• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Flores suing the NFL, alleges racism in coaching hiring practices.

My Dad got me a great "History of the Pittsburgh Steelers" book for Christmas and I started reading it a while back.

While I did know that the Pirates/Steelers came into being on my birthday, I was unaware that Art Rooney hired one of the first 2 black athletes ever in the early 30's. The fellow was cut by the head coach almost immediately, and Rooney didn't intervene in the release, but the player didn't hold that against the Chief. He said essentially he knew it was going to be an uphill struggle and that the first guys into the fray would ultimately be martyrs for the cause.

Anyway, I think his name was Kemp. Will have to go back and look it up. Cool story though. Art went out of his way to hire the guy because he believed in him.
 
wig said:
My Dad got me a great "History of the Pittsburgh Steelers" book for Christmas and I started reading it a while back.

While I did know that the Pirates/Steelers came into being on my birthday, I was unaware that Art Rooney hired one of the first 2 black athletes ever in the early 30's. The fellow was cut by the head coach almost immediately, and Rooney didn't intervene in the release, but the player didn't hold that against the Chief. He said essentially he knew it was going to be an uphill struggle and that the first guys into the fray would ultimately be martyrs for the cause.

Anyway, I think his name was Kemp. Will have to go back and look it up. Cool story though. Art went out of his way to hire the guy because he believed in him.
Click to expand...
wig -

When you go back to look it up, could you follow up and confirm if there were better qualified candidates at the time that this individual that you referred to as "Kemp" was given the opportunity? If there were better qualified candidates who weren't minorities, should fair hiring practices been set aside as a result of Art "believing in him" and wanting to hire a minority candidate?
 
stuntmanmike said:
www.nfl.com

Goodell defends destroying evidence in Spygate scandal

The official source for NFL news, video highlights, fantasy football, game-day coverage, schedules, stats, scores and more.
www.nfl.com www.nfl.com
Click to expand...
To anyone that values facts and doesn't believe that they are just meant for courtrooms, please see the below taken from the very citation that stuntman provided:


"The reason I destroyed the tapes is they were totally consistent with what the team told me," Goodell said during his State of the NFL speech. "It was the appropriate thing to do and I think it sent a message."

"The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games."

"We wanted to take and destroy that information," he said. "They may have collected it within the rules, but we couldn't determine that. So we felt that it should be destroyed."


* If what the team told him was consistent with what was in the tapes, and if the information that they had may have been collected within the rules, AND if it was unlikely that this information altered the outcome of games, does it seem like a sound argument to allege that they were caught cheating?
 
Litos said:
shady as ****, "I destroyed the smoking gun because it coincides with what the killer told us, nothing else to see here, move along"
Click to expand...
Litos -

Are you able to share with the rest of us what compels you to come to a public forum to spread fallacy and commit libel? Thanks.
 
Man In The Arena said:
wig -

When you go back to look it up, could you follow up and confirm if there were better qualified candidates at the time that this individual that you referred to as "Kemp" was given the opportunity? If there were better qualified candidates who weren't minorities, should fair hiring practices been set aside as a result of Art "believing in him" and wanting to hire a minority candidate?
Click to expand...
Laziness
 
Man In The Arena said:
Litos -

Are you able to share with the rest of us what compels you to come to a public forum to spread fallacy and commit libel? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Grand delusions.
 
Man In The Arena said:
To anyone that values facts and doesn't believe that they are just meant for courtrooms, please see the below taken from the very citation that stuntman provided:


"The reason I destroyed the tapes is they were totally consistent with what the team told me," Goodell said during his State of the NFL speech. "It was the appropriate thing to do and I think it sent a message."
Click to expand...
Consistent with what the team told Goodell. However, an independent arbitrator would provide the factual evidence to that. Without one, the word of the commissioner isn't validated.

Man In The Arena said:
"The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games."
Click to expand...
By destroying the tapes, there is no definitive proof that those specific circumstances “had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games”.

Man In The Arena said:
"We wanted to take and destroy that information," he said. "They may have collected it within the rules, but we couldn't determine that. So we felt that it should be destroyed."
Click to expand...
The complete elimination of the prime aspect of a forensic investigation. While admitting they couldn’t determine the tapes (evidence) validated rules were broken, Goodell does what? Destroy the only avenue to prove they were/were not within the rules. It’s pure speculation but could have possibly the evidence show an even greater violation of rules in a greater timespan that was opined without an independent investigation?
Man In The Arena said:
* If what the team told him was consistent with what was in the tapes, and if the information that they had may have been collected within the rules, AND if it was unlikely that this information altered the outcome of games, does it seem like a sound argument to allege that they were caught cheating?
Click to expand...
Bob, if you wish to quantify the comments stated above, then would the argument be not that they were caught (which was given by admittance), but rather how much the length of time and effort was implemented to carry out whether rules were broken? There is no possibility of exonerating the evidence either way independently because the evidence was destroyed.

Continue to play your game thinking you are clever, articulating conversation to imply you have some wonderful insight, when in actuality you are so predictably simple minded. Continue to wrap yourself around your ego of thinking how smart or educated you think you are, when in reality (whether you abhor the current coach - which you do), knows more about the game than you could have in ten lifetimes.
 
Ike Kelly said:
Consistent with what the team told Goodell. However, an independent arbitrator would provide the factual evidence to that. Without one, the word of the commissioner isn't validated.
Click to expand...
Hi Ike - are you able to provide a citation which shows that the commissioner's word must be validated?
Ike Kelly said:
By destroying the tapes, there is no definitive proof that those specific circumstances “had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games”.
Click to expand...
There's no proof that any cheating too place. To those alleging that cheating occurred, the burden of proof would be on them. Are you familiar with Onus probandi?
Ike Kelly said:
While admitting they couldn’t determine the tapes (evidence) validated rules were broken, Goodell does what? Destroy the only avenue to prove they were/were not within the rules. It’s pure speculation but could have possibly the evidence show an even greater violation of rules in a greater timespan that was opined without an independent investigation?
Click to expand...
So, you are conceding that the allegations of cheating are based solely on "pure speculation." Thanks.
 
Man In The Arena said:
Hi Ike - are you able to provide a citation which shows that the commissioner's word must be validated?

There's no proof that any cheating too place. To those alleging that cheating occurred, the burden of proof would be on them. Are you familiar with Onus probandi?

So, you are conceding that the allegations of cheating are based solely on "pure speculation." Thanks.
Click to expand...
What burden of proof if it was destroyed before it could be attested by an external party? Like the congress for example?

Step Bob can you provide a citation of any 3rd party on what was on the videos and signal interception proof?

If not get the **** out of here.
 
Litos said:
Step Bob can you provide a citation of any 3rd party on what was on the videos and signal interception proof?
Click to expand...
Litos - the burden of proof wouldn't be on me, therefore the need for a citation is irrelevant. The Commissioner stated that the data collected was consistent with what the team told them. The Commissioner advised that there was no proof that it was collected illegally. Lastly, the Commissioner determined that it was unlikely that it affected the outcome of the games. Since I have no reason to disbelieve what the Commissioner stated, the Onus probandi would be on you to provide the inculpatory evidence to prove the contrary.

Thanks.
 
Man In The Arena said:
Litos - the burden of proof wouldn't be on me, therefore the need for a citation is irrelevant. The Commissioner stated that the data collected was consistent with what the team told them. The Commissioner advised that there was no proof that it was collected illegally. Lastly, the Commissioner determined that it was unlikely that it affected the outcome of the games. Since I have no reason to disbelieve what the Commissioner stated, the Onus probandi would be on you to provide the inculpatory evidence to prove the contrary.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
You are completely irrelevant for sure , now go step off a cliff
 
Man In The Arena said:
Litos -

When you disagree with someone, is it commonplace for you to wish that they die? Does that seem reasonable to you?
Click to expand...
Plenty of people jump off cliffs and live. Are you a good swimmer?
 
Man In The Arena said:
Litos -

When you disagree with someone, is it commonplace for you to wish that they die? Does that seem reasonable to you?
Click to expand...
You wouldn't die if it's a small cliff and no rocks in the bottom. Find a cliff that suits your life expectations.

Can you provide citations that I sent you to a cliff to die? If not, you know what to do. Go to your cheatters forum Bobby
 
Man In The Arena said:
Hi Ike - are you able to provide a citation which shows that the commissioner's word must be validated?
Click to expand...
Bob, you think you are playing a game when you are just proving your ignorance. The commissioner’s word was all that was standing towards a Congressional hearing and possible removal of Anti-Trust exemption. That got the owners attention that they weren’t as invincible as they thought they were.

Man In The Arena said:
There's no proof that any cheating too place. To those alleging that cheating occurred, the burden of proof would be on them. Are you familiar with Onus probandi?
Click to expand...
If there was no proof to cheating taking place, then why was there a $500k fine given to the HC, $250k fine to the franchise and forfeiture of a future #1 draft pick by the commissioner?

You explain that, and I’ll expound upon whether sufficient proof is sustained in the dispute. Or better yet, how the said fines and forfeiture of player investment equates to Factum Probans.

Man In The Arena said:
So, you are conceding that the allegations of cheating are based solely on "pure speculation." Thanks.
Click to expand...
No Bob, take a class on Reading Comprehension. It’s pure speculation as to whether rules were or were not broken because the only evidence available to validate it by independent review was destroyed by the commissioner himself.
 
Man In The Arena said:
To anyone that values facts and doesn't believe that they are just meant for courtrooms, please see the below taken from the very citation that stuntman provided:

"The reason I destroyed the tapes is they were totally consistent with what the team told me," Goodell said during his State of the NFL speech. "It was the appropriate thing to do and I think it sent a message."

"The actual effectiveness of taping and taking of signals from opponents - it is something done widely in many sports. I think it probably had limited, if any effect, on the outcome of games."

"We wanted to take and destroy that information," he said. "They may have collected it within the rules, but we couldn't determine that. So we felt that it should be destroyed."
Click to expand...

Man In The Arena said:
Litos - the burden of proof wouldn't be on me, therefore the need for a citation is irrelevant. The Commissioner stated that the data collected was consistent with what the team told them. The Commissioner advised that there was no proof that it was collected illegally. Lastly, the Commissioner determined that it was unlikely that it affected the outcome of the games. Since I have no reason to disbelieve what the Commissioner stated, the Onus probandi would be on you to provide the inculpatory evidence to prove the contrary.
Click to expand...

The two bolded sections are completely different? why are you creating a false narrative? There is no record that the Commish advised there was no proof “that it was collected illegally”. If so, again why were the largest fines and penalties given by the Commish to the HC and franchise? Why do you ignore a question by asking a separate question? Is it a failure of mental coherence in your argument or the fact that you are simply ignorant in understanding cause and effect?
 
Ike Kelly said:
The two bolded sections are completely different? why are you creating a false narrative? There is no record that the Commish advised there was no proof “that it was collected illegally”. If so, again why were the largest fines and penalties given by the Commish to the HC and franchise? Why do you ignore a question by asking a separate question? Is it a failure of mental coherence in your argument or the fact that you are simply ignorant in understanding cause and effect?
Click to expand...
He is a functional idiot with a personal agenda
 
Litos said:
He is a functional idiot with a personal agenda
Click to expand...
Just another attention ***** with a troll agenda. Bob loves him some whatever time anyone will give him.
 
Man In The Arena said:

Stephen A. Smith Thinks Mike Tomlin Would Have Been Fired If He Were Anywhere But Pittsburgh​


ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith thinks that Mike Tomlin is lucky to be in Pittsburgh due to how the organization is.

Smith posted a video to his Twitter account on Friday afternoon to explain his reasoning for why Tomlin would be fired by now if he were anywhere but Pittsburgh.

“Does anybody doubt that if Mike Tomlin was not in Pittsburgh, would he be a head coach in the NFL right now? He would have been fired,” Smith said. “Tomlin would’ve been gone because he’s been on the hot seat before. Mike Tomlin, one could easily argue, if he were not in Pittsburgh, he would’ve lost his job already.”

Right now, he doesn’t look to be in any danger of losing his job after leading the Steelers to the playoffs this season when things looked dire.

Tomlin will be overseeing a brand new era of Steelers football with Ben Roethlisberger out of the picture. He’ll have his shot at picking his own franchise quarterback for the first time.

thespun.com

Stephen A. Smith Thinks Mike Tomlin Would Have Been Fired If He Were Anywhere But Pittsburgh

ESPN's Stephen A. Smith thinks that Mike Tomlin is lucky to be in Pittsburgh due to how the organization is. Smith posted a video to his Twitter account on
thespun.com thespun.com
Click to expand...
I think he would have a long time ago… I think most Steeler fans want to win pure and simple they don’t care who’s coaching… tomlin gets the Steelers to the Super Bowl there would be a long line to shake his hand… but Steelers fans for the most part aren’t stupid but if we aren’t winning and we are losing good players quicker than replacing them and the coach isn’t going outside for help instead hiring cronies… then wtf? fire his *** cowher tomlin noll fire all there ***** too if they ain’t winning Superbowls what are they doing here? Windowdressing?
 
Ike Kelly said:
If there was no proof to cheating taking place, then why was there a $500k fine given to the HC, $250k fine to the franchise and forfeiture of a future #1 draft pick by the commissioner?

You explain that, and I’ll expound upon whether sufficient proof is sustained in the dispute. Or better yet, how the said fines and forfeiture of player investment equates to Factum Probans.
Click to expand...
There's no reason for me to "explain that". I agree with the official narrative. You're the one coming to a public forum to commit libel and claim that a conspiracy occurred. As a result, the Onus probandi is on you. We don't know the details of what lead to the NFL imposing sanctions against the Pats. You can continue to fabricate stories due to your personal bias, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no proof of what you claim to be true.

Are you familiar with the term 'conjecture'? In a legal sense, the term refers to guesswork, meaning it is a supposition based on theory or opinion, without substantial evidence. Conjecture is often based on the way a situation appears, rather than on solid proof.

Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top