Just being the Devil's advocate here but here's some reasons beyond "because he's Paul Pierce and he said so" that can justify the fact that he didn't flash a gang sign.
-With the exception of maybe one half season where I had medical problems, I have seen just about every game Paul Pierce has played in green and about 10 at Kansas. I have never seen him make this sign and the man has been heated in the past. If he was going to wield a gang sign he's had ample time and opportunity to do so before now when he was a lot less immature than he is now.
-Danny Ainge vehemently denied the use to the point of bringing forth video evidence of its past use. The only thing such an act would accomplish would be in saving Pierce chump change, $25000. It is very common for a GM to appeal for leniency for suspended players but is much less common for a GM to appeal or support a player during a fine situation. Especially a player who earns vastly more than the fine is for. It makes no sense, especially, as EJ has proven, when just the fact that it has already been called a gang sign and people's perceptions are almost never changed from their original take on an issue. Danny getting involved does not put out any bad public relations the Celtics may have incurred. Danny getting involved does not save Pierce sponsorship or endorsement money. Danny getting involved is Danny defending an absurd idea.
-For those that have played any type of organized sports, you know that every team and set of players have their own handshakes, hugs, handsignals, and/or celebrations. I personally have known approximately 15 different high fives, low fives, butt bumps, forearm shivers, handshakes and fourth quarter and pregame signs from just one year of college football. Most of those were meaningless the next year as another group were used. It is not a far fetched idea to believe the hand signal in question is indeed a team created hand signal with a hidden inside meaning. Every team has them. And not every team has video proof of their use. Except maybe the Red Sox who have a seeming endless amounts of hand signals, hand shakes, and celebratory movements.
-Paul Pierce has always supported inner city children and provided alternatives for those kids to grow beyond their neighborhood beginnings. This is the truth about the Truth. His foundation has done everything possible to stop the migration of young men and women into gangs. This lends credibility to his stance.
-Guilt by family association is just wrong. Is Darren McFadden a crackhead because his mother was? Is Amare Stoudemire a drunken driver or a criminal because his mother and brother have been or are in prison? Is DeShawn Stevenson a murderer because his father was? Just because Pierce had a family member who was a gang member does not prove in any way, shape, or form that he knew gang signs. Guilt by family association is just wrong and a horrible reason to use as proof of anyone's knowledge of or proof of anything.
-Guilt by area upbringing is once again wrong. I grew up in the inner city. I knew gang colors and gang tags and what gang controlled what area. But I knew nothing of the interior workings, language, or hand signals of any gang. There are millions of other examples of people just like me. Assuming Pierce's guilt because he grew up in an area where gangs presided is another bad example of proof of anything.
-Regardless of whether the league fined him or not, and for the same reason that EJ believes that Pierce and the Celtics have to deny it was a gang sign, so too does the league have to fine Pierce whether they believe him or not because they to need to not appear as if they condone gang hand signal use. Hence, they have to fine Pierce no matter what. So their stance is proof of nothing.
As I have said many times in this thread, the only person who truly knows what Paul Pierce did for those three seconds he flashed his hand gesture is Paul Pierce. Everything else is conjecture and speculation.
So I guess the question comes down to, if Pierce is the only person who knows for sure and there really exists no concrete evidence either way as to what his intent was, do you believe him when he denies he did flash a gang hand gesture?
This is why I have felt all along that this is a non issue. Do you believe the man or not? It really is that simple.
I do.
Topic: Paul Pierce's maturity / gang signs? (merged) (Read 97855 times)