ESPN's Ray Rice story

It's Janay. Two fucking a's.

 

After 7 months of reporting, what does KVV feel about Harbaugh's truest intentions?

It's the most intriguing part of his story, I think.

 

And you thought Tolstoy wrote long.

http://www.baltimoreravens.com/news/article-1/Message-To-Fans-Regarding-ESPN-Story/b2ed215d-3999-4715-b947-21b460930bc7

 

The Ravens -want- you to feel very sleepy when you're reading that he said-she said release.

 

I don't think even the face-paintingest of fanbois can take that seriously.

Better that they don't try to talk their way through it. It would make Goodell seem like Springsteen up there on stage.

 

Really?

The worst people in the world:

1. ISIS
2. Kanye West
3. Sports fans who paint their face

 

About 3 more questions and Biscotti would have gone Nathan R Jessup.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/09/22/bisciotti-says-no-one-at-ravens-will-lose-job/

 

Baltimore's take is that Ray Rice is making his own case for reinstatement, and hence wants his version of the story to get out, and hence the story is inaccurate. Basically a "consider the source" rebuttal.

Ray Rice could want all those things and still be telling the truth. I think that's the case here.

That said, time for Ray Rice to say it himself and stop having his friends speak for him.

 

A reporter talks to 20 different sources and they're ALL lying or wrong. Wow, talk about your bad luck.

:

 

Biscotti brought up Chris Carter as example of someone who was able to
rehabilitate himself as a reason why he offered Rice future employment.

What he did not mention was that Carter was able to do it while playing
for The Vikings, not working in the front office.

 

So what do we think? Does Bisciotti have a point about any of this? I at least credit him and the organization for not equivocating about whether they should have watched the tape or not. At every point when that's addressed in the statement, he says something akin to, "We were wrong."

Intepretation of the texts to Rice are a he-said, she-said thing. Rice interpreted it that way. Bisciotti says he meant it another way. I think ESPN was well in bounds for reporting Rice's interpretation.

Newsome comes off pretty bad, even in response, as he's now trying to parse his statement that Ray didn't lie to him. Well, I didn't think it was that bad.

What about the suggestion in the piece that Harbaugh wanted to cut Rice immediately in February, which he flatly denies?

What of the denial that Bisciotti urged his good friend Roger Goodell to go light on Rice? What of the denial that Bisciotti and Goodell are good friends? That seemed to be a little detailed in the story - the golf connection, in particular - to not have some basis in truth.

Interesting stuff. And, also, I think it highlights the double-edged sword of using anonymous sources. I wouldn't call this investigative reporting as I think of it, where a reporter pours through public records, documents, spreadsheets, and such, and gets something dead solid perfect. This is a piece where 10 people are giving a different version of the truth, sometimes incompatible versions of the truth, and yet, at the same time, none of them are lying.

Should ESPN have given the Ravens more time to respond? Bisciotti said they were only given a couple of hours. Is that fair, if true? (We've all done it, and we all understand why it has to be done that way. It sucks, and you feel like a total asshole when you do it. At least I have.)

Or are the Ravens lying about that?

Lots to dissect here.