Jump to content

Eli Manning accused of fake "game used" helmet scam


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...and it looks like there was a similar lawsuit involving Manning and Steiner sports three years ago. Or is this the same lawsuit?

 

https://www.google.com/amp/nypost.com/2014/01/30/eli-and-giants-created-fake-memorabilia-suit/amp/

 

If the authentication process just involves Steiner asking Manning "hey, these are legit, right?" I'm not sure I'd be willing to drop major bucks on any of that stuff. But apparently enough bridge-and-tunnel ham-and-eggers from Paramus fall for it to make the business so lucrative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I understand the concept of selling game-used helmets. Aren't the players required to keep the same helmet throughout the year, and as long as possible? I thought there were safety rules in place that require that once a helmet is deemed safe, and broken in, it's to be used for as long as possible to avoid increasing the odds of injury due to a faulty helmet. I thought these rules were what prevent teams from having throwback or alternate uniforms that include helmets that differ in color from the standard uniform's helmets.

 

All that said, who really cares? Since I was like, 5 years old, I've understood (or assumed) that anything purchased as "game worn" could be anything from worn during live action, to strapped on for 5 seconds and tossed to the side, to used in practice (yes- I understand that "practice worn" is patently different than "game worn"). Figured the whole point was to rip people off.

Edited by BringBackFlutie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know. I always preface this situation with accepting responsibility that I effed up. With that said you are not the only one that was absolutely shocked to hear about the extensive involvement, in time, money and resources that homeland security spent on my situation with counterfeit jerseys. Who would have ever thought that the department that was formed to protect Americans from what happened on 9/11 would be policing intellectual property rights for a multibillion corporation, on their own dime. Once again, I made a mistake and learned from that mistake, but the entire experience was very eye opening.

 

What were you doing? Running a site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Two helmets that can pass as game used."

 

I am not defending Eli, I don't know what his intent was, but how can this be a "smoking gun?" How can this conclude guilt?

 

Why assume this is negative? Glass half-empty. Can't the above mean that his intent was just looking for two helmets tha can pass as game used?

 

Look @ this as a glass half-full. He was looking for two pieces of equipment that could pass as of being game used. SIMPLE. Maybe he was just being honest and wanted to find game used equipment.

 

Kind of like: "I shot the Sheriff but didn't shoot the deputy." Why does everybody think he didn't shoot Barney Fife, but shot Andy Taylor. No. Only one man here. A sheriff should be a DEPUTY of the law. He shot a man, but not a "deputy of the law" and if he is guilty (in the eyes of God) he will pay!

 

Okay bad... But it shows you how different a few simple words, punctuation could make something mean.

 

Like:

 

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/3-punctuation-mistakes-that-can-make-you-look-like-a-cannibal/

 

1. Eat your dinner. vs Eat. Youre dinner. Normal: Eat your dinner. Cannibalistic: Eat. Youre dinner.

 

2. Lets eat, Grandma. vs. Lets eat Grandma. Normal: Lets eat, Grandma. Cannibalistic: Lets eat Grandma.

 

3. I love cooking, my dogs, and my family. vs. I love cooking my dogs and my family. Normal: I love cooking, my dogs, and my family. Cannibalistic: I love cooking my dogs and my family.

 

 

Kinda same here. "Hey can you find me two helmets that can pass as game used." He's looking for two helmets that are game used and meet the criteria. Big deal. Why are people assuming the worse, that he is cheating somebody.

 

He never said:

 

"Hey, can you find me two helmets that we can pass OFF as game used."

 

Instead:

 

"...can pass as game used."

 

"Pass as" vs. "Pass off as." One shows less to zero negative intent than the other (later).

 

We are so negative assuming that somebody is cheating somebody else. "Assuming intent" is just what it is. Again, maybe he was just being honest. "Hey, find me two game used helmets. You know, two that are game used and meet the standards. Meaning ones that can pass, whatever that standard is. Can it be one play?" Can it be ones that I only wore on sideline, fit bad and they brought me other ones?

 

We automatically assume the worse, why not the best?

 

I am posting between Noon & 15:00 on Good Friday, I am gonna go to hell? Should I be praying and reflecting about all the selfish negativity out there. ;-)

I think for Lent you should give up your common sense.

Let someone else have it, for God's Sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...