Reported: Mason Rudolph accused of using racial slur prior to brawl-Steelers deny

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Did Trevor Siemien call him a racial slur too?

 

Look, Garrett's people just came umm with this "defense" for the appeal.  He threw the card down.....and the league swatted it away.  What will he say next year that will convince the NFL he is telling the truth??

 

And exactly how will Garrett credibly "accuse them of racism"?  His suspension has absolutely nothing to do with race.  To suggest so makes absolutely no sense.

 

The NFL wanted to end this "defense" immediately, and they did.  They do NOT want to set a precedent for defense off bad behavior in the future.  They risk nothing at all putting the hammer down on this guy and they absolutely know this.

 

I don't know they could made this clear today. 

There’s already people believing it (see Marcellus Wiley post earlier). There will be people that believe him. He has nothing to lose. He’s suspended indefinitely. If it drags out he can talk about how the league has enabled racists and people will buy it. You don’t need proof in 2019. He can allude to the punishment for Riley Cooper. People will be nodding their heads. He can drag the NFL through the mud. They don’t want that. It’s easier for them to just kill it. 

[SirAndrew]

I really miss when football was just a sport, and not a microcosm of the world we live in. Everything about this is gross, and terrible for football. 

[wppete]

Edited November 22, 2019 by wppete

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

His best hand was contrition, not lying, casting vile aspersions against the character of another man.

 

I hope he’s sued for everything he’s worth, and then never plays again.

 

Rudolph should also go after the Browns organization, and the NFL.  Force them to disavow Garrett.  Destroy him.

 

He’s garbage.  He deserves garbage.

I mean, ultimately, we don’t know what happened. So it’s a bit of confirming our own biases to go hard in the paint like that.

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yeah, in some ways that’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying “cave” as in not punish him. I’m saying “cave” as in they will allow him back at the start of next year. The NFL just doesn’t want this in the offseason:

 

 

 

Must feel good to take a nice hot shower after a take that *****... 

[RaoulDuke79]

4 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I mean, ultimately, we don’t know what happened. So it’s a bit of confirming our own biases to go hard in the paint like that.

In some cases I would agree, but if Rudolph really did use some type of slur, there is no way Garrett would or should have waited until this point to let it be known.

[Mr. WEO]

16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

There’s already people believing it (see Marcellus Wiley post earlier). There will be people that believe him. He has nothing to lose. He’s suspended indefinitely. If it drags out he can talk about how the league has enabled racists and people will buy it. You don’t need proof in 2019. He can allude to the punishment for Riley Cooper. People will be nodding their heads. He can drag the NFL through the mud. They don’t want that. It’s easier for them to just kill it. 

 

Wiley bases his "belief" on no facts at all.  He makes clear that he thinks Garrett is believed SOLELY because Rudolph won't take any responsibility for escalating the fight.  He provides no fact to support his goofy argument.

 

It doesn't matter if a handful of people believe him now----there will not be a bunch more next year.  Pretty simple.  

 

If you think that the NFL, after CTE, after Kaep/kneeling controversy, after cheating scandals.....is suddenly worried about the last minute, desperate (and completely immaterial) and pathetic race card defense of a guy who abuses his own colleagues and how it will play 10 months from now------I don't know what to say.  

 

The NFL wants to end this very clear attempt at obfuscation immediately and for the future. And it just did, emphatically.  All of their actions today make untrue the things you are suggesting.

 

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

In some cases I would agree, but if Rudolph really did use some type of slur, there is no way Garrett would or should have waited until this point to let it be known.

what would have been the proper way? 
 

would those most angry have reacted with less skepticism and a more open mind if he had a press conference that night declaring mason called him a ********, instead of doing it at a closed door hearing? 
 

while I certainly get the skepticism and am not advocating for believing all reports... I’m simply saying I think 99% of the reactions would’ve been identical and reflected what “team” you are on regardless of the way the accusation came to light.

[Jpsredemption]

No he didn’t. Sickening by Garrett. 

[Mr. WEO]

14 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I mean, ultimately, we don’t know what happened. So it’s a bit of confirming our own biases to go hard in the paint like that.

 

The irony is that it is not a defense at all.  

[RaoulDuke79]

4 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

what would have been the proper way? 
 

would those most angry have reacted with less skepticism and a more open mind if he had a press conference that night declaring mason called him a ********, instead of doing it at a closed door hearing? 
 

while I certainly get the skepticism and am not advocating for believing all reports... I’m simply saying I think 99% of the reactions would’ve been identical and reflected what “team” you are on regardless of the way the accusation came to light.

I'm not sure there is a proper way, but I would think if it did happen  he would have mentioned it at some point during the scrum within earshot of someone.

Edited November 22, 2019 by RaoulDuke79

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Wiley bases his "belief" on no facts at all.  He makes clear that he thinks Garrett is believed SOLELY because Rudolph won't take any responsibility for escalating the fight.  He provides no fact to support his goofy argument.

 

It doesn't matter if a handful of people believe him now----there will not be a bunch more next year.  Pretty simple.  

 

If you think that the NFL, after CTE, after Kaep/kneeling controversy, after cheating scandals.....is suddenly worried about the last minute, desperate (and completely immaterial) and pathetic race card defense of a guy who abuses his own colleagues and how it will play 10 months from now------I don't know what to say.  

 

The NFL wants to end this very clear attempt at obfuscation immediately and for the future. And it just did, emphatically.  All of their actions today make untrue the things you are suggesting.

 

If you think that this is over you’re being naive. They have no reason to stretch it out. They don’t want the “racist NFL” conversation going into the offseason. I’m actually confused why anyone even thinks that’s an option? They want it dead. It is nothing to them to reinstate him week 1 of next year instead of week 5. They have so much less to lose by doing that than having to defend themselves. That’s the point. It isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about opportunity cost. The NFL can just cut a deal and everyone gets the desired outcome. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

14 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

I mean, ultimately, we don’t know what happened. So it’s a bit of confirming our own biases to go hard in the paint like that.

Nope.  Not interested in playing this game.

 

Feel free to permit Sharptonism in your own in your own views as you feel free.  I’m not playing.

[Mr. WEO]

4 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

what would have been the proper way? 
 

would those most angry have reacted with less skepticism and a more open mind if he had a press conference that night declaring mason called him a ********, instead of doing it at a closed door hearing? 
 

while I certainly get the skepticism and am not advocating for believing all reports... I’m simply saying I think 99% of the reactions would’ve been identical and reflected what “team” you are on regardless of the way the accusation came to light.

 

I think 99% of the so accused would have, if true, made this known as soon as possible.  One should not have to wait until he shows up at a hearing to produce this info.  

 

[whatdrought]

51 minutes ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

Now I have to wonder about the validity of the story about the guy to stopped to take a picture with Garrett then punched him in the face. Whatever came of that anyway?

 

That was 2020 Mason Rudolph with a time machine trying to hurt garret and prevent the whole thing because nobody in 2020 even remembers that he’s a professional QB. They all just call him that ball boy that Myles Garrett killed with a shiv that he snuck in in his helmet.

Edited November 22, 2019 by whatdrought

[wppete]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Yeah, in some ways that’s what I’m saying. I’m not saying “cave” as in not punish him. I’m saying “cave” as in they will allow him back at the start of next year. The NFL just doesn’t want this in the offseason:

 

 

Lost all respect for Wiley....

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2019 by wppete

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If you think that this is over you’re being naive. They have no reason to stretch it out. They don’t want the “racist NFL” conversation going into the offseason. I’m actually confused why anyone even thinks that’s an option? They want it dead. It is nothing to them to reinstate him week 1 of next year instead of week 5. They have so much less to lose by doing that than having to defend themselves. That’s the point. It isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about opportunity cost. The NFL can just cut a deal and everyone gets the desired outcome. 

Which is why Rudolph needs to attack the Browns and the League with litigation, in addition to Garrett.

 

QB helmets are mic’d.

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Which is why Rudolph needs to attack the Browns and the League with litigation, in addition to Garrett.

 

QB helmets are mic’d.

I agree here. He should sue Garrett for defamation of character and slander. He should put Garrett on the defensive

[NoSaint]

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If you think that this is over you’re being naive. They have no reason to stretch it out. They don’t want the “racist NFL” conversation going into the offseason. I’m actually confused why anyone even thinks that’s an option? They want it dead. It is nothing to them to reinstate him week 1 of next year instead of week 5. They have so much less to lose by doing that than having to defend themselves. That’s the point. It isn’t about right or wrong, it’s about opportunity cost. The NFL can just cut a deal and everyone gets the desired outcome. 

While I get your point I do push back a little that the controversy is almost never as big as we make it on a message board. 
 

would it catch some off hand mentions on Sunday morning Espn game preview marathons? Sure. Would it be a CNN story even 5 minutes from now? Probably not. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I agree here. He should sue Garrett for defamation of character and slander. He should put Garrett on the defensive

And the Browns, and the League.

 

Force then to disavow Garrett.

 

Destroy him.

 

Forever.

 

Cant go out in public without everyone knowing he’s such a low character liar that he tried to destroy another man’s character (and thereby his livelihood and life, and that of his family) without people mocking him and rejecting him.

Edited November 22, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker