pj/GD... I agree that it's definitely not impossible by any means. I wouldn't put anything past any athlete.
I would just be really surprised - even after admitting that I wouldn't necessarily rule anything out for anyone.
I definitely think IF he was involved, it was with a lack of complete knowledge of the situation. That would seem to be the most likely scenario. And if that's the case, it really wouldn't change my opinion of him at all.
The only thing that would really disappoint me here would be if Eli was fully aware of what was going on and was playing an active role in it. So, hopefully that won't be the case when all of the info finds its way out.
Whats the alternative explanation for Eli sending an email asking for “two jerseys that can pass as game used”. Red handed.
Come on now. Was he hacked? Or do you buy his bs explanation that “pass as game used” was just another way of asking for legitimately game worn jerseys? This is “the definition of is is” territory. Please dont be this naive, youre better than that i think
Judging someone a loser because they buy memorabilia is a bit much. If I bought my nephew or dad something as a gift, I'd definitely like it to be the market rate, not a make a believe premium. If I spent more on something because I wanted something more special and it wasn't, I'd definitely feel like a loser.
The issue is somewhere between the Giants, the equipment guys, Manning, and the dealer, every day people might have been ripped off.
I believe pretty certainly Manning will not face any liability or punishment. Manning Inc. will not allow it. His brother literally rubbed his balls on a trainers head and the public barely batted a lash.
It will be a pain in the ass for the team. There's a good chance Mara gets called to tesitfy. Hopefully it doesn't drag into the season.
Judging someone a loser because they buy memorabilia is a bit much. If I bought my nephew or dad something as a gift, I'd definitely like it to be the market rate, not a make a believe premium. If I spent more on something because I wanted something more special and it wasn't, I'd definitely feel like a loser.
The issue is somewhere between the Giants, the equipment guys, Manning, and the dealer, every day people might have been ripped off.
I believe pretty certainly Manning will not face any liability or punishment. Manning Inc. will not allow it. His brother literally rubbed his balls on a trainers head and the public barely batted a lash.
It will be a pain in the ass for the team. There's a good chance Mara gets called to tesitfy. Hopefully it doesn't drag into the season.
I don't think it will be a pain in the ass for the team. Only one person of importance to the team is involved and his involvement will likely be limited to one day of testimony. Any inconvenience to Mara or skiba won't matter to the product on the field.
Whats the alternative explanation for Eli sending an email asking for “two jerseys that can pass as game used”. Red handed.
Come on now. Was he hacked? Or do you buy his bs explanation that “pass as game used” was just another way of asking for legitimately game worn jerseys? This is “the definition of is is” territory. Please dont be this naive, youre better than that i think
It wasn't jerseys that manning referred to in the email, it was helmets and considering that helmets (especially on a quarterback) may not have scuffs or marks on it, I can see the context of the text.
Whats the alternative explanation for Eli sending an email asking for “two jerseys that can pass as game used”. Red handed.
Come on now. Was he hacked? Or do you buy his bs explanation that “pass as game used” was just another way of asking for legitimately game worn jerseys? This is “the definition of is is” territory. Please dont be this naive, youre better than that i think
It wasn't jerseys that manning referred to in the email, it was helmets and considering that helmets (especially on a quarterback) may not have scuffs or marks on it, I can see the context of the text.
So its helmets. Fine. Youre asking for “helmets that can *pass* as game worn” and im supposed to believe you are innocent in all of this given the facts at hand? If you want to plug your ears and just say “lalalalalala i cant hear you!” with regards to this story thats one thing. But please dont actively try and sell this line of bullshit to adults, because its insulting. There is no explanation other than he was involved
Because thats all he can say. Ive never heard another context for “give me something that can pass as x” unless it wasnt “x”. Its a major stretch to invent any other context for it. He wanted something that “can pass for” the real thing. Anyone who tries to deny that will never be convinced by anything. Thats as red handed as it gets
Next time i go to the diner im gonna ask for something that “can pass as chicken breast”
1. I'm a huge Eli fan, but I think it's misguided to shit on the memorabilia industry in general, or to disregard it because of personal opinions about memorabilia. If the items were fraudulently misrepresented as official and game-worn, and they weren't, then some poor fans were cheated out of money. Between insane ticket prices, concession prices, PSLs, threats of blackout... fans are paying out the nose to support the league and teams they love. It's a slap in the face if the dedicated fans who wanted a piece of "game used" items to have in their homes paid a premium for them and found out that they were not "game used" and that the well-funded team and players were intentionally lying so that they didn't have to part with the valuable items.
I've said this before, but Eli's "2 helmets that can pass as game used" is not clear enough to ascertain guilt. Could it mean that Eli was aware that the helmets were not game used? Sure. That is certainly a way of interpreting the text. But when used colloquially, "pass as" is a contronym (i.e. can have contradictory meanings, like "oversight," "fine," or "sanction").
In this case, "pass as" could mean "fool" in that the helmet wasn't game-worn but Eli thought perhaps it could fool the collector into thinking it was the real thing. That is the way many are interpreting it and it's quite possible that this was how Eli meant it.
But "pass as" could also mean "considered acceptable enough." If the helmet were game-worn but didn't have any nicks or marks on it, would the collector accept it?
If you went to a club that checked ID, and you brought a student ID card or an expired driver's license, you might nont get into the club because they wouldn't "pass as" ID. It doesn't mean those IDs are fake, only that the bar won't accept them.
I've said this before, but Eli's "2 helmets that can pass as game used" is not clear enough to ascertain guilt. Could it mean that Eli was aware that the helmets were not game used? Sure. That is certainly a way of interpreting the text. But when used colloquially, "pass as" is a contronym (i.e. can have contradictory meanings, like "oversight," "fine," or "sanction").
In this case, "pass as" could mean "fool" in that the helmet wasn't game-worn but Eli thought perhaps it could fool the collector into thinking it was the real thing. That is the way many are interpreting it and it's quite possible that this was how Eli meant it.
But "pass as" could also mean "considered acceptable enough." If the helmet were game-worn but didn't have any nicks or marks on it, would the collector accept it?
If you went to a club that checked ID, and you brought a student ID card or an expired driver's license, you might nont get into the club because they wouldn't "pass as" ID. It doesn't mean those IDs are fake, only that the bar won't accept them.
Thank you, that is exactly my point. The context of the email could have different intentions.
An example would be if Eli started a game with one helmet and used it in the first series to which they went 3 and out. 2 run plays and a quick incomplete pass. There was a problem with the communication in the helmet and it was switched with another helmet.
Well, technically the first helmet was "game worn", but would it pass the requirements for being game worn.
I don't know the technicalities of all of this and I am certainly no expert on civil cases, but imo there needs to be a whole lot more than just a vague email to find wrongdoing. Some pattern of deception.
If Eli is truly guilty, then there would be more of a trail to follow. E-mails, communications, money and other disgruntled memorabilia dealers that link Eli as doing deceptive dealings.
Perhaps it will all come out in a trial. So far we have only seen and heard one side.
I guess ive only known one context for “pass as”. If youre single and im trying to hook you up with someone and say “i know this one person, beautiful, they can pass as a woman.” I think your interest level might fall a bit.
I do think alternative explanations are even tougher now that we know the memorabilia was indeed fraudulent. (Or do we know that? Is that admitted and eli is just claiming ignorance? Or do they actually hold to the story that the helmet is legit?)
Either way nothing is more distasteful than trying to minimize the potential fraud by just painting the victims as losers. And who is doing that? People who post ten times a day on an internet forum? Im
Sure people would judge you a certain way too. Im not a memorabilia guy. Dont collect cards, clothing, autographs, havent worn a jersey since high school. But people are into this, and these people should be afforded the same respect and protections as any other consumer. If they spend hard earned money on goods they deserve to get what they believe they are paying for. I dont care if you think they are lame for wanting another dudes clothing
I guess ive only known one context for “pass as”. If youre single and im trying to hook you up with someone and say “i know this one person, beautiful, they can pass as a woman.” I think your interest level might fall a bit.
I do think alternative explanations are even tougher now that we know the memorabilia was indeed fraudulent. (Or do we know that? Is that admitted and eli is just claiming ignorance? Or do they actually hold to the story that the helmet is legit?)
Either way nothing is more distasteful than trying to minimize the potential fraud by just painting the victims as losers. And who is doing that? People who post ten times a day on an internet forum? Im
Sure people would judge you a certain way too. Im not a memorabilia guy. Dont collect cards, clothing, autographs, havent worn a jersey since high school. But people are into this, and these people should be afforded the same respect and protections as any other consumer. If they spend hard earned money on goods they deserve to get what they believe they are paying for. I dont care if you think they are lame for wanting another dudes clothing
I completely agree with your last paragraph, which I think is a wholly separate issue as to whether Eli participated in a fraud scheme.
We just disagree on how "pass as" can be interpreted. I would not want to be set up with the person you described as being able to pass as a woman.
But I do think there is a viable alternative interpretation of "pass as" in the memorabilia context and in a similar way to the examples I used earlier.
At this point, it only makes sense to wait and see for more evidence and context to come out as the litigation ensues.
But if I hear someone say "Can X pass for game worn?", I take that as an indication that the gear in question is NOT game worn but might appear as though it were.
But if I hear someone say "Can X pass for game worn?", I take that as an indication that the gear in question is NOT game worn but might appear as though it were.
There is so much we don't know.
Are helmets worn in a game separated in some fashion from helmets worn in practice that were never worn in a game?
If the actual facts are: Helmets worn in a game are immediately set aside with the date and game in question. And that the equipment manager has a greater supply of game helmets than demand (something I tend to doubt, but let's go with this).... then Eli's phrasing "... pass as game worn" might mean: I was telling the equipment manager to make sure that the helmet he grabs from the game pile has some evidence of having been in a game - nicks and so forth - I don't take many hits and many of my helmets come out of games with no indication they were even in a game - so it isn't enough just to take them from the "game pile", I was telling him to be sure he grabbed one with some nicks, etc.
On the other hand, if no effort is made in any way to separate out helmets worn in a game, then his wording becomes pretty irrelevant because it is now clear that there isn't any way to determine if a particular helmet was ever actually worn in any game (or just practices). If that is the case, then Manning had no business signing any Certification promising that a particular helmet was, in fact, worn in an actual game.
Before I could assess the meaning of that phrase, I would need some context of how this all worked. The process. Then the phrase would either make sense - or it wouldn't.
But if I hear someone say "Can X pass for game worn?", I take that as an indication that the gear in question is NOT game worn but might appear as though it were.
There is so much we don't know.
Are helmets worn in a game separated in some fashion from helmets worn in practice that were never worn in a game?
If the actual facts are: Helmets worn in a game are immediately set aside with the date and game in question. And that the equipment manager has a greater supply of game helmets than demand (something I tend to doubt, but let's go with this).... then Eli's phrasing "... pass as game worn" might mean: I was telling the equipment manager to make sure that the helmet he grabs from the game pile has some evidence of having been in a game - nicks and so forth - I don't take many hits and many of my helmets come out of games with no indication they were even in a game - so it isn't enough just to take them from the "game pile", I was telling him to be sure he grabbed one with some nicks, etc.
On the other hand, if no effort is made in any way to separate out helmets worn in a game, then his wording becomes pretty irrelevant because it is now clear that there isn't any way to determine if a particular helmet was ever actually worn in any game (or just practices). If that is the case, then Manning had no business signing any Certification promising that a particular helmet was, in fact, worn in an actual game.
Before I could assess the meaning of that phrase, I would need some context of how this all worked. The process. Then the phrase would either make sense - or it wouldn't.
Or you could just apply Occam's Razor. Tomato tomahto.
Manning has settled the memorabilia fraud lawsuit that had been scheduled to begin today, a league source tells PFT.
At the last minute the trial did not start today because of a death in the family of one of the attorneys, but now there will be no trial, as Manning and the plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement.
Manning was accused of fraudulently passing off memorabilia as game-worn even though he hadn’t worn it in a game. At the center of the dispute were messages from Manning to a team equipment manager asking for helmets “that can pass as game used.”
The plaintiffs said they were duped by Manning into paying for “game-used” items that weren’t actually used in games. Now that issue will not go before a jury, and Manning has put it behind him.
Great, the Mannings have taken to killing the family members Â
How does game worm stuff get validated?
I would just be really surprised - even after admitting that I wouldn't necessarily rule anything out for anyone.
I definitely think IF he was involved, it was with a lack of complete knowledge of the situation. That would seem to be the most likely scenario. And if that's the case, it really wouldn't change my opinion of him at all.
The only thing that would really disappoint me here would be if Eli was fully aware of what was going on and was playing an active role in it. So, hopefully that won't be the case when all of the info finds its way out.
Come on now. Was he hacked? Or do you buy his bs explanation that “pass as game used” was just another way of asking for legitimately game worn jerseys? This is “the definition of is is” territory. Please dont be this naive, youre better than that i think
The issue is somewhere between the Giants, the equipment guys, Manning, and the dealer, every day people might have been ripped off.
I believe pretty certainly Manning will not face any liability or punishment. Manning Inc. will not allow it. His brother literally rubbed his balls on a trainers head and the public barely batted a lash.
It will be a pain in the ass for the team. There's a good chance Mara gets called to tesitfy. Hopefully it doesn't drag into the season.
The issue is somewhere between the Giants, the equipment guys, Manning, and the dealer, every day people might have been ripped off.
I believe pretty certainly Manning will not face any liability or punishment. Manning Inc. will not allow it. His brother literally rubbed his balls on a trainers head and the public barely batted a lash.
It will be a pain in the ass for the team. There's a good chance Mara gets called to tesitfy. Hopefully it doesn't drag into the season.
I don't think it will be a pain in the ass for the team. Only one person of importance to the team is involved and his involvement will likely be limited to one day of testimony. Any inconvenience to Mara or skiba won't matter to the product on the field.
If Manning has to miss practice or rearrange travel during a road week, that would qualify as a major pain in the ass.
Come on now. Was he hacked? Or do you buy his bs explanation that “pass as game used” was just another way of asking for legitimately game worn jerseys? This is “the definition of is is” territory. Please dont be this naive, youre better than that i think
It wasn't jerseys that manning referred to in the email, it was helmets and considering that helmets (especially on a quarterback) may not have scuffs or marks on it, I can see the context of the text.
Quote:
Whats the alternative explanation for Eli sending an email asking for “two jerseys that can pass as game used”. Red handed.
Come on now. Was he hacked? Or do you buy his bs explanation that “pass as game used” was just another way of asking for legitimately game worn jerseys? This is “the definition of is is” territory. Please dont be this naive, youre better than that i think
It wasn't jerseys that manning referred to in the email, it was helmets and considering that helmets (especially on a quarterback) may not have scuffs or marks on it, I can see the context of the text.
So its helmets. Fine. Youre asking for “helmets that can *pass* as game worn” and im supposed to believe you are innocent in all of this given the facts at hand? If you want to plug your ears and just say “lalalalalala i cant hear you!” with regards to this story thats one thing. But please dont actively try and sell this line of bullshit to adults, because its insulting. There is no explanation other than he was involved
The more interesting context is Skiba when he wrote: "I'll tell the whole f------ world the truth." That doesn't sound very comforting.
Next time i go to the diner im gonna ask for something that “can pass as chicken breast”
At this point one really needs to have their head in the sand and willfully trying not to believe it if they cant see whats going on.
In this case, "pass as" could mean "fool" in that the helmet wasn't game-worn but Eli thought perhaps it could fool the collector into thinking it was the real thing. That is the way many are interpreting it and it's quite possible that this was how Eli meant it.
But "pass as" could also mean "considered acceptable enough." If the helmet were game-worn but didn't have any nicks or marks on it, would the collector accept it?
If you went to a club that checked ID, and you brought a student ID card or an expired driver's license, you might nont get into the club because they wouldn't "pass as" ID. It doesn't mean those IDs are fake, only that the bar won't accept them.
That may be why he's still fighting, but any decent lawyer would create an opportunity for a sealed settlement.
Its just a question of how much he pays.
In this case, "pass as" could mean "fool" in that the helmet wasn't game-worn but Eli thought perhaps it could fool the collector into thinking it was the real thing. That is the way many are interpreting it and it's quite possible that this was how Eli meant it.
But "pass as" could also mean "considered acceptable enough." If the helmet were game-worn but didn't have any nicks or marks on it, would the collector accept it?
If you went to a club that checked ID, and you brought a student ID card or an expired driver's license, you might nont get into the club because they wouldn't "pass as" ID. It doesn't mean those IDs are fake, only that the bar won't accept them.
Thank you, that is exactly my point. The context of the email could have different intentions.
An example would be if Eli started a game with one helmet and used it in the first series to which they went 3 and out. 2 run plays and a quick incomplete pass. There was a problem with the communication in the helmet and it was switched with another helmet.
Well, technically the first helmet was "game worn", but would it pass the requirements for being game worn.
I don't know the technicalities of all of this and I am certainly no expert on civil cases, but imo there needs to be a whole lot more than just a vague email to find wrongdoing. Some pattern of deception.
If Eli is truly guilty, then there would be more of a trail to follow. E-mails, communications, money and other disgruntled memorabilia dealers that link Eli as doing deceptive dealings.
Perhaps it will all come out in a trial. So far we have only seen and heard one side.
I do think alternative explanations are even tougher now that we know the memorabilia was indeed fraudulent. (Or do we know that? Is that admitted and eli is just claiming ignorance? Or do they actually hold to the story that the helmet is legit?)
Either way nothing is more distasteful than trying to minimize the potential fraud by just painting the victims as losers. And who is doing that? People who post ten times a day on an internet forum? Im
Sure people would judge you a certain way too. Im not a memorabilia guy. Dont collect cards, clothing, autographs, havent worn a jersey since high school. But people are into this, and these people should be afforded the same respect and protections as any other consumer. If they spend hard earned money on goods they deserve to get what they believe they are paying for. I dont care if you think they are lame for wanting another dudes clothing
Easy answer....IT DOESN'T!
This whole authentication thing is a complete scam.
I do think alternative explanations are even tougher now that we know the memorabilia was indeed fraudulent. (Or do we know that? Is that admitted and eli is just claiming ignorance? Or do they actually hold to the story that the helmet is legit?)
Either way nothing is more distasteful than trying to minimize the potential fraud by just painting the victims as losers. And who is doing that? People who post ten times a day on an internet forum? Im
Sure people would judge you a certain way too. Im not a memorabilia guy. Dont collect cards, clothing, autographs, havent worn a jersey since high school. But people are into this, and these people should be afforded the same respect and protections as any other consumer. If they spend hard earned money on goods they deserve to get what they believe they are paying for. I dont care if you think they are lame for wanting another dudes clothing
I completely agree with your last paragraph, which I think is a wholly separate issue as to whether Eli participated in a fraud scheme.
We just disagree on how "pass as" can be interpreted. I would not want to be set up with the person you described as being able to pass as a woman.
But I do think there is a viable alternative interpretation of "pass as" in the memorabilia context and in a similar way to the examples I used earlier.
At this point, it only makes sense to wait and see for more evidence and context to come out as the litigation ensues.
There is so much we don't know.
Are helmets worn in a game separated in some fashion from helmets worn in practice that were never worn in a game?
If the actual facts are: Helmets worn in a game are immediately set aside with the date and game in question. And that the equipment manager has a greater supply of game helmets than demand (something I tend to doubt, but let's go with this).... then Eli's phrasing "... pass as game worn" might mean: I was telling the equipment manager to make sure that the helmet he grabs from the game pile has some evidence of having been in a game - nicks and so forth - I don't take many hits and many of my helmets come out of games with no indication they were even in a game - so it isn't enough just to take them from the "game pile", I was telling him to be sure he grabbed one with some nicks, etc.
On the other hand, if no effort is made in any way to separate out helmets worn in a game, then his wording becomes pretty irrelevant because it is now clear that there isn't any way to determine if a particular helmet was ever actually worn in any game (or just practices). If that is the case, then Manning had no business signing any Certification promising that a particular helmet was, in fact, worn in an actual game.
Before I could assess the meaning of that phrase, I would need some context of how this all worked. The process. Then the phrase would either make sense - or it wouldn't.
If there are more email, or worse yet one of the Skibas spills something more on Manning, things get interesting.
I'm on record that Manning is untouchable from the NFL and the national media.
But this is a league that suspended its most popular player for not being forthcoming with his text messages.
Purposely defrauding fans because the equipment boy wants to benifit from the real stuff himself, seems in that area to me if true.
Quote:
But if I hear someone say "Can X pass for game worn?", I take that as an indication that the gear in question is NOT game worn but might appear as though it were.
There is so much we don't know.
Are helmets worn in a game separated in some fashion from helmets worn in practice that were never worn in a game?
If the actual facts are: Helmets worn in a game are immediately set aside with the date and game in question. And that the equipment manager has a greater supply of game helmets than demand (something I tend to doubt, but let's go with this).... then Eli's phrasing "... pass as game worn" might mean: I was telling the equipment manager to make sure that the helmet he grabs from the game pile has some evidence of having been in a game - nicks and so forth - I don't take many hits and many of my helmets come out of games with no indication they were even in a game - so it isn't enough just to take them from the "game pile", I was telling him to be sure he grabbed one with some nicks, etc.
On the other hand, if no effort is made in any way to separate out helmets worn in a game, then his wording becomes pretty irrelevant because it is now clear that there isn't any way to determine if a particular helmet was ever actually worn in any game (or just practices). If that is the case, then Manning had no business signing any Certification promising that a particular helmet was, in fact, worn in an actual game.
Before I could assess the meaning of that phrase, I would need some context of how this all worked. The process. Then the phrase would either make sense - or it wouldn't.
Or you could just apply Occam's Razor. Tomato tomahto.
At the last minute the trial did not start today because of a death in the family of one of the attorneys, but now there will be no trial, as Manning and the plaintiffs have agreed to a settlement.
Manning was accused of fraudulently passing off memorabilia as game-worn even though he hadn’t worn it in a game. At the center of the dispute were messages from Manning to a team equipment manager asking for helmets “that can pass as game used.”
The plaintiffs said they were duped by Manning into paying for “game-used” items that weren’t actually used in games. Now that issue will not go before a jury, and Manning has put it behind him.