Kaepernick's Grievance

[dismal]

From the op:

What merit does it have? Personally, I think it has some merit in that it identifies behaviors of the owners/NFL.

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

Emphasis added.

isn't clear it adequately?

Is there any evidence of the owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick?

There is evidence that supports the claim of this being a statistical anomaly.

1) This is not evidence of owners colluding
2) This sort of evidence is specifically barred because of its dubious nature

Question now is what are the likely reason(s) for this, one such reason being extra-contractual reasons for excluding hiring of Kaepernick, like politics, and whether or not there was cooperation among more than one owner and NFL or its personnel.

When you start talking about "politics" you are provided another possible reason why any given team may not want to hire Kaepernick, not evidence teams colluded.

You seem to be forgetting this is a clear preponderance of evidence burden*, not a logical proof where one goes about proving A ==> B ==> C.

No, I am asserting there is NO EVIDENCE of collusion provided at this point. You don't seem to be cable of rebutting this with ANY evidence.

I'd add to that every time Trump is invoked the person doing the invoking harms their own credibility dramatically. Trump derangement may sell well with some people, but it's not evidence someone who is not Trump colluded with someone else who is not Trump. And these teams were all actively passing on Kaepernick long before this issue was associated with Trump at all.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

From the op:

What merit does it have? Personally, I think it has some merit in that it identifies behaviors of the owners/NFL.

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

Emphasis added.

isn't clear it adequately?

Is there any evidence of the owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick?

What Ive read is that league officials have stated that there are teams willing to sign Kaepernick, but that they are afraid of retaliation. That, plus Trump's threats, are suggestions that collusion is a possibility. One of the purposes of the hearing is to establish if such evidence exists.

Please provide link(s) to where you read this. Internet discussion forums don't count.

If SCROTUS's threats suggested collusion, the league's refusal to require players to stand for the anthem puts a full spread of torpedoes into that "suggestion".

 

[Horatio Parker]

From the op:

What merit does it have? Personally, I think it has some merit in that it identifies behaviors of the owners/NFL.

What gaps does it have? Personally, it isn't clear to me that it adequately demonstrates owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick.

What things are yet to be determined? Lawyers might request some documents even if they cannot subpoena anything. What such documents may say are to be determined. Anything else?

Emphasis added.

isn't clear it adequately?

Is there any evidence of the owners cooperating with each other toward the goal of not hiring Kaepernick?

What Ive read is that league officials have stated that there are teams willing to sign Kaepernick, but that they are afraid of retaliation. That, plus Trump's threats, are suggestions that collusion is a possibility. One of the purposes of the hearing is to establish if such evidence exists.

Please provide link(s) to where you read this. Internet discussion forums don't count.

If SCROTUS's threats suggested collusion, the league's refusal to require players to stand for the anthem puts a full spread of torpedoes into that "suggestion".

Trump himself wouldn't be part of the collusion, but if owners are colluding in response to Trump threats or in coordination with him, then they are colluding with each other.

The article Trump seemed to cite in that Louisville speech—a Bleacher Report piece by Mike Freeman—quoted an unnamed general manager who analyzed why no NFL team had signed Kaepernick. Here is that quote:

First, some teams genuinely believe that he can’t play. They think he’s shot. I’d put that number around 20 percent.
Second, 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.
Third, the rest genuinely hate him and can’t stand what he did [kneeling for the national anthem]. They want nothing to do with him. They won’t move on.
The implication there is that the president had helped persuade 10 to 20 percent of the league—three to six teams—not to sign Kaepernick. The quote also suggests that the general manager had discussed Kaepernick’s employment status with officials from other teams. “[Some teams] think showing no interest is a form of punishment,” the team official said. “I think some teams also want to use Kaepernick as a cautionary tale to stop other players in the future from doing what he did.” If it can be proved that any opposing team officials openly or implicitly discussed retaliating against Kaepernick in this way, that certainly sounds like good evidence of collusion.

http://www.slate.com/articles/sport...nfl_collusion_grievance_because_of_trump.html

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If SCROTUS's threats suggested collusion, the league's refusal to require players to stand for the anthem puts a full spread of torpedoes into that "suggestion".

You have a good point, but the magnitude of how good it is is somewhat diminished by their coming to this conclusion only after Kaepernick's grievance. One thing to wonder is why did they change their mind.

 

[dismal]

Trump himself wouldn't be part of the collusion, but if owners are colluding in response to Trump threats or in coordination with him, then they are colluding with each other.

Well then, where's the evidence they are doing this?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, I am asserting there is NO EVIDENCE of collusion provided at this point. You don't seem to be cable of rebutting this with ANY evidence.

You don't seem capable of accepting any bit of circumstantial evidence that supports an emerging narrative, i.e. you can't see the trees because of the forest--the opposite of what is often said. So, what is the minimum amount of circumstantial evidence you would call evidence that fits in a narrative that Kaepernick's legal team is alleging? If you can't answer this question genuinely and correctly, I will put you on ignore.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Trump himself wouldn't be part of the collusion, but if owners are colluding in response to Trump threats or in coordination with him, then they are colluding with each other.

Well then, where's the evidence they are doing this?

I give up, where is it?

That's why they are doing this. They need the power of the hearing to compel documents and testimony etc to determine if there is evidence.

 

[coloradoatheist]

No, I am asserting there is NO EVIDENCE of collusion provided at this point. You don't seem to be cable of rebutting this with ANY evidence.

You don't seem capable of accepting any bit of circumstantial evidence that supports an emerging narrative, i.e. you can't see the trees because of the forest--the opposite of what is often said. So, what is the minimum amount of circumstantial evidence you would call evidence that fits in a narrative that Kaepernick's legal team is alleging? If you can't answer this question genuinely and correctly, I will put you on ignore.

It wouldn't be circumstantial evidence, it would be direct evidence. So they need to find emails or people willing to testify that said they talked with other teams and they made an agreement not to hire him or that the nfl office itself said that any team that hires Kapernick will get a punishment like losing a draft pick.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It wouldn't be circumstantial evidence, it would be direct evidence.

Why is circumstantial evidence not considered evidence for this case?

 

[dismal]

It wouldn't be circumstantial evidence, it would be direct evidence.

Why is circumstantial evidence not considered evidence for this case?

At this point your arguments are like someone who accuses their wife of having an affair because they cooked them a nice dunner. And/or they didn't cook them a nice dinner.

This is not "evidence", Better words would be "speculation", "conjecture", or "self-delusion".

 

[coloradoatheist]

It wouldn't be circumstantial evidence, it would be direct evidence.

Why is circumstantial evidence not considered evidence for this case?

He needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, not just some doubt. Barry Bonds tried to do the same thing earlier and it was dismissed because of no evidence. Right now it's just a prayer and each team have reasons not to hire him.

 

[blastula]

Preponderance of evidence is less proof than beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[ZiprHead]

Well then, where's the evidence they are doing this?

Why do you keep asking for evidence from people who are not involved in the case? Their speculation that there is collusion is just as good as your speculation that there isn't.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Preponderance of evidence is less proof than beyond reasonable doubt.

correct, but it is a fuzzy line of the difference. Right now there is no evidence, just wishful thinking. But he may have texts or emails that show it.

 

[dismal]

Well then, where's the evidence they are doing this?

Why do you keep asking for evidence from people who are not involved in the case? Their speculation that there is collusion is just as good as your speculation that there isn't.

No, because in the absence of evidence there is no evidence.

If you want to argue there is evidence you need evidence.

I don't force people to claim there is evidence when they don't have any. They are welcome to agree that they are not aware of any.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Trump himself wouldn't be part of the collusion, but if owners are colluding in response to Trump threats or in coordination with him, then they are colluding with each other.

If 32 owners individually reach some devil's agreement with Trump, that's not collusion as defined by the labor agreement. If two or more of them reach an agreement together, for whatever reason, that IS collusion.

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that if owners are colluding, then they're colluding.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

No, I am asserting there is NO EVIDENCE of collusion provided at this point. You don't seem to be cable of rebutting this with ANY evidence.

You don't seem capable of accepting any bit of circumstantial evidence that supports an emerging narrative, i.e. you can't see the trees because of the forest--the opposite of what is often said. So, what is the minimum amount of circumstantial evidence you would call evidence that fits in a narrative that Kaepernick's legal team is alleging? If you can't answer this question genuinely and correctly, I will put you on ignore.

In the presence of strong arguments for each individual team not signing him, why would circumstantial evidence be acceptable?

 

[Horatio Parker]

Trump himself wouldn't be part of the collusion, but if owners are colluding in response to Trump threats or in coordination with him, then they are colluding with each other.

If 32 owners individually reach some devil's agreement with Trump, that's not collusion as defined by the labor agreement. If two or more of them reach an agreement together, for whatever reason, that IS collusion.

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that if owners are colluding, then they're colluding.

If they communicated with other during that process, it certainly is.

Anyway, that would be a point for the arbitrator to decide. Supposing that a quorum of teams conferred with Trump, and agreed to blackball Kap without any one team knowing about the others. Sounds like a stretch to me, since Trump would surely use other agreements as an argument.

Since Trump has such a big mouth, I'd try to involve him as much as possible.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If 32 owners individually reach some devil's agreement with Trump, that's not collusion as defined by the labor agreement. If two or more of them reach an agreement together, for whatever reason, that IS collusion.

I didn't think it was necessary to point out that if owners are colluding, then they're colluding.

If they communicated with other during that process, it certainly is.

Anyway, that would be a point for the arbitrator to decide. Supposing that a quorum of teams conferred with Trump, and agreed to blackball Kap without any one team knowing about the others. Sounds like a stretch to me, since Trump would surely use other agreements as an argument.

Since Trump has such a big mouth, I'd try to involve him as much as possible.

Ya, Trump has a history of admitting to crimes he's committed while people are investigating him for those crimes. If there's anything someone wants to keep secret, they'd be smart to include Trump as little as possible.

 

[dismal]

You don't seem capable of accepting any bit of circumstantial evidence that supports an emerging narrative, i.e. you can't see the trees because of the forest--the opposite of what is often said. So, what is the minimum amount of circumstantial evidence you would call evidence that fits in a narrative that Kaepernick's legal team is alleging? If you can't answer this question genuinely and correctly, I will put you on ignore.

In the presence of strong arguments for each individual team not signing him, why would circumstantial evidence be acceptable?

I'm not even sure they understand what "circumstantial evidence" means. It is "evidence" of that which is to be proved.

Direct evidence is "I saw you stab Bob with this knife". Circumstantial evidence is "I saw you running down the street with a bloody knife two minutes after Bob was stabbed".

There is a link between the evidence and the crime.

To claim "Trump gave a speech about kneeling months later that pissed people off" is circumstantial evidence for "the NFL owners conspired not to sign Kaepernick" is a misuse of the term. One does not follow by inference from the other.