Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

The only thing that makes sense to me is that Rath and the woman were fooling around, got caught by the husband and the woman had to claim she wasn't consenting. Rath was on his own to wiggle out of it and he seems to have figured out a way.

Either that, or the story being told is so ridiculous that it's actually true.

LARams_1963 wrote:I don't think you have a choice. He was acquitted, he should retain his job, whether we like it or not. Set's a bad precedent if they don't keep him. What would be next? All someone has to do is cry wolf (not saying this is the case here) and you lose your job? I would hate to lose my job over someone fabricating a claim against me. While we don't know the complete truth to this case we do know they found him not guilty.

I think it's a little grayer than that. He did not deny doing what he was accused of doing. So yeah there was no crying wolf in this case. His defense was that he wasn't in a mental state to act on a willful intent, and since this law turns on your intention, apparently that was enough to give the jury reasonable doubt. He didn't say he didn't do it--he basically said he wasn't in a state of mind (for medical reasons) to consciously and deliberately intend what he did.

That IS part of the truth in this case that we DO know...he never said "it didn't happen" or "I didn't do it."

So that leaves a gray area IMO. Is that defense believable outside that courtroom? Because the NFL does not have to accept that defense. So since he didn't deny doing what he is accused of but got off presumably because of his mental state at the time, is that enough for the Rams to say no he's fine? Or the league for that matter.

moklerman wrote:The only thing that makes sense to me is that Rath and the woman were fooling around, got caught by the husband and the woman had to claim she wasn't consenting. Rath was on his own to wiggle out of it and he seems to have figured out a way.

Either that, or the story being told is so ridiculous that it's actually true.

As I said earlier, if you look at what is said about crime stats the universal view is that false accusations of rape or sexual assault are rare. Basically you're saying it was a false accusation.

If we're going to explore what is believable to us, here's what I don't find believable myself. This is still an era when most women will not report assaults or rapes largely because of the "blame the victim" kind of stigma they face if they do it. So for your hypothetical scenario to be true, a woman would rather face that kind of emotional pressure AND blame someone falsely to the point of jeopardizing the man's career, rather than just admit they were caught cheating? That does not sound likely to me. (Plus I don't know how many people have the hubris to mess around with the husband in the other room.)

I think what happened is what everyone said happened, and the jury then accepted the idea that Rath being messed up was enough to not really have a willful intent. That was his defense anyway and you have to assume what got him acquited was his defense.

If that story sounds implausible---that him being messed up that way means he's not guilty of the action he doesn't deny doing---then maybe it;s because that IS an implausible defense. Even though the jury bought it. I believe he was messed up and that that contributed to him doing it. I am not sure I count that as "not guilty."

...

....

In my best Bill Bellicheck (if Rath was the Patriots S&C Coach):

At Presser, Bellicheck to Media: "Coach Rath is no longer with the team. We thank him for his past efforts and wish him luck in his future endeavours."

Media to Bellicheck: "But Coach Bellicheck, he was found Not Guilty by a jury of his peers! Doesn't he deserve to keep his job if he was found Not Guilty!!?"

Bellicheck to Media: "No he does not! THERE IS A LINE!
…..AND MR. RATH FONDLED THAT LINE!!!"

Media to Bellicheck: "Aren't you being unfair here?"

Bellicheck to Media: "We're on to Cincinnati."

CanuckRightWinger wrote:In my best Bill Bellicheck (if Rath was the Patriots S&C Coach):

Bellicheck to Media: "No he does not! THERE IS A LINE!
…..AND MR. RATH FONDLED THAT LINE!!!" :shock2:

Media to Bellicheck: "Aren't you being unfair here?"

Bellicheck to Media: "We're on to Cincinnati."

Best line this summer!

LARams_1963 wrote:I don't think you have a choice. He was acquitted, he should retain his job, whether we like it or not. Set's a bad precedent if they don't keep him. What would be next? All someone has to do is cry wolf (not saying this is the case here) and you lose your job? I would hate to lose my job over someone fabricating a claim against me. While we don't know the complete truth to this case we do know they found him not guilty.

Some things just aren't fair in this world. La'el Collins was just a person of interest and later cleared of anything in a murder case. He went from first round status to undrafted. That cost him millions of dollars. He seems like he's in line for a big payday soon, but imagine the lost money till now.

If the Rams cut ties it would be unfair but things are not always fair. Perhaps Rath will learn not to be put in a position like that again. He should probably focus on his family and assure his wife he's not that kind of guy. In my 30 plus years of marriage I was never unfaithful because I never allowed myself to be put in a position to have to make that choice.

I don't have all the facts, so there are blanks I can't fill in, but here's what I can say about Rath's employment status...

The first question is whether he's under a contract. If the answer is "yes," then the next question is what do the Rams have to establish ("cause") to terminate the contract.

If he's not under a contract with a specified term, then he's "at-will." This means that the Rams can terminate him at any time with or without cause. This is often described as the right to terminate "for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." Thus, in the absence of some statutory claim (which I'll discuss below) that overrides the "at-will" rule, its not enough for Rath to simply say "you can't fire me... I was acquitted."

Even if Rath is at-will, he might have the ability to challenge a termination if he claims that he is being discriminated against due to a disability (I don't know enough about his medical condition to state whether he meets the legal definition) or because he is being "regarded as disabled."

In this regard, if the Rams wish to terminate him, they need to be strategic in how they describe their reasoning. If, for example, he admitted in the trial that he became intoxicated at a work-related event and then drove a car, that might be a reason that the team could cite to that is unrelated to the alleged disability.

If I had to guess, I'd predict that Rath leaves the team quietly, having received some form of severance in exchange for a release.

I get the distinct impression the Rams want to keep Rath.

Otherwise they would've let him go after he was arrested.

Unless, of course, there's the medical/disability/legal component to this as Avenger has talked about.

Still, my gut/take is they want to keep him if they think they can pull it off...

Aren't most NFL jobs contingent on you not doing something to embarrass the NFL? I don't know the legalese but getting your team, even if just by association, dragged through the mud is reason enough for most companies to just walk away. Whatever he provides isn't worth what it cost in the court of public opinion.

That being said, since a jury was so quick to find him not guilty it seems there is something to his story. If he actually didn't do something wrong, it would be a shame for him to lose his (cush)job.

moklerman wrote:Aren't most NFL jobs contingent on you not doing something to embarrass the NFL? I don't know the legalese but getting your team, even if just by association, dragged through the mud is reason enough for most companies to just walk away. Whatever he provides isn't worth what it cost in the court of public opinion.

That being said, since a jury was so quick to find him not guilty it seems there is something to his story. If he actually didn't do something wrong, it would be a shame for him to lose his (cush)job.

Right, personal conduct.

But if this was medical in nature (at least legally) as Avenger talked about, then personal conduct might not apply...

Elvis wrote:I get the distinct impression the Rams want to keep Rath.

Otherwise they would've let him go after he was arrested.

Unless, of course, there's the medical/disability/legal component to this as Avenger has talked about.

Still, my gut/take is they want to keep him if they think they can pull it off...

Well as much as I love my Rams, ultimately they are like the rest of the teams when it comes to this type of thing. And IMO they don’t really care about his part in this. They’ll make their decision on whether or not they think they can brush it under the rug. If they get by without letting him go, great.
But if backlash goes viral? Surely there will be a termination using “conduct” as the issue.