soxhop411 said:
soxhop411 said:
Except that she's been hired to be an administrator not the sole authority for the league.Devizier said:
Honestly, that has the makings of a real issue, Kraft linkage or no. This is akin to Tagliabue's bullshit of the nineties. Of course the NFL doesn't want to change.
She's also a professor at Harvard Medical School.Chuck Z said:Except that she's been hired to be an administrator not the sole authority for the league.
drleather2001 said:I'm unclear on how this reflects on the Patriots poorly, at all.
theapportioner said:Plus, she heads a major academic medical center and ran a major NIH division. She's qualified.
Devizier said:
It doesn't. It's pretty clearly a league office issue, if there's cause for controversy. This isn't an Elliot Pellman situation (yet) but the league hasn't exactly been trustworthy on this issue.
The NFL could only WISH they would be so lucky to have that conflict of interest at this point.theapportioner said:This is so stupid. Let's say that both Eli Lilly and Pfizer come out with medications that may forestall the progressive neurodegenerative effects of CTE. Both want to partner with the NFL on drug endorsements and what-not. And let's say that Betsy Nabel is actually a neurologist who has grant funding from one of these companies for research relating to concussions. That would be a real conflict of interest.
He understands perfectly. This is an incredibly weak attempt to extricate himself from an indefensible position. He's clownshoes.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
It really is remarkable that a man like Kravitz, whose career involves words, is so poor at understanding how they're used.
Exactly.Let's get this out of the way: the anti-Semitic comments are horribly disgusting and he doesn't "deserve" such hateful things said to him. OK? OK.
Now, Kravitz is pretty much lying about this "I didn't realize about twitter" etc comment. His initial tweet referenced punishment (loss of draft picks). He ramped up the rhetoric immediately afterwards, calling for everyone's heads and generally acting like it was a fait accompli that the Patriots had done this deliberately. Walking it back now changes nothing and he well knows it.
I actually have to give props to the NFL on this one. From a superficial, PR standpoint, hiring a concussion expert might be the way to go, but it would also potentially lead to the problems I mentioned above.simplyeric said:The NFL could only WISH they would be so lucky to have that conflict of interest at this point.
Indeed.theapportioner said:I actually have to give props to the NFL on this one. From a superficial, PR standpoint, hiring a concussion expert might be the way to go, but it would also potentially lead to the problems I mentioned above.
She's going to be, first and foremost, a fucking administrator. As someone who can give you an expert opinion that the NFL concussion protocol stuff is unadulterated bullshit, her particular appointment doesn't have anything to do with anything.Devizier said:
Honestly, that has the makings of a real issue, Kraft linkage or no. This is akin to Tagliabue's bullshit of the nineties. Of course the NFL doesn't want to change.
baghdadjamie said:http://deadspin.com/mike-florio-calls-out-david-letterman-for-being-a-comed-1685444729
Florio still at it. He won't stop!
P'tucket said:She's going to be, first and foremost, a fucking administrator. As someone who can give you an expert opinion that the NFL concussion protocol stuff is unadulterated bullshit, her particular appointment doesn't have anything to do with anything.
Someone needs to tell Florio that sports are supposed to be fun. He's not Bob fucking Woodward here. You COVER SPORTS!BigSoxFan said:Florio also doesn't seem to realize that nobody gives a shit about this story anymore.
BigSoxFan said:Florio also doesn't seem to realize that nobody gives a shit about this story anymore.
"NFL reporter" or "low point"?Devizier said:I think he realizes it quite well. But the combine is a ways away and this has to be the low point of the year for any NFL reporter (I use the term loosely in Florio's case).
Devizier said:
I think he realizes it quite well. But the combine is a ways away and this has to be the low point of the year for any NFL reporter (I use the term loosely in Florio's case).
Yes! Koko. My apologies, I went with the homonym.GeorgeCostanza said:You mean koko? Or are you making a Conan reference?
Either way I think Kruger Industrial Smoothing would have handled this entire thing better than the NFL has. Mr Kruger for commissioner!
Mugsy's Walk-Off Bunt said:Yes! Koko. My apologies, I went with the homonym.
TomTerrific said:I'm probably getting too sensitive, but the passage in this NYT article from Saturday pissed me off:
"In fact, Goodell has become such a piñata of sorts that fans, television analysts, columnists and women’s advocates continue to call for him to be replaced. Even when he seems to have taken control of a situation, he is criticized for the way he handles it.
That certainly has been the case with the inquiry into why almost all of the balls used by the New England Patriots in the A.F.C. championship game were not fully inflated. For days after the game, the league said only that it was looking into the matter. In the vacuum, Coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady held awkward news conferences to defend the team. As the controversy started to overshadow the Super Bowl, the league finally appointed Ted Wells — the lawyer who looked into the biggest scandal of 2013: bullying in the Miami Dolphins locker room — to lead an investigation.
Some critics said the league was trying to avoid announcing the findings before the Super Bowl. But in an unusual show of defiance, Robert K. Kraft, the Patriots’ owner and one of Goodell’s closest allies, told reporters that his team was innocent and deserved an apology from the league."
Note how it's just taken as fact that "almost all" of the Pats' balls were under-inflated. What's really irritating is that the writers' point could just as easily have been made while acknowledging the uncertainty and press-leaky nature of the whole affair.
I have a problem with the frequent characterization of Kraft, Belichick, and Brady as "defiant". That suggests they're being uncooperative or resistant in the face of established facts, or perhaps a disciplinary ruling. Hardly.TomTerrific said:I'm probably getting too sensitive, but the passage in this NYT article from Saturday pissed me off:
"In fact, Goodell has become such a piñata of sorts that fans, television analysts, columnists and women’s advocates continue to call for him to be replaced. Even when he seems to have taken control of a situation, he is criticized for the way he handles it.
That certainly has been the case with the inquiry into why almost all of the balls used by the New England Patriots in the A.F.C. championship game were not fully inflated. For days after the game, the league said only that it was looking into the matter. In the vacuum, Coach Bill Belichick and quarterback Tom Brady held awkward news conferences to defend the team. As the controversy started to overshadow the Super Bowl, the league finally appointed Ted Wells — the lawyer who looked into the biggest scandal of 2013: bullying in the Miami Dolphins locker room — to lead an investigation.
Some critics said the league was trying to avoid announcing the findings before the Super Bowl. But in an unusual show of defiance, Robert K. Kraft, the Patriots’ owner and one of Goodell’s closest allies, told reporters that his team was innocent and deserved an apology from the league."
Note how it's just taken as fact that "almost all" of the Pats' balls were under-inflated. What's really irritating is that the writers' point could just as easily have been made while acknowledging the uncertainty and press-leaky nature of the whole affair.
Seagull said:I have a problem with the frequent characterization of Kraft, Belichick, and Brady as "defiant". That suggests they're being uncooperative or resistant in the face of established facts, or perhaps a disciplinary ruling. Hardly.
E5 Yaz said:
I think that's stretching it. Kraft's speech, in particular, was defiant in defending the team's reputation.
Seagull said:
I don't want to get into semantics on this, but I do think that use of the term "defiant" sets a tone to the characterization of the various responses from the Patriots. Here's a definition: "Marked by resistance or bold opposition, as to authority; challenging" Here are some synonyms: insubordinate, contumacious, refractory, recalcitrant, rebellious, insolent; daring. I have to admit, I didn't know what "contumacious" meant. Wikipedia says contumacy is a stubborn refusal to obey authority or, particularly in law, the wilful contempt of the order or summons of a court.
I may be overly sensitive on this, but there are a lot of other characterizations I'd prefer.
Seagull said:
I don't want to get into semantics on this, but I do think that use of the term "defiant" sets a tone to the characterization of the various responses from the Patriots. Here's a definition: "Marked by resistance or bold opposition, as to authority; challenging" Here are some synonyms: insubordinate, contumacious, refractory, recalcitrant, rebellious, insolent; daring. I have to admit, I didn't know what "contumacious" meant. Wikipedia says contumacy is a stubborn refusal to obey authority or, particularly in law, the wilful contempt of the order or summons of a court.
I may be overly sensitive on this, but there are a lot of other characterizations I'd prefer.
There are many other references to Belichick and Brady as defiant, particularly BB, though you're right, not in this particular quotation.There is no Rev said:
I think your mistake is to fold Belichick and Brady into the "defiant" issue when that's not what the quotation said.
I would say Kraft absolutely does not accept the notion that Goodell's handling of this matter is legitimate due to his authority. Nor should he.
Seagull said:There are many other references to Belichick and Brady as defiant, particularly BB, though you're right, not in this particular quotation.
With a lot of evidence that erroneous beliefs aren’t easily overturned, and when they’re tinged with emotion, forget about it.
Causal illusions don’t just cement erroneous ideas in the mind; they can also prevent new information from correcting them.
Yup. Thanks,ivanvamp said:What's going to happen is that there will be ZERO evidence of any wrongdoing by the Pats. But the Pats will be slapped with some sort of fine anyway. And in order to avoid this in the future (as if pushing/breaking the rules will ever be "avoidable") the NFL will make some changes to how footballs are handled, the psi range, etc. And people will remember that the reason for these changes was because the Patriots "cheated".
ivanvamp said:What's going to happen is that there will be ZERO evidence of any wrongdoing by the Pats. But the Pats will be slapped with some sort of fine anyway. And in order to avoid this in the future (as if pushing/breaking the rules will ever be "avoidable") the NFL will make some changes to how footballs are handled, the psi range, etc. And people will remember that the reason for these changes was because the Patriots "cheated".
Which, of course, will be stupid and wrong, but forever people will refer to this as another example of the "Cheatriots". Soooooooo stupid.