Soko Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 I can’t see a penalty for NO if things stay as-is and the emails are never brought to light. Giving the church advise on how to deal with a scandal is not a cover-up, unless there were specific details involved - which we and the shield won’t really know unless the messages are revealed. Giving them broad tips isn’t enough to drop the hammer IMO. Yeah, the league has a precedent for dishing punishments for mere allegations, but they take care of their owners for the most part. I’m sure they’ll be leaked somehow, though. I’ll refrain from judgement until then. Also - not wanting the emails made public doesn’t move the needle for guilt. At minimum, it’s a bad look for NO and they want to separate themselves from the incident. Public emails won’t help that goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jlowe22 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, Joe_is_the_best said: If the Saints helped the Archdiocese compile a list of "credibly accused" clergy, then it’s the opposite of a coverup. Words have meanings. We should be taking a measured, fact-seeking approach to this. But I know nobody will. Yea, since when have we started doing that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 9 minutes ago, Joe_is_the_best said: If the Saints helped the Archdiocese compile a list of "credibly accused" clergy, then it’s the opposite of a coverup. Words have meanings. We should be taking a measured, fact-seeking approach to this. But I know nobody will. That makes no sense. If that were the case and the Saints were really the heroes you'd have us believe they are then why would they go to such lengths to keep the details from public knowledge. If they had nothing to hide then they wouldn't be scrambling so much to contain it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Obviously with what limited knowledge is known right now, they can't be incriminated. However, it's clear that they are trying to hide something. They just better hope that whatever it is never sees the light of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_is_the_best Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 minute ago, Danger said: That makes no sense. If that were the case and the Saints were really the heroes you'd have us believe they are then why would they go to such lengths to keep the details from public knowledge. If they had nothing to hide then they wouldn't be scrambling so much to contain it. Who's saying they're heroes? Not me. That's a fallacious argument. Do you think pleading the 5th means you're guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Just now, Joe_is_the_best said: Who's saying they're heroes? Not me. That's a fallacious argument. Do you think pleading the 5th means you're guilty? Compiling a list of credibly accused is something that would be considered morally good. Why would they try to hide something that is morally good? Usually people try to hide things that are morally bad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BleedTheClock Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 At least the Saints were getting screwed by adult referees... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe_is_the_best Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Danger said: Compiling a list of credibly accused is something that would be considered morally good. Why would they try to hide something that is morally good? Usually people try to hide things that are morally bad. Yeah. I just don't buy the "if you don't want private emails to be public, you're hiding something" argument. Edited January 24, 2020 by Joe_is_the_best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animaltested Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Regardless of what was actually discussed, the parties involved were cooperating with an entity accused of enabling and ignoring abuse USING THEIR NFL email address. Ergo, they were communicating as representatives of the NFL. That in itself (from the NFL's perspective) definitely fits the "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL". Then again, its seems like the NFL really only built this standard for their players to uphold. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seriously27 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 "Saints" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 1 hour ago, SweetFancyMoses said: Ah yes. Speaking of pedophiles. Yeah, that was 100% intentional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seriously27 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 A reputable news source just told me they have no way to get to said emails because the Saints just got a new computer and email address last week and regularly destroy the old one's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWil23 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 16 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said: At least the Saints were getting screwed by adult referees... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDsportsfan Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, seriously27 said: A reputable news source just told me they have no way to get to said emails because the Saints just got a new computer and email address last week and regularly destroy the old one's ^^^^^^This could be sarcasm or a joke^^^^^ They can contact those that were CC'ed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seriously27 Posted January 24, 2020 Share Posted January 24, 2020 Just now, HDsportsfan said: ^^^^^^This could be sarcasm or a joke^^^^^ They can contact those that were CC'ed. Why not both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts