NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[AsylumGuido]

(10-19-2012 10:50 AM)ATLBound Wrote:  What does this have to do with the Saints? Lol

It is exactly what the Saints are accused of doing and the same league spokesman, Greg Aiello, said there was nothing wrong with it. In fact, there are actually no rules at all on the books saying it is illegal. This has just been submitted to the court by the NFLPA.

Yup. It has everything to do with the Saints.

[JDaveG]

(10-19-2012 10:50 AM)ATLBound Wrote:  What does this have to do with the Saints? Lol

It's what I like to call a roadmap. Or a blueprint.

[AsylumGuido]

And another good one.


Vilma says NFL won’t produce Williams or Cerullo at appeal hearing | ProFootballTalk

As the legal briefs continue to fly in to federal court in Louisiana, careful inspection of the documents reveals all sorts of interesting things.

Here’s the latest, and it’s a doozy.

Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma contends in an October 18 filing that the NFL has refused to produce former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams or former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo for testimony at the October 23 appeal hearing before Commissioner Roger Goodell.

The league likewise refused to produce either witness during the first appeal hearing in June. That time, however, the NFL wasn’t hinging so much of its case against Vilma on sworn statements from Williams and Cerullo. (Indeed, in June, the NFL staunchly was refusing to even disclose Cerullo as a witness.)

This time, there’s no way Vilma can get a fair hearing without a chance to question the two men on whose word the NFL is heavily relying in suspending Vilma. Their sworn statements give rise to plenty of questions that need to be asked, including topics such as whether and to what extent Williams’ ability to return to the NFL (or to attend games while supposedly “banned” from pro football) hinged on signing the sworn statement, whether Williams or someone else wrote the statement, whether Williams if he didn’t write the statement fully agrees with every word of it, whether the money that Vilma allegedly offered belonged to Vilma or someone else (rumors persist in league circles that it may have been Williams money).

As to Cerullo, there are real questions about his alleged desire to take revenge against the Saints for firing him after the 2009 season. There’s no way to assess his potential bias without asking him questions about the circumstances surrounding his termination — and whether he said things at the time like, for example, “I’ll get Joe Vitt for this,” or words to that effect.

As to both men, their respective statements contain a rather significant discrepancy. Cerullo says the money offered by Vilma was given to Williams. Williams says he never received it. How can the league accept the word of both men as the Gospel truth when there’s such a strong discrepancy on such a key point?

For Vilma to not receive a chance to question Williams and Cerullo makes a mockery of the process. The NFL surely will seek refuge in the “it’s not a court proceeding” mantra. But the league can’t have it both ways. Using sworn statements makes it enough like a court proceeding to compel the witnesses to answer questions under oath. It’s simply unfair to base suspensions on written testimony without giving the person whose livelihood and reputation is affected adversely by the outcome to ask questions of the persons who signed their names to the documents.

Thus, Judge Helen Berrigan should give the NFL a choice: Make the witnesses available, or rescind the suspension of Vilma.

In a case that has been at times maddeningly complicated, this is by far the simplest aspect of it. Without a chance to confront and question Williams and Cerullo, Vilma can’t fairly be punished.

[JDaveG]

(10-19-2012 10:57 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  It is exactly what the Saints are accused of doing and the same league spokesman, Greg Aiello, said there was nothing wrong with it. In fact, there are actually no rules at all on the books saying it is illegal. This has just been submitted to the court by the NFLPA.

Yup. It has everything to do with the Saints.

Here's the important part:

(10-19-2012 10:41 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  January 13, 1996

This is like complaining about a winning TD pass not being flagged, and posting an article from 1902 that demonstrates clearly that the forward pass is illegal.

And then you follow up by quoting another Florio article. I'm seeing a pattern here.

[AsylumGuido]

(10-19-2012 11:02 AM)JDaveG Wrote:  It's what I like to call a roadmap. Or a blueprint.

No, it is a practice that the league had publicly stated was accepted and well within the rules. It's what I like to call precedent. Or a legal thorn in Goodell's side.

[JDaveG]

(10-19-2012 11:06 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  No, it is a practice that the league had publicly stated was accepted and well within the rules. It's what I like to call precedent. Or a legal thorn in Goodell's side.

I can cite you legal precedent that separate but equal is the law of the land, and that slaves are not considered people, and that abortion is illegal.

The question is whether it is CURRENT precedent.

[AsylumGuido]

(10-19-2012 11:06 AM)JDaveG Wrote:  Here's the important part:


This is like complaining about a winning TD pass not being flagged, and posting an article from 1902 that demonstrates clearly that the forward pass is illegal.

Except for the fact there is still nothing on the books that states it is against the rules. And even if it was it could not be addressed by suspensions, only fines. It is hard to label something as "conduct detrimental" when the league has already given the practice its stamp of approval.

[AsylumGuido]

(10-19-2012 11:09 AM)JDaveG Wrote:  I can cite you legal precedent that separate but equal is the law of the land, and that slaves are not considered people, and that abortion is illegal.

The question is whether it is CURRENT precedent.

And THAT is yet another question for the court.

[papachaz]

(10-19-2012 11:09 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Except for the fact there is still nothing on the books that states it is against the rules. And even if it was it could not be addressed by suspensions, only fines. It is hard to label something as "conduct detrimental" when the league has already given the practice its stamp of approval.

clothes lines, chop blocks, horse collars, head slaps.....know what those all have in common? they were legal at one time. might even have been legal in '96. why do they throw a flag for a horse collar, or a head slap if the league once gave it a stamp of approval?

that argument is gonna get tossed so quick it won't even be funny.

Also, I'm not a lawyer, so I really don't know this. it's why I'm asking. Is it up to the NFL to produce their witnesses in court? Am I missing something, why is Vilma whining now that the NFL is not 'producing' Williams? can't they subpoena him and require him to be at court? or was he talking about the NFL appeal.....

[AUTiger7222]

(10-19-2012 10:57 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  It is exactly what the Saints are accused of doing and the same league spokesman, Greg Aiello, said there was nothing wrong with it. In fact, there are actually no rules at all on the books saying it is illegal. This has just been submitted to the court by the NFLPA.

Yup. It has everything to do with the Saints.

So having a difference commission means absolutely nothing huh?