Kaepernick's Grievance

[Loren Pechtel]

Hypothetically someone trying to prove collusion can break collusion down into one person saying X and then another agreeing to X (or not disagreeing through silence), and person1 and person2 then doing the thing that was either expressly or tacitly agreed to.

Let e1 = one person saying X
Let e2 = another person agreeing explicitly
Let e3 = that other person instead not disagreeing
Let e4 = that one person and the other doing what was stated in X

So e1 AND e2 AND e4 ==> collusion
Likewise, e1 AND e3 AND e4 ==> collusion

Facts showing e1 or that e1 would likely be true are evidence.

Therefore, "One NFL owner said to others and the NFL they ought to agree with Trump [or nearly so through implication]" is evidence.

Does e1 in and of itself prove collusion? No, and no one said that it had to by itself and that isn't how evidence works.

To repeat evidence does not work like this:
e1 ==> collusion
e2 ==> collusion
e3 ==> collusion
e4 ==> collusion

dismal: "Hey, e1 isn't evidence because it doesn't imply collusion!"

Instead:
e1 AND e2 AND e4 ==> collusion
OR (e1 AND e3 AND e4) ==> collusion

Even if everyone is acting based on what His Flatulence said it's not collusion as there's no agreement between parties on a course of action.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

You quoted it as fact:

I will add that we also have the following:
Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.

If it's simply an allegation in the grievance filing, you could have easily noted that.

Sorry, but I do not see much of a distinction since in context I was talking about what things comprise their argument or "proof."

ETA: I should also add that given the nature of their claim "Multiple NFL head coaches ..." the expectation is that this would be supported by testimony from Kaepernick himself (TBD) and likely not through web links.

Testimony from Kaepernick that a coach claimed he wanted to sign him? Of what value is that?

Multiple coaches and general managers stating so but not making offers is suggestive that the owners could have sent directives to managers not to hire. That is suggestive only and doesn't by itself prove cooperation among the owners.

A claim by Kapernick that someone wanted to sign him is so obviously self-serving that any competent arbitrator wouldn't bother to consider it. Before it even reaches the level of "suggestive" (as everything seems to be, in some people's minds), he has to prove someone actually said it.

He may have to produce some kind of documentation or other additional evidence as part of the process, such as confirmatory testimony from said managers and coaches, appointment schedules, emails/text msgs, and/or phone records.

Appointment schedules and phone records prove nothing. We already know several teams met with him.

If he can prove a coach wanted to sign him (doubtful), he then needs to prove why they didn’t.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I will add that we also have the following:

• Multiple NFL head coaches and general managers stated that they wanted to sign Mr. Kaepernick, only to mysteriously go silent with no explanation and no contract offer made to Mr. Kaepernick.
• Other NFL teams stated they had no interest in Mr. Kaepernick and refused to explain why.
• NFL teams who ran offensive systems favorable to Mr. Kaepernick’s style of play instead employed retired quarterbacks or quarterbacks who had not played in a regular season game in years, and signed them to significant contracts while prohibiting Mr. Kaepernick from even trying out or interviewing for those jobs.

All of this is easily explained by NFL owners not liking players that are an embarrassment. Embarrassing the boss in a very public fashion like this can be a career-limiting move. No collusion is needed to explain this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This article is from Mar 21st:

Donald Trump brags his Twitter account is stopping NFL teams from signing Colin Kaepernick

At a rally on Monday, President Donald Trump made comments about free agent quarterback Colin Kaepernick at his rally, suggesting why he hasn’t been picked up by a team yet.

Bleacher Report’s Mike Freeman wrote about Kaepernick last week, discussing why Kaepernick hadn’t been signed yet. In the piece, an unnamed AFC general manager was quoted as saying, “Some teams fear the backlash from fans after getting him. They think there might be protests or [President Donald] Trump will tweet about the team. I'd say that number is around 10 percent. Then there's another 10 percent that has a mix of those feelings.”

https://www.sbnation.com/2017/3/20/14991502/donald-trump-colin-kaepernick-nasty-tweet

1) This wouldn't be collusion.

2) I do think it qualifies as an elected official improperly trying to influence someone's employment--which is worth 15 years in the pen. (And I don't think it matters if the owners are actually listening or just don't want to hire an embarrassment--it's still an attempt to do so.)

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Update

Colin Kaepernick's collusion grievance against the NFL is already starting to move forward, sources said, with the sides beginning to exchange communications about how the initial stages of the process should unfold.

During this discovery stage, with requests for evidence made, Kaepnerick's legal team plans to ask the System Arbitrator hearing the case to compel all owners and high-ranking officials to turn over cell and email correspondence, according to a source with knowledge of the situation, though ultimately the process generally results in a smaller sample granted. Currently, there is a "litigation hold" in place regarding the electronic communication of NFL teams, according to the source, with team officials prohibited from expunging any relevant data.

While getting access to every owner's phone records seems unlikely to legal experts, Kaepernick's case would have a particular need to inquire about certain teams that had direct communication with the quarterback, and teams that have suffered injuries at the quarterback position and worked out other players, and those teams whose owners have been in direct contact with President Trump. As previously reported, Trump's influence and directives regarding Kaepernick and protesting players will be a part of Kaepernick's collusion argument, with the NFL's collusion rules in the collective bargaining agreement stipulating that "implied" collusion can take place between an agent outside of the league and member clubs and/or the NFL league office.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/colin-kaepernicks-collusion-grievance-against-nfl-moving-forward/

 

[ronburgundy]

Hypothetically someone trying to prove collusion can break collusion down into one person saying X and then another agreeing to X (or not disagreeing through silence), and person1 and person2 then doing the thing that was either expressly or tacitly agreed to.

Let e1 = one person saying X
Let e2 = another person agreeing explicitly
Let e3 = that other person instead not disagreeing
Let e4 = that one person and the other doing what was stated in X

So e1 AND e2 AND e4 ==> collusion
Likewise, e1 AND e3 AND e4 ==> collusion

Facts showing e1 or that e1 would likely be true are evidence.

Therefore, "One NFL owner said to others and the NFL they ought to agree with Trump [or nearly so through implication]" is evidence.

Does e1 in and of itself prove collusion? No, and no one said that it had to by itself and that isn't how evidence works.

To repeat evidence does not work like this:
e1 ==> collusion
e2 ==> collusion
e3 ==> collusion
e4 ==> collusion

dismal: "Hey, e1 isn't evidence because it doesn't imply collusion!"

Instead:
e1 AND e2 AND e4 ==> collusion
OR (e1 AND e3 AND e4) ==> collusion

Even if everyone is acting based on what His Flatulence said it's not collusion as there's no agreement between parties on a course of action.

e1 is "evidence" to the same degree that the existence of the color pink is "evidence" that a pink flying Unicorn governs the movement of the planets. Such a fact is required for the conclusion to be true, and thus establishing that fact is a neccessary requirement establishing the conclusion. Yet, establishing that fact only increases the probability of the conclusion in the smallest possible way. A world without such collusion would still be fully expected to have NFL owners who don't like Kapernick, just like a world without such a unicorn would still be expected to have the color pink.

In actual practice, "evidence" is only considered "evidence" for a conclusion, if it makes the possible world where that conclusion is true more probable relative to the world as already known in which the conclusion is not known to be true. IF e1 would already be expected with near certainty to exist, even in a world where the conclusion was not true, then the fact of e1 does nothing to measurably increase the relative probability of the conclusion. Thus, it is not "evidence" for that conclusion in any meaningful sense. IOW, if other fact about the world already allow us to know with virtual certainty that an owner would agree with Trump, even without any effort of collusion, then the fact that an owner agrees with Trump does essentially nothing to increase the likelihood of collusion.

To put it in a context you might understand, your e1 is "evidence" of collusion only in the same sense that the fact that at least one black man has committed murder is "evidence" that "All black men are murderers." Technically that fact must be true in order for the conclusion to be true. Yet, establishing this neccessary condition does so little to get us closer to a level of evidence sufficient to accept the conclusion that it is not considered evidence for that conclusion by any reasonable person.

Note that this has nothing to do with how plausible we might judge these two difference conclusions. Clearly collusion among NFL owners is far more plausible than all black people being murderers. But we know that from information other than e1, so it has nothing to do with the issue at hand of whether e1 is "evidence" for the respective conclusion.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Even if everyone is acting based on what His Flatulence said it's not collusion as there's no agreement between parties on a course of action.

e1 is "evidence" to the same degree that the existence of the color pink is "evidence" that a pink flying Unicorn governs the movement of the planets. Such a fact is required for the conclusion to be true, and thus establishing that fact is a neccessary requirement establishing the conclusion. Yet, establishing that fact only increases the probability of the conclusion in the smallest possible way. A world without such collusion would still be fully expected to have NFL owners who don't like Kapernick, just like a world without such a unicorn would still be expected to have the color pink.

In actual practice, "evidence" is only considered "evidence" for a conclusion, if it makes the possible world where that conclusion is true more probable relative to the world as already known in which the conclusion is not known to be true. IF e1 would already be expected with near certainty to exist, even in a world where the conclusion was not true, then the fact of e1 does nothing to measurably increase the relative probability of the conclusion. Thus, it is not "evidence" for that conclusion in any meaningful sense. IOW, if other fact about the world already allow us to know with virtual certainty that an owner would agree with Trump, even without any effort of collusion, then the fact that an owner agrees with Trump does essentially nothing to increase the likelihood of collusion.

To put it in a context you might understand, your e1 is "evidence" of collusion only in the same sense that the fact that at least one black man has committed murder is "evidence" that "All black men are murderers." Technically that fact must be true in order for the conclusion to be true. Yet, establishing this neccessary condition does so little to get us closer to a level of evidence sufficient to accept the conclusion that it is not considered evidence for that conclusion by any reasonable person.

Note that this has nothing to do with how plausible we might judge these two difference conclusions. Clearly collusion among NFL owners is far more plausible than all black people being murderers. But we know that from information other than e1, so it has nothing to do with the issue at hand of whether e1 is "evidence" for the respective conclusion.

You are engaging in hyperbole. While you may think those kind of artsy analogies add quality to your argument, they actually detract from it.

For example:
Showing collusion means showing cooperation. Showing cooperation means showing a common motive for working together. Therefore, showing such motive, while it is not proof of collusion, does establish as evidence necessary elements of the collusion.

If say, for example, the NFL owners were all Hillary supporters who donated millions of dollars to the campaign, and Trump never sought to buy a NFL team, etc, then the grievance would have to give some kind of different evidence (e1) to establish DIFFERENT motive of the alleged implied collusion.

 

[bilby]

You are engaging in hyperbole...

This is the NFL we are talking about, so surely it's only superbole?

 

[ronburgundy]

e1 is "evidence" to the same degree that the existence of the color pink is "evidence" that a pink flying Unicorn governs the movement of the planets. Such a fact is required for the conclusion to be true, and thus establishing that fact is a neccessary requirement establishing the conclusion. Yet, establishing that fact only increases the probability of the conclusion in the smallest possible way. A world without such collusion would still be fully expected to have NFL owners who don't like Kapernick, just like a world without such a unicorn would still be expected to have the color pink.

In actual practice, "evidence" is only considered "evidence" for a conclusion, if it makes the possible world where that conclusion is true more probable relative to the world as already known in which the conclusion is not known to be true. IF e1 would already be expected with near certainty to exist, even in a world where the conclusion was not true, then the fact of e1 does nothing to measurably increase the relative probability of the conclusion. Thus, it is not "evidence" for that conclusion in any meaningful sense. IOW, if other fact about the world already allow us to know with virtual certainty that an owner would agree with Trump, even without any effort of collusion, then the fact that an owner agrees with Trump does essentially nothing to increase the likelihood of collusion.

To put it in a context you might understand, your e1 is "evidence" of collusion only in the same sense that the fact that at least one black man has committed murder is "evidence" that "All black men are murderers." Technically that fact must be true in order for the conclusion to be true. Yet, establishing this neccessary condition does so little to get us closer to a level of evidence sufficient to accept the conclusion that it is not considered evidence for that conclusion by any reasonable person.

Note that this has nothing to do with how plausible we might judge these two difference conclusions. Clearly collusion among NFL owners is far more plausible than all black people being murderers. But we know that from information other than e1, so it has nothing to do with the issue at hand of whether e1 is "evidence" for the respective conclusion.

You are engaging in hyperbole. While you may think those kind of artsy analogies add quality to your argument, they actually detract from it.

There is nothing "artsy" about it, and zero hyperbole. They are just perfectly valid analogies that are logically identical to the way you are using "evidence" and thus expose its absurdity.

For example:
Showing collusion means showing cooperation. Showing cooperation means showing a common motive for working together. Therefore, showing such motive, while it is not proof of collusion, does establish as evidence necessary elements of the collusion.

And showing that the color pink exists does establish something that is a neccessary element for a cosmos controlling flying pink unicorn.

If say, for example, the NFL owners were all Hillary supporters who donated millions of dollars to the campaign, and Trump never sought to buy a NFL team, etc, then the grievance would have to give some kind of different evidence (e1) to establish DIFFERENT motive of the alleged implied collusion.

Some of the owners did give millions to the Dems. All the owners are Billionaire heads of corporations. That fact alone strongly predicts that some would give $ to Trump. It would have been very surprising if some of them did not give him $, even in a world where none of them liked him. So those facts do nothing to make it more likely that they would collude with each other to appease him. In fact, a more relevant fact is that the owners rejected his bid for NFL ownsership and Trump had sued the NFL in the 80's. Those facts make any collusion to appease Trump implausible.

Also, motive to collude depends directly on whether they would think that collusion was neccessary to keep Kapernick out of the league. They, like any rational person, knows that no collusion was neccessary, because all owners share the identical interest of wanting to sell their product to a fanbase that overwhelmingly dislikes Kapernick's actions.

 

[ronburgundy]

Suppose a man named Joe turns up dead tomorrow. Imagine that it was already well established that he was in the last thows of terminal cancer and it was widely expected that he would likely be dead tomorrow. Also suppose that you had knowledge of this and it was clear to all other people that you had such knowledge that Joe would soon be dead.

Also, there is currently zero evidence of any foul play or a cause of death other than his terminal cancer.

It turns out that Joe left his valued baseball card collection to you in his will.

Is this simple fact that Joe left you baseball cards "evidence that you murdered him", because it suggests a motive? Would it be honest and reasonable for a newspaper to declare "Evidence has emerged in support of Joe being murdered by Don2!"

 

[dismal]

Don doesn't seem to grasp that there are two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive possibilities we are dealing with here:

1) The NFL owners each independently decided not to sign Kaepernick
2) The NFL owners colluded not to sign Kaepernick

One of these must be true, only one of them can be true.

Any given factoid can support one more than the other, can support neither, or could support both.

The factoid "Trump says NFL owners don't want to sign Kaepernick because they don't want to get a nasty tweet from him." is not in anyway evidence supporting #2. It provides us no additional information about collusion.

It gives us a(nother) reason why any given NFL owner might not want to sign Kaepernick. It's additional evidence for #1.

 

[Elixir]

Don doesn't seem to grasp that there are two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive possibilities we are dealing with here:

1) The NFL owners each independently decided not to sign Kaepernick
2) The NFL owners colluded not to sign Kaepernick

One of these must be true, only one of them can be true.

Lotsa gray area there... it would be negligent for an owner to sign a player from another team without talking about him with the current employer. What exactly is discussed (and how) might appear to be collusion to one person, due diligence to another.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Don doesn't seem to grasp that there are two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive possibilities we are dealing with here:

1) The NFL owners each independently decided not to sign Kaepernick
2) The NFL owners colluded not to sign Kaepernick

One of these must be true, only one of them can be true.

Lotsa gray area there... it would be negligent for an owner to sign a player from another team without talking about him with the current employer. What exactly is discussed (and how) might appear to be collusion to one person, due diligence to another.

In this case, there was no current employer. And if there were, another team even expressing interest in signing him would result in severe penalties for tampering.

 

[dismal]

Don doesn't seem to grasp that there are two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive possibilities we are dealing with here:

1) The NFL owners each independently decided not to sign Kaepernick
2) The NFL owners colluded not to sign Kaepernick

One of these must be true, only one of them can be true.

Lotsa gray area there... it would be negligent for an owner to sign a player from another team without talking about him with the current employer. What exactly is discussed (and how) might appear to be collusion to one person, due diligence to another.

I don't think this behavior is what was intended to prohibit when they barred owners making agreements not to sign a player.

I think it was more the "you don't pursue my WR in free agency and I'll send you a 7th round pick" or give you a luxury box or some such. They are prohibiting agreements that could result in below market salaries for players.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Don doesn't seem to grasp that there are two mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive possibilities we are dealing with here:

1) The NFL owners each independently decided not to sign Kaepernick
2) The NFL owners colluded not to sign Kaepernick

dismal doesn't seem to grasp the op where I stated that the current grievance seems weak with respect to "cooperation" among the owners/NFL.

However, I will add that it isn't up to the grievance to prove that. Further, I will add the following update:

Bruce Arians' explanation for not considering Colin Kaepernick is total nonsense

The Arizona Cardinals are in a terrible spot at quarterback after starter Carson Palmer suffered a broken left arm in Sunday’s loss to the Rams. And, as we’ve seen after numerous quarterback injuries this season, the coach was asked about the prospect of signing Colin Kaepernick.

Bruce Arians’ response, though, was not based in reality.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/10/bru...-cardinals-gabbert-palmer-injury-nonsense-nfl

Regarding evidence of #1 or #2, let me say that some people out there may think that an individual who acted alone is more likely to tell the truth of why he didn't hire Kaepernick, but someone who was up to something extra-contractual or illegal would make up such lie. However, I would apply Hanlon's Razor here to say the Arian was probably just being stupid and extra defensive and that's what made him exaggerate/make this up. Probably.

While I am at it, let me finally add that dismal actually presented a false dichotomy. Only two owners (or an owner and the NFL, etc) need to cooperate in some collective decision or implied agreement for there to be collusion. The rest could have acted independently.

So, let's say for example that the super secret guy threatening to remove $40 million in sponsorship to the NFL was Trump and when an owner was mentioning the hypothetical $40 million over and over again at a monthly meeting in order to entice, if two owners present used that as a factor in not hiring Kaepernick that would constitute an attempt at collective cooperation to receive said money and thus collusion.

 

[Harry Bosch]

dismal doesn't seem to grasp the op where I stated that the current grievance seems weak with respect to "cooperation" among the owners/NFL.

However, I will add that it isn't up to the grievance to prove that. Further, I will add the following update:

Bruce Arians' explanation for not considering Colin Kaepernick is total nonsense

The Arizona Cardinals are in a terrible spot at quarterback after starter Carson Palmer suffered a broken left arm in Sunday’s loss to the Rams. And, as we’ve seen after numerous quarterback injuries this season, the coach was asked about the prospect of signing Colin Kaepernick.

Bruce Arians’ response, though, was not based in reality.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/10/bru...-cardinals-gabbert-palmer-injury-nonsense-nfl

Regarding evidence of #1 or #2, let me say that some people out there may think that an individual who acted alone is more likely to tell the truth of why he didn't hire Kaepernick, but someone who was up to something extra-contractual or illegal would make up such lie. However, I would apply Hanlon's Razor here to say the Arian was probably just being stupid and extra defensive and that's what made him exaggerate/make this up. Probably.

While I am at it, let me finally add that dismal actually presented a false dichotomy. Only two owners (or an owner and the NFL, etc) need to cooperate in some collective decision or implied agreement for there to be collusion. The rest could have acted independently.

So, let's say for example that the super secret guy threatening to remove $40 million in sponsorship to the NFL was Trump and when an owner was mentioning the hypothetical $40 million over and over again at a monthly meeting in order to entice, if two owners present used that as a factor in not hiring Kaepernick that would constitute an attempt at collective cooperation to receive said money and thus collusion.

The Cardinals have a traditional offense tailer made for a pocket passer like Carson and Gabbert. Colin isn't a pocket passer. Gabbert, while not every good, is better suited for the Cards than Colin.

Blaine Gabbert

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The Cardinals have a traditional offense tailer made for a pocket passer like Carson and Gabbert. Colin isn't a pocket passer. Gabbert, while not every good, is better suited for the Cards than Colin.

Blaine Gabbert

That's great and the reason the coach lied was because he was being stupid like I wrote, right?

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Cardinals have a traditional offense tailer made for a pocket passer like Carson and Gabbert. Colin isn't a pocket passer. Gabbert, while not every good, is better suited for the Cards than Colin.

Blaine Gabbert

That's great and the reason the coach lied was because he was being stupid like I wrote, right?

That coach isn't the sharpest tool in the tool box. Most of these teams are just desperate to win games. 30% of the coaches today will be fired at the end of the year. I really don't think that they are all conspiring to hold Colin down! They just don't want the distraction. They don't want the drama.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That coach isn't the sharpest tool in the tool box. Most of these teams are just desperate to win games. 30% of the coaches today will be fired at the end of the year. I really don't think that they are all conspiring to hold Colin down! They just don't want the distraction. They don't want the drama.

I don't think he was intentionally lying because he didn't want the drama, but instead I think he lied for just being stupid and overly defensive.

 

[dismal]

dismal doesn't seem to grasp the op where I stated that the current grievance seems weak with respect to "cooperation" among the owners/NFL.

However, I will add that it isn't up to the grievance to prove that. Further, I will add the following update:


http://ftw.usatoday.com/2017/10/bru...-cardinals-gabbert-palmer-injury-nonsense-nfl

Regarding evidence of #1 or #2, let me say that some people out there may think that an individual who acted alone is more likely to tell the truth of why he didn't hire Kaepernick, but someone who was up to something extra-contractual or illegal would make up such lie. However, I would apply Hanlon's Razor here to say the Arian was probably just being stupid and extra defensive and that's what made him exaggerate/make this up. Probably.

While I am at it, let me finally add that dismal actually presented a false dichotomy. Only two owners (or an owner and the NFL, etc) need to cooperate in some collective decision or implied agreement for there to be collusion. The rest could have acted independently.

So, let's say for example that the super secret guy threatening to remove $40 million in sponsorship to the NFL was Trump and when an owner was mentioning the hypothetical $40 million over and over again at a monthly meeting in order to entice, if two owners present used that as a factor in not hiring Kaepernick that would constitute an attempt at collective cooperation to receive said money and thus collusion.

The Cardinals have a traditional offense tailer made for a pocket passer like Carson and Gabbert. Colin isn't a pocket passer. Gabbert, while not every good, is better suited for the Cards than Colin.

Blaine Gabbert

I bet that's the same Blaine Gabbert who Kaepernick was benched for in San Francisco.