Vin, I really am struggling with this one. I'm not sure why the guy would target Schiano if in fact the Glazers would be ultimately paying the ransom in a lawsuit....AND also subjecting himself to a lawsuit from Schiano for defamation?We know he is on record stating that Schiano was involved in the decision. We definitely don't know the details other than that but he felt brave enough to attach the coach's name to it so I'm thinking he's got some basis for this claim....or at least that's his perception...if Schiano feels his name is being dragged through the mud then he has every right to b1tchslap the kid legally but so far no sign of that happening.
You really don't know anything about what you are talking about, do you? You are reading a media report about a grievance, not the grievance itself. The Glazers are not ignored. They are party to it as well. The reason Schiano's name is mentioned in the media report is that nobody gives a rat's azz about the second assistant dietitian or third shift janitor. Nobody needs to point out that the Glazers are part of it because it is their team, so of course they are named in it, only an idiot would need that spelled out for them.You are making ridiculous assumptions about something based on an extremely brief media account that only highlights the parts that the person writing the article found interesting. And the big bad Freeman-abusing monster is interesting. The people who actually handled the supposedly flawed medical treatment, who actually have whatever real culpability there is (if any), are not interesting stories. You might also not that the person writing the story hasn't actually, you know, seen the grievance, he is just reporting on what "sources" told him about it. And not just "sources" but "union sources". You don't think they might be working teh media just a bit? What better way to get attention and attempt to "try the case in the media" to get a settlement?
There are assumptions being made on both sides of this argument however the difference is my assumptions are based on information made available through the press from one of the parties impacted...yours appear to be based on a 12-pack of Bud Lite and Season 2 of CSI...
you mean because Tynes comment was reported "through the press" and Tynes was "one of the parries impacted" the comments start as THE TRUTH and are THE TRUTH unless someone PROVES differently? Huh? It was also reported in the press that Schiano was the source of the testing leak and then later reported, with the union was the source, that the source of the press leak was actually union members? Those two facts are hopelessly at odds with each other, so which is true? They were both "made available through the press" and definitely from "one of the parties impacted"?Looking at the situation before the USA Today article, the logical conclusion would have been that Schiano had little or nothing to gain by intentionally leaking something to the press about Freeman's health/testing. . . . and it turned out to be true. Same scenario here, as long as you're willing to see it. It's perfectly reasonable to rely on the same analysis here and that is why I have asked several times -- without any response from you, interestingly -- if the NFI/IR decision was Schiano's decision then why would a HC care about the designation? In other words, what does that issue have to do with Xs and Os of football? Isn't it only related to the TEAM's potential liability? If so, isn't it implausible that the team and its lawyers would leave that decision to a HC who doesn't care one way or the other?The funny thing about your comment and your stance (which, I only half believe to be genuine) is that most people would take this fact you allege as a basis for reliability-- "made available through the press from one of the parties impacted" -- as exactly the opposite. Why make the point available through the press? The press will not be sitting in the jury box, right?
Vin, I really am struggling with this one. I'm not sure why the guy would target Schiano if in fact the Glazers would be ultimately paying the ransom in a lawsuit....AND also subjecting himself to a lawsuit from Schiano for defamation?We know he is on record stating that Schiano was involved in the decision. We definitely don't know the details other than that but he felt brave enough to attach the coach's name to it so I'm thinking he's got some basis for this claim....or at least that's his perception...if Schiano feels his name is being dragged through the mud then he has every right to b1tchslap the kid legally but so far no sign of that happening.
You really don't know anything about what you are talking about, do you? You are reading a media report about a grievance, not the grievance itself. The Glazers are not ignored. They are party to it as well. The reason Schiano's name is mentioned in the media report is that nobody gives a rat's azz about the second assistant dietitian or third shift janitor. Nobody needs to point out that the Glazers are part of it because it is their team, so of course they are named in it, only an idiot would need that spelled out for them.You are making ridiculous assumptions about something based on an extremely brief media account that only highlights the parts that the person writing the article found interesting. And the big bad Freeman-abusing monster is interesting. The people who actually handled the supposedly flawed medical treatment, who actually have whatever real culpability there is (if any), are not interesting stories. You might also not that the person writing the story hasn't actually, you know, seen the grievance, he is just reporting on what "sources" told him about it. And not just "sources" but "union sources". You don't think they might be working teh media just a bit? What better way to get attention and attempt to "try the case in the media" to get a settlement?
There are assumptions being made on both sides of this argument however the difference is my assumptions are based on information made available through the press from one of the parties impacted...yours appear to be based on a 12-pack of Bud Lite and Season 2 of CSI...
you mean because Tynes comment was reported "through the press" and Tynes was "one of the parries impacted" the comments start as THE TRUTH and are THE TRUTH unless someone PROVES differently? Huh? It was also reported in the press that Schiano was the source of the testing leak and then later reported, with the union was the source, that the source of the press leak was actually union members? Those two facts are hopelessly at odds with each other, so which is true? They were both "made available through the press" and definitely from "one of the parties impacted"?Looking at the situation before the USA Today article, the logical conclusion would have been that Schiano had little or nothing to gain by intentionally leaking something to the press about Freeman's health/testing. . . . and it turned out to be true. Same scenario here, as long as you're willing to see it. It's perfectly reasonable to rely on the same analysis here and that is why I have asked several times -- without any response from you, interestingly -- if the NFI/IR decision was Schiano's decision then why would a HC care about the designation? In other words, what does that issue have to do with Xs and Os of football? Isn't it only related to the TEAM's potential liability? If so, isn't it implausible that the team and its lawyers would leave that decision to a HC who doesn't care one way or the other?The funny thing about your comment and your stance (which, I only half believe to be genuine) is that most people would take this fact you allege as a basis for reliability-- "made available through the press from one of the parties impacted" -- as exactly the opposite. Why make the point available through the press? The press will not be sitting in the jury box, right?
Merrrrry X-mas! :)
lol, same to you
Is it too late to get one of those Bud Lites?
