Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

    I heard about this rumor regards to a chick Irsay set up at a townhouse who OD'd on heroin on Friday I didn't think the Star would publish the story.

    http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2...rrest/7368789/


    When Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay emerges from rehab, he will face questions from an NFL commissioner known for his hard line on the behavior of players off the field.

    But will Roger Goodell apply those same standards to an NFL owner — essentially one of his bosses?

    Some players are closely watching to see whether that's the case. So, too, are sports law and ethics experts who say language in the NFL's Personal Conduct Policy could open Irsay up to scrutiny that goes beyond his March 16 arrest in Carmel on preliminary charges of impaired driving and possession of controlled substances.


    The league's policy, which explicitly states that the rules apply to owners, says employees should be held to a "higher standard" than merely avoiding criminal conviction.

    A sports law and ethics expert, as well as a source familiar with NFL operations, told The Indianapolis Star that the policy could lead Goodell to also ask about Irsay's relationship and associations outside of the Colts, including with an Indianapolis woman with a drug history of her own — a woman who died of a suspected drug overdose two weeks before Irsay's arrest. Her body was found in a $139,500 townhouse Irsay gave her last August.

    "The NFL is often criticized for protecting the 'shield,' and it does," said Mike Gilleran, executive director of the Santa Clara University Institute of Sports Law and Ethics. "How does the league look if it ignores that? It can't, in my view."

    The source familiar with NFL operations told The Star the league likely would want to look at anything that could shed further light on Irsay's drug use and associations: How long has he been abusing prescription drugs? Is he using other illegal drugs? Who was he getting the drugs from? Who was he using them with?

    Like Irsay, Kimberly Wundrum, 42, had a history of drug problems before she died March 1.

    Timeline: Jim Irsay through the years

    March 16 arrest: Jim Irsay carrying $29K cash when arrested

    Excerpts: Jim Irsay's full arrest report

    Wundrum's sister, Rhonda Wundrum, who has worked as Irsay's personal masseuse, said in an email her sister and Irsay were "former friends" but did not elaborate. A former neighbor of Kimberly Wundrum told The Star that Irsay sometimes visited Kimberly Wundrum, and that she once introduced the team owner to him.

    "I cannot speak for them, and Kim cannot speak for herself," Rhonda Wundrum said. "My sister was a kind, loving and gentle person who had a long struggle, and her attempts to rise above her struggles were not successful."

    Kimberly Wundrum was arrested twice on drug charges in the seven months before her death. She was arrested Aug. 30 in Miami County, Ohio, on charges of operating a vehicle while intoxicated and felony drug possession. Police found her with 18 "nonprescribed Vicodin ... and 0.6 grams of crushed, nonprescribed Adderall."

    On Jan. 4, she was arrested in Boone County on charges of possession of a controlled substance, operating a vehicle while intoxicated with drugs in her system and criminal recklessness after she was stopped driving the wrong way on I-65 and almost hitting a police car.

    Her drug-related ties go back years. While she was married to an attorney in Florida, he pleaded guilty in 1997 to federal tax charges and was sentenced to 15 months in prison for failing to report $364,000 in transactions he conducted for a man identified in court documents as a drug dealer. They were divorced in 2003, and he died in 2005 of a drug overdose.

    While investigating the scene of Kimberly Wundrum's death, a police report lists evidence gathered at the scene as an "orange plate w/white powder, straw, razor." They also found photographs of Irsay in the home of the former homecoming queen candidate at Brownsburg High School in 1990.

    Police and the coroner are awaiting the results of toxicology tests, which are expected later this month, before issuing a final cause in her death.

    Irsay's recent arrest was not his first problem with drugs, either.

    He acknowledged entering rehab in 2002 for a prescription drug addiction after his name surfaced in a police investigation of a doctor over-prescribing powerful painkillers. And in a 2010 interview with USA TODAY, he openly detailed a long history of recreational drug use — including mushrooms and cocaine — as a younger man.

    "Oh, man. I was so balls-to-the-wall," Irsay said. "I could somehow hide that aspect a little, like ducks feeding underwater. Truth is, it was just all-out."

    He declared his sobriety Aug. 6, 2002.

    After Irsay's recent arrest, Star columnist Bob Kravitz reported that Colts insiders "for years ... have known Irsay was struggling again with drugs."

    Long association

    Several financial documents reveal a long association between Kimberly Wundrum and Irsay and the Colts.

    An entity called the "2009 Blue Trust," which was administered by Colts executives, owned three homes since 2007 that Wundrum listed in public records as her address. She used two of those properties — including an $800,000 home — as the corporate address of her landscaping business in filings with the Indiana secretary of state.

    The townhome in Traders Point where Wundrum died was purchased by the Blue Trust in June 2013 for $139,500. Weeks later, the trust transferred ownership of the property to Wundrum at no cost.

    When asked about the Blue Trust, Colts Chief Operating Officer Pete Ward responded that it pertains to Irsay's "personal life," and it would be "inappropriate for me to comment."

    An email and text message to longtime Irsay spokeswoman Myra Borshoff Cook were not returned.

    The trustee for the Blue Trust was Daniel Emerson, vice president and general counsel for the Colts. In one of the transactions, the warranty deed says the tax statement should be sent to the buyer's address: "Indpls. Colts attn. Pete Ward." The document also listed a post office box identical to the one listed on the team's official website.

    The property transactions connecting Irsay to Wundrum, on their own, do not appear to be significant, said Gary Roberts, dean emeritus and Gerald L. Bepko professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis. He added that Irsay likely did not break any laws by using Colts money or staff.

    "The team is 100 percent owned by the Irsays," he said. "If the team was publicly traded, or if there were minority partners who might object, that could be different."

    At most, Roberts said, the deals "sound to me like the sort of thing federal tax officials might want to look into."

    That said, the transactions could raise questions in the public arena, Roberts said.

    Central Indiana taxpayers have a large investment in the Colts through financing $620 million of the $720 million Lucas Oil Stadium.

    Some analysts have said Irsay, whose net worth is $1.6 billion, according to Forbes, has one of the most lucrative stadium deals in the league. He keeps money from naming rights — $121.5 million for 20 years — advertising and luxury suites, and up to $3.5 million annually in profits from nonfootball events. That's in addition to money from tickets, food, drinks, merchandise and parking on Colts game days.

    "It is one thing to subsidize the team so it can win on the field and to keep it in Indianapolis," Roberts said. "It is another thing to subsidize an entity that uses its money to provide a home to the owner's (friend). That could turn public opinion.

    "The question is why? Why is he doing it that way?"

    Irsay has not been formally charged following his March 16 arrest on preliminary counts of driving while impaired and possession of a controlled substance.

    A police report said his speech was slurred and he could barely stand. But he passed a breath alcohol test, prompting an officer on the scene to tell his supervisor he "believed Irsay to be intoxicated on a substance other than alcohol." Police then obtained a court order to take a blood sample for testing.

    Police found $29,000 in cash in a briefcase and laundry bag, along with numerous bottles containing prescription medications for which Irsay could not provide proof of a prescription.

    Irsay was stopped shortly before midnight just blocks from a $1 million home he purchased in February. Public records show a recently divorced woman and her children moved into the house "on or about March 1."

    The Hamilton County prosecutor's office said it will not comment on the case "until or unless" formal charges are filed. Spokesman Andre Miksha said he could not address the delay in filing charges, but legal experts said it is likely due, at least in part, to the time it takes to get test results back from the blood drawn from Irsay after his arrest.

    No clear league precedent

    Gilleran, the head of the sports law and ethics institute, said Goodell will be wading into uncharted territory in disciplining Irsay. Gilleran was responsible for handing out discipline during his 20-plus years as commissioner of the West Coast Conference and said he always looked first to any precedent that existed.

    But a clear precedent to Irsay's situation is lacking.

    Goodell hasn't had to discipline an owner for substance abuse or impaired driving. But he has fined at least two owners.

    In 2009, Goodell fined Tennessee owner Bud Adams $250,000 for making an obscene gesture at an opposing team's fans.

    In 2006, he fined Pittsburgh owner Dan Rooney $25,000 for criticizing officials.

    And in 2010 — in a situation that comes closest to Irsay's — Goodell suspended Detroit Lions President Tom Lewand for 30 days and fined him $100,000 after he pleaded guilty to driving while impaired.

    An NFL spokesman declined to comment about Irsay's situation, but Goodell has said he will wait for "all the facts to emerge" before deciding what, if any, punishment Irsay might receive.

    Goodell has upped the ante in league discipline.

    Less than a year after taking the job in 2006, he introduced his Personal Conduct Policy, which gave him vastly expanded power to suspend players and NFL staff.

    "It is not enough simply to avoid being found guilty of a crime," the policy says. "Instead, as an employee of the NFL or a member club, you are held to a higher standard."

    In 2012, he stunned New Orleans coach Sean Payton by suspending him for an entire season because of the team's "bounty" program, where players earned money for injuring opponents.

    The section of the NFL's drug policy that covers "drugs of abuse," which the league distinguishes from performance-enhancing drugs, says violations "may include substantially longer suspensions."

    The league suspended at least 12 players last season for more than 40 games because of "substances of abuse." That included Colts receiver LaVon Brazill, who was suspended for the first four games of the season, losing about $125,000 in salary.

    George Atallah, assistant executive director of the NFL Players Association, declined comment. But some players are wondering publicly whether Irsay will be treated differently.

    Seattle cornerback Richard Sherman, who made the game-winning interception in last season's NFC Championship game, worries there could be a double standard. Writing on mmqb.com, Sherman contrasted the reaction to Irsay to the treatment star Philadelphia receiver DeSean Jackson received recently after being cut — reportedly for "gang ties," according a media report.

    "Commit certain crimes in this league and be a certain color, and you get help, not scorn," Sherman wrote. "Nobody suggested the Colts owner had 'ties' to drug trafficking, even though he was caught driving with controlled substances … and $29,000 in cash to do who-knows-what with."

    Former Colts defensive tackle Anthony "Booger" McFarland, who has a sports radio show in Tampa, Fla., tweeted that he'd suspend Irsay for a year with "no football contact whatsoever," adding that's the "only way you send a message to the players and the fans!!"

    Star reporter Stephanie Wang and Star researcher Cathy Knapp contributed to this story.

    Call Star reporter Tim Evans at (317) 444-6204. Call Star reporter Mark Alesia at (317) 444-6311 or email Mark.Alesia@indystar.com. Follow them on Twitter: @starwatchtim and @markalesia.

    HOW IRSAY WAS INVOLVED IN A TANGLED REAL ESTATE WEB

    From 2007 until her death March 1, Kimberly Wundrum lived in three different homes with ties to the Indianapolis Colts and owner Jim Irsay. Records show the properties all were owned by a private entity called the "2009 Blue Trust," which was administered by Colts officials. A Colts spokesman said the trust's activities pertained to Irsay's "personal life."

    • 8315 Codesa Way

    June 2013: The Blue Trust purchased the townhouse for $139,500.

    August 2013: The trust gave the townhouse to Kimberly Wundrum at no cost.

    Kimberly Wundrum was found dead in the townhouse March 2 of a suspected drug overdose.

    • 7910 Mill Pond Lane

    March 2010: Irsay friend Thomas Moses purchased the house for $575,750.

    March 2010: Moses sold the home to the Blue Trust for $575,750.

    Between 2009 and 2013, Kimberly Wundrum listed the house as her home address in court documents and as the corporate headquarters for a landscaping business in reports she filed with the Indiana Secretary of State.

    February 2014: Blue Trust sold the home for $810,000.

    • 8343 Codesa Way

    February 2006: Indianapolis Colts purchased the townhouse from Pulte Homes of Indiana for $174,660.

    July 2009: Indianapolis Colts transferred the property to Blue Trust "for no consideration."

    August 2012: Blue Trust sold the property for $122,500.

    In 2007, Kimberly Wundrum listed the townhouse as her home address and corporate headquarters in incorporation papers filed with the Secretary of State for her landscaping business. She also listed the condo as her home address in police reports.

    Sources: Marion County property records, Indiana Secretary of State, police reports and court records.

    Comment


    • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

      I debated on posting that because I'm not sure it's relevant or news. It could be, but it lacks any real connection to make it look like anything more than a personal judgment Irsay made on how to spend some of his money on personal matters.

      There certainly could be more to the story so maybe there is something the reporter hopes shakes lose with this part of the story. The reporter could heavily suspect something but need the story to start to break before others come forward.

      But then again it could just be piling on with nothing else there either.
      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

      ------

      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

      -John Wooden

      Comment


      • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

        Its relevant if it ends up factoring into his "punishment" if this was a player he probably would've been suspended by now and this would be plastered all over ESPN.

        Comment


        • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

          I'm pretty sure there are plenty of NFL, NBA, MLB, etc ... players that have similar real estate situations. IE: A place for their mistress to live. It's not illegal. Immoral - different discussion, but nobody broke any laws buying a place and letting her live there.

          I don't see anything there that could cause Goddell to pile on.

          Comment


          • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

            Originally posted by PacerDude View Post
            I'm pretty sure there are plenty of NFL, NBA, MLB, etc ... players that have similar real estate situations. IE: A place for their mistress to live. It's not illegal. Immoral - different discussion, but nobody broke any laws buying a place and letting her live there.

            I don't see anything there that could cause Goddell to pile on.
            Legalities or immoralities aside the very real possibilitry that he used Colt's money & Colt's staff to do this is a violation of community trust. Goodell knows how much financial support and favorable treatment the Colts have received from the City & community.

            I think most fans are OK with the fact that Irsay personally benefited financially from these deals as long as the teams stays in town and the franchise is healthy. I don't think many fans will approve if he has been using the $$$ and resources of the Colt's organization for these kinds of actions. If true it won't go unpunished by Goodell and rightly so. In fact Irsay should welcome it and own it if he wants the same type of deals in the future. Not using your own personal wealth & personal staff for something like this is just stupid and like said above the feds would be justified to look into how this was handled in the books.
            Last edited by Downtown Bang!; 04-07-2014, 05:36 AM.

            Comment


            • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

              I don't know if they are justified or not, the Colts are a 100% privately owned business and Jim is the owner. Again I am not defending him or saying the situation is one way or the other. But I agree that the new details don't prove anything but could prove something.
              Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
              I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

              Comment


              • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                Its relevant if it ends up factoring into his "punishment" if this was a player he probably would've been suspended by now and this would be plastered all over ESPN.
                You really should look up what has and hasn't happened to Aldon Smith yet, with regards to formal NFL decisions. That way this whole hyprocrisy claim can get moved to another topic. He's only going on 6months without formal punishment by the NFL, as they're waiting to find out what happens with his legal trial.

                I don't even like Goddell, but I think reality of the situation should probably be acknowledged.
                Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                Comment


                • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                  The money Irsay spent to 'shelter' his 'friend' didn't just disappear. It went to someone. So, assuming that someone is local, then the money stayed in the community to circulate and be spent.

                  I'm really having trouble seeing an issue here outside of a moral issue, simply because Irsay runs a private business and can spend the fruits of that business however he wants. It's not like he's being cheap about the Colts' payroll and letting the team flounder.

                  Yes, he got corporate welfare and yes IMHO that should stop yesterday at these levels. But he's playing by the rules as they are currently constructed. I'm not sure what Goodell could do. It's cute it was named Blue Trust but unless there is more to the story, it was Irsay's money to do with however he pleases.
                  Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                  ------

                  "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                  -John Wooden

                  Comment


                  • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                    Originally posted by Since86 View Post
                    You really should look up what has and hasn't happened to Aldon Smith yet, with regards to formal NFL decisions. That way this whole hyprocrisy claim can get moved to another topic. He's only going on 6months without formal punishment by the NFL, as they're waiting to find out what happens with his legal trial.

                    I don't even like Goddell, but I think reality of the situation should probably be acknowledged.
                    You're right about letting it play out but at least the media would be lobbying for him being suspended.

                    And yet you overlook that Aldon Smith's troubles with the law were plastered all over ESPN.

                    Was Jim Irsay's? No in fact its barely mentioned but they could go on about DeSean Jackson's alleged gang ties and what it means. At least with Irsay this stuff has actual substance in comparison.

                    For me I don't care what he does with his personal life however I can see why people would be bothered by it when he chooses to get behind the wheel inebriated and putting the general public at risk. Then it stopped being a private matter.

                    It will also be an issue if the drugs that this woman overdosed on came from Irsay himself.

                    Call me crazy but if a woman died of a drug overdose at a house owned by a player it would've been major news in the sports outlets.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                      It just seems like your perception might be a little off, ESPN has covered it in typical espn fashion. Mike Florio has had an everlasting erection since the story broke.
                      Originally posted by Natston;n3510291
                      I want the people to know that they still have 2 out of the 3 T.J.s working for them, and that ain't bad...

                      Comment


                      • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                        Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                        You're right about letting it play out but at least the media would be lobbying for him being suspended.

                        And yet you overlook that Aldon Smith's troubles with the law were plastered all over ESPN.

                        Was Jim Irsay's? No in fact its barely mentioned but they could go on about DeSean Jackson's alleged gang ties and what it means. At least with Irsay this stuff has actual substance in comparison.

                        For me I don't care what he does with his personal life however I can see why people would be bothered by it when he chooses to get behind the wheel inebriated and putting the general public at risk. Then it stopped being a private matter.

                        It will also be an issue if the drugs that this woman overdosed on came from Irsay himself.

                        Call me crazy but if a woman died of a drug overdose at a house owned by a player it would've been major news in the sports outlets.
                        I just don't believe any of it. We're talking about ESPN, who not only slobbered all over Ray Lewis at EVERY given opportunity who probably murdered a man in the back of his limo, but then went out and hired him. OWI's are bad, because of huge risk to other people, sure and it is serious. But Irsay should be pounded on by ESPN because he might have killed someone when Ray Lewis was convicted of, at the very least, covering up a murder and no one bats an eye about it.

                        They celebrate Mike Vick.

                        Not to mention I already linked stories from ESPN about Aldon Smith and how they were talking about how he needed rehab and such, just like they did with Irsay. They have a bunch of writers and talking heads, you eventually get both sides of the coins from at least one person there. It's not like they get marching orders and everything ESPN puts out is either pro or anti in nature. It all depends where you look, and if you want to look.
                        Just because you're offended, doesn't mean you're right.” ― Ricky Gervais.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                          Originally posted by Basketball Fan View Post
                          Call me crazy but if a woman died of a drug overdose at a house owned by a player it would've been major news in the sports outlets.
                          Why? First, that statement isn't correct; she resided in a house Irsay gave her last year (not currently owned by Irsay); she had a history of drug addiction, and she OD'd. That's all we have. Second, nothing has come out tying her death to Irsay at all. You can't nail Irsay on that alone. It's unfortunate that it happened, obviously. I doubt he wanted it to happen. But again, we don't know anything.

                          It seems like there are people out there just hoping beyond hope to nail Irsay to a cross about all this. He's going to face standard legal ramifications.... and standard league repercussions (fine, short ban). All those pointing to Irsay going to be "made an example" by Goodell can't forget that Irsay has been a big part of the NFL ownership group during their rise to world super-power over the past few decades --- he's got money, he's got connections, he helped build the NFL to what it is today --- Goodell is gonna be reasonable about all this. It makes absolutely no sense that Goodell lay the hammer down now on Irsay, who's been a model citizen for so long... after taking flack for "protecting the shield" for so long... which is still going to happen, btw.
                          Last edited by Kid Minneapolis; 04-08-2014, 12:25 PM.
                          There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                            I just hope it doesn't come out he bought her a Toyota Highlander
                            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                            ------

                            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                            -John Wooden

                            Comment


                            • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                              Originally posted by Kid Minneapolis View Post
                              Why? First, that statement isn't correct; she resided in a house Irsay gave her last year (not currently owned by Irsay); she had a history of drug addiction, and she OD'd. That's all we have. Second, nothing has come out tying her death to Irsay at all. You can't nail Irsay on that alone. It's unfortunate that it happened, obviously. I doubt he wanted it to happen. But again, we don't know anything.

                              It seems like there are people out there just hoping beyond hope to nail Irsay to a cross about all this. He's going to face standard legal ramifications.... and standard league repercussions (fine, short ban). All those pointing to Irsay going to be "made an example" by Goodell can't forget that Irsay has been a big part of the NFL ownership group during their rise to world super-power over the past few decades --- he's got money, he's got connections, he helped build the NFL to what it is today --- Goodell is gonna be reasonable about all this. It makes absolutely no sense that Goodell lay the hammer down now on Irsay, who's been a model citizen for so long... after taking flack for "protecting the shield" for so long... which is still going to happen, btw.

                              Yes because a woman that Irsay gave a house too dies of an overdose and it isn't suspicious lets say this didn't involve the Colts owner but someone else entirely nobody would think it raises red flags here a woman who isn't related to him receiving a house from someone who was also a drug addict and dies of an OD? I'm not blaming him for her demise but its rather naive to think its impossible that there's a connection.

                              Unless its proven Irsay gave her the drugs and the feds get involved nothing is going to happen to him. Goodell at the end of the day is an empty suit who works for the owners he'll give him a hefty fine and a suspension that means nothing to go along with it and Irsay will say what the public wants to hear and it will be a distant memory. And the players will find it hypocritical even though it was Goodell who talks about how the NFL is a privilege and not a right unless you're an owner of course.

                              And yes ESPN hires Ray Lewis who despite his past incident managed to be a "model citizen" since same for Michael Vick. Irsay had drug issues back in 2002 that were public and while he didn't get behind the wheel at one point there was a federal investigation with him.

                              However this same network barely acknowledges this latest tidbit yet they can go into long discussions about Desean being possibly in a gang and living the thug life even though at worst he's proven to be a diva WR while an owner can get caught with 29K of cash on him, be arrested for a DWI, and have a woman die of an OD in a house that he bought for her and have it be no big deal.

                              Yes that makes sense.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Irsay in jail for suspected drunken driving

                                You're making way more of it than most.

                                Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
                                There are two types of quarterbacks in the league: Those whom over time, the league figures out ... and those who figure out the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X