Saints = Bama.Ding! Ding! Ding!
Further evidence.
Saints = Bama.
Further evidence.
The front page of ESPN right now has an article up about how the Saints should fire Payton and their GM because they knew about the bounties...wow.
The New Orleans Saints find themselves involved in a major scandal after the NFL uncovered a bounty pool of up to $50,000 the last three seasons to reward game-ending injuries inflicted on opposing players.
Bounty Scandal
How big of a problem are bounties around the league? Vote in our polls here.
But this isn't the first time that the league has investigated a team for targeting opposing players for profit. In October 2008, linebacker Terrell Suggs told an Atlanta radio station that the Ravens had "a bounty" -- yes, he used that word -- on wide receiver Hines Ward and running back Rashard Mendenhall.
His comments about a bounty seemed valid because it came after Mendenhall sustained a season-ending shoulder injury on a hit by Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis. Suggs later clarified his remarks, explaining the Ravens were merely planning to keep a close eye on certain players.
"There wasn't any bounty," Suggs said in 2008. "He [the talk show host] asked me if there was a bounty and I just said I'm going to keep a watch on the guy. He [Ward] broke some guy's jaw last week, and he tried to cheap-shot JJ [Jarret Johnson]. He has also cheap-shotted Ed Reed. We're just going to be on alert the next time we play him."
All the NFL did was send Suggs a letter informing him that any further comments or on-field activity indicating his participation in bounty activity could result in "significant disciplinary action."
So, did the Ravens have bounties out on the Steelers? No one can say for sure without any proof. But Suggs knows the definition of "bounty." For him to use that word, it makes this a legitimate question.
Ward first heard of the Ravens having a bounty on him back in January 2002. According to Ward that year, a Ravens player would be rewarded if he could knock out either one on a crossing route. And, if the Ravens were going to put a bounty on someone, you know they would place Ward at the top of that list.
Outside linebacker Jarret Johnson, who is scheduled to be a free agent after playing for the Ravens from 2003 to 2011, told a Baltimore radio station on Saturday that he was unaware of the Ravens ever using a bounty system during his time in the organization.
“I don’t know exactly what [the Saints] were doing,” Johnson said. “In my opinion, in my experience in the NFL, the things you hear about bounties get blown out of proportion."
Johnson was asked if he got extra money for the hard hit he laid on Ward this past season. “I’m sure there were a lot of people that wanted to pay me for it," Johnson said. "But no, I didn’t get paid."
The NFL again has assumed its perpetually awkward position on a high horse, this time by exposing the New Orleans Saints for a bounty program that compromised "the integrity of our game."
That was Roger Goodell's characterization in the league's announcement Friday. He cited the single most important aspect of competition any commissioner is entrusted to protect.
For real.
In related news, Goodell was informed that interior linemen sometimes will say really mean things about each other's moms before a snap.
This crisis — and it's reaching that level, judging by the hyperbolic coast-to-coast coverage over the weekend — was so stunning, so jarring, that its unique impact could be felt ... for nearly an hour.
By late Friday afternoon, Tony Dungy told Pro Football Talk that the Tennessee Titans used to put up bounties on Peyton Manning.
Before dinner, the Washington Post broke that the 2004-07 Redskins — playing for the same defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, being implicated in the New Orleans case — did exactly the same thing.
And by nightfall, current and former NFL players everywhere were nearly unified in their abject ambivalence to this qualifying as news. As Matt Bowen, a safety for those Washington teams, penned for a piece in the Chicago Tribune, "Bounties, cheap shots, whatever you want to call them, they're part of this game."
So, who in Goodell's NFL Security force got the Sherlock Award for this coup?
Was Seal Team 6 summoned?
Understand, please: I'm not making light of athletes putting bounties on competitors. Some of the cases described involving these Saints and Redskins can turn a stomach, not least of which was New Orleans specifically targeting Kurt Warner and Brett Favre for injury. It's an abhorrent practice, and the league is absolutely right to put an immediate and harsh stop to it.
But that shouldn't stop anyone from asking why exactly the NFL waited so long.
Or to question whether the league is serious this time.
You probably remember the league's best chance in recent years to address this, publicly and firmly, even if the league won't appreciate the reminder. Happened in October 2008, soon after a game between the Steelers and Ravens — naturally — when Baltimore loudmouth linebacker Terrell Suggs was part of this exchange on a radio show:
Host: "Did y'all put a bounty out on that young man?"
The reference was to the Steelers' Rashard Mendenhall.
Suggs: "Definitely. The bounty was out on him, and the bounty was out on Hines Ward. We just didn't get him between the whistles."
No, but the Ravens got to Mendenhall. Motivated by money or not, Ray Lewis hit Mendenhall hard enough to end his season with a shoulder injury.
This was NFL executive vice president Ray Anderson's response to Suggs' confession at the time: "That 'bounty' notion is completely against the rules. To the extent that someone is engaged in that activity, we will look into it and address it."
Right. There was no suspension, no fine, not even a finger-wag.
The Ravens' PR staff crafted a statement from Suggs denouncing bounties and — this is a beauty — former coach Brian Billick wrote the following on his blog: "This is standard operating procedure in virtually every locker room in the NFL. ... What is worth commenting on is how stupid it is to talk about it afterward. Locker room talk should be just that."
The NFL, in apparent harmony with Billick's thinking, never spoke of it again.
And now, with the issuing of a single press release, we're supposed to accept that the league — same people, with Goodell and Anderson still in place — suddenly are mortified by this and will come down hard on New Orleans. Multiple draft picks could be docked. The team, as well as individuals, could face huge fines and suspensions. Washington will be next.
Monday, the NFL takes its next step toward washing hands. The league Sunday night leaked word to ESPN that Williams will be summoned to New York on Monday to further discuss the case, even though it's essentially open and shut. The real reason is Williams will draw media attention akin to a perp walk, and we'll all get to put a face to the shame. One that isn't Goodell's.
Changing the culture will take a lot more than this.
The Steelers' Ryan Clark, a member of the Redskins for Williams' first two seasons there, tweeted this Friday: "Whoever is snitching on the Saints D should be ashamed of themselves. No one was talking about the 'bounty' when they got paid. ... I'm not saying 'bounties' are ethical or right but I am saying if you participate don't go back & tell on the people u did it with!"
Say what you will about Clark — who then expected to be taken seriously when claiming Sunday, "I've never been offered $ to put a player out of a game" — but be sure his mindset is richly representative.
What the league needs now is more players standing up to this practice, speaking out as boldly as Arizona's Jay Feely did, also on Twitter: "No place in NFL for bounties. Physical play is an attribute, but malicious intent should be removed."
He's the Cardinals' kicker.
Read more: Kovacevic: NFL ultimate enabler on bounties - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_784905.html#ixzz1oHI3USnv (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_784905.html#ixzz1oHI3USnv)
I'll bet some form of this goes on in every NFL locker room.
THS just posted 4 unanswered replies.
The NFL should yank that Lombardi Trophy from the Saints.
Payton's still seen as a savior to New Orleans just like Brees. I doubt he gets hit with much. I would be really surprised.Williams is gone.
Williams? Yeah. He's got to go. And that's another reason why I think Payton gets off easy. If he gets brought along with Williams, then Fisher has to get hit too.
Williams is gone.
He's the St. Louis Rams's problem now.
My thoughts have pretty much been covered.
It's being overblown for a time in sports when there's not a lot going on to talk about.
"Some form of this goes on in every NFL locker room."
Also, Gregg Williams is the coach involved, and he's gone. Fuck him.
I don't believe Payton had shit to do with it.
Redskins: Williams offered cash-for-hits
WASHINGTON (AP) -- It seems the Washington Redskins have been doing more than just calling out formations between plays in recent seasons. They've also been setting the going rate for big hits.
"If the game was on the line and we had to kick off," said Steve Jackson, a Redskins assistant coach for eight years before he was dismissed in January, "there would be players that would come into the special teams huddle and say, `If you get a tackle inside the 20-yard line, hey, that's 500 bucks.' And they would do the same thing in practice and everything. It was just the culture. Players trying to get each other motivated."
Redskins players told similar stories Monday, even as the team's former defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, met with NFL investigators looking into the big-money bounty program he ran while holding the same position with the New Orleans Saints. While they offered intriguing details of how money changed hands - in a way that happens to violate NFL rules - those who spoke to The Associated Press said there was no outright bounty system in place when Williams was with the team from 2004-07.
"I've never seen a player get any money for hurting anybody," said Kedric Golston, a defensive lineman for the Redskins since 2006. "Gregg did fine people, and he'd pay out. It would be if you got a sack or an interception, or you made a pivotal play. He did fine us, and he did give that money back for doing things `the right way' - as he liked to put it."
Linebacker Lorenzo Alexander said a player could get rewards for knocking a player out of a game, but only after the fact - not as part of a pre-meditated "bounty."
"If you have, like, a big hit, you could possibly get a kitty," Alexander said. "But not to say, `You have to knock this player out,' and knock him out of the game with an injury. So it wasn't a bounty-type thing."
The money didn't come from the official fines announced by the team or the league - those are deducted from paychecks and given to charity - but instead from in-house gaffes, such as being late for a meeting or dropping an interception. Much of it was player-run, or, as Golston put it: ""It was how we policed ourselves."
"Each (position) group had a little kitty," Alexander said. "If you do something stupid, you pay 20 bucks into it and then, from time to time, whoever's the veteran or whoever's the leader in that room would say, `Whoever gets an interception, you get an X amount of dollars from the kitty.' It was nothing malicious."
Alexander said the fines would sometimes get too big for cash, so the offender would write a check instead.
"You have some guys, like the top-echelon guys, that make a lot of good money," the player said, "they'll say, `OK, this week I got $1,000 for whoever gets a sack or whoever gets an interception to the house.' And they'll take that out of their own personal (stash) and give it to them."
Jackson compared such motivational ploys to the "hit stick" that the Redskins for years have given to the player who makes the biggest hit on special teams in a victory.
"We had hit sticks," Jackson said. "We had an `easy boy' recliner. You name it - every motivational bribe - but I don't remember any bounties."
But "bounties" is the exact word used by former Redskins safety Matt Bowen, who wrote on the topic on Friday in a column in the Chicago Tribune. Bowen wrote of prices that "were set on Saturday nights in the team hotel" when he played for the Redskins in the 2004-05 seasons.
"We targeted big names, our sights set on taking them out of the game," Bowen wrote.
Jackson said he doesn't recall anything of the sort, at least from Williams.
"I really don't remember him saying if you intentionally hurt somebody, you're going to get paid," Jackson said.
Jackson takes particular exception to the notion that a bounty system might have led to Peyton Manning's current injury problems. Speculation has it that the Indianapolis Colts quarterback first started having neck trouble when he was sacked by Phillip Daniels and Andre Carter in a game against the Redskins in 2006.
"Phillip Daniels is one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. Andre Carter, another one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet," Jackson said. "They're not necessarily the most violent guys. And to think that Gregg waved a dollar bill out there and all of a sudden they turned into killers? It wasn't Antonio Pierce and Sean Taylor. It was probably two of the nicest most poetry-reading guys on the team."
Neither Daniels nor Carter returned calls seeking comment Monday.
Those higher up in the Redskins chain also denied knowledge of a bounty system under Williams. Joe Gibbs, the head coach when Williams was the defensive coordinator, told The Washington Post he was "not aware of anything like this." Vinny Cerrato, who oversaw the front office during that period, said essentially the same.
"I had no idea that this was going on. I never attended a defensive meeting," Cerrato told the AP. "I think that there are certain things that have gone on for a long time, but not to the extent that people are talking about with trying to put players out. I think when you're trying to injure players, that's not within the rules."
The current Redskins organization, including owner Dan Snyder, has declined to comment.
Williams is facing potentially severe punishment after admitting he ran a bounty pool of up to $50,000 over the last three seasons that rewarded players for knocking targeted opponents out of games while he was with the Saints. The NFL is surely looking to see if he did the same with the Redskins and at his other stops around the league.
But, as it turns out, even those $500 payouts for tackles inside the 20 are against the rules. The NFL warns teams against such practices before each season.
To Jackson, however, that seems as innocuous as a certain gambling obsession that strikes Americans this time of year.
"I'll tell you this," Jackson said. "We also had an office bracket on the March Madness, too. And everybody in the whole building would put in on it."
Former Saints safety Darren Sharper tells NFL Network players never got money to hurt opponents
03/02/12 7:50PM
The Times-Picayune
Former New Orleans Saints safety Darren Sharper, who was a ball-hawking member of the Saints' squad that won the Super Bowl following the 2009 season, gave an interview to the NFL Network on Friday night and said the NFL's assertion that the Saints had a bounty program doesn't make sense to him.
When asked if he ever received extra money for hurting member of an opposing team?
"No, never for hurting a member of the opposite team. But that year, 2009, the amount of plays that I made that year, best believe I got some money off my teammates for making interceptions and scoring touchdowns."
Did he ever put money into a pot that ultimately went toward players who did hurt members of opposing team?
"No, no. And the thing about that situation is that it doesn't make any sense to me that they're saying there was a bounty put on hurting guys during a game. Because the math doesn't make sense. The amount that you would get fined for taking a cheap shot at a guy exponentially is higher than what the amount of money that a bounty could be from a $500 bounty to a couple hundred dollar bounty. So that doesn't make sense at all to me to say that guys would go out there to intentionally hurt guys. Because they're going to hurt themselves and their career, hurt their own pockets. And guys knew that. Especially the ones I was playing with with the Saints because when Commissioner Goodell came in, the amount of fines increased so much that guys were scared to go out there and play real football. So no one put a bounty in for hurting guys. It was all about if you make the first interception in this game or if you make a sack, guys in the locker room would say, 'OK, well put a couple hundred dollars here, a couple hundred dollars there for making a great play.'"
So when Gregg Williams apologized, what is he referring to?
"He's referring to us being in the meeting room and stand up and saying, 'OK, the first guy that makes an interception in this game, the first guy that causes a fumble in this game, the first guy that scores a touchdown. Defensive backs, how much are you going to pay that guy that makes that play?' And just the fact that Gregg was the overseer, he was the moderator, he was the guy in the room as the coach that could have controlled that and knowing that, OK, this is against league rules, that we should just cut this out. ... but that was just for making big plays in the game. And that was somehtingt that happened since I came into the league since 1997, when I came into the league with the Green Bay Packers. It happened since the beginning of time."
Is there something for Williams to apologize for?
"Yeah, especially with the league now, with Commissioner Goodell saying he doesn't want any of that, even if it's a dollar ... that's what I believe he's the most apologetic about, because he knew that was happening."
Did Vilma have a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre?
"I was in no way aware of that, and I would like to have seen that happen. But nowadays I would like to grab that $10,000 and ran up out of the room. So you best believe that no one was throwing $10,000 on the table and was putting for a bounty ona guy. I do not recollect that happening at all."
Are you concerned it will tarnish what the team accomplished?
"Yeah, that's what I'm most disappointed about is that a guy that was in the room or that was a part of that team is coming out and trying to tarnish what we were a part of that year. Because the style of football we played was a tough, hard-nosed brand of football. Something that's really changing these days in the NFL. And that's what I'm most disappointed about is that someone would come out and try to bring down what we accomplished. ... it appalls me, it upsets me, and I would like to find out who that guy is. Maybe I'd put a hat on and take a shot at him."
Payton's still seen as a savior to New Orleans just like Brees. I doubt he gets hit with much. I would be really surprised.
Williams? Yeah. He's got to go. And that's another reason why I think Payton gets off easy. If he gets brought along with Williams, then Fisher has to get hit too.
...You can't be serious...
THIS
At the least, he knew it was going on and failed to do anything about it personally. Agree or not, ask Joe Paterno how that worked out for him.
And it doesn't matter how Payton is viewed in NO, it matters how pissed off Goodell gets about it and the image of the NFL. If he can, he will lay the smack down hard on anyone who knew.
THIS
At the least, he knew it was going on and failed to do anything about it personally. Agree or not, ask Joe Paterno how that worked out for him.
And it doesn't matter how Payton is viewed in NO, it matters how pissed off Goodell gets about it and the image of the NFL. If he can, he will lay the smack down hard on anyone who knew.
The key to all of this IMO is whether or not there were actually bounties available for injuries. Many of the comments I've read in those articles have the players saying they could get paid for good plays, sacks, tackles inside the 20 etc. Hell, even ringing someone's bell with a bone crunching hit. Like Sani said, these guys are already getting paid to do just that. Dwight Freeney is paid millions to come off the end and nail the QB. Terrell Suggs is paid big $$$ to jack up the running back. I see nothing wrong with coaches and players getting up a "Bounty" pool of money and making it even more interesting and giving them even more motivation to make big plays. As long as there's no intent to injure, have at it. They're already professionals.
Payoffs were made for inflicting game-ending injuries on targeted players, including quarterbacks Brett Favre and Kurt Warner. "Knockouts," in which a player was knocked out of the game, were worth $1,500 and "cart-offs," in which players had to be helped off the field, were worth $1,000. Payments doubled or tripled for the playoffs.
There was a $1500 bonus for "cart off" hits.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/17619056/saints-owner-not-backing-off-support-for-payton-in-bounty-scandal (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/17619056/saints-owner-not-backing-off-support-for-payton-in-bounty-scandal)
I agree with Snags. How you going to prove "intent to injure" vs "intent to do your job at an extremely high level"? Nothing wrong with a DE blindsiding a QB with a vicious hit within the rules. If the QB is knocked silly, so be it, it's part of the game. T Bell's hit on McGinger in the 2010 IB wasn't illegal.
I agree with Snags. How you going to prove "intent to injure" vs "intent to do your job at an extremely high level"? Nothing wrong with a DE blindsiding a QB with a vicious hit within the rules. If the QB is knocked silly, so be it, it's part of the game. T Bell's hit on McGinger in the 2010 IB wasn't illegal.
You being a lawyer you could answer that fairly easy. I agree with you, somebody is going to be made an example and its likely gonna be one that hurts pretty bad.
I agree with Snags. How you going to prove "intent to injure" vs "intent to do your job at an extremely high level"? Nothing wrong with a DE blindsiding a QB with a vicious hit within the rules. If the QB is knocked silly, so be it, it's part of the game. T Bell's hit on McGinger in the 2010 IB wasn't illegal.
The only thing I have to say about it is that if you are playing within the realm of the rules and making clean hits then why do you need a bounty? If it's about rewarding good play then put it in the contract. If I say "$1500 if Favre leaves on the cart" and I'm the coach isn't that telling the players that I want to see Favre out of the game and I'm not real particular about how it happens?
The only thing I have to say about it is that if you are playing within the realm of the rules and making clean hits then why do you need a bounty? If it's about rewarding good play then put it in the contract. If I say "$1500 if Favre leaves on the cart" and I'm the coach isn't that telling the players that I want to see Favre out of the game and I'm not real particular about how it happens?
There was a $1500 bonus for "cart off" hits.This sounds like "The money was too good" or Stanley McClover type of bullshit to me.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/17619056/saints-owner-not-backing-off-support-for-payton-in-bounty-scandal (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/17619056/saints-owner-not-backing-off-support-for-payton-in-bounty-scandal)
This sounds like "The money was too good" or Stanley McClover type of bullshit to me.
The players, and players of other programs where Williams coached in the past are denying it.
And the quote from Sharper about how the fine for injuring a player would far outweigh a couple hundred bucks for this bounty, is an ice cold bucket of liquid logic to dump on these allegations.
"Alright, kid! Here's the deal. You jack that punk ass motherfucker out of the game, and I'll see that you get a couple of grand for it."
"But, Coach! They gonna fine me about $20,000! Look at James Harrison!"
"Does this look like a math class to you!? Or does it look like football?"
"Yes sir. I'll make sure he's injured next play."
"Atta boy."
Sweep the leg
Sensay?
You have a problem with that?
No Sensay
What do we study here?
THE WAY OF THE FIST SIR.
And what is that way?
STRIKE FIRST. STRIKE HARD. NO MERCY SIR.
I can't hear you.
STRIKE FIRST. STRIKE HARD. NO MERCY SIR
Uh oh.... they DID know.
Shut this franchise down. Seen enough. Put Mark Ingram in the unemployment line.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/03/payton_loomis_acknowledge_boun.html (http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/03/payton_loomis_acknowledge_boun.html)
There was a $1500 bonus for "cart off" hits.
That is intent to injure...and it doesn't matter if it applies to a specific player.
It's perfectly kosher for the players (or a subset thereof: special teams, defense, etc...) to offer up internal incentives for key plays: sacks, ints, special teams plays inside the 10. That is the players generating competition amongst themselves for legal objectives. The league might frown on it, but it won't/can't stop it or articulate an exact rule this violates because it isn't team (read: franchise/league) sanctioned.
The problem here is twofold:
1) Williams (team/league rep) apparently endorsed this injury for pay incentive...to the extent of providing his own (team?) funds to pay the incentives; and
2) Incentives, regardless of the trigger, paid by the franchise/team violate the cap rules.
You can collect a "cart off" bonus with a perfectly legal hit. How do you distinguish?
The carting off can be the result of a legal hit...but if the intent of the hit is to get the player carted off, then you have hit with intent to injure.
Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.
The carting off can be the result of a legal hit...but if the intent of the hit is to get the player carted off, then you have hit with intent to injure.
Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.
The carting off can be the result of a legal hit...but if the intent of the hit is to get the player carted off, then you have hit with intent to injure.
Not all rectangles are squares, but all squares are rectangles.
How do you distinguish the intent to do your job with the most force possible, from the intent to inflict a specific injury? Football is not played with a "only the force necessary to do the job", it's played (and coached) to be: "bring as much force to the play as you can, every play". If it's a legal hit, that occurs between the whistles, it's going to be difficult to determine an intent to injure.
This is where the "paying them" to purposely injure players comes in. That's about the only way intent can be proven. A player would need to come fwd and say "yeah, I was paid to injury Warner. That was the sole purpose of what I did. And Coach Gregg W paid me too. Simple as that." Hell, Williams may admit it if there is enough witnesses and evidence.
I don't think anybody is going to admit that. Their may be a snitch that will allege it, but I don't think anybody is going to admit to what amounts to criminal behavior. And, yes, they, could be charged and/or sued. Trust me, this is being discussed behind closed doors, and they're (owners, players and coaches) circling the wagons.
Not going to happen. Don't get your hate for the Saints, but that doesn't matter. By default this is the hot topic on talk radio, and so many are acting so indignant about it. But, when you hear players talk, they all tell you this goes on on every team. It's the culture of the league. Heard an interview with Joe Horn today, and he said if they're going to spank the Saints, then they better be fair and investigate the entire league. Said it was happening on every team he played for. Said Goodell knows damn well this is, and has been going on. Goodell is going to have to do something, but the more I think about it, it's probably going to be something symbolic, and not really punishment. I'm thinking fines for all the coaches involved, and for the Saints, but it won't be a lot of money to them.
But I think someone (more than 1) have already done such. Or this wouldn't be a story. Payton has even admitted it happened now.
So are steroids, kids out of wedlock, DUI's, and questionable reality shows. Doesn't make it OK.
They STANK. And I hate 'em.
First of all, they're lazy good for nothin' tricksters, crack smokin' swindlers, big butt havin', big head swellin' takin' up all the good team's press.
Maybe, I don't know. I haven't specifically heard "we had bounties for specific injuries". Bounties to put people out of games? Yes, but you can do that without an illegal hit or specific intent to injure that is any different from the normal play of the game. LBs and DEs want to crush everybody they hit, every play.Bounties for "cart offs" will be seen as the same thing as bounties for specific injuries. If players come forward and state that they were paid by Gregg Williams for injuring someone on the field, then the Saints will be hit with NFL sanctions (whatever that may be).
It's going to take someone admitting there was a specific bounty for causing a specific injury, ie concussion, or taking someone's knee out, not just hitting them so hard they left the game. I have not heard that.
The NFL is not a court of law. They don't need the same proof. I don't know what Goodell is going to do, but suspect that since he knew/knows this is systemic, he's not going to rape pillage and burn N.O. for something he knows goes on everywhere, or if he didn't know, he should by now based on all the statements by players. JMHO, YMMV. There's enough players out there talking, he could nail all 32 franchises.
Bounties for "cart offs" will be seen as the same thing as bounties for specific injuries. If players come forward and state that they were paid by Gregg Williams for injuring someone on the field, then the Saints will be hit with NFL sanctions (whatever that may be).
Read an article this morning where a former Bills safety said they had a pool that included bounties for hurting players.IMO, that won't be viewed as the same thing as the Saints' coaches knowing about it and setting up the bounties for injuring players.
At first blush, allegations of Loomis espionage make no sense
Posted by Mike Florio on April 23, 2012, 4:22 PM EDT
Bill Polian AP
ESPN currently is making a big deal about the allegation that Saints G.M. Mickey Loomis was eavesdropping on the communications in which opposing coaches engaged during games. At first blush, however, the notion that Loomis would find value in hearing the play calls and other communications between the opponents’ coaches makes no sense.
As ESPN’s Bill Polian (pictured) said when asked to explain the edge that the Saints obtained doing this, “There’s something missing here. I don’t know what kind of competitive advantage you could get. Mickey would have to know the verbiage of every other opposing team in order to translate, and then he would have to do it instantly and find some way to communicate with his coaching staff, and get it down to the field in time to be useful. That would be very difficult to do, in my opinion.”
Polian’s right, and he has no natural incentive to help the team that beat his Colts for a Super Bowl that culminated a season in which bounties allegedly were used. If Loomis knew what the opposing coaches were saying, there would have been no way to translate that information into something that could be used to the Saints’ benefit.
Even if the conversations were being taped and later given to the coaching staff, there’s no way to take that information and turn it into anything that could be used in a future game.
That doesn’t mean the situation shouldn’t be fully investigated. But it would be ludicrous for Loomis to engage in a blatant violation of federal law if there was nothing to be gained by doing so.
UPDATE 4:34 p.m. ET: As ESPN’s Adam Schefter also pointed out on the air, Loomis isn’t “an Xs and Os evaluator, so it would be difficult for him to get that information down to somebody in a timely fashion when that’s not the language he’s accustomed to speaking. He’s accustomed to dealing with agents, doing contracts, managing the cap, finagling the roster, not dealing with play calls and Xs and Os.”
Nothing to see here. Move along.In case you didn't realize it, the link and the quote function indicates that the words are not mine, but the author of the linked article. In this case NBCSports.com.
Chizad = Izzy Don Paul Gould Kausler Finebaum when it comes to the Saints.
In case you didn't realize it, the link and the quote function indicates that the words are not mine, but the author of the linked article. In this case NBCSports.com.
Nothing to see here. Move along.That is kind of funny.
Chizad = Izzy Don Paul Gould Kausler Finebaum when it comes to the Saints.
Nothing to see here. Move along.More like the Never to Yield Foundation.
Chizad = Izzy Don Paul Gould Kausler Finebaum when it comes to the Saints.
Saints call report of Loomis espionage “1000 percent false”
Posted by Mike Florio on April 23, 2012, 4:05 PM EDT
A bad offseason for the Saints keeps getting worse.
John Barr of ESPN reports that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Louisiana recently was told that Saints general manager Mickey Loomis “had an electronic device in his Superdome suite that had been secretly re-wired to enable him to eavesdrop on visiting coaching staffs for nearly three NFL seasons.”
Saints spokesman Greg Bensel tells PFT that the allegation is “1000 percent false.”
“We asked ESPN to provide us evidence to support their allegations and they did not,” Bensel said.
Generally citing unnamed “sources,” Barr claims that the device was installed in 2000, when Randy Mueller served as G.M. of the Saints. It was used at the time to monitor game-day communications involving the Saints’ coaching staff. Barr contends that, after Loomis took over, “the electronic device was re-wired to listen only to opposing coaches and could no longer be used to listen to any game-day communications between members of the Saints coaching staff.”
The device allegedly was used during the 2002, 2003, and 2004 seasons.
Barr spent plenty of time both online and on camera talking about statutes of limitations for both criminal and civil actions arising from the alleged activities. Coincidentally, ESPN could end up being the target of a civil case.
“The team and Mickey are seeking all legal recourse regarding these false allegations,” Bensel said.
"Outside the Lines" could not determine for certain whether Loomis ever made use of the electronic setup.
The wiring setup was disabled sometime in September 2005 in the weeks after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast. The timing of the device's removal could prove significant for legal reasons. If Loomis used an electronic device to secretly listen to the opposing coaches without their consent, it would appear to be a violation of the federal ECPA statute, said Mike Emmick, a Los Angeles-based attorney.
More like theNever to Yield Foundation.Woolly Al
Fixed for ya."I know they guilty, Paul. I jes know it. ESPN got them an unnamed source an he says it's true."
See, Auburn didn't do anything. Exonerated.
Saints getting theirs. Bama going to get it too. In shovels full.
"I know they guilty, Paul. I jes know it. ESPN got them an unnamed source an he says it's true."
Still can't see the diff?Loomis is a convicted felon now?
Convicted felon. Already in trouble. Gonna be in more because there is a culture of rampant cheating.
Or...
Exonerated. Not scathed. Blameless. Clean.
One of those is Auburn. The other is the New Bama Saints.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/23/at-first-blush-allegations-of-loomis-espionage-make-no-sense/ (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/23/at-first-blush-allegations-of-loomis-espionage-make-no-sense/)
Still can't see the diff?Someone was convicted of a felony??!?!?!
Convicted felon. Already in trouble. Gonna be in more because there is a culture of rampant cheating.
Or...
Exonerated. Not scathed. Blameless. Clean.
One of those is Auburn. The other is the New Bama Saints.
Loomis is a convicted felon now?
"I know he done nis, Paul, cuz he had some speedin tickets, an' he cheated in college! An he stolt a laptop, Paul!"
Saints seeking ‘legal recourse’ after ESPN report alleges Loomis could eavesdrop on opponents
By Associated Press, Updated: Monday, April 23, 6:56 PM
NEW ORLEANS — The New Orleans Saints denied an anonymously sourced ESPN report on Monday which alleges that general manager Mickey Loomis’ booth in the Superdome was wired so he could listen to opposing coaches’ radio communications during games.
ESPN could not determine if the system was ever used. The report on Monday’s “Outside the Lines” said Loomis would have been able to eavesdrop on opponents from 2002 to 2004. The report also said the system was disabled in 2005, when the Superdome was heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina.
Saints spokesman Greg Bensel called the report “1,000 percent false.”
“We asked ESPN to provide us evidence to support their allegations and they refused,” Bensel said. “The team and Mickey are seeking all legal recourse regarding these false allegations.”
Loomis explained his use of an earpiece and described his game-day setup in the Superdome booth in an emailed statement.
“I have a monitor in front of me in my booth that provides the league issued stats for the game,” Loomis stated. “I have a small TV with the network broadcast and I have an earpiece to listen to the WWL-AM radio game broadcast.
“To think I am sitting in there listening and actually ... doing something with the offensive and defensive play calls of the opposing teams makes this story and the unnamed sources that provided the false information that much more less credible,” Loomis’ statement continued. “It just didn’t happen.”
Washington Redskins defensive coordinator Jim Haslett was the Saints’ head coach from 2000 through 2005. In a comment the Saints forwarded to the AP by email, Haslett denied knowledge of any system that would have allowed for eavesdropping on opponents.
“At no time during my tenure as head coach with the New Orleans Saints did Mickey and I discuss monitoring opposing team coaches communication, nor did I have any knowledge of this,” Haslett said. “To my knowledge this concept was never discussed or utilized.”
If the Saints had installed a system allowing them to listen in on their opponents it would have violated NFL rules and also could have infringed on federal wire-tapping laws.
“We were not aware of it,” league spokesman Greg Aiello said. “We have no knowledge of the allegations.”
FBI spokeswoman Sheila Thorne said the agency’s New Orleans office was aware of the situation, but wouldn’t comment further.
U.S. Attorney Jim Letten in New Orleans also said his office had been told about “general allegations” involving the Saints and possible wiretapping, but he did not elaborate. Letten declined to discuss who made the allegations, and whether they involved Loomis or any other Saints officials.
For the Saints, the report in itself added to a slew of recent bad publicity, which began in early March when the NFL released a report describing a crunch-for-cash bounty system that provided improper cash bonuses to defensive players who delivered hits that hobbled targeted opponents.
Commissioner Roger Goodell has suspended head coach Sean Payton for the entire 2012 season in connection with the bounty probe. Loomis was suspended for the first half of the regular season and assistant head coach Joe Vitt was suspended six games.
The team also lost its second-round pick in this week’s NFL draft and was fined $500,000. Goodell took away the Saints’ second-round pick in 2013 as well, but has said he may lessen that punishment if he is satisfied with the club’s cooperation in the ongoing investigation.
The NFL still has yet to hand down punishment to between 22 and 27 current and former Saints defensive players whom the league has said participated in the bounty program.
Funny that only Joe Schad & ESPN is blaring this over their airwaves while Fox Sports, NBC Sports, CNNSI, CBS Sports, Yahoo Sports, etc. have all basically called bullshit. At the very least, they have distanced themselves.
New Bama Saints are dirty. End of story.Whatever you say BlueTunaKaos.
This thread has turned into funny.
Polian says he believes Loomis
Posted by Mike Florio on April 24, 2012, 1:44 PM EDT
One of the now-departed Rosenthal’s lasting contributions to PFT (he ain’t dead, he just doesn’t work here anymore) comes from a term he coined.
“ESPN-on-ESPN crime.”
It refers (for those of you who actually need an explanation . . . then again, based on the quality of some of the comments that could be a larger demographic than I realize) to conflicting reports and/or opinions from two or more of the many talking heads employed by the four-letter network based in Bristol. And, for the first time ever, the term “ESPN-on-ESPN crime” can be trotted out in connection with a report that, if true, represents an actual crime.
On Monday, right after ESPN’s John Barr was touting the new allegations of eight-year-old eavesdropping by Saints G.M. Mickey Loomis, ESPN’s Bill Polian explained that the suggestion that Loomis was listening to opposing coaches and somehow transforming it into a tangible benefit made no sense.
On Tuesday, Polian explained on ESPN that he has since spoken to Loomis, and Polian offered an opinion on whether the report is accurate. “It was a friendly conversation and in the interest of full disclosure, we are friends,” Polian said. “Bottom line, he told me that he never listened to any communication of any kind in his booth, other than the commercial radio broadcast, which is very common for most General Managers or assistant General Managers.”
Asked by the host (sorry, the names and faces blend together), “And you believe him?”
“I do,” Polian said.
In other words, Polian doesn’t believe John Barr’s source. Which means Polian doesn’t believe that Barr’s report is credible.
Which means that ESPN has a bit of a problem right now.
“There’s a huge piece missing here for me,” Polian said. “I can’t see how they could have gotten information that would have been of use to them.”
Barr’s report doesn’t attempt to explain how Loomis would have turned the information into something that would have benefited the team. Barr and/or his editors easily could have asked Polian (or other current and former General Managers) to explain how the information could, or couldn’t, have been used. Barr and/or his editors easily could have asked former NFL coach and executive Bill Parcells for information regarding the potential uses by a G.M. or intercepted conversations among a coaching staff.
They didn’t. And so until Barr or someone else at ESPN properly refutes Polian’s doubts with an unequivocal explanation from a coach or a G.M. (and ESPN has plenty of them on the payroll) regarding a specific manner in which the information allegedly harvested by Loomis could have been used to the benefit of the Saints, a dark cloud will remain over the dark cloud that Barr has tried to wedge among the dark clouds already hovering over the Saints organization.
Finally, we don’t want to hear (again), “Of course they had a use for it or they wouldn’t have done it.” The fact that there was no apparent use for the information directly undermines the credibility of the report, which apparently comes from a disgruntled employee who for unknown reasons squatted on the information for nearly a decade.
I just realized today that I haven't really watched ESPN since football season. I haven't gone to their website, turned on their channel, or read their magazine.
They're a joke. From the Cam Newton story to the pathetic coverage of Joe Paterno's firing to the Saints circus - it's all been hack journalism at its finest.
Was going to say about the same thing. In Chad's defense, this is Schad and ESPN. I take everything they say now with a grain or 20 of salt. The story doesn't sound like it has a lot of evidence substantiating the claims. I will say that much.To be fair, my evoking of Joe Schad was rhetorical. He exclusively covers the college game. Still, it's the same bunch of zero-credibilty hacks at ESPN that have turned their network into a professional wrestling/Jerry Springer circus. They have long ago wiped their ass with journalistic integrity, taking the word of one anonymous source without any fact checking whatsoever before plastering their website with 50 polls about what the implications and punishment should be for the Saints after their most recent transgression, as if it's 100% factual.
and yet people want them on campus?
and yet people want them on campus?Computer programs...not people.
"Scrape every last trace of dignity from Joe Paterno in the last days of his life, and let's make sure his legacy will forever be that he was equally as vile as Sandusky in this whole child rape thing."
You had me until right here. Fuck JoePa.Agree. Pedobear protector.
You had me until right here. Fuck JoePa.
I was actually referring to the pathetic, weak, paper thin broadcast they did when he was fired. CNN and some British chick were right smack in the middle of the students, and ESPN had their high school Most-Likely-To-Be-A-Weatherman douchebag hiding out in some faraway bush filling air space because they didn't have the story.
So with Cam, you get a company that perpetuates lies and fails to do any kind of true investigative research.
With JoePa, you get frivolous bullshit.
With the Saints, you're getting a fail attempt at rekindling the flame that was started and finished by Goodell.
There's no reason to watch ESPN.
Nailed it.Exactly. Not to drudge up the dead horse, but I think there could have been healthy room for debate as to whether or not Joe Pa should have known, and whether or not he could have done more, but the dude was literally in the last days of his life and obviously not all there, and it's not like he was the one diddling boys, and yet from the way it was being reported you'd think he was running a child prostitution ring. Sandusky deserved every bit of criticism and much more. Instead it was all focused on destroying JoePa's legacy. Better story. More sensational.
No one is saying JoePa was innocent. But my God, you would have thought he was Charles Manson the way they covered it. Same with Cam.
If both are true, which would end up being the bigger scandal?Really? Even assuming the Saints hypothetical cheating is true and comparing it to actual proven violations. So the general manager hearing signals he can't possibly understand or use to any advantage, in real time, that took place a decade prior to the allegation, is more than TWICE as bad as a head coach videotaping opposing coaches' sideline signals and practices for ten years leading up to the day they got caught?
33%
Patriots' Spygate
67%
Saints' eavesdropping on opposing coaches
How should the NFL punish the Saints if allegations about eavesdropping turn out to be true?SOME COMBINATION!!!1! Plus the death penalty, both for the program, and literally for Drew Brees. I know he had something to do with it!!
7%
Fines
6%
Additional suspensions
5%
Lost draft picks
81%
Some combination of the
How big of an advantage do you believe the Saints would have garnered from their alleged eavesdropping device?HUGE advantage! 84% think it's some advantage, while nearly half of those posted think it was a "big" one. Nevermind the litany of former and present coaches from teams not called the Saints, sports analysts, and even some ESPN analysts saying it makes zero sense and there would be no discernible advantage.
46%
Big advantage
39%
Small advantage
16%
No advantage
If the eavesdropping allegations against Saints GM Mickey Loomis turn out to be true, how should the NFL punish him?90%. If "death by execution" were an option, I guarantee you it would be in the lead.
10%
Short addition to his extant eight-game suspension
90%
Season-long suspension or more
Which would be a bigger scandal for the Saints if both turn out to be true?This thing that we're talking about now is obviously the biggest scandal of all time evarr!!!
35%
Bounty on opposing players
65%
Alleged electronic listening devices used on visiting coaching staffs
Has the Saints' image been permanently tarnished?4evar!!! 81% believe that just the fact that ESPN is reporting this allegation, means that the Saints are beyond salvation. Clearly a team full of child murderer/rapists. Permanently. Until the end of time. In the year 3016, people will say "Remember that time ESPN said the Saints' GM could hear the opposing teams' playcalling? Deplorable, right? You knew they were guilty too, because ESPN said they heard it from a guy."
81%
Yes
19%
If you were Drew Brees, would you still want to play for the Saints?Can we say wishful thinking?
35%
Yes
65%
No
4evar!!! 81% believe that just the fact that ESPN is reporting this allegation, means that the Saints are beyond salvation. Clearly a team full of child murderer/rapists. Permanently. Until the end of time. In the year 3016, people will say "Remember that time ESPN said the Saints' GM could hear the opposing teams' playcalling? Deplorable, right? You knew they were guilty too, because ESPN said they heard it from a guy."
Can we say wishful thinking?
4evar!!! 81% believe that just the fact that ESPN is reporting this allegation, means that the Saints are beyond salvation. Clearly a team full of child murderer/rapists. Permanently. Until the end of time. In the year 3016, people will say "Remember that time ESPN said the Saints' GM could hear the opposing teams' playcalling? Deplorable, right? You knew they were guilty too, because ESPN said they heard it from a guy."
Can we say wishful thinking?
This 50/50 hindsight, as Dye would say, about the presumed omnipotence of head coaches was my main beef with Sean Payton getting punished and crucified the way he did for Gregg Williams's sins. Not that I expect anyone here to agree, since you've already bought into ESPN's narrative.
When interviewed in 2012, Sean Payton claimed to be entirely unaware of the program, a claim contradicted by others. Further, prior to the Saints’ opening game in 2011, Coach Payton received an email from a close associate that stated in part, “PS Greg Williams put me down for $5000 on Rogers (sic).” When shown the email during the course of the investigation, Coach Payton stated that it referred to a “bounty” on Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers.
You've never jumped to any conclusion based on scant, early reports have you?
You've never jumped to any conclusion based on scant, early reports have you?That'd be you. I never said anything definitely of the innocence or guilt, just of the facts of the case that he shot the kid and the kid was unarmed. You're the one that knows he's innocent. But I'm not dragging that debate here any further.
Is there someone in or formerly in the Saints organization that's got a huge axe to grind? Where is all this information coming from? The alleged wire taps were from the early 2000's...no? Why now?Now because the current whipping boy is the New Orleans Saints and the media loves to kick someone while they're down. While I'm sure ESPN's polls showed 99.9% of people thought the NFL should shut the program down, most rational people were, at least, on the fence about the severity and uniqueness about "Bountygate" compared to how it was being portrayed by the media, and whether or not the punishment was equitable. There is a crusade now to push public opinion over that fence. "Quick! Find some parking tickets! See if anyone on the team cheated on any tests!" It's the exact same tactics we saw early in the Cam Newton allegations.
That'd be you. I never said anything definitely of the innocence or guilt, just of the facts of the case that someone died and the kid was unarmed. You're the one that knows he's innocent. But I'm not dragging that debate here any further.
Now because the current whipping boy is the New Orleans Saints and the media loves to kick someone while they're down. While I'm sure ESPN's polls showed 99.9% of people thought the NFL should shut the program down, most rational people were, at least, on the fence about the severity and uniqueness about "Bountygate" compared to how it was being portrayed by the media, and whether or not the punishment was equitable. There is a crusade now to push public opinion over that fence. "Quick! Find some parking tickets! See if anyone on the team cheated on any tests!" It's the exact same tactics we saw early in the Cam Newton allegations.
That'd be you. I never said anything definitely of the innocence or guilt, just of the facts of the case that he shot the kid and the kid was unarmed. You're the one that knows he's innocent. But I'm not dragging that debate here any further.
Readiing and comprehension skillz, you have none, and you lie like a motherfucker about shit you have posted.
He uses this technique while prosecuting teh criminals. "Judge, bitch be lyin' like a motherfucker about shit."
Readiing and comprehension skillz, you have none, and you lie like a motherfucker about shit you have posted.You are a douche of the highest order.
The new allegations would be worse than the Patriots scandal, imo.
You are a douche of the highest order.
Disagree on this part. The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since their scandal involving the taping of hand signals. Did it contribute to them winning? Maybe, maybe not, but you could make an argument that it did help them.I think it should be judged on the actual action, not the end result. It shouldn't matter whether or not the information translated into wins. Do you think half of the shit that college teams get penalized for by the NCAA translates into any competitive advantage? No. What matters is that they did it. And in this case, if there was eavesdropping, the NFL is going to have to set a precedent. And you bet your ass they're going to get the point across to everybody else in the league that this sort of thing better not be going on elsewhere.
The three years the Saints did this, they were barely a .500 team. Even if the Saints did get a competitive advantage (which several people have said that they don't see how they could have), it did jack shit for them.
And where's the hate for Randy Mueller? He installed the damn thing. Sure, "sources" say it was only used to listen to the Saints side, but how do we know? And what about Haslett? He was the coach when all this was going on. You telling me that he didn't know what was going on?
Disagree on this part. The Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since their scandal involving the taping of hand signals. Did it contribute to them winning? Maybe, maybe not, but you could make an argument that it did help them.
The three years the Saints did this, they were barely a .500 team. Even if the Saints did get a competitive advantage (which several people have said that they don't see how they could have), it did jack shit for them.
And where's the hate for Randy Mueller? He installed the damn thing. Sure, "sources" say it was only used to listen to the Saints side, but how do we know? And what about Haslett? He was the coach when all this was going on. You telling me that he didn't know what was going on?
Your responses when get cornered by your own words are nothing short of pathetic.I'm trying not to douche this thread up any more than it has to be, but you just can't stand it. I apologize for everyone who doesn't give a shit about JR4AU's petty trolling. Please skip this post.
I'm trying not to douche this thread up any more than it has to be, but you just can't stand it. I apologize for everyone who doesn't give a shit about JR4AU's petty trolling. Please skip this post.
I haven't been painted into shit, Councillor First Grader.
First of all, at least keep that debate into the goddamn thread it belongs in instead of spraying your douche all over the board.
I touch and go on the political threads, because pretty much everyone that posts in them have steel trap minds and then accuse me of being the stubborn and radical one. And every time I "touch", I end up defending arguments I was never making because certain people have to keep it interesting by inventing positions for me. So I "go". Whatever, fine.
You obviously have 1000x more conviction about that subject, as I could barely give much of a shit from the start, except to say that I feel that both sides of the argument are extreme. Just having a strong opinion about it one way or another is more attention than that case deserves. I posted on it to say I was equally annoyed by the Al Sharptons of the world as I was the racists that are happy the kid's dead because he was "up to no good", and no matter what 100% believed that Zimmerman should be absolved of any guilt. That was all I had to say about it, but then GarMan has to chime in with his satirical-cartoonish rants and build straw men for me, that eventually I end up taking a position I normally wouldn't, and then others, especially you, rah rah right along with GarMan. So I don't hang out there every day, sorry.
At this point, we're cool, but then you have to reply to everything I say in every thread with some ultra-douchey attempt at contradiction or just a general insult. 99% of the time your attempts are a complete failure. But it doesn't sway your persistence in douche-itude. You're doing exactly what Kaos did with certain posters, myself included, a few years ago. Fuck up otherwise perfectly good threads by just waiting perched for me to post so you can play the boorish, belligerent contrarian to whatever I say, no matter what it is. You even contradict yourself just to disagree with me, as evidenced earlier in this thread. Kaos at least had the self awareness to realize what a childish douche he was being and apologize and cease being such a colossal douche.
So just shut the fuck up, already.
And you're not Mike Ditka because you coach a Peewee team.
Now please, back to relevant discussion.
:taunt: :rofl:
BTDub, where did I ever mention Zimmerman in this thread? What does Ditka have to do with anything. Finding dozens of ways to bastardize the word "douche" isn't nearly as impressive as you think it is.
Speak for yourself. Douche-itude opens up worlds of insult potential.Not when you use it on yourself whilst looking in the mirror.
:taunt: :rofl:
BTDub, where did I ever mention Zimmerman in this thread? What does Ditka have to do with anything. Finding dozens of ways to bastardize the word "douche" isn't nearly as impressive as you think it is.
I'm trying not to douche this thread up any more than it has to be, but you just can't stand it. I apologize for everyone who doesn't give a shit about JR4AU's petty trolling. Please skip this post.
I haven't been painted into shit, Councillor First Grader.
First of all, at least keep that debate into the goddamn thread it belongs in instead of spraying your douche all over the board.
I touch and go on the political threads, because pretty much everyone that posts in them have steel trap minds and then accuse me of being the stubborn and radical one. And every time I "touch", I end up defending arguments I was never making because certain people have to keep it interesting by inventing positions for me. So I "go". Whatever, fine.
You obviously have 1000x more conviction about that subject, as I could barely give much of a shit from the start, except to say that I feel that both sides of the argument are extreme. Just having a strong opinion about it one way or another is more attention than that case deserves. I posted on it to say I was equally annoyed by the Al Sharptons of the world as I was the racists that are happy the kid's dead because he was "up to no good", and no matter what 100% believed that Zimmerman should be absolved of any guilt. That was all I had to say about it, but then GarMan has to chime in with his satirical-cartoonish rants and build straw men for me, that eventually I end up taking a position I normally wouldn't, and then others, especially you, rah rah right along with GarMan. So I don't hang out there every day, sorry.
At this point, we're cool, but then you have to reply to everything I say in every thread with some ultra-douchey attempt at contradiction or just a general insult. 99% of the time your attempts are a complete failure. But it doesn't sway your persistence in douche-itude. You're doing exactly what Kaos did with certain posters, myself included, a few years ago. Fuck up otherwise perfectly good threads by just waiting perched for me to post so you can play the boorish, belligerent contrarian to whatever I say, no matter what it is. You even contradict yourself just to disagree with me, as evidenced earlier in this thread. Kaos at least had the self awareness to realize what a childish douche he was being and apologize and cease being such a colossal douche.
So just shut the fuck up, already.
And you're not Mike Ditka because you coach a Peewee team.
Now please, back to relevant discussion.
Are you disputing Chad's victory over Kaos? I know you di'int.
Aaaannd it's officially the sequel to Kaos vs. Chopper.
Start printing the t-shirts!
Whatever happened to Chopper anyway?
He has been busy with his site.
AUCHIZAD
&
JR4AU
A L <3 ve Story?
Isn't Chizad like a Mod or sumpin? He told me to shut the fuck up, so I have to right?
Isn't Chizad like a Mod or sumpin? He told me to shut the fuck up, so I have to right?(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lpiDRDaH-mU/SMU9F1bKycI/AAAAAAAAHRA/_s-cTYtjFXM/s400/808_img_11.jpg)
Isn't Chizad like a Mod or sumpin? He told me to shut the fuck up, so I have to right?
Technically no...but you should see your warn meter.
It's approaching plaid.
Technically no...but you should see your warn meter.
It's approaching plaid.Eleven, even.
I touch and go on the political threads, because pretty much everyone that posts in them have steel trap minds and then accuse me of being the stubborn and radical one. And every time I "touch", I end up defending arguments I was never making because certain people have to keep it interesting by inventing positions for me. So I "go". Whatever, fine.
Well, if you would just quit being a beta male, liberal, occupy protesting, pot smoking, faggy microbrew drinking, religion hating, indie band loving, college hippie - we would get along just fine Chizzy.
I think it should be judged on the actual action, not the end result. It shouldn't matter whether or not the information translated into wins. Do you think half of the shit that college teams get penalized for by the NCAA translates into any competitive advantage? No. What matters is that they did it. And in this case, if there was eavesdropping, the NFL is going to have to set a precedent. And you bet your ass they're going to get the point across to everybody else in the league that this sort of thing better not be going on elsewhere.Exactly. So, the "Wire Tapping Gate" wasn't going on during their Super Bowl season? Also, rws made another good point...we aren't talking about plays that are being talked about at that instance, we're talking about plays in advance. "If we don't get the first down here, we'll run ____", "We'll run _____ on 1st down when we get the ball back", "Aight, it's 3rd and Long...let's run _____ tell the guys to watch for the screen." That type of communication would be going over the opposing coach's headsets.
Is there someone in or formerly in the Saints organization that's got a huge axe to grind? Where is all this information coming from? The alleged wire taps were from the early 2000's...no? Why now?
Is this the beginning of the I'm Rubber you're Glue debate of 2012?I'm picking up more of a "nana nana boo boo, stick your face in doo-doo" vibe.
If both are true, which would end up being the bigger scandal?
33%
Patriots' Spygate
67%
Saints' eavesdropping on opposing coaches
Hmmm. One is cheating to win a game and the other is an attempt to injure another player.
Yep those are the same.
(http://www.cameron.k12.wi.us/es/rif/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif)
(http://www.cameron.k12.wi.us/es/rif/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif)
All I know is your Ain'ts are guilty of doing it, lying about it, and getting caught for both.
Fuck'em.
You forgot to feed em' fish heads
Who the fuck really cares about the NFL or any paid sports anyways. They are all waaaaaaaay overpaid, to play a fucking game.
Who the fuck really cares about the NFL or any paid sports anyways. They are all waaaaaaaay overpaid, to play a fucking game.
Who the fuck really cares about the NFL or any paid sports anyways. They are all waaaaaaaay overpaid, to play a fucking game.
Don't get me wrong I watch the NFL, and other paid sports but if this had happened to the Dolphins I wouldn't really care all that much. I just don't understand the total vesting in pro-sports.
Do you think non-alumni should care less about college teams than alumni?
and I am also not saying these athletes should be making minimum wage. They work hard at what they do. I just think the salaries have gotten ridiculous.
Revenue and prices to attend these games have gotten ridiculous. Until the public stops showing up, the money will be there to pay the players. As snaggle said...someone has to get the money...
I think that is some of my disdain. Presently I couldn't afford to attend a Dolphins game with my family, it is way too expensive.
Take advantage of the low rates and finance the tickets. Your first payment won't be due for 90 days. You do have to give them your first born as collateral but hey...you probably needed a break anyway, right?
I mean I'm rich, but lord knows I'm not Snaggle Rich.
I am rich in ways that money can't buy. I'm blessed with stunning good looks, a hot wife, great kids and a huge cock.You buy children?
Okay fine...I have a small penis but I do have enough money to buy the other things.
You buy children?
(http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo167/klutty/pedobear-gets-set-up-for-fail.gif)
Not my point. I said I didn't understand the vesting in PRO-sports. Not that it doesn't happen or I don't agree with it. One of my best friends is about as passionate for the Dolphins as I am for Auburn. I am just not that way, these guys are getting paid to do a job. I just don't find myself caring that much.I feel the same way. I'm painting with a pretty broad brush here, but there's no heart for the game in the pros. It's all about the paycheck and most of the big name players could not care less as to whether their team wins or loses a game as long as they gets their stats.
Vilma suspended for the season.Anthony Hargrove, 8 games; Will Smith, 4; and Scott Fujita, 3.
Anthony Hargrove, 8 games; Will Smith, 4; and Scott Fujita, 3.
It wouldn't be Goodell if it wasn't excessive.
At this point, nothing surprises me.
Anthony Hargrove, 8 games; Will Smith, 4; and Scott Fujita, 3.
It wouldn't be Goodell if it wasn't excessive.
At this point, nothing surprises me.
The funny thing is, how does the PA try to appeal this? They are going to appeal a sentence of players trying to intentionally hurt other players, while trying to play the other side of the fence about looking out for players safety and not allowing a 18 game season or 2 a days...
This should be interesting...
Excellent point. Never really thought about it that way. Also, since they are saying Seau shot himself in the chest, he may have also had some concussion syndrome thing going on. Many NFL players have done this so that their brains can be studied post mortem. A high profile player like Seau killing himself would bring even more scrutiny to the issue (if his death can be tied to concussions post career) even further bolstering Goodell's case.
Will Smith, 4
Matta fact, if I see any of them dudes that's tryin to cheap-shot me at ESPN, I'll put a bounty on them right now!
Cris Carter admits to bounties
Updated: May 9, 2012, 9:22 AM ET
ESPN.com news services
Cris Carter Admits To Bounties
Former Minnesota Vikings All-Pro receiver Cris Carter says he put "bounties" on opposing players as a form of protection during his 16-year NFL career.
Carter, currently an ESPN NFL analyst, said Tuesday night on "Hill and Schlereth" on ESPN Radio that he would offer money to teammates to take out players he thought were trying to take him out.
Former NFL WR Cris Carter tells Mike Hill and Mark Schlereth that he put bounties on players like Bill Romanowski to protect himself and Randy Moss among others.
"I'm guilty of (bounties) -- I mean, first time I've ever admitted it -- but I put a bounty on guys before," Carter told the show. "I put bounties on guys. If a guy tries to take me out, a guy takes a cheap shot on me? I put a bounty on him right now!"
When asked whether the bounties were financial, Carter said: "Absolutely."
Carter, a Pro Football Hall of Fame finalist for the past five years, said it was a matter of protecting himself from players at a different position, such as linebacker.
"I'd tell one of them guards, 'Hey man, this dude is after me, man,'" Carter said.
The 46-year-old told of former Pro Bowl linebacker Bill Romanowski, then with the Denver Broncos, threatening to hurt him in pregame warm-ups.
"Bill Romanowski -- he told me he was going to take me out before the game, warm-ups. No problem. (He said,) 'I'm gonna end your career, Carter.' No problem. "I put a little change on his head before the game. Protect myself. Protect my family. That's the league that I grew up in," Carter said.
When asked whether he was the only one doing that, Carter responded: "Hell, no!
"Listen, on the football field, you only got certain protection, and your teammates are part of that protection. It's built in, and if I'm playing a certain position where I can't protect myself -- how can the quarterback protect himself? But for his teammates to stand up and do something," Carter said. "There are certain positions you can't protect yourself.
"The center? How can he protect himself? He's snapping the ball every time. Like if someone is taking a cheap shot on him? No problem. We've got a way to work that out."
Carter's comments came one day after New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma and three others appealed league-mandated suspensions for their alleged roles in that team's three-year bounty program.
An NFL investigation determined the Saints ran a bounty system from 2009 to 2011 that offered thousands of dollars to players for big hits that knocked opponents out of games. In March, Goodell suspended Saints head coach Sean Payton for all of next season without pay, suspended former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams indefinitely and levied other penalties against the club.
But Carter told "Hill and Schlereth" that during his playing days, bounties weren't meant to purposefully injure other players.
"But you have to realize the league we grew up in, the bounty was based on protection, or a big hit, excitement or for helping your team win. It wasn't to maim or hurt the dude," said Carter, who retired from the NFL following the 2002 season. "When a guy said he was going to hurt me, my recourse was to put a bounty on him to make sure."
Q: Do you feel a lot of this, CC, is the word bounty that's throwing a lot of different thoughts into it, just that word alone?
A: I think that maybe the American public is a little shocked. I think the initial shock is because some of the Intel that we know as just being regular information in the NFL is just getting out on the street. Normal people are a little stunned by this, but people that know more about the NFL, they kind of understand it. For me, I don't regret it. It's a part of the game. I have a clear conscience with God, I have a clear conscience with my family, and my teammates and the organization that paid me money, I feel like I did everything for us to win. These are parts of the game. If people want to talk about football, it's not gonna be all nice. It's not gonna be all pretty. If you want some insight into the NFL and what's really going on? Cause this is the real NFL. This is not the NFL that you see on Sundays on your 40 inch plasma. This is understanding of what's going on between the lines, between those hashmarks. And this is the truth.
Q: Do you know of other players, on offense, that would do something like you did?
A: I don't know. I mean, players are so reluctant to really tell the truth, and they always say that someone got their words out of context, but I'm sure if we as analysts, as we have athletes and former athletes: Ask them! I mean, I don't think that I'm the only person in the NFL in the last 20 years that was in these types of situations. All the star players have protection built in...Jonathon Vilma and those other players, they came into a culture, where this was ok. And that needs to be addressed.
Q: But just to make it clear, CC, cause what you're talking about and what our understanding of, let's just use the Vilma example, are two different things. Here's $10,000 for the first guy to take Brett Favre out of this game. That's not the same thing you're talking about. So, do you think that what you're hearing about the Saints, is that sort of thing common in NFL locker rooms? ($$$ESPN payroll bonus$$$)
A: This is the thing. The Saints took a model, that most teams have, and took a little extra on it. And I think that happened when they got to the playoffs. When they went to the playoffs, they decided that now was going to be pinpoint. "Ok guys, this is the bounty now. I got 10 grand if the quarterback don't come off the field." I believe during the regular season, it may have been more of a regular player performance type thing. But, as guys start making more money, things become accentuated, so to hear that $10,000 was thrown around, to me, after playing in the 80's, 90's and 2000's? I wasn't shocked at all.
Anthony Hargrove, 8 games; Will Smith, 4; and Scott Fujita, 3.
It wouldn't be Goodell if it wasn't excessive.
At this point, nothing surprises me.
The evil Saints invented bounties, you guyz!
Here's what my biggest thing about the Saints: Do I believe that guys in this league, at least in my experience, don't go out and maliciously try to end somebody's career. Even if a coach like Gregg Williams, or, like you said, Buddy Ryan, is talking nonsense, you're like "That's bravado, everybody's fired up, yeah", and then you go out and play this game the same way you would anyhow. You hit guys as hard as you can, cause that's the game, that's what you try to do. But I was never around players in my 12 years of playing this game that I thought were malicious in their intent to try to injure guys.
I think you should poison Roger Goodell's trees. That'll show him.(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_7rMasUwS4Fg/SUBrLKCaPTI/AAAAAAAAACw/aZxJT2KlhPs/s400/raiders.jpg)
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/05/new_orleans_saints_season_sink.html
The Saints also had no picks in the first two rounds of last month's draft, after trading away their first-rounder for the right to pick Mark Ingram last year and having their second-rounder stripped by the NFL as part of the bounty punishment.
Reason why I could give a shit if this franchise sinks into the ocean? It's stupid and arrogant (just like Bammers) and it did this:(http://www.atoledo.com/images/oakland-raiders-12-ken-stabler-jersey-black.jpg)
Idiots. The Saints DESERVE to die a slow and agonizing death. Forever.
(http://www.atoledo.com/images/oakland-raiders-12-ken-stabler-jersey-black.jpg)
(http://s3.hubimg.com/u/363050_f248.jpg)
desperate nonsense
Trumped:
(http://content6.flixster.com/photo/13/74/41/13744188_ori.jpg)
Was a Raiders fan in the 80s. Right before and right after Bo. Still got a little nostalgia for the hard asses who played the game back then. Stork, Sticky, Howie, Tuze, Lyle, etc. Also liked the Steelers of that era.
Doesn't change the fact that the Saints are the Bammers of the NFL and the entire franchise needs to float out in the gulf and drown.
I hear Dave Ramsay is doing a seminar in New Orleans this week.
Will it be a tomato based seminar?
The Saints, Dave Ramsey, and Tomato based foods - whatever will Kaos do?
Trumped:
(http://content6.flixster.com/photo/13/74/41/13744188_ori.jpg)
(http://www.nflthrowbackjerseys.net/upfile/2011111919265110742.jpeg)
(http://www.nfljerseysstore.us/bmz_cache/5/5783c4ca422a750c44465346687bbeb4.image.250x250.jpg)
(http://www.officialsaintsauthenticstore.com/images/sai541/Youth%20New%20Orleans%20Saints%2066%20Ben%20Grubbs%20Black%20Jersey.jpg)
I hear Dave Mathews is gonna play a warm up set.
Just "Dave"
(http://www.nflthrowbackjerseys.net/upfile/2011111919265110742.jpeg)
(http://www.nfljerseysstore.us/bmz_cache/5/5783c4ca422a750c44465346687bbeb4.image.250x250.jpg)
(http://www.officialsaintsauthenticstore.com/images/sai541/Youth%20New%20Orleans%20Saints%2066%20Ben%20Grubbs%20Black%20Jersey.jpg)
Sorry but 44+54+66 < 34 and it isn't even close. Not by a mile.
Does 1 = 34 yet???
Does 1 = 34 yet???
Romanowski is/was a mean son of a bitch. Despite the fact that he's about brain dead from taking and giving way too many blows to the head and lots and lots of roids, he made some good points.
...
They all made a big distinction between "hurt" and "injured". There's a big difference in trying to take somebody's knee out and trying to make the huge hit and ring their bell.
I think the biggest thing that needs to be changed in the culture of the locker room is the last statement. Player's need to understand that going after somebody's head is just as much trying to injure someone as taking out there knee. Probably worse, a knee injury might take you out of football but apparently enough head injuries will take away your will to live.
Does 1 = 34 yet???
Trumped:I listen to the Adam Carolla podcast regularly.
(http://content6.flixster.com/photo/13/74/41/13744188_ori.jpg)
Was a Raiders fan in the 80s. Right before and right after Bo. Still got a little nostalgia for the hard asses who played the game back then. Stork, Sticky, Howie, Tuze, Lyle, etc. Also liked the Steelers of that era.
Doesn't change the fact that the Saints are the Bammers of the NFL and the entire franchise needs to float out in the gulf and drown.
Vilma is suing Roger Goodell.Was going to post about this, but figured I'd save my breath.
http://www.webwiseforradio.com/site_files/244/File/Vilma%20-%20Complaint%20-%20Filed.pdf
Was going to post about this, but figured I'd save my breath.ugh :facepalm:
But we all know that he would file a lawsuit like this knowing full well that he's guilty, and that if there was any evidence of it, it will be brought out into the public, further damaging his career and reputation.
Will be interesting to see if they can't produce enough evidence to not get sued for defamation of character how that factors into the other players' suspensions, and for that matter, Payton's.
ugh :facepalm:Yes.
Here Chadskins, does this make you feel better?
(http://www.tigersx.com/images/goodelldong.gif)
Was going to post about this, but figured I'd save my breath.
But we all know that he would file a lawsuit like this knowing full well that he's guilty, and that if there was any evidence of it, it will be brought out into the public, further damaging his career and reputation.
Will be interesting to see if they can't produce enough evidence to not get sued for defamation of character how that factors into the other players' suspensions, and for that matter, Payton's.
Yes.Well great Chad thanks a lot...Goodell just contacted me I have been suspended from this website.
Appeal fodder likely to include text
Updated: June 18, 2012, 11:40 AM ET
By Adam Schefter | ESPN
Saints Appeals Heard Today
Bill Polian discusses the chances the Saints players will have their suspenions overturned.Tags: Saints Appeals, Bill Polian, Roger Goodell, SportsCenter
The NFL's evidence against the suspended New Orleans Saints coaches, players and former players included emails that Sean Payton's close friend and confidant, Mike Ornstein, sent from prison, offering up bounties for hits.
(http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0618/nfl_e_saintsbounty_400.jpg)
According to two sources, Sean Payton's friend Mike Ornstein gave the NFL and the NFLPA a text he said came from Gregg Williams.
Yet according to multiple sources familiar with the situation, Ornstein insisted his emails were jokes, and he unsuccessfully attempted to convince NFL commissioner Roger Goodell of this during their conversations.
Ornstein received support from former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, who now is suspended indefinitely.
According to two sources who have seen it, Ornstein gave the NFL and the NFL Players Association a text that he said came from Williams, saying, "I stood up for you & told them just that. I told them we never took that (stuff) serious. I never ever saw you ever give $ and that's just the truth."
The text is expected to be used as evidence Monday, when the suspended players appeal their case to Goodell at the league's offices in New York.
Williams could not be reached to confirm that he sent the text, but the NFL, NFLPA and lawyers each have gotten a copy of it, and two people who saw it said he did.
Meanwhile, three of the players disciplined by the league released a statement announcing they were attending Monday's hearing, while defending themselves against "alleged activities that the National Football League has grossly misrepresented to the public."
"We are in attendance today not because we recognize the Commissioner's jurisdiction to adjudicate regarding these specious allegations, but because we believe the League would attempt to publicly mischaracterize our refusal to attend," Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, Green Bay Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove and Saints defensive end Will Smith said in the statement. "We will not address the substance of the NFL's case because this is not the proper venue for adjudication, and there has been no semblance of due process afforded to us.
"As veteran players of 11, 9 and 9 years in this League, we are profoundly disappointed with the NFL's conduct in this matter. We know what the NFL has publicly said we did, and the Commissioner has chosen to try to punish us and disparage our characters based on semantics, not facts. Words are cheap and power is fleeting.
"Shame on the National Football League and Commissioner Goodell for being more concerned about 'convicting' us publicly than being honorable and fair to men who have dedicated their professional lives to playing this game with honor."
Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, who is suspended for the 2012 season, also was at the NFL's headquarters for the hearing, but left shortly after 11 a.m. ET. Fujita is suspended for three games, Hargrove is banned for eight games and Smith for four.
Vilma's lawyer, Peter Ginsberg, called Monday's hearing a "sham." Ginsberg said the NFL requested an adjournment to Monday afternoon, but he and Vilma refused. Ginsberg said Goodell failed to present the evidence on which he based his decision to impose the player's suspension.
Vilma said he doesn't know how he can get a fair hearing when Goodell is "judge, jury and executioner."
All four players were on the Saints roster when Williams, by his own admission, ran a pay-for-pain operation that handed out cash bonuses for big hits on targeted opponents.
Lawyers for the players and the NFL Players Association also attended Monday's hearing. The union recently lost two grievances challenging Goodell's authority to hand out discipline for the bounty system.
The NFL turned over evidence to the four players and the union on Friday, as required by the collective bargaining agreement. That information included some 200 pages of documents, with emails, PowerPoint presentations, even handwritten notes, plus one video recording. But a ledger that reportedly documents payments of $1,000 for plays called "cart-offs" and $400 for "whacks," as well as $100 fines for mental errors, was not in the material.
The NFL's investigation of the Saints found Williams ran a system for three years under which bounties were set on targeted opponents, including Brett Favre and Kurt Warner. The program was in effect from 2009, when New Orleans won the Super Bowl, until last season.
Previously, Goodell suspended Saints coach Sean Payton for the season and assistant coach Joe Vitt for six games. Saints general manager Mickey Loomis got eight games, and Williams was suspended indefinitely. The Saints were also fined $500,000 and forfeited two second-round draft picks.
Peter King â€@SI_PeterKing
I say: Time to see the evidence.
James Varney â€@jvarneyTP
NFL says players requested adjournment for more time to review Friday's evidence. Set for 1:45 pm EST
Anthony Hargrove â€@A95Hargrove
@jvarneyTP not true
mike freeman â€@realfreemancbs
There is no smoking gun that I can see. But there are still interesting terms...
mike freeman â€@realfreemancbs
To me, from what I've read with my own two eyes, this isn't proof. That doesn't mean the NFL doesn't have it, it just means this isn't it.
Here is the 200 page "evidence".
https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/Public-News/NFLPA-Makes-Exhibits-Available-for-Review/
The media is scratching their heads trying to figure out WTF in here is such devastating evidence the NFL claimed to have that warranted these severe punishments.
The media is scratching their heads trying to figure out WTF in here is such devastating evidence the NFL claimed to have that warranted these severe punishments.
Then the media is retarded.ERRONEOUS!
It took me five minutes of skimming Exhibits 1-5 before I found the first mention of rewards for cart-off hits, "whacks," interceptions, etc.
Then the media is retarded.No shit. 5, 6, and 7 could damn near make the case on their own. Sure, there is a lot of mundane game prep stuff in between everything, but the proof is there.
It took me five minutes of skimming Exhibits 1-5 before I found the first mention of rewards for cart-off hits, "whacks," interceptions, etc.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8065820/appeal-new-orleans-saints-bounty-suspensions-claim-email-was-joke-sources-say
Drew Brees compares evidence for bounties to evidence for WMDs
Posted by Michael David Smith on June 19, 2012, 6:49 AM EDT
Samsung's Annual Hope For Children Gala - Red Carpet Getty Images
Saints quarterback Drew Brees has offered up an interesting analogy for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s case that some of Brees’s coaches and teammates on the Saints were involved in a bounty program: Brees says it’s reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s case for the Iraq War.
On Monday, as reporters were scrutinizing about 200 pages of what the NFL says is a 50,000-page file of evidence in the Saints’ bounty program, Brees wrote on Twitter that he isn’t buying it.
“If NFL fans were told there were ‘weapons of mass destruction’ enough times, they’d believe it,†Brees wrote. “But what happens when you don’t find any????â€
In the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush Administration repeatedly said Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, a claim that most Americans believed and that turned out to be false. Bush later called his biggest regret as president.
If I were Brees, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Goodell to call suspending the Saints his biggest regret as commissioner.
Haystack of NFL evidence has a few possible bounty needles
Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2012, 1:03 AM EDT
The 50,000 pages in the bounty file became fewer than 200 that were given to the NFLPA on Friday, which via careful, time-consuming, page-by-page scrutiny by yours truly reveal a handful of documents that suggest the existence of a bounty program in New Orleans.
There’s no doubt that the Saints maintained an illegal pay-for-performance program, which rewarded defensive players for good plays and penalized them for mental errors and penalties. For that violation, the coaches and the team should indeed be punished. As to player discipline, the question is whether and to what extent players offered, paid, or received money for the infliction of injury on opponents.
As Gantt mentioned on Monday afternoon, one document indicates that several persons pledged money to what is described in at least one of the other documents as a “kitty pool†for the 2009 NFC title game against the Vikings, and that several of the contributions were tied to the opposing quarterback, Brett Favre.
The league didn’t produce to the NFLPA a copy of the handwritten notes. Instead, the league converted the handwritten notes into a typed document, providing the typed document and not the handwritten notes.
For the non-lawyers in the crowd, this is very unusual. Disputes routinely involve handwritten notes, which may or may not readily be legible. The standard procedure in such situations is to: (1) figure out who wrote the notes; and (2) question that person as to what the notes say. In 18 years of practicing law, I never encountered or heard of a party to any type of litigation converting handwritten notes to typed notes, producing the typed notes, and not producing the handwritten notes for scrutiny and witness questioning.
In this case, at a bare minimum, the NFL should have produced both — especially since the NFLPA will now argue that the typed version does not qualify as an acceptable alternative, and that the typed notes should not be considered because they weren’t produced at least three days before the appeal hearing.
With that caveat, the typed translation of the handwritten notes state “Vilma $10,000 QB,†which the NFL presumably interprets as linebacker Jonathan Vilma pledging $10,000 to anyone who knocked Brett Favre out of the game. The document similarly indicates that defensive end Charles Grant pledged $10,000 with the “QB†designation, as did non-Saints employee Mike Ornstein. The notes likewise reflect that assistant head coach/linebackers coach Joe Vitt contributed $5,000 to the “QB out pool,†and that linebacker Scott Fujita and defensive end Will Smith contributed $2,000 and $5,000, respectively, to the “General Pool.†(Vitt’s lawyer, David Cornwell told PFT on Monday night that Vitt was never accused nor suspected of contributing money to a bounty pool.) Finally, safety Darren Sharper pledged $5,000 for a “Pick 6″ and “QB hits.â€
Another document (also a typed version of handwritten notes) lists a variety of names and amounts, with no specific designation as to what the amount reflects. The presence of Ornstein on the list, along with $5,000, suggests that it’s a list of pledges for an unknown game. Vilma is down for $2,000, Smith for $1,500, Grant for $1,500, linebacker Scott Shanle for $500, cornerback Leigh Torrence for $500, and “Evans†(presumably linebacker Troy) for $500. The document in a separate column states “Fujita to DL,†with “$500 Sack†and “$500 FF†below that.
Other documents raise questions, including a 2009 email from Ornstein to Gregg Willliams regarding future contributions from Ornstein, and an October 11, 2009 email from former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo to Williams that says, “Here’s Ornstein’s slide, I also added Jets injury to our Monday slide . . . Here’s what it looks like.†(The Saints played the Jets on October 4; October 11 was the Sunday of the Saints’ bye week.)
One item lists the “Kill the Head Totals†for 2010, with Vilma leading the way at 62. It’s unclear what “Kill the Head†means in that context. Another document shows safety Roman Harper being paid $1,000 for a “cart-off†against the Giants, with no indication as to the subject of the “cart-off†or what specifically happened to him.
Finally, the slide containing the photo of “Dog The Bounty Hunter†looks bad on the surface, but it seems to be an exaggeration, with entries like “Must suspected be delivered dead or alive?â€
Though most of the documents produced by the NFL to the NFLPA contain no evidence of a bounty program, a few of the pages keep the bounty case alive. But it may not be enough to constitute persuasive and adequate evidence that players paid, offered to pay, or received money for inflicting injuries — especially without the handwritten notes and in the absence of testimony from the person(s) who created them.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/19/drew-brees-compares-evidence-for-bounties-to-evidence-for-wmds/Well that's a scary thought, if you're bammer Saints fan...GW Bombed the fuck out of Iraq.
Ginsberg chastises Goodell for distortion of evidence, demands reversal of suspension
Posted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2012, 6:23 PM EDT
Peter Ginsberg, Billy Martin, Joel Segal AP
The Commissioner of the National Football League rarely gets talked to in the way he got talked to today.
On Monday Goodell got an earful from lawyer Peter Ginsberg in the initial session of the bounty hearings.
As set forth below, Ginsberg accused Goodell of failing to conduct a fair process and distorting facts, calling the proceedings “shocking and shameful.†Multiple sources tell PFT that Ginsberg’s remarks were “heated,†and one source present at the session perceived that Goodell’s face turned red during Ginsberg’s rant.
Ginsberg also claimed that former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and former Saints assistant Michael Cerullo have since retracted any claim that the players actually were engaged in a bounty program. That’s an allegation that hasn’t previously been made and, if true, would be extremely significant.
Ginsberg concluded by demanding that Goodell rescind the punishment of Ginsberg’s client, Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, and apologize publicly.
Though it wasn’t quite an Animal House-style march out, Vilma and Ginsberg left the hearings after the initial session, and they did not return when the hearing resumed in the afternoon.
PFT has obtained a copy of the uncertified rough draft transcript from the morning session. Ginsberg’s remarks are summarized below or, for those of you reading this in the Rumor Mill, after the jump.
“We have been willing to meet with you for months now,†Ginsberg said to Goodell after addressing alleged jurisdictional issues with the appeal process. “If you, sir, were prepared to exchange fairly and thoroughly in a process in which we could have a discourse and you, Commissioner, could come to a better understanding of what, in fact, occurred with the New Orleans Saints. If you had presented us with a modicum of due process, if you had elicited or evidenced any willingness to share the evidence with us, we were more than prepared to [engage] in a full [dialogue].
“Instead, Commissioner, you have deprived us of the most fundamental rights, you have provided us with no evidence either in a timely fashion or other to support any of the horrific accusation and allegations that you have made about Mr. Vilma. You have been unwilling to [engage] in any fair [dialogue] or any fair exchange. You have made serious allegations an in light of those allegations, in light of what you claim to be important to the NFL and in light of you, sir, your supposed concern for the integrity of this sport and in light of the consequences, Jonathan Vilma both personally and professional, we have as you know found these process[es] and these proceedings to be shocking and shameful.
“From the very beginning, Mr. Vilma asked you to do two things, Commissioner Goodell. One was to investigate as thoroughly [you] could what lay behind your supposed accusation and the other thing Mr. Vilma asked you to do as to listen to him because he was prepared to tell the whole truth about your supposed — about your accusations.
“We have, in fact, engaged in a thorough investigation. It has been [stymied] in part, sir, because you haven’t issued gag orders to people with evidence, former coaches, people with [the] New Orleans Saints, you had made threats to keep them from talking, you have refused to have them even participate in today’s proceedings, but nonetheless, Commissioner Goodell, we have talked to dozens of people, literally dozens of people regarding your allegations. We have spend months gathering information and we have compared that information to your descriptions, your public descriptions. . . . But in preparing with what you have accused Mr. Vilma with the information that we have gathered, we have found the following, Commissioner Goodell.â€
Ginsberg at that point accused Goodell of distorting the facts, pointing to the email message Mike Ornstein sent from prison in September 2011, which supposedly offered a $5,000 bounty on Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers for the Week One game between the Saints and Green Bay. Ginsberg also mentioned Hargrove’s declaration as being “distorted . . . in the media†by the league.
“You have taken words that Gregg Williams used, colorful words like cart-offs and wax and [kill the head] and have chosen publicly to distort the meaning of those words notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Williams and others ha told you that those terms in no way relate to illegal hits or any bounty program that you have decided, sir, to misrepresent what those words, in fact, mean,†Ginsberg said.
Ginsberg also cites “substantial evidence†that Williams and former Saints assistant (and suspected whistleblower) Mike Cerullo “retracted directly and affirmatively and without equivocation any claims they have previously made about a bounty program,†explaining that the league has not disclosed those retractions.
“Your office leaked to the press a couple weeks ago a supposed ledger which theoretically provided evidence of a bounty program,†Ginsberg said. “And when the media analyzed this supposed ledger, it became clear [apparently] even to the NFL office that since no players were identified in that supposed ledger, there was no tying of that ledger to any way to a bounty program. You have chosen after airing it out publicly not even to include that ledger in the documents you provided in an untimely fashion with regard to this proceeding.â€
Ginsberg then pushed toward a conclusion of his remarks, apparently hoping to end strong.
“Sir, we have looked at the objective evidence as well as looked at the Gregg Williams video and spoken to people and we have looked at the statistics, we have looked at game film, we have looked at penalties, we have concluded and I think it is irrefutable that there is nothing objective that can support what you have accused Mr. Vilma of having done publicly,†Ginsberg said. “Commissioner Goodell, Jonathan Vilma has never participated in a bounty program. He has never put up any money designed to hurt an opposing player. He has never received any money for hurting another player. He has never intended to hurt another player and he has never in any way provided any incentive for any of his teammates to have hurt another playing.
“Commissioner Goodell, what you have done is to make some horrible accusations about Mr. Vilma’s person, about his integrity and about his professionalism. You have imposed a misplaced punishment and, sir, you have cast a shadow not only on Mr. Vilma personally and professionally, and I dare say under NFL and under the offices of the Commissioner in engaging in these proceedings, there’s just one and just one result in this proceeding and that is for you to rescind any punishment against Mr. Vilma and to apologize in public for what you have done.â€
Though it’s unlikely Goodell will comply, it feels inevitable that Vilma and Goodell eventually will be hashing this out before someone who wears a black robe on a regular basis — and there won’t be much gray between their respective positions.
Closing the Casket on BountyGate
Monday's events at the players' appeal seemed to provide some finality and closure to the noxious bloodletting Saints' fans have endured for the past 90 days or so. Even if the NFL was shown, yet again, to be less than credible in its assertions--hardly a surprise--the end cycle of the entire process offered a calming sense of repose.
For months we begged for real evidence yet saw very little. Finally on Monday, the league released its raw evidence used to implicate and convict the players. While the evidence itself wasn't so damning or clear-cut, it did move the story forward by giving us a peek into the precursor materials used to ignite this boiling cauldron of demagoguery and bias.
Let me be clear so as to not be accused of engaging in ambiguity and avoiding the truth. The Saints were guilty of a few things. One, they clearly funded and embraced a pay-for-performance program. Two, they alienated the NFL for years over a variety of issues (addressed in here (http://saintswin.blogspot.com/2012/06/distorting-language-of-bountygate.html)). They did these things at the wrong time in NFL history and were made to stand as nefarious poster-boys for a league suddenly fearful of the consequences of its true, Hobbesian nature.
What the Saints are not guilty of is maintaining a three-year, institutionalized pay-to-injure ("bounty") program. That this was the original allegation (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/peter_king/03/02/saints.bounties/index.html)--a misrepresentation at best, an outright falsehood at worst--and that it laid the foundation for the NFL's self-serving, punitive ways, was faulty to say the least. But no matter. The damage is done and the narrative is written.
It's a bit too convenient when, in the same months that thousands of ex-players sue the NFL over a variety of health-related maladies, the NFL suddenly sends a blistering message to the world trumpeting its dedication to player safety.
This wasn't so much about what the Saints may have done wrong, but more so about what the NFL could accomplish by accusing them of doing so.
One game does not a three-year program make
The only actual evidence of a bounty in the 200 pages of official evidence was a transcribed note relating to the NFCCG against the Vikings during the '09 season.
Forget for a second that this piece of evidence was transcribed from the testimony of a disgruntled ex-employee who may have later retracted his statements (more on that in a bit), and focus on the fact that it took the NFL two years to implicate the Saints for this alleged misdeed.
Were the NFL truly concerned for player safety, had they considered this act so offensively egregious, they would have immediately addressed it when it came to their attention in the months following that game.
Instead they sat on it, and used that claim when it best suited their needs. What this reveals, and this really isn't any kind of revelation at all, is that the Saints are just a temporarily disposable piece on the NFL's larger chessboard where protecting the king (i.e, reaping profits) is all that really matters. Whatever it takes. When you view the decision making in this light, you see that the Saints simply served to facilitate the execution of a specific tactic in the NFL's long-term brand protection strategy.
Had to be somebody.
This was never really about guilt or evidence or fairness or due process. It was only about constructing facades and fortifying moats. Plain and simple. Everything else is a peripheral detail that distracts from the emphasis of the larger point. And no matter how obstreperous our protestations may be or how unjustly slighted we feel or how truly flimsy the NFL's evidence may be as it relates to their claims and punishments, it's an end-result that was inevitable the moment it unfolded.
Monoliths don't lose the little battles. But crumble they may.
This isn't about you or me or Jonathan Vilma or Sean Payton or Gregg Williams or anyone else. This is only about a handful of billionaires intent on protecting their money at all costs. Why do you think Tom Benson has made nary a peep? If they have to spare a few people along the way to ensure that the end goal is met, then so be it. Tough shit, little guy. All in the game. That's how the world works even if it's "not fair" or even if it's hurtful when you're the collateral damage.
I could spend thousands of words deconstructing the soft, flabby underbelly of the NFL's "comprehensive" evidence as presented, but Mike Florio has done that admirably and you can read about it here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. The only potentially smoking guns to emerge from these latest documents are two things, neither of which offers concrete proof to justify the extreme harshness of the punishments:
1) Gregg Williams' PowerPoint slide that read "Now it's time to do our jobs...collect bounty$$$!" is certainly damning to an extent, but not near indicative of a 3-year bounty program; nor is it near enough evidence to justify banning Sean Payton for a calendar year, costing him ~$7M. If you haven't heard it said repeatedly over the past three months, the punishments never fit the supposed crime.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-fFQcdVf6n_A/T9_EK6H4vXI/AAAAAAAAAiI/cSKSm-DY9DQ/s640/bounty.jpg)
Gregg Williams, in dire need of a PowerPoint tutorial
If we're to believe these slides literally, are we to believe that Gregg Williams advocated shooting opponents with sniper rifles as referenced in the above slide? Did he actually want "suspect(s) delivered dead"?
2) The "transcribed note" detailing monetary sums that indicate a bounty on Brett Favre is, for now, flimsy and illusory. Most importantly, let's remember that these notes were presumably transcribed from Mike Cerullo, a disgruntled ex-Saints' employee (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/18453794/filmmaker-identifies-saints-whistleblower-league-has-no-comment) who decided to seek retribution against coaches he despised (Payton, Williams). This fact alone should call into question his credibility and motivations. Coupled with the fact that Peter Ginsberg just yesterday claimed Cerullo retracted his prior statements affirming bounties (a fact not previously divulged), Cerullo's testimony becomes even less reliable.
Equally important, a transcribed note just isn't good enough. It's a damning piece of evidence that can too easily be falsified. Who wrote the original note(s)? Is the NFL in possession of the originals? Has the authenticity of these handwritten notes been verified by a neutral third party? Absent answers to these essential questions, any transcribed note is just a written account of some random person saying some random things. If these notes do in fact exist, and do in fact detail a large bounty on Brett Favre, then by all means, the Saints' guilt is inarguable.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c_v4c7osqR0/T9_Ei-CnucI/AAAAAAAAAiQ/P9ozrFGkNF4/s1600/nfccg.jpg)
Not the actual note, but an unverified representation of it by the NFL
But that information doesn't yet exist. In light of how the NFL publicly misrepresented both Hargrove's declaration (http://saintswin.blogspot.com/2012/05/keeping-score-in-kangaroo-court.html) and the bounty ledger (http://theangrywhodat.com/2012/06/02/ledger-gate-ok-lets-look-at-the-carolina-game/)--pieces of supposed evidence that were so weak they weren't even included with the league's official set of exhibits--why should we just automatically believe that this league-transcribed note is legitimate?
And even if it ultimately proves authentic, it still doesn't mesh with the allegations of the three-year program the Saints were accused of maintaining. One incident, though potentially egregious, is incongruous with the allegations of institutionalized malevolence for three seasons. As I covered here (http://saintswin.blogspot.com/2012/06/distorting-language-of-bountygate.html) two weeks ago, it's simply a distortion of facts to achieve an end.
But it doesn't change anything, unfortunately.
The NFL continues its manipulative ways. Instead of simply releasing all of its info to the players and the public, the league congregated 12 select media members--in private--to catechize them on the efficacy of their evidence. The fact of the matter is that if the NFL wasn't more concerned with shaping the message than presenting the facts, they wouldn't convene "an Apostle-sized collection of scribes (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/18/explosive-compelling-evidence-is-also-irrelevant-if-not-given-to-nflpa-on-friday/)" to spoon feed.
They would simply allow the information to speak for itself, but they won't.
Moreover, the act of attempting to control the message ultimately disseminated by their recumbent media arm is another example of the NFL's dedication to manipulation rather than truth. At this point in the game, it's a formula with which we should all be well acquainted. And it's insultingly transparent to anyone with a partially operating brain.
Regardless, the NFL most likely emerged "victorious" for the simple fact that they publicly divulged documentation purporting to be comprehensive, justifiable evidence. The Saints were guilty of a few things--poor judgment, hyperbole, a pay-for-performance system and, at worst, one game over the past three seasons where a bounty was offered.
To say this farcical process was fair, or that the outcome is righteous, would be to miss the mark badly. Mostly, the Saints are being publicly punished for the league's past sins in order to shift existing perceptions about the NFL into a more favorable light.
That's a reality that will endure no matter what ultimate truth prevails.
I don't know how this is so difficult to understand. You can call it a bounty program, pay for performance program, or whatever you want to call it. Bottom line, it was illegal. Where the Saints really fucked themselves is when the NFL got wind of it, and the Saints said nothing was going on. I mean, come on man. If this sort of thing were about Alabama football and this type of evidence was released, you would be all over it like a rat on a Cheet-O. You would be beside yourself that Alabama football should cease to exist, circumstantial evidence be damned. Everything is based on what perspective you look at it from.I don't know how it's so difficult to understand that the NFL may be lying. There is no "smoking gun" in any of that, sorry. The most damning evidence is a note that they allege to have transcribed, although they can't produce the original note or even will give a name of who allegedly wrote it. Shady at best.
I couldn't give two shits less if this happened to the Saints, Packers, Patriots, or any other NFL team. I hardly watch NFL ball, so I don't pull for one over the other. But if this shit came out about a team I cared about? I would shit my pants.
Ornstein denies telling NFL that Vilma offered money
Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2012, 3:18 PM EDT
And the craziness continues.
On Monday, NFL outside counsel Mary Jo White said at the bounty appeal hearing that Mike Ornstein corroborated the claim that Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma offered $10,000 to anyone who knocked Vikings quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC title game, and that Vilma offered $10,000 to anyone who knocked Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner out of the 2009 NFC divisional-round playoff game.
The only problem with that? Ornstein tells PFT that he never said what the NFL now claims he said.
“I never corroborated $10,000,†Ornstein said. “The only thing that I told them was that we had the [pregame] meeting, we jumped around, we screamed around, and I never saw [Vilma] offer one dime. And I never heard him say it.â€
Ornstein admits that the Saints had a pay-for-performance program in 2009, but he repeatedly denied that he told the NFL that Vilma offered any money knocking any player out of any game.
“Did I say to the league that I saw Jonathan Vilma offer $10,000?†Ornstein said. “Absolutely not.â€
I asked Ornstein the question several different ways, to ensure there was no ambiguity. He consistently and repeatedly (and at times profanely) denied ever telling the NFL that Vilma offered money to anyone who knocked Favre and/or Warner out of the 2009 playoff games.
It’s unclear what, if any, impact this has on the broader bounty case, other than to call into serious question the validity of the league’s reliance on Ornstein as proof that Vilma offered money to anyone, for anything. Though there’s a chance Ornstein is lying now, there’s also a chance he was lying then, and given his history of legal entanglements, the league may have badly erred by using him to support any aspect of the bounty case.
Odd timing on Hargrove's payment request
June, 18, 2012
By Kevin Seifert | ESPN.com
I mentioned earlier I would bring to your attention any additional evidence the NFL released about the role of Green Bay Packers defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove in the New Orleans Saints bounty case, and so here you go.
As noted by Sports Illustrated's Peter King and several other reporters who were present for an afternoon briefing by the league, the league has an NFL Films video that purportedly shows Hargrove telling Saints defensive end Bobby McCray to "give me my money" after a third-quarter hit that injured Favre's ankle. (NFL.com video here.)
The statement comes moments after Saints assistant coach Joe Vitt told the defense that Favre had been knocked out of the game. The quote would presumably stand as significant evidence both of a bounty scheme and Hargrove's participation; the NFL has alleged there was at least a $35,000 bounty on Favre in the game.
Here is my only concern with that conclusion: Why would Hargrove expect payment for a hit that he wasn't involved in? As you recall, the third-quarter hit that injured Favre's ankle came at the hands of McCray and defensive tackle Remi Ayodele. In the second quarter, Hargrove received an unnecessary roughness penalty for a hit on Favre, but Favre suffered no documented injury.
The timing doesn't make sense, but we'll have to see if anything comes of it.
You can call it a bounty program, pay for performance program, or whatever you want to call it. Bottom line, it was illegal.All this hysteria, slander, and public outcry against the evil Saints is not because they were fucking gambling.
Anthony Hargrove denies voice on videotape was his
Posted by Darin Gantt on June 19, 2012, 3:39 PM EDT
Anthony Hargrove continued in a long line of Saints and their associates poking holes in the NFL’s bounty evidence.
Hargrove said Tuesday that one of the statements attributed to him wasn’t his voice, according to ESPN’s Adam Schefter.
CBS Sports’ Jason LaCanfora obtained a copy of Hargove’s statement, which can be read here, where Hargrove says “I have felt like the target of a sophisticated mugging.â€
Players and reporters were shown a video presentation Monday, which included what they were told was Hargrove saying “Hey, Bobby, give me the money!†to teammate Bobby McCray after they were told Brett Favre was injured and would have to be replaced.
He’s just the latest in a line of denials, including Mike Ornstein denying he told the NFL that Jonathan Vilma offered $10,000 to anyone who knocked Brett Favre out of the NFC Championship Game, and Joe Vitt’s attorney saying the assistant coach was never accused of putting money into a bounty fund, even though the league released evidence saying he had.
Chadskins is a regular Brooks with this bounty gate stuff.Just as retarded, too.
Just as retarded, too.Brooks = desperately trying to fabricate some scandal where none exists for the sake of sensationalism.
Brooks = desperately trying to fabricate some scandal where none exists for the sake of sensationalism.
I'm the anti-Brooks. I'm Never to Yielding in this ho.
Fight thegoodtard fight,brotherNFL bammer.
All this hysteria, slander, and public outcry against the evil Saints is not because they were fucking gambling.
Correct.And you can't read.
It's because they were rewarding the injury of other players. And then lied when asked if a bounty system was in place.
And you can't read.
Or you're gullible enough to believe that the use of the phrase "collect bounty$$$," preceded by a slide consisting of nothing but an image of money, was an honest to God mistake that the poor innocent Saints made while not operating a bounty system.I've said from day one that they probably had some sort of pool going on. You just said:
Correct.How does anything you just posted confirm that they were rewarded for the injury of other players?
It's because they were rewarding the injury of other players. And then lied when asked if a bounty system was in place.
When [Gregg Williams] arrived, players weren’t familiar/fluent with the technique of “assessing the opponentâ€. This was part of the training used to teach this. GW used the above slide as a tool to teach by using popular culture to draw players in. It gave players a point of reference that they were familiar with. Unfortunately, “Dog the Bounty Hunter†was a poorly chosen and ironic example to use but life plays havoc on us at times.
They're either innocent retards or guilty liars. I guess you've chosen to believe the former as a means of defending why they should be coddled and given a slap on the wrist.The only "guilty liars" is the NFL and Roger Goodell. If you didn't see the plethora of things they have lied about, or in the very least exaggerated, then you must be skipping over my posts from this week.
Keeping Score in Kangaroo Court
Let's take some inventory.
Here's an overview of the current state of the NFL's increasingly-feeble "evidence" thus far as it slowly seeps into the public domain.
1) KNOCK-OUTS AND CART-OFFS
From 2009-2011, the three seasons the NFL has claimed the Saints operated a bounty program that rewarded "knock-outs" and "cart-offs," not one opposing player was knocked out or carted off from a hit by a Saints' defender.
In fact, the only player carted off the field during those three seasons was one Reggie Bush who, of course, played for the Saints. (update 1: see comments, update 2: see just below)
As such there is definitively no conclusive proof that such a program, if it indeed existed, was ever implemented on the field of play.
But you knew that already. And you know, it's kind of a big deal in the grand scheme of this quagmire.
[Update 6/2: With the release of its "ledger" evidence, the NFL reported an injury "cart off" of a Giants player in the Saints-Giants game in 2009. For whatever reason, the NFL refused to disclose this player's identity.
Apparently, it is Giants OL Kareem McKenzie who injured his groin on two plays: one late in the 2nd quarter, one early in the 3rd quarter. According to the NFL, presumably, this was a bounty: the targeting of an O Lineman's groin.
Though intimated in Jason Cole's Yahoo! article, there is no mention of a player being paid for McKenzie's injury which doesn't even appear to have directly resulted from a Saints' defender.
It's also important to note that upon the initial release of this "ledger" report on 6/1, the NFL amended its leak/report a few hours later because their initial information was wrong. Specifically, Jason Cole also reported (per a league source) that three $1000 payments were paid to Saints' players after the Saints-Bills game in '09.
When it was shown that the only players hurt in that game were Bills' defenders, the NFL soon amended its report to say those payments were actually made after the Saints-Panthers game in '09. But c'mon guys, JUST TRUST US ON THIS ONE!
With a little cursory research, I found that the Saints recovered three fumbles against the Panthers in week 9 in 2009. Could those fumble recoveries be the source of the three $1000 payouts (if they indeed existed)?
Remember that this ledger is supposed to be evidence of a pay-to-injure program, not a pay-for-performance program. The Saints admitted to the latter, not the former.
Thus far, this evidence leak is following the same pattern of the Hargrove Declaration and the Ornstein Email: wildly mischaracterized in an attempt to prove something the NFL continues to appear incapable of existing as publicly stated.
As new information becomes available on this issue, I will continue to update this.]
2) THE GREGG WILLIAMS ADMISSION/APOLOGY
After publicly admitting culpability to a pay-for-performance program in New Orleans, word leaked this past week that the NFL had altered Williams' confession to better suit the message it was publicly delivering. As Mike Triplett of the Times-Pic recently told us:
"... according to a source close to Williams, the NFL has also misrepresented what Williams said in interviews with the league. According to the source, Williams never admitted a 'bounty program' was in place and that the league 'rephrased his statements to satisfy its needs.' The source also said Williams never identified any players for their involvement in a pay-for-performance or bounty program."
A month ago, I--along with a legion of other Saints' fans--pondered whether Williams' quick turn to accept responsibility was a mitigating strategy aimed at saving a career suddenly in peril at the hands of the retributive Goodell. Now more than a month after Williams' statement released and his punishment accepted, it's been noted by a person close to Williams that the documented content of his admission was manufactured by the league.
This is exceptionally noteworthy in light of everything else unfolding, and yet another indication of the league's besmirched veracity.
3) THE HARGROVE DECLARATION
A key piece of the league's supposedly conclusive proof as to the existence of the Saints' bounty program was Anthony Hargrove's signed declaration confessing to the program's existence and his (and other players') participation in it.
Curiously, this declaration was generated by the NFLPA and submitted to the NFL for their case file (or whatever).
Much like the Pamphilon audio, this was a piece of the NFL's "evidence" that the league had no hand in developing which, if nothing else, calls into question the quality of the league's investigation or--at least--their ability to produce any meaningful output of evidence on their own.
Moreover this declaration is dated 4/13/12, well after the NFL punished the Saints (coaches and team) and much, much later than any prior investigation into the matter. To say that this declaration was vital to the investigation and disbursement of sanctions would simply be incorrect because it didn't exist as hard "proof" until a few weeks ago.
Regardless, prior to this week's release of the actual declaration, Mary Jo White----the NFL's "neutral" third party who was compensated by the NFL to review and comment on the totality of evidence--said this, in a transparent publicity stunt, about the Hargrove declaration:
"There hasn't been any denial of the existence of that program. One of the Saints players (current Packers DE Anthony Hargrove) who was disciplined yesterday actually submitted a declaration in which he acknowledged that the program existed, acknowledged his participation and admitted that he lied to the NFL investigators in 2010."
This as we now know, is an utter, bald-faced lie. Upon review of the actual declaration, it's become painfully clear that the NFL completely mischaracterized Hargrove's words and fabricated its relevancy to the actual establishment of a bounty program.
In fact, Hargrove's declaration only stated that he answered questions to NFL investigators as instructed by Gregg Williams and Joe Vitt in 2010. More specifically according to Hargrove, they told him in 2010 to "deny the existence of any bounty or bounty program."
No where in the document does Hargrove admit being told to "lie"--a common misconception being perpetuated in media circles--nor does he admit to the existence of a program, nor does he admit to a bounty being placed on Brett Favre in the '09 NFCCG, nor does he admit his participation (or the participation of others) in a bounty program, nor could he have functionally testified to the actuality of a bounty program in future seasons.
The NFL's public presentation of this vis-a-vis the now established truth is troubling, to say the least.
Complicating matters soon after the release of Hargrove's declaration, Joe Vitt refuted instructing Hargrove to deny allegations of a bounty program. Vitt said:
"At no time did I ever tell Anthony Hargrove to lie or deny the existence (of the alleged bounty program) ... He can say whatever he wants to say. It just didn't happen."
Even aside from that relevant notation, it's still definitive that what the NFL once publicly claimed was rock-solid proof of a bounty program is, in fact, much less than so. And the declaration proves nothing besides the fact that Hargrove denied its existence.
Peter Ginsberg, Jonanthan Vilma's attorney, explains it:
"[A]s we have seen in the press the last few days that the Commissioner’s office and the Commissioner’s outside counsel have discernibly misrepresented even the information that the Commissioner has gathered. When you put that in the context of the Commissioner’s high-priced outside counsel saying that when we asked for evidence and when we wanted to know what we were answering to — and this is [outside counsel Mary Jo White's] quote ‘a red herring,’ it really puts into perspective the kangaroo court that Jonathan and the others have been subjected to.
I can’t think of any other forum in the United States where this kind of abusive process is permitted. If you want to ask me why it is permitted, you are asking the wrong person. I wasn’t a part of the CBA negotiations. And I don’t think that the CBA as it stands permits this kind of abusive process."
This issue is a perfect example of why producing the actual evidence for review, not the NFL's characterization of it in memos, is of utmost importance.
4) THE ORNSTEIN EMAIL
Early in the bounty investigation, the NFL trotted out an email sent from Mike Ornstein pledging a $5000 bounty on Aaron Rodgers in the 2011 Saints' opener at Green Bay. In prison at the time for essentially being a flippant hustler, Ornstein is a shadowy figure looked down upon (probably rightfully so) by league higher-ups for his repeated tendency to engage in shady and illegal activities during his time in the NFL.
Initially, the NFL presented Ornstein's email as being sent directly to Payton for the purpose of pledging money for a bounty on Aaron Rodgers.
Forget for a second that Rodgers took virtually nary a hit in that game, we learned last night the complete contents of Ornstein's email which provide more useful context.
For starters, this email was transmitted directly to Greg Bensel (Saints' team spokesman) and not Payton or Williams as previously suggested. After reading through its contents, Bensel forwarded the email to several coaches on the Saints' staff.
The NFL's initial implication that the communication was solely between Ornstein and Payton is to suggest a complicit, reciprocal modus operandi between the two in a concerted effort to financially incentivize Saints' defenders to knock Rodgers out of the game.
However, upon the revelation of the complete email, we learned that it was a wide-ranging, "rambling" message that touched on a variety of subjects and ended with the postscripted bounty pledge, one that Ornstein insists was a running joke among coaches for years ever since the accusations of the Favre bounty years prior.
Ornstein says this:
"It's a running joke going for three years ... As long as I've worked with people in the NFL, everyone who knows me knows that the only things I've ever done for players is things that help them, not hurt them. First of all, I don't have $5,000 to put down. When I wrote that email, I was in jail. How was I going to pay for it? In stamps? I'm in federal jail in Florence."
No matter his credibility, the initial presentation of the Ornstein exhibit and the recent revelation of its true nature once again indicates an effort by the NFL to alter what it considered evidence into something more damning and concrete--when it in fact wasn't--in an effort to better bolster a tenuous stance.
Ginsberg further says this:
"Ornstein’s email is just another example of the speciousness of the quote-unquote evidence that Commissioner Goodell claims to have to support his erroneous accusations against Jonathan and the other players. As more of the evidence is revealed in the media, it is becoming more and more apparent how irresponsible the NFL’s actions have been."
And NFLPA counsel Richard Smith adds this:
"The NFL has not provided the players with any information like this. It is unfortunate that they continue to withhold evidence that can show players’ innocence. This email proves what we have feared: what they’ve been selling to the media as evidence doesn’t match up with the truth."
What's certain thus far is a concerted effort by the NFL to build a cohesive narrative by mischaracterizing what it desperately hopes to be evidence, but by all accounts isn't really all that damning, all that conclusive, or all that justifiable for the extremity of punishments handed down.
Remember that this is some of the evidence used to ban Sean Payton for 16 games; no NFL coach prior has been suspended for even one game. Yet what appears increasingly-more like flimsy evidence has been employed in Goodell's efforts to make an example of the Saints and discourage other teams from engaging in the practice of bountying.
SPECULATION
And perhaps buried in all of this is that Joe Hummel, the NFL's lead investigator in this sprawling clusterfuck, announced his resignation two weeks ago before the player penalties were handed down. Predictably, the NFL got out in front of this announcement and relayed that Hummel was leaving for greener pastures in the insurance business. Riiiiight.
It sounded strange and the timing was downright suboptimal in light of the NFLPA's repeated public demands for the evidence they had yet (and still are yet) to see.
In my estimation, it's eminently possible that Hummel was sharp enough to discern the snowballing miasm on the league's hands; informed enough to realize the evidence's weak totality; and prescient enough to foresee how an unraveling might soon unfold during a protracted battle with the NFLPA.
Precarious as such, he may certainly have proactively moved on to another job before potentially allowing Goodell to hang him out to dry for having provided the NFL with a flimsy foundation of evidence that was then mistakenly used to railroad the Saints.
One thing is for certain: if push comes to shove, Goodell will never admit any wrongdoing. He's much more likely to heap that burden upon one of his lackeys in an effort to save face for the league and the owners who hired him. It's not a stretch to presume that Hummel sensed this possibility and smartly moved himself out of harm's way.
Which makes Hummel, potentially, the next key figure in the NFLPA's deconstruction of the NFL's body of evidence. Assuming he's not restricted by a confidentiality agreement, Hummel could prove extremely valuable in revealing exactly what is what at this point.
Finally it's important to note that after two months, it's been firmly established that there is much more here than initially met the eye. Skepticism vindicated.
While lightweight, media gumby Jeff Duncan was busy last week calling Saints' fans conspiracy-theorizing simpletons, more and more info has come to light that undermines the league's initial position and subverts the justification for its punitive, draconian ways.
While Saints' players, the NFLPA, and Saints' fans continue to demand answers that are slowly coming to the fore, and the media-at-large that spent a month adamantly defending the NFL looks increasingly egg-faced, it's become abundantly clear who the blinded simpletons are at this point in the game.
A final question for you to ponder: if you were an NFL owner, would you have faith in this lumbering buffoon of a commissioner to protect your long-term, financial interests?
The clock ticks.
:facepalm::facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
It's amazing that you will take the most circumstantial rumor that you hear from a message board and run with it if it is what you want to believe, but then ignore cold hard evidence right in front of your face about something you don't want to believe. They even use the phrase "collect bounty $$$" in one document. How much clearer do they need to be? Come on. It doesn't even matter if they weren't successful in knocking a QB out of the game or injuring another player in this game or that game.
Again, the Saints lied to the NFL and got busted. Some guys gave statements and when they got outed, it started turning into "Well, uh, I didn't say exactly that. Uh, they twisted my words." I just don't see what the NFL has to gain out of creating something that doesn't exist. Especially when it is causing more harm than good as it goes on. It's no different than all of the Alabama fans who thought there was an NCAA conspiracy against Alabama. In reality, Alabama (or boosters, etc) just kept doing stupid shit. If you quit fucking up, mysteriously, you will be left alone. Same case here.You seriously can't see his motivation?
AP
To those who think the NFL intentionally has overstated the bounty case, here’s a strong reason for the league not to draw too much attention to such matters.
On Wednesday afternoon, Commissioner Roger Goodell will meet with Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) regarding the topic of bounties in pro sports.
But it doesn’t sound like Goodell is being dragged to D.C. against his wishes. He hasn’t been subpoenaed, and Durbin and Goodell will conduct a joint press conference after the meeting, which begins at 4:30 p.m. ET. The press conference is scheduled to begin roughly 15 minutes later.
And they’ll likely both claim that there’s no place for bounties in pro sports, and Goodell likely will say that he’s trying to eradicate bounties via his imposition of punishment upon the Saints organization, the coaches involved, and the players.
Though Goodell may not specifically blame the players, their lawyers, and/or the NFLPA for trying to frustrate that objective, he may not need to.
If this sort of thing were about Alabama football and this type of evidence was released, you would be all over it like a rat on a Cheet-O. You would be beside yourself that Alabama football should cease to exist, circumstantial evidence be damned. Everything is based on what perspective you look at it from.
To summarize after 17 pages, AUChizad is now SaintsGrad03
How does anything you just posted confirm that they were rewarded for the injury of other players?
The NFL said they had 2,000 pages of evidence, and that's the best they can come up with?
There's also a picture of a sniper rifle scope with someone in its sites. So is this irrefutable evidence that Gregg Williams was paying the players to murder someone?
I'll cop to this.We're all guilty of it at one point or another, myself included. We want to hear what we want to hear, and sometimes we slant other things that are of the contrary. Like I said, Chizad has ran with some bullshit posted by "reputable bloggers" and message boards before on different topics. When there is at least one document that is real evidence floating around about something he doesn't want to believe, his head is firmly planted in the sand.
Here is an article from May about Goodell & the NFL's lies and mischaracterizations from before this week.
http://saintswin.blogspot.com/2012/05/keeping-score-in-kangaroo-court.html
To summarize after 17 pages, AUChizad is now SaintsGrad03
:facepalm:
It's amazing that you will take the most circumstantial rumor that you hear from a message board and run with it if it is what you want to believe, but then ignore cold hard evidence right in front of your face about something you don't want to believe. They even use the phrase "collect bounty $$$" in one document. How much clearer do they need to be? Come on. It doesn't even matter if they weren't successful in knocking a QB out of the game or injuring another player in this game or that game.
Again, the Saints lied to the NFL and got busted. Some guys gave statements and when they got outed, it started turning into "Well, uh, I didn't say exactly that. Uh, they twisted my words." I just don't see what the NFL has to gain out of creating something that doesn't exist. Especially when it is causing more harm than good as it goes on. It's no different than all of the Alabama fans who thought there was an NCAA conspiracy against Alabama. In reality, Alabama (or boosters, etc) just kept doing stupid shit. If you quit fucking up, mysteriously, you will be left alone. Same case here.
Do you know of a way in which a non-injured player is going to require a cart to get off the field?And where in the report did the term "cart-off hits" come from? Purely the NFL's words. Not from any alleged "note", slide, or recorded "admission".
Me either.
So when there are monetary amounts listed next to the phrase "cart-off hits," that's pretty indicative of players being rewarded for injuring opposing players.
The only listing the NFL showed Monday where a Saints player allegedly received cash for a "cart-off" or "knockout" hit -- that is, one that required an opponent to miss all or part of a game -- was safety Roman Harper. Harper was recorded as receiving $1,000 for a "cart off" for the game against the New York Giants in 2009, according to the league presentation. In that game, White said, Giants running back Brandon Jacobs was forced out of the game with a shoulder injury after Harper tackled him in the third quarter.
1-10-NO 19 (9:00) 27-B.Jacobs right guard to NO 13 for 6 yards (42-D.Sharper).NYG-27-B.Jacobs was injured during the play. His return is Probable.
What the hell kind of logic is that article using? Because no opponents actually got carted off or knocked out, there was no program rewarding players for doing so?
I'm going to give AWK $50 to drive to New Orleans and burn your house down. But if your house doesn't burn down, then there was no conspiracy to burn it down.
Que?
Did they say that all 2,000 pages included references to the bounty system, or did they say that they had 2,000 total pages that the Saints turned over for review? I would imagine they said the latter, but I don't have whatever statement/article you're referencing in front of me, and I'm too lazy to find it in this thread.Excuse me, I misspoke. It was originally 5,000 pages of "evidence" that they claimed to have.
The NFL, complying with a collective bargaining rule that says it must furnish evidence to appellants before the hearing, provided on Friday less than 200 of the supposed 5,000 pages of evidence against the Saints and players Jonathan Vilma and Will Smith and former Saints Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargove, who were implicated and suspended in the bounty scandal.
There are no other references of shooting people; there are other references of paying players for specific acts (pay for performance), some of which include injuring opponents (pay for injury).Keep in mind that prior to the NFL's reports and media firestorm, the term "Bounty" had no connotations with a football pool. Its only meaning was its literal meaning of the reward money on a Wanted poster. Now that the NFL has created that buzz word, and told you to look for it in their "evidence", it stands out. At the time, the term "bounty" was used as motivation similarly to the sniper rifle picture. Yet because ESPN didn't scream for two months about a "Sniper" scandal, you can recognize that as hyperbolic, metaphorical motivation.
We're all guilty of it at one point or another, myself included. We want to hear what we want to hear, and sometimes we slant other things that are of the contrary. Like I said, Chizad has ran with some bullshit posted by "reputable bloggers" and message boards before on different topics. When there is at least one document that is real evidence floating around about something he doesn't want to believe, his head is firmly planted in the sand.If you can tell me one thing from that document that is irrefutable "smoking gun" evidence, then fine. As you've ignored, the NFL & Goodell have proven they can't be trusted. Why is it such a stretch that these "transcribed" notes, which they can't provide a source for or even say who wrote them might be bullshit as well?
Holy shit, you care a lot about this...
And where in the report did the term "cart-off hits" come from? Purely the NFL's words. Not from any alleged "note", slide, or recorded "admission".
http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2012/06/nfl_presents_case_against_4_pl.html
Now, let's pull up the play-by-play on NFL.com, shall we?
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009101804/2009/REG6/giants@saints#menu=highlights
The only play in which Jacobs was taken out of the game is here:
So that was Sharper, not Harper who made the tackle. It was in the 2nd quarter, not the 3rd. And he returned to the game shortly after and finished the game. There was no play in which he was taken out of the game after a Harper tackle.
Seems like a lot of facts to get wrong in what is supposed to be such damning "evidence."
Which brings me to this:
So if according to that infallible "evidence", Harper got paid in that game for a "cart-off" on Brandon Jacobs, and yet Harper did not tackle anyone, let alone Jacobs, that removed them from the game. How can that be considered legitimate?
And by the way, Harper wasn't even suspended.
Excuse me, I misspoke. It was originally 5,000 pages of "evidence" that they claimed to have.
http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2012/06/saints_roman_harper_takes_time.htmlKeep in mind that prior to the NFL's reports and media firestorm, the term "Bounty" had no connotations with a football pool. Its only meaning was its literal meaning of the reward money on a Wanted poster. Now that the NFL has created that buzz word, and told you to look for it in their "evidence", it stands out. At the time, the term "bounty" was used as motivation similarly to the sniper rifle picture. Yet because ESPN didn't scream for two months about a "Sniper" scandal, you can recognize that as hyperbolic, metaphorical motivation.
If you can tell me one thing from that document that is irrefutable "smoking gun" evidence, then fine. As you've ignored, the NFL & Goodell have proven they can't be trusted. Why is it such a stretch that these "transcribed" notes, which they can't provide a source for or even say who wrote them might be bullshit as well?
And again, nothing I've posted came from any message board. I only frequent this one. I provided links to the NBCSports.com & ESPN.com posts. Yes, I posted two articles from the same blog, that if you actually read from top to bottom, does shed some light on some things and raises some critical questions that should be considered. Not based on rumor, speculation, or wild-assed conspiracy theories but based on verifiable facts with links provided.
You think this is bad? Shit, don't start badmouthing Abita beer, tabasco or Zapp's potato chips.
Shit got serious when Chad relocated.
Holy shit, you care a lot about this...I'll take that as TL;DR.
I'll take that as TL;DR.Did you just build a strawman out of yourself?
Shame because there is far more evidence that the NFL is full of shit than there is of any pay-for-injury scandal.
If I'm concise, you won't take my word for it.
If I spell it out, it's TL;DR.
You think this is bad? Shit, don't start badmouthing Abita beer, tabasco or Zapp's potato chips.
Shit got serious when Chad relocated.
Don't forget about thermal imaging.
Shit got serious when Chad relocated.
I'll take that as TL;DR.
Shame because there is far more evidence that the NFL is full of shit than there is of any pay-for-injury scandal.
If I'm concise, you won't take my word for it.
If I spell it out, it's TL;DR.
The PUBLIC "facts" that say they didn't cheat are no more credible than the PUBLIC "facts" that say they did, plus the fact that we don't know everything they know behind closed doors (just like the Trayvon case). IMHO, you are doing a lot of "muddying" of the waters the last few pages.Muddying the water with what? Facts? What have I said that has been untrue? Please try to actually deconstruct my argument rather than flinging insults.
And I seriously can't believe you like the Saints this much. I'm not sure any of us defended Cam Newton THIS much in one single thread. Holy crap dude, you're gonna have a stroke.(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/072/Trollface.png)
Muddying the water with what? Facts? What have I said that has been untrue? Please try to actually deconstruct my argument rather than flinging insults.
It's hilarious that everyone is saying "You don't know all the facts, so you're wrong," while I'd gamble to say that they have not been following the case as closely, and thus know less "facts", so they're right? Cam Newton all over again. You'd think some people would learn from that, but apparently not. Guilty before (and after) proven innocent, and nothing can change your steel trap minds about it.
Here's why the evidence against there being pay-for-play is more credible than the evidence for it. All of the evidence for the scandal are based on alleged testimonies that the sources themselves are calling bullshit on. Why can't they find the notes? Why can't they find any hard evidence outside of hearsay that has been denied? Use the critical part of your brain for two seconds, and it's not that hard to at least think that this all might have been fabricated. So you just assume there's more "behind closed doors"? This is the evidence they submitted to the NFLPA when they called their bluff on the 5,000 pages of evidence. They produced about 197 pages of innocuous bullshit, and 3 pages of speculative stretches and "reproduced" letters without even citing the source. That was their evidence in the appeal that they submitted to justify the suspension of Vilma for a full year, Hargrove for half a season, Smith for a quarter season, Fujita for three games, Payton for a full year, Loomis for half a season, Vitt for nearly half a season, and permanantly ending Williams' career. Call me crazy, but I don't think anything they submitted justified that drastic of a punishment. Most rational people agree, hence the PR nightmare and media backlash on the NFL & Goodell that exists outside of this board where it's fun to fuck with Chad.
And where in the report did the term "cart-off hits" come from? Purely the NFL's words. Not from any alleged "note", slide, or recorded "admission".
http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2012/06/nfl_presents_case_against_4_pl.html
Now, let's pull up the play-by-play on NFL.com, shall we?
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009101804/2009/REG6/giants@saints#menu=highlights
The only play in which Jacobs was taken out of the game is here:
So that was Sharper, not Harper who made the tackle. It was in the 2nd quarter, not the 3rd. And he returned to the game shortly after and finished the game. There was no play in which he was taken out of the game after a Harper tackle.
Seems like a lot of facts to get wrong in what is supposed to be such damning "evidence."
Which brings me to this:
So if according to that infallible "evidence", Harper got paid in that game for a "cart-off" on Brandon Jacobs, and yet Harper did not tackle anyone, let alone Jacobs, that removed them from the game. How can that be considered legitimate?
And by the way, Harper wasn't even suspended.
Excuse me, I misspoke. It was originally 5,000 pages of "evidence" that they claimed to have.
http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2012/06/saints_roman_harper_takes_time.htmlKeep in mind that prior to the NFL's reports and media firestorm, the term "Bounty" had no connotations with a football pool. Its only meaning was its literal meaning of the reward money on a Wanted poster. Now that the NFL has created that buzz word, and told you to look for it in their "evidence", it stands out. At the time, the term "bounty" was used as motivation similarly to the sniper rifle picture. Yet because ESPN didn't scream for two months about a "Sniper" scandal, you can recognize that as hyperbolic, metaphorical motivation.
If you can tell me one thing from that document that is irrefutable "smoking gun" evidence, then fine. As you've ignored, the NFL & Goodell have proven they can't be trusted. Why is it such a stretch that these "transcribed" notes, which they can't provide a source for or even say who wrote them might be bullshit as well?
And again, nothing I've posted came from any message board. I only frequent this one. I provided links to the NBCSports.com & ESPN.com posts. Yes, I posted two articles from the same blog, that if you actually read from top to bottom, does shed some light on some things and raises some critical questions that should be considered. Not based on rumor, speculation, or wild-assed conspiracy theories but based on verifiable facts with links provided.
How does anything you just posted confirm that they were rewarded for the injury of other players?
And even still, that's not exactly a smoking gun of even a pay for play scheme. The NFL said they had 2,000 pages of evidence, and that's the best they can come up with? That shit wouldn't hold up in a real court of law, and you of all people should know it. There's also a picture of a sniper rifle scope with someone in its sites. So is this irrefutable evidence that Gregg Williams was paying the players to murder someone?
That being said, I'm not going to get caught up in that argument, because as I've consistently that I do believe there was a pay for performance program.
If not for the fact that the term "bounty" will now forever be associated with a pay-for-injury scheme after the NFL and media lapdogs have created this controversy, the word "bounty" would not carry the connotation that it does now.
I don't know how it's so difficult to understand that the NFL may be lying. There is no "smoking gun" in any of that, sorry. The most damning evidence is a note that they allege to have transcribed, although they can't produce the original note or even will give a name of who allegedly wrote it. Shady at best.
You are not looking at this rationally if you truly believe the NFL has compiled enough evidence to justify torching the program in the way that they did.
Oh, and the latest...
There is a huge difference between just having a gambling pool, that as I've stated before, I am 100% positive (I haz skreetz) happens on virtually every team at every level of professional sports. It may be in the books, but it's Jaywalking at worst. No sane rational person can argue that it warrants the crippling sanctions that were handed down to the organization, fucking with the livelihoods of these men.
Was going to post about this, but figured I'd save my breath.
But we all know that he would file a lawsuit like this knowing full well that he's guilty, and that if there was any evidence of it, it will be brought out into the public, further damaging his career and reputation.
Will be interesting to see if they can't produce enough evidence to not get sued for defamation of character how that factors into the other players' suspensions, and for that matter, Payton's.
I'm trying not to douche this thread up any more than it has to be, but you just can't stand it. I apologize for everyone who doesn't give a shit about JR4AU's petty trolling. Please skip this post.
I haven't been painted into shit, Councillor First Grader.
First of all, at least keep that debate into the goddamn thread it belongs in instead of spraying your douche all over the board.
I touch and go on the political threads, because pretty much everyone that posts in them have steel trap minds and then accuse me of being the stubborn and radical one. And every time I "touch", I end up defending arguments I was never making because certain people have to keep it interesting by inventing positions for me. So I "go". Whatever, fine.
You obviously have 1000x more conviction about that subject, as I could barely give much of a shit from the start, except to say that I feel that both sides of the argument are extreme. Just having a strong opinion about it one way or another is more attention than that case deserves. I posted on it to say I was equally annoyed by the Al Sharptons of the world as I was the racists that are happy the kid's dead because he was "up to no good", and no matter what 100% believed that Zimmerman should be absolved of any guilt. That was all I had to say about it, but then GarMan has to chime in with his satirical-cartoonish rants and build straw men for me, that eventually I end up taking a position I normally wouldn't, and then others, especially you, rah rah right along with GarMan. So I don't hang out there every day, sorry.
At this point, we're cool, but then you have to reply to everything I say in every thread with some ultra-douchey attempt at contradiction or just a general insult. 99% of the time your attempts are a complete failure. But it doesn't sway your persistence in douche-itude. You're doing exactly what Kaos did with certain posters, myself included, a few years ago. Fuck up otherwise perfectly good threads by just waiting perched for me to post so you can play the boorish, belligerent contrarian to whatever I say, no matter what it is. You even contradict yourself just to disagree with me, as evidenced earlier in this thread. Kaos at least had the self awareness to realize what a childish douche he was being and apologize and cease being such a colossal douche.
So just shut the fuck up, already.
And you're not Mike Ditka because you coach a Peewee team.
Now please, back to relevant discussion.
4evar!!! 81% believe that just the fact that ESPN is reporting this allegation, means that the Saints are beyond salvation. Clearly a team full of child murderer/rapists. Permanently. Until the end of time. In the year 3016, people will say "Remember that time ESPN said the Saints' GM could hear the opposing teams' playcalling? Deplorable, right? You knew they were guilty too, because ESPN said they heard it from a guy."
That'd be you. I never said anything definitely of the innocence or guilt, just of the facts of the case that he shot the kid and the kid was unarmed. You're the one that knows he's innocent. But I'm not dragging that debate here any further.
Now because the current whipping boy is the New Orleans Saints and the media loves to kick someone while they're down. While I'm sure ESPN's polls showed 99.9% of people thought the NFL should shut the program down, most rational people were, at least, on the fence about the severity and uniqueness about "Bountygate" compared to how it was being portrayed by the media, and whether or not the punishment was equitable. There is a crusade now to push public opinion over that fence. "Quick! Find some parking tickets! See if anyone on the team cheated on any tests!" It's the exact same tactics we saw early in the Cam Newton allegations.
To be fair, my evoking of Joe Schad was rhetorical. He exclusively covers the college game. Still, it's the same bunch of zero-credibilty hacks at ESPN that have turned their network into a professional wrestling/Jerry Springer circus. They have long ago wiped their ass with journalistic integrity, taking the word of one anonymous source without any fact checking whatsoever before plastering their website with 50 polls about what the implications and punishment should be for the Saints after their most recent transgression, as if it's 100% factual.
In all seriousness, completely removing myself from this situation AND the Cam Newton situation, while hard to do, this absolutely disgusts me. This is the worldwide leader in sports. Because of their monopoly, we're force-fed this bullshit, and what's worse is 95% of the country lacks the critical thinking to do anything besides gulp down each spoonful, and vote "Shut the program down and strip them of their Super Bowl" or "Strip him of the Heisman and his school of the BCS trophy", or "Scrape every last trace of dignity from Joe Paterno in the last days of his life, and let's make sure his legacy will forever be that he was equally as vile as Sandusky in this whole child rape thing."
They are TMZ, and they don't even give a shit. And neither does the public. They buy right in and sharpen their pitchforks, loving every second of it.
Exactly. Not to drudge up the dead horse, but I think there could have been healthy room for debate as to whether or not Joe Pa should have known, and whether or not he could have done more, but the dude was literally in the last days of his life and obviously not all there, and it's not like he was the one diddling boys, and yet from the way it was being reported you'd think he was running a child prostitution ring. Sandusky deserved every bit of criticism and much more. Instead it was all focused on destroying JoePa's legacy. Better story. More sensational.
This 50/50 hindsight, as Dye would say, about the presumed omnipotence of head coaches was my main beef with Sean Payton getting punished and crucified the way he did for Gregg Williams's sins. Not that I expect anyone here to agree, since you've already bought into ESPN's narrative.
This is what I'm talking about.
Not only are the polls all assuming the allegations are true, but the results are proof that the general public is lapping it up, and want as much blood as possible.
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls?pCat=46&sCat=2993
Quote
If both are true, which would end up being the bigger scandal?
33%
Patriots' Spygate
67%
Saints' eavesdropping on opposing coaches
Really? Even assuming the Saints hypothetical cheating is true and comparing it to actual proven violations. So the general manager hearing signals he can't possibly understand or use to any advantage, in real time, that took place a decade prior to the allegation, is more than TWICE as bad as a head coach videotaping opposing coaches' sideline signals and practices for ten years leading up to the day they got caught?
Quote
How should the NFL punish the Saints if allegations about eavesdropping turn out to be true?
7%
Fines
6%
Additional suspensions
5%
Lost draft picks
81%
Some combination of the
SOME COMBINATION!!!1! Plus the death penalty, both for the program, and literally for Drew Brees. I know he had something to do with it!!
Quote
How big of an advantage do you believe the Saints would have garnered from their alleged eavesdropping device?
46%
Big advantage
39%
Small advantage
16%
No advantage
HUGE advantage! 84% think it's some advantage, while nearly half of those posted think it was a "big" one. Nevermind the litany of former and present coaches from teams not called the Saints, sports analysts, and even some ESPN analysts saying it makes zero sense and there would be no discernible advantage.
Quote
If the eavesdropping allegations against Saints GM Mickey Loomis turn out to be true, how should the NFL punish him?
10%
Short addition to his extant eight-game suspension
90%
Season-long suspension or more
90%. If "death by execution" were an option, I guarantee you it would be in the lead.
Quote
Which would be a bigger scandal for the Saints if both turn out to be true?
35%
Bounty on opposing players
65%
Alleged electronic listening devices used on visiting coaching staffs
This thing that we're talking about now is obviously the biggest scandal of all time evarr!!!
So now "unnamed sources" suits your fancy, huh? Zero evidence. Zero facts. Just an "unnamed source." History repeating.
So you're telling me the general manager. Not a coach, the general manager, was deciphering every visiting coach's jargon and communicating that to the Saints sidelines, and those coaches then made decisions based on this information in the 30 seconds between plays? Give me a break. If you were going to have that type of technology, which clearly would be cheating, why not wire it to the coaches, who could actually do something with it? Also, if this were true, wouldn't their home record be better than, or at least as good as, their road record during this time? ESPN at first reported that they did in fact have a better home record from 02-04, which was false. They have since retracted this. They were 12-12 at home while 13-11 on the road.
Also, the article itself says:
So we don't know for sure that he used it, and it makes no sense for him to use it, but of course, we're going to report that he did.
Why now? So he waited almost a decade with this knowledge and coincidentally thought this was the right time to come out with this news? Eight years after the alleged cheating stopped? Holy statute of limitations, McClover. And you're telling me that this happened a decade ago, and yet no one brought this up during spygate with the Patriots? Only now when it's convenient to pile on? Come on. And speaking of expired statute of limitations...
This is purely comical. So in September of 2005, in a national state of emergency, when people were dying left and right, trying to get their families to safety, the floor of the dome itself was 12 feet under water, and people who lived in New Orleans, couldn't even get into New Orleans...that was a good time for the evil Saints minions to change the wiring.
My thoughts have pretty much been covered.
It's being overblown for a time in sports when there's not a lot going on to talk about.
"Some form of this goes on in every NFL locker room."
Also, Gregg Williams is the coach involved, and he's gone. Fuck him.
I don't believe Payton had shit to do with it.
This doesn't cover the things he has quoted or any posts less than a paragraph...which are numerous...OMG, I cumulatively posted a bunch in an 18 page thread where everyone claims they "just know" something that they don't know shit about. I must be mad.
If we haven't got it by now Chad......I'll give you that.
Muddying the water with what? Facts? What have I said that has been untrue? Please try to actually deconstruct my argument rather than flinging insults.
It's hilarious that everyone is saying "You don't know all the facts, so you're wrong," while I'd gamble to say that they have not been following the case as closely, and thus know less "facts", so they're right? Cam Newton all over again. You'd think some people would learn from that, but apparently not. Guilty before (and after) proven innocent, and nothing can change your steel trap minds about it.
Here's why the evidence against there being pay-for-play is more credible than the evidence for it. All of the evidence for the scandal are based on alleged testimonies that the sources themselves are calling bullshit on. Why can't they find the notes? Why can't they find any hard evidence outside of hearsay that has been denied? Use the critical part of your brain for two seconds, and it's not that hard to at least think that this all might have been fabricated. So you just assume there's more "behind closed doors"? This is the evidence they submitted to the NFLPA when they called their bluff on the 5,000 pages of evidence. They produced about 197 pages of innocuous bullshit, and 3 pages of speculative stretches and "reproduced" letters without even citing the source. That was their evidence in the appeal that they submitted to justify the suspension of Vilma for a full year, Hargrove for half a season, Smith for a quarter season, Fujita for three games, Payton for a full year, Loomis for half a season, Vitt for nearly half a season, and permanantly ending Williams' career. Call me crazy, but I don't think anything they submitted justified that drastic of a punishment. Most rational people agree, hence the PR nightmare and media backlash on the NFL & Goodell that exists outside of this board where it's fun to fuck with Chad.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/072/Trollface.png)
Yes, you have muddied the waters with a ton of rhetorical "information". If you know all that you say you do, maybe you should be contacting some folks. Are you telling me that you know something that Goodell does not? Or that you know everything he knows? Wading past all the shit and rhetoric (that you call facts), there was obvious wrong doing. Maybe not as bad as originally reported - I will give you that, but they did do wrong. And worst of all they lied about it and tried to cover it up - that was real kicker. I could careless what text message a coach sitting in jail got from GW. Its not far fetched to believe that at this point, these guys are in pathological liar mode. They are lying and believe it at this point to minimize any further damage in the future.Example of this "rhetorical 'information'"?
Cart-off - A “cart-off’ is simply a hard hit. It does not literally mean that a player was carted off the field. Coaches and players may use the terms “Knockout,†“Tapout,†“Blowups,†or “Hit Parade†to describe the same type of play.
Whack -The best way for a small tackler to take on a larger player; it is more commonly called a “Crossbody Tackle.†Saints players were often times undersized and Coach Williams used this term to try to improve tackling technique.
Impact play - A 4th quarter play when the game was on the line. Usually with less than 2 possessions left. It could be any number of plays, whether it be a great tackle, interception or a pass breakup. It could be a team effort like a strategic stop that denies the offense yardage or touchdowns.
Kill the Heads - Kill the Head (KH), is part of the “Defend every blade of grass†philosophy that the team played with. Its strategy was to get RB’s and WR’s to mentally vacate the game. The logic is that if you allowed RB’s and WR’s to run straight at you and successfully penetrate your defense, then you would basically validate their superiority. You would by default present a passive approach to defense. The result of this would be catastrophic to any defensive game plan. This came from the Dome Patrol Era - part of the great early defensive teams in New Orleans. Tourists would buy shirts with this slogan as far back as the late 90’s.
I have sat back over the past few months and watched as the NFL has spent countless hours painting a picture that has left a lot of people convinced that myself and three other players deserve to be punished, not to mention the coaching staff and Mr. Loomis. I have asked myself a million times: why? Why on earth are they trying to make a mountain out of a molehill? I do not have an absolute answer, but I'm guessing it has something to do with image, power, and money.
The words they have used over the months to capture your hearts and minds have been many, practiced, and calculated. But that does not make them true. It just makes them good at what they do. They are, in my opinion, master politicians. Bill Clinton once said, “I did not have sex with that woman."
Semantics. Politicians are good at it.
There is no way I can reveal to you today the depth of their imagination and determination in painting this picture for you, the public, adroitly using the media as their tools of art. But I will dabble a little. And stay with me, because even though they have somberly made it clear that “The Mona Lisa†is not smiling, if we move in closer we notice that ... just maybe she is.
First of all, I watched in shock as they took my declaration a couple of months ago and made it into something it was not. It left from me as a private explanation of certain specific events and, voila, came out as a confession of crimes. Even I had to blink my eyes real hard to see how they did that one. Do you know they never even asked me what I meant? Just assumed I wanted to confess, I guess.
Semantics.
Or in this case, maybe just lies. They publicly said that I said things that I did not say. Is that not lying? Isn't it? Go back and read for yourselves without assuming that it says what they have made you think, and then re-read their synopsis. Please try to have an open mind.
They also said that I declined to be interviewed a few weeks back. Again, untrue. I know it sounds dubious to the public when they hear that I declined to visit with Mr. Goodell, and that was their intent, I'm guessing. But they were the first to decline. After that, I, too, became dubious.
Yesterday I heard that they have a witness who saw me tell Joe Vitt that I lied? Who is this mystery witness? You may come forward. I won't bite. The truth is that I feel certain I know who this supposed witness is, and if you knew you would understand why this is all so shady. The problem is, since I am only 99% sure who this supposed witness is, I will keep it to myself, because that is what honesty and integrity demand... absolute certainty. And even then, why intentionally drag that person's name through the mud, as the NFL has done mine?
But it did not happen as they say!
They say, and I quote, “the circumstances strongly suggest that you told at least one player on another club about the program, and confirmed that Brett Favre was the target of a bounty.†I did no such thing. Do I think someone told them I did? Probably. And I believe it was probably the same mystery witness. But it ... did ... not ... happen! There is no way they have absolute proof, because it does not exist. I would stake my career on it.
I have felt like the target of a sophisticated mugging, watching as many have walked by and minded their own business as if the muggers deserved their prize. Why have most walked by? Because they were not the ones being mugged, or maybe because they felt that they had no vested interest. True, some halve yelped out that maybe someone should help, but even most of them keep on walking by.
I call out to my fellow NFL brothers around the NFL to not buy in. Look closer. You have not been given the full truth. There has been a tactful attempt to cause division among us, but we must not let it work! We should seek the truth out with diligence and band together if at all possible. Trust me, it could be you next time being mugged.
And that brings me to the final issue for the day. And for this we must literally lean in and look and listen very closely. Part of the NFL's evidence so prominently and proudly displayed yesterday included a DVD with interesting excerpts from the NFC Championship Game in January of 2010. They showed it to the players and then to “The Twelveâ€. It showed certain highlights from the game and a little sideline discussion, among other things. The Twelve, from what I heard, came away very convinced that the NFL had put on...what did they call it...oh yeah, an explosive and compelling show of evidence.
As I watched the DVD, I did not think so. In fact, I felt similar to how I had felt when I read the NFL's statement about my declaration. Bewildered. I looked around the room wondering if anyone else caught what the NFL had done. It seemed no one did. They are very, very good.
To replay it for you, they first showed me hitting Favre in the 2nd quarter, up high. Some debated whether it was a legal hit or not. I was flagged and later fined. It happens. Sorry Brett. Then in the 4th quarter Favre was hurt by a high/low hit by a couple of my teammates. And he left the game temporarily with an ankle issue, it seemed. And stunningly, that happens in NFL games, too.
But this is where it gets interesting. The NFL has a sideline shot of our defense gathered around Joe Vitt discussing what we might should expect if the backup quarterback comes into the game. It shows me off to the side with some of our other defensive linemen on the bench with their backs to the camera. The final snippet has an arrow pointed at me with the caption indicating that I had said, “give me my money.â€
Here's the problem with that. It wasn't me. That's right. The NFL got their evidence all wrong. In their rush to convict me, they made a very serious error. Is it intentional? I don't know. But one thing I do know with absolute certainty...it...was...not...me! Like I said, lean in closer, look closer, listen closer. It is not my voice. Anyone who knows me well knows that it is not me. But the NFL does not know me well. They simply make assumptions. With ... my ... life.
Any coach evaluating film would have thought that #69 played a ver exciting, great football game, the way it is supposed to be played. And yet the NFL has cut it up and made me out to be a monster.
They duped “The Twelve†and many others. For example, I have seen the NFL Network broadcast that it was me as if it were fact. But again, it is absolutely not. It will be easily provable. In fact, there is no way they can prove that it is me. I stake my life on the fact that it is not me. I wonder if Roger Goodell is willing to stake his job on this piece of evidence? Or Jeff Pash? Or Adolpho Birch? Or Mary Jo White? Or anyone else associated with this mockery? In fact, since we are here, does anyone want to go up and ask them? And how about you guys? Are any of you willing to put your job on the line and say that this piece of evidence is accurate? By a show of hands, please?
The truth is, this has been embarrassing to have all these lies about me echoing across America. Good Lord have my eyes been opened! Just ask yourself...if they will manufacture this piece of so-called evidence, what else will they do? I know it looks confusing, especially when they tell you what to look for, but don't believe it. This, in my mind, brings everything into question. Everything. And all of this because one man has absolute power and seemingly must use it. We as players have to be very careful. Do they care about us? When they are willing to twist things to hurt us? Come on guys.
As for most of the media, I would hope you would not believe every accusation you hear in the future. Dig deeper before you come up with your story headlines and opinions. You might be interested in what you find. You might even find that “The Mona Lisa†is actually smiling.
Kill the Heads - Kill the Head (KH), is part of the “Defend every blade of grass†philosophy that the team played with. Its strategy was to get RB’s and WR’s to mentally vacate the game. The logic is that if you allowed RB’s and WR’s to run straight at you and successfully penetrate your defense, then you would basically validate their superiority. You would by default present a passive approach to defense. The result of this would be catastrophic to any defensive game plan. This came from the Dome Patrol Era - part of the great early defensive teams in New Orleans. Tourists would buy shirts with this slogan as far back as the late 90’s.
This is a fine explanation...but it completely ignores the context in which the phrase was used in the Williams audio.How?
"We've got to do everything in the world to make sure we kill Frank Gore's head. We want him running sideways. We want his head sideways. Kill the head and the body will die.
"Every single one of you, before you get off the pile, affect the head. Early, affect the head. Continue to touch and affect the head."
"We need to find out in the first two series of the game, the little wide receiver, No. 10, about his concussion. We need to fuckin' put a lick on him."
This is a fine explanation...but it completely ignores the context in which the phrase was used in the Williams audio.
Bingo. An excellent way to twist context to favor the argument.Again, I ask, how is the NFLPA twisting anything?
Again, I ask, how is the NFLPA twisting anything?
The audio is consistent with the NFLPA's definition of "Killing the Head", is it not?
It was released, however, to "twist the context" so that those not privy to Saints lockerroom terminology would hear that, combine it with what the NFL was perpetuating, and define "Kill the Head" as some sort of code word for "intentionally concuss".
Holy shit you love New Orleans. All we will agree on here is how great Tabasco sauce is. No sense it beating the dead horse's arse.Again, sidestepping the question with a rehashed, stale insult.
SaintsGrad03 - I'm still chortling
Again, sidestepping the question with a rehashed, stale insult.
Got it.
I know when to quit when's there is no point. There's no sense in anymore back and forth in this thread. You aren't going to convince us and we're not going to convince you. Just one of those agree to disagree threads. And personally? The saints aren't even worth the typing I've done to this point. I don't like ANY professional team even half that much. In the end, the NFLPA, the coaches and the NFL Execs are all a bunch of the same egomaniacs with different stripes.
I know when to quit when's there is no point. There's no sense in anymore back and forth in this thread. You aren't going to convince us and we're not going to convince you. Just one of those agree to disagree threads.Especially when combined with flat out ignoring specific requests for you to elaborate on your vague condemnation, and your inability to refute anything that I've said, this is the biggest admission that you aren't even trying to educate yourself about the subject. You cast your die when the NFL told you what to believe and literally nothing can be said to change your mind. Goodell hath spoken, and he is beyond reproach.
New Orleans Saints players and at least one assistant coach maintained a bounty pool of up to $50,000 the last three seasons to reward game-ending injuries inflicted on opposing players, including Brett Favre and Kurt Warner, the NFL said Friday. “Knockouts†were worth $1,500 and “cart-offs†$1,000, with payments doubled or tripled for the playoffs.
Especially when combined with flat out ignoring specific requests for you to elaborate on your vague condemnation, and your inability to refute anything that I've said, this is the biggest admission that you aren't even trying to educate yourself about the subject. You cast your die when the NFL told you what to believe and literally nothing can be said to change your mind. Goodell hath spoken, and he is beyond reproach.
But I'm stubborn.
In other words, "I cain't prove nuthin, but gal-darnit I KNOW Aubrin's guilty! Listen at that Cheez-Nit sayin whatnot about sleepin easy when his head hits the pillow...Makes me sick! Of course em barners gonna defend it. Where there's smoke there's obviously farr, Pawwwwl. We all knowd it from the begginin."
And by the way, this was the initial reports that the media ran amock with:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7638603/new-orleans-saints-defense-had-bounty-program-nfl-says
In retrospect, knowing the facts, doesn't this seem to be a gross misrepresentation of what took place, at best? Intentionally offering little information and being vague about what "knockouts" and "cart-offs" really mean and letting the media run wild with it for nearly two months before moving on with the case? Implying heavily that this was an ongoing and consistent "pay-for-injury" pool from 2009 through 2012?
And where in the report did the term "cart-off hits" come from? Purely the NFL's words. Not from any alleged "note", slide, or recorded "admission".
So that was Sharper, not Harper who made the tackle. It was in the 2nd quarter, not the 3rd. And he returned to the game shortly after and finished the game. There was no play in which he was taken out of the game after a Harper tackle.
So if according to that infallible "evidence", Harper got paid in that game for a "cart-off" on Brandon Jacobs, and yet Harper did not tackle anyone, let alone Jacobs, that removed them from the game. How can that be considered legitimate?
Keep in mind that prior to the NFL's reports and media firestorm, the term "Bounty" had no connotations with a football pool. Its only meaning was its literal meaning of the reward money on a Wanted poster.
Umm, what?
Clearly you've never heard of the "Bounty Bowl." Look it up. Eagles and Cowboys, 1989. The use of the term "bounty" in reference to offering cash rewards for injuring another player has been present in the NFL long before the current scandal with the Saints. They did not make up this term just to slander your beloved team and fabricate evidence.
I have never rushed through numerous pages of unread post in my entire life than just now.
Oh, we do that with your posts all the time.
+4 to Shug
Lemme say something real quick...Fuck Tabasco, Cholula is a lot better.
Continue.
Lemme say something real quick...Fuck Tabasco, Cholula is a lot better.
Continue.
Let me say something else....Fuck both of them.Please to be sharing.
We have one made locally here and it's beats both their asses. Remind me and I'll bring some to the golf outing.
Frank's
Please to be sharing.
Cholula fills a specific niche. It is top notch, but only for Mexican foods. You don't want to put it on your oysters or your fried chicken.
Against weskie's better wisdom, I'm not particularly fond of Tabasco.
I prefer Crystal, Louisiana, and Texas Pete, in that order.
Tabasco is ok once in a while for a change-of-pace from those mentioned above. Particularly with oysters.
However, unbeknownst to Wes, this actually proves his point further since Crystal is the only one of the above hot sauces actually produced in New Orleans.
Crystal's is the best shit around. It's not all that hot, but has a great flavor.
Troof.
Damn I miss New Orleans.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xhkxy3ei8os
Damn I miss New Orleans.
Cholula is for pussies that have only .98 in their pocket when it comes time to buy hot sauce. The shit isn't even HOT.Oh, I don't use that for â€Hotnessâ€, I use it for flavor. Here's what I use if I want hot....
Oh, I don't use that for â€Hotnessâ€, I use it for flavor. Here's what I use if I want hot....I agree, the flavor is good. I use Cholula on mexican a lot.
(http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg640/scaled.php?tn=0&server=640&filename=6jpoyz.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640)
I agree, the flavor is good. I use Cholula on mexican a lot.Yes, Dave's is pretty hot. But, the Naga Viper sauce tastes better and burns longer.
Can't see the pic because its blocked on the PC I am sitting on but ever tried this one?
(http://www.hotshotshotsauce.com/images/1125UI.jpg)
And yes, we've changed this to a food discussion since that is New Orleans' shining beacon of goodness.
Naga
Why do you hate teh blacks?
Yes, Dave's is pretty hot. But, the Naga Viper sauce tastes better and burns longer.
There are some videos buried in the X archives of idiots eating this stuff. I thought they were
going to die.
I don't know about Prowlee's Nagas but as for Dave's, to paint you a pic of how hot it is:
I can almost literally drink Texas Pete and Tabasco. And they are both generally considered pretty warm.
I bought a bottle of Dave's and had to throw it out before I used it all because it sat in my fridge for that long. It was so hot that you could really only use very small amounts at a time. It will go bad before you use it all.
Dave's Naga
Are you saying Dave is a racist?
Should Goodell cut bounty penalties?
He probably won't waver, despite thin evidence presented so far against players
Originally Published: June 21, 2012
By Ashley Fox | ESPN.com
The players were eloquent. They were thoughtful. And they were rather convincing.
But just because Jonathan Vilma, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove passionately defended themselves against bounty charges doesn't mean that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell will lift their suspensions or that of Will Smith. This judge-jury-executioner thing doesn't work that way.
Goodell didn't rescind suspensions of New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton (a year), general manager Mickey Loomis (eight games) or assistant head coach Joe Vitt (six games). Vitt has vehemently denied that he contributed to a bounty pool and offered this week to take a lie detector test.
Even though he is leaving the players' appeals open through the end of Friday, there is little reason to think Goodell will suddenly back off his decision to suspend Vilma (full season), Hargrove (eight games), Smith (four games) and Fujita (three games). He probably should. In light of the evidence the league has made public so far, the suspensions seem more than a little harsh.
Maybe the league has more specifically on the players than it has released. It must, given the impact on those players' careers and reputations. But what the players were shown during their appeals hearings wasn't all that convincing. There wasn't a so-called smoking gun. There was a lot of evidence that the Saints had a pool for performance on the field. There was some evidence, taken from the Saints' own computer system, that money was pledged for so-called bounties. And there was a lot of evidence of the coaches' hubris.
But from what was released earlier this week, there wasn't overwhelmingly damning evidence against the players.
Goodell's goal is to eradicate bounty systems. One of Goodell's biggest initiatives has been player safety. Eliminating bounties falls under that initiative.
Protect players. Protect the game.
Throwing a Super Bowl-winning coach out of the league for a year and levying significant punishments against prominent, respected, veteran players showed Goodell is serious. He made sure bounties would never happen again. He probably eliminated the longstanding tradition of pay-for-performance bonuses from player-funded pools.
Goodell made examples out of Vilma and Fujita in part because they were leaders of the defense that Goodell says put bounties out on Brett Favre, Kurt Warner, Aaron Rodgers and Matt Hasselbeck, among others.
When he announced the player punishments, Goodell said in a statement that he focused on players who fell into one or more of the following categories: players who were in leadership positions, who contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program and/or specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player, who demonstrated a clear intent to participate in the program, who sought rewards for injuring opposing players, and/or who obstructed the 2010 investigation.
Vilma and Fujita were undoubtedly leaders of the defense. The evidence the NFL made public Monday included an anonymous, handwritten transcription that has Vilma pledging $10,000 in the quarterback pool for the 2010 NFC Championship Game against the Vikings, but nothing else in the evidence that was released concretely links Vilma to bounties. Nor was anything released linking Fujita directly to bounties.
The Hargrove case is interesting because the league has already twisted something he said. In a signed declaration Hargrove gave the league, he said that his coaches instructed him to deny the existence of a bounty program when interviewed by a league investigator. The league said that Hargrove, in the declaration, admitted there was a bounty program, but nowhere in the declaration does Hargrove admit that.
Another bit of so-called evidence against Hargrove is an NFL Films video of the Vikings game. On the sideline after a particularly vicious hit on Favre delivered by Bobby McCray and Remi Ayodele, the league says Hargrove said to McCray: "Bobby, give me my money."
The tape shows Hargrove say McCray's first name, but then Hargrove's face is obscured by a teammate. Hargrove insisted on Wednesday that he didn't say, "Give me my money" and accused the league of a "sophisticated mugging."
Hargrove admits he misled an NFL investigator early on but says he did so only because his coaches told him to. That's not the best defense, but an obscured tape and a twisted declaration aren't the best evidence, either.
I tend to believe the league has more. Maybe we will see it. Probably we will not. But to cripple a franchise and mess with players' careers, which are short anyway, Goodell has to have more than thin evidence that tangentially connects the players. Too much is at stake.
At some point Goodell, using the ultimate authority that the players granted him in the last collective bargaining agreement, will say, "Enough." He will demand people believe him, and if they don't, too bad.
That's the benefit of being judge, jury and executioner. The players are challenging that authority, and they had a couple of successes this week. They turned the conversation in their favor, forcing the league to counterattack. But ultimately they are fighting a battle they can't win because of the power they granted Goodell in the first place. Knowing what we know now, an argument can be made that Goodell should reduce the player penalties. But he won't, and he doesn't have to.
Joe Vitt offers to take lie detector
Updated: June 21, 2012, 6:10 PM ET
By Adam Schefter
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8078174
Adam Schefter discusses his conversation with Joe Vitt about why he has offered to take a lie detector test.
(ESPN embedding not working here anymore, but there's a video above)
New Orleans Saints interim head coach Joe Vitt says he called NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Wednesday morning and offered to take a lie detector test to prove that the league's bounty allegations against him are false.
The NFL has alleged, with corroborating evidence, that Vitt offered a $5,000 bounty on former Minnesota Vikings quarterback Brett Favre during the 2010 NFC Championship Game.
"In recent information released by the National Football League to the NFLPA and later to the media, there is an allegation made against me that is completely untrue and I cannot let it go unchallenged," Vitt said in a statement Wednesday. "I did not pledge any money for any type of incentive program whatsoever pertaining to the 2010 NFC Championship Game.
"Furthermore, I have never at any time pledged any money for any type of incentive program or so-called bounty program. Today I had a conversation with Commissioner Goodell and I stated to him that I would sign a sworn affidavit to this effect or I would make myself available to take a lie detector test to rectify this matter."
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello declined to go into detail about what Vitt and Goodell discussed Wednesday, saying the commissioner considered the conversation private.
Vitt was suspended six games for not taking steps to stop or prevent the bounty program and not for contributing to any specific bounties. NFL officials have said that the presence of Vitt's name on a ledger concerning the 2010 NFC title game was not a factor in the coach's suspension because it was not corroborated by a second source.
On Monday, the same day the league heard the appeals of four players suspended for their role in the bounty investigation, the NFL released a horde of evidence gathered during their investigation of the Saints. Punished players and a select group of reporters received the information. The evidence included a sheet of paper that the league alleges showed a $35,000 prize, with $5,000 donated by Vitt specifically, for knocking Favre out of that 2010 championship.
In an interview with the New Orleans Times-Picayune on Wednesday, Vitt said the sheet of paper looks like it has been tampered with.
"There's gotta be some concerns from the league's standpoint and anybody's standpoint about the authenticity of any of these documents. I think that's a huge concern," Vitt told the newspaper. "It looks like that document has been falsified or tampered with. What kind of credibility do they have if they take documents like that and show it to players?"
The league responded Thursday, saying in an email, "The documents are unquestionably authentic."
Also on Monday, the league also showed a video clip in which former Saints defensive end Anthony Hargrove purportedly said "Give me the money" regarding injuring Favre. Hargrove, who was flagged and subsequently fined $5,000 for a flagrant hit on Favre in that game, insisted Tuesday it was someone else uttering those words, though he said he didn't know who.
The NFL Players' Association released a statement Monday showing the league's bounty documentation, which includes ledgers of payouts, power-point slides that include phrases such as "bounty $$$" and emails, but said the 16 slides "can hardly be characterized as hard evidence."
Hargrove has been suspended by the NFL for eight games but maintains his innocence, as do former Saints linebacker Scott Fujita (three games) and current Saints Will Smith (four games) and Jonathan Vilma (one year).
"It cannot be overemphasized enough that none of our players, particularly those facing suspension, ever crossed the white line with the intent to injure an opponent," Vitt said in Wednesday's statement. "I am proud of our players and stand behind them 100 percent and will do whatever I can to help them restore their good names.
"I maintain my pledge to the commissioner to be an agent of change in helping finding new ways and practices to help make our game a safer game and more constructive conversations with the league on this matter."
Former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, who ran the bounty program, has been suspended indefinitely by Goodell, while Saints head coach Sean Payton is gone until after the Super Bowl. Vitt, the interim replacement for Payton, will begin his suspension when the regular season starts. Saints general manager Mickey Loomis is suspended for eight games once the season begins.
Cholula fills a specific niche. It is top notch, but only for Mexican foods. You don't want to put it on your oysters or your fried chicken.
Against weskie's better wisdom, I'm not particularly fond of Tabasco.
I prefer Crystal, Louisiana, and Texas Pete, in that order.
Tabasco is ok once in a while for a change-of-pace from those mentioned above. Particularly with oysters.
However, unbeknownst to Wes, this actually proves his point further since Crystal is the only one of the above hot sauces actually produced in New Orleans.
â€...There was some evidence, taken from the Saints' own computer system, that money was pledged for so-called bounties...â€
That's all you need, there was a bounty system in place.
I say, make the Saints sit out this upcoming season, maybe they'll learn to stop trying to injure other players and to stop crying about the punishment (bammer Saints...rawwww Saints Paw!!!)
Speaking of... Where's K? Did he get pissy and leave again?
. . . there wasn't overwhelmingly damning evidence against the players.
There was some evidence, taken from the Saints' own computer system, that money was pledged for so-called bounties.
Hargrove admits he misled an NFL investigator early on but says he did so only because his coaches told him to.
Wow, we find some common ground! I like Lousiana and Crystal. Tobasco sux!
I went to a Mexican place today that had about 8 different hot sauces on the table. I added one of the Habenero one's to the salsa, and it was pretty damn good. The Cholula, I can't even figure out what that's for...it reminds me of the crap in the packets at Taco Bell.
Chad, here's an anecdote about the worth of lie detectors:Well, first of all, I didn't write the article. I am well aware that lie detector tests are fallible and not admissible in a court of law. All I'm saying is, it supports what the previous article I linked is saying about how these players and coaches are not just timidly deflecting, they are flat out firmly, aggressively, passionately, convincingly denying the NFL's accusations. This is not Sandusky denying his. Watch the videos. If you have any sort of bullshit detector, it's not going off here. They're pissed. Reminiscent of Chizik's "When my head hits the pillow" statements.
â€...There was some evidence, taken from the Saints' own computer system, that money was pledged for so-called bounties...â€Hilarious coming from Mr. "BOOM MOTHERFUCKER!!!! SNAP HIS FUCKING RIBS IN HALF AND RIP HIS GODDAMN THROAT OUT WITH YOUR TEETH AND LET THE BLOOD RUN DOWN YOUR FACE!!!!", and that's what you want in a DC at the college level. But God-forbid an NFL coach showing some hubris to his full grown adult, big boy, professional athletes.
That's all you need, there was a bounty system in place.
I say, make the Saints sit out this upcoming season, maybe they'll learn to stop trying to injure other players and to stop crying about the punishment (bammer Saints...rawwww Saints Paw!!!)
Funny how the article has contradictory elements to it that :thumsup: overlooks.I'm not overlooking anything. There's nothing contradictory about that article. You, however, are the one blatantly overlooking several facts here.
Such as:
vs
Unless they're insinuating that the coaches set up a computerized bounty system and never told the players about it, then I'm pretty sure that's damning evidence that a bounty system was in place and that players knew about it.
Same thing with the notes. Unless the coaches were putting monetary figures next to players' names for shits and giggles, there is pretty damning evidence regarding the players' involvement.
Even if you want to nitpick at it and say that the NFL can not definitively state that those specific players ever received bounty rewards, they had to be aware of the bounties, and thus should be held accountable for lying about their existence. Unless, once again, you want us to take an imaginative leap and assume that the coaches developed a bounty system on their computers and never showed it to the players who were listed on the system and in the notes.
So, let's get this straight: Hargrove gets his panties in a wad because the NFL misquoted his signed declaration by stating that Hargrove admitted the existence of the bounty system but that the coaches told him to lie about it.Again, you continue to live in this black-and-white, all or nothing world. He admits to being misleading about the existence of a pay for performance system (which, again, exists in some form on every team in the NFL and has for generations), but adamantly denies admitting that intentionally injuring players had anything to do with these systems.
Now, after all of his crying about how he was misquoted, he admits that he misled an NFL investigator early on? "You quoted me wrong about admitting the existence of a bounty system...but yeah, I misled an NFL investigator regarding the existence of a bounty system."
Anthony Hargrove is now the NFL's Rick James. "What am I gonna do? Just jump up and grind my feet on somebody's couch like it was something to do? .....yeah, I remember grinding my feet on Eddie's couch."
First of all, the definition of "So called bounties" is not as cut-and-dry as you're pretending that it is. Ask Chris Carter (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7907610/cris-carter-formerly-minnesota-vikings-admits-authorizing-bounties) if he is admitting to have frequently tried to take out people's knees and permanently injure them throughout his career.
That's the whole point of the revelations this week. There is no "smoking gun".
The other "evidence" would be these notes that were allegedly on the Saints' computer system.
However, as has been increasingly called into question from the beginning, and now Vitt has confidently flat-out accused, those notes have been "falsified and tampered with". They can't produce the originals or even say who wrote them. Shady as shit, and you know it.
Again, you continue to live in this black-and-white, all or nothing world. He admits to being misleading about the existence of a pay for performance system (which, again, exists in some form on every team in the NFL and has for generations), but adamantly denies admitting that intentionally injuring players had anything to do with these systems.
Chad, here's an anecdote about the worth of lie detectors:
I was suing a guy for a pile of money he owed my client. The defendant's lawyer practically begged me to let his client take a test to prove that he didn't owe the money. The test results were favorable for the defendant, but lie detector tests are generally inadmissable in court in Georgia. I agreed to stipulate to the admissability of the results (I was fresh out of school...less than 1 year...and thought I had to play nice with opposing counsel at all times).
We got to court and the judge looked at me and said, "Mr. F, you agreed to make these results admissable??"
I replied, "I trust your Honor will give the results the weight they are due."
He said, "I will. Judgment for the plaintiff."
So you believe that a "cart-off hit" has nothing to do with taking the opponent off of the field via a cart, that "QB out" has nothing to do with taking the quarterback out of the game, and that the use of the term "bounty" in slides, in combination with references to money, was just an innocent coincidence caused by the Saints' love of Dog the Bounty Hunter?At the risk of being redundant, I believe the NFL Players Association, and the players, when they define the terms that they are using.
And you say we're stretching?
Cart-off - A “cart-off’ is simply a hard hit. It does not literally mean that a player was carted off the field. Coaches and players may use the terms “Knockout,†“Tapout,†“Blowups,†or “Hit Parade†to describe the same type of play.
Because ledgers which show payouts for the above mentioned terms, in addition to the use of the word "bounty" in combination with money (providing context), is not a smoking gun?Again, I'm a broken record, but "Bounty" ≠"payout for intentionally injuring someone". So says the NFLPA, so says numerous NFL players past and present. None of the NFL's "evidence" definitively proves otherwise.
The notes in the exhibits that I saw were transcribed from the Saints' handwritten notes. I don't know about any notes on a computer; the only thing from a computer that I've heard about are the ledgers which reference payouts to players, both of which are pretty damning in and of themselves.Again, they were falsified. Show me the originals and/or tell me who they came from, and maybe I would have reason to question Vitt when he flat-out claims the NFL made them up. Before he even made this accusation, the validity of these notes were being called into question.
So when someone accused of something says, "The evidence is false!," that seals the deal for you?
The investigator was there to investigate the existence of a bounty system. If Hargrove misled an investigator, then it's logical to conclude that he misled him in regard to the existence of a bounty system.How would that go in an actual court of law, if the prosecutor was submitting false evidence? Factually inaccurate evidence? It says a lot about the case itself when the accuser of wrongdoing initially refuses to produce any evidence, and when they finally do it's inaccurate and/or completely false. The onus is on the party making these drastic accusations, and dishing out these draconian punishments, to provide some evidence besides some completely made up bullshit.
Accordingly, Hargrove's signed statement indicates that coaches informed him that the NFL was investigating a bounty system, and that Hargrove was instructed to "stick to the story," "stay on the same page," and "play dumb" about the inquiries as to the bounty system. Every article that I've seen regarding Hargrove and the fact that he misled an investigator states that Hargrove admits to misleading the investigator only because the coaches told him to do so.
Because Hargrove's signed statement indicates that the coaches told him to deny the existence of a bounty system, and because the investigator was there to investigate the existence of a bounty system, I don't see how you can conclude that Hargrove only misled the NFL in regard to a pay-for-performance system.
Further, you want to damn the NFL for skewing and/or lying about certain facts, yet at the same time want to wholeheartedly believe Hargrove, a person who at the very least misled an investigator about a pay-for-performance program, if not a bounty system? So the NFL is not trustworthy because you think they lie, but a player who has lied/misled (and admitted to it) is trustworthy?
Tinted glasses. You has them.
Aside from that, even if you want to believe the accused's exclamation of evidence tampering, there is still evidence which no one has disputed as being false.Context. The NFL doesn't has dem.
There are still the slides which reference money and bounties.
There is still the video of a player (Hargrove or not) yelling, "Give me my money!"
There is still the statement from Gregg Williams, in which he said he knew the program "was rolling the dice with player safety and someone could have been maimed."
There are still three sources who told league investigators that Vilma offered $10,000 himself during a motivational speech by "raising his hands, each of which held stacks of bills, that he had two 'five-stacks,''' to give to the player who knocked Favre from the game.
There is still the signed statement from Hargrove, in which he says that coaches repeatedly told him to "stick to the story," "stay on the same page," and "play dumb."
I think football is a rough ass sport played by very large, mean men, especially at the D1 college and NFL levels. I think 97.4% of all defensive players dream of knocking someone out of the game..ie, a "cart off hit". I also think some players are dirty as hell and do in fact try to take someone out by injuring a knee or a savage blow to the head....and that this has been a part of the sport forever. I believe that all players around the league know who is "dirty" and who is not and true bounties or no bounties, there is most likely an unwritten code that they will handle payback in their own way. And I think the NFL should stay the fuck out of it and let these guys play the game the way always have.Thank. You.
I think football is a rough ass sport played by very large, mean men, especially at the D1 college and NFL levels. I think 97.4% of all defensive players dream of knocking someone out of the game..ie, a "cart off hit". I also think some players are dirty as hell and do in fact try to take someone out by injuring a knee or a savage blow to the head....and that this has been a part of the sport forever. I believe that all players around the league know who is "dirty" and who is not and true bounties or no bounties, there is most likely an unwritten code that they will handle payback in their own way. And I think the NFL should stay the fuck out of it and let these guys play the game the way always have.
At the risk of being redundant, I believe the NFL Players Association, and the players, when they define the terms that they are using.
Again, they were falsified.
How would that go in an actual court of law, if the prosecutor was submitting false evidence? Factually inaccurate evidence?
The onus is on the party making these drastic accusations, and dishing out these draconian punishments, to provide some evidence besides some completely made up bullshit.
But for the sake of argument, let's say that's the "smoking gun". How on earth does that prove "sustained use" of a program designed to "hurt players" as the NFL accused?
I've seen some expert multi-quoting going on in this thread.
Can I quote you on that?
At the risk of being redundant, I'm a broken record
Can I quote you on that?
DeMaurice Smith Wants Saints Bounty Investigation To Be Redone
Jun 22 2:31p by Joel Thorman
If you've been confused by the NFL's investigation into the New Orleans Saints alleged bounty program, then join the rest of us. It seems every time one party says anything, others are there to say it's not true. Count NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith among those who want clearer answers in the Saints bounty investigation.
Smith wrote a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell asking him to re-do the whole thing.
As a fellow steward of this game, and wholly apart from the union's and the players' legal objections, in light of these retractions and contradictions that have come to your recent attention, I ask that you order that the investigation of this matter be redone thoroughly and transparently, and if the full and complete information shows that none of the accused players participated in a "pay to injure" scheme, the NFL publicly issue such written findings.
Specifically, Smith cites the claims that Joe Vitt participated in the bounty program, despite his clear denials that he was involved. Smith also notes that the NFL said Mike Ornstein corroborated other sources who said Jonathan Vilma placed a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre, but Ornstein has since said he never said that.
While it appears there was some sort of pay-for-performance scheme, the evidence isn't as clear when it comes to bounties. That there are multiple questions about the NFL's investigation does make you wonder where the truth actually is.
You can quote me when I say Dave's Nagas is some bad mofos!
Hilarious coming from Mr. "BOOM MOTHERFUCKER!!!! SNAP HIS FUCKING RIBS IN HALF AND RIP HIS GODDAMN THROAT OUT WITH YOUR TEETH AND LET THE BLOOD RUN DOWN YOUR FACE!!!!", and that's what you want in a DC at the college level. But God-forbid an NFL coach showing some hubris to his full grown adult, big boy, professional athletes.Yeah, but there's a slight difference...The Saints DC would say that statement, then at the end of it he'd add "LITERALLY!!! YOU'D GET YOUR MONEY IF YOU DID THAT TO ANY OF THE PLAYERS ON THE HIT LIST!!! NOW GO OUT THERE AND FUCK THEM UP!!!"
I get full retard.Agreed.
The NFL has actual real tangible documents that reference cart off hits, taking a QB out, money, names with monetary amounts, and references to a bounty.(http://www.cisga.org/images/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif)
The NFL doesn't have alot of reason to make this more than it really is. They don't have any motive to keep it in the headlines. There is nothing to gain from it. In fact, if anything, it is a big black eye on the sport. The players have alot to gain from lying about it, though.(http://www.cisga.org/images/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif)
There is no "well, cart-off really means this, QB out means that". It's total horseshit and you know it. If the topic were about Alabama football this would be way more than enough evidence for you. Hell, I would have to agree with it too. But it is something you like, so we have about 20 pages of retard. It's mind boggling. Fuck, I think we all know I would argue with a fence post. I would have to take this one with a grain of KY, though.(http://www.cisga.org/images/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif)
The Saints are fucked, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
Yeah, but there's a slight difference...The Saints DC would say that statement, then at the end of it he'd add "LITERALLY!!! YOU'D GET YOUR MONEY IF YOU DID THAT TO ANY OF THE PLAYERS ON THE HIT LIST!!! NOW GO OUT THERE AND FUCK THEM UP!!!"OIC. Are you "transcribing" that?
OIC. Are you "transcribing" that?
Is this coach Will Ferrell we're talking about?
"I AM SPEAKING 100% LITERALLY WHEN I SAY THAT I AM IMPLORING YOU TO REMOVE THIS GENTLEMAN'S HEAD FROM HIS NECK! I WANT TO ESTABLISH WITH CLARITY THAT I AM NOT BEING FIGURATIVE IN ANY WAY!"
:rofl:
"Kill the head! But only the head! We need his body still flailing around out there to cause penalties! You know how many fucking god damn false starts they'll have if a headless body is out there flailing around? It'll be fucking awesome! You rip that fuckers head off but make sure blood flow stays circulating! Fuck yeah!"I love how people, here and otherwise, say things like "How can kill the head possibly mean anything other than it's literal meaning?"
I love how people, here and otherwise, say things like "How can kill the head possibly mean anything other than it's literal meaning?"
What the fudge exactly is the literal meaning of "kill the head"? I guess what you described above.
We've got a lot of guys up at the top.
Kill the head and the body will die.
Kill the head and the body will die.
We've got to do everything in the world to make sure we kill Frank Gore's head.
We want him running sideways.
We want his head sideways.
We hit (expletive) (Alex) Smith right there.
(Williams points to his chin).
Remember me, I've got the first one. I've got the first one.
(Williams rubs his fingers together to indicate he'll pay money for the hit).
Go lay that (expletive) out!
Every single one of you, before you get off the pile, affect the head. Early. Affect the head. Continue, touch and hit the head.
...
The little wide receiver, No. 10 (Kyle Williams) ... about his concussion. We need to (expletive) put a lock on him right now.
...
We need to decide whether Crabtree wants to be a fake (expletive) prima donna, or he wants to be a tough guy. We need to find it out.
He becomes human when we (expletive) take out that outside ACL.
We need to decide on how many times we can beat Frank Gore's head.
We need to decide how many times we can bull-rush, and we can (expletive) put Vernon Davis' ankles over the pile.
Normally I would agree, but according to the transcript it wasn't just a metaphor.No, no, you just don't understand. He didn't mean any of that. You don't speak Greg Williams.
http://www.mercurynews.com/49ers/ci_20332637/bounty-tape-transcript-ex-saints-assistant-gregg-williams
This could be taken as pump the guys up speaking metaphorically as in we need to make sure to stop their best player (the head) and the body (the rest of the team) will lose it's way. Wanting his head sideways I could take as making him run East West and not North South. But then...
OK, now we gotta rely on something we can't see (the pointing and rubbing of fingers) so maybe take it with a grain of salt, but this is starting to sound worse.
OK, it gets ugly at the end. Take out the ACL? Beat on his head? Put his ankles over? Whether or not he was paying for it the guy had to go. Now I understand that that is just Williams and he's not there any more, but head coach and GM ultimately take some of the blame for the people they put into place.
(http://www.cisga.org/images/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif)It is. Well, except when we read something you don't agree with, apparently.
Everyone in this thread (sans Snaggle & I) must live in this town and go to this bar.That should tell you two things:
Ok.
It's me who doesn't get it.
Grading all of the Saints bounty evidence
By Mike Freeman | National NFL Insider
June 21, 2012 3:39 pm ET
Does all of this evidence add up to an open-and-shut case for the NFL? Not necessarily.
It's time to take a close look at all of the evidence in the Saints bounty case. An extremely close look.
I took all of the exhibits turned over to the union – 16 in all – and gave them grades, Pete Prisco style.
My belief has long been that the league has the goods on players but is keeping the best stuff under wraps to protect the identities of informants. I still believe this.
And remember: the league got a great deal of its information from Gregg Williams and Williams has yet to refute anything the NFL has said about him.
But I also cannot argue with the Saints who believe the league hasn't just failed to make its case, it exaggerated it.
The grades are based solely on proof of a bounty system in which Saints players were paid to injure with ‘A' being explicit proof and ‘F' being no proof at all.
There were no A's.
There were lots of F's.
Exhibit 1: These are the transcribed handwritten notes. The NFL won't say the source. They are dollar amounts assigning, for example, $2,000 to Jonathan Vilma and $5,000 to Mike Ornstein. The total is $11,500.
The problem is: we don't know the source of this information. And since we don't know the true source, the information is extremely questionable.
Grade: F
Exhibit 2: This is the Mike Ornstein e-mail to Williams. It reads: “D—khead I gave you 1500 last week, I will give you another 1500 the next 4 game, and the final 2000 the last 4.â€
The NFL says this e-mail corroborates other evidence that proves a bounty system was in place. Despite Ornstein now saying the e-mail was a joke, which is a joke in itself, this e-mail is actually somewhat compelling.
Ornstein wrote this e-mail believing no one would ever see it. And what exactly is that money for? Groceries.
Grade: B
Exhibit 3: Almost all of this exhibit is absolutely worthless. The NFL says one piece of it, a listing of dollar amounts, is proof of a bounty system, and is corroborated. But it really proves nothing.
Grade: F
Exhibit 4: More of the same.
Grade: F
Exhibit 5: This lists the various Saints players and money amounts they earned and had deducted for various hits, plays and errors and contains language like “whacks.†This evidence is actually compelling because it contains this: “Harper =cart-off 1000.â€
Harper would be safety Roman Harper. The union says cart-off doesn't actually mean what it sounds like it means. They say it means hard hit but that's peeing on my head and telling me it's raining. Cart-off means freaking cart-off.
But the rest of the exhibit proves nothing so it's a highly mixed bag.
Grade: C Note: As I mentioned and proved before, Harper didn't remove anyone from the Giants game, so if he got paid for a "cart-off" hit, then "cart-off" certainly has a different definition than what is assumed. Also, Harper was not one of the players punished.
Exhibit 6: Almost identical to five. The NFL says these exhibits are proof of dues paid into a bounty system. They say coaches told them this, among others. But this exhibit doesn't prove that and doesn't contain the vital cart-off language that would demonstrate the Saints were trying to injure.
Grade: F
Exhibit 7: Is an envelope with handwritten notes. It has notation that says Vilma received $400 for two whacks minus $200 for a mental error with the words “gave back to kitty pool.†This is again proof that something was being funded but no proof of a pay to injure scheme.
Grade: F
Exhibit 8: Most of this exhibit is of the Saints' defensive schemes and some fiery lingo. There is mention of “kitty†money but, again, no proof of pay-to-injure.
Grade: F
Exhibit 9: More motivational stuff (“stop the f------ run!â€). But there is something important in this exhibit. Listed are the 2010 “kill the head†totals. It's a simple column that has player names and then the phrase “kill the heads†with numbers underneath. Vilma, for example, had 62 kill the heads.
The union says “kill the head†is hyperbole and goes back to language used by some of the great defensive Saints teams in the 1990s. But again, this makes no sense. Kill the head means kill the head. It means Williams was instruction players to hit the head. It's common sense. It's good information but since there are no money amounts listed as well it's not rock solid proof of a pay-to-injure plan.
This is also the exhibit that contained the Dog the Bounty Hunter photograph. While that's funny, and ridiculous, it's also an interesting choice. Saints players and coaches say there was no bounty program, no semblance of one, not even close. But if there wasn't, why use a bounty hunter as a symbol?
Grade: B+
Exhibit 10: This is the most controversial exhibit. There are many different layers here and none of them good for the NFL.
The key part of this exhibit is the chart that details alleged bounty payouts. I'm told by a source close to the situation that this information came from the infamous ledger. One of the key pieces of information from this exhibit is about assistant Joe Vitt and says “Vitt--$5,000 QB out pool.â€
Many of us in the media pointed to this as a key component in the NFL's case. It seemed like proof, hardened proof, of a bounty system. When the NFL invited a dozen members of the media into its offices this was presented as proof as well. Seemed open and shut except it wasn't.
The NFL later admitted it wasn't able to corroborate that Vitt had actually done what the notation seemed to indicate that he had done. The NFL didn't make this fact particularly clear to the group of media and instead led us to believe this was in fact proof. This destroyed the league's credibility on this exhibit.
Grade: Big, fat, giant F
Exhibit 11: More game fees dollar amounts but again, no true proof of anything.
(Best part of this exhibit is a quote used by Williams: “Put your foot on the neck of the fear of criticism by reaching a decision of not worrying about what people think, do or say!†–Country Boy Wisdom
Grade: Incomplete
Exhibit 12: This riveting exhibit contains this highly inflammatory note from Williams to the players: “Meeting room cleanliness. Bus your trays back to the cafeteria! Don't leave food in the rooms! Throw out plastic silverware.†All of that is followed by a smiley face.
Grade: F
Exhibit 13: More notes about donations to some sort of pool but again zero proof of pay to injure.
Best part of exhibit was this quote on a sheet before one of their games: “Media this week: Keep Your F------ Mouth Shut.â€
Grade: F
Exhibit 14: This is the controversial game footage in which the NFL claims Anthony Hargrove says “give me my money†after Vitt informs a small group of defenders that Brett Favre was knocked out of the game. Again, the media watched this on a large screen in the NFL's offices. No, you cannot see Hargrove's lips move but the voice that says the words sound a great deal like Hargrove's. A great deal. It sounds exactly like Hargrove to me.
However, it is still fair to say that if you can't see Hargrove's lips moving, how can you prove it was him? And if the NFL got this wrong it is also fair to wonder what else they screwed up.
Grade: Incomplete Note: As mentioned before, Hargrove wasn't involved in that play http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/43004/odd-timing-on-hargroves-payment-request
Exhibit 15: A blog post from Sean Pamphilon. This is beyond worthless.
Grade: F
Exhibit 16: An article from the New Orleans Times-Picayune in which Saints linebacker Scott Shanle says a bounty program existed but that the NFL exaggerated its claims. Why this is included as proof is curious. It almost helps the Saints.
Grade: D
So, in total, the 16 exhibits of the NFL's bounty evidence turned over to the union gets grades of F, B, F, F, C, F, F, F, B+, F, incomplete, F, F, incomplete, F, D.
In all, the NFL's evidence turned over to the union won't be making the honor roll.
You've lost your mind on this one Chizad.
GUILTY. Send them all to pound me in the ass prison.
If you isolate each exhibit, maybe... MAYBE ... you can argue differently.
But what happens when you turn five blind men loose on an elephant? One says it's a snake, one says it's a column, one says it's a wall, one says it's a large fan and one says it's a rope. But it's STILL a fucking elephant, capice?
Correct me if I'm wrong chad but I thought you hated Espn and most other outlets. Now they are legit?
CBSSports just doesn't get it...
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/mike-freeman/19397660/grading-all-of-the-saints-bounty-evidence
Correct me if I'm wrong chad but I thought you hated Espn and most other outlets. Now they are legit?What I hate is anyone with an axe to grind, feverishly desperate to whisk up a scandal, trying to turn sports into some soap opera.
And that little grading system is all subjective. Who decides what grades they get? What if I say they all get A's and B's? It all depends on which side you stand that determines how you want to paint the picture.Well, first of all, this was written by Mike Freeman, who wrote the most contentious piece against the Saints (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19077835/vilmas-lawsuit-against-goodell-underscores-saints-arrogance) to date the day before the NFL's "evidence" was released, which, along with several other Saints-bashing (http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/19378838/nfl-reveals-more-bounty-evidence-courtesy-of-the-saints-williams) pieces reminiscent of Pete Thamel's strange obsession with Auburn, earned him a spot as one of the "12 Apostles" (http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/bounty-hearing-goodell-releases-explosive-charges-against-saints-221556547--nfl.html) of biased journalists Goodell hand-selected to report on the appeal hearing.
Scott Fujita questions probe
Updated: June 24, 2012, 9:12 PM ET
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8068436
Fujita: NFL Smear Campaign
Scott Fujita says the NFL has embarked on a smear campaign and denies any involvement in Saints bounty program.Tags: SportsCenter, Roger Goodell, Fujita, Saints Bounties, Bounty Program
NEW ORLEANS -- Former New Orleans Saints linebacker Scott Fujita, a union leader who has criticized the NFL's player-safety record, sees elements of a "smear campaign" in a bounty investigation that has sullied his reputation.
Some NFL players agree, and question whether Fujita's three-game suspension has something to do with retribution.
"I'm not saying the NFL is intentionally lying," Fujita said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I've been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they may have just been working with the information they've been given, even though much of that information was inaccurate and lacked credibility.
"It's their cavalier interpretation of everything that's been way off. They clearly proceeded with a public smear campaign with very little regard for the truth."
Saints linebacker Scott Shanle finds it hard to ignore the symmetry of the NFL portraying Fujita as a hypocrite on player-safety matters after Fujita had done the same thing to the league.
"When you look at Scott, who was here for one season (of the three spanned by the bounty probe), for him to get three games, I just felt like there had to be more of a personal issue with that," Shanle said. "When you look at how outspoken he is and a lot of the issues he tries to address, it probably doesn't sit well with the league."
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the NFL stands by its finding that Fujita gave "more than token amounts" of money to a pool that also rewarded injury-producing hits called "cart-offs" and "knockouts."
"The process gave all of the players every opportunity to raise arguments and provide any mitigating information," Aiello said. "Scott Fujita unfortunately chose not to avail himself of the process. Nothing that he has asserted in his various public statements undermines the findings of the investigation."
Fujita, who now plays for the Cleveland Browns, was one of four current or former Saints suspended in the bounty probe. Two of them, Jonathan Vilma and Will Smith, still play for New Orleans. The other, Green Bay Packers defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove, left New Orleans after 2010, while Fujita left after 2009, the first season covered by the investigation.
In 2010, Fujita became a member of the NFLPA executive committee, and has since echoed comments by Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) comparing the NFL's 2009 position on concussions' links to brain disease to the way the tobacco industry denied knowledge that smoking caused cancer.
Fujita argued that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell undermined his own credibility on player-safety matters when he pushed for an 18-game regular season.
He called for the NFL to employ independent neurological consultants after Browns quarterback Colt McCoy was knocked out of a game, but allowed to return, despite later being diagnosed with a concussion.
With both undergraduate and master's degrees from Cal-Berkeley, Fujita is seen by contemporaries as someone with a strong command of NFL labor issues, who can be relied upon to hold league officials accountable.
An example Browns players cite came in the summer of 2010, when Goodell visited team headquarters around the league to hear players' concerns about the impending lockout.
Browns players described Fujita challenging Goodell's answers to a range of questions, including how a lockout would affect players' health coverage. Fujita also pressed the commissioner on why the NFL had hired attorney Bob Batterman, who had represented the NHL during its 2004-05 lockout, and why the league negotiated TV contracts that would pay even if games weren't played.
"Scott wasn't scared to ask the tough questions that some of us wouldn't or some of us didn't even know to ask," Browns tight end Benjamin Watson said. "Scott wanted to make sure the commissioner owned up to all that stuff and ... you could tell that Mr. Goodell wasn't comfortable answering some of those questions."
Former Browns linebacker Eric Barton added: "Most people in the room were like, 'This guy (the commissioner) is full of it,' and Scott just called him out, and it was almost like, 'Oh, Scott, you're going to be in trouble.' "
After seeing evidence the NFL presented against him in last week's appeal hearing on the four players' suspensions, Fujita has more questions:
• Why has the NFL linked him to bounties in its public statements, while its disciplinary letter announcing his suspension acknowledges there is no evidence he "pledged money toward a specific bounty" on a particular player?
• Why does that same letter state he was a member of the Saints in the 2010 season, when he was with Cleveland? And what does that say about the quality of the investigation?
• If the investigation was going on for parts of three years, why did no one contact him before the league's first report in March?
• Why did Goodell twice call his personal phone after union attorneys notified the NFL they were representing Fujita, meaning Goodell was not supposed to call him without an NFLPA attorney on the line?
Aiello responded that while the NFL never accused Fujita of targeting a specific opponent, his discipline letter clearly stated "that he contributed a significant sum to the general pool that included payments for nonspecific bounties in the form of 'cart-offs' and 'knockouts.' "
Fujita was not contacted about the probe earlier, Aiello said, because the league was unable to identify specific players and their roles in the program until late in 2011.
"Every individual that was eventually disciplined was invited to speak to our office prior to any decision on discipline," Aiello said. "None of the players, including Mr. Fujita, agreed to be interviewed during the process."
Aiello added that Goodell's calls to Fujita were in response to calls Fujita had placed to Goodell, but the NFLPA said Goodell should not have been making personal calls to players facing punishment at that point.
"It's inappropriate. It is completely outside legal conduct rules," NFLPA lawyer Heather McPhee said. "You cannot directly contact a represented party when you know a party's represented and it's especially odd in this case when Roger purports to be the judge. Picture a judge getting on the phone with a defendant or a suspect."
After the second call, McPhee emailed NFL counsel Jeff Pash and Goodell, saying Fujita would be happy to talk with Goodell with counsel present, but there was no further communication, and Fujita learned days later he'd been suspended.
Fujita said his only chance to speak with Goodell directly came in early March after the release of the initial bounty report, which did not identify players, although Fujita's name had been leaked. Fujita said he called Goodell to explain locker room culture as it relates to tough talk and informal performance incentives, and how it could be misconstrued.
He said Goodell told him then that "he would have no problem coming down hard on Saints coaches, but that when it comes to players, he's not quite sure what he's got."
Fujita acknowledges he offered teammates cash for big plays, mainly because "that's the way it was done when I was a young player and I kind of looked at that as paying it forward."
But Fujita contends he never contributed to team-organized pools, instead paying pledges directly to teammates. The NFL's current collective bargaining agreement applies only to pools organized by team officials, like the one former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams has apologized for running.
According to a transcript AP obtained from the appeal hearing, NFL outside counsel Mary Jo White described an unnamed coach and another witness saying Fujita pledged unspecified sums of cash for "big plays" during the 2009-10 playoffs.
The NFL also presented printed reproductions of handwritten notes, which White said show Fujita pledging $1,000 to a pool for sacks and forced fumbles during the regular season, and $2,000 during the playoffs to a "general pool," which she said in part paid for injury-inducing plays.
The note indicated safety Roman Harper, who was not punished, pledged $5,000 to the general pool, and that assistant head coach Joe Vitt pledged $5,000 to knock then-Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre out of the NFC title game.
Hoping to protect those who helped their investigation, the NFL did not present the original notes or identify who wrote them.
"We don't know who wrote the note. We haven't seen the original, and the fact that Joe Vitt's name is on it proves how bogus it is," Fujita said. "No way he ever contributed, not even $100 for anything. It's not his style."
Vitt has said the part of the document showing his pledge is false, which he said raises questions about all of the evidence.
However the bounty saga winds up, Fujita said he has no regrets about his aggressive tactics as a union leader.
"I've had a few concussions myself. I have a dear friend (former Saints player Steve Gleason) who has ALS. I have a friend and former mentor (Lew Bush) who died earlier this year. Then there was the tragic death of someone I've admired for so long, Junior Seau," Fujita said. "I can't say for sure that all of these things happened because of football, but I've seen enough to have some concerns. I was elected to fight for these men, so in no way do I regret that."
Saints' 'pay for performance' system commonplace in NFL
By Bucky Brooks NFL.com
Analyst, NFL.com and NFL Network
Published: March 3, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.
The news of the New Orleans Saints operating a "bounty" program from 2009 to 2011 under defensive coordinator Gregg Williams has created quite a stir since the news broke Friday, but I will let you in on a dirty little secret: The practice is commonplace throughout the league.
While the salacious details of the "pay for performance" program certainly will draw the ire of Commissioner Roger Goodell, the act of players providing cash bonuses to their teammates for impact plays has been a part of the league's subculture for years.
From my rookie season in 1994 to my final year as a scout in 2007, I was associated with several teams that incorporated various forms of the "bounty" program cited in New Orleans. Most of those bonuses were tied to sacks, interceptions, forced fumbles and return touchdowns, but big hits and knockout shots were also included in the payouts. The financial incentives were established by players prior to the season, typically within a position group, and the payouts ranged from a few hundred dollars to $1,500 at the max.
The money used to make the payments came from fines for various mental errors on the practice field or in games, and the group would designate which players were worthy of receiving the gifts. The intent of the program was to promote accountability for players for their play on the field, while also adding a competitive element to the group.
As silly as it sounds to those on the outside, the thought of collecting a few hundred bucks from your teammates for a big play provides a bit of motivation for a player already cashing huge checks for his performance. Players have been known to shout "cha-ching" (mimicking the sound of a cash register) on the field following turnovers, and the byproduct of utilizing such a "kitty" program is better camaraderie among the group.
In addressing the damning allegations of placing bounties on opposing players, I would like to believe the Saints instituted policies that rewarded defenders for hard but clean shots that separated ball carriers from the ball. These "knockout" shots, as we called them, were not inflicted with the intent to injure, but rather to establish a physical tone that created hesitation and fear in the minds of offensive players venturing across the middle of the field.
Offensive players might scoff at the notion of intimidation impacting the game, but there is something to putting teeth-rattling collisions on tape that alters the way future opponents play the game. If you don't believe me, look at the way receivers short arm balls with defenders in close proximity, or how quarterbacks flinch with rushers bearing down on them. Simply put, big hits matter in this game, and defensive coaches and players overemphasize the importance of physicality.
To illustrate that point, I will point to an example from my time with the Kansas City Chiefs during which we routinely would reward players with framed pictures of their big hits in team meetings. This certainly didn't promote dirty play or encourage defenders to play beyond the whistle, but receiving recognition for a bone-jarring hit definitely was motivating.
The New Orleans Saints won Super Bowl XLIV behind a hard-nosed, aggressive defense that specialized in creating takeaways and pummeling opponents, and Williams' "pay for performance" system is a time-honored tradition in locker rooms across the league.
And the NFL is trying to put an end to it and N.O. likes to lie about doing it.
Rack him.
That's the end of the discussion.
Rack him.So, you honestly believe that the punishment of a half a million dollar fine, banning Gregg Williams' from the NFL indefinitely, suspending HC Sean Payton for a full calendar year, GM Mickey Loomis for half a season, Assistant HC Joe Vitt for six games, LB Jonathan Vilma for a calendar year, DL Anthony Hargrove for eight games, DE Will Smith for four games, and LB Scott Fujita for three games, all without pay is equitable punishment? Considering that all of the evidence's validity has been called into question, and most of it is verifiable false and factually inaccurate?
That's the end of the discussion.
Early on, with only the NFL's word, most of the media was guilty of this. Now that the truth has emerged, even the media sharks have stopped circling and are calling Goodell on his bullshit.
So, you honestly believe that the punishment of a half a million dollar fine, banning Gregg Williams' from the NFL indefinitely, suspending HC Sean Payton for a full calendar year, GM Mickey Loomis for half a season, Assistant HC Joe Vitt for six games, LB Jonathan Vilma for a calendar year, DL Anthony Hargrove for eight games, DE Will Smith for four games, and LB Scott Fujita for three games, all without pay is equitable punishment? Considering that all of the evidence's validity has been called into question, and most of it is verifiable false and factually inaccurate?
Considering that in 2007, the NFL found the Green Bay Packers to be guilty of a "bounty program" (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/packers/2007-11-26-nfl-ruling_N.htm) and didn't issue any punishment whatsoever?
No, I think it's excessive...which has been Goodell's MO for a while. He started out pussy-footing discipline just like Tagliabue, but he's dropped the hammer recently.
And, really, the "everyone else does it" defense is total bullshit...and very BG03. You're better than that, Spanish.
If the punishment is not excessive then the people breaking the rules point and laugh.
Could one of the mods lock this bitch down?
Mods, I do not appreciate the use of ssgaufan's language. Besides what does a female dog have to do with this? Can you spike his warn meter and please move this to the woodshed where it belongs?
They can shove their warn meters up their asses.
Kinky.
They can shove their warn meters up their asses.
:haha:
Wrong
Saints Bounty Scandal: Is This "All" The Evidence?
June 25, 2012 2:25 am
Indecisiveness will kill you.
History is replete with stories of generals who sort of, maybe, decided to make a move, only to be crushed for having that move be weak.
The NFL doesn't seem to understand this concept... and it has cost their reputation dearly.
For the last several months, the NFL has been pursuing the allegations of a "pay to injure" scheme. During the entire investigation, they have played their cards very close to the vest, so to speak. We have all operated under the assumption that the suspensions that followed for the coaching staff as well as the players had a trail of substantial evidence. By posturing and refusing to show the public, it may have annoyed some of the fans, but at least it displayed a measure of wisdom by appearing to be just and handle the situation in house.
When public demand increased, Roger Goodell relented to a degree stating that after the process was over, the evidence would be released to the public.
The grand unveiling of the long awaited evidence played out very badly for the NFL. The evidence appears to be less factual and more based on inference. This does not mean that the league can't act on those inferences, but it makes the grounds for doing so decidedly weaker.
Some have suggested that this is only part of the evidence and that the NFL is holding the most crucial pieces back. However, even if that is in fact the case, this was a tactically horrific move.
The league exposed a decidedly weak hand and have announced that the fate of a number of different players was based on this evidence. What could have been used as an effective tool to put this issue to bed, has essentially done the opposite. Instead of running and hiding from the public, players now feel justified in their accusations of inappropriate use of power by the league.
If this is the extent of the evidence that they have, Vilma will likely win his defamation suit in court. He is also not likely to be alone. Other players (and perhaps the coaches) will follow suit. There may be far more powerful evidence that will be released at that time, but the NFL response has now almost ensured that the case will be taken to that point.
The NFL and Roger Goodell had a right to suppress the evidence claiming that it was for the benefit of the league. They also had the right to completely expose a mountain of evidence that made direct connections to a "pay to injure" scheme, and then follow it up with indefinite suspensions for those who forced the information to be released. All of this, again, could have been done based on the premise of protecting the image of the league. Either of these moves would have offered a haven of sorts.
But they did neither. Now the NFL has exposed their position. It is either very weak, or strong but displayed in a way that brings damage to the image of the league...
And now the enemy fire will come.
http://www.yardbarker.com/nfl/articles/saints_bounty_scandal_is_this_all_the_evidence/11082977
Serious Implications in Goodell Admitting Vitt Evidence Incorrect: Fan's PerspectiveSo, in case it wasn't clear from earlier discussions concerning Vitt's denial of involvement, Goodell admitted that this "evidence" was false.
Yahoo! Contributor Network
By Patrick Michael | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Wed, Jun 20, 2012 10:13 PM EDT
Joe Vitt
Following Monday's appeal hearings for the suspended players in the New Orleans Saints "pay for performance" system, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell finally released some of the league's evidence to the media. One document allegedly showed Saints interim head coach Joe Vitt pledging $5,000 to anyone knocking Minnesota Vikings QB Brett Favre out of the 2010 NFC Championship game.
Personally, this bit of news didn't stir me much one way or the other. We already knew there was something untoward going on in New Orleans because the Saints organization has admitted as much. Also, Joe Vitt is suspended for six games so Roger Goodell must have had something on him.
Lately, Joe Vitt has been focused on leading the Saints and hasn't been nearly as outspoken as suspended players such as Jonathan Vilma. However, when the media reported the above evidence, Vitt issued a quick, unequivocal denial. Joe Vitt even called Roger Goodell personally to voice his objection.
Roger Goodell
Now this is where the story gets interesting. According to Joe Vitt, Roger Goodell agreed with him! Vitt even told Goodell he'd be willing to take a lie detector test on this. So on at least one point, we now have an admission that the NFL's so-called evidence against the Saints is either vague and open to interpretation or it's outright wrong.
In my opinion, this is a very, very serious development. If Goodell has now admitted that some of the evidence against the Saints is inaccurate, how can we trust any of it? At this very moment, I'm sure Jonathan Vilma's attorney Peter Ginsberg is incorporating this development into his client's defamation lawsuit versus Goodell.
I understand that Roger Goodell's sanctions against the New Orleans Saints are not the equivalent of a court of law. Employers discipline employees every day without needing to adhere to the overwhelming burden of proof that prosecutors need in court.
However, I believe Roger Goodell has become more concerned with trying to prove that he is right rather than trying to get it right. In doing so, he has jumped on every piece of evidence, both solid and thin. As a result, we now know that Joe Vitt was falsely accused on one point.
How many others in the Saints organization besides Joe Vitt have also been falsely accused?
This is from last Wednesday, when the media started to realize what is going on here.According to OJ Simpson, the REAL murderer was on the loose while OJ was on trial. I bet that you believe that shit too.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/serious-implications-goodell-admitting-vitt-evidence-incorrect-fans-021300536--nfl.html
So, in case it wasn't clear from earlier discussions concerning Vitt's denial of involvement, Goodell admitted that this "evidence" was false.
According to OJ Simpson, the REAL murderer was on the loose while OJ was on trial. I bet that you believe that shit too.Further evidence you can't read...
If the punishment is not excessive then the people breaking the rules point and laugh.Get 'em!!!
Further evidence you can't read...So, Goodell has came out in public to say "Hey, I fucked up."? I wasn't aware of that.
Did Marcia Clark say "Yeah, that's true. What I said earlier? I just made that up."
(http://i3.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/lens9218141_1272425515who_dat.png)
You know how many Super Bowls the Steelers, Cowboys, and 49ers have won combined since the Saints won the Super Bowl?
Zero.
Take your Bammeristic reply somewhere else....the Saints were a blind squirrel that found a nut. You are not a "champeenship franshyse!". You are the AINTS. Always will be. A fanbase full of a mix of Bammers and 9th Ward residents.
(http://fanspeak.com/washingtonredskins/files/2011/11/bengrubbs.jpg)
Did this motherfucker call us bammers?
(http://a.espncdn.com/combiner/i?img=/i/headshots/nfl/players/full/10604.png&w=350&h=254)
That's what I heard. Not amused.
(http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/images/photos/001/366/636/107634766_crop_650x440.jpg?1316696451)
Just please shut up before you embarrass yourself even more.
Chizad doesn't know the difference between fans and players now.I don't get how me posting articles and correcting the idiocy that has spewed from this thread = I'm more passionate about the Saints than I am Auburn.
Cute captions. You really got me there. :taunt: And YOU are the only one in this thread that is embarrassing yourself. Your only defender resorts to posting "Champeenchip" icons as a defense. Sad. I've never defended anything sports related to the extent you are defending your new residence. Wes is right, shit got real when you moved there. At least you guys can always say "at least we're not the Falcons", although your fan base is making theirs look decent at the moment.
So, Goodell has came out in public to say "Hey, I fucked up."? I wasn't aware of that.Because you can't read.
One predatory-homosexual-hobbit-lawyer who will argue with a brick wall.
It's one thing to have the power to levy punishment, it's another thing to have legitimate reason and evidence that backs that punishment up, and that's the stuff that we have not seen. The only thing that's been proven is that there was a lot of tough talk. When you listen to the Gregg Williams tape, and I certainly don't condone what was in that tape, talking like a mad man and very careless and irresponsible. Mike, you've been in locker rooms before, you hear the stuff that's said. It's much different when things are said "Hey we're gonna go hit him in the mouth" or "We're gonna go rip this guy's head off", it's a big difference from actually saying it, and going out there with an intent to injure or an intent to end a guy's career. And they've proven that there was tough talk, but they haven't proven that money was actually changing hands to go out and intentionally injure people.
And Golic, you've said that many times, as you've heard far worse in those locker rooms.
Yep, absolutely. Yep. Yep.
There are still so many things you refuse to address or even acknowledge.
You post an article that grades the evidence presented. You highlight every F or incomplete, yet ignore the other pieces of evidence which received higher grades.
A player can audibly be heard to yell "Give me my money" when Vitt informs the players that Favre was hurt in the most recent play. Hargrove's verbal denial that he said that is blindly accepted. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that someone on the Saints said it, even if it wasn't Hargrove.
You ignore that Hargrove admitted to being told to "play dumb" when investigators came to ask about a bounty system, and don't want to address what exactly he was being told to play dumb about.
You don't want to acknowledge Williams' apology, and his express statement that he was putting players' safety in danger with his system. You also ignore Williams' admission that Vitt told Hargrove to lie about a bounty system, and instead choose to believe Vitt's denial.
There are express references in the documents to monetary pay outs, cart-off hits, and bounties, yet you blindly accept an after-the-fact explanation by Williams that these terms don't mean what we think. This same explanation comes from the guy who stated that Vitt told a player to lie about the existence of a bounty system. Oh...I'm sorry...not "lie" about a bounty system, but "play dumb," "stick to the story," and "stay on the same page" about something. I'm sure Williams has an explanation for those terms as well.
Vilma, Smith, Fujita, and Hargrove show up to their appeal hearing, cry about not having exactly 72 hours to review the evidence, and are given until the afternoon (the end of the 72 hour period they are guaranteed) to review the evidence and make their appeal. Vilma didn't show up to make an appeal that afternoon, and although the other three showed up, they had no response to give to the evidence even after protesting not having enough time (and receiving additional time) to review the evidence. And Goodell kept the case open for the remainder of last week to allow the players to come back and put up a defense if they feel they have a legitimate case that needs to be considered...yet they didn't, as far as I've heard.
And what has yet to be mentioned is that the Saints have failed to offer anything to refute what the NFL has presented, other than verbal denials regarding the authenticity of documentation and the meaning of words. Do you think that Goodell rappelled into the Saints' headquarters and stole documentation like a ninja? Why didn't the coaches, players, and/or their attorneys make copies of documents before handing them over? Why not submit those copies during the appeal instead of walking away from the hearing and not coming back with any response whatsoever?
For a team which vehemently believes that every accusation is false and that there is no evidence, they sure are failing to present any evidence or provide any verifiable defenses, other than broad verbal denials by those accused.
Because you can't read.Oh, I can read just fine. The problem is, it says "according to Joe Vitt". That isn't exactly a reputable source at the moment. Unless you are a Saints fan, apparently. I haven't seen anything from Goodell.
Don't know how many times it has to be posted.
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/serious-implications-goodell-admitting-vitt-evidence-incorrect-fans-021300536--nfl.html
There are still so many things you refuse to address or even acknowledge.I did respond to several of them. I skipped exactly two above a "D" without my own comment. Both were to at least try to limit my redundancy, as both items had already been addressed ad-nausea.
You post an article that grades the evidence presented. You highlight every F or incomplete, yet ignore the other pieces of evidence which received higher grades.
A player can audibly be heard to yell "Give me my money" when Vitt informs the players that Favre was hurt in the most recent play. Hargrove's verbal denial that he said that is blindly accepted. Furthermore, you ignore the fact that someone on the Saints said it, even if it wasn't Hargrove.It wasn't Hargrove. I'm 100% positive. But let's say that it was. Hargrove was punished, and this was their evidence for his punishment. How does it make any sense whatsoever that Hargrove would expect payment after a hit from Bobby McCray and Remi Ayodele in which he was not involved? Also, the play did not result in Favre being removed from the game, so there goes definitive proof of what "cart-off" means. As mentioned in the article by former NFL player Bucky Brooks that I linked and quoted earlier (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8275bb0f/article/saints-pay-for-performance-system-commonplace-in-nfl), quote "Players have been known to shout "cha-ching" (mimicking the sound of a cash register) on the field following turnovers". When presented out of context, and you're told what to look for to stretch and connect-the-dots, with a presumption of guilt, then there is high potential for that to look worse than it actually was.
You ignore that Hargrove admitted to being told to "play dumb" when investigators came to ask about a bounty system, and don't want to address what exactly he was being told to play dumb about.Nope. I've addressed it many times. I keep having to repeat myself because apparently everyone glazes over what I say in this thread.
Again, you continue to live in this black-and-white, all or nothing world. He admits to being misleading about the existence of a pay for performance system (which, again, exists in some form on every team in the NFL and has for generations), but adamantly denies admitting that intentionally injuring players had anything to do with these systems.
You don't want to acknowledge Williams' apology, and his express statement that he was putting players' safety in danger with his system. You also ignore Williams' admission that Vitt told Hargrove to lie about a bounty system, and instead choose to believe Vitt's denial.You're repeating yourself. See above. I think there was a pay for performance, and I think Williams was involved. I also think Williams was a "tough talker" as Brees alluded to, and as you're unfamiliar with as commonplace in NFL lockerrooms. I will concede that maybe Williams was a tad more over the top than average. When brought out into the public eye, as those conversations are never intended to be, they look bad, yes.
There are express references in the documents to monetary pay outs, cart-off hits, and bounties, yet you blindly accept an after-the-fact explanation by Williams that these terms don't mean what we think. This same explanation comes from the guy who stated that Vitt told a player to lie about the existence of a bounty system. Oh...I'm sorry...not "lie" about a bounty system, but "play dumb," "stick to the story," and "stay on the same page" about something. I'm sure Williams has an explanation for those terms as well.See above. :facepalm:
Vilma, Smith, Fujita, and Hargrove show up to their appeal hearing, cry about not having exactly 72 hours to review the evidence, and are given until the afternoon (the end of the 72 hour period they are guaranteed) to review the evidence and make their appeal. Vilma didn't show up to make an appeal that afternoon, and although the other three showed up, they had no response to give to the evidence even after protesting not having enough time (and receiving additional time) to review the evidence. And Goodell kept the case open for the remainder of last week to allow the players to come back and put up a defense if they feel they have a legitimate case that needs to be considered...yet they didn't, as far as I've heard.So you're mad because they didn't refute any of the "evidence", and then you're also mad that they are denying the "evidence". I mean, what else can they say besides, "This is bullshit. I didn't say that. I didn't do that. Those documents are fabricated."? The onus of proof is on the prosecutors to validate any evidence they have. Show the originals. Tell us where they came from.
And what has yet to be mentioned is that the Saints have failed to offer anything to refute what the NFL has presented, other than verbal denials regarding the authenticity of documentation and the meaning of words. Do you think that Goodell rappelled into the Saints' headquarters and stole documentation like a ninja? Why didn't the coaches, players, and/or their attorneys make copies of documents before handing them over? Why not submit those copies during the appeal instead of walking away from the hearing and not coming back with any response whatsoever?
For a team which vehemently believes that every accusation is false and that there is no evidence, they sure are failing to present any evidence or provide any verifiable defenses, other than broad verbal denials by those accused.
I did respond to several of them. I skipped exactly two above a "D" without my own comment. Both were to at least try to limit my redundancy, as both items had already been addressed ad-nausea.
It wasn't Hargrove. I'm 100% positive. But let's say that it was. Hargrove was punished, and this was their evidence for his punishment. How does it make any sense whatsoever that Hargrove would expect payment after a hit from Bobby McCray and Remi Ayodele in which he was not involved? Also, the play did not result in Favre being removed from the game, so there goes definitive proof of what "cart-off" means. As mentioned in the article by former NFL player Bucky Brooks that I linked and quoted earlier (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8275bb0f/article/saints-pay-for-performance-system-commonplace-in-nfl), quote "Players have been known to shout "cha-ching" (mimicking the sound of a cash register) on the field following turnovers". When presented out of context, and you're told what to look for to stretch and connect-the-dots, with a presumption of guilt, then there is high potential for that to look worse than it actually was.
Nope. I've addressed it many times. I keep having to repeat myself because apparently everyone glazes over what I say in this thread.
I'll just quote myself.You're repeating yourself. See above. I think there was a pay for performance, and I think Williams was involved. I also think Williams was a "tough talker" as Brees alluded to, and as you're unfamiliar with as commonplace in NFL lockerrooms. I will concede that maybe Williams was a tad more over the top than average. When brought out into the public eye, as those conversations are never intended to be, they look bad, yes.
See above. :facepalm:
And, again, the documents were "reproduced". In what court of law does "reproduced" written confessions, without the originals, or even an accusation of who allegedly wrote them, admissible?
So you're mad because they didn't refute any of the "evidence", and then you're also mad that they are denying the "evidence". I mean, what else can they say besides, "This is bullshit. I didn't say that. I didn't do that. Those documents are fabricated."? The onus of proof is on the prosecutors to validate any evidence they have. Show the originals. Tell us where they came from.
NFLPA planning another legal challenge to Goodell on 'bounty' case
Jason La Canfora
By Jason La Canfora | CBS Sports NFL Insider
June 25, 2012 5:48 PM ET
The NFLPA is prepared to make one other attempt via federal court to attempt to challenge Roger Goodell's powers regarding the Saints players discipline in the "bounty" case, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.
If Goodell ends up upholding his own previous decisions on Jonathan Vilma, Anthony Hargrove, Scott Fujita and Will Smith, the NFLPA has a legal strategy in place to attempt to limit Goodell's powers via the court system. It plans to make the case that he should not have full authority in this matter because on-field discipline is doled out via Ted Cottrell and Art Shell.
The CBA gives Goodell wide berth here, and thus the court challenge may prove fruitless, but the step is likely to be taken to exhaust all legal means with frustration growing in union circles regarding the league's bounty investigation and subsequent penalties. Two grievances on the matter were denied by arbitrators -- they are currently under appeal -- including one that claimed these accusations to be the domain of the on-field justice system (Shell and Cottrell are hired jointly by the NFL and NFLPA).
The strategy also helps explain why the accused players did not speak or raise any new evidence during last week's appeals hearing in New York; they were advised to allow the league to continue the process using its evidence from the lengthy NFL investigation into the matter. Several parties involved in the case figure Goodell will render a decision as soon as this week, with many officials and executives heading to vacation in early July around the holiday, although the league has put no timetable on the commissioner's decision.
A final decision on filing the lawsuit has not been made, sources said, but several people familiar with the case said they expected it to be filed unless the NFL makes a drastic decision in regards to the punishment. The NFLPA has also requested that the NFL start a new investigation into the matter. To this point the NFL has said it stands behind its investigation.
Players likely to challenge Goodell's bounty rulings in court
By Steve Wyche
Reporter, NFL.com and NFL Network
Published: June 25, 2012 at 07:03 p.m.
The players suspended in the aftermath of the New Orleans Saints' "bounty" program have refused to speak with NFL officials, partially to preserve a chance to challenge Commissioner Roger Goodell's jurisdiction in federal court, a source with knowledge of the situation said Monday.
The players had opportunities to confer with officials before their suspensions were handed down and at their appeals hearings last week. However, doing so could have been interpreted as an acknowledgement that Goodell was acting within his proper jurisdiction.
Players have lost two grievances before arbitrators challenging Goodell's jurisdiction to rule against them and hear their appeals. One of those rulings is being appealed.
Linebacker Jonathan Vilma -- who's using his own attorney, not the NFL Players Association lawyers used by the three other players -- possibly tipped the strategy Monday by tweeting, "What's this guy waiting on? Make your ruling so we can get on with phase 2 already."
Vilma apparently was referring to Goodell. The commissioner hasn't ruled whether or not to uphold the suspensions for Vilma (one season), Will Smith (four games), former Saints defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove (eight games) and former Saints linebacker Scott Fujita (three games). The NFL said it hasn't set a timetable for when it could rule.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a1e438/article/players-likely-to-challenge-goodells-bounty-rulings-in-courtYou do realize that it doesn't matter, right? Because the players are going to get smacked down in court.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a1e438/article/players-likely-to-challenge-goodells-bounty-rulings-in-court
You do realize that it doesn't matter, right? Because the players are going to get smacked down in court.
You're going to give Chad a stroke.
You do realize that it doesn't matter, right? Because the players are going to get smacked down in court.I'm sure they're taking this to court with the full realization that they have no case and will be wasting their own time, money, and further damaging their own reputation... :taunt:
I'm sure they're taking this to court with the full realization that they have no case and will be wasting their own time, money, and further damaging their own reputation... :taunt:
I'm sure they're taking this to court with the full realization that they have no case and will be wasting their own time, money, and further damaging their own reputation... :taunt:Death row inmates file appeals after conviction all the time. Numerous appeals. It doesn't mean that it has any merit, or makes them less guilty. It's simply a shot in the dark.
You're going to give Chad a stroke.I'm well aware. That is the only way that this thread is going to end, though.
I'm well aware. That is the only way that this thread is going to end, though.Cause I'm the only one posting in it.
Cause I'm the only one posting in it.
Quit making asinine unfounded accusations and I'll quit shooting holes in your silly arguments.
I don't usually agree with goat fuckers. But when I do? The New Orleans Bammers are GUILTY.:rimshot:
Cause I'm the only one posting in it.You're shooting blanks, and you can't even realize it. To reiterate my point from a few pages back:
Quit making asinine unfounded accusations and I'll quit shooting holes in your silly arguments.
If Goodell completely fabricated these transcribed documents, such as the ledger, why didn't he make it a complete and total slam dunk? Something that there would be no possibility of arguing? Something totally ironclad. If he were completely making the whole thing up, why wouldn't he make it say "Take QB out of game" or "Hurt QB to where he can't return", or something like that? Why wouldn't he fabricate document after document after document after document of complete, total, ironclad proof. Why wouldn't he word something like the ledger to where there could be absolutely no wiggle room, or room for interpretation? Are you going to tell me that he's lying, but only lying a little? It's a stupid argument and you know it.
And as far as the argument that Goodell is only doing this to soften the blow of civil liability from these guys committing suicide, that argument fails as well. If anything, if he were trying to soften the blow, he would cover this shit up to where it never sees the light of day. Instead, this only gives those civil suits more ammunition. He's making the case for them. He's handing it to them on a silver platter. Pouring gas on the fire. Again, there is no reason for the NFL to continue with this if it is completely false. At some point, somebody has to end it. Especially if it is going on everywhere as you say it is. It just so happens that the Saints lied the first time around, and now the NFL has some pretty good proof. Goodell apparently has the nuts to be the bad guy and do something about it.
I fully expected to open this thread and see the last 10 pages veering off into movieland quotes. I'm shocked this is 28 pages deep and still on topic.
You don't want to acknowledge Williams' apology, and his express statement that he was putting players' safety in danger with his system. You also ignore Williams' admission that Vitt told Hargrove to lie about a bounty system, and instead choose to believe Vitt's denial.
Drew Brees says NFL holding punishment over heads of silent coaches
By Josh Katzowitz | NFL Blogger
11:53 AM ET June 26, 2012
Brees has a pretty good idea why Payton has remained silent regarding the bounty program. (US Presswire)
Since the NFL announced the punishments for the Saints bounty program, you've heard most of the players affected speak loudly about how the lack of justice has been unfair. Jonathan Vilma, suspended a year, has been at the forefront of the protests while Anthony Hargrove (eight games), Will Smith (four games) and Scott Fujita (three games) have repeatedly expressed their disappointment in the NFL's methods.
But you haven't heard much from the coaches who have been affected, namely Sean Payton, Gregg Williams and Joe Vitt (though Vitt has made more noise than the other two). And Saints quarterback Drew Brees has a pretty good idea why.
"I have pretty good knowledge and feel like I've been informed that a lot of those coaches feel like there are further sanctions that are being held over their heads if they don't quote-unquote cooperate with the investigation," Brees said Tuesday on Dan Patrick's radio show. "Even though punishment has already been levied on the coaches and already been determined ... I think they feel if they speak out on behalf of the players, that's being held over their head."
That theory certainly isn't far-fetched. There have been rumblings that Williams -- suspended indefinitely -- was eager to express remorse over the bounty program, so, in the future, Goodell would be more likely to reinstate him. It also makes sense for Payton to stay quiet, assuming he wants to return in 2013.
And we've seen in the past that, if you do everything the commissioner asks of you (like, for instance, Ben Roethlisberger), Goodell is more likely to be lenient. Which, in Brees' mind, hasn't been Goodell's method thus far with the Saints.
"The facts that have been presented so far," Brees said, "do not match the punishment that has been levied."
Whether they agree, it's not likely you'll find Williams or Payton weighing in on this matter any time soon.
Allow CBS Sports to shoot "blanks" right the fuck through this argument as well.Are you shitting me? It's no different than any other enforcement agency. Whether it is the NFL, NCAA, law enforcement, etc. It's something the Saints haven't understood since they lied about the bounty program years ago. If you lie and muddy the waters, and you get caught, you're going to be buried. If you cooperate, thins will go a little easier on you. The NCAA even has it in their bylaws that if you are purposely uncooperative, they're going to fuck you up. I mean, that's in writing. I don't see where it would be ridiculous for the NFL to take a similar stance.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/eye-on-football/19424885/drew-brees-says-nfl-holding-punishment-over-heads-of-silent-coaches
There have been rumblings that Williams -- suspended indefinitely -- was eager to express remorse over the bounty program, so, in the future, Goodell would be more likely to reinstate him. It also makes sense for Payton to stay quiet, assuming he wants to return in 2013.Well, no shit they were eager. Because they knew damn good and well that there was a bounty system in place, and since the NFL now knew about it anyway, it was in their best interest to cooperate. Some of the others simply hedged their bets and hoped that this investigation would never get off of the ground, and there would really be no penalties. They lost the bet.
League reiterates belief that bounty evidence is “overwhelmingâ€
Posted by Mike Florio on June 26, 2012, 5:02 PM EDT
Jeff Pash, Greg Aiello AP
As Commissioner Roger Goodell continues to deliberate the final rulings in the bounty suspension appeals, the league over which he presides continues to declare the players’ guilt.
NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said Tuesday, via the Associated Press, that the evidence is “overwhelming.â€
“The investigation was thorough and includes statements from multiple sources with firsthand knowledge about the details of the program, corroborating documentation and other evidence,†Aiello said. “The enforcement of the bounty rule is important to protect players that are put at risk by this kind of scheme.â€
Aiello’s comments come on the same day that Saints quarterback Drew Brees is questioning via an all-day media blitz the quality of the league’s case, and four days after NFL general counsel Jeff Pash touted the “mosaic†of evidence that was presented during the June 18 appeal hearings.
“Certainly, Drew Brees would not want to be the target in a bounty scheme and that is why we must eliminate bounties from football,†Aiello said.
Given the league’s views, the appeals should have been denied by now. As Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma said Monday, “What’s this guy waiting on? Make your ruling so we can get on with phase 2 already.â€
Also, the dueling soundbites from the league and Brees further illustrate that, ultimately, the bounty case has become an exercise in semantics (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/21/evidence-against-fujita-shows-that-bounty-case-is-about-semantics/). No players were paid to injure other players. Instead, the Saints created a system for financially rewarding players who in the normal course of delivering big, clean, legal hits rendered an opponent unable to play in all or part of the remainder of the game. Though that’s one of the realities of a game in which success is premised partially on attrition, the league believes that creating that kind of incentive could lead to deliberate attempts to injure, whether through legal hits or through illegal hits.
The players believe the NFL has tried to suggest that the Saints were doing something far more sinister than the jobs they’re already paid to do (i.e., hit the other guy as hard as you can, cleanly and legally). The NFL believes that, regardless of the language used to describe it, the concept of offering players money for rendering opponents unable to continue to play is inherently sinister, and thus unacceptable.
Regardless of how it all plays out, Aiello’s comments make clear that there’s no reason to further delay the rulings on the appeals. Phase One clearly is over; it’s time to get on with Phase Two.
The title of the cited article began with "Drew Brees says..."If it started with "Vandy Vol says...", certainly it would have had more relevance and would have included your insight to the inner workings of the program and NFL. What are the coaches telling you?
I stopped reading there.
If it started with "Vandy Vol says...", certainly it would have had more relevance and would have included your insight to the inner workings of the program and NFL.
What are the coaches telling you?
Why do you think I haven't participated...it's so :yawn:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/26/league-reiterates-belief-that-bounty-evidence-is-overwhelming/Nobody has offered a shred of evidence to refute it, either. And when you consider the entire body of evidence, it makes sense that there was a bounty system in place. Jesus, they even use the word "bounty", refer to collecting bounty money, and have a picture of Dog the Bounty Hunter on one slide. They have a ledger from at least one game. They use terms "cart-off" and "QB out" in some documents with what the payout will be. And before you go apeshit, just because nobody was carted off the field or the QB wasn't injured, that doesn't mean that the system didn't exist. When you go down that road, it's like saying that when you go to the casino you aren't gambling if you lose money. It's like saying conspiring to murder somebody is OK because they weren't actually killed.
Nobody has offered a shred of evidence to refute it, either. And when you consider the entire body of evidence, it makes sense that there was a bounty system in place. Jesus, they even use the word "bounty", refer to collecting bounty money, and have a picture of Dog the Bounty Hunter on one slide. They have a ledger from at least one game. They use terms "cart-off" and "QB out" in some documents with what the payout will be. And before you go apeshoot, just because nobody was carted off the field or the QB wasn't injured, that doesn't mean that the system didn't exist. When you go down that road, it's like saying that when you go to the casino you aren't gambling if you lose money. It's like saying conspiring to murder somebody is OK because they weren't actually killed.
The title of the cited article began with "Drew Brees says..."
I stopped reading there.
Keep it going, Chad. These people are probably Falcons fans. Or worse - they "don't like the NFL cause them guys are only doing it for the money."
I fully expected to open this thread and see the last 10 pages veering off into movieland quotes. I'm shocked this is 28 pages deep and still on topic.
Kuato lives!
Every time I hear his name I think about that big watermark on his face.
I tried to veer it off into Hot Sauce land but Bubbles the Monkey wanted to get back in the hamster wheel and entertain us some more.Me too, thought it was successful there for a little bit, then the pillow biting conversations started back up.
Judge does not rule in Saints LB Vilma lawsuit
Published: Friday, August 10, 2012
By the Associated Press
NEW ORLEANS (AP) — A federal judge questioned the fairness of the NFL's bounty investigation of the Saints, then held off on making any rulings while urging all sides to settle the matter on their own.
U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan also said the season-long suspension of Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma was excessive and that she would be inclined to rule in his favor if she were certain she had jurisdiction to do so.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has justified his suspension of Vilma by describing him as one of the ringleaders of a program that offered Saints defenders improper cash bonuses for injuring opponents.
The judge could potentially rule at any time on Vilma's request to be allowed to temporarily return to the Saints while the case proceeds, but during Friday's hearing, Berrigan urged all parties to come to an agreement rather than wait for the court to make a decision.
"I was surprised by her candor," said Gabe Feldman, a sports law professor at Tulane University who sat in on the hearing.
Feldman said the judge clearly believed the NFL was "in the wrong."
"The big issue is whether she has the power to do anything," Feldman said.
When Vilma left the courthouse, he was greeted by a handful of Saints fans wearing black and gold jerseys and quarterback Drew Brees, who gave his teammate a hug and pat on the back. Brees had just flown in from Foxborough, Mass., after last night's preseason game against the New England Patriots but he said he didn't want to miss the opportunity to "support Jonathan Vilma."
"It really means a lot," Vilma told his teammate as the two shook hands.
Vilma said he thought Friday's hearing went as well as could be expected and would not comment on whether he was in settlement negotiations with the NFL.
"I didn't come with any expectations," he said. "I thought today went as smoothly as it could. That's all I can ask for."
Vilma, several teammates and Saints assistant head coach Joe Vitt have testified that Vilma never paid or accepted money for injuring another player.
Vilma was one of four current or former players who have been suspended in connection with the league's bounty probe of the Saints. Teammate Will Smith, a defensive end, got four games, while defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove, now with Green Bay, was docked eight games. Linebacker Scott Fujita, now with Cleveland, was suspended for three games.
Smith, Hargrove and Fujita are being represented by the NFL Players Association, which also has filed suit in federal court in New Orleans seeking to have the suspensions overturned.
The NFL has urged Berrigan to dismiss the case, saying it would set a precedent that would clog the courts with frivolous lawsuits by players refusing to accept the disciplinary process to which their union agreed in the league's collective bargaining agreement.
Attorneys for Vilma and the NFLPA, however, have sought to persuade Berrigan that this is a somewhat unique case in which the commissioner overstepped his authority, giving her the power to protect the players' fundamental due process rights.
"You are not a potted plant, an innocent bystander helpless to right this wrong," NFLPA attorney Jeffrey Kessler told the judge.
Vilma's attorneys have argued that Goodell made biased public statements about the linebacker's involvement in the bounty scandal well before the process of player discipline began, making it impossible for the commissioner to be an impartial arbitrator as called for in both the NFL's collective bargaining agreement and federal labor law.
Vilma also is suing Goodell individually for defamation.
The players union also is arguing that Goodell did not have jurisdiction to appoint himself the arbitrator in the bounty matter because the accusations included on-the-field activity that, under the league's labor deal, is supposed to involve an arbitrator other than the commissioner.
The union further stressed that the CBA does not allow suspensions as punishment for pay-for-performance pools for big plays, the only improper activity to which current or former members of the Saints have admitted publicly or under oath. Berrigan took note of that argument, saying it was news to her
Both Vilma and the union have argued that the NFL has failed to turn over all of the evidence required in the matter, noting that the league has disclosed only about 200 pages of the nearly 50,000 pages of documents it claimed to have compiled in the bounty investigation.
While the NFL stands by its findings, league attorneys have not challenged testimony by Vilma and other witnesses in federal court who have denied the existence of pay-to-injure program. Rather, they have treated that testimony as if it were irrelevant, and have cited case law backing their argument that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interfere in a process that was collectively bargained. NFL attorneys have noted that multiple system arbitrators have already agreed that Goodell has followed the very policies for imposing discipline to which players agreed in the league's labor agreement.
Berrigan, however, has allowed the case to continue and asked for more legal briefs since a July 26 hearing in which she noted she has some concerns about whether Goodell really did follow proper procedures.
Want to know why the judge didn't rule? Because in the end, she doesn't have the jurisdiction to do so. All this amounts to is an employee doesn't agree with his boss suspending him. I doubt Goodell backs down, because he knows this.Goodell already offered to cut the suspension down to half a season, but Vilma refused because he knows Goodell had ZERO credible reason to suspend him and he wants it reduced to zero games.
Goodell already offered to cut the suspension down to half a season, but Vilma refused because he knows Goodell had ZERO credible reason to suspend him and he wants it reduced to zero games.
Goodell already offered to cut the suspension down to half a season, but Vilma refused because he knows Goodell had ZERO credible reason to suspend him and he wants it reduced to zero games.I wasn't aware that Goodell had made that offer, but Vilma should have taken it. The courts aren't going to be able to do shit about it. Vilma took a risk and he's going to lose.
I wasn't aware that Goodell had made that offer, but Vilma should have taken it. The courts aren't going to be able to do shit about it. Vilma took a risk and he's going to lose.
I wasn't aware that Goodell had made that offer, but Vilma should have taken it. The courts aren't going to be able to do shit about it. Vilma took a risk and he's going to lose.
Judge issues strong opinions in Vilma suspension process, but waits to rule
By Doug Farrar | Shutdown Corner – Fri, Aug 10, 2012 1:32 PM EDT
Jonathan Vilma has not wavered, and that might start to pay off. (AP)
When the NFL put either a settlement offer or a settlement discussion (depending on who you believe) across the table to Jonathan Vilma earlier this week, it was the first sign of real weakness in the league's case against Vilma and the three other suspended players in the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal. The timing of those settlement discussions was not an accident. The NFL seemed to want to get something hammered out to avoid what happened on Friday morning in New Orleans.
That's when U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan heard arguments from Vilma's side and the NFL's in the league's motion to have Vilma's defamation lawsuit against NFL commissioner dismissed. Any appeal of the lawsuit, which also seeks to have Vilma's season-long suspension overturned, would open several cans of legal worms for the NFL, and put the suspension process on trial in front of an outside authority for the first time.
From the start, Judge Berrigan sided with Vilma and noted that the steps taken by the NFL when gathering, processing and using its information to mete out justice were specious at best. When Peter Ginsberg, Vilma's attorney, said that Vilma was suspended for cart-off hits, and there was no specific proof of Vilma's involvement, Judge Berrigan responded thusly: "I would like to rule in Vilma's favor. I do think you (Vilma) exhausted your remedies."
Ginsberg and NFLPA lawyer Jeffrey Kessler (who represented suspended players Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove) argued against the NFL's claim that Goodell was eager to hear from the players in an appeal process that had them going straight back to the commissioner. In effect, they said, the players could have lost any jurisdictional rights to further appeals processes. Eventually, the players took their case to longtime league arbiter Stephen Burbank, who is still weighing testimony from the hearing that was the step after the Goodell appeal process.
However, from all accounts, Berrigan made it clear that she thought Goodell acted beyond his authority. At one point, according to legal expert Gabe Feldman (whose Twitter timeline was particularly informative during the hearing), she said that she believed the process was unfair, the punishment excessive and that Goodell did not have power to discipline in these cases.
Judge Berrigan then dropped the hammer: "If I can find a way to legally do it, I will rule in Vilma's favor."
To the matter of the injunctive relief Vilma seeks in the suit, Judge Berrigan said that she believed Vilma had suffered the irreparable harm needed for such relief to be given. That was a major blow to the NFL's case. The concept of "irreparable harm" goes a long way in a court of law, and it's very tough to put that genie back in the bottle.
However, Judge Berrigan also said that she will weigh whether she has the jurisdiction to rule on anything before the Burbank ruling is made. Kessler argued strenuously that she did have that authority, at one point suggesting that the judge "was not a potted plant," which I'm sure she appreciated.
When the NFL had its time before Judge Berrigan, attorney Gregg Levy argued that Goodell was well within his rights per the collective bargaining agreement, and that she would have to defer to Burbank and Goodell before making a ruling of her own. Levy also said that the CBA required Goodell to declare the guilt of a player before the appeal process begins. Judge Berrigan stuck a fork in that argument, saying that she believed the players exhausted their appeal options before Goodell . She also brought up the potential loss of jurisdictional power.
Levy then went to Goodell's old line -- that the CBA pre-empted any judge's ruling, and that the whole point of the CBA was to keep the NFL out of court. Judge Berrigan asked Levy if the "conduct detrimental" ruling made in the suspensions overrode any other CBA provisions. When Levy told her that it wasn't her decision to make, Judge Berrigan responded by saying, "You're making me feel powerless."
Again, not a very good idea. Kessler and Ginsberg closed by bringing up the fact that no specific evidence against the players has ever been made public, and Ginsberg pleaded for a quick decision in the name of fairness to his client.
While Judge Berrigan did say that she came to some preliminary conclusions, she also said that she would not rule at this time, brought the timing of the Burbank ruling up, and urged both parties to settle. Whether Vilma's side heard enough to tell the NFL what it could do with any settlement offer, and whether the NFL saw enough dings in its case to put a better offer on the table, is the next big thing in a case that could drag on into the NFL's regular season.
"The only thing better would have been a decision," Vilma said outside the courthouse. "I came here with no expectations. I'm glad she could see through some of the B.S. I'm cool with that until we get a decision. Patience is my best friend."
Report: League offers to cut Vilma’s suspension in half
Posted by Mike Florio on August 6, 2012, 7:36 AM EDT
Jonathan Vilma AP
There’s nothing like a looming court date to make parties serious about working out their differences on their own.
With Judge Helen G. Berrigan posing questions during a July 26 hearing that suggested she may be leaning toward lifting linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s suspension — and possibly overturning all of the suspensions later — the league reportedly has offered a middle ground. According to Ed Werder, Adam Schefter, and Chris Mortensen of ESPN.com (what, did they take turn typing the letters?), the NFL has offered to reduce Vilma’s suspension to eight games.
Though Steve Wyche of NFL Network said on NFLAM said that no specific offer has been made, the report comes at a time when it makes sense to be talking about possible alternatives to a court-ordered outcome.
The report also comes in the wake of a report by Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports that, if the NFLPA had cooperated with the league’s process, Vilma may have ultimately been suspended only four games. Setting aside for now the serious disconnect between legal gamesmanship and the notion of doing the right thing, the leak to Cole may have laid the foundation for the news of what could be characterized as backpedaling by the league office.
Indeed, that’s the obvious initial reaction to the report from Werdscheftenson. The league by all appearances has blinked. Coupled with Cole’s report, the spin could be that the NFL is simply trying to finish this thing where it would have ended if Vilma hadn’t refused to participate in the process.
When Commissioner Roger Goodell hammered Vilma et al., we suggested at some point the possibility that Goodell deliberately overshot with the penalties so that he could prove the appeal process works — even if it makes him look wishy-washy for second-guessing his initial decision. Vilma prevented that from happening by refusing to throw himself on the mercy of what the players regard as a kangaroo court.
Of course, no offer to reduce the penalties may matter. Vilma and the other players continue to believe that they did nothing wrong. More specifically, they believe there were no bounties. They concede there was a pay-for-performance system, and the league still hasn’t made it clear that the penalties flow primarily from offering cash for applying clean, legal hits in a way that prevents an opponent from continuing. (For example, the Sunday night hit by defensive tackle Sedrick Ellis on Cardinals quarterback Kevin Kolb would have been regarded as a “knockout†in a regular-season game, even though Ellis broke no rules in dragging Kolb down.)
Once the two sides start speaking the same language, maybe they can find a middle ground. For now, our guess is that Vilma and the players will regard the offer as a sign of weakness, and that they’ll keep pushing for a court order scuttling all of the suspensions — or at a minimum requiring the parties to appoint a neutral arbitrator.
"Judge Ginger"
For Bama fans, this is a preview of the hammer that's coming their way soon enough.
http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7846290/new-orleans-saints-mickey-loomis-eavesdrop-opposing-coaches-home-games (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7846290/new-orleans-saints-mickey-loomis-eavesdrop-opposing-coaches-home-games)
Saints busted for bugging opponents.
Cheating bunch of thugs.
The Bama of the NFL. No question.
Mickey Loomis cleared in wiretapping probe, spotlight turns to ESPN and John Barr
Written by Matt Yoder on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 12:25.
Way back when columnists were suggesting Gregg Williams be thrown in jail and the media was slurping up the BountyGate shock and horror fed to them by the NFL, ESPN went all-in with an explosive report further condemning the New Orleans Saints organization. An Outside the Lines expose by John Barr alleged Saints GM Mickey Loomis could secretly listen to opposing coaches. The report was of the utmost seriousness. Not only could listening in on opposing coaches lead to an NFL version of the death penalty for Mickey Loomis, but these were possible federal crimes alleged as well.
At the time, ESPN gave the OTL report top billing. It was put into the ESPN echo chamber on TV, radio, and especially online where additional columns and blog entries appeared reflecting on the significance of the report. However, the OTL report was immediately met with pushback due to lack of tangible proof. There were even reports out of New Orleans that Barr was looking for skeletons in the Saints' closet and wasn't leaving town until he found them. The truth is that ESPN walked a tightrope with the Barr report given the seriousness of the allegations and lack of physical evidence... and ESPN just fell off.
Now, the spotlight needs to turn to ESPN and John Barr as the Louisiana State Police released the findings of their own investigation and revealed no evidence against Loomis. Loomis was cleared of any wrongdoing by the police. Mike Triplett of the New Orleans Times-Picayune puts the latest developments, and ESPN's role in the story in perspective:
It wouldn't be fair to completely discredit ESPN's reporting, which cited unnamed sources, because only ESPN knows for certain how well it vetted those sources. And the network, especially its investigative arm at "Outside the Lines," has a strong reputation for journalism.
However, there are strong indications that ESPN lowered it [sic] journalistic standards on that report. For one thing, there were numerous reports that ESPN reporter John Barr was in New Orleans for weeks asking several sources for any negative information about the team before it found the wiretapping whistleblower. For another, the timing seemed awfully fishy when ESPN then reported that the local U.S. Attorney's Office had just learned from an informant about wiretapping allegations from seven years earlier.
Furthermore, ESPN's report never even actually accused Loomis of using the wiretapping device.
Buried in the original story was the line, "Outside the Lines could not determine for certain whether Loomis ever made use of the electronic setup."
As Loomis and the Saints initially denied the report and even floated the idea of legal action, ESPN slowly backpedaled away from the story. Over the last few months, there's been radio silence from ESPN regarding the matter. An ESPN.com search of "Mickey Loomis eavesdrop" shows 5 results from April 23-24 and 1 result since. Search results about wiretapping show a similar pattern. John Clayton had to go on air last night and call the original report from his own network "unplausible." Unplausible. Where was that language in April from Bristol when ESPN.com's Mark Kreidler was writing this?
John Barr was conspicuously quiet regarding the latest developments according to Larry Holder of the TP:
ESPN reporter John Barr said he had no comment on anything at this point. Wasn't aware of La. State Police presser on #Saints eavesdropping.
— Larry Holder (@Larry_Holder) August 13, 2012
Luckily for ESPN, they can't necessarily be proven wrong here, but the network put its journalistic integrity on the line once again and it has to answer some serious, serious questions once again.
What was John Barr's motivation? What was ESPN's motivation? Were they going to find something negative to report on the Saints to pour gasoline on the BountyGate fire regardless of facts? Were these sources properly vetted? Why has ESPN not followed up on the initial OTL report? Why did ESPN feel comfortable publishing these significant allegations without evidence? What is ESPN's response now that no evidence has turned up against Loomis? Will there be an apology, a retraction, or even a lawsuit from Loomis? Is Poynter following this at all?
Make no mistake, this Saints wiretapping report is quickly turning into as big of a journalistic black eye for ESPN as Bruce Feldman and Syracuse were. It used to be that an Outside the Lines report was the best in sports journalism. Not anymore. Not after the last year. How ESPN could run with a report so heavy on accusations and light on facts is still utterly baffling. How ESPN could heavily promote a report with unprovable accusations from unnamed sources on behavior from almost a decade ago is, as John Clayton said, unplausible. These were serious, serious allegations against Mickey Loomis and the Saints franchise, and they were built on paper thin evidence.
You expect that kind of risky, cavalier, shaky journalism from the National Enquirer. You'd hate to have to expect it from ESPN, too.
The should just shut down the New Orleans Saints for molesting all those young boys.
So the Saints are changing the grade transcripts of young boys before they switch schools? Dastardly!!!
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012-articles/august/mickey-loomis-cleared-in-wiretapping-probe-spotlight-turns-to-espn-and-john-barr.html
Pfffttttt.
Here's what I got out of that.
Louisiana State Police released the findings of their own investigation = :taunt:
New Orleans Times-Picayune = :taunt: :rolleyes: :taunt:
But Pawllll thayut therrr Vilmer said he dont know nuthin and he aint dun nuthin wrong. Thatz all I needs ta know!Irony, irony, irony.
Irony, irony, irony.
A whole lot of crow due up for consumption in this thread...
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8267053
:haha:
Who said that the Saints were definitively guilty of wiretapping?
I'm pretty sure the vast majority, if not all, of the people in this thread who believe the Saints to be guilty have been pointing to the evidence of the bounty system, not wiretapping. Hence the thread title.
You might as well also point out that the Saints had nothing to do with 9/11; no one here was blaming them for that either.
Final verdict: Guilty.
A whole lot of crow due up for consumption in this thread...I don't really remember anybody in this thread going on about wiretapping.
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8267053
:haha:
I don't really remember anybody in this thread going on about wiretapping.I quoted one...
I quoted one...
Fact...AWK's got a baby on the way!A butt baby maybe.
I mean Shark Week
So one person with one post is "a whole lot of crow?"Full tard.
Guilty.
Full tard.I must have missed something. Did the court or the NFL lift his suspension?
I responded to one. There are many many more from him, JR, RWS, Prowler, etc.
And regardless, as I've said twice, I'm referring to the thread as a whole, not specifically the wiretapping lunacy.
With bounty rulings pending, Judge has clear concerns about league’s process
Posted by Mike Florio on August 15, 2012, 2:20 PM EDT
Vilma Bounties Football AP
We saw plenty of accounts and interpretations on Friday about the things said at the most recent bounty hearing in federal court. But there’s no more reliable account than the officially-generated transcript of the proceedings.
PFT has obtained a copy of the officially-generated transcript, and it’s clear that Judge Helen G. Berrigan has concerns that cut both ways in the case against the NFL and the four suspended players: Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Saints defensive end Will Smith, Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove, and Browns linebacker Scott Fujita.
For starters, she expressed concern that payment of money for clean, legal hits that knock an opponent out of the game (temporarily or permanently) are bounties.
“I’m kind of seeing, like, is there really a dispute here as to — I agree, and I’ll get into it in a few minutes about the penalties and so forth, but it seems to me that there is a confluence here that what Mr. Goodell says Mr. Vilma did was in effect admitted at the hearing a couple weeks ago,†Judge Berrigan said, referring to testimony regarding the money that was paid not for deliberate efforts to injure but clean hits that caused injury.
In other words, and as we’ve said a time or two (or more), it’s about semantics.
Second, Judge Berrigan made it clear that, despite her concern that what the Saints admitted to doing amounts to a “bounty,†she has even bigger concerns about the process that the league employed.
“I would like to rule in Mr. Vilma’s favor,†Judge Berrigan said. “I think the proceedings were neither transparent not fair. I think I made that clear the other day. I think the refusal to identify the accusers, much less have them at the hearing to be cross-examined, to look at biases, flaws in their testimony, and 18,000 documents that apparently were relied upon by Mr. Goodell, less than 200 were actually provided to you, many of them were redacted.â€
She also believes that Vilma was justified in refusing to participate in the June 18 appeal hearing. “I think you were thwarted at every [turn] by Mr. Goodell’s refusal to provide you meaningful access to witnesses and to documents,†Judge Berrigan said.
Eventually, and as pointed out as the hearing was happening, Judge Berrigan said, “If I can [rule in Vilma's favor] legally, I will. If I find a way, I will.â€
As to Vilma’s defamation claim against Commissioner Roger Goodell, Judge Berrigan seems to think that Goodell’s public statements about Vilma were justified by his job duties — and by the fact that Vilma is a public figure, who has reduced protection against false statements. She also is concerned that the labor deal blocks the lawsuit against Goodell.
Regarding the question of whether the entire pay-for-performance/bounty situation amounts to simply a salary-cap violation, Judge Berrigan seems to be far more inclined than arbitrator Richard Burbank to conclude that the Commissioner has no authority to punish players for conduct detrimental to the game in this situation. If she reaches that conclusion, the bounty penalties would have to be re-issued as cap penalties, and ultimately presided over by Burbank, not Goodell.
It still remains to be seen what the Judge will do. She said that the case is “very complicated,†and that there are “a lot†of “difficult†issues to resolve. As previously highlighted, she urged the parties to try to settle the case, and she said she may have to wait until August 30 to issue a decision, since that’s the day on which Burbank’s cap-violation decision will be appealed.
Don’t be surprised if she dismisses the defamation lawsuit but overturns the suspensions. Whatever she does, whoever loses will appeal.
Fuck Judge Ginger.
This isn't a legal issue. She's overreaching.
Saints bounty scandal: Appeals court reportedly overturns players suspension
A three-member appeals panel overturned the player suspensions in the New Orleans Saints bounty case, reports SI.com.
The appeals panel vacated suspensions of Bounty 4, Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, free agent Anthony Hargrove, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and Saints defensive end Will Smith. The court remanded the case back to Commissioner Roger Goodell for a redetermination of appropriate penalties.
Saints head coach Sean Payton, defensive coach Joe Vitt and former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams are still undergoing their suspensions by the league.
So, an arbitration panel (not a judge, or court) overturned it and sent it back to Goodell for re-consideration. But, according to the players, Goodell didn't have the authority to hand down any punishment in the first place. So, which is it? Does he, or does he not have the authority to hand down punishment?
So, an arbitration panel (not a judge, or court) overturned it and sent it back to Goodell for re-consideration. But, according to the players, Goodell didn't have the authority to hand down any punishment in the first place. So, which is it? Does he, or does he not have the authority to hand down punishment?What are you talking about? Read.
What are you talking about? Read.
A judge did rule that if she had the authority, she would absolutely rule against Goodell.
A court of law doesn't have any more authority to rule on a suspension than the FBI does to put Auburn on probation for paying Cam Newton, but I wouldn't expect you to understand either.
What is also contradictory is the fact that only the players' suspensions have been temporarily lifted until Goodell's decision subsequent to remanding, yet the coaches are still suspended.You're a tard...
So, there was enough evidence to uphold the coaches' suspensions based on accusations of a bounty system, but not the players? Did the Saints' coaches operate the bounty system for players not on their team?
Hopefully Goodell whips his dick out and sticks with the current suspensions, or at the very least just slightly reduces them, because the appeals panel's decision was silly.
Judge Ginger.But RWS is pissed because a judge didn't rule!
No authority. Whatever the whore "thinks" is irrelevant. Fuck her.
I hope Roger doubles the suspensions for the dirty cheating bastards.
You're a tard...
This is, and always has been, between the NFLPA & the NFL. Coaches have nothing to do with the NFLPA.
And just because the coaches suspensions haven't been overturned yet, doesn't mean that the NFL Coaches Association won't step in after seeing the success of the NFLPA's case. Will that happen? I have no idea.
But RWS is pissed because a judge didn't rule!
Obviously means they're really guilty.
Pick an argument and stick with it.
Many are painting the decision to wipe out the bounty suspensions imposed against Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Saints defensive end Will Smith, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and free-agent defensive end Anthony Hargrove as a slam-dunk win for the players.
While it was a victory on the surface, it was fairly hollow and potentially temporary.
Apart from the fact that the timing of the decision prevented the players from practicing in preparation for Week One, the ruling gives the NFL another chance to impose the suspensions in a way that draws clear lines between conduct detrimental to the game (over which Commissioner Roger Goodell has jurisdiction) and salary-cap violations arising from a pay-for-performance/bounty system (over which Goodell has no jurisdiction).
It’s likely that the league will simply re-issue the same suspensions. Indeed, the memo sent by NFL general counsel Jeff Pash to the various teams on Friday clearly indicates that the league continues to believe that wrongdoing occurred — and that there should be significant punishment for it.
“Nothing in today’s decision contradicts any of the facts found in the investigation into this matter, or absolves any player of responsibility for conduct detrimental,†Pash writes. “Nor does the decision in any way suggest what discipline would be appropriate for conduct that lies within the authority of the Commissioner. Per the panel’s direction, the Commissioner will promptly reconsider the matter and make a determination of the appropriate discipline consistent with the standards set forth in today’s decision. All clubs will be advised when that decision is made.â€
It would be a surprise if the outcome is anything other than what it already was: a full season for Vilma, four games for Smith, three games for Fujita, and eight games for Hargrove.
What are you talking about? Read.And that means absolutely dick. Because she didn't have the authority. It doesn't mean a bounty system didn't exist.
A judge did rule that if she had the authority, she would absolutely rule against Goodell.
A court of law doesn't have any more authority to rule on a suspension than the FBI does to put Auburn on probation for paying Cam Newton, but I wouldn't expect you to understand either.That's what we kept trying to tell you a few weeks ago. You're preaching to the choir. When I told you that they were wasting their time taking it to court because they would get smacked down, you said:
I'm sure they're taking this to court with the full realization that they have no case and will be wasting their own time, money, and further damaging their own reputation...
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8349537
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:8349115
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/11/former-nfl-commissioner-rescinds-player-punishments-in-bounty-case/?hpt=hp_t3
All player suspensions overturned.
NFL declares victory, retreats
Posted by Mike Florio on December 11, 2012, 2:12 PM EST
Goodell AP
In an earlier item analyzing the ultimate outcome of the bounty suspensions imposed on quartet of players, we pointed out that all parties will declare victory.
The NFL already has.
Appended to NFL spokesman Greg Aiello’s stream of tweetiousness summarizing the ruling from former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue is the league’s statement in response to the ruling.
“We respect Mr. Tagliabue’s decision, which underscores the due process afforded players in NFL disciplinary matters,†Aiello said. “This matter has now been reviewed by Commissioner Goodell, two CBA grievance arbitrators, the CBA Appeals Panel, and Mr. Tagliabue as Commissioner Goodell’s designated appeals officer. The decisions have made clear that the Saints operated a bounty program in violation of league rules for three years, that the program endangered player safety, and that the commissioner has the authority under the CBA to impose discipline for those actions as conduct detrimental to the league. Strong action was taken in this matter to protect player safety and ensure that bounties would be eliminated from football.â€
That’s factually correct, but the players had to fight and scratch and claw for due process, overcoming a flawed internal investigation effort that at times seems to be more concerned with P.R. than fairness and eventually forcing fairness only via an aggressive assault mounted by the players and the NFLPA in federal court.
So, yes, the system works. As long as the players have access to good lawyers who have the intelligence, the creativity, and the will to push back hard against the efforts of the league to do what the league wants to do.
The points contained in the league’s statement were all made at the moment Goodell levied and upheld a variety of suspensions against non-players. The last six months have been about trying to impose punishment on players who were merely doing what they were told to do and/or what they were never told by anyone they couldn’t do.
Regardless of the specific facts, this case proves that there are real limits to the otherwise seemingly unlimited power of the office of Commissioner. As a result, the victors aren’t simply the four players who won’t be suspended but all current and future players who now have further protection against unwarranted or unfair discipline from the league office.
If that’s a win for the league, we’d hate to see what a loss looks like.
Tagliabue's Specific Ruling for Each Player Involved in Bounty Scandal
By Dave Cariello on Dec 11, 1:32p +
Derick E. Hingle-US PRESSWIRE
Former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue's findings for each player involved in the bounty scandal.
Our man Albert Breer is all over former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue's appeal rulings today and he's got each of Tagliabue's rulings for each player involved up on his Twitter account.
On Jonathan Vilma:
"I cannot, however, uphold a multi-game suspension where there is no evidence that a player's speech prior to a game was actually a factor causing misconduct on the playing field and that such misconduct was severe enough in itself to warrant a player suspension or a very substantial fine."
On Anthony Hargrove:
There is "not sufficient evidence to demonstrate in these unique circumstances" that a suspension is warranted.
On Scott Fujita:
Participation in "non-injury" pay pool is "typically subject only to club discipline", so no conduct detrimental.
On Will Smith:
"Selective prosecution of allegations of misconduct and enforcement of discipline relative to Smith cannot be sustained." Enforcement "does not satisfy basic requirements for consistent treatment of player employees." Suspension vacated.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/11/former-nfl-commissioner-rescinds-player-punishments-in-bounty-case/?hpt=hp_t3Yeah, obviously it took me a while to put my thoughts down on this.
All player suspensions overturned.
WowNot really. They still found that the bounty system was in place, simply got rid of the suspensions.
Roger Goodell's face, meet egg. Lots of it.
And here is where I may lose some rational people, but I know I've lost 99% of you before the first character was typed anyway, so fuck it. This news was broken on THE FUCKING DAY after the NFL week in which the Saints were officially mathematically eliminated from the Super Bowl. All the Saints player punishments had been served. The Saints are no longer a risk of making history by being the first team to host a Super Bowl which it was hosting, despite not bowing before the almighty GOD-ell. Now that the damage was irreversibly done, let's just put this whole unwinnable PR battle thing behind us.
In that sense, the NFL got what they wanted. In that sense they "won". He got his shill to say he was right all along as he overturned his decision. Mission accomplished.
Not really. They still found that the bounty system was in place, simply got rid of the suspensions.And this is how the retarded majority of the country (i.e. haters) will interpret the findings.
And this is how the retarded majority of the country (i.e. haters) will interpret the findings.I don't give a shit about the NFL, much less the Saints. You can label me a hater all you want, but there was a bounty system in place. Those were the findings. I don't see how that is a retarded interpretation.
Again, mission accomplished.
Tagliabue, however, found that three of the players engaged in conduct detrimental to the league. He said they participated in a performance pool that rewarded key plays -- including hard tackles -- that could merit fines. And he stressed that the team's coaches were very much involved.
"Unlike Saints' broad organizational misconduct, player appeals involve sharply focused issues of alleged individual player misconduct in several different aspects," a portion of the ruling released by the NFL said. "My affirmation of Commissioner Goodell's findings could certainly justify the issuance of fines. However, this entire case has been contaminated by the coaches and others in the Saints' organization."
I don't give a shit about the NFL, much less the Saints. You can label me a hater all you want, but there was a bounty system in place. Those were the findings. I don't see how that is a retarded interpretation.Yes. The "3rd party" Goodell hand-picked said he agrees with Goodell...unless he doesn't. And legally does not have the evidence to justify it, so he's going to overturn the ruling...even though it was right in the first place.
Thread is tl;dr.
Saints cheated, they are the bammers of the NFL. That is all, carry on.
Yes. The "3rd party" Goodell hand-picked said he agrees with Goodell...unless he doesn't. And legally does not have the evidence to justify it, so he's going to overturn the ruling...even though it was right in the first place.As a few people opined earlier in this thread, just the few pages that some saw was pretty solid. I agree with it as well. It's pretty clear what they are talking about. I think that the NFL has made its point. Everybody knows what went down. There simply isn't any point in spending more money and time on it imo. Having this tag attached to these guys will probably hurt them more than further suspensions.
That's the NFL PR guy (Greg Aiello)'s spin on Goodell's shill (Tagliabue)'s spin. And you lap it up. So you believe that he had all the evidence to nail them against the fucking wall (i.e. the mythical 500 pages), but just...didn't. Just smeared egg all over the NFL's face for what reason, exactly, in your estimation?
Can you prove it?
Looks like the NFL is having a hard time doing so.
Doesn't matter that they were cleared. We all knowThey weren't cleared. That's the thing.Cam was paidthe Saints cheated
They weren't cleared. That's the thing.They were.
They were.
There suspensions were "vacated".
Cam was cleared by the NCAA although "his father shopped him around".
Exactly. The. Same. Thing.
This thread = :suicide:
Will Smith: Tagliabue got the facts, Goodell rushed to judgment
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 11, 2012, 5:49 PM EST
Upon learning that he will not be suspended in the Saints bounty case, defensive end Will Smith thanked the man who rescinded his suspension — and ripped the man who originally suspended him.
Smith said he appreciated that former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue took the time to consider the players’ side of the story and said that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell rushed to judgment without waiting for the facts.
“I’m pleased with the ruling of Mr. Tagliabue to vacate my suspension,†Smith said. “I continue to maintain that I did not participate in a pay-to-injure program or facilitate any such program. I appreciate that Mr. Taglaibue did not rush to judgment, taking into consideration all facts presented to him, before ruling– something that was clearly not done by Commissioner Goodell in previous hearings. I am looking forward to putting this all behind me and getting back to the game I love. I want to thank the New Orleans Saints, the NFL Players Association, the fans, my friends and family for their continued support throughout this ordeal.â€
Smith and his fellow suspended Saints have said all along that Goodell botched the bounty investigation, and now Smith and his fellow Saints are celebrating a victory handed to them by Goodell’s predecessor.
Vilma’s lawyer bashes Goodell for “manufactured allegationsâ€
Posted by Michael David Smith on December 11, 2012, 2:55 PM EST
The attorney for Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma says NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s “manufactured allegations†have tarnished Vilma’s reputation.
And attorney Peter Ginsberg says that while former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did the right thing by lifting Vilma’s suspension, Tagliabue now needs to publicly release all of the testimony he relied on in making his decision in the bounty case.
“Two competing forces have been at play since at least March of this year – Roger Goodell has been trying every conceivable maneuver to avoid real and honest
scrutiny of his manufactured allegations that Jonathan Vilma engaged in a bounty program aimed at opposing players and Jonathan has been fighting to have an open and fair review of those accusations,†Ginsberg said in a statement. “We are obviously relieved and gratified that Jonathan no longer needs to worry about facing an unjustified suspension. On the other hand, Commissioner Tagliabue’s rationalization of Commissioner Goodell’s actions does nothing to rectify the harm done by the baseless allegations lodged against Jonathan. Jonathan has a right and every intention to pursue proving what really occurred and we look forward to returning to a public forum where the true facts can see the light of day. We call upon Commissioner Tagliabue to release the transcripts of the proceedings held before him so that they are available as we go forward. Finally, it is regrettable that the NFL continues unjustifiably to attack the New Orleans Saints, an organization comprised of decent and honest people who continue to stand strong in the face of these baseless attacks.â€
The big question as Vilma goes forward with his defamation case is what impact those transcripts will have. Tagliabue has rescinded Vilma’s suspension, but he hasn’t said Vilma did nothing wrong. If Vilma’s defamation case goes to trial, a jury will get to see the same evidence Tagliabue has seen, and a jury will determine whether Goodell defamed Vilma by overstating just what the case was against him.
Who the fuck are the Saints?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/11/will-smith-tagliabue-got-the-facts-goodell-rushed-to-judgment/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/11/vilmas-lawyer-bashes-goodell-for-manufactured-allegations/
NFL, Tagliabue want to prevent release of bounty hearing transcript
Posted by Mike Florio on December 12, 2012, 10:32 AM EST
Last week, it was widely believed that the transcript of the Paul Tagliabue-led bounty hearings would be released not long after his decision was issued.
That belief was fueled in large part by the expectation that Tagliabue would issue a ruling that did something less than wipe out the suspensions, resulting in the players pushing the case back to federal court and necessitating a full study of the testimony by Judge Helen Berrigan.
Unless the players who were determined to have engaged in conduct detrimental to the league opt to obtain a full exoneration (which is possible, but would be pricey), the transcripts will for now remain under wraps.
Per a source with knowledge of the situation, both the NFL and Tagliabue are trying to ensure that the testimony never sees the light of day.
One reason is that the testimony from Saints interim head coach Joe Vitt has been described to us as “brutal,†but also compelling and informative.
Coincidentally (or not), one paragraph contained in Tagliabue’s 22-page, single-spaced ruling describes Vitt as not credible.
“Vitt admitted to NFL investigators in 2012 that he ‘fabricated the truth’ when he spoke to an NFL investigator in March 2010 about whether there had been a bounty on [Brett] Favre,†Tagliabue writes. “[Vitt] later claimed that his admitted fabrication was just ‘stretching the truth’ because he failed to describe for investigators the emotionalism of the defensive team meeting the night before the NFC Championship Game. As a result of Vitt’s admissions and conflicting testimonies, I find that any attribution made by him cannot be given particular weight.â€
It would be nice to examine his full testimony with our own eyes. Given that the NFL has made this case a matter of public concern, and in light of the fact that the suspensions arise from a desire to ensure public confidence in the game of professional football, the transcripts need to be released.
And I say that knowing that, once they are, I’ll be reading hundreds of pages of questions and answers, scouring through plenty of noting in search of those random, fleeting passages that shed light on the subject.
DeMaurice Smith: NFL bounty program "never existed"
(CBS News) Professional football's New Orleans Saints have had a season of turmoil. Nine months ago, the team was accused of paying reward money for causing injuries on the field.
But on Tuesday, the suspensions of four players accused of being part of that bounty system were thrown out.
Saints bounty suspensions overturned by former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue
Back in October, National Football League Commissioner Roger Goodell removed himself from hearing any appeals in the so-called "Bountygate" scandal, and chose his predecessor, former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, to make the final ruling. For many, the decision was surprising: Tagliabue essentially overruled Goodell and dropped the suspensions of four current and former New Orleans' players.
The NFL alleges that, starting in 2009, under defensive coordinator Greg Williams, the Saints ran a "pay-for-pain" program, which rewarded players for intentionally hurting opposing players. In the NFC Championship game between the Saints and Vikings in 2010, Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre was allegedly a specific target. In March of 2012, New Orleans linebacker Jonathan Vilma was suspended for the entire season. His teammate, defensive end Will Smith, received a lesser punishment, as did Scott Fujita, now with the Browns, and Anthony Hargrove, now a free agent.
Just this past Sunday, Hargrove spoke with James Brown on CBS Sports' "The NFL Today" -- and denied the bounty program ever existed. Brown asked, "There was never any payments offered at all for injuring an opponent?"
Hargrove replied, "Never payment nor discussions ever talking about injuring our opponents or anybody."
But Tagliabue came to a very different conclusion -- affirming the NFL's belief the bounty program was very real. But his ruling seems to take the blame off the players, and put it squarely on the New Orleans' coaches: "Senior Saints' coaches conceived, encouraged and directed the program."
On "CBS This Morning," DeMaurice Smith, NFL Players Association executive director, disagreed with the ruling and said there is no evidence that bounties ever existed. He said, "Having seen nearly 50,000 pages of evidence and nearly 20 hours of testimony, I know that there was no bounty put on players by Saints players."
He also said, "I'm disappointed in the National Football League and certainly in the way they conducted an investigation because I now know having read and seen all of the testimony that there was certainly no evidence that the bounties existed and frankly, I was a prosecutor in [Washington, D.C.] for 10 years. I understand how to do investigations. And the investigation that the league did was sloppy, the investigation that they did was more outcome-focused than frankly process-focused."
Smith called on the NFL to apologize to players. "First and foremost, they should say they're sorry because they've maligned the character of good players," Smith said, and then added, "and if they certainly believe that they are right, the one thing that Roger Goodell could do is simply release the transcripts and we will all know the truth."
Asked if the NFL should apologize to the Saints head coach Sean Payton, who was not permitted to participate this season, Smith said "yes," but acknowledged "there's a difference between where the players were and the coaches are."
"The difference is the players have a union," Smith said. "And at a time when unions are under attack, this is what unions do. We fight. And we believe there are times when our players are wrongly treated, we will fight for their fairness and fight for fundamental fairness."
Payton remains suspended for the entire season while former defensive coordinator Williams remains suspended indefinitely. Vilma intends to continue his defamation lawsuit against Goodell.
For Smith's full interview, watch the video in the player above.
Chasing the Ghosts of BountyGate
On Tuesday, Paul Tagliabue inched BountyGate toward its conclusion and provided a worthy context for the events in question.
Tagliabue exonerated the players--vacating their suspensions completely--while at the same time indicting Saints' coaches and the organization for their roles in the farce that is BountyGate.
When you parse the specifics, Tagliabue accused Saints' coaches of administering a pay-for-performance program and one (only one) "alleged bounty," sharply contrasting with Roger Goodell's initial portrayal of an institutionalized pay-to-injure program that routinely targeted opponents for injury.
What it boils down to is Saints' coaches being punished for administering a program largely in theory, not for anything that ever happened on the field. Supporting this assertion, Tagliabue stated "none of the discipline of any player here relates to on-field conduct."
It's a crystal-clear admission that whatever transpired in the locker room for motivational purposes never morphed into malice on the field. This is at the heart of the NFL's misguided quest to use the Saints as a public exhibit--a symbolic pelt--in their transparent, hollow campaign to champion player safety and insulate themselves from future litigation.
By Tagliabue's logic the players are innocent of any on-field transgressions while the coaches are guilty of administering a purportedly malicious program, one that no player ever implemented to the detriment of any opponent's wellbeing for three seasons.
The logic behind this--that the coaches established a program, yet the players never executed it in a manner that would invite discipline--is illustrative of the flimsy foundation that the BountyGate accusations have always rested upon.
What's more is that Tagliabue assented to a league-wide culture that has fostered the "acceptance of pay-for-performance reward programs," one in New Orleans that he said--via its evidence--supports the "realities of NFL team workplaces." More damning to Goodell's and the league's initial allegations is this precedent for handling pay-for-performance programs that reward clean, legal hits:
"[T]he League has not previously suspended or fined players for some of the activities in which these players participated and has in the recent past imposed only minimal fines on NFL Clubs - - not players - - of a mere $25,000 or less."
Tagliabue is specifically referring to similar programs run in Green Bay and New England in 2007 and 2008 (pg. 17) where the clubs were fined only $25,000. Reflecting Goodell's bias and overreach, Tagliabue asserted that the disparity in sanctions "raises significant issues regarding inconsistent treatment between players and teams."
In this context, the truly egregious and unjust punishments from Roger Goodell are more apparent than ever before. Even his predecessor admits it.
Further, Tagliabue explained that the NFL rules regarding entrenched pay-for-performance systems--which he examined in History of Performance Pools in the NFL (pg. 14)--are not "fully articulated" and that they lack a "concrete set of guidelines or prohibitions."
It's a reflection of the nebulous nature of 1.) the league's position on and 2.) what comprises said programs, and sheds a light on the coaches' denials; perhaps what Goodell accused the coaches of administering (pay-to-injure) wasn't in fact being administered, hence the presumed obfuscation.
No matter, Tagliabue espoused a belief that this program went awry in New Orleans, calling it "deeply misguided." When you consider that no discipline was levied for on-field misconduct, this statement reeks of hyperbole and may be included solely for the benefit of protecting Roger Goodell against further litigation.
Aside from one alleged bounty on Brett Favre, the evidence supporting a "deeply misguided" program is bare and, perhaps, nonexistent. As for the Favre bounty that the NFL was never capable of proving existed, Tagliabue said:
"Adding to the complexity, there is little evidence of the tone of any talk about a bounty before the Vikings game. Was any bounty pledged serious? Was it inspirational only? Was it typical 'trash talk' that occurs regularly before and during games? The parties presented no clear answers. No witness could confirm whether Vilma had any money in his hands as he spoke; no evidence was presented that $10,000 was available to him for purposes of paying a bounty or otherwise. There was no evidence that Vilma or anyone else paid any money to any player for any bounty-related hit on an opposing player in the Vikings game."
No clear answers. No evidence.
Anthony Hargrove's suspension Tagliabue called "unprecedented and unwarranted." Though Goodell punished Hargrove for making false statements to investigators, Tagliabue said "it remains unclear what exactly Hargrove was asked by investigators regarding the Program."
Think it through.
Goodell suspended Hargrove for lying, but wasn't sure what Hargrove had been asked. Doesn't the accuser require knowledge of the question before he can determine if the accused's answer is a lie? Right, Mary Jo White?
Who's the liar here?
Of Scott Fujita, Tagliabue called his non-participation in the Saints' program "undisputed," a judgment that may powerfully bolster another future lawsuit versus Goodell.
Tagliabue called Goodell's punishment of Will Smith "inappropriate when most or all of the Saints’ defensive unit committed the same or similar acts as those underpinning the discipline of Smith." Those acts? Participating in a pay-for-performance program that even Tagliabue conceded "the league has tolerated."
In full rebuke, Tagliabue chastised Goodell for violating "basic requirements for consistent treatment."
Basic.
Ultimately, Tagliabue fairly and correctly exonerated the players while assigning blame--tenuous as it may be--to the Saints' coaches in order to prevent Goodell from being exposed to the full brunt of Jonathan Vilma's pending defamation lawsuit.
Make no mistake about it: the CBA Appeals' Board overturned Goodell's ruling, Judge Berrigan castigated Goodell for his actions, and then Tagliabue vacated completely the punishments. That's a damning sequence of events for the commissioner, especially in light of the harshness of the penalties. This was a fuck-up of massive proportion.
Had Tagliabue found Goodell's investigation and punishments credible, he certainly would have upheld them. But he didn't. Never mind the spin and rhetoric coming from Greg Aiello and the NFL.
The proof is in the deed.
The fact that the NFL is now so desperately trying to shape these developments, a familiar act that's characterized their Bounty strategy along the way, is an indication that they're unwilling to let the actions speak for themselves.
In the end, it's obvious what happened.
The NFL took one alleged bounty from seasons ago, distorted it to represent a three-year pay-to-injure program, decimated the Saints with sanctions, held them high as a trophy of culture change, and then conducted a PR campaign under the auspices of benevolence and player safety.
The Saints and their fans were the collateral damage. Peripherally, Goodell slapped into line a franchise that dared defy him and exacted retribution on a coach (Payton) he was unable to keep under his terrorizing thumb.
It's a sad chapter for the NFL and, as always, we the fans are as big a loser as anyone in this stupid clusterfuck. What a god damned waste.
At the very least, the players and Saints' fans have been vindicated.
Not all is lost.
Click link for video.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57558666/demaurice-smith-nfl-bounty-program-never-existed/
Holy. Fuck.No one's making you read.
I don't think I have read as much of anything as Chad has posted articles of this...
No one's making you read.
Most of you trolling to troll. If you want to continue making a retarded argument (RWS), I suggest you read what has been posted.
None of this changes the fact that the Saints cheated.
And I would agree with this. My beef with Goodell (and I generally have liked him) is that he knee jerked on his reaction and punishment. Which turned out to be wrong. It's clear he was trying to send a message and CYA rather than get it right on the punishment meeting the crime. Yea they cheated, but Goodell did a bad job in reacting which this ruling shows.Tell me how they cheated.
Tell me how they cheated.
Dude, I'm defending them. Take the plea bargain.If you're going to say "Yeah, they cheated", but not elaborate, then you = the toothless bammer radio caller that proclaims "I know they cheated, Paul. They just got away with it."
I believe that Saintswin.com is unbiased, but that's just me.nevertoyieldfoundation.com
If you're going to say "Yeah, they cheated", but not elaborate, then you = the toothless bammer radio caller that proclaims "I know they cheated, Paul. They just got away with it."
Ok I'll rephrase. I think they were involved in wrongdoing. With that said though, I don't think what Goodell did was correct and frankly it was harsh seeing as how he knew very little of what actually happened. Whether they cheated or not, he reacted too fast without due diligence. That was my point.
nevertoyieldfoundation.comAuburn = Saints = Cheaters?
Nobody's saying they aren't biased. But they're not just making shit up, either, unlike some other sources, namely the NFL & Goodell.
DeMaurice Smith: NFL bounty program "never existed"
Move along, nothin to see here...never existed, all just a big misunderstanding.
Off Topic: The Saints have retro-actively awarded themselves 5 League Championships to go along with their 2009 Championship.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell won't say sorry.
Damien Cox December 14, 2012
You think it’s tough being Gary Bettman?
As embattled as the NHL commissioner is, and as much heat as he’s getting from the players union and certain segments of fans over the current lockout, compared to Roger Goodell, it’s like a nice day in May for Bettman.
It’s pretty clear now that Goodell, without a great deal of conclusive evidence, tried and convicted the New Orleans Saints over “Bounty-gate†and ruined that team’s season.
So who do the Saints see about getting a refund on that? Can they get a recount on their 0-4 start?
Goodell won’t apologize. But if he did, where would he start?
After the 22-page reprimand he received from his predecessor Paul Tagliabue, Goodell’s position as the sheriff of this uber-violent league sits in tatters today, perhaps a little more noteworthy than usual in these parts with the NFL coming to town this weekend.
At this point, in fact, one wonders if Goodell doesn’t deserve to be fired for the manner in which he has bungled this entire episode, which is anything but over.
Over the course of Goodell’s tenure, the way in which he has handled a long series of controversial disciplinary cases involving both NFL coaches and players has largely defined his reign. Most notable were his handling of the Michael Vick case and “Spygate,†in which he punished the New England Patriots and coach Bill Belichick for videotaping the defensive signals of the New York Jets.
Nobody defended Vick. Everybody loved seeing the arrogant Pats slapped down. But it now looks as though those rulings were delivered by an executive who was just getting warmed up.
When the commissioner made his series of rulings earlier this year in Bounty-gate against the Saints, Goodell took a 13-3 team that had won the Super Bowl two years before that and neutered it for allegedly putting in place a bounty system for hits on opposing players.
He suspended head coach Sean Payton for the entire season, unprecedented in the league’s history. GM Mickey Loomis got eight games. Assistant coach Joe Vitt received a six-game suspension. Defensive co-ordinator Gregg Williams, perhaps the mastermind of the system, was suspended indefinitely last winter.
The team was fined $500,000 and docked two second round picks.
Then came the penalties for four players. Linebacker Jonathan Vilma was suspended for the entire season. Anthony Hargrove got eight games, Will Smith got four and Scott Fujita three games. The cloud of suspicion and infamy, meanwhile, fell over the whole squad.
Those bans were handed down May 2. Then, the Saints started fighting back, and Goodell has been backpedalling ever since.
Based on a review of the case by Tagliabue handed down this week, Goodell far over-stepped his bounds when he suspended the players. Fujita, in particular, was utterly blameless. Tagliabue vacated all the suspensions, nice but not so helpful today to the 5-8 Saints.
The problem, as Tagliabue highlights, is that while all kinds of nasty things were said, there’s not an ounce of proof that the Saints actually did anything illegal.
“If the League wishes to suspend a player for pre-game talk including ‘offers’ to incentivize misconduct, it must start by imposing enhanced discipline for illegal hits that involve the kind of player misconduct that it desires to interdict,†wrote Tagliabue.
Interestingly, Tagliabue didn’t overturn the suspensions to Payton and Williams — Loomis and Vitt are already back — although talks have already started on whether Payton will be reinstated before the scheduled end of his suspension.
Vilma, meanwhile, is suing for defamation of character.
“This is my career. There are no do-overs in football,†Vilma said. “This is my legacy . . . If I were to stop now, the only thing people are going to remember is the bounty.â€
Saints quarterback Drew Brees, one of the league’s leading ambassadors, said Goodell has “little or no credibility†with NFL players right now.
This has been a massive screwup from beginning to end, or at least a miscarriage of justice, and it destroyed a team’s season. Other NFL owners could easily look around and wonder if the same could have happened to their team if they were to run afoul of this ready-fire-aim commissioner.
Why did Goodell go so far? Why did he decide he had to make history? It was as though in his zeal to be the health-and-safety commish he decided to make the Saints culpable for every bad hit, every vicious play and every hit-to-hurt moment in the league’s history.
If a commissioner was ever going to be dismissed for something other than looting the treasury, wouldn’t this be it? Unnecessarily trashing a team’s season would seem to go on the unforgivable list.
Goodell's suspensions of four players, Tagliabue concluded, were "selective, ad hoc, or inconsistent." Those Tagliabue adjectives translate into the following: Tagliabue thinks Goodell punished some players and not others, that he made up new punishments as he went along, and that he was tougher on some players than he was on other players.
. . .
Goodell should have engaged in what Tagliabue calls a "discipline-free transition year" as a way to prepare the players for severe punishments that would end bounties.
. . .
In addition to his theories on the nature of discipline, Tagliabue placed the blame for the Saints bounty program on the coaching staff and suggested that the players "may not have had much choice but to 'go along,' [and] to comply with coaching demands or directions that they may question or resent."
. . .
Tagliabue was unrelenting in his criticism of suspended head coach Sean Payton and indefinitely suspended former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, even though their suspensions were not part of the appeal that he was considering. He cited a coaches' PowerPoint presentation after the Saints' victory over the Cardinals in the 2009 playoffs. One slide showed Kurt Warner on the turf with the caption: "SO WE WILL JUST DESTROY EACH QUARTERBACK LEAVING EACH TEAM WITHOUT A FIELD GENERAL! ONE DOWN TWO QBs TO GO."
. . .
Tagliabue was also incensed with the "massive efforts" of Saints coaches "to obstruct the league's investigation," their "destroying of documents," and their attempts to have "coaches, players, and other representatives lie to League investigators and otherwise be uncooperative."
Both former defensive assistant Mike Cerullo and Williams testified before Tagliabue that they destroyed a series of PowerPoint slides that showed payouts to players and destroyed other evidence. It was part of a "conscious decision to deny, deny, deny," according to Tagliabue.
I affirm Commissioner Goodell’s factual findings as to the four players. I conclude that Hargrove, Smith and Vilma - - but not Fujita - - engaged in “conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of professional football.â€
. . .
Although I vacate all suspensions, I fully considered but ultimately rejected reducing the suspensions to fines of varying degrees for Hargrove, Smith and Vilma. My affirmation of Commissioner Goodell’s findings could certainly justify the issuance of fines. However, as explained in my discussion below, this entire case has been contaminated by the coaches and others in the Saints’ organization. Moreover, the League has not previously suspended or fined players for some of the activities in which these players participated and has in the recent past imposed only minimal fines on NFL Clubs - - not players - - of a mere $25,000 or less.
. . .
To be clear: this case should not be considered a precedent for whether similar behavior in the future merits player suspensions or fines; rather, I have decided not to issue fines this time for the reasons stated in this decision and the sake of the best interests of all involved in professional football.
. . .
Equally, in vacating the players’ suspensions I do not in any degree condone their behavior. I do not approve any of the misconduct in which Commissioner Goodell found the players to have engaged, though I do not find Fujita’s conduct equivalent to the other players. But each player made choices that do not reflect favorably on him. Moreover, there is evidence in the record that suggests that Commissioner Goodell could have disciplined a greater number of Saints’ players for the events that occurred here. This sad chapter in the otherwise praiseworthy history of the New Orleans Saints casts no executive, coach or player in a favorable light.
In Tagliabue's own words, provided by ESPN:
Tagliabue, in his own words, did not exonerate the Saints as an entity. Rather, he focused on the fact that he felt players should not be punished for what the coaches have instituted...because the players are clearly mindless drones and/or children who have no free will or ability to blow the whistle on what they should reasonably identify as improper conduct.
In summation, the Saints are still cheaters, despite what a bunch of Canucks have to say about American football. They say that Tagliabue "interestingly" didn't overturn the suspensions of the coaches, yet Tagliabue's specific comments explain why: He felt there was a bounty program at the Saints, and he felt that the punishment should have fallen on the coaches, not the players. He felt that the bounty program should have been addressed, but that it should have been addressed by means of a "discipline-free transition year."
In no way does Tagliabue's commentary show that the Saints did nothing wrong. Any attempt to classify his comments as such is blatantly misleading.
If the Saints tended to injure more players, then teams that played them would tend to list more injuries the following week. To test whether the Saints injured more players than a typical team, one need only compare the number of players added to injury reports after a Saints game to the league-wide average.
Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players?
The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking. From 2009 to 2011, the Saints injured, on average, 3.2 opposing players each game. The rest of the teams in the league caused, on average, 3.8 injuries per game. This difference is highly statistically significant, or in other words, it would hold up in a court of law or a fancy academic journal. In each year of the bounty program, the Saints injured fewer players than the average for the league. In 2009, the Saints injured 2.8 players a game, and other teams injured on average 3.8. In 2010, it was 3.5 and 3.6, and in 2011 it was 3.3 and 3.8.
The Saints' behavior on the field was certainly aberrant, but positively so. Only one other team, the San Diego Chargers, injured fewer opponents per game over this entire time frame (3.1 injuries). Of the 32 teams, the Saints injured the third fewest in the 2009 season, the 15th fewest in 2010 and the third fewest in 2011. Might this record be linked to the Saints' being too weak or cowardly to respond to the bounties? Certainly not. Lily-livered players don't win Super Bowls.
However, the bounty system was run by the defense. Perhaps the offense was unusually kind to its opponents, offsetting the statistical misbehavior of the defense. That too is easily disproved with the data. Even if one focuses only on injuries to opposing offensive players, the Saints don't stand out as particularly vicious.
In 2009, the Saints injured far fewer offensive players than did other teams, at 0.9 per game as opposed to an average of 1.9 for other teams. But in 2010 and 2011, the Saints were statistically average, injuring slightly more offensive players in these seasons but no more than chance might allow. Over the three years, the Saints injured fewer offensive players than average.
The NFL's case against the players should require documentation that the Saints injured significantly more players than average. They did not.
Vilma urges rejection of Goodell motion to dismissCerullo was the "credible witness" making the accusations to Goodell.
By BRETT MARTEL (AP Sports Writer)
NEW ORLEANS (AP) -- Jon Vilma urged a federal judge Friday to reject NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's motion to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed against him by the Saints linebacker.
Vilma's request to U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan argues Goodell acted with ''reckless disregard for the truth'' when basing initial allegations about Vilma upon one fired Saints assistant, Mike Cerullo, whose testimony has been inconsistent and challenged by other witnesses in the NFL's bounty probe of the Saints.
The motion centers on Goodell's public comments that Vilma held up $10,000 cash in a team meeting in 2010, offering it to anyone who knocked Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner out of a playoff game.
During recent NFL appeal hearings in the bounty case, former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams testified he never saw any money.
''Williams has always told Goodell, and continues to state, that there was never any cash put up for a bounty on any player. It was 'just talk.''' Vilma's motion reads. ''Nonetheless, Goodell irresponsibly chose to contend that Vilma walked around with $10,000 before the Cardinals game.''
Vilma's season-long suspension and with various shorter bans for three other players were thrown out Tuesday by former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, who Goodell had appointed to oversee the appeals of player punishment.
After Tagliabue's decision, the NFL Players Association dropped claims in federal court on behalf of Saints defensive end Will Smith and two former Saints: Cleveland linebacker Scott Fujita and free agent defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove. Vilma dropped his claims against the league concerning the disciplinary process, but moved forward with his defamation case against the commissioner, asking Berrigan to allow discovery, which consists of the collection of evidence and deposing of witnesses. Berrigan has so far delayed discovery while the Goodell's motion to dismiss the case is pending.
In their effort to highlight how unreliable Cerullo was, Vilma's attorneys, Peter Ginsberg and Duke Williams, cite hearing testimony from Saints assistant head coach Joe Vitt, who said Payton once arranged for police protection at his former suburban family home while he was away at league meetings because the head coach feared Cerullo was emotionally unstable and might harm his family.
While the lawsuit does not quote the testimony from the closed-door hearing directly, it appears in transcripts obtained by The Associated Press.
''An email was sent to the League about Mike Cerullo long before these (bounty) charges were brought up on our football team saying that Mike Cerullo was crazy, that Sean Payton had to have a police escort or, excuse me, police protection at his house because he was going to the owners' meeting, and he was worried about his family with Cerullo,'' Vitt testified. ''This is the kind of guy we're dealing with. Allright?''
Vilma's motion also notes that the NFL subsequently dropped Goodell's initial allegation about Vilma physically holding up money in the meeting before the Arizona game.
''There can no longer be any doubt that Goodell acted with malice ... in making this quasi-criminal accusation against Vilma,'' the motion said.
The NFL continues to allege that Vilma offered a $10,000 to anyone who knocked then-Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2010 NFC title game, which followed the Arizona game. Williams testified that he recalled such an offer for that game, but never saw any money change hands and suggested the offer represented nothing more than tough talk in an emotional meeting that he allowed to get out of hand.
"Cerullo also manufactured a spreadsheet of 'bounties' that even the NFL could not believe ..."
"In total, the spreadsheet contended that the Saints defensive team and staff pledged an improbable $235,500 during the playoffs ..."
"Cerullo now admits he has no explanation for the outrageous amounts shown on his spreadsheet."
New Vilma filing targets alleged Warner bounty, Cerullo’s credibility
Posted by Mike Florio on December 14, 2012, 10:59 AM EST
The bounty case definitely isn’t over.
In a new court filing opposing the efforts of Commissioner Roger Goodell to obtain a dismissal of Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s defamation lawsuit, Vilma takes aim at two key factors: the alleged bounty on Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner prior to the 2009 NFC divisional playoff game, and the credibility of former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo.
The overriding goal is to persuade Judge Helen Berrigan that Goodell knew the allegation of a bounty on Warner was false, or that Goodell made the statement with reckless disregard as to whether the claim of a Warner bounty was true or false. This enhanced legal standard applies in cases of defamation brought by public figures.
Along the way, Ginsberg calls Goodell’s statements “wanton and malicious,†“fictional,†and “inflammatory,†and Ginsberg writes that Goodell accused Vilma of engaging in “quasi-criminal†behavior.
In making the argument that the case against Goodell should proceed, Vilma’s lawyer, Peter Ginsberg, explains that the NFL’s May 2, 2012 press release states that “multiple independent sources . . . confirmed†that Vilma offered the bounty on Warner. Ginsberg then alleges that, ultimately, the only source was Cerullo. “Even former Saints defensive coordinator Williams, the mastermind of the alleged Bounty Program, does not contend that Vilma put a bounty on Warner,†Ginsberg writes.
The lawyer for Vilma next contends that the league knew or should have realized that Cerullo’s story was false.
“[A]s Goodell well knew,†Ginsberg writes, “Cerullo was fired for his incompetence and repeated and material lies to the Saints which caused him to miss several weeks of the 2009 season.†(Cerullo has denied that he was absent from work, in a recent letter to Tagliabue.)
Here’s the kicker from Ginsberg: “The Saints were so concerned about Cerullo’s stability, as Goodell also knew, that, when Cerullo was terminated, Saints head coach Sean Payton also was forced to obtain police protection at his house for fear that Cerullo would seek some type of retribution.†(Cerullo has denied that he held a grudge against the team.)
Ginsberg likewise points out that Cerullo’s story has changed, arguing that “Goodell was well aware of these inconsistencies during the months before he imposed discipline on Vilma but nonetheless kept polluting Vilma’s reputation publicly with this fictitious allegation.â€
The attack on Cerullo includes not only his motives but his accuracy. Ginsberg writes that Cerullo allegedly told NFL investigators in November 2011 that he had taken “detailed notes†about the bounties offered as to Warner. At the hearing before Tagliabue, Cerullo admitted that he made no notes during the defensive team meeting before the game against the Cardinals.
As to the spreadsheet of pledges for the Favre bounty a week later, Cerullo now says the numbers were “inaccurate,†and that “I don’t know what I was trying to do with this document.â€
We know what Ginsberg is trying to do with his latest document. He’s trying to show that the league trumped-up its case against Vilma based solely on the testimony of a former Saints employee who is, in Ginsberg’s apparent view, mistaken and/or corrupt. And while Ginsberg continues to push the notion that Vilma didn’t offer $10,000 as to Vikings quarterback Brett Favre (and that, as Tagliabue concluded, if it happened it was simply “talk†and not a real offer), it’s clear that the defamation case against Goodell will be driven by the notion that the league knew or should have known that the allegation of a Warner bounty was false.
But more importantly, that's why he has to continue with the "I'm not saying they didn't do it, but..." routine. He is protecting his client from further litigation. There is no other possible way that a rational person can justify those statements lining up with that ruling, despite your efforts.
No evidence of anything besides some tough talk from one coach in one game.
Far from the three year institutionalized program designed to injure players. Who were the players actually injured by the players in question? None.
Full PDF of Vilma's Legal Brief:
Tagliabue is not representing Goodell or the NFL; the law firm in which he was previously a member, and is now of counsel, is representing the NFL. Gregg Levy, specifically, is representing the NFL for the firm. Tagliabue did not receive payment from the NFL for the firm's representation of them. He is not involved and neither the NFL nor Goodell is his client, despite your efforts to classify either of them as his client.Full. Tard.
Ethically speaking, Tagliabue can be an arbitrator for the NFL in this case even though "his" law firm is defending the NFL in related litigation. This requires, among other things, that Tagliabue be "screened off" from the firm's involvement with the litigation, which neither you nor I know whether they've done that. You're speculating without evidence as to Tagliabue's professional and ethical ability to be impartial, just as you're claiming Goodell speculated without evidence as to what the players did or did not do.
And tough talk from players referencing payouts pre-game, PowerPoint slides referencing previous injuries to QBs, PowerPoint slides referencing intent to injure QBs, admissions from more than one coach that evidence was destroyed, admissions from more than one coach that payout schedules existed, etc.
So you're suggesting that a club can have a bounty program intact, so long as their players don't actually hurt anyone? I'm pretty sure that's not what the NFL intends for its league. As is referenced by the NFL and even the players themselves, the existence of a bounty program revolves around intent to injure; actual injury is not required. It would be like saying a helmet-to-helmet hit is legal and nonpunishable so long as no one is injured.
Wait, wait, wait...so Goodell's findings can't be trusted because the NFL has an unexplained and unproven vendetta against the New Orleans Saints.
Tagliabue's findings can't be trusted because he is associated with a law firm that is defending the NFL in related litigation. You assume that there is bias there without knowing what Tagliabue has or has not done to insure his impartiality. In fact, even though the player suspensions have been lifted due to a disagreement between Goodell and Tagliabue as to how and whether the players should be punished, your unproven assumption is still that Tagliabue is Goodell's minion sent to do his bidding.
BUT, we're expected to believe every word of a defendant in this matter who has submitted nothing but a legal brief that makes undocumented claims? Vilma's word is the gospel despite what other coaches say, despite what PowerPoint slides say, despite an audio clip of a player in a game yelling about getting his money, despite the findings of the current NFL commissioner, and despite the findings of a former NFL commissioner? Vilma's statement is supposed to convince me that all of this evidence is falsified and in no way suggests that the Saints (players or coaches) ever did anything improper?
You've gone more Bammer than any of us expected. I guess Antonio Langham needs to be interviewed again, and if he submits a legal brief claiming that the coaches lied and he never declared for the draft, then he and the Alabama team need to be exonerated based on his own statements.
37 pages devoted to the Saints
Read what I've already posted today about Cerullo and his fabricated PowerPoint slides.
I believe that Tagliabue is Goodell's minion sent to do his bidding, because Goodell himself chose him as a supposed third party.
If Goodell & Tagliabue are incapable of mistruths, yet Vilma's a babbling liar, as you are purporting, why in your estimation, is he continuing his legal battle?
In your expert lawyer opinion, why the fuck would Vilma continue to press the issue after he "won" for all intents and purposes? What does he have to gain from introducing "lies" as you see them, into this case at this juncture, versus what he obviously has to lose if they are proven untrue?
As I've said before, removing New Orleans from this equation entirely, I am sick and fucking tired of people being so quick to condemn athletes over complete fucking bullshit it makes me physically ill. Ignoring any evidence of their innocence, yet magnifying any specious allegation x10 and passing it off as fact.I can agree with the other examples, but the Armstrong comparison falls short...
The obvious Cam Newton comparison has already been raised.
The exact same can be said for someone I have no personal connection to, Lance Armstrong.
The majority of people, to this day, think that he's a disgraceful cheater. He should just own up to the fact that he cheated. Everyone knows he did. Deny, deny, deny. All this in spite of the fact that he passed every fucking drug test thrown his way. It's pure lunacy and makes me question the sanity of the majority of the population.
Everyone wants blood. Everyone wants to look down their nose at someone and drag them down. Scandals sell headlines. Exoneration gets dismissed. It's seriously fucking pathetic and I'm beyond sick of it.
My understanding is also that Vilma filed this brief under seal, effectively making the transcripts unavailable to the public. Thus, we have no clue what Cerullo actually said to Tagliabue about anything.Your understanding is exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.
...
Why would Vilma file his legal brief under seal so that the transcripts which presumably exonerate him can't be seen by the public? My guess is that there is enough evidence in the transcripts to prove wrongdoing on behalf of the coaches, but presumably not enough to prove which players were directly involved.
Just a guess, but I see no other reason why Vilma would request the court to seal documents which would supposedly prove his claims.
Vilma dropped his claims against the league concerning the disciplinary process, but moved forward with his defamation case against the commissioner, asking Berrigan to allow discovery, which consists of the collection of evidence and deposing of witnesses. Berrigan has so far delayed discovery while the Goodell's motion to dismiss the case is pending.
Vilma said he could not be sure what kind of settlement he might be willing to accept, but sounded like he was more interested in seeing through a court case with evidence made public than taking a financial settlement and keeping quiet.
I think you've jumped to conclusions about one specific document and the relevant testimony that's still not known. And thanks to Vilma sealing the record, we still don't know. Your "evidence" that Cerullo fabricated something is not evidence of fabrication at all, nor does it address other spreadsheets and other documents that were submitted for review.Show me those documents, and we can talk. Again, you seem to want to put the burden of proof on the accused, and have no problems jumping to conclusions about the validity of this supposed evidence that Goodell obviously doesn't have. Unless you believe that he has it, he just really likes the egg all over his and the NFL's face for still not producing it, even after these accusations have blown up in his face.
The players bitched that Goodell had too much authority, and that he needed to step aside and let someone else rule over the appeals.How about allowing a true third party, like the judge in the defamation suit, pick a third party to review the evidence? How about someone who is not legal counsel to the firm representing Goodell in the defamation suit? Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp?
So he appoints the former NFL commissioner, and suddenly the guy becomes his minion.
Who was Goodell supposed to appoint if a former commissioner of 17 years can't be trusted to make a decision that's in the best interest of the NFL and its players? Tagliabue has no financial interest in the outcome of litigation involving Goodell and the NFL, so what is it that makes him partial to one side and not the other?
I never said they are incapable of mistruths. All I'm pointing out is that you refuse to look at the evidence that has been shown and acknowledge the possibility that the coaches and/or players were doing something wrong. We have two separate NFL commissioners who have determined the same factual findings based on the same evidence.Then why overturn the ruling? You can't rationalize Tagliabue overturn the ruling and protecting Goodell's case in the defamation suit by saying the punishment did in fact fit the crime...unless it didn't.
Your understanding is exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.
From what I posted earlier today:
So take your exact argument, and reverse it. What is Goodell and the NFL trying to hide?
Show me those documents, and we can talk. Again, you seem to want to put the burden of proof on the accused, and have no problems jumping to conclusions about the validity of this supposed evidence that Goodell obviously doesn't have.
Then why overturn the ruling? You can't rationalize Tagliabue overturn the ruling and protecting Goodell's case in the defamation suit by saying the punishment did in fact fit the crime...unless it didn't.
So Vilma didn't file his legal brief under seal? The transcript is readily available to those who wish to view it?(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-31KeUyZOOas/Th_ISwiXSrI/AAAAAAAAAHQ/nWapZAVMAb4/s1600/learn-to-read.jpg)
Great. Post the transcript for our review, and show us where Cerullo states he fabricated anything. Because from what little is presumed to be known of Cerullo's testimony currently, he only admitted that one particular document was inaccurate as to the amounts pledged.
Full PDF of Vilma's Legal Brief:Furthermore, I've posted like 15 articles that quote directly from it.
Which was linked here, but you have to be a member to view it.
http://saintsreport.com/forums/4816833-post14.html
Selected quotes I've gathered from Twitter (https://twitter.com/ReidG75) from it.
If discovery has been halted and Vilma has nothing with which to back up the claims in his legal brief, then that even further goes to show that these are claims by Vilma with no evidence.
If, on the other hand, my understanding was correct, and Vilma's claims are based on the transcripts, and if the language of the transcript regarding Cerullo states what I posted, then there's not evidence of any fabrication. There is questioning of the credibility of one aspect of one document (the amounts listed on one spreadsheet), but there is no direct evidence of this. All you have is a statement that amounts purported to be paid are "inaccurate."
Even if direct evidence of this one claim of fabrication were to be shown, there are still other documents and statements that need to be addressed. The accuracy of this one spreadsheet is not, by itself, going to prove that no bounty system existed; there's too much other evidence that has yet to be challenged, other than to lamely claim that the public just doesn't understand what they meant by players being "carted off" and "knocked out."
Rumor on the interwebz is that the leaks of the transcript have come from the NFL. That rumor appears to hold true if Vilma filed his brief under seal, as a leak wouldn't come from a party that is actively trying to seal records.Link? I have seen (and displayed) nothing but the exact opposite. Vilma demanding the supposed "evidence" in this farcical "trial" be made public, and Goodell and the NFL have consistently refused.
Again, I'm not stating that this rumor is a fact; just pointing out that A.) Vilma's legal brief is a creation of his attorney, and B.) the statements in Vilma's brief haven't been verified by any evidence that we know of. Meanwhile, there are other documents and statements out there that, from what we've seen so far of Vilma's brief, haven't been addressed.
In civil matters, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "Preponderance of the evidence" simply means that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that X occurred. The NFL has released enough documentation to the public that, in my mind, it is more likely than not that a bounty system existed.In your opinion. In almost no one else's.
You don't have express mentioning of injuring players in multiple pieces of documentation, including PowerPoint slides that have yet to be contested by anyone, unless there was something improper occurring. You don't have players yelling about money during games and during pre-game meetings for no reason. You don't put up slides about your success at injuring QBs previously and your intent to injure QBs in upcoming games for no reason. You don't have coaches admitting that evidence was destroyed if nothing was going on.
Come ooonnnn 38.....Come onnnn 38... you can do it.As long as RWS and/or VV continue to stubbornly go down with the ship, we'll take this bitch to 100.
As long as RWS and/or VV continue to stubbornly go down with the ship, we'll take this bitch to 100.
Great. Post the transcript for our review, and show us where Cerullo states he fabricated anything. Because from what little is presumed to be known of Cerullo's testimony currently, he only admitted that one particular document was inaccurate as to the amounts pledged.
PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ROGER GOODELL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff Jonathan Vilma, through his undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant Roger Goodell’s Motion to Dismiss (Rec. Doc. 23).
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On July 5, 2012, Goodell moved to dismiss the instant action, arguing, inter alia, that his public attacks on Vilma were immune from judicial scrutiny by virtue of the NFL-NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBAâ€). As set forth in Vilma’s Opposition, Goodell conducted a systematic, persistent and public campaign against Vilma that fell outside of any activity authorized – or countenanced – by the CBA. The recent proceedings conducted by former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue serve to highlight the wanton and malicious public allegations against Vilma and to emphasize the lack of merit in Goodell’s Motion to Dismiss.
FACTS
Vilma was disciplined for his alleged involvement in the Bounty Program on May 2, 2012. The most inflammatory of the allegations Goodell lodged at Vilma is that Vilma walked into a Defensive Team meeting on the night before the New Orleans Saints – Arizona Cardinals 2009 – 2010 Playoff Game, held $10,000 in cash high above his head, and pledged the money to any teammate who knocked Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner out of the January 16, 2010 NFC Divisional Playoff Game. Complaint ¶ 33 (Rec. Doc. 1).1 By the end of the Tagliabue proceedings, the NFL was no longer pursuing that allegation, which was so obviously fictional and malicious that the NFL could not contend in good faith that the event had ever occurred.
However, for over two months before Goodell imposed disciplined, Goodell had publicly made the Warner allegation no fewer than four times and thereafter continued to make the allegation publicly. Goodell’s proclamation that Vilma had put a bounty on Warner was made in the: (1) March 2, 2012 Press Release (Rec. Doc. 23-4); (2) March 2, 2012 Memorandum issued to Clubs (Rec. Doc. 23-3); (3) March 21, 2012 Press Release (Rec. Doc. 23-6); (4) March 21, 2012 Memorandum issued to Clubs (Rec. Doc. 23-5). Goodell thereafter repeated the allegation in the: (5) May 2, 2012 Letter of Discipline (Rec. Doc. 1-11 at p. 35 in 12-cv-1744 matter);2 (6) May 2, 2012 Press Release (Rec. Doc. 23-7); and (7) October 9, 2012 Letter of Discipline (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 2).3 The NFL’s outside counsel also made the allegation in a media briefing on May 3, 2012.
Moreover, Goodell claimed in the May 2, 2012 Press Release that “[m]ultiple independent sources… confirmed that Vilma offered a specific bounty – $10,000 in cash – to any player who knocked Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner out of the 2009 Divisional Playoff Game.†This statement is false in every way possible, as discussed below, including Goodell’s contention that others corroborated Cerullo’s story.
In his October 9, 2012 Letter of Discipline, Goodell advised that he was no longer relying on the Warner allegation as a basis for Vilma’s discipline. (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 2). In the NFL’s findings of fact submitted to Tagliabue, the NFL omitted the Warner allegation. Now, there can no longer be any doubt that Goodell acted with malice and wanton disregard and without any CBA-ordained authority in making this quasi-criminal accusation against Vilma.
ARGUMENT
I. VILMA DID NOT OFER $10,000 TO KNOCK KURT WARNER OUT OF THE NFC DIVISIONAL PLAYOFF GAME
Former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo is the only person who has ever alleged there was any type of bounty on Warner, as the Tagliabue hearings made clear. Goodell’s claim that “[m]ultiple independent sources†contended Vilma offered a bounty on Warner was simply false. And even the NFL does not believe Cerullo’s story.
First, as Goodell well knew, Cerullo was fired for his incompetence and repeated and material lies to the Saints which caused him to miss several weeks of the 2009 season. (Hearing Tr. at 1625-1633.) The Saints were so concerned about Cerullo’s stability, as Goodell also knew, that, when Cerullo was terminated, Saints head coach Sean Payton was forced to obtain police protection at his house for fear that Cerullo would seek some type of retribution. (Hearing Tr. at 1617:9-16.)
Not only was there no one to corroborate Cerullo’s story about the Warner bounty, but essentially every person who was present at the pre-game Defensive Team meeting before the Cardinals play-off game has denied that Vilma ever placed a bounty – or said anything that could have been remotely conceived in that way. Even former Saints defensive coordinator Williams, the mastermind of the alleged Bounty Program, does not contend that Vilma put a bounty on Warner. (Hearing Tr. at 1079-81.)
Vilma has adamantly denied ever placing a bounty on Warner — or on Brett Favre or any other player – in both judicial and arbitral proceedings, including under oath. (Hearing Tr. at 1805:1-20; 1817:16-22; Vilma Aff. ¶ 13 (Rec. Doc. 44-1).) Twenty current and former Saints corroborate that Vilma offered no bounties. (Rec. Doc. 76-2 (Pierson Prioleau); Rec. Doc. 91 at 84-85 (Troy Evans), 93 (Randall Gay), 141 (Scott Shanle), 145-46 (Sedrick Ellis), 148-49 (Jonathan Casillas), 159-60 (Roman Harper); Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 3 (Isa Abdul-Quddus, Casillas, Junior Galette, Jabari Greer, Harper, Roman Humber, Malcolm Jenkins, Tom Johnson, Cameron Jordan, Johnny Patrick, Patrick Robinson, Shanle, Martez Wilson); Rec. Doc. 150 at 17-22 (Anthony Hargrove); Rec. Doc. 151 at 23-26 (Will Smith); Rec. Doc. 152 at 32-40 (Scott Fujita).)4 Saints Assistant head coach Joe Vitt also vehemently denies that there was ever a bounty on any player, including Warner (Rec. Doc. 91 at 124-25; Hearing Tr. at 1517:15; 1527:3-6; 1529:10-1530:3; 1547:6-15), and made special note of Cerullo being “with stability problems.â€
The wanton irresponsibility of Goodell’s pronouncements of the non-existent Warner bounty was made even clearer when Cerullo recently testified.5
We now know that, on November 13, 2011, in his first interview with Goodell and his investigators, Cerullo contended to Goodell that Vilma “presented†the non-existent $10,000 in cash to Cerullo (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3) and Cerullo claimed he gave the money to Williams (Rec. Doc. 136-2, Ex. G at ¶13). Williams has consistently denied to Goodell that he ever received $10,000 – or any bounty money – from Cerullo (Rec. Doc. 136-2, Ex. H at ¶ 12); (Hearing Tr. at 1143:6), and, as noted above, Williams never backed up Cerullo’s claim that Vilma put a bounty on Warner. Goodell was well aware of these inconsistencies during the months before he imposed discipline on Vilma but nonetheless kept polluting Vilma’s reputation publicly with this fictitious allegation.
Cerullo’s story about the number of people who placed a bounty on Warner also has consistently changed. On November 13, 2011, Cerullo told the NFL that, in addition to Vilma, “Charles Grant, Joe Vitt and Michael Ornstein each offered a $10,000 bounty†on Warner. (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) Cerullo claimed Grant and Vitt “put up cash on the spot.†(Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) As Goodell has always known, not a single person corroborated those claims. And, moreover, Cerullo reversed course, stating that only “one person†pledged a bounty on Warner (Hearing Tr. at 735:4-8; Hearing Tr. at 961:4-5 (“Mr. Vitt never put any money down on the quarterbackâ€)), and “only Vilma had the cash on his person†(Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 6 at 3).
On November 13, 2011, Cerullo also claimed that “Ornstein gave his $10,000 to Gregg Williams at the hotel later that night.†(Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) Williams, as with the other Cerullo fantasies, never told Goodell that this accusation was true.
Cerullo’s story also changed concerning whether he memorialized the supposed bounties on Warner. On November 13, 2011, Cerullo told Goodell and his investigators that he had taken “detailed notes†about the supposed bounties on Warner. (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) Of course, no such notes were ever provided, as Goodell clearly knew, and Cerullo later denied taking any such notes (Hearing Tr. at 734:16-24 (Q. “[D]id you make any notes during the Cardinals defensive team meeting? A. Noâ€)).
Cerullo also manufactured a spreadsheet of “bounties†that even the NFL could not believe. In total, the spreadsheet contended that the Saints defensive team and staff pledged an improbable $235,500 during the playoffs. Cerullo now admits he has no explanation for the outrageous amounts shown on his spreadsheet. (Hearing Tr. at 963:17-19 (“that’s inaccurate, so I don’t know what I was trying to do with this documentâ€); Hearing Tr. at 966:1-2 (“it is an inaccurate documentâ€).) His lack of credibility is, and always has been, palpable.
Moreover, in total, Cerullo claims the players and staff put $100,000 in cash into the “kitty†prior to the Vikings game. (Hearing Tr. at 953:9-10.) Williams has always told Goodell, and continues to state, that there was never any cash put up for a bounty on any player. (Hearing Tr. at 1182:2-6.) It was “just talk.†(Hearing Tr. at 1061; 1183.) Nonetheless, Goodell irresponsibly chose to contend that Vilma walked around with $10,000 before the Cardinals game.
Vilma’s bank records also demonstrate that Vilma never withdrew $10,000 or any other large amount of cash during the 2009-10 postseason. (Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 5 at 3.) Goodell never asked to see the bank records.
Based on the foregoing, there is no credible evidence that Vilma ever offered a $10,000 bounty – or any bounty – on Warner, and Goodell cannot hide behind the CBA to shield himself from disseminating such a wanton reckless allegation against Vilma. Even if Goodell were to rationalize that, as some point, he needed to explain publicly his decision to discipline Vilma, that time certainly did not precede by over two months Goodell’s own decision regarding the suspension. In relying on Cerullo in making the Warner allegation, Goodell spoke either knowing the allegation was not true or in reckless disregard of its truth. Such conduct establishes malice and supports Vilma’s claims for defamation. See LaRavia v. Cerise, 462 Fed.Appx. 459, 462-63 (5th Cir. 2012) (discussing the malice standard).6
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons and for those previously set forth, Vilma respectfully requests the Court to deny Goodell’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, and grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York December 14, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
PETER R. GINSBERG LAW, LLC
Footnotes
1 Goodell also alleges that Vilma placed a bounty on Brett Favre before the Minnesota Vikings playoff game. Vilma – and every person in the pre-game meeting other than the two people who are seeking Goodell’s permission to get into the NFL – denies that Vilma ever offered such a bounty. However, even Gregg Williams dismisses what occurred in the Vikings pre-game meeting as “just talk,†Hearing Tr. at 1061:22-24, including Williams’ own admitted “bounty†on Favre. Of note, even in his effort to provide cover for his predecessor and his law firm’s client, Tagliabue could not bring himself to find that the Favre bounty allegation was credible: “The evidence as to whether Vilma made such an offer is sharply disputed, but other key points are undisputed: the Saints’ coaches conducted, directed and choreographed all defensive team meetings; in the same defensive team meeting where Vilma allegedly offered a bounty, the Saints’ defensive coordinator, Gregg Williams, admits that he offered a $5,000 bounty reward of his own to knock Favre out of the game, and Williams admitted that he was the responsible team official who unfortunately let the team meeting get out of control.†(Rec. Doc. 169-1 at 2.) References to “Hearing Tr.†refer to transcript excerpts from the Appeal Hearing before former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue and attached as Exhibit 1 to the December 14, 2012 Declaration of Peter R. Ginsberg, submitted herewith.
2 “A court may take judicial notice of related proceedings and records in cases before the same court.†MacMillan Bloedel Ltd. v. Flintkote Co., 760 F.2d 580, 587 (5th Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).
3 References to “Ginsberg Decl.†refer to the December 14, 2012 Declaration of Peter R. Ginsberg, submitted herewith. The Declaration and its attached Exhibits are being filed in hard copy under seal and is being emailed to opposing counsel.
4 The NFL had the opportunity to cross-examine ten of these players during either the July 26, 2012 Hearing in this Court (Rec. Doc. 91), or in individual meetings with Goodell in September 2012 (Rec. Docs. 150-52).
5 See Hearing Tr. at 871:4-8 (“Q. You were fired because you lied to the organization, right? A. In March 2010, I informed Sean Payton that I had lied to him in January, yesâ€). Cerullo’s credibility is further undermined by the rambling and vengeful emails he sent to Saints General Manager Mickey Loomis and the NFL in the fall of 2011. (See Ginsberg Decl. Ex. 4 (“I don’t want MONEY!!!! I want my NFL JOB BACK! I WANT MY NFL LIFE BACK!â€); see also Rec. Doc. 159-1, Ex. B.
6 Moreover, whether a defendant’s statements were published with malice is a question for a jury. See Wilson v. UT Health Center, 973 F.2d 1263 (5th Cir. 1992); Braun v. Flynt, 726 F.2d 245 (5th Cir. 1984); Diplomat Elec., Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Supply Co., 430 F.2d 38 (5th Cir. 1970).
Holy Shit that was TL;DROnly posted because VV claimed it didn't exist.
As long as RWS and/or VV continue to stubbornly go down with the ship, we'll take this bitch to 100.
http://whodatwarriors.com/2012/12/14/dec-14-court-documents/
#Sealed
NFLPA official says Saints fans, Sean Payton got a raw deal in bounty scandal
NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith said Tuesday that after reading mounds of transcripts from the NFL's bounty investigation that it is clear to him that the fans of the New Orleans Saints and their suspended Coach Sean Payton got the "short end of the deal."
NFLPA official says Saints fans, Sean Payton got a raw deal in bounty scandal
Sean Payton can't apply for reinstatement until after Super Bowl, according to ESPN report
New Orleans Saints players admit that bounty penalties impacted the season
Magic is gone in relationship between Roger Goodell, New Orleans Saints
Jonathan Vilma disputes Mike Cerullo's credibility in latest legal filing
In an interview on ESPN's First Take on Tuesday morning, NFL Players Association Executive Director DeMaurice Smith said that after reading mounds of transcripts from the NFL's bounty investigation that it is clear to him that the fans of the New Orleans Saints and their suspended Coach Sean Payton got the "short end of the deal."
While the league didn't come out and totally exonerate Saints players Will Smith and Jonathan Vilma following an appeal hearing with former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, DeMaurice Smith said Tagliabue made the right choice in dropping the penalties against all the players implicated in the pay-for-performance bounty scheme that the league alleged the Saints ran from 2009 to 2011 when Gregg Williams was the coordinator of the Saints defense.
But Smith said the players were only successful in their appeals because of their strong union fought the NFL back, something Payton, who missed the Saints' entire disappointing 7-9 season, couldn't do.
"Sometimes in this business everybody sort of looks at the end," DeMaurice said on First Take. "Very few people today it seems to me have time to look at the process. Here was the process, the process was if you remember, the league started out on a PR campaign where they said that there were dozens of players involved in a scheme to injure players. It turns out that while they talked about dozes of players by the time we got through the process it was a smaller number of players.
"You had people talking about email talking about bounties that the league didn't even rely on when they were held accountable to the process. And as a person who sat there and read every page of the transcript, whether it was from Joe Vitt, Gregg Williams or other people involved in that bounty. What I was shocked by from the process was none of the words that came from their mouth substantiated the league's PR machine.
"So it seems to me, while all of you haven't been privy to the transcripts -- we certainly don't have a problem with those transcripts becoming public -- what I champion and what all of our players champion is we are able to force a process that ultimately resulted in the fact that those players didn't lose their games. Now frankly I will tell you, do I think the fans in New Orleans got the raw end of that deal? Yes they did. Do I know that Sean Payton got the raw end of that deal? Yes he did, because I know from reading each and every page of that transcript that what the National Football League said occurred never occurred."
The players association thinks it was a shitty deal that some players got suspended?(http://www.cameron.k12.wi.us/es/rif/RIF-Logo-blue_large.gif)
Color me shocked.
This thread has already been exhausted.
I know you guys will be happy for this thread to get a bump...Not really. I think that you're the only one that cares about it at this point.
Not really. I think that you're the only one that cares about it at this point.
BTW Armstrong Admitted to Doping yesterday = Saints Cheaters!
GF >>> :poke: <<<Chad :bugs:
You suck at 3rd grade math
(http://www.sportsgeekery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/woodsojn-punch.gif)watch the ten seconds before that happened and you'll see why Woodson got pissed. Maybe your TE needs to learn not to hold/keep knocking the shit out him when the play has ended. Just another instance of the saints cheating. Good grief man does it ever end with this team?
(http://www.sportsgeekery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/woodsojn-punch.gif)#50 should be suspended for his knee into the back of Nick Barnett's thigh.