"I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." (/thread-6934.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." (/thread-6934.html)
Pages:
1
2
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - FarmBoy - 03-28-2014
You know you've done something wrong when you have to actually come out and say, " I would like to make it very clear that I am not and never have been part of any gang. I am not a gang member, and to speculate and assume that I am involved in such activity off the field is reckless and irresponsible"
DeSean Jackson, cut by the Eagles.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/10688873/desean-jackson-released-philadelphia-eagles
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - TreeWeird - 03-28-2014
Chip Kelly has a problem with that?
BTW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh163n1lJ4M
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - Farm93 - 03-28-2014
I think the real problem was that he was used to hanging out with too many Benjamins.
$13 million per year in a system that enables almost anyone to succeed was likely too rich for Chip and co. The ESPN rumors about gang affiliation seems reckless to me especially since it is damaging his prospects to find a new club AND are destroying his chances to get sponsorship deals.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - CowboyIndian - 03-28-2014
(03-28-2014, 05:33 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:.... it is damaging his prospects to find a new club AND are destroying his chances to get sponsorship deals.
Gee...that's a shame.
Luckily for DeSean - Redrum - 03-28-2014
He's got 5/16ths of a K.al education to fall back on.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - Farm93 - 03-28-2014
(03-28-2014, 06:16 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9753.msg86729#msg86729 date=1396053182]
.... it is damaging his prospects to find a new club AND are destroying his chances to get sponsorship deals.
Gee...that's a shame.
[/quote]
I am not worried about Mr. Jackson, but it really is crazy that these ESPN guys can speculate that Jackson is up to no good without any evidence to support that claim. If he ultimately files for bankruptcy, like so many other former NFL players, I suspect somebody will decide it is worth the effort to help him sue Disney.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - washingtonismoney - 03-28-2014
http://mobile.philly.com/sports/eagles/?wss=/philly/sports/eagles&id=252989401
If the Eagles just leaked it to give themselves an out to cut him, that's rather toolish.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - socalstanfan1 - 03-28-2014
(03-28-2014, 07:09 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=9753.msg86733#msg86733 date=1396055787]
[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=9753.msg86729#msg86729 date=1396053182]
.... it is damaging his prospects to find a new club AND are destroying his chances to get sponsorship deals.
Gee...that's a shame.
[/quote]
I am not worried about Mr. Jackson, but it really is crazy that these ESPN guys can speculate that Jackson is up to no good without any evidence to support that claim. If he ultimately files for bankruptcy, like so many other former NFL players, I suspect somebody will decide it is worth the effort to help him sue Disney.
[/quote]
I agree with you that repeating rumors that may have no basis in fact is a pretty low thing to do. But I'm not sure how much success a lawsuit would have. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that if you earn your living by being in the public eye, your grounds for a lawsuit in these cases are pretty slim. Wouldn't he have to prove malicious intent? If so, that's a pretty high bar to get over. ESPN coverage may be foolish, even a bit reckless, but I doubt they are intentionally trying to screw Jackson.
Any lawyers on here, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - Griffins78 - 03-29-2014
Why would the Eagles want to leak rumors? They would have traded him and gotten value if they could but apparently no team was willing to trade. If the Eagles spread those rumors they would be hurting themselves.
If they were just rumors wouldn't at least one team be willing to trade for him? It seems that the other teams all think there is high probability those "rumors" are true.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - washingtonismoney - 03-29-2014
(03-29-2014, 10:40 AM)Griffin78 link Wrote:Why would the Eagles want to leak rumors? They would have traded him and gotten value if they could but apparently no team was willing to trade. If the Eagles spread those rumors they would be hurting themselves.
If they were just rumors wouldn't at least one team be willing to trade for him? It seems that the other teams all think there is high probability those "rumors" are true.
They leaked it after they cut Jackson in order to justify the decision. Which is a low thing to do, playing off people's racial fears to justify your business decision.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - dabigv13 - 03-29-2014
He hangs out with and employs gangbangers and flashes gang signs. Maybe he's not actually a member of the crips, but it's hard tl fault the Eagles for wanting to distance themselves from somebody who could hurt their brand.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - teejers1 - 03-29-2014
I have ZERO doubt that the Eagles were needlessly slimy here.
Look, if you want to take "high road" of full disclosure: shop the guy, relay what you know about the guy's past so you don't pawn him off on an unsuspecting club and make your team better. First, I have no reason to believe they did this - as opposed to just shopping him to get the big $$ off the payroll and add a player to the Eagles' roster.
But let's say they did and there were no takers. Why raise the off-field baggage as you release the guy? Just release him. In this NFL, dumping a player for salary cap reasons is par for the course, and DeSean was going to hit the team for $10+M bucks this coming year. Few would have batted an eye if the Eagles said "we cut the guy for money reasons" (or even if they said "we released him for cap reasons and because he wasn't a great locker room persence."). There is no need to do what they did.
But let's say the Eagles tried shopping Jackson without full disclosure (which is a distinct possibility), then their approach now is truly reprehensible. They are trying to say "we want to disclose all this baggage so other teams will have full knowledge before signing him" as a way of being "the good guy." That would be undermined if they tried to shop him without the full disclosure.
Bottom line: Eagles shat on Jackson as way of additional justification to their fan base for releasing a prolductive WR. That is all. And that is at least a little (and perhaps a lot) slimy.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - washingtonismoney - 03-29-2014
Look, if you read this link -- http://mobile.philly.com/sports/eagles/?wss=/philly/sports/eagles&id=252989401 -- that I posted earlier it's clear the Eagles knew for a while that Jackson's associates weren't the All-American type, and that other teams knew that really well too. It's possible that well-known patriarch of propriety Chip Kelly has a different view of character than the rest of them, but the more likely thing is that Kelly decided on football reasons. Which is fine. But don't smear a guy on the way out.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - yvonne - 03-29-2014
Is it smearing a guy to say he has gang affiliations if he openly flashes gang signs?
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - washingtonismoney - 03-29-2014
(03-29-2014, 02:29 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:Is it smearing a guy to say he has gang affiliations if he openly flashes gang signs?
Maybe "smear" is the wrong verb for the sense I'm going for. Let's say it's unethical. Something can be true, prejudicial and irrelevant -- as it appears to be here.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - dabigv13 - 03-30-2014
I would say it is true, prejudicial, and relevant.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - washingtonismoney - 03-30-2014
(03-30-2014, 09:56 AM)garvin link Wrote:If the Eagles leaked this stuff and it's false, that's reprehensible. If it's true, then what's the problem? Is being a gang member just another alternative lifestyle that we have no right to judge? Does anybody think that the Dolphins or the NFL should have kept quiet about Richie Incognito's behavior?
It's not that you don't have the right to judge, it's that the information is not relevant to the reasoning for which the decision was made.
For example, let's say an executive gets let go for merely average performance and someone were to leak to the media that it was because "she's a slut." This may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant to what really went on, which is that the company didn't like the executive's performance. Instead, it reads as a distraction, to make it about the personal qualities of the executive in question.
Or let's say someone were meeting you for coffee; just before that, a third party informs you that that someone is an awful alcoholic.
In all three stories the information imparted may be true. But of course we don't insist on perfect truth for all our interactions anyway, as I think my two examples show. I think most people would be put off were we discussing those two stories rather than Jackson. The source of that instinct is that when making decisions we want to be making them based on relevant factors -- we want to filter out the noise. Similarly, when evaluating decisions we want to evaluate them strictly with respect to relevant factors.
In this case, what reporting seems to bear out is that the Eagles made the decision based on business factors -- they didn't think Jackson delivered value for money. Fair enough. The gang stuff reads as a distraction: what, precisely, is that doing to affect Jackson's performance? It's not crime; no one is accusing him of that. It's just, "Jackson has friends who are in a gang." Which isn't a crime and may not even be particularly immoral. Instead it exploits the presumption that people who have friends who are in gangs are probably not up to much good. But that's no crime. If we're honest with ourselves, we can all think of friends or associates who are up to no good -- and I don't think we'd like judgments to be made about us based on that. Pretending that's relevant looks like guilt by association. No, what we really care about when judging a person are the actions of that person specifically. So if the Eagles have evidence of actual criminal and/or immoral behavior related to Jackson, they should divulge it. Otherwise they should STFU.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - CornFed - 03-30-2014
I agree with Garvin's point. The examples added by WIM (promiscuity and alcoholism) make the point even stronger. The effort to twist into a pretzel to avoid considering these external factors seems misguided. Are we to believe that a business should be indifferent between two otherwise identical candidates for a position if one has a history of alcoholism or drug abuse and the other has no such history. Does the decision-making framework and self-esteem of a promiscuous person have no effect on their personal interactions in conducting their business responsibilities. I think it is presumptuous to assert that we have some perfect sense of the interactions of these various dysfunctions that we can isolate those that we should consider relevant and those that aren't. I presume there are wide receivers without the complicating considerations of this player. However, if the airing of the gang connections was done for malicious reasons, that would be low class and an indication of the team's lack of character.
Re: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...." - dabigv13 - 03-30-2014
Completely agree Garvin. If I threw up gang signs after a surgery my employer would frown upon that. I think it is extremely relevant.
Same - Mick - 03-31-2014
I heard on KNBR this morning that a police detective thinks Jackson had witnessed a murder. That's a little more than getting gang tats.