Russini & Vrabel Nothing to see here?

[203Pat]

Sounds like Vrabel basically admitted it was an affair and has apologized.

 

[XLIX]

Yeah he folded.

Sometimes you gotta know when to fold 'em.

 

[Thelonious]

This whole thing is rumor-mongering horseshit in my view. I wish he had just told the press and all the fanboys with their salacious gossip and pontification to go **** themselves. As for Russini, I've never been a fan, but I hope she sues her ex-employers and walks away with a bundle.

 

[Tunescribe]

Did he?
More like "circumvented and obfuscated."

His neatly crafted statement only checks one box:
Offer up boilerplate nothingness so as to be able to follow up with: This has already been addressed.

PS....His original "any suggestion otherwise is laughable" was his attempt to tell us all we are stupid.
No correction was included in his non-mea culpa.

Nonsense. Vrabel was sincere, contrite and accountable in his statement, admitting he made a mistake in as many words. He came clean on it earlier with the players. If you need more than that, try this:

Lifetime | Watch Your Favorite Shows & Original Movies

Stream full episodes of Lifetime series and original movies, including Married At First Sight, Marrying Millions, Little Women Atlanta, and more.

www.mylifetime.com

 

[borg]

Nonsense. Vrabel was sincere, contrite and accountable in his statement, admitting he made a mistake in as many words. He came clean on it earlier with the players. If you need more than that, try this:

Lifetime | Watch Your Favorite Shows & Original Movies

Stream full episodes of Lifetime series and original movies, including Married At First Sight, Marrying Millions, Little Women Atlanta, and more.

www.mylifetime.com

Please post the actual "apology" quote (in as (so) many words)
Or his "mistake" admission (in as (so) many words).

From ESPN....
In his initial response to the Post, Vrabel said the photos showed a "completely innocent interaction and any suggestion otherwise is laughable." When asked Tuesday if that was still his stance, Vrabel declined to answer.

"I appreciate the question," he said. "I'm going to focus on our football team. I think I addressed what I felt like was important."

As I so insightfully posted early, his non-apology/non-mea culpa had one purpose, 'I already addressed that'
Going forward......................."Refer to my previous scripted response"

 

[Sect140]

Didn’t Stacey James tell Vrabel that he needed to address this thread prior to to the team and the media.

 

[Boogs]

Sounds like Vrabel basically admitted it was an affair and has apologized.

He didn't admit anything. And he didn't apologize

If you actually believed he apologized for an affair, then you have to believe he was dishonest when he told the public these photos and evidence were "laughable."

 

[XLIX]

This whole thing is rumor-mongering horseshit in my view. I wish he had just told the press and all the fanboys with their salacious gossip and pontification to go **** themselves. As for Russini, I've never been a fan, but I hope she sues her ex-employers and walks away with a bundle.

LOLOLOL!!!

On what grounds could she possibly sue her ex-employer?? Setting aside the fact that she retired, there is absolutely nothing wrongful in their actions. They opened an investigation, which they have every right to do, and she retired before any conclusions (that we know of) were handed down.

If anything, they might have a case to sure her for breach of contract. It won't happen because it would generate too much bad publicity but she is 100% the one at fault here in the relationship between herself and her employer. You're dreaming if you think she has anything actionable.

 

[Thelonious]

Please post the actual "apology" quote (in as (so) many words)
Or his "mistake" admission (in as (so) many words).

From ESPN....
In his initial response to the Post, Vrabel said the photos showed a "completely innocent interaction and any suggestion otherwise is laughable." When asked Tuesday if that was still his stance, Vrabel declined to answer.

"I appreciate the question," he said. "I'm going to focus on our football team. I think I addressed what I felt like was important."

As I so insightfully posted early, his non-apology/non-mea culpa had one purpose, 'I already addressed that'
Going forward......................."Refer to my previous scripted response"

Get back to picking games. When it comes to moral reflection, you're out of your depth. Find something else to twist those panties over.

 

[Thelonious]

LOLOLOL!!!

On what grounds could she possibly sue her ex-employer?? Setting aside the fact that she retired, there is absolutely nothing wrongful in their actions. They opened an investigation, which they have every right to do, and she retired before any conclusions (that we know of) were handed down.

If anything, they might have a case to sure her for breach of contract. It won't happen because it would generate too much bad publicity but she is 100% the one at fault here in the relationship between herself and her employer. You're dreaming if you think she has anything actionable.

Since when have lawyers been motivated by reasonableness or morality? Something new?

In today's news: "The driver who struck and killed a Nebraska jogger is suing the dead man's estate after the accident allegedly left him with severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), court documents say."

 

[Huckleberry1]

You wanted an excuse to bring politics into it and reached for one because you are literally deranged

I have seen hundreds of political comments in here and not responded to them, but I'll be damned if some evangelical who supports pedophiles and rapists is going to preach his sanctimonious ******** without getting called on it. Don't like it? Too bad.

 

[XLIX]

Since when have lawyers been motivated by reasonableness or morality? Something new?

Where did I say they were?

Lawyers are motivated by money and in this case, there just ain't any money to sue for. Russini doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Her employer did absolutely nothing actionable. She resigned on them.

I asked you on what grounds she could sue and you ignored the question. Your moronic comparison has absolutely zero to do with the issue at hand so it has been summarily deleted.

 

[203Pat]

He didn't admit anything. And he didn't apologize

If you actually believed he apologized for an affair, then you have to believe he was dishonest when he told the public these photos and evidence were "laughable."

Is this a shtick or are you really believe this?

 

[Boogs]

Is this a shtick or are you really believe this?

What I said is Logic 101

 

[Tunescribe]

Please post the actual "apology" quote (in as (so) many words)
Or his "mistake" admission (in as (so) many words).

From ESPN....
In his initial response to the Post, Vrabel said the photos showed a "completely innocent interaction and any suggestion otherwise is laughable." When asked Tuesday if that was still his stance, Vrabel declined to answer.

"I appreciate the question," he said. "I'm going to focus on our football team. I think I addressed what I felt like was important."

As I so insightfully posted early, his non-apology/non-mea culpa had one purpose, 'I already addressed that'
Going forward......................."Refer to me previous scripted response"

He didn't admit anything. And he didn't apologize

What did you guys think he meant by "difficult conversations with people I care about," family, friends, coaches, team staff; that avoiding distractions starts with him, etc.? Who does he owe a PUBLIC apology to -- and for what? His tone/tenor was sincere and contrite, tacit acknowledgment that he messed up while it remains a private/personal matter. His one mistake was his initial statement but today essentially put things to rest.

 

[festy1986]

What I said is Logic 101

Where's the logic in addressing something he already addressed?

There's no shame in admitting you was wrong.

 

[borg]

What did you guys think he meant by "difficult conversations with people I care about," family, friends, coaches, team staff; that avoiding distractions starts with him, etc.? Who does he owe a PUBLIC apology to -- and for what? His tone/tenor was sincere and contrite, tacit acknowledgment that he messed up while it remains a private/personal matter.

One giant nonanswer neatly crafted by a horde of PR lackeys and crisis managers.
Apparently, you are their target audience.

His one mistake was his initial statement

1) Besides an affair with an "invested" football reporter
2) And coordinating an alibi with his paramour
3) And offering a false statement
4) And blaming us for our laughable stupidity not believing his lies
5) And enlisting the team to cover his ass
6) And offering up a non-apology

 

[ViperGTS]

What he said today will do nothing to tamp down this story. More with come up.

 

[Joey007]

How about: unless he's killed more folks than Hernandez... I don't give a f.

None of my business if he did it or not.

But if we’re on the subject, he did it lol

 

[Thelonious]

Where did I say they were?

Lawyers are motivated by money and in this case, there just ain't any money to sue for. Russini doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Her employer did absolutely nothing actionable. She resigned on them.

I asked you on what grounds she could sue and you ignored the question. Your moronic comparison has absolutely zero to do with the issue at hand so it has been summarily deleted.

You indicated that she cannot sue because in your view there is no basis for such a suit. You are entitled to your opinion - I have no way of evaluating the worth of your opinion, nor do I care to acquaint myself with your qualifications, since I certainly see no reason to value your acquaintance. In any case, that you do not see a rationale under which she might sue does not categorically demonstrate that some lawyer might not do so, for reasons valid or invalid, or, more likely, venal. My remark regarding lawyers' not being motivated by reason or morality is relevant since, however correct your evaluation might or might not be, it does not foreclose the possibility that another person, a lawyer, might disagree with you. I could speculate as to what that rationale might be, perhaps something to do with their having acted precipitously in such a manner as to have damaged her reputation or career, particularly if subsequent information demonstrates or suggests that assumptions on the basis of which she was forced ("counseled," I believe is the usual euphemism) out of her job were factually erroneous or arguably so, or were credited with irresponsible precipicitousness

Thats as far as I will go, since I am not, I say with conserable pride, a lawyer, a group of people who are a a parasitic burden on any society, a parasite certainly more abundant and empowered on a sick body politic than on a healthy one.