Connorbear Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,3991930.column Why didn't they say from the beginning they were aware of the injury and that he had played on it for 3 yrs??? That sounds better than we were completely suprised by the injury which is the impression he had been giving earlier. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackerDog Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,3991930.column Why didn't they say from the beginning they were aware of the injury and that he had played on it for 3 yrs??? That sounds better than we were completely suprised by the injury which is the impression he had been giving earlier. I don't read the article as a "Covering his ass" scenario. I see it as someone trying to clear the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pixote Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 I don't read the article as a "Covering his ass" scenario. I see it as someone trying to clear the air. Exactly, if I was called out in public as being a liar, then I would certainly want to set the record straight. I do not blame him for defending himself against what would appear, IMO, as false allegations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TerraTor Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 what a fuckin jackass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 Exactly, if I was called out in public as being a liar, then I would certainly want to set the record straight. I do not blame him for defending himself against what would appear, IMO, as false allegations. False allegations? I am not flat out calling him a liar, but it sure does seem they his the prior knowledge of the injury. Today he is saying we knew about the injury all along, but that was not what was publically said before. In fact, as I recall, they flat out denied the "rumors" of his having back injuries around the time of the draft. I think his recent comments are both coving arce, as well as clearing air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 This news is truly disheartening. Follishness.... http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/footb...,3991930.column Why didn't they say from the beginning they were aware of the injury and that he had played on it for 3 yrs??? That sounds better than we were completely suprised by the injury which is the impression he had been giving earlier. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 Please tell me you don't see the sinking of the Titanic as a "riddance to extra metal and wood". It's reads CMA about as clear as it could possible be. I've heard better lying from amateur politicians. I don't read the article as a "Covering his ass" scenario. I see it as someone trying to clear the air. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted August 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 Exactly, if I was called out in public as being a liar, then I would certainly want to set the record straight. I do not blame him for defending himself against what would appear, IMO, as false allegations. I would call it lying by omission. Yesterday was the first time we heard that Williams had a herniated disk as a pre-existing condition. This fact was given to us Williams and not Bears management. This is the issue I have with this whole situation. Williams could still end up being a very good player but I will hesitant to trust our staff going forward. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfoligno Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 I would call it lying by omission. But didn't we say he was healthy. At the time of the draft, there was a lot of talk about Williams having back injuries. At the time, Angelo told reporters the reports were bogus, and said there was nothing wrong w/ Williams. If we knew he in fact had the red flags, but simply felt they were not a problem, doesn't that still imply a lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Da Bears 88 Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 Standing ovation for Angelo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 I think it does. It's a lose-lose situation for Angela no matter how you slice it. There is not looking good in the least about this. It is embarassing for him and the organization. This is simply not good no matter how you slice it. I would call it lying by omission. But didn't we say he was healthy. At the time of the draft, there was a lot of talk about Williams having back injuries. At the time, Angelo told reporters the reports were bogus, and said there was nothing wrong w/ Williams. If we knew he in fact had the red flags, but simply felt they were not a problem, doesn't that still imply a lie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connorbear Posted August 25, 2008 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 I think it does. It's a lose-lose situation for Angela no matter how you slice it. There is not looking good in the least about this. It is embarassing for him and the organization. This is simply not good no matter how you slice it. Mike Mulligan talked about this today and he said he went back over everything JA had said in the press and that he didn't feel that JA had lied. My disagreement with him was that I feel the omission of information itself is a lie. I am not going to split hairs here (what is a lie or isn't). My opinion, the Bears should have known this additional information would come out eventually and should have released it all up front. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madlithuanian Posted August 25, 2008 Report Share Posted August 25, 2008 I hear ya. Mike Mulligan talked about this today and he said he went back over everything JA had said in the press and that he didn't feel that JA had lied. My disagreement with him was that I feel the omission of information itself is a lie. I am not going to split hairs here (what is a lie or isn't). My opinion, the Bears should have known this additional information would come out eventually and should have been released it all up front. Peace Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.