#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069
*shakes head*
It's not like she's going to be on the field every Sunday diagnosing players with concussions, or repairing ACLs. She's a cardiologist, but is President of Brigham and Women's Hospital -- so she's not qualified to run all the non-cardiology operations at the hospital either?
 
I can't possibly imagine any circumstance where her "ties" to the Patriots give the team any sort of competitive advantage. If anything, appointing someone who is not a neurologist, neurosurgeon, orthopedic surgeon, sports medicine physician, or rehab medicine physician is probably better because it precludes the potential for legitimate conflicts of interest, such as treatments and medical devices from industry, and personal interests (such as an individual's research program and academic interests).
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,783
Somerville, MA
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.
Except that she's been hired to be an administrator not the sole authority for the league.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I'm unclear on how this reflects on the Patriots poorly, at all.
 
I'm also not clear on why this particular person has to be a concussion specialist.  As long as she is capable of understanding, on a fairly deep level, medical information on concussions, that should be sufficient. She's not going to be going out doing concussion studies, although she will be tasked (I presume) with reviewing them and giving recommendations.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
drleather2001 said:
I'm unclear on how this reflects on the Patriots poorly, at all.
 
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.
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069
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.
 
Or, let's say she is a prominent expert on concussions and sees many ex-NFL players as part of her clinical activities. That would be a real conflict of interest.
 
Plus, any prominent orthopedic surgeon candidate for the job, in any major city probably has some ties to NFL players through their clinical work. 
 
As a cardiologist, she is largely immune to these issues.
 
Plus, she heads a major academic medical center and ran a major NIH division. She's qualified.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
theapportioner said:
Plus, she heads a major academic medical center and ran a major NIH division. She's qualified.
 
Didn't realize she was the NHLBI (and Brigham and Women's) chief.  A quick visit to Wikipedia can do wonders.
 
Agreed wholeheartedly then. I was wrong to infer from a trolling-ish article. I stand corrected.
 

IdiotKicker

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2005
10,783
Somerville, MA
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.
 
Edit: answered above
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
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.
 
The NFL could only WISH they would be so lucky to have that conflict of interest at this point.
 

Myt1

educated, civility-loving ass
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 13, 2006
41,574
South Boston
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.
He understands perfectly. This is an incredibly weak attempt to extricate himself from an indefensible position. He's clownshoes.
 
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.
Exactly.
 

theapportioner

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 9, 2006
5,069
simplyeric said:
The NFL could only WISH they would be so lucky to have that conflict of interest at this point.
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

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
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.
Indeed.
And, I wasn't disagreeing with you in any real way. Just noting that if there was some medical way for them to deal with CTE, they'd be thrilled to have to worry about that potential conflict of interest.
Right now, that conflict can't happen, because there's no medicine or technology that's makes the situation any better, and that's the giant looming disaster for the nfl.
 

P'tucket rhymes with...

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2006
11,624
The Coney Island of my mind
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 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.
 

Beale13

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 2, 2006
395
"Letterman operated under the premise that the entire situation is a joke, that nothing improper happened, and that if it did it doesn't matter because even though the difference between a properly inflated ball and a deflated ball is "palpable," using deflated footballs "wouldn't make any difference in a game.""
 
Florio doesn't seem to realize that this is the exact premise actual journalists should be operating under at this point.  Especially with all the information we have now.  
 
M

MentalDisabldLst

Guest
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.
 
Would you please elaborate?  I don't know specifically what that protocol is, much less have any idea why it might be bullshit.  I'd be interested to learn both.
 

NickEsasky

Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 24, 2001
9,190
BigSoxFan said:
Florio also doesn't seem to realize that nobody gives a shit about this story anymore.
Someone needs to tell Florio that sports are supposed to be fun. He's not Bob fucking Woodward here. You COVER SPORTS! 
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,465
Somewhere
BigSoxFan said:
Florio also doesn't seem to realize that nobody gives a shit about this story anymore.
 
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).
 

mascho

Kane is Able
SoSH Member
Nov 30, 2007
14,952
Silver Spring, Maryland
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).
 
The Combine starts Tuesday the 17th. Florio should have just taken a few days in the Caribbean or something, instead of focusing more on his performance art. 
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,503
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!
Yes! Koko. My apologies, I went with the homonym.
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,700
Wayland, MA
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.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Reporting is just so damn shoddy. All that writer had to do was use the phrase "accusations of" and that part is correct-ish. Instead he's writing something as fact that has yet to be, you know, proven as fact.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
Calling Belichick and Brady "awkward" in their press conferences is also outrageous as it is totally a matter of opinion.  I thought they were fine and generally consistent with how they've presented themselves in the fifteen plus years I've been watching them.  Brady* stood up there and answered every question, even though the reporters were asking questions that were accusatory, idiotic ('Tom, will you say I'm sorry?"),
or full of rambling incoherence and lies (I'm looking at you Ron Borges, whose question was based on the premise that 1) "elite" athletes will notice if anything equipment related is off, even in the 1.9 seconds they are handling a football while a defensive lineman is trying to kill them; 2) D'Qwell noticed the ball was deflated, which turned out to be made up horsecrap; 3) the ball was 15% deflated, which was based upon more made up horsecrap, as it was only 7%).  What was "awkward" about these press conferences is that the "reporters" weren't actually trying to get any useful information, they had already decided the facts based upon a few tweets they had read and were frustrated they didn't get what they wanted out of the Patriots.  There is an actual story to report, but it  is about how badly journalists bungled the reporting, including the press conferences.  Which is in fact awkward for them, I'm sure.
 
*Brady had another press conference this year where he looked to me just like he did in the ball deflation press conference and again he was widely accused of lying.  That was after the Kansas City game when he said he believed in his teammates.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
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.
 
 
"Finally appointed Ted Wells"? We're talking about just a few days here. Plus, Wells was brought in BECAUSE of the general incompetence of Goodell's HQ, which is the real story.
 
Edit: It's also mis-characterizing what Kraft said.
 

Seagull

New Member
Jul 16, 2005
383
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.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
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.
 
I think that's stretching it. Kraft's speech, in particular, was defiant in defending the team's reputation.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,367
Kraft was defiant, but calling for hard evidence rather than innuendo-laden leaks.
 

Seagull

New Member
Jul 16, 2005
383
E5 Yaz said:
 
I think that's stretching it. Kraft's speech, in particular, was defiant in defending the team's reputation.
 
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.  
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
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.  
 
I'd hate to see your response if you did want to get into semantics
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
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.  
 
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

New Member
Jul 16, 2005
383
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.
There are many other references to Belichick and Brady as defiant, particularly BB, though you're right, not in this particular quotation.  
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Seagull said:
There are many other references to Belichick and Brady as defiant, particularly BB, though you're right, not in this particular quotation.  
 
And your other mistake is thinking that "defiant" carries a negative connotation.   MLK was defiant.   Gandhi was defiant.  Defiance in the name of a good cause is admirable.   It's admirable precisely because it carries risk; you can't have it both ways and ask that Kraft/BB/TB oppose something unfair while at the same time keeping a low profile.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
This article made me think of the Pats Are Cheaters meme that is now taken as gospel. Must reading: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-brain-is-primed-to-reach-false-conclusions/
 
EDIT: To summarize the conclusion, here it is:
 
With a lot of evidence that erroneous beliefs aren’t easily overturned, and when they’re tinged with emotion, forget about it.
 
And just as important:
 

Causal illusions don’t just cement erroneous ideas in the mind; they can also prevent new information from correcting them.
 
 

ivanvamp

captain obvious
Jul 18, 2005
6,104
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.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
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".  
Yup. Thanks, Obama Goodell.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,187
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.
 
Given where Kraft positioned things, I would expect he'd go ballistic if that were the outcome--whether 'ballistic' in this context means suing the league, seeking Goodell's ouster, or a nasty press conference mocking the judgment.   If there truly is no evidence of any wrongdoing, I think he's locked in to fight.  However, if there's anything the Pats did wrong, it's a different scenario.
 
I agree that some rule change is a likely outcome and how people will remember it, though.  I just suspect the lead-up will be something like 'there is no certainty how the deflated ball occurred in this case.  For the future, we recommend...'