49ers have moral obligation to bench McDonald during investigation

Here is my Tuesday column.

SANTA CLARA — Give the 49ers credit for handling Ray McDonald correctly for the most part.

McDonald spent the night in jail after he allegedly hit his pregnant fiancé around 2 a.m. Sunday morning. On Tuesday, the San Jose Police Chief released a statement saying McDonald’s pregnant fiancé “had visible injuries.” This is all we know so far.

The 49ers could have canned McDonald as soon as the police arrested him.

The 49ers did not can him. Canning him would have been wrong. I’ll explain why, but let’s give the 49ers the first word.

“We’re still in the fact-finding mode, trying to get as much information as we can,” Trent Baalke explained to reporters Tuesday afternoon. “We’ll have more knowledge later today and certainly more knowledge the next day and moving forward. Nothing has been determined at this point.”

A few hours before Baalke spoke, Jim Harbaugh said on The Murph and Mac Show that the 49ers are “firm believers in due process.”

A perfectly fair position.

McDonald may deserve a heavy punishment, but first he deserves an investigation. The 49ers should not cut him merely because he is accused of something, no matter how serious the accusation. Everyone deserves an investigation after being accused of a crime. Good for the 49ers, good for due process and good for America.

Here’s the part the Niners messed up.

They should bench McDonald while they investigate. Instead, they might let him play against the Cowboys on Sunday. “That decision hasn’t been made yet,” Baalke said, “But he could potentially play. He’s going to get back to practice today. We’ll make that decision later in the week.”

It’s commendable to support due process. Can’t Baalke and Harbaugh support the victim, too? McDonald’s pregnant fiancé had visible injuries according to the San Jose Police Chief, bruises according to the Sacramento Bee. Someone gave her those bruises. The bruises didn’t magically appear. The 49ers should not allow McDonald to play unless they find evidence that suggests someone other than him caused the bruises.

What if McDonald was a suspect in a murder case? Would the 49ers play him then?

Of course not. No team would play someone who’s under investigation for murder. Playing a murder suspect would be disrespectful to the victim’s family and a potential public relations disaster if the suspect is found guilty.

So there is a line. If a player is accused of a serious crime and there is a victim, the player should not play until there’s been an investigation. The 49ers have a moral obligation to bench McDonald.

The 49ers have a pragmatic reason to bench him, too — it would be a tactical error not to. Playing McDonald would create a distraction for the 49ers.

“Any time something occurs off the field, it’s a distraction,” Baalke said on Tuesday. “Distractions are never good for a team, for an organization, for anybody.”

Distractions can cause a team to lose a game they should win, and the 49ers should win on Sunday. They don’t need McDonald to beat the Cowboys.

If the 49ers let McDonald play, the game would not be about the game. The game would be about the Niners’ decision to let McDonald play. The game would become the biggest story in the NFL. The story would transcend sports. Imagine the headlines: “49ers choose to play defensive lineman just seven days after he was incarcerated overnight for allegedly striking his pregnant fiancé,” or something close to that.

No organization wants that kind of attention. The 49ers would be foolish to bring it on themselves.

The 49ers may add all of this up and decide later this week not to play McDonald. The Niners should already have done that math and made that decision but, if they come to the right decision before Sunday, no harm done.

And if it turns out that McDonald did in fact hit his pregnant fiancé, the 49ers should cut him. No second chances.

The 49ers seem to get that. Harbaugh told Murph and Mac that the 49ers would not want a player who has committed domestic violence. “If someone physically abuses a woman and/or physically or mentally hurts a child, there is no understanding. There is no tolerance for that.”

Baalke said the same thing. “I can’t reiterate enough — domestic violence is not something we tolerate within the 49ers’ organization.”

Good to hear. We will hold you to it.

Grant Cohn writes sports columns and the “Inside the 49ers” blog for The Press Democrat’s website. You can reach him at grantcohn@gmail.com.


This article has 264 Comments

    1. Yes, this is one of the basic tenets of the our legal system. Many in the media today, like Grant, knowingly or not, adopt what the French believe, that is, in France you are guilty until proven innocent. Horrible way of looking at things.

        1. Jack, that’s true, but there is a psychological blow to a player being benched that he should not have to endure if he is innocent, and we need to presume he is.

        2. So did Baltimore tell Rice not to come to camp before the NFL suspended him? Greg hardy was already found guilty of DV and wants a trial by jury and hasn’t had the NFL come down on him yet, he will be suiting up week 1. Bell and Blount got arrest for possession of drugs and a DUI only to play hrs later, they will both be playing week 1 as well. Why does SF have to sit a man when the all the facts haven’t come out?

        3. @Jack
          Woody Allen said “God gave man a brain and a penis. But only enough blood to run one at a time.” Most of the board are into their 49er dick.

          The club can say: We are sitting McDonald until there is further clarification as to charges made against him. Until proven otherwise, we support him. The sitting of McDonald is neither an indictment, or judgment of him.

          What we do know is at least half the team was at the party; no one is saying anything except Davis who declares no knowledge. No one else declares lack of knowledge. Someone made a call summoning the police. The woman was marked. McDonald was jailed. He was released in $35,000 bail.

          We can guess that the club has interviewed many who were at McDonald’s party. The club has not exonerated McDonald. Meanwhile all the players have kept silent. Cohn is right: the club has a moral obligation to sit McDonald, even if he is a great guy like he declares. Maybe the truth is someone else bruised the woman. Maybe she inflicted injuries on herself. It doesn’t appear the police think that.

          Now the practical: The risk of losing the Dallas game should not swing on McDonald’s playing or not. And the moralists, like me and Cohn and Jack, can be assuaged.

          It is not a due process issue. It’s a morality issue!

          1. Hold on. Don’t include me with your view. I don’t think they have a moral obligation.

            There only obligation is to make a decision based on information they have.

            1. Well put Mr.Hammer.
              I say the charges are bogus and he plays this Sunday and beyond.
              If Harbaalke really thought he was guilty, why would they even let him practice after speaking out so adamantly against domestic violence?
              Doesn’t make sense to me.
              Forget the due process stuff..he’d be sitting already if they thought he did it.

        4. Should not matter. Being suspected, or arrested for a crime does not mean you are guilty of it. If he is found guilty, then punish him.

    2. Bam, you nailed it coffee.

      I’m glad these ‘reporters’ are not judges in the court of law. Otherwise, we’d all be screwed.

    3. That’s exactly right. There is no danger to having him play. It’s not like he is being accused of child molestation and he’s a cub scout leader.

    4. Benching him goods against due process. Benching
      him means punishing him for a crime he is not found guilty of yet. I believe if he is guilty, he should be cut, but until then he should not be treated any differently then any other player.

  1. Well in all fairness..baalke had to back up Harbaugh..or we’d go thru that whole tension between them thing again..but it’s not Harbaughs call whether MacDonald is cut or not…It’s baalke or Jed’s decision..

    1. Harbaugh’s words are being used against him-the team…the want to be above reproach
      …and now what he said to Donte whitner about abuse…
      Kinda hard to live those statements down..in these days..

    1. Me too. It will be interesting to see how they replace their bowling ball NT BJ Raji.

      Best thing for Green Bay is get a nice lead first and force Seattle into passing mode.

    2. They won straight up in Seattle in that infamous lockout-ending game, even before the utterly blown end-zone call. That was one of the most flagrant cases of uneven flag-throwing I had ever seen in the NFL to that point, with the Packers consistently being victimized.

      I strongly believe they have the firepower to win on Thursday. AR is the best in the game, one of that rare breed that can make any receiver look like a star. If the bookends of Peppers and Matthews can disrupt Wilson, they’ve got a great chance.

    3. They’re going to get abused on the offensive side of the ball because they’ll be missing their starting center. Calls will be handled with backup *rookie* center and guards on each side. Rodgers has never taken a snap from this rookie before, not even in preseason/camp. This could be a long day for Aaron Rodgers and the Pack.

  2. In messes like this one, the best thing to do is take the following steps…

    Step 1) The entire world is screaming for you to act. Ignore them (for now). Assure the public that important issues take more time to investigate then trivial ones. This is a very important issue.

    Step 2) Collect as many facts as possible, from as many parties as possible.

    Step 3) Take decisive action.

    Step 4) If you are still unsure what to do, continue step 2.

    – Do not to put step 3 ahead of step 2 no matter how angry people are.
    – “Important” is not always “urgent.” The urgent time was on Sunday. Now its time for the important (but no longer urgent) personnel decision. It should not be made in haste.

    The sticky part… benching Ray McDonald, and playing Ray McDonald, are both actions.

    If the facts lean (heavily) toward Ray being innocent, play him. If it turns out he was guilty, he can be fired at that time.

    1. Brodie, this is well reasoned and very sensible. Maybe Grant will let you ghost his next column. . . . On second thought, it’s not controversial enough, so forget about it.

  3. So because she had bruises he put them there? Wrong……we dont know and till the facts come out the 49ers are doing the right thing..you should never hit a women but women know that and are taught to play that card at a young age to get back at a man..Hey grant I guess you didnt hear about the case of the judge that almost lost his whole career because his girlfriend said he threw her out of the car and had scratches and bruises? Well good plan except he had it all on video and this girl on video actually threw berself out of a moving car..a moving freaking car she just jumped out..If not for that video that guy would have lost everything..Do you not think theyve talked to players that were there and Ray? If they had one inkling he was guilty he wouldnt be practicing. ..I dont know what happened and Im not claiming to but let the facts come out before you judge..the Niners are handling this just fine.

  4. Did you notice that Ray McDonald used the same line Kap used, “The truth will come out” thinking those *magic* words would work for him also. Well. it appears the truth is coming out!! McDonald’s pregnant fiancé “had visible injuries.” Bruises !!

    49ers: 7-9 season, miss the playoffs

    1. Who knows how the bruises were caused. Were they self inflicted, the result of an accident, or worse? Thus, the police must investigate, and those not knowledgeable of the situation must withhold judgement, a fact that is lost by Grant and other shrill commentators such as yourself (bruises, bruises, bruises!!!!).

      Niners go 9-7, have a strong second half of the season and make the playoffs as a wildcard.

    2. Did you ever think that he was stopping her from harming him or the baby? Love the name by the way what are you 10?

    3. Obviously you’re trolling, but I think every other visitor to this site would love to bet you $1,000 on your season prediction. Dibs!

      1. 4 items:

        Aldon (-9)
        Bowman (-8)
        Kaep (16)

        Anyone else wonder whether 9ers would have kept a rookie with Kaep’s performance this preseason?

        It’s suppose to be progression; not regression. 9-7 is realistic.

        1. Nice try. His preseason body of work was not large enough to make it relevant in that respect. They limited his snaps because he is one of Harbaugh’s trusted agents. In that respect they should have cut Lupati right on the spot based on his showing in that last game. LOL. I hope your post was tongue in cheek because if not? Well I leave it at that.

  5. Any chance another team picks him up if the niners cut him? If so, any chance the niners keep him but suspend him indefinitely to keep him in limbo but away from other teams’ rosters?

  6. “Can’t Baalke and Harbaugh support the victim, too?”

    Yes, and they should, but at this point we don’t know if the fiance is the victim. It could well be that McDonald is the victim of false accusations for all we know, much like Kaep was earlier this offseason. And we don’t know how she got those bruises. They could be self inflicted for all we know.

    Punishing McDonald now before they know what actually has happened is a punishment they can’t take back if it proves to have been misplaced.

    1. Scooter, that’s probably the best explanation I’ve heard so far as to why we should all wait until all the facts are out.

      1. Cheers, ricardo.

        I wonder if Grant will agree or disagree with this counter-argument to benching McDonald before all the facts are in.

    2. Those bruises doe not even need to be self inflicted to not be there as a result of abuse. It she was attacking him they could have been made by grabbing her arms or pushing her and catching her neck in the process. It would depend on where and the type of bruises as to if they constitute abuse. I am not making a judgement in that respect but I am just tired of people implying that because she had bruises it proves her accusation to be valid. What wonder is if he hit her why would the bruises be limited to her arms and neck. Unless that was all they saw and she also had them on the rest of her body.

      1. Yep, good points.

        And something else nobody has mentioned, can you imagine how McDonald and the rest of the players would feel about the club if they punished him now only to find out he did nothing wrong? Great way to lose the locker room.

    3. I agree with your response to Grant’s assertion – I think that sentence is probably the weakest link in this post.

      However, I do think it’s prudent to sit McDonald (not suspend, not withhold pay, not even prevent from practicing) until the matter is resolved. And if it drags on for a long time, some accord regarding playing time will have to be reached. He may well be innocent. For all we know, he was restraining her. We have no idea. However, his case is different from Kaep’s in that Kaep was never charged with anything. He was not being investigated for sexual assault, despite the many incorrect reports to the contrary. McDonald has been named by the police as a suspect in a domestic-abuse case. So until that is proven out or dropped, the Niners would be wise to act in a sensitive manner.

      Not playing him avoids offending many and sending the wrong message, while only penalizing McDonald – whom they can support for now with assertions of the importance of due process.

      1. Das Dweeb; What needs to be considered is that the standard for arrest in domestic abuse is really low. It is that way for a good reason. All that is required is suspicion. That’s what the bruises provided. If those bruises actually reflect or constitute abuse would be worked out after the fact. It is not up to the police to make that determination at that time. They just follow the proper procedure that is warranted and dictated by available evidence.

    4. Then the Victim should’ve been the one that got arrested than. And the two hundred lbs. plus Ray is innocent, and he only acted in self defense to protect himself from a pregnant little lady.

  7. I’m not even going to get into it anymore. It’s impossible arguing with warped minds. That obviously knows zero about due process and innocent until proven guilty.
    Yeah let’s start a string of bench warming every time a woman says she was raped, hit, or seduced. We all know that never happens. Smh.

  8. They won’t bench him because it sets a dangerous precedent. What happens when more false accusations arise against Kaepernick or Crabtree prior to a playoff game?

  9. Who plays Sunday can be put off until Sunday so why wouldn’t fairness dictate using the time in between to collect as much information as possible?

    Declaring McDonald inactive in advance seems to be more of a public relations tactic than a moral choice.

    If Kaepernick’s Miami problem had happened the week before the first game of the season, using Grant’s and Kawakami’s moral imperative to control public opinion, Kaepernick would have possibly been benched for two months while the Miami police did their investigation.

    Apr 10, 2014 – San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick is being investigated for an alleged sexual assault in Miami, Florida.

    June 12, 2014 – Miami police announce that there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.

  10. Lot of these girls are crazy and love to be man-handled. I had one not to long ago that loved to have her hair pulled HARD….and be bitten on the chin and neck HARD when we hit the sack. She was crazier than a bedbug. Besides, stop all this righteous moral crap. When Obama stops bragging about killing people with drones – then its time to be moral. For now…. give ole’ McDonald the benefit of the doubt

    1. Wu-Tang:

      OMG, what you’re describing above sounds like good old-fashioned fun to me and certainly NOT domestic violence.

      1. Okey Doke Mary —- Let’s figure out a way here us to make contact : I’ve got some some duct tape, ankle and wrist restraints and a nice, thick black leather belt – as It seems like you need a serious spanking….; }

      1. Zev, I think you should lecture Razor I thought he was going to bleed to death. And Jack — OMG why was he using all those ice packs and band aides a week ago??? I never did believe that story?????

  11. All of my posts till now on this subject have been in respect to not jumping to conclusions and in that respect in favor of giving McD the benefit of the doubt for now. I would like to say something in respect to all his teammates saying that he is a nice guy. A vast number of abusers both sexual and domestic are nice guys to most people and one would never suspect them.

    1. In respect to comparing this situation with someone arrested for murder doesn’t hold water. People are not just arrested for murder unless there is quite a bit of evidence implicating them. They don’t just arrest anyone suspected of murder. When it comes to domestic abuse the standards are relatively low. They often just arrest the guy to remove him from the scene as protection for a possible victim just to let him out the next day. It sort of makes sense in that it tends to defuse the situation and allows for a cooling off period.

  12. WOW, don’t shoot the messenger but I was just reading PFT: Comments and I saw this one.

    Ray McDonald: The truth will come out, I’m a good-hearted person

    theherbsman says:
    Sep 1, 2014 12:22 PM

    A close friend of mine dated Ray for almost a year, immediately before he met this current girl. Let’s just say that this story would have been posted a long time ago if she had done what was right at the time… As big of a 49ers fan I am, I sadly can’t say this shocks or appalls me, it was just a matter of time…


    1. Yes, the PFT comment section is a place where thoughtful and accurate presentation of actual facts occurs. You can always trust what you read there, especially when it comes from an obviously reliable source like “theherbsman.”

      1. Yeah, I don’t get the concept. If, and it’s a big if, the allegations are completely baseless, and RMcD did nothing wrong,why should he pay any kind of price? It wouldn’t be his fault that the allegations damaged the 49ers’ reputation, so how do you figure that he should pay the price by sitting? This is all in the case that RMcD didn’t do anything wrong, which most definitely remains to be seen.

          1. Claude,

            theherbsman said he was a 49er fan and he knew a girl who dated McD. That’s all first hand evidence. What more do you need? As a lawyer, you should know that.

            I lost a little respect for you today.

    2. This is why I felt it necessary to give a different perspective in one of my previous posts that we don’t always know people. They may be the nicest people on the planet to some people and still be capable of very ugly behavior to others. I have been around long enough to have seen people present different sides of themselves in different circumstances. The public image of a nice guy doesn’t rule out the ability to commit abhorrent deeds for me. Still we need to consider all possibilities before loading up the guns for the firing squad.

    1. Razor: Look, I can’t help it I am curious by nature. I had an investigator tell me I would make a good investigator.

      I know what you’re thinking, but this guy sounds like a legit 49er fan who just happens to know someone who dated RMac and maybe he was her confidant and he’s just sadly reporting what he knows. It looks like he’s been w/PFT since 2006.

      Take it for what it’s worth, but I wouldn’t discount it. I still don’t think it changes anything b/c the gf will drop the charges.

    2. Mary, I can’t help it I am flamboyant by nature. Back in the day, I had an unrelated and unknown Aunt and her niece pick me up while walking downtown one Friday evening. I know what you’re thinking, but these girls were hot, not fat and ugly. I got in their truck and headed down the road, all the while they’re giggling, saying they were going to rape me. I just laughed but soon we arrived in a secluded area by some lake, and I knew I was about to live every man’s dream date…..

      1. Yeah, right! Your point is….? Are you suggesting rape is OK cause it’s really consential? McDonald’s wanted to be bruised?
        Or is it U Da Man? That’s not being flamboyant.

  13. Grant sez:

    “…..McDonald may deserve a heavy punishment, but first he deserves an investigation. …”

    And when you add the facts which Coffee, rocket and others (above)
    have pointed out ..the bottom line is ..
    you don’t bench a guy without giving him
    due process ..

    C’mon, Grant …
    Is this no longer {STILL} …the home of the free and the brave ?

    How would you .. feel if the Press Democrat
    “benched” you .. because of an accusation ?

    “….They should bench McDonald while they investigate…”

    No .. they shouldn’t … why ?
    because by doing so .. the 49ers would be “assuming” RayMac
    is guilty… before due process has run its course …

    This practice threatens the very fabric of the US Constitution..
    and if extrapolated out.. could lead to disaster
    within our Country …

    “……What if McDonald was a suspect in a murder case? Would the 49ers play him then?….”

    He isn’t …
    you’re talkin’ apples and oranges, here, Grant ..
    and “what-if’s” have no place in our legal system …

    Grant, ..
    taking your youthful exuberance into consideration, here
    I implore you to PLU-EEZE ..
    DO NOT advocate for the removal of our
    Constitutional rights

    1. Grant isn’t arguing to take away his constitutional rights, McDonald’s innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the state but the 49ers as a private organization can discipline him without depriving him of his rights. Fact is, even if the allegations are untrue, they have damaged the 49ers repuration and the 49ers would be in their rights to sit him at least until more facts come out.

      1. “Fact is, even if the allegations are untrue, they have damaged the 49ers repuration”.

        So any time someone comes forward and says a 49er did something to them, no matter whether it is true or not, the 49ers should punish the player accused?

        1. Scooter, I’m with you. I don’t get the concept. If, and it’s a big if, the allegations are completely baseless, and RMcD did nothing wrong,why should he pay any kind of price? It wouldn’t be his fault that the allegations damaged the 49ers’ reputation, so how do you figure that he should pay the price by sitting? This is all in the case that RMcD didn’t do anything wrong, which most definitely remains to be seen.

    2. MWN,
      How does RayMac being benched infringe on his rights?
      McDonald has a constitutional right to still be on the team (during due process), but not a constitutional right to start.
      That right is reserved by the team/coaches decision.

      The team has decided to let McDonald play and although I disagree with the move, I will grudgingly accept it.
      Go 49ers

  14. Get the facts first. I’m leery of anything that begins with “moral obligation.” And Mary, first you are a man and second, dragging something up from a pothead aka herbman is reprehensible. But then again you support the scuzziest team to ever play in the NFL…

  15. Grant,
    Agree, sitting RayMac would not be an admittance of guilt but rather a team doing their due diligence in protecting the player, victim, and team image until all facts are revealed.

    1. AES..
      I respectfully disagree with you, here ..
      Until they change the “innocent until proven guilty”
      part in the Constitution ..then, you are allowed to
      maintain all of your rights .. up to the point
      you are proven guilty … in a court of law ..

      Granted .. our legal system isn’t perfect .. but
      it’s the only one we have..

      Doing otherwise is just plain wrong

      1. MWN,
        Wasn’t there enough evidence in the Aldon DUI accident arrest two days before the game he played against the Colts last year?
        What more proof did the team need to sit him out in the case?

        Now, given the fact that the police report documented bruising of Ray’ fiancee around the neck and wrist area lends enough credence in the case that the player should at the very least be benched (w/pay) until all the facts are in.

        The 49ers image has/is taking a negative hit over the last few years when you consider the Ahmad Brooks breaking bottle incident over a teammates head, the Culliver hit and run, then threatening with brass knuckles, and the latest occurrences now in the public view, it behooves the team (imo) to show a firm stance by sitting RayMac.

        1. your points are, indeed, valid, AES.. however, it
          is a slippery slope we travel when these practices
          become the norm, instead of the exception …

          Just because it was done in the past… doesn’t
          make it right … ya know ?

          I was raised to believe that you are innocent
          until PROVEN guilty …and ..
          any deviation from that idea …
          is wrong…
          (no matter the circumstances)

          Our legal system is based on precedents …right ?

          What kind of precedent are we setting here ?

          1. Not sure if this falls under the category of a precedent in this case because sitting a player in this situation is not and should not be viewed as an admittance of guilt.

            I think that you are getting hung up on the perception rather than the team making a tangible commitment to sit a player until the facts have been revealed.

            This position would cover all parties involved imo.

            1. not really, AES …

              Think about it … what would the locker room be like
              if the 49ers had gone that route during
              the Kaep-in-Miami fiasco ?

              Punishing BEFORE due process ..
              is still a slippery slope

              1. Again, it should not be construed as a punishment. That is what I meant by getting hung-up on the perception.

                This should a simple case of sitting the player down (w/pay) until the facts are in.

              2. AES,

                With all due respect, I think you are wrong about that.

                Are you really saying that if a player who has been falsely accused (I’m not saying we know this about RMcD), and as a result is held out of a game, wouldn’t possibly have any bad feelings toward the team? IMO, it would take a very understanding player to not harbor ill will to his team if wrongly held out of a game, with or without pay. The real players love to play and it’s painful to miss games.

  16. Until he is proven guilty, business as usual. Let the man play. Nothing to see here.

    If he IS in fact proven guilty, release him immediately. And I’ll have no problem throwing my McDonald jersey in the trash.

    1. Yep, another ambulance chasing journalist like TK. “The 49ers should not allow McDonald to play unless they find evidence that suggests someone other than him caused the bruises”. This is backwards….

  17. Unfortunately Grant does not understand the facts about an arrest for domestic violence. Cities in California have adopted a policy that when a call is made to police for domestic violence, at least one part MUST be arrested. Police may use no judgement regarding the incident. My former neighbor, a second generation police officer left our Santa Rosa police department for a different position in another jurisdiction and this he told me was one of the important reasons. Per his words, cops hate it. That means that merely noting that the POTENTIAL for the charge to be true means someone gets arrested. I am not a lawyer but I am not aware of any other crime where there need not be probable cause to believe that a person actually committed a crime. To compare it with murder is ludicrous unless you believe that merely being at the same place as the body when the police arrive means you will be arrested without any evidence. (Once the police saw that the young woman was bruised, there was nothing more to talk about, Ray is arrested) The process that is in play, since San Jose apparently has the same policy as Santa Rosa did when my neighbor complained, is that the prosecutor will determine if in fact a crime has even been committed and if the person arrested will be charged. Ray McDonald is not only not proven guilty at this point, he has not been even charged with a crime. Punishing him at this point would be just plain wrong.

    1. Like I said before. Indiana is the same. When the police saw the bite marks with dried blood on my body, they immediately arrested my girlfriend….

    2. You state the police make no judgment. Someone has to be arrested. That someone was Ray McDonald. That is a judgment call.

      Someone else sets bail. It could be in his own recognizance; $500; $1000; or $100,000. McDonald is not a flight risk. $35,000 was a judgment.

      Clearly judgments were made.

      1. I;m not familiar with the local laws on domestic violence, but I suspect neither the officers nor the court had the discretion you think they had in bringing McDonald in and setting his bail.

          1. I think JPN inferred from RMcD getting bail when the courts were closed, that there must be a structured bail schedule in San Jose county (?) for domestic abuse.

  18. Did the 49ers have a moral obligation to sit Crabtree after he was accused of sexual assault?

  19. This entire post is garbage. Who are you to decide what someone else’s “moral obligation” is? You can argue the team should sit McDonald to protect him and the team as details come out but you really have no right to tell other people what their moral obligation is. What is their moral obligation to McDonald and the rest of the team and their fans if McDonald is completely exonerated? You possibly punish McDonald and all of his teammates even though he was innocent – which is exactly what happened to Ohio State and Carolos Hyde? That’s crap. This is the problem with the media today. You guys think you have skin in the game. I’ve got news for you. You’re not part of the organization. You have no say, no control, and your opinion doesn’t matter.

    “Baalke said the same thing. ‘I can’t reiterate enough — domestic violence is not something we tolerate within the 49ers’ organization.’

    Good to hear. We will hold you to it.”

    This statement is so freaking ridiculous! How are you going to hold the 49ers accountable for anything? Are you threatening them with attack journalism if they don’t take action that suits your opinions? How egotistical and self absorbed are you?

  20. A few reasons I wouldn’t play him…that’s not saying suspend him, just keep him off the field…first it would indeed be a distraction. But furthermore he already has a dui, the ray rice situation has made this a highly sensitive issue of late, and the 49ers are developing a bad reputation for criminality. Don’t forget that we caught a lot of flak for playing Aldon Smith right after he got that DUI (and we lost anyway). None of these are reasons that he’s guilty of course, but certainly they’re reasons to be proactive/cautious in preserving the teams reputation. I certainly hope Mcdonald is innocent, he always seemed like a nice guy in interviews and is a pretty good player. But if he is guilty he’s got to be cut from the team.

    1. kevin sez:

      “……None of these are reasons that he’s guilty of course, but certainly they’re reasons to be proactive/cautious in preserving the teams reputation..”

      kevin ..
      the team’s reputation will always take a hit whenever
      charges are leveled against a team member …

      Dems da facts, and you can’t do anything about that.. but
      taking the high road.. and preserving the idea
      that you’re innocent until proven guilty .. and NOT
      caving in to what Houston describes, above… is
      the proper … and the ONLY JUST
      course of action a team can take to restore..
      and maintain said reputation

      1. “but taking the high road.. and preserving the idea that you’re innocent until proven guilty .. and NOT caving in to what Houston describes, above… is
        the proper … and the ONLY JUST course of action a team can take to restore…and maintain said reputation”

        Then why weren’t they lauded for playing Aldon Smith against the Colts right after his alleged DUI? Why weren’t people applauding them for following through on due process? Unfortunately it just won’t work that way. The team has more to lose in distraction/reputation/credibility than they can gain by having him play Sunday. If McDonald or the 49ers had cleaner reputations they might be able to get away with it. The only exception I’d make is if management’s investigation really gives the impression of a set-up, which is a possibility. They know more than any of us, I trust they’ll make the right decision.

  21. A man should never hit a woman? He, he! I am a student of criminology. Women can be just as dangerous and deranged as any other sex or group, despite what the lefty PC favorite group-victimology-card players suggest. Have you ever been to a woman’s correctional facility? Oh brother! And you think a little “bruising” is bad? I hope you have a baseball bat or an actual self-defense tool (for you hoplophobic, Kalifornia ninnies, that would be a . . . oooh! . . . gun!) when confronted with one of these estrogenic nightmares. Good luck to you otherwise. What the poor-picked-on-woman emotion-baiters don’t tell you is that along with the 800,000 battered women each year, there are also roughly 500,000 battered men. Proper and proportional self defense is a must, regardless of sex or other attributes.

    1. peachy …

      Stop listening to Rush and Faux News .. and blame
      what you don’t agree with on the “leftys” …

      I’m one of those you despise … and… guess what ?

      I agree with your other points !

      So there !

    2. Peachy,
      if Grant has a girlfriend, maybe we can get her to batter him into writing a football article. Maybe a Cosell piece.

      1. Old Coach: I saw some of the figures you’re asking about online. I’m not sure Peachy has access to a computer all the time.

    3. Good points. A woman could easily be bruised by throwing herself into a man who was trying to fend for himself (holding his hand in restraint). (There’s an old joke about a fighter who is being beaten badly and then goes to his corner. His trainer is concerned but the fighter is not. He tells his trainer: “Don’t worry I’m hurting his fists with my face and he won’t be able to take it much longer” I know age is a factor in bruising but I once gave my elderly mother in law a very large bruise on her wrist when I held her arm to help her up the steps. The bruises on the young woman do not justify leaping to the conclusion that they happened when Ray attacked her. And, Young Woman Accuses Wealthy Boyfriend of Assault: More of those are shakedowns than not.

  22. Shame on you Grant. This article is about as unamerican as you can get. What part of innocent untill proven guilty do you not understand. you repeatedly mention the victim, there is no victim untill there is a trial. I believe that McDonald will be found guilty and at that time the 49ers should cut him but what i believe is meaningless. McDonald must have his day in court after that good riddance.
    Grant we are not stupid most of your readers understand you do’nt really believe in what you wrote, you are trying to get a reaction but its important to understand that there are others who will take you at your word and they are very reactionary words. If you do’nt look out the tea party is going to start asking you for contributions.

    1. Aren’t suspected criminals often held in jail or put out on bail (which requires a financial commitment) while waiting for their (speedy) trial depending on the circumstances of the case? Isn’t that analogous to what Grant is suggesting here? And if so, what is so un-American about that? There is no violation of due process in benching him.

      1. Eddie D yes some people accused of a crime are held in jail, if it is a matter of public safety. The police arrested and released McDonald so they must have felt he was’nt a risk to public safety. Would the 49ers benching him keep the public safe. Eddie D i find it ironic that you use the screen name you do. Eddie D was accused of a sexual assualt and assualt and battery while he was the 49er owner for your information he was never benched and by the way the charges were dropped both times.

        1. First of all, people can be denied bail for being a flight risk, independent of whether they are a risk to public safety. But, back to the point – presumption of innocence in a criminal trial doesn’t entitle someone to be completely free of consequence (something you called un-American). Further, the 49ers and the NFL aren’t bound by a criminal court verdict to levy judgement, a fact that should be pretty obvious to you by now. Finally, the burden of proof is different in a criminal case than civil or otherwise.

          The 49ers have more information than you. If the organization chooses to suspend or release Ray McDonald before his day in criminal court, it is their choice, and there is nothing un-American about it. I’ll tell you what I find ironic; you condemn Grant for being reactionary and un-American, but do so in a ludicrous and hyperbolic manner that shows little true understanding of “American” rights.

          1. Eddy, Eddy, Eddy, it’s Grant and Tim who have decided that a third party (the “team”) should bench McDonald. The “team” has until Sunday to make their own decision. Of course they have the right to make either choice.

          2. Eddie D i take it by your screen name choice you adire Eddie DeBartolo. Do you think he should have been suspended after the charges of sexual assualt and assualt were made against him. luckly he was’nt as charges were dropped in both cases.

  23. Hoo boy. Well, we can’t say we didn’t see this coming. I’ll try to keep it simple.

    1. htwaits has it exactly right. Declaring McDonald inactive [before collecting sufficient information] seems to be more of a public relations tactic than a moral choice.

    2. It’s commendable to support due process. Can’t Baalke and Harbaugh support the victim, too?

    Your question presumes that the woman is a victim. If you’ve already concluded she’s a victim, then what’s the point of an investigation? You’re paying mere lip service to the idea of due process. The same goes with declaring McDonald inactive before having sufficient facts. Where’s the due process in that? I’m not referring to the constitutionally protected right to due process, but to the broader concept of not passing judgment on and punishing someone until you have enough facts to know what happened.

    3. Benching McDonald sends the message that the 49ers think he physically abused his fiancée. It won’t matter if they say that benching him doesn’t indicate any such thing. That is the message that will be heard.

    4. The 49ers have a pragmatic reason to bench him, too — it would be a tactical error not to. Playing McDonald would create a distraction for the 49ers.

    A. Playing McDonald isn’t going to create a distraction. It already exists. If the 49ers bench McDonald, reporters are still going to be all over the 49ers players and coaches, asking questions about how the team will handle playing against the Cowboys’ offense without McDonald. There also will be no shortage of questions about what the players witnessed at the party, how they feel about the charges against McDonald, what their positions are with regard to domestic violence, etc. Either way, there is going to be a distraction.

    B. It’s disingenuous for a member of the media to warn against the coming distraction when the media play a role in that distraction. This distraction won’t be completely organic. It will in part be fed by things like the presumption of victimhood, the call for the premature deactivation of McDonald, and the questioning of the team’s morality if it doesn’t comply. Several members of the local media (Kawakami and now you) have become more than mere passive reporters of events. It appears you are actively trying to shape the story.

    5. If the 49ers let McDonald play, the game would not be about the game. The game would be about the Niners’ decision to let McDonald play. The game would become the biggest story in the NFL. The story would transcend sports. Imagine the headlines: “49ers choose to play defensive lineman just seven days after he was incarcerated overnight for allegedly striking his pregnant fiancé,” or something close to that.

    No organization wants that kind of attention. The 49ers would be foolish to bring it on themselves.

    This is the part of the column that causes me the most discomfort. It reads like borderline extortion. “If you don’t bench McDonald, we won’t report on the game; instead we’ll crucify you for not taking domestic violence seriously.” That’s not appropriate.

    6. Good to hear. We will hold you to it.

    Wow. You managed to come off as both flippant and self-important at the same time. That’s a neat trick. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen it before.

  24. Grant,

    I think media types (and everyone) have a moral obligation to NOT persecute someone in the court of public opinion. Instead they should let the facts be heard and the process be completed, regardless of the crime one is accused of.

    If in fact Ray McDonald is found guilty of this crime, then go on and spend a week writing about what a terrible person he is, what a terrible father he is, what a terrible role model he is, and how he should dragged through the street “tarred-and-feathered”.

    BUT, if he’s found to be innocent, promise us that you’ll spend a week writing about what a strong man he is to show his face in public and do his job when so many people were judging him unfairly. Write about how terrible and scary it must’ve been to be staring your entire career and future in the face preparing to vanish right before your eyes over a false accusation. Liken him the many people who served years in prison only to be found innocent after they lost years of their lives in the clink.

    This is a terrible situation for EVERYONE involved! However, If we can’t equally commit our MORAL ENERGY this situation regardless of the outcome, then I think we all should keep our mouths shut and focus on 49er football! ESPECIALLY THE MEDIA TYPES.

    Remember the “pen is mightier than the sword” and in the end your character is the only true wealth that you have!

  25. “……your character is the only true wealth that you have!…..”

    Wow ! … that’s good, roc …

    I like it ..
    can I borrow it from time to time ?

  26. So who’s on the inactive list this week?

    J Johnson
    M Martin
    D Johnson

  27. Boxers have bruised hands after fights. It’s very possible that those bruises were caused by her hitting him or he restraining her or defending himself. Let the process play itself out and let him play until otherwise found guilty.

  28. There are some thoughtful responses here; htwaits did encapsulate it.
    Initially I was one to suggest that the team sit Ray with pay; I did so on this blog. Clearly though, that would be a PR move by the team to try to avoid some of the stink. Too late, it stinks already just like the CK & Patton issue, like Crabs, and like Aldon who actually was guilty.
    Ray has due process rights but playing ball isn’t a right, so the team could sit him, but where is the standard for that? The NFL didn’t impose punishment on Irsay until the legal process was complete; guilt or innocence didn’t seem to be the determinant.
    Think about a situation relevant to your experience. If a co-worker is charged with a crime does your employer suspend them? If they are convicted of a crime away from the job do they get fired? Tax evasion? Domestic violence? DUI? (If they’re a truck driver, commercial pilot yes, but that’s regulatory.) As an employer, if a worker is convicted of domestic violence I have a problem with them, but if I fire them they could challenge the cause of firing under their employee rights. Practically speaking, they’d likely be in jail.
    Anyway, now I’ve flip-flopped to letting him play, but I’m uneasy with it all. If the team had decided to sit him, I couldn’t be too angry about it.

  29. Morals are based/attached to specific religious beliefs. Better to be neutral and let the facts/circumstances dictate the outcome.

    1. So you have to be religious to have morals? Uhhhh…. that’s silly. Even people with no foundation in faith have a moral compass. Well, at least most people do.

  30. He absolutely should be deactivated this weekend. The 49er front office needs to show a little class. Whether he’s guilty or not will be determined but the mere fact he was arrested, combined with the police report that says there were obvious physical injuries, is enough to sit him down. He had a DUI not too long ago and it’s very possible this kid has a problem. We don’t need the distraction or the negative hit to the 49ers reputation that so many players have built over the past 68 years. Sit him down.

    1. “……Whether he’s guilty or not will be determined but the mere fact he was arrested, combined with the police report that says there were obvious physical injuries, is enough to sit him down……”

      REALLY..</strong big Al ?

      Any person who’s job it is to sit in judgement of
      these kinds of matters would tell you.. that these
      “so-called facts” .. are all circumstantial …

      Would you like to be convicted on circumstantial
      evidence ? ….

      Or … would you like to have punishment exacted
      upon you BEFORE it revealed that there are mitigating
      circumstances ?

      What do you think the phrase ..
      “Innocent until proven guilty”
      actually means ?

    2. So McDonald should be benched in order for the 49ers to “show a little class”. Get some good press. Right?

      Everyone should be deactivated if they are arrested. I’ve managed to avoid arrest for almost 81 years (15 days to go), but your declaration makes me nervous.

      To be exact, McDonald had a DUI in 2010. McDonald was thirty yesterday. He’s not a kid.

      Deactivate McDonald to “protect the 49er reputation.”

      There have reasons the 49er reputation needed protection throughout their 68 years, and harm has come to them from personal failures by players, by front office people, hired doctors, and from ownership. On occasion, harm has also come from the press.

  31. I can see validity in both arguments so I’m not going to judge Grant as harshly as most here. I can see the validity in benching him now until the investigation process is complete as a precautionary. Whether he’s guilty or not its a distraction to the team and I’m sure both parties would understand it as a precautionary action. And the main reason I agree with this is the mere fact that this organization has had one of the worst off-seasons of recent memory and in order to salvage any bit of their image I would think it wise to make sure everyone knows their stand on domestic violence.

    However, the reason I don’t think this happens is the fact that the organization is conducting their own investigation, of course we are not given any insight of the extent of that investigation, but we can assume that they are taking it very seriously and giving it its due diligence. So when their own investigation is complete, which I anticipate it will be well before Sunday, they will either determine he is guilty, by laying even the slightest hand on her, or that he is completely innocent. If guilty he’s cut before the game, if not, he will play and justifiably so.

    Where it gets a bit murky is if the investigation is not complete by that time. Than I could see them sitting him down until their investigation is complete.

    Its a tough call, but assuming their own investigation is thorough enough and aligns with the police investigation, then I think we can feel good if we do indeed see him on the field sunday. If he’s cut then its water under the bridge and we move on with the next generation of D-linemen.

    Like I said, I can’t wait ’til this offseason is behind us.

    1. I was surprised in Trent’s Presser when he said he hadn’t talked to players who’d attended. I’d suspected that would be step#1.

      1. That was pretty early on in the process wasn’t it? I would imagine that will take some time given that there were multiple players to question…..

  32. Moral obligation matters only to the person who mentions it, everybody’s morals AND obligations and how we view and choose to act upon them are unique. It’s akin to telling someone else how to raise their kids. It only comes off as righteous and self serving.

    1984 and the Thought police!!!

  33. Two sides to every story innocent until proven guilty 49ers should take no action until the facts come out in a court of law

  34. If during the course of their investigation the 49ers find anything to suggest RayMac is guilty, they will deactivate him. Nothing yet, which means your pen and paper should be at parade rest…..

  35. Gotta be honest, whether right or wrong, there’s no way Ray McDonald playing or sitting out will be the main topic of conversation following the opening week of the NFL. As soon as there’s a close game, a bad call, or even a particularly big play, all the attention will be off McDonald and the Niners.

  36. Lesson learned – don’t name your son Ray, or he will be a wife beater (Ray Rice & Ray McDonald)

  37. Barrows on the morning show, breaking down the actual football game if anyone is interested….

    1. Razor …

      What ? …

      don’t tell me you’d rather talk real football … instead
      of this ?

      Bah humbug !

    1. You’re comparing the accusation against McDonald to the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power? Jeez. SMH.

      Saddam Hussein murdered a million of his own citizens in chemical weapons attacks. He murdered many more thousands in his aggression in the region. Bill Clinton dropped bombs on Iraq during the Iraqi Disarmament Crisis where Hussein refused to comply with orders to discontinue development of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein was an evil, brutal dictator who deserved to be removed from power. If you want to talk about a moral obligation you can start with the worlds moral obligation to deal with dictators like Saddam Hussein. I can post the youtube video of Clinton explaining the moral obligation of the US to respond to Hussein if you like.

      Comparing these 2 situations is asinine.

      1. I believe that ribico’s point was that Iraq/Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

        Yes, Clinton was justified in taking the actions he took against Hussein and Iraq. That’s one of the things that distinguishes him from Bush and Cheney.

        There were and still are plenty of evil, brutal dictators in the world. Yet, we don’t regularly remove them from power. I’m sure there were solid, nonduplicitous reasons why we chose to remove Hussein from power. Let me know when you find one.

        1. “solid, nonduplicitous reasons?” Jeez Claude, you need to switch to the Heavy Duty tinfoil. This isn’t the venue to educate you so I’ll just reiterate that Iraq was a major state sponsor of terrorists. Hussein killed over 1 million of his own people and instigated wars with 4 of his neighboring countries. Iraq was one of the major causes of instability in the region. You can channel Oliver Stone or you can join the world of the sane. The choice is yours.

          1. Houston and if Bush\Cheney had used those reasons to invade i would have backed them 100% but they did’nt. They invented evidence to support their arguement that he still possessed and was producing WMD’s he was’nt and they lied to the american people.

            1. “They invented evidence…” Who are you people? That’s totally insane!! You are seriously sitting here suggesting Bush/Cheney fabricated evidence in order to invade a country? For what? Kicks and Grins? To enrich themselves? You are suggesting they made up stories about millions of people dieing. You people should seek help! You have a very loose grasp on reality. Just for kicks and grins why don’t you watch this.


              1. Houston:

                The Bush administration didn’t sell the war on Hussein’s killing of millions of Iraqis. They sold it on weapons of mass destruction, of which they found zero. They also mentioned that they were seeking retribution for 9/11, but again, never established any connection between Iraq and 9/11.

                Iraq was a major state sponsor of terrorism? Why, because after the fact, Hussein brought in a couple of families whose children had died as suicide bombers, gave the families money and praised the dead children? If that’s what you call being a major sponsor or terrorism, your standards are ridiculously low.

                When you say that Iraq was a major cause of instability in the region, you mean the exact opposite, right? I must have missed the global recognition of the region as a model of stability since we toppled the government.

                You write complete fiction as if you think no one remembers what actually happened. This isn’t the Civil War. You can’t rewrite history so ludicrously when it only happened 10-15 years ago. I can’t believe that you actually stepped up your level of b/s, but you did it. You are either a shameless liar or perhaps the most delusional person I have ever encountered. Congratulations.

              2. Houston go back and read my post i agree with you that everything you said Saddam did is totally true and in my opinion would have given us more than enough reasons to invade Iraq. My issue is that the Bush\Cheney explanation of why we invaded did’nt include those reasons. The primary reasons used in a speech by Colin Powell were that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium [ a report that had been debunked months earlier] and Iraq’s supposed relationship with Al Qaeda. Which was totally false. Should we have invaded Iraq i say we had reason but i would’nt have gone without a exit strategy and the president needed to be honest about his reasons not just using a non existent 9-11 connection.

              3. Houston,

                The Bush administration used 9/11 as an opportunity to settle an old score that had nothing to do with 9/11. The reasoning for invading Iraq was flawed and proved to be incorrect. You can go on and on about how Hussein deserved what he got, and he did, but the fundamental problem here is the administration misled the Country, and used the anger over a demoralizing and horrible event in the Nations history to take care of a problem that didn’t relate.

                This is not about whether or not Iraq needed to be liberated from a tyrannical dictator; it’s about a Govt. deceiving it’s constituents to start a war based on falsified evidence.

              4. @ claude,

                Wow! Just wow! The reason our country is in the shape it’s in is becaue people like you get to vote. As far back as 1993 and all the way through 2003 people involved in Bill Clinton’s adminstration said Iraq had WMD’s. I’m not making that up. I’m not lieing. Watch the video I posted. It’s on film. They all said Iraq had WMD’s before George Bush even took office. Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law in 1998 that specifically stated the US policy of regime change in Iraq. Clinton bombed Iraq multiple times going all the way back to 1993. In 1994, Bill Clinton’s State Dept labeled 5 nations as “Rogue Nations.” Clinton specifically said North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Libya were “state sponsors of terrorism.” Iraq was originally labelled a state sponsor of terrorism in 1979 and then removed from the list in 1982. Then put back on the list after their invasion of Kuwait. Iraq specifically provided arms and bases to Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and the Abu Nidal organization (ANO).

                Iraq was a major cause of instability in that region. They started 4 wars and they provided material support to terrorists in Palestine. If that’s not a cause of instability then you’ll have to come up with your own label for it.

                My facts are just that – facts. You can live in your delusion but nothing can change the facts I’ve laid out. Multiple people like Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, etc. all said Iraq had WMD’s before George Bush even started running for president. I can post multiple video’s that show those facts. I know you will chose to deny video proof but that’s your problem. Not mine.

              5. If the dude tried to kill my Dad, and I became President, I would have found a way to get him covertly….

              6. Hannity:

                All you have to justify the 2003 invasion are Iraq’s activities in the 70s, 80s and early 90s. That’s like using Hitler’s horrors to justify a 1955 invasion of Germany. At least you got to dust off your senior thesis, so you have that going for you.

                Iraq, in 2003, was not the regional threat you described from earlier decades. That’s why the Bush administration had to resort to specious claims about WMDs.

                And if Clinton’s people believed that Hussein still had WMDs, maybe that’s because they didn’t have access to the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that cast doubt on the Bush administration’s ongoing WMD claims. But that’s not on them; very few people were given access to that document. Clinton also didn’t believe so strongly in WMDs that he saw them as a justification to invade Iraq. .

                I suppose that throwing out irrelevant facts is a step up from stating outright falsehoods, but it’s still b/s.

      2. In addition to what Claude wrote, how did that little invasion work out once we proved we were big and powerful and reached Baghdad with no plan in place?

        1. htwaits:

          Based on his comments to this point, I suspect Houston will tell you that we were greeted as liberators and warmly welcomed by the Iraqi people, who thanked us for teaching them about democracy and freedom and that, as a result of our efforts, Iraq is a model of stability, fellowship, and blissful productivity that the rest of the world envies.

      3. Houston, I’m not going to respond to your jingoistic hilarity. Just think on this. My comparison to Cheney’s invasion of Iraq is a much an apple to the orange that Grant is trying to drum up with his “suppose this was a murder investigation” trope.

        1. Ribico:

          Does “jingoistic hilarity” mean the same thing as “unmitigated b/s”?

          [checks online dictionary]

          OK, that works too.

          1. @ claude,

            Not one single response to any of my points? You made 3 arguments…

            1. You said: Bush lied about WMDs in order to invade Iraq. You don’t say why you think they lied but you just throw out that paranoid idiocy as if it were some known fact.

            I showed VIDEO of Bill Clinton and multiple people in his administration saying Iraq had WMD’s going back as far as 1993. Clinton used the WMD’s narrative to justify bombing Iraq multiple times. Intelligence reports from multiple countries said Iraq had WMD’s. Hussein used something to kill a million people. I would call that mass destruction even if it wasn’t exactly the weapon you want to call a WMD. At any rate, your point is TOTALLY debunked with a video. Bush didn’t make up some lie out of whole cloth. If it was a lie, the lie started with Bill Clinton a decade earlier. I noticed you didn’t respond to that.

            2. You said: Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism. Hussein only brought in families of suicide bombers and praised them.

            I showed that Iraq has been labelled a state sponsor of terrorism going back 35 years all the way to the Jimmy Carter administration. I even named the terrorist groups he supported. At any rate your point is totally debunked. I noticed you didn’t respond to that.

            3. You said: Iraq was not the cause of instability in the region.

            I showed Iraq instigated 4 wars with countries around them and sponsored terrorism against Israel. Saddam Hussein murdered well over 1 million people in his own country and in other countries in the region. If you don’t call that a cause of instability then your IQ is your problem – not mine.

            The fact of the matter is that a coalition of 40 countries were involved in the liberation of Iraq. A coalition government representing all the tribes and factions in Iraq was established immediately after seizing Baghdad as was the plan. There is no doubt the lives of millions of people in the region were greatly improved by American efforts. Well, improved that is until Obama decided to abandon them.

            I realize there are alot of lunatics in the world. I didn’t realize all the lunacy was concentrated in just a couple of people on this blog today. You really are intellectually dishonest. You resort to name calling and condescension when you have no argument. Everything I posted is 100% fact whether you want to accept it or not.

          2. Hannity:

            My earlier response was deleted, presumably because I used the expression “horse cr@p” too liberally. I just re-posted a shorter version.

        1. The Cowboys defense is a complete disaster. If the Niner offense can’t move the ball against this team then it’s time to worry.

          Offensively it’s Bryant and Witten in the passing game. Keep them quiet and you will shut down Romo. The one thing Dallas does have now is a very good Oline, so holding up against the run and getting consistent pressure on Romo will be difficult. The Niner offense has to dominate this game, keep Romo off the field and end drives with TD’s instead of FG’s. They should be able to run and pass effectively against this team. No excuses if they struggle in this one.

          1. You’re right about the offense, rocket. If they struggle to move the ball against Dallas then there is some worrying times ahead. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get off to a sluggish start, but by the end of the first half I’m expecting to see this offense putting up some points.

            1. I take Regular season game 1s with some grain of salt. Last year Kaep threw for over 400 yards against the Pack and I was all set for an offensive explosion. When did that happen again?

        1. Marinelli is an interesting study. Ex-Marine, and when he took over as D-Coordinator in Chicago, their defense improved considerably. Although he may be lacking weapons like Fangio, he also is a phenomenal defensive coach…..

      1. I agree, I think McDonald plays.

        The argument against this article has been given eloquently and effectively by Claude and Scooter and I am in total agreement with both of them.

        I will just add that sitting McDonald without knowing all the details makes absolutely no sense, and seems to be nothing more than an attempt by a few opinion columnists to dictate the narrative. There is nothing to be gained by sitting him if there is any chance he is innocent. You have a locker room of players who are close knit, support each other and count on the team to have their backs. Sitting somebody based on an accusation without allowing due process, flies in the face of that edict, and can fracture a locker room much more readily than condemnation from the press ever could.

        This has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty; it has to do with supporting one of your own until he gives you reason not to. If the team finds information supporting the claim of McDonald’s fiancee, then he should be cut immediately, and probably will be. Until that time however, you support your player and the team that relies on him.

    1. I’ll pay homage to wilsonm73:

      Who gets cut for Boone? I think he’s playing? I originally assumed Farrell will be cut and signed to the practice squad, but then who is the back up center? Looney?

      Who will be the inactives? Assuming that McDonald plays, this is the guess that I pulled out of my backside:

      M. Martin (that was easy)
      J. Johnson
      Patton or Lloyd (pick ’em)
      D. Johnson

        1. Would you prefer Dial? That one gave me the most trouble.

          Maybe I’m putting too much stock in the unofficial depth chart, but it doesn’t seem like Carradine and Dial have moved past Dobbs and TJE.

          1. Before the injury, he was projected as a top 10 pick. If he is inactive, perhaps one might consider he has not won the trust of Godfather Fangio…..

      1. It’s a tough call on the inactives but for ST’s purposes I see it playing out like this:

        J. Johnson

        The one I’m not very sure about is Carrier, as I doubt Harbaugh would want to go into a game with only 2 TE’s, but by keeping Nelson as the long snapper, they have an emergency replacement if needed.

        1. Dial…really? The guy had a heck of an offseason, you really think they don’t have plans to get him in the rotation???

          I think Lynch could play a pass rush specialist role.

          1. Leo,

            So did Carradine. You can only dress so many and good players are going to sit out on this team. TJE and Dobbs play ST’s which is why I have them active and not Dial.

            Lynch could be active but again it comes down to ST’s for me and the others I thought of that might sit instead of him play ST’s.

        2. If memory serves, the 49ers typically only suit up 5 DL, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see both Dial and Carradine benched this week.

          My 7 inactives are:

          – Dial
          – Carradine
          – M. Martin
          – Farrell (Boone and Davis will play)
          – J. Johnson
          – McCray (tough choice between him and D. Johnson, but I saw Johnson playing gunner during preseason and expect he’ll be playing there Sunday)
          – Lloyd (only because he doesn’t play on STs, and Patton does)

          1. Farrell will likely be released before the game Scooter. They have 54 on the roster right now due to an exemption for Boone. He won’t count as an inactive if that happens.

            Good point on the Dlinemen, but I’d be shocked if they sit both of the young guys with what they showed in preseason and the fact Smith, McDonald and Williams are all coming back from injury.

            1. Ah yes, forgot they still needed to release someone. Replace Farrell with either Lynch or Moody (depending on whether they feel they might need extra rotation in pass rush or extra help on STs), assuming Farrell is indeed the one they let go.

              I still think they’ll only go with 5 DL. That is plenty for a 3-4, especially one that is going to be spending a lot of time in nickel against the Cowboys 3 WR sets. I think the only way Carradine or Dial will be suiting up is if they pass Dobbs or TJE on the depth chart.

      2. Thanks Claude, while all this is important regarding Ray M, I would love to focus on the football that will be played Sunday. So much talk and speculation without facts yet. I guess we’ll see what happens in a couple of days with Ray.

        I was thinking Carradine over Lynch because the possibility of Ray missing the game meant they’d need someone up front. The Cowboys run and pass well. Toss up for me. Is Lynch ready, he seems to play on the left side where Brooks is at and Brooks doesn’t come out much. I was also thinking Boone would play leaving Looney and Martin as back ups with Farrell inactive. What about A Davis? We haven’t seen anything out of him.

  38. Tune into Yahoo Sports Radio this morning at 11:40 Pacific Time. I’ll be on discussing Ray McDonald and the 49ers.

    1. oh oh …

      you’re not gonna take the same stance as you did
      in this thread … are you Grant ??

      I’m not sure that would be wise, considering
      the US Constitution…

      your creds are at stake …

      A wise man once said ..
      “Engage brain BEFORE putting mouth in gear”

      1. The U.S. Constitution has no bearing on this issue whatsoever. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty is a legal presumption pertaining to who has the burden of production of evidence. It does not adhere to businesses, the press, or private individuals.

          1. Grant,
            Not only understanding The U.S. Consittution, really not that difficult, but understanding what Morality is and how it shapes ones out look of the world.
            Very sad for us as individuals and as a culture.

              1. The main reason why I disagree with your position is because I, as a registered nurse, have personally seen women strangle themselves, hit themselves, and cut themselves to frame a boyfriend or husband for abuse. It is not a rare event, especially when the man has a lot to lose, for example if it would be his 3rd Strike or, a very rich man… In 2 years I have personally witnessed it 3 TIMES happening IN THE HOSPITAL!!!

              2. So Grant, if we accuse you of plagiarizing ideas from your father, should the Press Democrat suspend you while it conducts a full investigation? If so…….

              3. David, my wife has been an ER RN for many years and has told me about the type of self-inflicted injuries you describe. Yes, that does happen. However, she has also said that those types of injuries are easily discernable from those made by a closed-fist, kick or even a slap by a man of McDonald’s size and strength. Without seeing the bruises, I don’t think you should be making guesses.

        1. If a business regularly suspends employees over unfounded accusations simply to maintain a pristine image, I understand it is within their rights, but what potential employee in their right mind would want to work for them? What free agent would ever want to play for the Niners if the team (within reason) does not have their backs? I would fault the 49ers for suspending McDonald too early without knowing the facts while Grant seems to fault them for not doing so.

          1. Businesses can’t regularly suspend employees based on accusations. There are employment laws that protect employees.

        2. Wait a minute. The Constitution relates to the legal process in the presumption, but that ethic extends into the societal construct from which the Constitution emerged. If I got fired for being charged (not convicted) I think I’d have recourse.
          On a different tack, I know of a situation where an employer discovered after the fact that an employee was convicted of spousal abuse and had taken sick days to serve a short sentence. The HR and Legal departments reviewed that knowledge internally and felt that they weren’t warranted to take any action or make any comment. The woman (yes) stayed employed. Did the employer shirk any moral obligation? Did their silence endorse the act?

          1. I won’t speak to moral obligations, as I do not believe in such, but as to the law, it is true that in some states, such as California, employers must (in most cases) have good cause to terminate employees for conduct. However, independent contractors are a different matter — fewer protections exits as the parties have the right to contract on (mainly) their own terms, absent any prohibited provisions. My understanding of sports employment law in CA (and around the country) is that players and coaches are contract workers, not employees, and are thus not under the same protection as employees. In some other states, such as Nevada, absent a contract or employee/personnel manual (implied employment agreement), all employees can be terminated without cause.

            The take-home from this is that, extra-legal “social construct” mumbo-jumbo aside, employees and contracted workers can be terminated for suspicion of criminal activity as long as such constitutes good cause (in states that even require good cause) or is not prevented by the terms of a contract. And we must remember that a challenge to whether good cause for a termination existed results in a civil matter, where not only is there no presumption of innocence, but where the burden of proof is on the employee (as plaintiff) to show why the termination was unlawful (i.e. not for good cause).

            And I will tell ya’ll something I used to tell clients when I was still actively representing folks. In civil matters, even if an action is prohibited by law, unless there is a remedy that is obtainable without expense greater than the legal recourse available, then there is no remedy. Employment law is very much this way. Most wrongful termination lawsuits involve less possible/probable recovery than the cost to prosecute the lawsuit, thereby resulting in no viable legal remedy.

            So, finally, while it is fine to talk about whether the ethic of the constitution creating a social construct that informs employment law or opine that employers cannot suspend or terminate people based on accusations of criminal conduct, neither of these positions have practical impact on what employers actually do. Further, neither apply to the suggestion grant made anyway as a decision on playing time (benching a player) is not a suspension nor a termination.

        3. JPN, I was just wondering since you are the legal expert on this blog, if you know what are the limits placed on the team’s independent investigation on this incident? Are they allowed to see photographs of the girlfriend’s bruises? Are they allowed to question the same witnesses that police investigators have or potentially will be questioning themselves? Would the team be allowed to disclose any information gathered or would they be told they couldn’t until the DA had made a decision as to whether to take this case to court or not? And if the information they gathered independently convinced them they should suspend or release McDonald, what possible effect could that have on a future court case should the DA proceed with one?

          1. I’m actually curious to know how much power and influence RG and/or others have over the 32 HCs and GMs. I never gave it any thought until now.

          2. Spaceborn,

            I do not know of any specific limitations, although as this is an aspect of police procedure and limitations thereon, it is not an area with which I am overly familiar.

            Without getting into the gamesmanship regarding what is evidence and what is developing information (info that might be relevant but is not disclosed as evidence while it is being further investigated), generally, law enforcement (LE) and prosecution cannot secret away evidence or witnesses, and they tend to cooperate with concurrent private investigations. However, privacy concerns do come into play with DV cases, which may make obtaining some information difficult and time consuming, and the photographs may fall into that category. In these cases, LE may allow the private investigator(s) to view the evidence but not make copies. As for third-party witnesses, private investigators are free to talk to anyone who may have been a witness – LE cannot restrict access to individuals not incarcerated.

            Privacy laws and employment laws may impact releasing some protected information, depending on for whom the investigator works, but LE cannot restrict private investigators from releasing information, no more than they could the press. They may ask them not to release certain information as a courtesy, however.

            The results of the private investigation, other than if it were to turn up additional evidence that is then provided to LE and is admissible, have no bearing on a criminal case.

  39. Note to Coach Harbaw:

    on the subject of domestic violence…
    please help us distinguish between hardcore
    emotional abuse and any form of physical abuse.

    There are women/ex-wives and children who tell us
    that the verbal/emotional pain is worse than the physical
    pain. Think back to your days in Coronado.
    Do you understand what these victims are talking about?

    When you insist on wearing khahi pants,
    (notwithstanding your current wife’s distaste for same),
    is this an indicator, Jim? See the abuse-o-meter (below):
    stubborn/aggressively so . .. . . cooperative/humble/flexible

  40. The justice system gives Mcdonald and all his fans and supporters the “benefit of the doubt.” Punishing him now without “Due Process” serves only deep moral convictions of people like writers who need an article with some moral platform to stand on because they’ve never been presumed guilty until proven innocent and of course fans of 49er opponents and their interests. Mcdonald will be punished if found guilty. Benching him now and denying him his right or ability to make a living and even more money to compensate or support his unborn child and his supposed victim (should he be found guilty) does not serve him, his fans and employer and mostly his girlfriend because she most definitely has a need to seek compensation for her injuries and support for their child. Denying him his right to make a living serves no one but moralists who need to put him through the “crucible” without due process and 49er haters.

  41. Maybe the 49ers already have evidence that supports what McDonald has been saying publicly all along, that the truth will come out and he will be exonerated. Ever thought about that? Do you think it would be fair to punish McDonald in advance, just for being accused of something? Glad you’re not a judge.

    Do you think he’s teammates would support him, especially the ones at the party, if they witnessed him, or had knowledge of, Ray beating up his prego girlfriend? I doubt it….not too many people would look the other way on that kind of thing…so, I say, your article is bogus and meant to incite and garner hits, as many of your articles do. I call bull*it.

    Most fans are doing what the team is doing, waiting until all of the facts have been put on the table so they can form an educated opinion, instead of flailing around calling for some form of moral justice as a knee-jerk reaction in order to call attention to themselves. Sad..sad…sad.

    1. Kevin Lynch Surmises the Niners investigation has enough eyewitness corroboration to back Mac. Hence no Cohn-esque jerking of knees. Sounds plausible.

  42. Let’s broaden the discussion fellas.

    Even in September 2014, there are a few
    Niner fans (or Bay area residents) who grasp
    the difference between your pregnant wife and
    your pregnant girlfriend. Howzabout some brave souls
    speaking out on behalf of marital fidelity.
    Believe this: the concept is not obsolete with some
    families (nuclear and extended, okay?) …..

    More valuable than a pair of season tickets on the 50 yard line
    at Levi Stadium, hmm? Not even worth comparing…

    1. “more to life than Lombardi trophies” your moniker does not have its intended effect since the Niners have five of them.

    1. Grant Con speaking about how John Harbaugh should handle the situation.
      One question, when did McDonald go to prison?

      1. Jack ..
        I noticed the “con” thing as well.. and while Grant was agreeing
        with this .. this .. (whatever) .. I experienced
        a moment of profound clarity :

        Grant is a member of the generation who will be
        “in charge” .. (once all our tickets are punched) ..
        and if his “world views” are common among his
        peers …

        Heaven help this country

      2. Everyone who writes makes mistakes, but I would be very interested in a study of Grant’s work in this blog to determine if his little slip ups tilt toward a negative image of things 49er. I noticed several in this article. I wouldn’t want to accuse him of such a tricky tactic without an unbiased study of the facts.

        1. htwaits,

          I was referring to Grant’s interview on Yahoo earlier today. The host continually referred to him as Grant Con, and how John Harbaugh would handle the situation with Ray McDonald.

  43. I’ve only been in the justice system for 40 years. So forgive me, what is a moral obligation? He hasn’t been found guilty of anything. You mean the 49ers should follow your sense of self righteousness? Who are you? Kinda of arrogant don’t you think to place your thoughts over the rest of humanity. Maybe allegations are sufficient to deprive people of life and liberty. I think the brown shirts did that in Germany. What hubris!

    1. Really? You’re going to tell a Jewish writer that he’s acting like a Nazi thug? Don’t take this the wrong way, but GTFO.

  44. Article in another part of the paper about a guy who spent 30 years in the slammer for a crime he did not commit. I ask myself, would any man in his right mind whack his girlfriend while other players are at his house? Don’t think so. Probably a whole lot more will come out in the near future…

  45. Since when did morality and winning ever go hand in hand?

    You all grew up in the suburbs if you think that there is any morality in winning in an urban league. Play basketball on the streets of Oakland, Los Angeles or New York. They’ll punch you in the face and then call foul on you.

    Shame on you for confusing the two.

    1. Definition of Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

        1. Thanks for the video. Of course I’m interested and It s/b a very close game. Damn I’d like to start out with a W at home. Everyone will be watching that Raider’s game.

          Good luck w/your game!

        2. Spaceborn: I skim BleacherRpt, PFT, si (D. Farrar), Fieldgulls (Danny Kelly), NinerNation, Seahawks.com. And depending upon who we’re playing, articles on those teams. And of course this site. This is the only site I comment on.

      1. Thank you for the definition. I’m sure it’s written tomato/tomato in another dictionary somewhere on the internet.

        My point is that the two shall never be confused. Guys drop balls and beg referees to overturn the call. Guys get fouled attempting a shot in the NBA and high five their teammates knowing they got blocked. Batters walk to first base after trying to fake like they got him by the baseball.

        Morality smorality.

  46. Grant has written yet another piece with no football substance.

    Face it: this blog operates for and by the commenters. The person whose name is attached to it, and who is charged with writing articles on it is entirely irrelevant. Grant is irrelevant. It’s not worth getting worked up over, because we’ll still be here long after Grant has been fired, or perhaps gone on to more salacious endeavors (TMZ).

    1. He’s only relevant when it comes to getting your comments deleted and answering questions only he thinks makes sense or has answers to.

      Too many ignorant peasants coddle this guy.

    2. JL, my take on Grant is a little different. I think he sees a growing list of participants around here who like to talk Niners 24/7. But he knows they’ll eventually get bored and go away. So he keeps them (us) coming back by expressing controversial opinions. I think some of it he believes and some of it he doesn’t know, but he says it anyway, again, to stir the pot so we come back every day. Mull over that thought and let me know what you think.

    3. Grant does a fine job at running this blog. B-l-o-g. Not the New York Times editorial section, it’s a friggin’ blog. I like the regulars here for the most part and this b-l-o-g is the happening place in the Bay area. If I need hard news it’s off to the Matts places but for pure fun and football this is where it’s at. And FWIW, both the P-D and JH like the kid a lot…

      1. Why? Because he sit’s in the background with his iPhone on record and transcribes other peoples questions?

        JH would hate the guy if he read his b-l-o-g.

  47. As to the idea that Carradine might not be on the 46, such would be another indication of coaching mismanagement.

    The final four plays in the Super Bowl: offensive mismanagement by playcallers. The exclusive (over)use of veteran players on the DL in 2011-2013: defensive mismanagement.

    This coaching staff is good at handling veteran players and good at maintaining small leads. This coaching staff is terrible at trusting and employing young talent and at building insurmountable leads.

    There is not enough aggression in this coaching staff. It’s time to turn Dial and Carradine loose. It’s time to let McCray play. It’s time to come out of the gates attacking opposing defenses with aggressive playcalling, and after building a touchdown lead, going after a 14 point lead.

    Once upon a time, Harbaugh ran up the score on lesser foes. It’s time he once again adopt this philosophy.

    1. Very very well said! This team needs to come out aggressive and put away opponents early.. This defense the ways it is constructed right now due to injuries and suspensions will not be able to hold leads.. We have to turn into the broncos or saints for the first 10 weeks if we have any kind of chance!

    2. McCray I like but not sure he’s ready to replace Bethea or Reid. He’s only plaid against other teams 2, 3 and 4’s. It might be a terrible day for him against Dez. I bet he still has some work to do learning the scheme. Vic already said Dahl will come off the bench first and if a prolonged absence then he’d consider Ward. I trust Vic.

      Lets hope Carradine can get his assignments right. I’d love to see him pick up some of the pass rush we lose with Aldon.

  48. Jack what do you think of PPF’s article? Their grades for Aldon are interesting when you consider your research on how the 49ers faired without him last season. How are they grading compared to your data?


    Also curious on Ward. Grant’s description of Ward isn’t quite the same as PFF.

    The 49ers selected safety Jimmie Ward with their first-round pick in the 2014 draft with an eye on him as the team’s slot corner in their nickel defense. By using a “Big Nickel” package, the hope was Ward could provide much more run support than Carlos Rogers, who signed with Oakland after being released in the offseason. Ward has done everything he has been asked so far this preseason. Not only does he have a +1.8 grade against the run, he has been solid in coverage as well. In addition to a +2.8 coverage grade, Ward has allowed just a 50.0 passer rating when targeted, while surrendering just 48 receiving yards in 94 coverage snaps, and also grabbing an interception.

    If Ward can continue this kind of play into the regular season, the 49ers will have added a run-stopper to their nickel package without losing anything in pass coverage from last year.

    1. wilson,

      Their piece is fine. The grades on Smith compared to Skuta/Lemonier make sense because when it comes to the grades you also need to take into account the number of snaps. Smith had far more opportunities throughout the season and that adds up to more +’s next to his name on the grade sheet.

  49. Good chance Martin starts at RT according to Barrows. Davis still in rehab Mode and not practicing.

  50. You are wrong Grant…again. That is not how this country should or does work. You are innocent until proven guilty. That goes for athletes too. What if the Niners had suspended Kaepernick? An innocent man. Simply under investigation. Why should he have his livelihood impacted before being proved guilty. McDonald being arrested, it does not make him guilty. He is STILL presumed innocent by a court of law. The ONLY thing that matters with regard to criminal proceedings. If he is found guilty, the consequences will be severe and should. He will be cut, without a job, and further punished by the legal system. That is the great thing about our country, we don’t punish people until they are proven guilty. If you don’t like it, happy to buy you a ticket to Siberia.

    1. Da ..

      I like your enthusiasm .. however ..
      I have a feeling, …
      I may have heard
      that sentiment (somewhere) before ;-)

    2. This has nothing to do with how the country works. This is about a BUSINESS making the business and PR move that makes the most sense. It is not at all a freedom issue.

  51. To everyone saying “Innocent until proven guilty” –

    That’s the same as saying Donald Sterling should not have been punished because of freedom of speech.

    The 49ers are a private enterprise. They can make whatever business and PR decisions that they feel are in the best interest of their brand.

    1. Brady,
      Well put.
      To this point no one has made a valid point or a clear argument on how benching McDonald violates his Constitutional Rights.

      Benching a player vs firing a player (without due process) is the difference here.
      RayMac is not losing his job or paycheck by sitting out. As long as he remains on the team and receives his paycheck during the investigative process I see no violation of his rights.

      1. AES:

        The people who keep referring to McDonald’s Constitutional Rights obviously misunderstand the scope of those rights. That said, the concern for not judging or punishing someone unfairly extends beyond the law, and it’s a legitimate concern in this case.

        Benching McDonald at this stage risks sending the message that the 49ers think he did something wrong. Such a message would stain McDonald’s reputation, which is a stain that is often impossible to clean. If the 49ers are going to risk sending such a message and causing such a stain, they should do so only if the information they gather leads them to believe he physically abused his fiancee.

        Enough time has passed that the 49ers should be close to having a pretty good idea what happened. If McDonald plays on Sunday, I would take that as a sign that the 49ers did not learn anything that would lead them to believe McDonald physically abused her.

        The problem I have with the 49ers’ response is that Harbaugh shouldn’t serve as the team’s spokesman on this issue. It’s not his forte; in fact, he’s not particularly good at it. Moreover, he should be focused on preparing for Sunday’s game. The team would be much better served if Harbaugh referred all questions on this topic to Baalke and let Baalke field them. I thought he handled the questioning well the other day. Actually, Jed York should be the one dealing with this, but it’s pretty clear that he isn’t going to step up on this one.

  52. The 49ers have an obligation to bench him according to who? You? They allowed Aldon to play his first game after DUI but then sat out 5 games without the league mandating it. Where did that get them? Nowhere. Would be stupid to bench him.

    1. Agreed. In my mind, the 49ers made the best PR decision possible.They are beholden to THEIR fans, not Seattle trolls who come here and would love nothing more than to see the 49ers bench one of their best players. If polled, 80% of Niners fans (the people who support their product) would agree to let McDonald play until the legal system runs its course. The NFL is responsible for these situations from a broader perspective. The Niners are not. Their view is regional, and frankly, if the Niners pandered to all the non-fans, naysayers, hippies, critics and crazies in the Bay Area, they wouldn’t even have a stadium right now. They would have moved years ago. If McDonald is found guilty, he will be let go and punished by the law. He will likely never play for a team again. If the potential to take everything from someone is there, make damn sure that the person is guilty of the crime first.

    2. The 49ers have had more off field run in than any team in the NFL over the last 3 years and think it’s about Grant or me?

      Time to get a clue and open your eyes.

Comments are closed.