Before I write today's thoughts, I want to do a disclaimer.  I do not, under any circumstances other than a life threatening situation, endorse or condone men hitting women. I think men who hit women are cowards.  Period.  I have no problem with a man restraining a woman to keep her from harming him or herself, but any man who just hauls off and belts a woman should spend some significant time in the crossbar Hilton.

That said, while I agree that Oakland Raiders head coach Tom Cable may be a scumbag, the allegations (and that's what they are at this point, allegations) against him are all of past deeds done years ago.  It is obvious from the allegations of those deeds and from his recent punching out of an assistant that Cable may have anger issues.   This piece isn't necessarily to defend Cable, it's to defend his right to face his accusers and be judged by a jury of his peers and not a TV network out to pour gasoline on the situation.

Outside forces should not determine whether or not a man should make a living.  That's an issue between him and his employer.  Certainly, if Al Davis feels that Tom Cable is more of a liability than a asset, he will be replaced. And, that should be Davis' decision alone to make. But, unfortunately, that's not how it works.  There is the NFL, which is most likely trying to get Davis to remove Cable "for the good of the league."  There is ESPN, who will beat the drum for Cable's dismissal until it happens and then beat their chests that he is gone.  And then, there are the female writers, who publications trot out every time there is an issue or allegation involving sex or abuse.

In the case of Sports Illustrated, their designated male basher is Ann Killion.  I don't disagree with most of what she writes, that the allegations are disturbing and that Al Davis and the Oakland organization should take stock.  But then comes the part which raises an eyebrow or two:

It's one thing to have a physical altercation with another man in the testosterone-fueled world of the NFL. But it is a far different, far more disturbing thing to be a man who hits women. It's unacceptable to leave such a person in a position of leadership.

See, this is where I get annoyed.  She's already convicted the guy, and sentenced him to the unemployment line.  Unacceptable to whom, Ann?  There are men in positions of leadership who have done far worse.  There are others, and Michael Vick comes to mind, who have paid the price and still can find employment.  And then, as we said, we're talking about allegations, some over twenty years old that are he said, she said

One, his first wife, Sandy, said Cable hit her 22 years ago. Cable admitted he did, saying he "slapped her with an open hand" after learning she had committed adultery. Sandy Cable quickly released another statement saying there was no adultery and that he punched her with a fist.

And the truth is...?  I don't know, but neither do you and neither does Ann or anyone else for that matter.  Cable has credibility issues here because of the number of accusations, but still, since no one else was there besides Mr. and Mrs. Cable, it becomes he said, she said. 

And then, she caps it off by demanding the NFL make cable go away to preserve the league's image:

Sheriff Roger Goodell can't very well look the other way if a head coach has a history of physical abuse. The league can't perpetuate an image that it tacitly endorses violence against women.

Yet, it already has the image of having animal abusers, murderers, hit and run drivers, drunk drivers, etc. so what's one more charge? And to be honest, until all the information is processed by responsible investigators and not hack writers, the truth is still out there.  True, the NFL should take action against Cable for his fight with Randy Hanson, but then again, there are way too many conflicts in the story at this point to know the truth.  Even the DA can't get enough evidence together for a criminal complaint.  In my book, that means the case is iffy to begin with.

I hope Tom Cable gets whatever he deserves, especially if he is not telling the truth about the allegations against him.  But since I don't know the facts, I'm not sure what the truth or appropriate punishment is.  I'd rather wait to find out instead of convict someone based on shaky evidence.  It's a new concept you may have heard of Ann.  It's called due process.