The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Deadskins wrote:Actually I think the 49ers admitted it. Not what I would call "thin."

"The 49ers organization respects commissioner Goodell's ruling today, however we do disagree with it," 49ers general manager Scot McCloughan said in a statement. "This was not a malicious act; we believe that our intent was within the NFL guidelines. Going forward, we will take the necessary steps to ensure we are in compliance with the NFL's interpretation."

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Actually I think the 49ers admitted it. Not what I would call "thin."

Not really...

"The 49ers organization respects commissioner Goodell's ruling today, however we do disagree with it," 49ers general manager Scot McCloughan said in a statement. "This was not a malicious act; we believe that our intent was within the NFL guidelines. Going forward, we will take the necessary steps to ensure we are in compliance with the NFL's interpretation."

Bob 0119 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:
I read this article, too. It's always good practice to research from more than 1 article before forming an opinion IMO.

See, I agree with that, but this article was the closest one to a non-biased accounting of what the 'Skins were doing from midnight to 5am that I could find.

All the other things I've read that are directly addressing the tampering charge are people's thoughts and conjectures.

stuff like:

"Dan Snyder was seen talking to Haynesworths agent"

You could imply that they were talking about Haynesworth, but it doesn't mean anything. They could have been talking about any number of things including other players the agent represents. They do represent more than one player usually.

"It's impossible to wrap up a hundred million dollar deal in five hours."

Anybody in business will tell you that's only partially true. Most of the work on the offer would have been prepared beforehand, but if the offer isn't made until after midnight, it's not tampering. Negotiating the offer certainly could have been done in less than five hours. It's only a matter of changing the details on the original offer.

Most of the stories I see refer to "sources" with fuzzy details ("I heard from a guy who said he saw/heard..." etc.)

And even if the 'Skins did talk with the agent before-hand, the Titans certainly had much better access to Haynesworth and his agent than the 'Skins ever could have. They should have known what it would take to keep him. It's not like Tennessee was a bad team last year.

They CHOSE not to keep him. Whether they could afford him or not, makes no difference, the outcome would have been the same.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

JansenFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

JansenFan wrote:I think its tampering AND sour grapes. Its not like they were going to outbid anyone, anyway. They could have matched our offer. The didn't and instead, are trying to get our draft pick as compensation for their cheapness.

Is it sour grapes or good business on the part of the Titans? If they can get something out of this why not. I think that when the 49ers were found to have tampered with Lance Briggs, the NFL made them switch 3rd round picks with the Bears. So the Bears got a better 3rd rounder.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Getting extra picks for a guy you were going to lose anyway is good business, but ratting out another team for something I would wager everyone -- including the Titans -- have done before is a bit of sour grapes, as well.

That's why, IMO, if a team accuses another of tampering with the expectation of getting a better draft pick, they should be punished should the allegations turn out to be false. E.g., we switch 3rd rounders (or whatever) to the advantage of the Skins, rather than switching draft picks to the advantage of the Titans.

No team, just as no person, should get a free shot at trying to sucker-punch another team with no good reason. If you want to make a serious accusation like that, be prepared to receive punishment if it turns out you were just doing it for kicks.

The problem there is how do you prove that the allegations were false? Just because there isn't enough evidence for the NFL to determine that a violation of the rules took place doesn't mean that there wasn't in fact a violation.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

JansenFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

JansenFan wrote:I think its tampering AND sour grapes. Its not like they were going to outbid anyone, anyway. They could have matched our offer. The didn't and instead, are trying to get our draft pick as compensation for their cheapness.

Is it sour grapes or good business on the part of the Titans? If they can get something out of this why not. I think that when the 49ers were found to have tampered with Lance Briggs, the NFL made them switch 3rd round picks with the Bears. So the Bears got a better 3rd rounder.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Getting extra picks for a guy you were going to lose anyway is good business, but ratting out another team for something I would wager everyone -- including the Titans -- have done before is a bit of sour grapes, as well.

That's why, IMO, if a team accuses another of tampering with the expectation of getting a better draft pick, they should be punished should the allegations turn out to be false. E.g., we switch 3rd rounders (or whatever) to the advantage of the Skins, rather than switching draft picks to the advantage of the Titans.

No team, just as no person, should get a free shot at trying to sucker-punch another team with no good reason. If you want to make a serious accusation like that, be prepared to receive punishment if it turns out you were just doing it for kicks.

The problem there is how do you prove that the allegations were false? Just because there isn't enough evidence for the NFL to determine that a violation of the rules took place doesn't mean that there wasn't in fact a violation.

Doesn't that fall under the innocent until proven guilty ideal that our legal system's supposed to be based upon?

Not really. Innocent until proven guilty is related to a criminal trial. The term "innocent" is used in criminal cases, not in civil cases or administrative proceedings.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Not really. Innocent until proven guilty is related to a criminal trial. The term "innocent" is used in criminal cases, not in civil cases or administrative proceedings.

So what you're saying is that the skins have to prove their innocent as opposed to finding proof that the skins are guilty?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Not really. Innocent until proven guilty is related to a criminal trial. The term "innocent" is used in criminal cases, not in civil cases or administrative proceedings.

So what you're saying is that the skins have to prove their innocent as opposed to finding proof that the skins are guilty?

No, I was merely pointing out that the term "innocent" is used mostly in criminal cases, not administrative or civil cases. In a civil trial, for example, the issue isn't really guitly or innocent, it's liable or not liable.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Not really. Innocent until proven guilty is related to a criminal trial. The term "innocent" is used in criminal cases, not in civil cases or administrative proceedings.

So what you're saying is that the skins have to prove their innocent as opposed to finding proof that the skins are guilty?

No, I was merely pointing out that the term "innocent" is used mostly in criminal cases, not administrative or civil cases. In a civil trial, for example, the issue isn't really guitly or innocent, it's liable or not liable.

So they're not guilty of tampering if it's proven they tampered as accused.

CanesSkins26 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Not really. Innocent until proven guilty is related to a criminal trial. The term "innocent" is used in criminal cases, not in civil cases or administrative proceedings.

So what you're saying is that the skins have to prove their innocent as opposed to finding proof that the skins are guilty?

No, I was merely pointing out that the term "innocent" is used mostly in criminal cases, not administrative or civil cases. In a civil trial, for example, the issue isn't really guitly or innocent, it's liable or not liable.

So they're not guilty of tampering if it's proven they tampered as accused.

Technically, no. The Skins aren't being charged with a criminal offense in a criminal court so the issue of "guilt" doesn't really come into play.

VetSkinsFan wrote:So how is it classified if they were indeed tampering in the NFL's eyes?

Irn-Bru wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:So how is it classified if they were indeed tampering in the NFL's eyes?

I think his point is that, while in one sense we'd call the Redskins "guilty" of tampering (if the charges are proved), it's not the kind of "guilty" that belongs in the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty.' Civil law is a different animal than criminal law.

Irn-Bru wrote:Well I'm no lawyer, so I'm in the same boat as you in that I'm just trying to make sense of things. Can you repost your question / the thing you're trying to get at, Vet?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

JansenFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

JansenFan wrote:I think its tampering AND sour grapes. Its not like they were going to outbid anyone, anyway. They could have matched our offer. The didn't and instead, are trying to get our draft pick as compensation for their cheapness.

Is it sour grapes or good business on the part of the Titans? If they can get something out of this why not. I think that when the 49ers were found to have tampered with Lance Briggs, the NFL made them switch 3rd round picks with the Bears. So the Bears got a better 3rd rounder.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Getting extra picks for a guy you were going to lose anyway is good business, but ratting out another team for something I would wager everyone -- including the Titans -- have done before is a bit of sour grapes, as well.

That's why, IMO, if a team accuses another of tampering with the expectation of getting a better draft pick, they should be punished should the allegations turn out to be false. E.g., we switch 3rd rounders (or whatever) to the advantage of the Skins, rather than switching draft picks to the advantage of the Titans.

No team, just as no person, should get a free shot at trying to sucker-punch another team with no good reason. If you want to make a serious accusation like that, be prepared to receive punishment if it turns out you were just doing it for kicks.

The problem there is how do you prove that the allegations were false? Just because there isn't enough evidence for the NFL to determine that a violation of the rules took place doesn't mean that there wasn't in fact a violation.

VetSkinsFan wrote:There is enough evidence to show that the Redskins did it, which in turn, the Redskins would be guilty or tampering, which has to be proven that they tampered

OR

They are found in the NFL's investigation to NOT have tampered (or insufficient evidence to to prove that they actually tampered ) and be proven to not have tampered in this instance.

Irn-Bru wrote:CanesSkins, are you still of the opinion that the Titans should have no liability if their 'evidence' turns out to be nothing, and they were basically claiming tampering just to see if they could get something out of it?

IMHO, if you don't have enough evidence to prove your allegation, then you shouldn't make the allegation. If you just throw something against the wall to see if you can make it stick at the expense of someone else's character you should be held responsible.

Irn-Bru wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:There is enough evidence to show that the Redskins did it, which in turn, the Redskins would be guilty or tampering, which has to be proven that they tampered

OR

They are found in the NFL's investigation to NOT have tampered (or insufficient evidence to to prove that they actually tampered ) and be proven to not have tampered in this instance.

I think it is generally assumed by the NFL that the Redskins played by the rules. So in that sense, the burden of proof is on the Titans. Sounds to me like we're both understanding it correctly, unless someone else can step in and point out the flaw.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

CanesSkins26 wrote:

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Not really. Innocent until proven guilty is related to a criminal trial. The term "innocent" is used in criminal cases, not in civil cases or administrative proceedings.

So what you're saying is that the skins have to prove their innocent as opposed to finding proof that the skins are guilty?

No, I was merely pointing out that the term "innocent" is used mostly in criminal cases, not administrative or civil cases. In a civil trial, for example, the issue isn't really guitly or innocent, it's liable or not liable.

So they're not guilty of tampering if it's proven they tampered as accused.

Technically, no. The Skins aren't being charged with a criminal offense in a criminal court so the issue of "guilt" doesn't really come into play.

So how is it classified if they were indeed tampering in the NFL's eyes?

CanesSkins26 wrote:

IMHO, if you don't have enough evidence to prove your allegation, then you shouldn't make the allegation. If you just throw something against the wall to see if you can make it stick at the expense of someone else's character you should be held responsible.

That's a pretty ridiculous standard. The reason why there are juries, judges, arbitrators, etc. is to determine if there is enough evidence to prove an allegation. Most of the time in a trial it is a very thin line in terms of there being enough evidence to prove something. Often it boils down to who can make the better argument about a particular piece of evidence. Unless a claim is clearly frivolous I don't see how you could punish someone.

VetSkinsFan wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:Well I'm no lawyer, so I'm in the same boat as you in that I'm just trying to make sense of things. Can you repost your question / the thing you're trying to get at, Vet?

The nitpciking of the term guilty or not guilty which in this high level discussion, has been proven that I am not qualified to use. In this tampering investigation, I assume, in my humble intelligence, has two outcomes, either:

There is enough evidence to show that the Redskins did it, which in turn, the Redskins would be guilty or tampering, which has to be proven that they tampered

OR

They are found in the NFL's investigation to NOT have tampered (or insufficient evidence to to prove that they actually tampered ) and be proven to not have tampered in this instance.

Under this meager understanding of civil law, this is my interpretation of innocent until proven guilty as I said could apply to this situation.

Whether I used the incorrect term for civil vs criminal law shouldn't shift focus and subsequently derail the topic, so for that, I apologize.

Countertrey wrote:Regardless, I am not aware that the Titans have formally filed a complaint... until that happens, there is really nothing to be addressed.

I think they were fishing for evidence... and that it's most likely that none will be found. If it occurred, it was between the Danny and Albert's agent... both of whom would find it in their best interest to have been discussing the future of a certain second year wide receiver...

Nothing happening here... might as well move along...