Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

AsylumGuido · 05-09-2012, 10:17 PM

(05-09-2012 06:31 PM)RockHoward Wrote: I am not a big Ed Werder fan at all, but recently he said on SportsCenter that a Saints source he spoke to said “The leagues findings are exaggerated. In contrast to the leagues contention the Saints bounty program existed for 3 years… It was limited to playoff games in the Superdome against Arizona and Minnesota.”

For the sake of argument let's assume this source was telling the truth and the 'Rogers' (sic) offer sent to Payton was only a joke. In that case it seems to me that Vilma and the other players are lying given the all encompassing nature of their denials.

It may be that Goodell will only have to offer up a tiny bit of evidence to the players during their grievance hearings in order to demonstrate that they are full of it. Of course he will want to do so in a way that doesn't put current players or other informers in jeopardy which is always a concern when dealing with possible retribution from violent sociopaths, but I think that he can manage that.

The upshot? A team full of players wondering about who ratted out whom. Not a pretty picture. Expect a lot more personnel turnover for the Saints defence in the years ahead.

Wait a minute! As you said, even if true, what happened to the claims that it was an organized bounty system covering the three years of 2009-2011? So who is lying? The Saints are being punished for this three year organized plan.

Which is it? Or is it neither since neither has any proof?

You are starting to get the picture, huh? Goodell and the league jumped out making claims that could not be supported for the sole purpose of fighting against the onslaught of lawsuits.

ATLBound · 05-09-2012, 11:28 PM

(05-09-2012 10:17 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Goodell and the league jumped out making claims that could not be supported for the sole purpose of fighting against the onslaught of lawsuits.

Stop saying this as if it's a fact...this is what you hope and not what you know

pauliwood · 05-09-2012, 11:41 PM

(05-09-2012 11:28 PM)ATLBound Wrote: Stop saying this as if it's a fact...this is what you hope and not what you know

lots of things are being stated as fact, never in my life have I seen so much utter speculation masqueraded as fact, its really absurd.

ChrisD · 05-10-2012, 12:41 AM

You know at first this was all entertaining to me. (The arguments being led by Guido, I mean)

Now however, it's just getting annoying. This 'guy' is basically trying to claim that the league is out to get the Saints and that they are being punished for crimes that have NO weight to them. It just get's annoying. Couple that in with the fact that every single thread we have on here gets turned into "that's false, because the saints are better" or "you have no clue what you are talking about, the Saints have improved", it's just getting old. He's acting like a complete troll now, that's all he's doing. In fact, if that's not a troll then I don't know what a troll is!

Come to favorite Atlanta Falcons website. . .

Talk about the New Orleans Saints.

RockHoward · 05-10-2012, 05:53 AM

(05-09-2012 10:17 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Wait a minute! As you said, even if true, what happened to the claims that it was an organized bounty system covering the three years of 2009-2011? So who is lying? The Saints are being punished for this three year organized plan.

Which is it? Or is it neither since neither has any proof?

You are starting to get the picture, huh? Goodell and the league jumped out making claims that could not be supported for the sole purpose of fighting against the onslaught of lawsuits.

OK that concedes my point that the players are lying. Therefore the existence of the bounty program is no longer a mater of conjecture. Now we look at the additional evidence of cover-ups and other statements by the coaches and the timing of those makes it clear that the program was not explicitly curtailed as the NFL requested, but only taken underground as Payton commanded.

In summary the players were directly involved in the program and even raised the stakes during the 2009 playoffs. After that the program was never officially ended but it was made clear to key players that further discussion of it was verbotten. Thereafter the coaches only eluded to the bounties as a prelude to key games and took care not to mention them explicitly. Still the offers were still on the table and payments were still made for big plays even if no one collected any of the injury/cart-off bounties.

Case closed.

AsylumGuido · 05-10-2012, 10:32 AM

Another Mike Florio piece.

Hargrove says NFL “grossly mischaracterized” his words

When the declaration of former Saints defensive end Anthony Hargrove was published on Monday, many in the media (including ESPN) interpreted it to mean that Hargrove had been told to lie by Saints coaches.

Though that may be a fair interpretation of his words, he never said that he was told to lie. And now he’s sounding off about the NFL’s decision to characterize his words as evidence of the existence of a bounty program — and as proof that he lied about it to investigators in 2010.

“I’m disappointed that ‘the Declaration’ was leaked,” Hargrove told ESPN. “The intent of ‘the Declaration’ was to let the NFL know exactly what happened in March of 2010. Call me naive, but I did not expect them to publicize the fact that I had sent them ‘the Declaration.’ But since they did, and because they grossly mischaracterized my words, it obviously became a hot item and subsequently was leaked by someone.

“I do not know who leaked it, but I would have preferred for it to remain private between the NFL and me.”

The NFL first mentioned the Hargrove declaration in the statement announcing the suspensions of four players, explaining that it “established not only the existence of the program with the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it.” The next day, NFL “independent” counsel Mary Jo White said that the “thrust” of the declaration was Hargrove’s acknowledgment of “the nature of the program and his participation in it.”

The land rush for Hargrove’s declaration didn’t begin, however, until we reported that the letter from Commissioner Roger Goodell to Hargrove informing Hargrove of the suspension explained that the declaration was submitted by the NFLPA, not harvested by the NFL. That letter was attached by the NFLPA to one of the grievances filed in connection with the effort to steer the appeal process away from Commissioner Roger Goodell. Once that information became known, it became imperative to learn what the Hargrove declaration did — and didn’t — say.

Unfortunately, Hargrove’s statement to ESPN doesn’t clear up the question of whether it’s fair to infer that he lied when he was interviewed by the NFL in 2010, given that he claims he was told what to say by former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and current Saints assistant head coach/linebackers coach Joe Vitt. On March 8, however, Hargrove issued a statement in which he seemed to deny that his hit on Vikings quarterback Brett Favre in the 2009 NFC title game was motivated by a bounty: “I have made many mistakes in my life and have paid dearly for some of them, and the late hit and the comments were both mistakes, in my opinion. But players all over the league do the same thing every Sunday, make late hits and say stupid things. But I can say with absolute certainty that neither the late hit nor the comment have anything whatsoever to do with the issue being so hotly discussed in the media.”

Moreover, to the extent that Hargrove claims that the declaration was submitted to assist the NFL’s investigation, the fact that it was signed on April 13, 2012 — after the appeals of the discipline imposed on Vitt, coach Sean Payton, G.M. Mickey Loomis, and the Saints were resolved — makes it useless as to the discipline imposed on the non-players.

The truth possibly is that Hargrove and/or the NFLPA believed that the contents of his declaration would serve to exonerate Hargrove for any and all responsibility, since when interviewed by the NFL he was merely doing what he had been told to do. If that was the goal, it to date has backfired, prompting the NFL to conclude — rightly or wrongly — that Hargrove has admitted to the existence of the bounty program and that he lied to NFL Security when questioned about it.

Even if he never said that.

AsylumGuido · 05-10-2012, 10:40 AM

(05-10-2012 05:53 AM)RockHoward Wrote: OK that concedes my point that the players are lying. Therefore the existence of the bounty program is no longer a mater of conjecture. Now we look at the additional evidence of cover-ups and other statements by the coaches and the timing of those makes it clear that the program was not explicitly curtailed as the NFL requested, but only taken underground as Payton commanded.

In summary the players were directly involved in the program and even raised the stakes during the 2009 playoffs. After that the program was never officially ended but it was made clear to key players that further discussion of it was verbotten. Thereafter the coaches only eluded to the bounties as a prelude to key games and took care not to mention them explicitly. Still the offers were still on the table and payments were still made for big plays even if no one collected any of the injury/cart-off bounties.

Case closed.

How does that concede that the players are lying?

The players are being punished for allegedly contributing money for intentional injuries to other players and/or collecting money for intentionally injuring other players. The players are all saying that they they never contributed money for intentional injury nor collected for the same.

Even if accurate, how does this prove that they are lying? It doesn't. Unless real tangible proof is ever produced that directly ties each of these four players to either contributions or collections with the intent on injure their punishments are not valid.

AsylumGuido · 05-10-2012, 02:11 PM

NFL Must Be Transparent About Saints Punishments, or Risk Losing Credibility

No story in the NFL this offseason has been more sordid than the "player bounty" scandal that has engulfed the New Orleans Saints, leading to the suspensions of players and coaches both in New Orleans and elsewhere.

However, questions have arisen regarding the extent of the evidence the league has against some of the parties it punished, and unless the league makes the entirety of its case against them public those questions are only going to become louder.

At least part of the league's evidence became public earlier this week, when the statement that current Green Bay Packers and former Saints defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove submitted to the NFL in regards to his involvement in the scandal was obtained by Yahoo! Sports.

Hargrove, who received an eight-game suspension for his role in "Bountygate," told the league that he was instructed by former New Orleans defensive coordinator Gregg Williams and assistant coach Joe Vitt (who were also both suspended) to "play dumb" when asked by the league about the existence of the bounty program. That assertion was flatly denied by Vitt to The New Orleans Times-Picayune.

"At no time did I ever tell Anthony Hargrove to lie or deny the existence (of the alleged bounty program)," Vitt said. "He can say whatever he wants to say. It just didn't happen."

Also, at no part in Hargrove's statement did he actually admit to knowledge of or participation in a program that offered financial incentives to Saints defenders for injuring opposing players. In fact, Hargrove relayed to ESPN's Kevin Negandhi that he was surprised to see his statement become public and the NFL "grossly mischaracterized" his words.

"I'm disappointed that 'the Declaration' was leaked. The intent of 'the Declaration' was to let the NFL know exactly what happened in March of 2010. Call me naive, but I did not expect them to publicize the fact that I had sent them 'the Declaration.' But since they did, and because they grossly mischaracterized my words, it obviously became a hot item and subsequently was leaked by someone.

Hargrove's indignation aside, the disparity between the league's claims and the vehement denials of most of the suspended parties regarding their involvement in the scandal is precisely why commissioner Roger Goodell should put the NFL's cards on the table.

If there truly is clear and compelling evidence that confirms the existence of the bounty program and implicates these players and coaches, then the NFL should allow this evidence to see the light of day.

This sentiment has been echoed by the accused. Both Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita (who received a three game suspension) and Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma (who was suspended for the entire 2012 season) have demanded to see the evidence against them.

These demands have been met with silence by the NFL to this point, at least according the Times Picayune's account of an interview that Vilma's attorney gave WWL Radio.

"The fact that we haven't received a single piece of evidence from the commissioner not only makes the whole process suspect but made it important that we ask the commissioner as specifically as we possibly could what we think we should be able to see in order to even the playing field and in order to give Jonathan a fair hearing," attorney Peter Ginsberg said. "And I must say that the commissioner still hasn't responded to this most recent request. This is not the first time we have asked them for the evidence."

Ginsberg contends that the NFL is reluctant to produce this "evidence" because it isn't nearly as compelling as Goodell and the league have made it out to be. However, a former U.S. Attorney hired by the NFL to review the evidence prior to the suspensions being handed down concluded that "The factual basis for the sanctions is quite strong."

One way or another, the evidence is almost certainly going to be made public eventually. The NFLPA has vowed to fight the suspensions in court if necessary, and it may well come to that. The appeals of the suspensions that have been filed by the players will be heard by Goodell, so any sort of reversal would appear unlikely.

That makes it all the more prudent for Goodell and the league to reveal the evidence they possess, unless doing so would violate the collective bargaining agreement or create legal entanglements, which doesn't appear to be the case.

This entire ordeal has been a huge black eye for both the Saints and the NFL. At this point, public opinion outside of New Orleans has been mainly in the NFL's favor, as any sort of attempt to intentionally injure players obviously cannot be tolerated.

However, with a messy legal battle looming on the horizon, that could change. The more time that passes without the National Football League revealing what evidence it really does have against the alleged "Bountygate" conspirators, the more that some will question how much this is about punishing wrongdoing versus a witch hunt from the NFL trying to save face in an era where player safety has become a very hot topic.

Goodell would be best served by pulling back the curtain and showing the accused parties, the media and the fans that the suspensions were all about the former and not about the latter. If not, the National Football League may soon find that the scandal in the Big Easy isn't the only public relations mess they have on their hands.

RockHoward · 05-10-2012, 02:32 PM

(05-10-2012 10:40 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote: How does that concede that the players are lying?

The players are being punished for allegedly contributing money for intentional injuries to other players and/or collecting money for intentionally injuring other players. The players are all saying that they they never contributed money for intentional injury nor collected for the same.

Even if accurate, how does this prove that they are lying? It doesn't. Unless real tangible proof is ever produced that directly ties each of these four players to either contributions or collections with the intent on injure their punishments are not valid.

I never said anything about proof. I said that if we used the assumption that Werder's source in the Saints camp was accurate then that contradicts the players contention that bounties and such never happened.

You did not counter this conclusion. Instead you replied that this would also mean that Goodell was lying. At that point I showed how that even though the bounty program was made less visible and care was taken to hide it (as Payton requested and as the Saints source also indicated), the evidence of the audio tape and such strongly suggests that it did not go away entirely thus demonstrating that Goodell statement seems to be supportable.

Now this does not constitute proof, but it is easy to believe that the proof is in Goodell's hands. It also serves as a reminder that a big part of this whole story is how the bounty program was largely hidden after 2009 but not terminated as commanded by the commissioner. That is on the coaches and not the players, but the fact that the players lied to protect the coaches definitely puts them in an uncomfortable position as the efficacy of their statements is clearly compromised.

In a court of law and in the court of public opinion punishment requires publicly available proof, but such is not the case for internal NFL matters. Here privately held evidence is good enough. It is my belief that the players will be made to understand that releasing the evidence to the public would open up the Saints organization inclusing many of the defensive players to criminal prosecution for conspiring to cause injury.

Rex Ryan should take note too AFAIC.

RockHoward · 05-10-2012, 02:37 PM

Thanks for the article admitting that this is a scandal and not an "alleged scandal" as you posted elsewhere.

As for the article's contents, it does not contemplate the possibility that Goodell may be saving the Saints organizations and many individual players from the possibility of criminal prosecution should this evidence become public.

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for!