Aaron Hernandez Thread

TO.

randomCluster wrote: »

Hernandez and I are two different animals. I wasn't taking selfies of myself in college whilst holding a gun. Belichick drafted Hernandez when other teams took him off their boards because of his questionable character issues. He knew he was dealing with a flawed character and he's responsible for bringing him into the organisation. I'm sure any well run team will keep an eye on their multi-million dollar assets off the pitch - it'd constitute too much of a risk not to. Hernandez's old team mate Tebow sure as hell wasn't brought in for his QB skills. As for my boss, well unfortunately my salary indicates that I am eminently replaceable. Therefore, it makes little financial sense to monitor my social life or what I post on facebook.

Everything you wrote here is product of what came out in the media when he became a suspect in a murder. It is sad that people have believed everything they read after the media start spinning story after story about what the Patriots knew and what Hernandez did in college and the gang bangers he hung around with.

When Aaron Hernandez got drafted why did none of these so called prior issues come to light? When Aaron Hernandez got his large contract by the Patriots why did none of these issues come to light? Surely releasing his prior history and making a NFL organisation look silly would have been a juicier story especially at the time. Its not like he went to a small school. He went to one of the top SEC schools.

Or is it the fact that neither Florida or the Patriots knew any of his so called gang issues? Just maybe Florida covered it up or in fact knew nothing about it so in turn all the NFL teams knew was that Hernandez was a huge maryjane smoker and had drug issues.

There is also the fact not one former Florida Student or player has ever come forward and said anything other than Hernandez had some questionable friends and got into the odd tussle something which some of us in here can even relate to. I had some questionable friends and got into some fights, does that give me character issues that future employers should keep in mind?

There has not been one shred of actual evidence released that was not questionable in itself about who Hernandez really is. And until something concrete actually comes to light or it comes from the horses mouth then I am going to actually stand by the Patriots and say they didn't know.

Easy to throw a lot of ****e out there hoping some of it will stick after a guy has been accused and charged with murder. For what its worth plenty of murderers have gone through life showing little or no signs of character issues until they actually committed the crime.

Chucky the tree

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

You need the understand that being an NFL player is not a hobby or recreational activity. It is a job and a career, like your job and your career. Yes they are blessed to get paid for what they enjoy doing. But the fact that they play football, does nothing to change the fact that they are employed by the teams they play for and are therefore employees.

So once again I ask...

Is a Coach in charge of a team of players, or is he in charge of every players life outside of football?

If you leave your place of work, is your boss responsible for who you hang out with?

Is your boss accountable for what you do with whom you hang out with?

And should your boss take any sort of blame for who you might murder, maim or injure outside of the workplace?

I already understand being a NFL player isn't a hobby and I know they are employees. That doesn't stop NFL players being different to 99% of other employees though. A coach(GM/owner) isn't in charge of a players life otuside of the NFL, but he should have some idea what he is doing outside of that life.

I never said Bellicheck is accountable or should be blamed for the murder or what Hernandez did away from the Pats. I do think it's quite foolish for any NFL organisation not to have any idea what one of their highest paid players gets up to when he isn't playing football though.

Son Of A Vidic

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I already understand being a NFL player isn't a hobby and I know they are employees. That doesn't stop NFL players being different to 99% of other employees though.

Eh how? They sign contracts, they are employees of a team how are they different?

Chucky the tree wrote: »

A coach(GM/owner) isn't in charge of a players life otuside of the NFL, but he should have some idea what he is doing outside of that life.

Fascinating and why is that? And indeed why should that be? Isn't an NFL head coach busy enough as is it, to be wondering if Mickey is having a barbie on Saturday with some teammates. Or hang on, is he hitting the town with some of his own mates from outside of the team?

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I never said Belichick is accountable or should be blamed for the murder or what Hernandez did away from the Pats. I do think it's quite foolish for any NFL organisation not to have any idea what one of their highest paid players gets up to when he isn't playing football though.

But no NFL franchise can or will know what 61 players get up to outside of football. It's not possible to do so, unless an NSA style surveillance program is instigated. We are also talking about grown adults here, they have signed contracts and by doing so, every team expects a certain level of conduct from them.

And to repeat what I said earlier. Apart from the serious legal issues and breaches of an individuals right to privacy, monitoring outside their place of work would constitute. The National Football League Players Association (Players Union) would have a field day and bury a team in the courts.

Anyone who thinks a NFL franchise has the manpower and resources to monitor, the out of hours activity of a 53 man roster and the 8 man practice squad. Is seriously deluded and needs to realise that American Law, offers very robust protections for an individuals right to privacy.

randomCluster

We're not talking about 24 hour surveillance and overhead drones. As for Larry Murphy, the Gardai, my boss, me, my state of mind - let's just focus on Bill Belichick otherwise this forum will descend into a rambling game of ping pong.

First of all - I have great respect Belichick's achievements. I appreciate the criticism being levelled at him is all 20/20 hindsight. But I think he took his eye off the ball with Hernandez. Of course he can't be held accountable for Hernandez's actions. How much did he know about Hernandez's off-field activities - not a whole lot. But like I said before, he's the man who drafted him when other teams stayed away. It's up to him to make sure that the structures are in place to ensure that his players do not damage the Patriots brand. A code of conduct if you will and that it's adhered to. Belichick didn't see the warning signs because he had no warning system in place.

To quote the Rolling Stone article:

But the seeds of the fiasco were sown years earlier, when Belichick replaced the Pats’ security chief with a tech-smart Brit named Mark Briggs. The NFL and its teams spend millions each year employing a web of former cops and ex-FBI agents to keep an eye on players and their posses. For decades, the Patriots relied on a homegrown crew of retired state troopers to do surveillance. Whenever a player popped up where he didn’t belong – a strip joint in Southie or a weed spot in Brockton – Frank Mendes, the team security chief from 1990 to 2003 and a former state trooper himself, would get a call from his cop or statie friends, whether they were on payroll or not. “I’d have known within a half-hour if Hernandez had gotten in trouble with police,” he says, “and told Belichick and he’d do whatever.” But when Belichick hired Briggs, who’d managed security at London’s Wembley Stadium and had limited street associates in the States, the tips from cops and troopers dried up. “The Patriots aren’t receptive to those kind of calls,” says a law-enforcement official who knows the team and dislikes Briggs. “It’s not a friendly environment to call over.”

Chucky the tree

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Eh how? They sign contracts, they are employees of a team how are they different?

you average employee won't drag the name of his company through the mud in front of the national media when he does something illegal outside of work hours, the average employee isn't also paid multiple millions of dollars either.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Fascinating and why is that? And indeed why should that be? Isn't an NFL head coach busy enough as is it, to be wondering if Mickey is having a barbie on Saturday with some teammates. Or hang on, is he hitting the town with some of his own mates from outside of the team?

Because they invest millions of dollars into the players. I think it would be very important to know what they do off the field. Does he smoke pot religiously? Does he have a drinking problem? Is he involved in criminal activity? I'd have thought these are all important questions to know the answer to when giving some £10m+.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

But no NFL franchise can or will know what 61 players get up to outside of football. It's not possible to do so, unless an NSA style surveillance program is instigated. We are also talking about grown adults here, they have signed contracts and by doing so, every team expects a certain level of conduct from them.

And to repeat what I said earlier. Apart from the serious legal issues and breaches of an individuals right to privacy, monitoring outside their place of work would constitute. The National Football League Players Association (Players Union) would have a field day and bury a team in the courts.

Anyone who thinks a NFL franchise has the manpower and resources to monitor, the out of hours activity of a 53 man roster and the 8 man practice squad. Is seriously deluded and needs to realise that American Law, offers very robust protections for an individuals right to privacy.

What would legal issues would they be from having a Private investigator look into someone? Obviously you can't follow all 61 players, but I'd start with the highest paid and work my way down if I was an NFL owner. Especially when it came to contract renewal time. For the lower guys then I wouldn't really care, they are fodder who can be cut and easily replaced and they aren't well paid(compared to other players).

Son Of A Vidic

randomCluster wrote: »

We're not talking about 24 hour surveillance and overhead drones. As for Larry Murphy, the Gardai, my boss, me, my state of mind - let's just focus on Bill Belichick otherwise this forum will descend into a rambling game of ping pong.

Well it's your call, since you did bring it up after all.

randomCluster wrote: »

First of all - I have great respect Belichick's achievements. I appreciate the criticism being levelled at him is all 20/20 hindsight. But I think he took his eye off the ball with Hernandez. Of course he can't be held accountable for Hernandez's actions. How much did he know about Hernandez's off-field activities - not a whole lot. But like I said before, he's the man who drafted him when other teams stayed away. It's up to him to make sure that the structures are in place to ensure that his players do not damage the Patriots brand. A code of conduct if you will and that it's adhered to. Belichick didn't see the warning signs because he had no warning system in place.

I have no issue with any of that, except for the structures in place part. The structures were in place but they failed. No one is denying that, Robert Kraft himself said they would review their current system and improve it where possible.

randomCluster wrote: »

To quote the Rolling Stone article:

Why are you still bothering quoting that work of fiction for? And regardless of the unsourced rubbish in the article itself, Rolling Stone is not known for it's journalistic integrity. It is an entertainment rag and it carries as much weight as an article in The Sun would carry.

Hazys

A couple of things i find funny about the article are that it was obvious that Hernandez was crying out for help and BB didn't nothing about it, the other was the arrogance of the BB trading people with character concerns for trophy's in the draft.

So Ron Borges states that it was obvious that Hernandez was crying out for help and that even with all the signs, the Patriots signed him to a $40m contract. Yet, in all the years as a journalist covering the Patriots, he never once wrote a single article or even a paragraph about Hernandez being the slightest burden to the team, nor did the dozens of the other Patriot beat writers.


The arrogance of BB to draft a person with character concerns. He was trading murder for trophies.

You want your star athlete, if he's going to have a vice, to be a pothead. In fact, hopefully, he's going straight from practice to his TV, blazing up and watching cartoons all afternoon. That means he's not getting in real trouble. Yet every year, great talents like Percy Harvin and Moss and Sapp plummet in the draft because of failed weed tests, and smart teams scoop them up
....
in general, [2013 is] a solid class of potsmokers. Mr. Khan, if you're listening, pick any of them if they're around late, a la Hernandez.

Who published this article? Oh only Rolling Stone 4 months ago
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-nfl-draft-decoded-part-iii-20130423

Son Of A Vidic

Chucky the tree wrote: »

you average employee won't drag the name of his company through the mud in front of the national media when he does something illegal outside of work hours, the average employee isn't also paid multiple millions of dollars either.

Sorry, people in employment carry out crimes everyday. Hernandez isn't the first NFL franchise employee to be involved in criminal activity and he won't be the last. No contract of employment contains a 'hand holding' clause - where an employer is expected to hold the hand, watch and mind its employees outside of the workplace. If someone behaves like a thug outside of work? Well that's on them and not their employer.

He didn't drag anyone's name through the mud except for his own. The Patriots were universally praised throughout the NFL world, for how quickly they dealt with the situation. Regardless of the pain to themselves they did the right thing. Of course the arrival of the hindsight brigade is always inevitable in situations like this. But such is the nature of trolls I suppose.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Because they invest millions of dollars into the players. I think it would be very important to know what they do off the field. Does he smoke pot religiously? Does he have a drinking problem? Is he involved in criminal activity? I'd have thought these are all important questions to know the answer to when giving some £10m+.

I would have thought that all his passed drug tests, indicated that he was not a drug user in the NFL. Anyway, the rest of your questions could only be answered if a surveillance program was in place. And I'm pretty sure that no team in the NFL, has a player surveillance program in place.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

What would legal issues would they be from having a Private investigator look into someone? Obviously you can't follow all 61 players, but I'd start with the highest paid and work my way down if I was an NFL owner. Especially when it came to contract renewal time. For the lower guys then I wouldn't really care, they are fodder who can be cut and easily replaced and they aren't well paid(compared to other players).

How effective would a PI be? One of the prerequisites of holding a PI license in the US, is respecting the individuals right to privacy. A PI cannot obtain any information that is private or that cannot be obtained by public means.

Example 1 - a PI cannot enter the grounds of a private property to photograph, or to carry out surveillance on a target. Doing so is regarded as a breach of their PI license and opens them to criminal prosecution and the loss of their license.

Example 2 - But they can photograph or watch someone in the street or public area. Because it is a public place and under US law, it is deemed to be "Information that is publicly available." and thus not a breach of their rights to privacy.

So bearing all that in mind, what good would a PI be? Since a PI cannot under law enter Hernandez's house, his secret apartment or any of his cars. What good would they have been? This guy conducted his affairs in private and did a damn fine job fooling everyone.

Remember the cooing babblings of the media last summer, when he signed the new contract? Once again the Pats were widely praised for conducting a wonderful piece of business. Nobody, I mean nobody had a clue about who he really was.

FOX Sports has learned one of the services that provide predraft psychological profiles for select NFL teams gave Hernandez a perfect test score when he was coming out of the University of Florida following his junior season.
“It’s an interesting thing,” the executive said. “Other guys have gotten written up with much worse scores but not gotten into trouble.”

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/aaron-hernandez-investigation-tight-end-had-perfect-score-in-predraft-psychological-test-062013

But that's what a sociopath can do, they fool everyone through deception. Him fooling his psych evaluation tests, sums up the nature of the beast.

bruschi

randomCluster wrote: »

To quote the Rolling Stone article:

But the seeds of the fiasco were sown years earlier, when Belichick replaced the Pats’ security chief with a tech-smart Brit named Mark Briggs. The NFL and its teams spend millions each year employing a web of former cops and ex-FBI agents to keep an eye on players and their posses. For decades, the Patriots relied on a homegrown crew of retired state troopers to do surveillance. Whenever a player popped up where he didn’t belong – a strip joint in Southie or a weed spot in Brockton – Frank Mendes, the team security chief from 1990 to 2003 and a former state trooper himself, would get a call from his cop or statie friends, whether they were on payroll or not. “I’d have known within a half-hour if Hernandez had gotten in trouble with police,” he says, “and told Belichick and he’d do whatever.” But when Belichick hired Briggs, who’d managed security at London’s Wembley Stadium and had limited street associates in the States, the tips from cops and troopers dried up. “The Patriots aren’t receptive to those kind of calls,” says a law-enforcement official who knows the team and dislikes Briggs. “It’s not a friendly environment to call over.”

that whole paragraph was an absolute load of rubbish. Why would anyone ever think that a coach of a team would be the one to hire the chief of security.

Just to have some counteraction on those who believe this whole article to be factual:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/9613621/new-england-patriots-president-jonathan-kraft-disputes-aaron-hernandez-report-rolling-stone

Kraft also defended Briggs and said it was not Belichick who made the decision to replace Frank Mendes, the team's security chief from 1990 to 2003, with Briggs, as had been reported by Rolling Stone.
Because of what he deemed factual inaccuracies, Kraft said he isn't sure how much of the article is true.
"I read that article, and there's so much in it, and it reads like it's all factual, people were there, yet there are no named [sources]," Kraft said. "It's all unnamed, and yet it appears like people are in some very private moments and got the dialogue just right. Nothing is sourced, and reading the article, there were three things or two, three, four things in particular that I saw and I just know are completely factually inaccurate, I mean not close to being factually accurate. Just inaccurate. So I look at it and I read the article, and you wonder how much else in there is."
The Rolling Stone story cited "longtime family friends" who insisted on anonymity as sources of the information on Hernandez.

and I actually agree more with chucky in that the owners and coach should know what a player is doing in his personal life. as with any job. if you are an alcoholic or have family problems or whatever, it affects your work, no matter what your work is, so definitely there should be an element of knowledge of what they are doing in their private life. But if a player is not showing any signs of trouble, and without having to resort to hiring individual minders for the sole purpose of following them, then there isnt a massive amount they can do.

I doubt any team doesnt do checks or keeps an eye out on their players and their activities. But if Hernandez was able to keep things so quiet for so long, and stories only popping up now in hindsight, then what more could anyone have done? you cant predict someone is going to go out and murder someone, and if you could, you wouldnt sign them to a long term $40m contract.

TO.

bruschi wrote: »

and I actually agree more with chucky in that the owners and coach should know what a player is doing in his personal life. as with any job. if you are an alcoholic or have family problems or whatever, it affects your work, no matter what your work is, so definitely there should be an element of knowledge of what they are doing in their private life. But if a player is not showing any signs of trouble, and without having to resort to hiring individual minders for the sole purpose of following them, then there isnt a massive amount they can do.

I doubt any team doesnt do checks or keeps an eye out on their players and their activities. But if Hernandez was able to keep things so quiet for so long, and stories only popping up now in hindsight, then what more could anyone have done? you cant predict someone is going to go out and murder someone, and if you could, you wouldnt sign them to a long term $40m contract.

I agree with both Chucky and Corvus. I have a feeling the answer is actually somewhere in between. Athletes although employees are seen in a different light than a normal employee. They are open to more criticism due to the nature of their roles and how much they get paid and how open they are to the general public and media.

Sure teams should know a lot of what goes on with their players but lets face it that is not always possible. I would hazard a guess and say most Professional sporting bodies only know a small % of their players personal lives because it is impossible to track them all and as corvus said Player unions probably have some stipulations in there saying a club cannot delve too deep into an issue.

But I will say I talked to a couple of Head Coaches in colleges and they told me no head coach will ever deal with a player the way the rolling stone article suggests Bill did. They club has protocols and staff that do that for them. The teams security and Player personnel officers generally deal with player issues outside the club boundaries. Head coaches do offer advice to guys who need it and sit down with them but they never interfere with their personal lives or get involved with their lives outside the team unless it becomes an issue to the team and he has to bench band or cut the player.

Chucky the tree

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Sorry, people in employment carry out crimes everyday. Hernandez isn't the first NFL franchise employee to be involved in criminal activity and he won't be the last. No contract of employment contains a 'hand holding' clause - where an employer is expected to hold the hand, watch and mind its employees outside of the workplace. If someone behaves like a thug outside of work? Well that's on them and not their employer.

If I look at rte website and look up crimes then chances are it won't list the palce of work for a person who has been arrested. It will be with a famous sports star obviously. When their employer(like the Pats) stand to lose millions then you'd think a bit of common sense would come into play and they'd have even a tiny interest in what their players do outside of work.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

He didn't drag anyone's name through the mud except for his own. The Patriots were universally praised throughout the NFL world, for how quickly they dealt with the situation. Regardless of the pain to themselves they did the right thing. Of course the arrival of the hindsight brigade is always inevitable in situations like this. But such is the nature of trolls I suppose.

Why do you think the NFL suspends players who get arrested? For the lols? No, it's because players getting arrested tarnished their images, just like it did with Hernandez. If you think I am a troll then you must be some retard to waste your time replying to me.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I would have thought that all his passed drug tests, indicated that he was not a drug user in the NFL. Anyway, the rest of your questions could only be answered if a surveillance program was in place. And I'm pretty sure that no team in the NFL, has a player surveillance program in place.

Well jeez, clearly if he passed all those drug tests then he must be clean. Quickly, someone tell Lance Armstrong he is innocent because he passed all those drug tests. :pac: It's very easy to be a drug user in the NFL and get away with it, you can't honestly claim that every player who's never failed a drugs test has never taken any type of banend/illegal substance before.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

How effective would a PI be? One of the prerequisites of holding a PI license in the US, is respecting the individuals right to privacy. A PI cannot obtain any information that is private or that cannot be obtained by public means.

Example 1 - a PI cannot enter the grounds of a private property to photograph, or to carry out surveillance on a target. Doing so is regarded as a breach of their PI license and opens them to criminal prosecution and the loss of their license.

Example 2 - But they can photograph or watch someone in the street or public area. Because it is a public place and under US law, it is deemed to be "Information that is publicly available." and thus not a breach of their rights to privacy.

So bearing all that in mind, what good would a PI be? Since a PI cannot under law enter Hernandez's house, his secret apartment or any of his cars. What good would they have been? This guy conducted his affairs in private and did a damn fine job fooling everyone.

Remember the cooing babblings of the media last summer, when he signed the new contract? Once again the Pats were widely praised for conducting a wonderful piece of business. Nobody, I mean nobody had a clue about who he really was.


http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/aaron-hernandez-investigation-tight-end-had-perfect-score-in-predraft-psychological-test-062013

But that's what a sociopath can do, they fool everyone through deception. Him fooling his psych evaluation tests, sums up the nature of the beast.

A PI can follow him, see where he goes, who he hangs out with, what clubs he visits, how often etc. I'd say there is a huge amount of information you could pick up about someone if you followed them for a few weeks. For example a PI following Hernandez would could have possibly seen the alleged other crimes Hernandez committed before that night. Hell, if only a PI was following him that night!

Son Of A Vidic

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If I look at rte website and look up crimes then chances are it won't list the palce of work for a person who has been arrested. It will be with a famous sports star obviously. When their employer(like the Pats) stand to lose millions then you'd think a bit of common sense would come into play and they'd have even a tiny interest in what their players do outside of work.

And my point is conveniently overlooked is - no team in the NFL employs PI's to monitor their 61 players. It hasn't happened before and it is not going to happen.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

If you think I am a troll then you must be some retard to waste your time replying to me.

I must say, I do ask myself that sometimes. But that's more from pure exasperation on my part rather than a genuine belief. But just to get some facts straight, I did not call you a troll and this is the context of what I said...

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

The Patriots were universally praised throughout the NFL world, for how quickly they dealt with the situation. Regardless of the pain to themselves they did the right thing. Of course the arrival of the hindsight brigade is always inevitable in situations like this. But such is the nature of trolls I suppose.

Note the use of the plural there rather than the singular. That's called a general statement = non-specific = it was not directed at you. But at those like Rolling Stone & the like. Now if you think that is about you? Well then it probably says more about you than it does about me.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Well jeez, clearly if he passed all those drug tests then he must be clean. Quickly, someone tell Lance Armstrong he is innocent because he passed all those drug tests. :pac: It's very easy to be a drug user in the NFL and get away with it, you can't honestly claim that every player who's never failed a drugs test has never taken any type of banend/illegal substance before.

And look, there he goes yet again, making claims that I never made. But I willl address this since you are kinda delving into my professional area. Don't worry, I won't bore you with all medical & boring stuff ect, so I'll try and be brief here.

First of all you are confusing performance enhancing drugs with cannbis use. The following drugs and conditions can give a false positive for cannabis. These are oftern used to mask cannbis since they give a false positive -Ibuprofen; (Advil, Nuprin, Motrin, Excedrin IB etc) Naproxen, (Aleve) Ketoprofen (Orudis KT), Promethazine (Phenergan, Promethegan)Riboflavin (B2, Hempseed Oil) and Dronabinol (Marinol)

You will fail the test, but the hope is that testers may swallow the false positive line and not suspect masking. Which is unlikely to happen I must add. Hernandez never failed or had any false positive results in the NFL. Cannabis is detectable in urine for 1-5 days after use, 1-3 weeks in regular users and 4-6 weeks for daily users. But since testing is now done predominantly on a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) analyser. The above agents no longer give false positives or mask cannabis use. If the NFL is carrying our hair follicle sampling, then cannabis users are totally fúcked. You can't effectively mask cannabis, hence the reason a lot of guys guys get caught. Do you know the main reason why PED's are detected in the NFL? It's through the use and detection of masking agents.

Now since you mentioned Lance Armstrong. Lance as former cancer sufferer and as a treatment protocol for testicular cancer, would have underwent 5 course of high dose chemo and radiotherapy. He would have been in an immunosuppressed, highly neutropenic state for a varying period of time after each course. During this period, the treatment would have eradicating cancerous cells and also his immune fighting cells.

During this time, a patient is highly vulnerable to such a point, that even their normal skin colonising flora can threaten their life. To offset this and to minimize the risk posed. Patients are administered a subcutaneous injection called G-CSF - Growth Colony Stimulating Factor. G-CSF generates/stimulates the rapid production of undifferentiated cells called stem cells in Bone Marrow.

Armstrong in medical circles, is suspected of using this very advanced, but not very well known and totally undetectable form of cheating. The effect G-CSF has on red cell production alone is staggering. It gives the user a huge increase in red cell hemoglobin carrying capacity. Basically superhuman stamina and endurance, which sums up nicely Armstrong's Tour de France performances. I'll leave it there, but in case you're interested, one injection of G-CSF costs £10,000. So no disrespect, but I don't need you to be telling me about failing tests, not failing test, and what it means etc, etc.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

A PI can follow him, see where he goes, who he hangs out with, what clubs he visits, how often etc. I'd say there is a huge amount of information you could pick up about someone if you followed them for a few weeks. For example a PI following Hernandez would could have possibly seen the alleged other crimes Hernandez committed before that night. Hell, if only a PI was following him that night!

As I said earlier, a PI can carry out his trade in any public area. But Hernandez did not have a PI following him or neither did any of his teammates. And since we had 90 man rosters when the crime occurred, it is also highly unlikely that any of the other 2,880 NFL players at the time, had PI's following them.

Now you can keep harping on all you want about 'could have', 'would have', 'should have'. But I'm not wasting my time any further on this matter.

Chucky the tree

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And my point is conveniently overlooked is - no team in the NFL employs PI's to monitor their 61 players. It hasn't happened before and it is not going to happen.

I never said they should monitor all 61 players. They should be monitoring some of them though.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

I must say, I do ask myself that sometimes. But that's more from pure exasperation on my part rather than a genuine belief. But just to get some facts straight, I did not call you a troll and this is the context of what I said...

Note the use of the plural there rather than the singular. That's called a general statement = non-specific = it was not directed at you. But at those like Rolling Stone & the like. Now if you think that is about you? Well then it probably says more about you than it does about me.

You were replying to me, not Rolling Stones so I hardly think it's that surprising that when you use the word troll I assume you were referring to me. My apologies anyway, I took that up wrong.

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

And look, there he goes yet again, making claims that I never made. But I willl address this since you are kinda delving into my professional area. Don't worry, I won't bore you with all medical & boring stuff ect, so I'll try and be brief here.

First of all you are confusing performance enhancing drugs with cannbis use. The following drugs and conditions can give a false positive for cannabis. These are oftern used to mask cannbis since they give a false positive -Ibuprofen; (Advil, Nuprin, Motrin, Excedrin IB etc) Naproxen, (Aleve) Ketoprofen (Orudis KT), Promethazine (Phenergan, Promethegan)Riboflavin (B2, Hempseed Oil) and Dronabinol (Marinol)

You will fail the test, but the hope is that testers may swallow the false positive line and not suspect masking. Which is unlikely to happen I must add. Hernandez never failed or had any false positive results in the NFL. Cannabis is detectable in urine for 1-5 days after use, 1-3 weeks in regular users and 4-6 weeks for daily users. But since testing is now done predominantly on a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) analyser. The above agents no longer give false positives or mask cannabis use. If the NFL is carrying our hair follicle sampling, then cannabis users are totally fúcked. You can't effectively mask cannabis, hence the reason a lot of guys guys get caught. Do you know the main reason why PED's are detected in the NFL? It's through the use and detection of masking agents.

I'm not confusing performance enhacning drugs with cannabis. Also I never claimed Hernandez was a regular drug user. I don't think the NFL do hair foclice testing either. Unless it's a new thing under the new CBA.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1668902-insiders-perspective-on-nfl-drug-tests

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

As I said earlier, a PI can carry out his trade in any public area. But Hernandez did not have a PI following him or neither did any of his teammates. And since we had 90 man rosters when the crime occurred, it is also highly unlikely that any of the other 2,880 NFL players at the time, had PI's following them.

Now you can keep harping on all you want about 'could have', 'would have', 'should have'. But I'm not wasting my time any further on this matter.

I know he didn't. You asked what good having a PI follow him around would have done when the PI can't go into his etc. I just answered how important having a PI could have been.

Son Of A Vidic

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You were replying to me, not Rolling Stones so I hardly think it's that surprising that when you use the word troll I assume you were referring to me. My apologies anyway, I took that up wrong.

No bother and I appreciate that. But for the record, I'm sorry for not making myself clear.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

I don't think the NFL do hair foclice testing either. Unless it's a new thing under the new CBA.

I'm not sure, in the early Noughties follicle testing wasn't great for cannabis detection, but it was excellent for cocaine. The test has improved since then, but it is more expensive than running a urine check. No doubt the NFL are mindful of that.

Chucky the tree wrote: »

You asked what good having a PI follow him around would have done when the PI can't go into his etc. I just answered how important having a PI could have been.

A PI for every player would be ideal, but the players union would have a field day. The problem then becomes who do you watch and who do you not watch. How do you know who a loose cannon is? I think a better option is a chaperon system, teams would need to increase the size of their security staff to do this. Players signing their rookie contracts should be compelled to sign up to it.

The chaperon would be present when they're out and about. Kind of like a celebrity minder, Keeping them out of trouble and heading off trouble if it is brewing. The chaperon should also be able to evaluate, which friends are trouble and who is not. And update the management & coaches accordingly. A rookie should be contractually obliged to utilise and work with the chaperon system.

By having an overt system in place, it removes any accusations of covert surveillance by a team. But no doubt the players union would have a field. After the end of a rookie contract, the system should end and at least teams would be covered by having this scheme for new players in the league.

helimachoptor

sorry to be a negative nelly on this oh joyous days in NFL..

In short, the Hernandez prosecution has just got a a severe kick in the goolies

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/01/prosecutors-give-up-on-carlos-ortiz-as-witness-against-hernandez/

Jolly Red Giant

helimachoptor wrote: »

sorry to be a negative nelly on this oh joyous days in NFL..

In short, the Hernandez prosecution has just got a a severe kick in the goolies

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/02/01/prosecutors-give-up-on-carlos-ortiz-as-witness-against-hernandez/

Its the job of the prosecution to prove that Hernandez is guilty - if they can't he will walk - and everyone is entitled to due process.

Masked Man

iirc dude isn't walking anywhere. They'll still have him on gun charges.

Jolly Red Giant

looks like the Pats might get dragged into Hernandez's murder trial -

http://www.whdh.com/story/25977219/hernandez-defense-in-court-on-patriots-records

TO.

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

looks like the Pats might get dragged into Hernandez's murder trial -

http://www.whdh.com/story/25977219/hernandez-defense-in-court-on-patriots-records

Old news and no one cares. No one in New England cares No one in America cares and most of all most if not all Pats fans don't give a sh1t. It has nothing to do with football and will really have no bearing on the Patriots as an Organisation.

Paully D

The scouting report would be very interesting. I saw a few reporters on Twitter suggesting that the public just isn't ready to hear the sort of stuff that goes into scouting reports and for that reason I'm intrigued :pac:

ABajaninCork

317 pages!!! That's more like a biography...What on earth do they find to write about?

Masked Man

http://www.si.com/nfl/2014/07/14/aaron-hernandez-investigation-bill-belichick-robert-kraft-new-england-patriots

Last summer, New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick and owner Robert Kraft were interviewed by investigators probing the alleged murders committed by former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez, according to a report from The Boston Globe.

The interviews -- dated August 20 of last year -- were included in a volume of evidence supplied to Hernandez's defense team and filed in Bristol District Court. The evidence also included 33 pages of text messages between Belichick and Hernandez, though the contents of the messages were not included in the court filing.

I'd say those texts would be interesting.

JaMarcusHustle

Masked Man wrote: »

I'd say those texts would be interesting.

Genuinely surprised Belichick texts his players. Find it very hard to picture him texting Hernandez,especially given the probability that Hernandez text speaks like a prat.

helimachoptor

The fiance has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works (just how big is open to interpretation) she has said that he asked her to get rid of a box the day after the murder asked what was in it, she said she didnt know.

Asked did she smell it.. she said it smelled like pot.. this is the first time she's mentioned she smelled it..

The defense will likely argue... it was his drugs box, he expected a search warrant as he and Lloyd were friends and he didnt want to be suspended from the NFL for smoking weed..

All of this after she got immunity, smart woman

j8wk2feszrnpao

helimachoptor wrote: »

All of this after she got immunity, smart woman

I thought that I heard somewhere, that if she doesn't give the required testimony that she promised, then the immunity disappears.
It was a while ago when I heard it discussed, so not sure.

helimachoptor

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I thought that I heard somewhere, that if she doesn't give the required testimony that she promised, then the immunity disappears.
It was a while ago when I heard it discussed, so not sure.

may have been, her immunity was only recently granted, i haven't read the requirements she has to abide by

LuckyLloyd

Is that not a bit...? You get immunity if you testify but only so long as the testimony is exactly what we want...

j8wk2feszrnpao

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Is that not a bit...? You get immunity if you testify but only so long as the testimony is exactly what we want...

I think it's more of, "tell us in court what you've told us when questioned, and then you get immunity".

mcgratheoin

helimachoptor wrote: »

may have been, her immunity was only recently granted, i haven't read the requirements she has to abide by

It's immunity against prosecution based on matters arising from her testimony, essentially it removes the option she may have of invoking the 5th amendment to escape taking the stand (you can't be compelled to give testimony that may incriminate yourself). If she perjures herself the immunity is rescinded, but she can still refuse to testify although she would then be jailed for contempt for the duration of the trial.

SameOleJay

So apparently he was a chain smoker of the green. Never tested positive of course. I found that interesting.