Yep. That's the new website adress of this blog. It's easier to remember than the other one.
So, bookmark www.nflbusinessblog.com
Monday, April 17, 2006
A Great And Happy Easter Sunday!
I had a great and happy Easter Sunday, even if I was more than a little sluggish.
It started out with good intentions in that I was either going to brunch with my friend Cherie and others or she and I were going to my friend KJ's party on Angel Island. Well, the rain played a role in that I thought it was going to terminate the island party, but didn't get word it was still on until late. By then, Cherie went to the brunch.
After I got the word, I kind of lazed around because I'd found the movie "The Wedding Crashers" which was funny, but weirdly paced. It was fast, fast, then slowed way down and kind of lost me in the change. Not constant at all.
The other thing that kind of stalled me as well, was the sight of this lovely athletic woman on Grand Avenue. Since I'm not seriously hooked up with anyone right now, I can report this with one word: Wow.
She was wearing just leotards and walking briskly toward Lake Merritt, cut and muscularly shapely legs pumping, and everyone was looking at her. It was hilarious. As she walked by I had to ask how she maintaned her body; "I do some of everything," she said. Boy, I'll say.
Ok. Enought of that.
The Angel Island party was too fun and afterward we went to a yacht club bar next to the Tiburon Cove where the ferries and boats come in.
Later than evening, Cherie and I saw Spike Lee's "The Inside Man." A totally excellent film, seen with a totally excellent person.
It started out with good intentions in that I was either going to brunch with my friend Cherie and others or she and I were going to my friend KJ's party on Angel Island. Well, the rain played a role in that I thought it was going to terminate the island party, but didn't get word it was still on until late. By then, Cherie went to the brunch.
After I got the word, I kind of lazed around because I'd found the movie "The Wedding Crashers" which was funny, but weirdly paced. It was fast, fast, then slowed way down and kind of lost me in the change. Not constant at all.
The other thing that kind of stalled me as well, was the sight of this lovely athletic woman on Grand Avenue. Since I'm not seriously hooked up with anyone right now, I can report this with one word: Wow.
She was wearing just leotards and walking briskly toward Lake Merritt, cut and muscularly shapely legs pumping, and everyone was looking at her. It was hilarious. As she walked by I had to ask how she maintaned her body; "I do some of everything," she said. Boy, I'll say.
Ok. Enought of that.
The Angel Island party was too fun and afterward we went to a yacht club bar next to the Tiburon Cove where the ferries and boats come in.
Later than evening, Cherie and I saw Spike Lee's "The Inside Man." A totally excellent film, seen with a totally excellent person.
Duke Lacrosse Lawyers Offer Their Version Of Events - Newsweek
I don't think the smoking gun has been found yet. The question is did one of the players commit assault -- not rape. And are the dancers lying about the entire outcome of the party because one or two of the players made a racial slur? Personally, I think that may have happened.
April 24, 2006 issue of Newsweek -- Attorneys for members of the Duke University lacrosse team are presenting their fullest accounting yet of what happened the night a stripper says three players raped her. The timeline -- illuminated by photos from one partygoer's digital camera that NEWSWEEK has viewed -- offers a preview of the defense strategy should indictments come as expected early this week.
At 11:02 p.m. on March 13, a group of partygoers, sitting on couches around the edge of the room awaiting the arrival of two strippers, smile for the camera. They're holding plastic cups. Above their heads, a Duke lacrosse poster on the wall reads it's hard to beat a team that never gives up. (Robert Ekstrand, who represents 33 of the players, used a forensics expert to establish the photo times.) The accuser is dropped off at about 11:45, about a half hour after the other (second) stripper arrived. By midnight, according to a photo, the two are almost naked on the beige carpet in front of their visibly happy audience. But by 12:03, the mood has turned: in a photo, the women are standing and the second stripper appears to be reaching toward the guys, all of whom have lost their smiles. She slaps one of them for suggesting the alleged victim use a broom as a sex toy, according to Ekstrand. Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains. The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand. A photo at 12:30 shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile. She's wearing only her scant red-and-white outfit and one shoe. By the time she realizes she's missing a shoe—a few minutes later—the guys have locked the door to keep her out, say the attorneys. A 12:37 photo shows she's lying on the back stoop; she fell, according to Ekstrand. Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding. At 12:41 she gets into the car, and one of the partygoers appears to be helping her. In a call to a police dispatcher at about 1:30 made public last week, one of the first officers to see the accuser, in a parking lot, said she was "passed-out drunk" but "not in distress." Since the release of the recording, Ekstrand has suggested that if any assault happened, it was after the accuser left the house. Defense attorneys said last week that no DNA had been found on or inside the accuser. She was never alone in the house for more than about 10 minutes, according to their timeline.
The second woman supports the partygoers' story, says Thomas, who says he has seen a summary of an interview with her conducted by a member of the defense team. "Their versions are basically identical," he says. But Mark Simeon, an attorney for the second dancer, tells NEWSWEEK that Thomas's claim is not accurate. "She rejects the notion that she agrees with their timeline. I've shown their story line to my client, and she says there's a lot that's wrong with it. From the beginning, she has been cooperating fully with [Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong] and the police, and she looks forward to testifying truthfully at the trial." Thomas replies, "She has given us several statements, so I don't see any room for her to change her story now simply because she has a lawyer speaking for her." Nifong could not be reached for comment.
—Susannah Meadows and Evan Thomas
April 24, 2006 issue of Newsweek -- Attorneys for members of the Duke University lacrosse team are presenting their fullest accounting yet of what happened the night a stripper says three players raped her. The timeline -- illuminated by photos from one partygoer's digital camera that NEWSWEEK has viewed -- offers a preview of the defense strategy should indictments come as expected early this week.
At 11:02 p.m. on March 13, a group of partygoers, sitting on couches around the edge of the room awaiting the arrival of two strippers, smile for the camera. They're holding plastic cups. Above their heads, a Duke lacrosse poster on the wall reads it's hard to beat a team that never gives up. (Robert Ekstrand, who represents 33 of the players, used a forensics expert to establish the photo times.) The accuser is dropped off at about 11:45, about a half hour after the other (second) stripper arrived. By midnight, according to a photo, the two are almost naked on the beige carpet in front of their visibly happy audience. But by 12:03, the mood has turned: in a photo, the women are standing and the second stripper appears to be reaching toward the guys, all of whom have lost their smiles. She slaps one of them for suggesting the alleged victim use a broom as a sex toy, according to Ekstrand. Then both women lock themselves in the bathroom, Ekstrand details. The partygoers get nervous about what the women are up to and start slipping money under the door asking them to leave, says Bill Thomas, a lawyer who represents one of the captains. The women go out to the second stripper's car at about 12:20, but the accuser has left her purse behind; she goes back inside to get it, according to Ekstrand. A photo at 12:30 shows the alleged victim standing outside the back door of the house looking down into two bags with what appears to be a smile. She's wearing only her scant red-and-white outfit and one shoe. By the time she realizes she's missing a shoe—a few minutes later—the guys have locked the door to keep her out, say the attorneys. A 12:37 photo shows she's lying on the back stoop; she fell, according to Ekstrand. Her elbow is dusted and scraped, and her ankle is cut and bleeding. At 12:41 she gets into the car, and one of the partygoers appears to be helping her. In a call to a police dispatcher at about 1:30 made public last week, one of the first officers to see the accuser, in a parking lot, said she was "passed-out drunk" but "not in distress." Since the release of the recording, Ekstrand has suggested that if any assault happened, it was after the accuser left the house. Defense attorneys said last week that no DNA had been found on or inside the accuser. She was never alone in the house for more than about 10 minutes, according to their timeline.
The second woman supports the partygoers' story, says Thomas, who says he has seen a summary of an interview with her conducted by a member of the defense team. "Their versions are basically identical," he says. But Mark Simeon, an attorney for the second dancer, tells NEWSWEEK that Thomas's claim is not accurate. "She rejects the notion that she agrees with their timeline. I've shown their story line to my client, and she says there's a lot that's wrong with it. From the beginning, she has been cooperating fully with [Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong] and the police, and she looks forward to testifying truthfully at the trial." Thomas replies, "She has given us several statements, so I don't see any room for her to change her story now simply because she has a lawyer speaking for her." Nifong could not be reached for comment.
—Susannah Meadows and Evan Thomas
Sunday, April 16, 2006
Mike Silver On Vince Young
SI's Mike Silver's got a great take on Vince Young's draft stock and why it's not really falling at all. You can read all of it with a click on the title of this post. Here's the first page below:
Still the one
No reason for Young's stock to fall since Rose Bowl
Posted: Friday April 14, 2006 12:04PM; Updated: Friday April 14, 2006 5:11PM
"The trouble with you is the trouble with me. You've got two good eyes but you still don't see...."
-- Grateful Dead, "Casey Jones"
Back when he was at UCLA, my father took a final exam in which the professor presented only a single hypothetical question requiring a yes or no answer, with the addendum, "If yes, explain."
Reasoning that the basic setup of the query begged for an affirmative response, each of my dad's classmates began scribbling furiously -- but my father simply sat at his desk and stared at the test. After a couple of minutes he went with his gut, wrote "No" in his blue book and, to the amazement of his fellow students, walked out of the room and headed straight to Santa Anita to bet on the Daily Double.
It was a hell of a gamble, and it spoke to a basic premise that applies to the NFL's bizarre courtship of former Texas quarterback Vince Young: If the available evidence tells you something is so, there's no need to overthink the question.
Or, to put it another way: Why do so many teams at or near the top of the NFL draft seem to be going to such great lengths to talk themselves out of picking Young?
Yeah, I know, Reggie Bush is fantastic, and his fellow ex-USC backfieldmate, Matt Leinart, is a ballsy leader who's probably going to be a heck of an NFL player. And while I can't say I've watched a whole lot of North Carolina State football recently, I'm sure 6-foot-7 defensive end Mario Williams has the potential to be a pass-rushing beast for some lucky team.
I'm also well aware that at the combine, Young reportedly had a subpar showing on the Wonderlic test, the same faithful measuring stick of intelligence that rated Ryan Leaf 11 points ahead of Dan Marino. And no, Young does not fit the traditional drop-back profile of a classic NFL quarterback, and he'll certainly have to adjust to the speed and complexity of pro defenses and may take some lumps in the process.
Fine. All of those points are valid. Now let me start by offering a two-word rebuttal: Rose Bowl.
Oh yeah, remember that game? My new friend LenDale White does -- more on our burgeoning relationship later -- and the ultra-confident former USC running back is still haunted by the sight of Young snatching a national title from the Trojans by the sheer force of his talent, will and poise.
Did CAA Give Leigh Steinberg "Six Figures" To "Walk Away" From Filing A Greivance Against The CAA / Tom Condon Team?
More on the Matt Leinart Matter. It seems that Chuck Price may have been the agent acting inappropriately. According to Florio at Profootball talk....
PRICE TAKING THE LEAD IN TEAM LEINART
The source that has been feeding us all sorts of interesting tidbits regarding the recent upheaval in the representation team handling USC quarterback Matt Leinart tells us that, while Leinart will replace Leigh Steinberg with Tom Condon of Creative Artists Agency, relative novice Chuck Price has strengthened his position significantly, and could be listed as the lead agent.
Indeed, it was Price's growing influence over the situation that prompted Matt Leinart and his father, Bob, to take a close look at adding a replacement other than Condon. Most observers believed that Leinart's existing relationship with CAA made the choice of Condon a no-brainer, but we're hearing from multiple sources that Ryan and Bruce Tollner, who currently are colleagues of Steinberg, also were under consideration for the Leinart representation. Steinberg, we're told, made a strong push to keep Leinart, and at least one other firm was in the mix.
Word is that the Tollners would have partnered up with Price, if Leinart had chosen to add the Tollners to the team. In fact, we hear that there's a still a possibility that the Tollners will join Price's shop. Some league insiders believe that, if this happens, there's a possibility that the Tollners will carry with them Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. (Of course, the Tollners might want to have a brief chat with David Dunn before trying to leave Steinberg's shop and taking with them one or more of Steinberg's existing clients.)
The winner to date in this process is Price. Widely regard as a wannabe, Price successfully has parlayed relationships with Steinberg and Leinart's personal quarterbacks coach, Steve Clarkson, into the prime spot in the representation team. We're told that Clarkson has now surprisingly been cast aside, too. Some league insiders are convinced that Price intentionally worked to undermine Clarkson with an eye toward getting him dumped.
We're also told that CAA has paid a six-figure sum to Steinberg in order to get him to go away without a fight. In theory, Steinberg could have filed an NFLPA grievance against CAA and/or Condon for tortious interference with the Steinberg-Leinart relationship. There's talk in league circles that Steinberg already has exercised his prerogative to file such a claim against Gary Uberstine, based upon the recent decision of USC offensive tackle Winston Justice to switch from Steinberg to Uberstine.
We've been trading phone messages with Steinberg over the past couple of days, and we hope to talk to him on Monday in order to clarify some of these issues. Stay tuned.
I too will check in on this. Whatever the story, it reads as sleezy acting on CAA's part. I think the NFLPA should step in and take action, period. Moreover, I think Leigh should get seven-figures for damages, not six. But I wonder if this really offer happened. It may have, and it may be that Leigh decided to reject it.
More soon.
PRICE TAKING THE LEAD IN TEAM LEINART
The source that has been feeding us all sorts of interesting tidbits regarding the recent upheaval in the representation team handling USC quarterback Matt Leinart tells us that, while Leinart will replace Leigh Steinberg with Tom Condon of Creative Artists Agency, relative novice Chuck Price has strengthened his position significantly, and could be listed as the lead agent.
Indeed, it was Price's growing influence over the situation that prompted Matt Leinart and his father, Bob, to take a close look at adding a replacement other than Condon. Most observers believed that Leinart's existing relationship with CAA made the choice of Condon a no-brainer, but we're hearing from multiple sources that Ryan and Bruce Tollner, who currently are colleagues of Steinberg, also were under consideration for the Leinart representation. Steinberg, we're told, made a strong push to keep Leinart, and at least one other firm was in the mix.
Word is that the Tollners would have partnered up with Price, if Leinart had chosen to add the Tollners to the team. In fact, we hear that there's a still a possibility that the Tollners will join Price's shop. Some league insiders believe that, if this happens, there's a possibility that the Tollners will carry with them Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. (Of course, the Tollners might want to have a brief chat with David Dunn before trying to leave Steinberg's shop and taking with them one or more of Steinberg's existing clients.)
The winner to date in this process is Price. Widely regard as a wannabe, Price successfully has parlayed relationships with Steinberg and Leinart's personal quarterbacks coach, Steve Clarkson, into the prime spot in the representation team. We're told that Clarkson has now surprisingly been cast aside, too. Some league insiders are convinced that Price intentionally worked to undermine Clarkson with an eye toward getting him dumped.
We're also told that CAA has paid a six-figure sum to Steinberg in order to get him to go away without a fight. In theory, Steinberg could have filed an NFLPA grievance against CAA and/or Condon for tortious interference with the Steinberg-Leinart relationship. There's talk in league circles that Steinberg already has exercised his prerogative to file such a claim against Gary Uberstine, based upon the recent decision of USC offensive tackle Winston Justice to switch from Steinberg to Uberstine.
We've been trading phone messages with Steinberg over the past couple of days, and we hope to talk to him on Monday in order to clarify some of these issues. Stay tuned.
I too will check in on this. Whatever the story, it reads as sleezy acting on CAA's part. I think the NFLPA should step in and take action, period. Moreover, I think Leigh should get seven-figures for damages, not six. But I wonder if this really offer happened. It may have, and it may be that Leigh decided to reject it.
More soon.
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Did SF Mayor -- And Friend -- Gavin Newsom Have A "Fling" With Paris Hilton?
I found this bit of news just a minute ago. If it's true, all I've got to say is Dude gets around. It does not alter the fact that he's an effective elected official. -- Zennie
John Kennedy, canada.com
Published: Wednesday, April 12, 2006
Paris Hilton had a fling with San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, according to sources -- and it might have led to his split from wife Kimberly Guilfoyle. Insiders claim Newsom had some explaining to do when Hilton's Sidekick was hacked into and his name and number came up. Not long after, he and Guilfoyle separated.
Donald Rumsfeld, Defense Secretary - Wash Post Columnist Calls For His Ouster
I agree, but who does President Bush replauce Rummy with? It's one thing to get rid of him but how do we salvage this mess?
Replace Rumsfeld
By David Ignatius
Friday, April 14, 2006; Page A17
With luck, Iraq will make a fresh start soon with the formation of a new government. The Bush administration should do the same thing by replacing Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary.
Rumsfeld has lost the support of the uniformed military officers who work for him. Make no mistake: The retired generals who are speaking out against Rumsfeld in interviews and op-ed pieces express the views of hundreds of other officers on active duty. When I recently asked an Army officer with extensive Iraq combat experience how many of his colleagues wanted Rumsfeld out, he guessed 75 percent. Based on my own conversations with senior officers over the past three years, I suspect that figure may be low.
But that isn't the reason he should be replaced. Military officers often dislike the civilians they work for, but in our system strong civilian control is essential. On some of the issues over which he has tangled with the military brass, Rumsfeld has been right. The Pentagon is a hidebound place, and it has needed the "transformation" ethic Rumsfeld brought to his job. I'm dubious about the Pentagon conventional wisdom that we needed 500,000 American troops in Iraq. More troops were necessary, but they should have been Iraqi troops from an army that wasn't disbanded.
Rumsfeld should resign because the Bush administration is losing the war on the home front. As bad as things are in Baghdad, America won't be defeated there militarily. But it may be forced into a hasty and chaotic retreat by mounting domestic opposition to its policy. Much of the American public has simply stopped believing the administration's arguments about Iraq, and Rumsfeld is a symbol of that credibility gap. He is a spent force, reduced to squabbling with the secretary of state about whether "tactical errors" were made in the war's conduct.
The Bush administration has rightly been insisting that the Iraqis put unity first and that in forming a permanent government they remove ineffectual and divisive leaders and replace them with people who can pull the country together. The administration should heed its own advice. America needs leadership that can speak to the whole country, not just the people who already agree with the president.
Rumsfeld's replacement should be someone who can help restore a bipartisan consensus for a sensible Iraq policy. One obvious candidate would be the centrist Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman. Another would be a centrist Republican with military experience, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel or Sen. John McCain. The administration would have to swallow its pride to take any of them on board, but that's the point: Without bold moves from the White House, support for the war will continue to slip away.
It now seems clear that President Bush can't erase the Iraq credibility gap on his own. He has been trying to rebuild consensus for the war for months, in a series of speeches and strategy papers. But the poll numbers keep going down. His job approval ratings have fallen below 40 percent in all the latest polls, with Post-ABC News at 38 percent, CNN-USA Today-Gallup at 37 percent and Fox-Opinion Dynamics at 36 percent. Support for the war has crumbled even more sharply. The latest Post-ABC poll found that 58 percent of the country now feels the war wasn't worth fighting, compared with 27 percent back in April 2003.
If the Iraqis can form a unity government -- and that's certainly a big "if" -- they will need America's help in pulling the country back from civil war. America now has a better military strategy for Iraq, one that puts more responsibility on Iraqi forces and emphasizes counterinsurgency tactics. And it has a political strategy that is at last reaching out to all the different Iraqi communities -- Sunni, Shiite and Kurd -- rather than to a handful of former exile leaders. This political-military strategy may fail, but it's too soon to make that call. To buy some time, the administration needs a new political base. If it continues with the same team, it will get the same result.
Rumsfeld is a stubborn man, and I suspect the parade of retired generals calling for his head has only made him more determined to hold on. But by staying in his job, Rumsfeld is hurting the cause he presumably cares most about. The president, even more stubborn than his Pentagon chief, is said to have rejected his offer to resign. If that's so, it's time for Rumsfeld to take the matter out of Bush's hands.
The administration needs to look this one clearly in the eye: Without changes that shore up public support in America, it risks losing the war in Iraq.
davidignatius@washpost.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)