Merged: Ray Rice Released and Suspended

[ravensdfan]

What was he supposed to do? Put the kybosh on the whole story?

 

He didn't even have to do that but it should have been presented more as heresay than as factual. He went out of his way to do this timeline and make it seem factual with nothing more than a he said/she said argument from anonymous sources.

[ravensdfan]

Been trying to stay away from this for awhile now but NOW steve decides to handle the backlash from "new info" in this case the espn story

Now that it's already been a national story.. Well done smh

 

So he was supposed to put his personal texts with Rice out there for the world to view without cause?

Reveal what happened in team meetings for everyone without cause?

 

It really wasn't anyone's business until they start trying to claim some fictional underhandedness.

[gabefergy]

Perhaps because there isn't any hard evidence to refute those claims because they're true? I mean, just a thought.

I think it's pretty obvious there is some underhanded stuff that happened here.

[MTRavensFan]

What was he supposed to do? Put the kybosh on the whole story?

 

Not at all.

But, as Steve said, it would have been nice if he'd acknowledged that most, if not all, of his anonymous sources were financially invested in Rice's reinstatement .

[BigMike]

All I'm going to say is...that's my owner!!

Go Ravens!!!

[codizzle]

So he was supposed to put his personal texts with Rice out there for the world to view without cause?

Reveal what happened in team meetings for everyone without cause?

It really wasn't anyone's business until they start trying to claim some fictional underhandedness.

I was referring to him needing to step up a long time ago not specifically about today's press conference

[ravensdfan]

I was referring to him needing to step up a long time ago not specifically about today's press conference

 

The truth is the organization did what nearly all have done in the past. Let the law take its course, then the NFL. Neither the NFL nor the Ravens are some law agency who are tasked with policing people.

 

Now, perhaps, once the law has done their thing, organizations and the NFL will more diligently pursue whatever evidence is available to them before deciding on suspensions and other punishments. 

 

I just don't think there was anything to tell really until a bunch of falsehoods came out attempting to paint them in a bad light. 

[Tru11]

dang this still going strong lol.

[codizzle]

The truth is the organization did what nearly all have done in the past. Let the law take its course, then the NFL. Neither the NFL nor the Ravens are some law agency who are tasked with policing people.

Now, perhaps, once the law has done their thing, organizations and the NFL will more diligently pursue whatever evidence is available to them before deciding on suspensions and other punishments.

I just don't think there was anything to tell really until a bunch of falsehoods came out attempting to paint them in a bad light.

I could care less about all that.. Completely different discussion

Only point was we should have seen steve do this a long time ago.. Especially when it was on harbs to single handedly take on the media.. That was sad

[Inqui]

He didn't even have to do that but it should have been presented more as heresay than as factual. He went out of his way to do this timeline and make it seem factual with nothing more than a he said/she said argument from anonymous sources.

I mostly agree with that, and for the most part simply going back to the Ravens to give them the right of reply would have added a lot more balance and helped make the material parts more robust. But on the specific "Ray took the text as a bribe" thing, I felt they weren't trying to hide that it was all circumstantial. As for the other facts/things cited, "sources say" is designed to be clear that it's the source's word. Again, giving the Ravens the chance to at least deny stuff would have been ideal, but even under the circumstances I don't really have a problem with how they were presented. But maybe that's just me.

 

And I don't have a problem with using anonymous sources, for what that's worth. You have your degree in journalism, for me it's a career and I've had people not want to be named for all sorts of reasons. From an old lady who presumably wanted to keep her name out of the paper to a guy who was getting vetted by the government (long story) and didn't want the comments criticising them coming back to him. Gotta be good to your sources, especially if they're a staple of your story.

[Inqui]

Not at all.

But, as Steve said, it would have been nice if he'd acknowledged that most, if not all, of his anonymous sources were financially invested in Rice's reinstatement .

Where relevant they mentioned that the sources were close to Rice. Their potential financial gain could have been mentioned, but simply saying they were close to Rice already implies their potential bias and you obviously don't want to go into too much detail because that detracts from the flow of your story.

[TheRavenouseD2008]

Actually I was thinking of this , Rays attorney just killed his chance at reinstatement  or acceptance by any team .............. because now Ray has a reputation of taking REALLY bad advice.

[RedFire]

I know she didn't slip on a banana peel because I'm not a willfully ignorant dimwit.

I didn't make my judgement on half a video, I made my judgement based on half a video, a police report, numerous witness accounts on twitter, and my ability to comprehend complex information.  I also hope I never have jury duty, that sounds miserable.  My 8 hour days are worth a lot more than $12 and validated parking.

 

but you know a casino would have a full video....it would make sense to see the full video beyond tmz. From walking into the casino until the police come. 

 

no need to rely more on people more than a video....especially if you can confirm a video has not be altered.  police & people alike are full of it plus misinterpret things all the time. 

[RedFire]

i always figured the deal was if the full video came out in a bad light.....you gotta go Ray!

 

I think Ray would have been successful this year and that outweighs the instant cut so you take on no risk from public opinion.

Rice was worth a slight knock to public opinion...

 

However, I don't think you can renig on a punishment...why punish before you had all of the facts? it doesn't make sense to me because you don't know if it's too light or too harsh.  

[ratedr]

Actually I was thinking of this , Rays attorney just killed his chance at reinstatement or acceptance by any team .............. because now Ray has a reputation of taking REALLY bad advice.

Ray basically threw the team under the bus...no other team will want to deal with that.

[The Mom Gene]

Per Sam Laird of Mashable.... 

http://mashable.com/2014/09/09/will-ray-rice-play-again/

Ray Rice is now a man without a country. The only question is: For how long? A quick look back through history shows that, time and again, talented athletes rebound from terrible scandals to go on earning millions — if they're talented enough on the field, that is.

 

So if he never sees an NFL locker room again — something many seem to gleefully hope is the case — don't credit ethics or morals or lines in the sand. Blame the NFL's image control and his declining production while running the football.

 

 

Ian Rappaport stated the very same thing....  Stating that it would be naïve to assume that Ray doesn't play again....  With the likes of many other players with a plethora of incidences and violations.

 

Look at Chris Carter, Brandon Marshall, James Harrison,...  ALL of them and many more have the same, if not worst, histories.

[ravensdfan]

I mostly agree with that, and for the most part simply going back to the Ravens to give them the right of reply would have added a lot more balance and helped make the material parts more robust. But on the specific "Ray took the text as a bribe" thing, I felt they weren't trying to hide that it was all circumstantial. As for the other facts/things cited, "sources say" is designed to be clear that it's the source's word. Again, giving the Ravens the chance to at least deny stuff would have been ideal, but even under the circumstances I don't really have a problem with how they were presented. But maybe that's just me.

 

And I don't have a problem with using anonymous sources, for what that's worth. You have your degree in journalism, for me it's a career and I've had people not want to be named for all sorts of reasons. From an old lady who presumably wanted to keep her name out of the paper to a guy who was getting vetted by the government (long story) and didn't want the comments criticising them coming back to him. Gotta be good to your sources, especially if they're a staple of your story.

 

There is nothing wrong with using anonymous sources but they cannot be the cornerstone of your reporting. The should be the beginning of your investigation and not the end.

 

Here is the thing, a little word that is not seen once in this article that should have been seen multiple times "alledgedly" . Which is why I say they intentionally wrote the article to appear more factual than a he said/she said argument.

[rmcjacket23]

There is nothing wrong with using anonymous sources but they cannot be the cornerstone of your reporting. The should be the beginning of your investigation and not the end.

 

Here is the thing, a little word that is not seen once in this article that should have been seen multiple times "alledgedly" . Which is why I say they intentionally wrote the article to appear more factual than a he said/she said argument.

I agree... I personally see nothing wrong with using anonymous sources, for obvious reasons. I have no doubt that some of the "anonymous" sources used in the story probably came from inside the Castle, and for obvious reasons, they wouldn't want their name on things.

 

As an aside, I also really have no reason to question a lot of what was written in the article, and frankly, Bischotti didn't deny many of the things that were in the article either.

 

What he denied, however, and what my issue with the article is, is the "interpretation" made by KVV as to what some of the events meant. Interpreting the text message sent by Bischotti to Rice (that Bischotti acknowledged happened) to be a text that was designed as "hush money" doesn't qualify as reporting... it qualifies as speculating. Even if it was one of Rice's friends that created that interpretation, that doesn't make it fact. It just makes it speculation.

 

I'm not going to bash the "fact finding" of the article, because I have no reason to. I am only questioning the point of writing the article, and the point of repeatedly interpreting events that happened to benefit the tone of the article, which was meant to essentially "bring down" the management of the Ravens.

[The Mom Gene]

I agree... I personally see nothing wrong with using anonymous sources, for obvious reasons. I have no doubt that some of the "anonymous" sources used in the story probably came from inside the Castle, and for obvious reasons, they wouldn't want their name on things.

 

As an aside, I also really have no reason to question a lot of what was written in the article, and frankly, Bischotti didn't deny many of the things that were in the article either.

 

What he denied, however, and what my issue with the article is, is the "interpretation" made by KVV as to what some of the events meant. Interpreting the text message sent by Bischotti to Rice (that Bischotti acknowledged happened) to be a text that was designed as "hush money" doesn't qualify as reporting... it qualifies as speculating. Even if it was one of Rice's friends that created that interpretation, that doesn't make it fact. It just makes it speculation.

 

I'm not going to bash the "fact finding" of the article, because I have no reason to. I am only questioning the point of writing the article, and the point of repeatedly interpreting events that happened to benefit the tone of the article, which was meant to essentially "bring down" the management of the Ravens.

The problem is that if these people are "insiders"....  you don't think they will find out who said these things... especially if they aren't true.  And, yes, Ravensdfan....  allegedly should have been all over that report....  NOTHING has been substantiated... and for the remainder of the ESPN staff to stand behind this report as fact, and stand behind it's author could be VERY detrimental to ESPN itself.  It's already lost a ton of it's credibility in a number of cases.....  There's a reason that people state the media is biased.

 

They want heads...  just like I said earlier....  "You (NFL and the Ravens) didn't react the way that we wanted you to, so we are going to come after you like a wolf after sheep."  They "want a head".  They "want somebody fired"....  They believe this is some HUGE conspiracy and a coverup beyond anything in Sports History... 

 

There is this part of me that just doesn't give a crap anymore...  Then there is this part of me that thinks "how dare you"...  They believe they are above it all.....  Meanwhile, they employ guys like Cris Carter, and other guys with a history...  I love to listen to Warren Sapp talk about it...  He was another with a history of DV.  Hypocrites, all of them.... 

 

Let ESPN do their thing...

[rmcjacket23]

The problem is that if these people are "insiders"....  you don't think they will find out who said these things... especially if they aren't true.  And, yes, Ravensdfan....  allegedly should have been all over that report....  NOTHING has been substantiated... and for the remainder of the ESPN staff to stand behind this report as fact, and stand behind it's author could be VERY detrimental to ESPN itself.  It's already lost a ton of it's credibility in a number of cases.....  There's a reason that people state the media is biased.

 

They want heads...  just like I said earlier....  "You (NFL and the Ravens) didn't react the way that we wanted you to, so we are going to come after you like a wolf after sheep."  They "want a head".  They "want somebody fired"....  They believe this is some HUGE conspiracy and a coverup beyond anything in Sports History... 

 

There is this part of me that just doesn't give a crap anymore...  Then there is this part of me that thinks "how dare you"...  They believe they are above it all.....  Meanwhile, they employ guys like Cris Carter, and other guys with a history...  I love to listen to Warren Sapp talk about it...  He was another with a history of DV.  Hypocrites, all of them.... 

 

Let ESPN do their thing...

Its possible they will find out, though the public is unlikely to ever find out.

 

Its entirely possible that most of the sources were from Rice's camp... doesn't necessarily mean that some of the things said in the article aren't true. If you really watch the PC closely, Bischotti rarely indicated that some of the actual "facts" in the article were untrue. He didn't dispute sending the texts to Ray, he didn't dispute the security officer at the Ravens facility receiving a play-by-play from a police officer of what happened on that tape, and he didn't dispute the notion that he was essentially "happy" to see Rice get a lighter sentence. He acknowledged all of those things in the presser, and all of those things were said to be true in the article. What he disputed was the implications and interpretations of certain things that KVV reported as fact. Basically, KVV at certain points in his article ceased to be a reporter and turned into a speculator. I had no issue with what he actually reported, and based on what I see yesterday, neither did Bischotti.

 

The reason I support anonymous sources is because of the reason we don't want them to be anonymous. What's the reason we as fans want to know who these people are? The reason is because we want to discredit them. We want to put a name to the words so that we can research who they are and what their objective is. If we found out that one of the sources used to write for a Pittsburgh newpaper, dozens of fans would flood these boards claiming that he's biased towards the Steelers and that he just wants to bring the Ravens down. Is that possible? I guess. Is it likely? Of course not. Its possible he's just reporting on things that he knows or thinks he knows and fans just aren't happy about what is being said.

 

We, as the public, essentially want to do what Bischotti did at the outset of his PC... we want to discredit the source of the material. We say that the article is "unsubstantiated" and "inaccurate" because the people providing the information are biased towards Ray. While that very well might be the case, that doesn't automatically mean that the article and the information provided in it is wrong, just like it doesn't make the information right. Despite what the public would have people believe in the present day, biased sources actually do provide accurate information. It happens all the time. Do they provide biased inaccurate information? Yes they do.

 

The public would attempt to (and have successfully done this) discredit a nun for lying if they found out that the nun disagreed with something that the public wanted to believe was accurate.

 

I would ask any Ravens fan to ask themselves this question... is there a single person on this planet that would be the "source" of some of this information and you immediately would treat what they said as the truth? I'm convinced that it doesn't really matter who the sources are, because as John Eisenberg laid out in his article today, "People will believe what they want to believe". That goes both ways.

[The Mom Gene]

Most of what Steve tried to say is that it's perception...  6 of us could read the same story or paragraph, and come back with 3 different interpretations as to what it meant...  It's very hard to read emotion....  it's very hard to interpret the true meaning of a text message, as we typically shorten it... nobody likes a long text.

 

I agree like ravensdfan does that anonymous sources are fine jacket....  no question...  but you cannot call it "fact" without stating facts....  so that is where you insert the word allegedly....  and based on information obtained "we feel"...  or "it's our opinion".

 

That's all.

[ravensdfan]

Its possible they will find out, though the public is unlikely to ever find out.

 

Its entirely possible that most of the sources were from Rice's camp... doesn't necessarily mean that some of the things said in the article aren't true. If you really watch the PC closely, Bischotti rarely indicated that some of the actual "facts" in the article were untrue. He didn't dispute sending the texts to Ray,

 

He disputed their context and then provided the written account of all the texts which Rice actually initiated in the written response.

 

he didn't dispute the security officer at the Ravens facility receiving a play-by-play from a police officer of what happened on that tape,

 

Actually yes he did in the written response. He says it was not "hours after the incident" and that the officer in NJ did not give a "blow by blow" but his accounting of what was on the tape which stated it was a mutual altercation with 2 intoxicated people and Rice struck her but he could not tell if a slap or punch.

 

 

The reason I support anonymous sources is because of the reason we don't want them to be anonymous. What's the reason we as fans want to know who these people are?

 

 

I don't want to know who they are, never said that. (unless they are outright lying then they should be accountable for their lies). I just said that anonymous sources cannot be the only thing you have to go on when writing an article like that one and you should not be adding your own personal speculation to what is already unsubstantiated.

 

The public would attempt to (and have successfully done this) discredit a nun for lying if they found out that the nun disagreed with something that the public wanted to believe was accurate.

 

[rmcjacket23]

 

Its possible they will find out, though the public is unlikely to ever find out.

 

Its entirely possible that most of the sources were from Rice's camp... doesn't necessarily mean that some of the things said in the article aren't true. If you really watch the PC closely, Bischotti rarely indicated that some of the actual "facts" in the article were untrue. He didn't dispute sending the texts to Ray,

 

He disputed their context and then provided the written account of all the texts which Rice actually initiated in the written response.

 

 

 

he didn't dispute the security officer at the Ravens facility receiving a play-by-play from a police officer of what happened on that tape,

 

Actually yes he did in the written response. He says it was not "hours after the incident" and that the officer in NJ did not give a "blow by blow" but his accounting of what was on the tape which stated it was a mutual altercation with 2 intoxicated people and Rice struck her but he could not tell if a slap or punch.

 

 

 

 

The reason I support anonymous sources is because of the reason we don't want them to be anonymous. What's the reason we as fans want to know who these people are?

 

 

I don't want to know who they are, never said that. (unless they are outright lying then they should be accountable for their lies). I just said that anonymous sources cannot be the only thing you have to go on when writing an article like that one and you should not be adding your own personal speculation to what is already unsubstantiated.

 

The public would attempt to (and have successfully done this) discredit a nun for lying if they found out that the nun disagreed with something that the public wanted to believe was accurate.

 

 

So basically, you agree with everything I said? He never really disputed any of the incidents addressed... he just disputed the context, or as I said, the interpretation of those events.

 

This isn't a case of KVV saying that Bischotti sent texts to Ray and Bischotti saying that he never sent those texts. He didn't even say that what he said in the texts was inaccurate. He said he disagreed with KVV's interpretation that the texts was an attempt at "hush money".

 

Same thing said for the video relay to the security officer... he's not disputing that Ravens security had a very good understanding of what was on the video within a few days. All he's disputing is what the Ravens interpretation of the account was.

[berad]

So basically, you agree with everything I said? He never really disputed any of the incidents addressed... he just disputed the context, or as I said, the interpretation of those events.

 

This isn't a case of KVV saying that Bischotti sent texts to Ray and Bischotti saying that he never sent those texts. He didn't even say that what he said in the texts was inaccurate. He said he disagreed with KVV's interpretation that the texts was an attempt at "hush money".

 

Same thing said for the video relay to the security officer... he's not disputing that Ravens security had a very good understanding of what was on the video within a few days. All he's disputing is what the Ravens interpretation of the account was.

 

So what are you saying? We're talking in circles and, yes, some of the information was inaccurate.

[rmcjacket23]

So what are you saying? We're talking in circles and, yes, some of the information was inaccurate.

I'm saying that anonymous sources are important, and to discredit them simply because you don't know who they are is as irresponsible as a person adding speculation to facts that he found through those sources.

[berad]

I'm saying that anonymous sources are important, and to discredit them simply because you don't know who they are is as irresponsible as a person adding speculation to facts that he found through those sources.

 

It's not that we "don't know who they are", that's true of all anonymous sources BUT it's important to know where your sources are 'coming from' because another benefit to being anonymous is that you can't be held accountable and gives you a license to say what you wish - truthful or not.

 

Who would really be hurt if caught in a lie? Steve Bisciotti or various anonymous sources?

[rmcjacket23]

It's not that we "don't know who they are", that's true of all anonymous sources BUT it's important to know where your sources are 'coming from' because another benefit to being anonymous is that you can't be held accountable and gives you a license to say what you wish - truthful or not.

 

Who would really be hurt if caught in a lie? Steve Bisciotti or various anonymous sources?

Well, truthfully, both.

 

Guess what happens when ANY source, anonymous or not, provides information that is later proven to be inaccurate? Well, likely, they stop becoming a source. Or at the very least, they lose value as a source.

 

Remember, just because the public doesn't know who the source is doesn't mean nobody knows who the source is. There's probably plenty of people who know who KVV's sources were. If those people are providing inaccurate information either intentionally or unintentionally, then they lose credibility amongst the people who are using them as a source.

[berad]

Well, truthfully, both.

 

Guess what happens when ANY source, anonymous or not, provides information that is later proven to be inaccurate? Well, likely, they stop becoming a source. Or at the very least, they lose value as a source.

 

Remember, just because the public doesn't know who the source is doesn't mean nobody knows who the source is. There's probably plenty of people who know who KVV's sources were. If those people are providing inaccurate information either intentionally or unintentionally, then they lose credibility amongst the people who are using them as a source.

Think the owner of a multi-billion dollar franchise has much more to lose than most anyone in the world but to each his own... no use arguing opinions.

[rmcjacket23]

Think the owner of a multi-billion dollar franchise has much more to lose than most anyone in the world but to each his own... no use arguing opinions.

In theory, yes. But then again, it also implies that he's really at any risk to begin with.

 

Heck, Bischotti even acknowledged it... whats the worst case scenario? He's forced to sell the team, he makes a substantial profit on it, and he works less.

 

That's the WORST thing that would happen to Bischotti.

[Tank 92]

In theory, yes. But then again, it also implies that he's really at any risk to begin with.

 

Heck, Bischotti even acknowledged it... whats the worst case scenario? He's forced to sell the team, he makes a substantial profit on it, and he works less.

 

That's the WORST thing that would happen to Bischotti.

 

 

not really........there's a thing called integrity. And whether it's just perception or otherwise, I'm sure Steve values his and his team's integrity much more than any loss that may occur to "anonymous sources" providing misinformation.