The Weird, Wacky and Awesome World of the NFL - General Banter thread V2

Beefy78

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I haven't read TO's link yet, so maybe I'll change my mind, but I don't have a problem with ghost writing the articles per se. We all want to get the kind of insights only a player can give, in any sport, but writing is a difficult trade, and I'd no more expect a player to be be really good at it than I'd expect the writers to be able to run a bootleg. My understanding is that the players sit down, or make a serious of calls, with the writer, and rather than transcribe, the writer renders what they have to say in more engaging, coherent prose. It's no problem as long as they don't misrepresent them. I know ex gaa players do this in Irish papers all the time, and while I really enjoy Jackie Tyrell (despite being a cowboys fan) talking about his experience at the top level of his sport, I don't think I could sit through anything he wrote by himself. It's a worthwhile compromise, I think.

Exactly. It's the same as 99% of autobiographies and pretty much every newspaper column 'written by' a sportsman . People still talk about "Roy Keane's book" as if he sat at a typewriter and put it together. Same as these.

Beefy78

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

I suppose it's just a question of how much steering goes on. But interviewing sports stars is an art form in itself, if you can get them to say something interesting you're doing sterling work (unless their last name is Bennett). But there's always the risk the writer is shaping the narrative more than the player, and of course we'll never know.

You'd know because the player would come out straight away and say that that wasn't what they said or what they meant. I imagine they have to sign-off on the final piece before it goes to print too.

The ghost-writer might steer a conversation but most of the time it's just a job of structuring the spoken words into an article or book that is engaging for the reader.

Shedite27

If anyone wants an example of a book that wasn't ghost written (or spell checked)....
https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Not-Be-Professional-Footballer/dp/0007424973

jack presley

The Dakulator - How many game minutes it will take each starting QB to earn the same salary as Dak. Only a gimmick so not to be taken seriously but fun nonetheless.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20552511/how-long-takes-nfl-other-stars-earn-dak-prescott-2017-paycheck-nfl-dallas-cowboys

krustydoyle

Chiefs confirm S Eric Berry done for the season..

Knex*

Christ, that man has had a rough time of it.

TOss Sweep

Damn sucks to see Berry going down for the season. Dude is a fantastic guy and player. He had Gronk in his pocket all last night.

Billy86

That's horrible, one of the safeties, defensive players, players in the entire league for my money, and also someone you just don't really see anyone have a bad word to say about, been a pro bowler every year he was in the league bar two - when he missed the whole season with an ACL, then when he missed 2/3rds of another with cancer of all things (and won comeback POTY the next season), and an all pro for his last three seasons (excluding when he got cancer)... and now this?

Can only hope he becomes the second person after Chad Pennington to twice win comeback player of the year, the guy's a fucking champ.

Itssoeasy

https://twitter.com/captandrewluck/status/906227524832821248

brinty

Zeke is free

Paully D

5 years ago today, RG3's debut against the Saints.

What might have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_egkP0goKI

krustydoyle

So who's gonna come out of this Elliot debacle looking worse??

brinty

krustydoyle wrote: »

So who's gonna come out of this Elliot debacle looking worse??

Go dell

I'm not saying there was no case against zeke and he didn't assault the girl at some stage. but the facts were a legal court could not produce credible evidence to convict him and the prosecutor found the girl involved to be an unreliable witness.

The NFL then convicted him, and the appeal hearing upheld that. The TRO was granted based on the NFL and their failure to follow their own rules. That puts goddell and the NFL in a terrible position

Foxtrol

brinty wrote: »

Go dell

I'm not saying there was no case against zeke and he didn't assault the girl at some stage. but the facts were a legal court could not produce credible evidence to convict him and the prosecutor found the girl involved to be an unreliable witness.

The NFL then convicted him, and the appeal hearing upheld that. The TRO was granted based on the NFL and their failure to follow their own rules. That puts goddell and the NFL in a terrible position

This isn't an issue, they don't and never should set the same level of proof as a criminal court.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Foxtrol wrote: »

This isn't an issue, they don't and never should set the same level of proof as a criminal court.

Not that I fully disagree, but when people start losing their pay, they should have a greater level of proof than what they typically go for. And they need to seriously get their act in order, and ensure that injunctions are unlikely to occur.
In this case, given the unreliability of the women in question, the case was weak. The parade incident should have cost him two games.
It's another mess.

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Not that I fully disagree, but when people start losing their pay, they should have a greater level of proof than what they typically go for...

There are 2 standards of proof, beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law, the balance of probabilities in other matters, including disciplinary hearings.

I really don't think we should have some new, third, intermediate standard for NFL players. It would involve throwing jurisprudence out the window.

Having said that, I'm not sure the NFL should get involved in these matters at all. I really don't see why it takes it on itself to deal with non football related allegations.

Foxtrol

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Not that I fully disagree, but when people start losing their pay, they should have a greater level of proof than what they typically go for. And they need to seriously get their act in order, and ensure that injunctions are unlikely to occur.
In this case, given the unreliability of the women in question, the case was weak. The parade incident should have cost him two games.
It's another mess.

What level of proof do you believe is fair?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Deleted User wrote: »

There are 2 standards of proof, beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law, the balance of probabilities in other matters, including disciplinary hearings.

I really don't think we should have some new, third, intermediate standard for NFL players. It would involve throwing jurisprudence out the window.

Having said that, I'm not sure the NFL should get involved in these matters at all. I really don't see why it takes it on itself to deal with non football related allegations.

We're aware of the difference. We don't new a third standard, just for the NFL to apply their probabilities with a degree of fairness (that doesn't require huge investigations and visits to the courts).

j8wk2feszrnpao

Foxtrol wrote: »

What level of proof do you believe is fair?

Something that doesn't have a judge stating this:

"The NFL's actions demonstrate that from the very beginning of the decision-making process, a cloud of fundamental unfairness followed Elliott," the judge wrote. "Unfortunately, this cloud followed Elliott into the arbitration proceedings. The arbitration record shows that the NFL, at the very least, turned a blind eye to [investigator Kia] Roberts's dissenting opinion. This entire set of circumstances was put in front of Henderson. It is in this light the court views [arbitrator] Harold Henderson's decisions to exclude [Elliott's ex-girlfriend Tiffany] Thompson and Commissioner [Roger] Goodell as necessary witnesses, as gross errors resulting in a fundamentally unfair hearing."

Foxtrol

Deleted User wrote: »

Having said that, I'm not sure the NFL should get involved in these matters at all. I really don't see why it takes it on itself to deal with non football related allegations.

They have to as the legal system generally means that players, due to their wealth and connections, avoid punishment in court and rarely will the teams reprimand them if they are at the top end.

Not only do they have a moral obligation to do something but many fans are now demanding they take these issues seriously and in turn their sponsors.

Foxtrol

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Something that doesn't have a judge stating this:

"The NFL's actions demonstrate that from the very beginning of the decision-making process, a cloud of fundamental unfairness followed Elliott," the judge wrote. "Unfortunately, this cloud followed Elliott into the arbitration proceedings. The arbitration record shows that the NFL, at the very least, turned a blind eye to [investigator Kia] Roberts's dissenting opinion. This entire set of circumstances was put in front of Henderson. It is in this light the court views [arbitrator] Harold Henderson's decisions to exclude [Elliott's ex-girlfriend Tiffany] Thompson and Commissioner [Roger] Goodell as necessary witnesses, as gross errors resulting in a fundamentally unfair hearing."

Not following correct process has nothing to do with the burden of proof.

You said 'they should have a greater level of proof than what they typically go for', what is this greater level of proof?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Foxtrol wrote: »

Not following correct process has nothing to do with the burden of proof.

Em, yes it does. If you are not following a correct process (turning a blind eye, excluding necessary witnesses), then you're not seeking all the proof for your decision.
The NFL should base it on all the evidence, not just the evidence it wants to make a decision. It's not a court of law, the NFL shouldn't see themselves solely as the prosecution.
We saw in the Brady appeal that the NFL directly lied about what occurred in the appeal, which was shown when the transcript was released (which the NFL fought).

When a judge uses that language to describe their process, there's serious fault on their side.

I can't defend Zeke, I don't know if he's guilty or not; but does the NFL have to make such mistakes.

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Em, yes it does. If you are not following a correct process (turning a blind eye, excluding necessary witnesses), then you're not seeking all the proof for your decision.

You are confusing different legal issues, due process - which it is alleged was missing in the NFL investigation - and the standard of proof. The latter didn't and shouldn't change. It happens all the time in employment law, a person says they were denied due process in disciplinary action, but that is wholly different to saying the standard of proof should be raised.

Foxtrol

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Em, yes it does. If you are not following a correct process (turning a blind eye, excluding necessary witnesses), then you're not seeking all the proof for your decision.
The NFL should base it on all the evidence, not just the evidence it wants to make a decision. It's not a court of law, the NFL shouldn't see themselves solely as the prosecution.
We saw in the Brady appeal that the NFL directly lied about what occurred in the appeal, which was shown when the transcript was released (which the NFL fought).

When a judge uses that language to describe their process, there's serious fault on their side.

I can't defend Zeke, I don't know if he's guilty or not; but does the NFL have to make such mistakes.

Conor74 has posted clearly your confusion between standard of proof and due process. You keep quoting the judge but I can't see where they take issue with the standard of proof required.

I agree there is questions to be asked about due process in both Zeke and Brady cases but I strongly disagree with your claim that 'have a greater level of proof than what they typically go for'. You can't try to get to a level of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in these situations because it is so easy for people to paid off, to destroy evidence, lie to investigators (as there'd be no sanctions possible unlike when under oath) etc to muddy the waters enough that the person would get away with it (just like in criminal proceedings).

j8wk2feszrnpao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You are confusing different legal issues, due process - which it is alleged was missing in the NFL investigation - and the standard of proof. The latter didn't and shouldn't change. It happens all the time in employment law, a person says they were denied due process in disciplinary action, but that is wholly different to saying the standard of proof should be raised.

Not confusing it at all. The NFL's process is not the court system, it's their own. I'm simply stating that when they decide to deny a player playing time or payslip, it should be done in a correct manner with an appropriate level of proof.

Foxtrol

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Not confusing it at all. The NFL's process is not the court system, it's their own. I'm simply stating that when they decide to deny a player playing time or payslip, it should be done in a correct manner with an appropriate level of proof.

For a 3rd time I'll ask you what you believe the appropriate standard of proof is?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Foxtrol wrote: »

I strongly disagree with your claim that 'have a greater level of proof than what they typically go for'. You can't try to get to a level of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in these situations

I'm not saying they need to be 100% convinced, not at all. But if they are, using the judges wording, closing their eyes and excluding witnesses; then they aren't even trying.

Again, no idea if Zeke is guilty or not. But at least be open to all evidence, and avoid heading to court again. If they are not following a fair process, then I think they could have a greater level of proof for their decisions.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Foxtrol wrote: »

For a 3rd time I'll ask you what you believe the appropriate standard of proof is?

You're asking me, again. Kinda said it already. Stop closing your eyes and excluding evidence would be a start (which more or less stated initially).
For a detailed document on "my personal belief of standard of proof".....give me a few months when I have the free time.

munstermagic11

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Not confusing it at all. The NFL's process is not the court system, it's their own.

All processes are subject to an element of review of the Courts, at least on a point of law. It's pretty fundamental in a democracy. All are based on the balance of probabilities. All must follow due process. The NFL is not exempt and it cannot apply different standards.

munstermagic11 wrote: »

when people start losing their pay, they should have a greater level of proof than what they typically go for...

munstermagic11 wrote: »

If they are not following a fair process, then I think they could have a greater level of proof for their decisions.

I think there is a shift from saying the standard of proof need to change, which is wrong, to saying the standard of proof is correct, it just wasn't reached...which I can't say.

helimachoptor

Game day so bloody excited. Family stuff to 5:45 then food prep and then watch the titans kick ass