Why did the CFL treat Robert Sands and Brandon Underwood differently than Ray Rice? Where do the CFL and the PA stand on domestic violence?

The New York Times piece on current Eskimo Robert Sands and current Stampeder Brandon Underwood's past charges of domestic violence indicates that both players are still under suspension by the NFL. That raises questions about why the CFL treated them differently than Ray Rice, who was specifically banned from the CFL after being released by the NFL's Baltimore Ravens once video of him striking his fiancée emerged. The NFL suspended Underwood for two games in 2011 under its personal-conduct policy, but the Times story says it was unclear whether that was for the incident with his wife or his involvement in another case that saw him plead guilty to misdemeanour prostitution. However, it doesn't appear he fulfilled that suspension. The Times'' statement that Underwood was "cut by the Packers before the 2011 season and has not played in the N.F.L. since," as he signed with Oakland in 2012 and Dallas in 2013, but he didn't make it out of training camp with either team. Thus, he presumably wouldn't have served his suspension. Similarly, Sands was cut before the 2013 season and didn't play anywhere in the NFL since, so the two-game suspension for him mentioned in the Times piece (which, oddly enough, he says he wasn't notified of), also wouldn't have been served.

CFL vice-president (communications and broadcast) Matt Maychak told 55-Yard Line Tuesday that he couldn't comment on specific players' cases, including those of Sands and Underwood. However, he noted that the CFL doesn't generally uphold NFL suspensions if the player is not currently signed to an NFL team. That's why players suspended by the NFL, like Argos' receiver LaVon Brazill, can play in Canada. (The league does respect NFL contracts and recognize suspensions where the player is still under contract; that's the Ricky Williams Rule, and that's why Josh Gordon isn't in the CFL right now.) Maychak went on to say that decisions about who to sign or not sign based on their backgrounds are generally made by individual teams.

"Our teams look at players and their past on an individual basis," Maychak said.

Maychak said teams may and sometimes do consult with the league office before signing a player, but the office only specifically intervenes to prohibit a player's signing league-wide in unusual cases. The league  did that with a statement from commissioner Mark Cohon saying CFL teams could not sign Ray Rice back in September, shortly after the NFL's Baltimore Ravens released Rice in the wake of the release of the video of him knocking out his then-fiancée (now his wife). Maychak said Cohon's prohibition of Rice was intended to send the message that Rice's conduct was unacceptable to the CFL.

"[Cohon] clearly wanted to send a strong signal that [Rice] wasn't welcome in this league, in light of what he did and the clear proof that was available," Maychak said.

Whether the league should have done that with Sands or Underwood (or other players with pasts involving charges of domestic violence, such as Montreal WR Chad Johnson and Montreal RB Chris Rainey) is a matter of debate. Some might argue that the CFL should have a complete no-tolerance policy for signing anyone accused of domestic violence, some might advocate the league should keep out only anyone with a conviction (although conviction rates in these cases can be low, and convictions are often of a lesser charge), some might say the teams should continue to make their own decisions, and some might contend that the CFL has always been about giving players second chances and should continue to do that. All of these discussions are likely to come up as the league moves towards a domestic violence policy.

What's clear for the moment is that for now, it's generally the CFL's teams making decisions on players on a case-by-case basis. That doesn't always mean players will be approved; Johnson initially wanted to sign with B.C., but Lions' general manager Wally Buono said publicly he wouldn't take Johnson given his domestic violence charges. Montreal GM Jim Popp made a different decision, but the Alouettes haven't always kept players in trouble either; they released Arland Bruce III this offseason after he made homophobic comments on social media. Teams are accountable to their fans, so if any of them receive enough pressure to cut these guys, they probably will; otherwise, they're likely to stick around.

The CFL office does have the power to intervene. There is a broad clause that gives the commissioner power to punish any player or executive "bringing disrepute to the league." However, that clause is seldom-used. Similarly, although the commissioner has the power to intervene to stop teams from signing a player, Maychak could only cite the Rice case as an example of that being used. Thus, until the league gets a concrete domestic violence policy (something they are working towards), disciplinary action for players with a past of domestic violence (or present charges of domestic violence, or other things such as the Riders' players charged with assault) is probably going to come from the teams except in highly unusual circumstances, such as the Rice case.

Note: The CFL Players' Association may also have a role to play in punishments over domestic violence. When asked about a potential league domestic violence policy in September, however, CFLPA president Scott Flory declined to comment. A request for comment Tuesday went unanswered. 

See also our interview with Maychak about the CFL's progress towards a domestic violence policy, and our breakdown of the cases of four CFL players who have prominently faced domestic violence charges.