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.
This is a lot of great expansion of the comment "Because PP and the Celtics organization said so". You have to look closely about why they would have a reason to lie about it. When there is documented proof that the sign he flashed is a gang sign from his neighborhood, you at least have one thing in the corner of "yes it was". Even if he did do it before and I just missed it that doesn't mean that wasn't what was being flashed those times either. I know all about handshakes and signals etc, and have some goofy ones with friends when I was younger that I did, but none of them were known gang signs... Danny's reason for coming out so strongly had nothing to do with PP's fine. It had to do with trying to squash the notion that this is what he did. He doesn't want fans like myself thinking PP was flashing a gang sign. The image is not good for the organization. Once again, step back objectively and ask yourself who has a reason to lie about it?! I think that Danny is an honest guy and is believing what PP is telling him.
Why does anyone have to be lying?
Why does Pierce have to know that the sign he made is a gang gesture because of where he grew up?
There is documented proof that it is a gang sign but there is documented proof that it is a sign the team as a whole has been using all year. So which proof is the reality?
You got the jist of what I was saying about Danny but you missed it's entirety. You say he is honest but imply that he is lying about the hand gesture to protect the Celtic image.
Danny is running to Paul's side because he believes Paul and believes in Paul. The image and reputation he is trying to protect is that of Pierce not the Celtics. That is why he got heated with Stern about it. If he thought Paul was lying he would have kept his mouth shut and let Paul pay the nothing fine. Instead, as you say, lying about it to protect the franchise's reputation.
I have stepped back objectively and I believe that if anyone is lying that it is the league. I'm not convinced that they don't believe Pierce. I am convinced they are giving a multimillionaire many times over a petty cash fine to appease the people who were getting themselves in a tussle about the situation. NBA damage control about a possible customer relations problem. If there was real belief that Pierce was promoting the gang the Bloods something much worse would have come down on Pierce. Players have been suspended for less.
And again it is all a non issue because only Pierce knows for sure and there is proof a plenty on both sides of the discussion to prove and refute any sureties either way.
So do you believe him or not?
EJ, you don't. Others do. No biggie.
Topic: Paul Pierce's maturity / gang signs? (merged) (Read 95435 times)