fortdick
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 6,496
- Reaction score
- 745
A distraction how? Is it keeping us from winning games?
Well, he sure didn't do anything against Phillie to help win.
A distraction how? Is it keeping us from winning games?
Either A) Hardy is incredibly stupid. B) He has no handlers. C) Both. Adrian Peterson is past it. Why? He let it die.
Well, he sure didn't do anything against Phillie to help win.
If it were me and I were innocent i'd feel the need to give my side of the story if everyone was making me out to be some kind of monster.
The only thing that would stop me from explaining my innocence would be my multi million dollar salary that comes from my employer telling me to keep my mouth shut.
this is a huge distraction they should of never signed him the return on the investment is just not very good.
Well considering a court found him innocent and his record was expunged the media is stating opinion is fact. That's just the legal aspect of it. The media is essentially going after Hardy saying it happened when they don't know for sure it did.
He has already been convicted in the court of public opinion. It would take her saying she made it all up at his point for him to look innocent. Aint gonna happen. Needs to put it behind him. That is why he isnt very smart.
Anybody else find it slightly ironic that D Ware was constantly criticized here on CZ for piling up lots of sacks that weren't particularly "impactful" and now you have Hardy essentially in the same boat.
For me personally, it's a total indictment the whole idea that Ware's sacks were somehow not as valuable a other players sacks.
One man, one sack per game (which is 16 for a season and considered top notch) by itself is never going to be ultimate game changer. It takes a heck of a lot more than that...
No, a court did not find him innocent. A judge found him guilty. Upon appeal, his case was thrown out because, in part, Hardy paid Holder to essentially go away.
The case was shaky even so, but Holder not being available to testify basically sunk this case.
So Hardy was not found innocent. In fact, the court's don't even use the term "innocent" in a verdict. It's always not guilty because "innocent" conveys a different meaning, i.e., that you didn't commit the crime.
Not guilty is based on evidence presented in the case, i.e., you may have done it but there's not enough evidence to prove you did it, thus, not guilty of the charges presented against you in this case.
Why to folks keep misrepresenting what happened? He was not found innocent! The only finding was guilty at the first trial. The charges were DISMISSED after he bribed the victim to not testify. Very far from being found innocent.
Defend Hardy if you must, but at least tell the truth while you do so!
And as usual you are willfully blind to the whole story. Like how unreliable she would have been on the stand being cross examined by a competent attorney whiles she tried to explain all the contradictions in her various statements and how come none of the photos showed evidence of her being tossed through the air into a bath tub, etc. Covered witd bruises? Wrong or delusional which are you? AND how do you know those bruises came from hardy and maybe someone else she tried to extort money from. AND ALSO YOU IGNORE her previous history. Give up yet?Why to folks keep misrepresenting what happened? He was not found innocent! The only finding was guilty at the first trial. The charges were DISMISSED after he bribed the victim to not testify. Very far from being found innocent.
Defend Hardy if you must, but at least tell the truth while you do so!
Well I wouldn't be very smart in this situation as well if it were me and I was truly innocent.
lol, okay a sack never helps, whatever.
You arent a high profile athlete making millions. There's a difference.
For those saying he should shut up I say why don't you?
The mediots are not going to let up. So why should he?
Well, he sure didn't do anything against Phillie to help win.
And as usual you are willfully blind to the whole story. Like how unreliable she would have been on the stand being cross examined by a competent attorney whiles she tried to explain all the contradictions in her various statements and how come none of the photos showed evidence of her being tossed through the air into a bath tub, etc. Covered witd bruises? Wrong or delusional which are you? AND how do you know those bruises came from hardy and maybe someone else she tried to extort money from. AND ALSO YOU IGNORE her previous history. Give up yet?
Our best dlineman, Dallas needs Hardy