Myles Garrett Still Claiming Racial Slur

[Hapless Bills Fan]

11 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

See my post on the previous page regarding the Haslams and how nothing will change for the Browns, no matter who they hire as HC or GM, or who they draft, as long as those schmucks are still in charge.

 

It blows my mind that the team allowed Garrett to get in front of the media this week and not only talk about it, but to double-down and expand on it.

 

The only comment should have been "We're on to 2020".

 

TBH I'm not sure the team has the right to prevent Garrett from talking to the media or to dictate exactly what he says.  I'm not sure to what extent they can talk to him?

But they could certainly have reached out to him through his agent, and tried to reach understanding on what Garrett's desired outcome  is here, what the team's desired outcome is, and whether/how these can best be aligned. 

 

Maybe they tried this and Garrett blew it off.

 

IMO that's really the Elephant in the room that I haven't seen discussed yet.  Let's ASSUME for the sake of argument that Garrett sincerely believes he heard Rudolph call him a "dirty n-".  (Regardless of whether or not Rudolph did so.  Work with me here.  We're talking Garrett's personal belief about what he thinks he heard).  What is Garrett's desired outcome here?  What does he hope to achieve by doubling down on this?

 

Does he want an apology?  He already put it out there when he appealed his suspension and Rudolph/Pittsburgh denied.  The NFL did not produce any corroborating evidence.  Magic 8 ball says "Unlikely to Occur" - Rudolph not gonna apologize for something he denies doing.

 

Does he feel that being provoked somehow exculpates him and makes him look less like an out-of-control berzerker?  If so, he is ill advised - the general viewpoint I've seen is "even if that's exactly what was said, that doesn't justify assault with a 6 lb helmet, he could have killed Rudolph"

 

Does he want the league to somehow acknowledge that racism is a problem within the ranks of players as it is in the rest of the country and take some action?  If so, is doubling down on a claim which the white person involved, his black coach, and their team have already denied an effective means to this end?

 

 

[NoSaint]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

TBH I'm not sure the team has the right to prevent Garrett from talking to the media or to dictate exactly what he says.  I'm not sure to what extent they can talk to him?

But they could certainly have reached out to him through his agent, and tried to reach understanding on what Garrett's desired outcome  is here, what the team's desired outcome is, and whether/how these can best be aligned. 

 

Maybe they tried this and Garrett blew it off.

 

IMO that's really the Elephant in the room that I haven't seen discussed yet.  Let's ASSUME for the sake of argument that Garrett sincerely believes he heard Rudolph call him a "dirty n-".  (Regardless of whether or not Rudolph did so.  Work with me here.  We're talking Garrett's personal belief about what he thinks he heard).  What is Garrett's desired outcome here?  What does he hope to achieve by doubling down on this?

 

Does he want an apology?  He already put it out there when he appealed his suspension and Rudolph/Pittsburgh strongly denied.  The NFL did not produce any corroborating evidence. Magic 8 ball says "Unlikely to Occur" - Rudolph not gonna apologize for something he denies doing.

 

Does Garrett feel that being provoked somehow exculpates him and makes him look less like an out-of-control berzerker?  If so, he is ill advised - the general viewpoint I've seen is "even if that's exactly what was said, that doesn't justify assault with a 6 lb helmet, he could have killed Rudolph"

 

Does he want the league to somehow acknowledge that racism is a problem within the ranks of players as it is in the rest of the country and take some action?  If so, is doubling down on a claim which the white person involved, his black coach, and their team have already denied an effective means to this end?

I have wondered the same a bit

 

 Best I have come up with is that no matter what this is going to be a media issue at some point and if he does a formal interview and completes it in February it’s less distracting than questions throughout camp/season and allows him the “I already addressed this” for later.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 hours ago, /dev/null said:

Release the audio

If there is audio of Rudolph using the slur, ban him for the whatever the maximum first offense

 

I *think* the penalty for using a racial slur is the same as any other insult - a 15 yd taunting penalty in the game.  I suppose the NFL could take whatever action it likes under the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause in the CBA but there certainly isn't anything specified for this circumstance.

 

What would happen in practice is that Rudolph would perform a full-court-press grovel and public apology, or Tomlin would hold him up by his ears until he did (and the fact that Rudolph is 6'5" and I think outweighs Tomlin would not enter into it).  Rudolph would have to do this as a practical matter, or the "bummer of a birthmark, Hal" far side cartoon - Yeah, that would be him.

 

I think Allen faced a bit of that "bummer of a birthmark" thing his rookie season over his tweets, until it became clear this season that his OL and teammates were quite ready to take issue with anything they regarded as "over the line". But that's because Allen was a HS kid at the time, apologized and "does right" with them on a daily basis.  If Rudolph said something and lied in the present day, as a grown-ass man, mmmmm not so much.

 

Quote

If the audio exonerates Rudolph, ban Garrett for life.  He has had multiple offenses on the field and falsely attacking the character of another player as his excuse is indefensible.

 

This is foolishness.  There is no way audio can "exonerate" Rudolph.  There will always be the chance that the words were said but not picked up by the mic, or that they were blurred, or indistinct, or could be argued to be different words.

 

 

[ALF]

"1000% False. Bold-Faced Lie. I did not, have not, and would not utter a racial slur. This is a disgusting and reckless attempt to assassinate my character," Rudolph tweeted Saturday morning.

 

Shortly before Rudolph's tweet, Steelers coach Mike Tomlin released a statement.

 

"I support Mason Rudolph not only because I know him, but also because I was on the field immediately following the altercation with Myles Garrett, and subsequently after the game," the statement read

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001102170/article/steelers-tomlin-rudolph-respond-to-garretts-claim

 

The commish should  make them take a lie detector test 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

16 minutes ago, ALF said:

The commish should  make them take a lie detector test 

 

Dude, what IS this lie-detector test fetish folks here have? 

https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph
"The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives)."

 

"A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector."

 

"Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability."

[Teddy KGB]

15 minutes ago, ALF said:

"1000% False. Bold-Faced Lie. I did not, have not, and would not utter a racial slur. This is a disgusting and reckless attempt to assassinate my character," Rudolph tweeted Saturday morning.

 

Shortly before Rudolph's tweet, Steelers coach Mike Tomlin released a statement.

 

"I support Mason Rudolph not only because I know him, but also because I was on the field immediately following the altercation with Myles Garrett, and subsequently after the game," the statement read

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000001102170/article/steelers-tomlin-rudolph-respond-to-garretts-claim

 

The commish should  make them take a lie detector test 

And then suspend Garrett again. 

[ALF]

How accurate is the lie detector test?

The American Polygraph Association, which sets standards for testing, says that polygraphs are "highly accurate," citing an accuracy rate above 90 percent when done properly. Critics, however, say the tests are correct only 70 percent of the time.

 

Which federal agencies use polygraph?

These include the Air Force, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the Secret Service.

 

I read it on the internet so it must be true or maybe not

[BuffaloBill963]

On 2/14/2020 at 8:27 AM, thebandit27 said:

Perhaps, but maybe I’m old fashioned or something—to me it reeks of justifying an unjustifiable act.

 

Maybe Rudolph said that; maybe he didn’t. I’d like to believe someone would’ve corroborated it, though nobody had denied it either.

 

For me, contrition is the way to gain forgiveness. A simple “I lost my mind out there and have no excuse. I hope in time everyone will forgive me” would’ve been sufficient.

The denial part doesn’t make sense though. Burden of proof is on MG. We’re supposed to always add the disclaimer: “just so we’re clear I didn’t use the N word during our previous exchange” ?

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Dude, what IS this lie-detector test fetish folks here have? 

https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph
"The cumulative research evidence suggests that CQTs detect deception better than chance, but with significant error rates, both of misclassifying innocent subjects (false positives) and failing to detect guilty individuals (false negatives)."

 

"A particular problem is that polygraph research has not separated placebo-like effects (the subject's belief in the efficacy of the procedure) from the actual relationship between deception and their physiological responses. One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector."

 

"Polygraph testing has generated considerable scientific and public controversy. Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability."

Try taking one and see for yourself, there is a reason they make border patrol agents and US Marshals take these tests that they must pass to even work in those fields. Just about every government agency uses a polygraph test pre employment. If they did'nt work why would they use them for testing for enployment for such important jobs?

Edited February 16, 2020 by Call_Of_Ktulu

[Augie]

1 hour ago, ALF said:

How accurate is the lie detector test?

The American Polygraph Association, which sets standards for testing, says that polygraphs are "highly accurate," citing an accuracy rate above 90 percent when done properly. Critics, however, say the tests are correct only 70 percent of the time.

 

Which federal agencies use polygraph?

These include the Air Force, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and the Secret Service.

 

I read it on the internet so it must be true or maybe not

 

I, for one, do NOT want my career and reputation decided by something that is at best 70-90% accurate. 

[/dev/null]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I *think* the penalty for using a racial slur is the same as any other insult - a 15 yd taunting penalty in the game.  I suppose the NFL could take whatever action it likes under the "conduct detrimental to the league" clause in the CBA but there certainly isn't anything specified for this circumstance.

 

The NFL has a personal conduct policy which could be applied to Rudolph.  It's what the NFL used to impose Garrett's indefinite suspension after the altercation.

 

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

This is foolishness.  There is no way audio can "exonerate" Rudolph.  There will always be the chance that the words were said but not picked up by the mic, or that they were blurred, or indistinct, or could be argued to be different words.

 

There is audio of the event that will either pick up Rudolph dropping the N bomb or not.  Granted there's going to be JFK magic bullet conspiracy theories making the rounds after the release, but this is the evidence we have

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I would pay an unbelievable amount of money to hook Brady and Belicheat up to one of the newer polygraphs. If it were pay per view I would probably dish out up to 400$ to watch and see the results.

[NoSaint]

30 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

The NFL has a personal conduct policy which could be applied to Rudolph.  It's what the NFL used to impose Garrett's indefinite suspension after the altercation.

 

 

There is audio of the event that will either pick up Rudolph dropping the N bomb or not.  Granted there's going to be JFK magic bullet conspiracy theories making the rounds after the release, but this is the evidence we have

 

Rudolph would still be protected by the CBA - so his banishment would be more kaepernick than league sanctioned

 

[Hsker4life]

52 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

Try taking one and see for yourself, there is a reason they make border patrol agents and US Marshals take these tests that they must pass to even work in those fields. Just about every government agency uses a polygraph test pre employment. If they did'nt work why would they use them for testing for enployment for such important jobs?

I’ve taken one. 
 

They are a great tool to get the applicant to admit to or reveal things that he/she left out during the background phase. 
 

“I saw some issues with your answer when I asked you about ________, what exactly have you left out?”...followed by nervous test-taker blurting out details not yet revealed.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

..yet another daily version of "playing THE card".......gets real old............

[/dev/null]

12 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

 

Rudolph would still be protected by the CBA - so his banishment would be more kaepernick than league sanctioned

 

 

Kapernick was not banished from the NFL.  Teams are free to sign him.  However most do not want him in their locker room and none want to pay his contract demands

If there is audio of Rudolph using the slur, teams would be within their rights to not want him in the locker room the same way they do not want kaepernick. 

 

However the NFL would be on very weak ground to banish Rudolph for life based on a first offense.  This is a league that had previously re-admitted players like Mike Vick after a dog-fighting prison sentence and Donte Stallworth after DUI manslaughter

[NoSaint]

8 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

Kapernick was not banished from the NFL.  Teams are free to sign him.  However most do not want him in their locker room and none want to pay his contract demands

If there is audio of Rudolph using the slur, teams would be within their rights to not want him in the locker room the same way they do not want kaepernick. 

 

However the NFL would be on very weak ground to banish Rudolph for life based on a first offense.  This is a league that had previously re-admitted players like Mike Vick after a dog-fighting prison sentence and Donte Stallworth after DUI manslaughter

I feel like you just agreed with me but in what seems like a confrontational way. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

The NFL has a personal conduct policy which could be applied to Rudolph.  It's what the NFL used to impose Garrett's indefinite suspension after the altercation.

 

Fair.  My point is just that there's not a specific "maximum penalty", it's pretty much all left to their discretion

 

1 hour ago, /dev/null said:

There is audio of the event that will either pick up Rudolph dropping the N bomb or not.  Granted there's going to be JFK magic bullet conspiracy theories making the rounds after the release, but this is the evidence we have

 

Understood, my point is that if it picks him up, that's pretty definitive (except for, as you say, magic bullet consipiracy theories)

 

If it doesn't pick him up, I don't think it can be taken as exoneration.  There will always be the question of was something said, and not picked up.

[BringBackOrton]

15 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

Everything is fine. Never mind that the face of the franchise, married,  is luring young women on snap chat to give him blow jobs behind the Cheesecake Factory of Sadness. 
 

stefanski gotta be having second thoughts 

Win 10 games and get a WC spot and no one will care.

[whatdrought]

1 hour ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I would pay an unbelievable amount of money to hook Brady and Belicheat up to one of the newer polygraphs. If it were pay per view I would probably dish out up to 400$ to watch and see the results.

I would pay the same amount to hook them up to a different set of electrodes... ones that were more for sending than receiving.