NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[juraitwaluzka]

(05-10-2012 10:19 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  "This will all blow over in a couple of weeks."

[Falconidae]

(05-10-2012 10:12 PM)juraitwaluzka Wrote:  Whatever evidence the NFL has, regardless of its merit will only be shown when it has to be shown and not a second earlier. So to answer the question "well why hasn't the NFL shown it's evidence"? Because they don't have to. You may not like it but it's as simple as that.


This is completely plausible, no conspiracy required. Sounds to me like something some very high paid NFL lawyers would do.

And something Saints fans should consider is where those statements came from. Assuming the NFL isn't lying, Multiple independent sources can only mean Saints players. They're the only ones who could give first hand knowledge.

That means that there are several saints players, some undoubtedly still playing for the saints, who turned "state's evidence". Might turn out to be a locker room so divided that Brees can't keep them together.

[pauliwood]

(05-10-2012 07:42 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  the truth coming out that it might be Goodell in trouble.

You really have no concept of what the word truth means do you?

[Beef]

(05-10-2012 08:40 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  The NFL can get them off of their backs if they produce one single piece of absolute proof on each player punished. They don't even have to produce it all. Just one tiny piece ... if they have it.

They already showed evidence and proof a bounty existed.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-10-2012 09:01 PM)Beef Wrote:  I love how he's just ignoring my posts. I obviously said something that he doesn't know how to dispute without looking even more delusional.

I'm not ignoring your posts. I am currently working out of a location that has this site blocked. I have far less time than normal.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-10-2012 09:32 PM)Falconidae Wrote:  So, Goodell is engaged in a scheme that he knows can't work?

OK, you know that Vilma can get the documents revealed by going to court, I know that Vilma can get the documents revealed, but Goodell doesn't? If he goes into court without proof, he'll get destroyed and his safety crusade takes a huge hit. For him to try this without proof is guaranteed to fail.

So, for him to do that would mean that you're claiming Goodell is insane and the NFL attorneys are incompetent. Neither is true.

Here's what I think is much more likely. Goodell has 20 statements from players and a couple of coaches that Vilma et al are guilty. He told the PA: " we've got these statements, we won't let you see them to protect the players, ourselves and to keep the public from knowing how extensive the problem was. If you want to see them, sue us, we'll see you in court. Of course, when we present these statements, it'll be obvious you're protecting the ones guilty of bounties over those targeted."

If I'm right, this never gets to court.

No, I think that he honestly thought he had enough evidence and that he, as the judge and jury, would simply be taken at his word. But, I honestly believe that he and his staff are coming to the realization that what little "evidence" they had does little more than point to a pay for performance program to which the Saints have admitted. He felt that the Hargrove declaration, the second hand account claiming Vilma's alleged $10,000 and the Ornstein emails were proof enough that players were participating in a pay to injure scheme.

But, he is beginning to realize he may have jumped the gun. I don't think he is blatantly lying or insane. Cases go to court all the time with minimal circumstantial evidence and end up being thrown out or lost due to discrediting of that evidence. The evidence against the players was reviewed in a vacuum. Mike Silver, the journalist from California that broke the Pamphilon story, says that he has interviewed several people that were interviewed by the league and was told by them that the investigation was very suspect and the investigators consistently ignored any evidence showing the players innocence. Silver also said he interviewed several Saints defensive players and to a man they all denied paying money or collecting money for injuring an opponent.

And what if Goodell's lead investigator, Hummel, told him that he felt there wasn't enough real evidence to go forward with? That could explain why he "resigned" suddenly just as the players received their punishment.

And there is no way he has statements from twenty Saints players. The only Saints player interviewed in the entire process was Hargrove. I am sure that another "source" is the ex-defensive quality assurance coach that was fired after the 2009 season. He claimed that Loomis and Payton had blackballed him from the NFL. He is currently working with the UConn football program.

[AsylumGuido]

Yet another piece of supposedly solid evidence of players involvement in a bounty scheme is being questioned.

NFL, union disagree on prison email


NEW ORLEANS -- An email from an imprisoned friend of the Saints coaching staff with a postscript saying, "put me down for $5,000" on Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers, has become another sore point between players being punished for New Orleans' bounty system and the NFL.

The email, obtained by The Associated Press, was written from prison by marketing agent Mike Ornstein shortly before the Saints' 2011 season opener against the Packers. Ornstein once represented Reggie Bush and later got to know members of the Saints' coaching staff.

The bulk of Ornstein's note to the Saints discusses his experiences in prison and offers sometimes brash words of encouragement to various coaches, including then-Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams. The last line states: "PS Gregg Williams put me down for $5000.00 on Rogers (sic)." Ornstein now says that was written "in total jest."

Ornstein was sentenced to eight months in federal prison, which he served in Florence, Colo., for conspiring to scalp Super Bowl tickets and hawking fake "game-worn" jerseys. He was released last fall.

"It's a running joke going for three years," Ornstein said in a phone interview this week, explaining that he had been kidding Williams about bounties ever since the NFC championship game in 2010, after which the Vikings told the NFL that they believed the Saints had a bounty on quarterback Brett Favre.

When shown Ornstein's note in its entirety, an attorney for suspended Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma echoed his criticism from earlier this week that the NFL is manipulating evidence to strengthen a weak case.

"Ornstein's email is just another example of the speciousness of the quote-unquote evidence that commissioner (Roger) Goodell claims to have to support his erroneous accusations against Jonathan and the other players," lawyer Peter Ginsberg said. "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."

The NFL did not immediately respond Thursday evening to a request for comment.

In a report released March 21, the NFL highlighted Ornstein's line about Rodgers, stating that it came in an email Saints head coach Sean Payton received from "a close associate."

Payton and the other coaches on the staff did not receive the email from Ornstein directly, but from team spokesman Greg Bensel, who forwarded it on Sept. 3 to the coaching staff with the subject line: "email from Orny (he asked that I send it) the dude is in prison so I told him I would."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, this email was sent to the team spokesman. You would think that the man that deals with the media would have had a concern if the PS was nothing more than an ongoing joke, right?

Also, look at Ornstein. He was serving an eight month prison term. Why? It was because he had lost everything in a business deal that had gone wrong. He was seriously in debt and scalped Super Bowl tickets and tried to sell bogus game worn jerseys. The guy didn't have $5000 to his name and was behind bars!

[AsylumGuido]

(05-11-2012 02:39 AM)pauliwood Wrote:  You really have no concept of what the word truth means do you?

Yes I do. Do you?

[AsylumGuido]

(05-10-2012 10:55 PM)Falconidae Wrote:  And something Saints fans should consider is where those statements came from. Assuming the NFL isn't lying, Multiple independent sources can only mean Saints players. They're the only ones who could give first hand knowledge.

That means that there are several saints players, some undoubtedly still playing for the saints, who turned "state's evidence". Might turn out to be a locker room so divided that Brees can't keep them together.

No. It can't be Saints players. The NFL has stated that the only Saints player they have interviewed was Hargrove. They said all other Saints players were directed by the NFLPA to not talk with the league. You can throw that theory out.

The "first hand knowledge" had to come from ex-staff that had been fired. And "multiple sources" is most likely meaning two people.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-10-2012 02:43 PM)Beef Wrote:  Why would you ever need to deny something that doesn't exist?

That's easy. If someone came to you and said you were about to be accused of participating in a bounty scheme that didn't exist what would you do? You would deny it.

Quote:Why would you ever need to play dumb to something that doesn't exist?

If the league was trying to twist the existence of a pay for performance program into looking like a bounty scheme it would be best not to give them any ammo. Play dumb.

Quote:Why would you ever need to stay on the same page of a story if there's only one side of the story?

Any inconsistencies can be misleading. I deal with third parties all the time and as a work group we always "get on the same page", "stay on the same page" or "get our ducks in a row" before meeting with them. That doesn't mean we are lying about anything or hiding anything. It means we just want to be consistent in our replies so that we do not seem unprofessional or untrustworthy.