Seattle did in supporting their player. A simple statement saying something like "we have been looking into the RayMac situation and have reason to believe he is not guilty" or "we don't have sufficient information supporting his guilt in this case to take action" type pf comments. Obviously they don't currently know all the facts but you would be ignorant to believe they don't have a pretty good pulse of what went on.

2) the 49ers don't have "multiple violent arrests" in recent years as you just implied. You make it sound like the culture of the 49ers locker room is cultivating this behavior. I call BS. Ray McDonald fell in the draft for character issues. Ahmad Brooks was drafted in the Supplemental Draft for character issues. Sure, you can question the FO for taking chances on them, but their incidents with the law are not the result of a "bad" locker room.

You forgot to mention Culliver and Aldon. Hell Aldon alone supports my statement. Multiple means more than one. In the Niners case there has been a significant rash of arrests and or should be arrests. They lead the league even with Brooks getting off Scott free. By the way, why didn't the Niners do anything to Brooks? Do you think he didn't attack a fellow team mate with a beer bottle? Don't you think that lack of action makes a statement? I would really like to know your opinion here. Did the Niners do the right thing by letting Brooks off with absolutely no discipline? Did they send the right message to the other players?

3) I don't know how many times this needs to be pointed out, but Ray McDonald's situation is in the early stages while AP and Hardy have been under investigation/scrutiny for months. I'm not saying the 49ers should not take action once charges are brought, I'm just saying everyone just has to wait a week or 2 for the DA to make it's case,

Your hiding behind the letter of the law just like your FO. It is never to early to do the right thing and if they cannot stand up right now and support their player they should be doing something about it. Don't be critical of outsiders thinking less of your organization when they have set a pattern and are giving no reason to believe they are about to change. At least not when the pattern is one of ignoring violent crimes or crimes with potential to harm. Does someone need to die before they put their foot down? Would you be surprised if one of your players drunkenly ran over and killed someone? Because if you would be then you would be the only one. I think most would just question which players house party they were leaving when it happened.

4) as a 49ers fan, your weird obsession of wanting Ray off the field makes it seem like you don't think other teams can hold the 49ers jock when Ray is on the field.. See how 2 can play that game? This isn't about the 49ers trying to protect their star player or protect their chances of a playoff run. We are in the early stages of all this and at this moment it doesn't make sense to make irrational decisions just to appease a riled up fan base

I don't want him on the field unless your FO can confidently stand behind him and support him. If they are not capable of doing that then they should not be marching him onto the field. Yes the Seahawks did exactly that with Lynch and I am using that as a point of reference. They don't have to be silent and cause everyone to question their ethics, thay could suggest they have reason to believe he is not the horrible person being portrayed in the public eye right now.