Aren't Intentions Measured by Results?

Tobias-Reiper · 04-10-2012, 09:13 AM

Don't try to rationalize it in any other way than an action taken by a corporation with the intention of using it as evidence in their favor when the ex-player lawsuits go to court. No more, no less.

What baffles the mind is that so many people willingly go along with the charade. So-called sports writers, fans, corporate sponsors, even some ex-players turned talking heads... Really, how can you be a sports reporter with locker room access for 20 years and not know about this stuff and that it happens everywhere? How can you be a fan of football and don't understand the mentality of the game, the violence of the game? How many more war references can a corporation make about its product, yet want people to believe there's no one actually trying to hurt the other? (so ironic that the new uniforms are the "combat" line from Nike, no? I guess they meant "combat" as in "pillow fight")

I guess this goes with the whole 'holier than thou" culture in the US: we want our celebrities and politicians to be pure, always say the right things. Same reason the porn industry is a multi-billion dllr industry but no one watches it.

SaintsBro · 04-10-2012, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

How many more war references can a corporation make about its product, yet want people to believe there's no one actually trying to hurt the other? (so ironic that the new uniforms are the "combat" line from Nike, no? I guess they meant "combat" as in "pillow fight")

I know, I know! And what is the brand or icon of the league, that they keep hyping and defending? The shield. As in, gladiators and knights, both of whom routinely fought to the death. The league uses war references and metaphors of violence to shamelessly hype and promote their product, at every turn since its very founding, then suddenly does an enormous about face in 2010, when the lawsuits come around.

G504 · 04-10-2012, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Don't try to rationalize it in any other way than an action taken by a corporation with the intention of using it as evidence in their favor when the ex-player lawsuits go to court. No more, no less.

Sorry to nerd it up, but evidence of mitigation following the act can't be used in favor of or against in a law suit. But it WILL poison the jury pool. By the time it goes to trial, years from now, jurors won't remember that all this cracking down happened AFTER the lawsuit was filed.

G504 · 04-10-2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Don't try to rationalize it in any other way than an action taken by a corporation with the intention of using it as evidence in their favor when the ex-player lawsuits go to court. No more, no less.

Sorry to nerd it up, but evidence of mitigation following the act can't be used in favor of or against in a lawsuit. But it WILL poison the jury pool. By the time it goes to trial, years from now, jurors won't remember that all this cracking down happened AFTER the lawsuit was filed.

Tobias-Reiper · 04-10-2012, 12:45 PM

Originally Posted by G504

Sorry to nerd it up, but evidence of mitigation following the act can't be used in favor of or against in a lawsuit. But it WILL poison the jury pool. By the time it goes to trial, years from now, jurors won't remember that all this cracking down happened AFTER the lawsuit was filed.

No need to be sorry for nerding it up. That's what I really wanted to say; they can use this action in the future in front of a jury/judge/arbitrator and argue they are all about safety and while they cannot 100% prevent the "rogue factions" from "ntentionally hurting players", they are "swift" in eradicating them from the NFL. Also, it is a show for the benefit of those in Congress who poked at the NFL in 2009, so they don't come back asking what's up.

saintfan · 04-10-2012, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper

Don't try to rationalize it in any other way than an action taken by a corporation with the intention of using it as evidence in their favor when the ex-player lawsuits go to court. No more, no less.

What baffles the mind is that so many people willingly go along with the charade. So-called sports writers, fans, corporate sponsors, even some ex-players turned talking heads... Really, how can you be a sports reporter with locker room access for 20 years and not know about this stuff and that it happens everywhere? How can you be a fan of football and don't understand the mentality of the game, the violence of the game? How many more war references can a corporation make about its product, yet want people to believe there's no one actually trying to hurt the other? (so ironic that the new uniforms are the "combat" line from Nike, no? I guess they meant "combat" as in "pillow fight")

I guess this goes with the whole 'holier than thou" culture in the US: we want our celebrities and politicians to be pure, always say the right things. Same reason the porn industry is a multi-billion dllr industry but no one watches it.

On they knew. They know. A borderline retard would know. The reason they go along with it is money.

Their bottom lines are tied directly to kissing the ass of the NFL. The league could make has been hacks out of just about every sports "reporter" claiming that job title. Not all, but damn near all...

Clayton is a hack beat reporter without his "insider" info. Yasinskas is flipping burgers. King is reviewing movies for some east coast paper.

Those guys have to be VERY careful, and you can better believe Goodell knows it.

Tobias-Reiper · 04-10-2012, 09:14 AM

Oops. double post.

TheOak · 04-10-2012, 10:42 AM

Nope.... If you hired a contract killer and put a bounty on Goodells head but there was a whistle on the play, you would still go to jail for conspiracy to knock Goodell out of the game.

Saintsfan4ever · 04-10-2012, 12:26 PM

If this case were in a court of law you could certainly argue that "threats of intention" do not match the evidence of outcome.
Key word here is "If".
But in a dictatorship the *despot decides the outcome. And if the despot concludes that his minions have not fully cooperated with his inquiry in a matter that may lead to sanctions on his politbureau, then the dictator must punish the subordinate minions in full view of those who might impose sanctions in an attempt to avoid a monetary penalty on his kingdom.

*Goodell

saintfan · 04-10-2012, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by Saintsfan4ever

If this case were in a court of law you could certainly argue that "threats of intention" do not match the evidence of outcome.
Key word here is "If".
But in a dictatorship the *despot decides the outcome. And if the despot concludes that his minions have not fully cooperated with his inquiry in a matter that may lead to sanctions on his politbureau, then the dictator must punish the subordinate minions in full view of those who might impose sanctions in an attempt to avoid a monetary penalty on his kingdom.

*Goodell

This would never make it to court...

04-10-2012, 09:13 AM	#1
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Don't try to rationalize it in any other way than an action taken by a corporation with the intention of using it as evidence in their favor when the ex-player lawsuits go to court. No more, no less. What baffles the mind is that so many people willingly go along with the charade. So-called sports writers, fans, corporate sponsors, even some ex-players turned talking heads... Really, how can you be a sports reporter with locker room access for 20 years and not know about this stuff and that it happens everywhere? How can you be a fan of football and don't understand the mentality of the game, the violence of the game? How many more war references can a corporation make about its product, yet want people to believe there's no one actually trying to hurt the other? (so ironic that the new uniforms are the "combat" line from Nike, no? I guess they meant "combat" as in "pillow fight") I guess this goes with the whole 'holier than thou" culture in the US: we want our celebrities and politicians to be pure, always say the right things. Same reason the porn industry is a multi-billion dllr industry but no one watches it. TheDeuce, SaintsBro and SloMotion like this.
	'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

04-10-2012, 09:52 AM	#2
SaintsBro Site Donor Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: in line with my ridiculous CLEAR PLASTIC BAG Posts: 3,650 Blog Entries: 3	Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper How many more war references can a corporation make about its product, yet want people to believe there's no one actually trying to hurt the other? (so ironic that the new uniforms are the "combat" line from Nike, no? I guess they meant "combat" as in "pillow fight") I know, I know! And what is the brand or icon of the league, that they keep hyping and defending? The shield. As in, gladiators and knights, both of whom routinely fought to the death. The league uses war references and metaphors of violence to shamelessly hype and promote their product, at every turn since its very founding, then suddenly does an enormous about face in 2010, when the lawsuits come around.

04-10-2012, 12:04 PM	#3
G504 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Miami Posts: 424	Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Don't try to rationalize it in any other way than an action taken by a corporation with the intention of using it as evidence in their favor when the ex-player lawsuits go to court. No more, no less. Sorry to nerd it up, but evidence of mitigation following the act can't be used in favor of or against in a law suit. But it WILL poison the jury pool. By the time it goes to trial, years from now, jurors won't remember that all this cracking down happened AFTER the lawsuit was filed.

04-10-2012, 12:09 PM	#4
G504 100th Post Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Miami Posts: 424	Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Don't try to rationalize it in any other way than an action taken by a corporation with the intention of using it as evidence in their favor when the ex-player lawsuits go to court. No more, no less. Sorry to nerd it up, but evidence of mitigation following the act can't be used in favor of or against in a lawsuit. But it WILL poison the jury pool. By the time it goes to trial, years from now, jurors won't remember that all this cracking down happened AFTER the lawsuit was filed.

04-10-2012, 12:45 PM	#5
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Originally Posted by G504 Sorry to nerd it up, but evidence of mitigation following the act can't be used in favor of or against in a lawsuit. But it WILL poison the jury pool. By the time it goes to trial, years from now, jurors won't remember that all this cracking down happened AFTER the lawsuit was filed. No need to be sorry for nerding it up. That's what I really wanted to say; they can use this action in the future in front of a jury/judge/arbitrator and argue they are all about safety and while they cannot 100% prevent the "rogue factions" from "ntentionally hurting players", they are "swift" in eradicating them from the NFL. Also, it is a show for the benefit of those in Congress who poked at the NFL in 2009, so they don't come back asking what's up.

04-10-2012, 12:21 PM	#6
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Tobias-Reiper Don't try to rationalize it in any other way than an action taken by a corporation with the intention of using it as evidence in their favor when the ex-player lawsuits go to court. No more, no less. What baffles the mind is that so many people willingly go along with the charade. So-called sports writers, fans, corporate sponsors, even some ex-players turned talking heads... Really, how can you be a sports reporter with locker room access for 20 years and not know about this stuff and that it happens everywhere? How can you be a fan of football and don't understand the mentality of the game, the violence of the game? How many more war references can a corporation make about its product, yet want people to believe there's no one actually trying to hurt the other? (so ironic that the new uniforms are the "combat" line from Nike, no? I guess they meant "combat" as in "pillow fight") I guess this goes with the whole 'holier than thou" culture in the US: we want our celebrities and politicians to be pure, always say the right things. Same reason the porn industry is a multi-billion dllr industry but no one watches it. On they knew. They know. A borderline retard would know. The reason they go along with it is money. Their bottom lines are tied directly to kissing the ass of the NFL. The league could make has been hacks out of just about every sports "reporter" claiming that job title. Not all, but damn near all... Clayton is a hack beat reporter without his "insider" info. Yasinskas is flipping burgers. King is reviewing movies for some east coast paper. Those guys have to be VERY careful, and you can better believe Goodell knows it.

04-10-2012, 09:14 AM	#7
Tobias-Reiper Merces Letifer Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 4,161	Oops. double post.

04-10-2012, 10:42 AM	#8
TheOak 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Cypress Tx. Posts: 19,050	Nope.... If you hired a contract killer and put a bounty on Goodells head but there was a whistle on the play, you would still go to jail for conspiracy to knock Goodell out of the game.

04-10-2012, 12:26 PM	#9
Saintsfan4ever 500th Post Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Moss Point, MS Posts: 612 Blog Entries: 1	If this case were in a court of law you could certainly argue that "threats of intention" do not match the evidence of outcome. Key word here is "If". But in a dictatorship the despot decides the outcome. And if the despot concludes that his minions have not fully cooperated with his inquiry in a matter that may lead to sanctions on his politbureau, then the dictator must punish the subordinate minions in full view of those who might impose sanctions in an attempt to avoid a monetary penalty on his kingdom. Goodell

04-10-2012, 12:38 PM	#10
saintfan Donated Plasma Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 18,556 Blog Entries: 5	Originally Posted by Saintsfan4ever If this case were in a court of law you could certainly argue that "threats of intention" do not match the evidence of outcome. Key word here is "If". But in a dictatorship the despot decides the outcome. And if the despot concludes that his minions have not fully cooperated with his inquiry in a matter that may lead to sanctions on his politbureau, then the dictator must punish the subordinate minions in full view of those who might impose sanctions in an attempt to avoid a monetary penalty on his kingdom. Goodell This would never make it to court...