Gleason misquoted by HBO (1 Viewer)

Not kind of. Completely taken out of context to support an agenda.

As I said on another site:

I think that Steve's statement that it's disturbing that no one was shocked by Williams' words is about how savage football culture is and has been for quite some time.

That's something that Goodell and others are afraid to admit.
 
No Saints plaryer current or past should speak to anyone in the media. I know thats a little harsh and completley impossible, but the inability to correctly quote a person is astounding no matter if it's on purpose or not.
 
Once again, SP's arm's length approach to the media is justified. Maybe the man is not arrogant, he is just wise.
 
Smh.

I wonder if as many outlets will pick this up as they did the other story.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk 2
 
I would file that under 'grossly mischaracterized.' Seems they asked him a question, he gave a 'no' answer with a little extra explanation and HBO took the explanation and spun it to fit their agenda.
 
Now I'm gonna have to watch Bryant Gumbel! If true, I owe ole Gleas an apology for questioning his ethics ($) in an earlier thread on the RS quote. I'm glad the original quote hopefully turned out to be wrong. It did seem out of character, but you never know who is capable of flirting with the dark side....
 
This is more telling than anything:

Gleason also adds in his email this observation regarding the Williams speech: “In my opinion, speeches like the one given by Gregg Williams are not the cause of increased rate of brain disease in the NFL population. The increased rate of brain disease In the NFL population is caused by the way the game is played within the rules.”

WITHIN THE RULES. Get with the program Goodell.


From here:
Roger Goodell sees no gray area, no room for semantics debate in New Orleans Saints bounty investigation - New Orleans Saints Football NFL News - NOLA.com

But Goodell made it clear Saturday that such a line of defense carries little weight with him. He said Saints players and assistant head coach Joe Vitt have publicly admitted that their pay-for-performance program included payouts for "cart-off" hits, which meant that an opposing player was injured as the result of a clean, legal hit. And to Goodell, that's a "bounty" whether the Saints want to call it that or not.


I mean it's lunacy.
 
He said Saints players and assistant head coach Joe Vitt have publicly admitted that their pay-for-performance program included payouts for "cart-off" hits, which meant that an opposing player was injured as the result of a clean, legal hit. And to Goodell, that's a "bounty" whether the Saints want to call it that or not
So he could choose to call it "attempted murder", whether the Saints want to call it that or not, and that would not be Fun With Semantics?
 
Woah!! Talk about gross mischaracterization. Here is a part of the transcript of the interview:

Frankel: "Was there any discussion afterwards when the meeting was over and those players saw you? Did anybody say, 'Wow, that was kind of tough, Steve, I'm sorry you had to hear that?'"
Gleason: "No, the group I was with, no one seemed shocked."
Frankel: "Nobody seemed shocked to hear that come out of a coach's mouth?"
Gleason: "No, there was no discussion of, 'Wow, did we just hear that?'"
Frankel: "There was no discussion about that speech?"
Gleason: "No."
Frankel: "You're a bright guy. Do you think somehow you had been desensitized to the violence of the game?
Gleason: "Wait, I'm not sure what you mean?"
Frankel: "That, because you played the game at the highest level, that maybe even you, given your condition, had become sort of numb to the idea that coaches were advocating to kill the head?"
Gleason: "No. What I'm saying is that I was with people that never played in the NFL and those people never said anything to me about them being shocked. That's all I'm saying."


Does this idiot Frankel even know what Kill the Head actually means?
 
I really wish that a blind survey of high school and college football players was done where they were asked to listen to Williams speech and then have them answer questions as to what they thought the coach was talking about in the speech. I would be willing to bet that none of them would come away thinking that the coach was saying anything that they hadn't heard before or advocating intentionally hurting anyone.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom