Well, no. First off, it makes little sense to have the rule changes affect those who have already served their sentence. When punishments in the legal system change they don't go and give money to those who have already completed their sentences. What they sometimes do is - generally on a case by case basis - offer partial or total leniency to those still serving. This is what the NFL did. They negotiated with the NFLPA and lightened sentences. Some they totally commuted to time served if they were minor. A more serious repeat offender still had to serve most of his sentence - though to be fair, he did have 6 games taken off of it, and is allowed to be at the facility so that he'll be ready for game 11. There is some arbitrariness of course - my argument is that leniency by its very nature has some arbitrariness. That is FAR different than being "completely arbitrary" though. Completely arbitrary would be a coin flip - in this case a repeat offender who also got nailed for a DUI is facing more of a sentence than players who are not repeat offenders. Which does make sense.
Why(to the bold)? What's the logic for offering leniency?
Better yet, I'm actually curious about how often leniency is granted and in what circumstances. Anyone know of any good links or data on it?
I'm against invalidating any suspension handed out under the old program.
If you make it retroactive for everyone, as I said, you run into the issue of what you do about players that already served their suspension. Not really fair to just say, "Deal with it" when you took money out of their pocket and then are a year or two or more later letting other players off the hook for the same reasons. Gotta be consistent imo.
No, because they did not play and the rules were different. Now, the rules have changed and the suspensions are being lifted in order to match the changes. I just don't understand what you're so pissed about this. But that's just me. Unless I'm not understanding something..
The rules for Jo-Lonn Dunbar's suspension were the exact same as the rules for Stedman's. The rules changing now shouldn't effect people who were punished under the old rules. And if you are going to have it work that way, you shouldn't arbitrarily choose who benefits and who doesn't.
Why am I pissed? I'm not. I'm disappointed that the NFL has more or less said, "To hell with the consequences". I was raised to believe that when you do something against the rules, you are punished for it so you will alter your behavior. How will you alter behavior or have anyone respect your system if you just start arbitrarily not punishing certain people...and in Ray Rice's case, punishing certain people more severely?