NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[Beef]

(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.

Again, the PROOF that a bounty program existed is the "declaration" that Hargrove made.

You refusing to acknowledge it as proof is you simply choosing to ignore what Hargrove making it actually means. It's true inferences.

Just stop for a second and use some real HONEST logic. There is NO RATIONAL REASON to make that declaration if there wasn't a bounty program. It's that simple.

Think about it. I mean really really think about it. If there really were no bounty program, then there's NO reason to even say someone directed you to "deny" it's existance, "play dumb", and "stay on the same page".

Why would you ever need to deny something that doesn't exist?
Why would you ever need to play dumb to something that doesn't exist?
Why would you ever need to stay on the same page of a story if there's only one side of the story?

Answer to all 3: You wouldn't. You never would. It's irrational. It's illogical. It's overwhelmingly futile.

So the ONLY ONLY ONLY rational, reasonable, and logical explaination is that there WAS something to deny. There WAS something to play dumb about and cover-up. And there WAS 2 sides to the story ("lie" vs. "truth").

If you're not smart enough to properly see the true logic here, then stop freaking commenting on the subject. If you're not smart enough to understand how irrational and useless it is to make this declaration if there really isn't a bounty program "cover-up", then stop freaking commenting on the subject.

But I think you are smart enough to see it, you're just choosing not to. So just stop it. I'm tired of seeing you ignore what this declaration REALLY does and how it's existence is futile and irrational if a bounty program didn't really exist.

[Beef]

And by the way, Vitt denying that he ever told Hargrove or anyone to "deny" or "play dumb", doesn't change anything.

Even if Hargrove actually lied about Williams and Vitt directing him, it's still completely irrational and futile to infer a cover-up existed for something that didn't really exist. You can't try to pass blame on to someone else for something that didn't exist.

That would make no sense at all. There HAD to be a bounty program for him to attempt to pass some sort of blame to someone else.

[TeamPlayer1]

Guido is the Energizer Bunny who just keeps beating his drum!

[Falconidae]

Hey Guido, Will you answer me a question? When the NFL suspended Vilma, they said they had "multiple independent sources" proving that Vilma, as the captain of the D, funded a bounty program run by Williams by offering 10 K for anybody who took out Favre and 10K for Warner as well.

Is the NFL lying? If so why?

[pauliwood]

(05-10-2012 05:36 PM)Falconidae Wrote:  Is the NFL lying? If so why?

Because It's an evil conspiracy to destroy the Saints,

It won't work though because the Saints are a lock to be the first team to win a Superbowl at home.

Pretty sure that sums it up for ya.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-10-2012 05:36 PM)Falconidae Wrote:  Hey Guido, Will you answer me a question? When the NFL suspended Vilma, they said they had "multiple independent sources" proving that Vilma, as the captain of the D, funded a bounty program run by Williams by offering 10 K for anybody who took out Favre and 10K for Warner as well.

Is the NFL lying? If so why?

That's what I want to know. That's what Vilma wants to know. That's what his lawyer wants to know. It seems to me that if Vilma isn't concerned with all of the truth coming out that it might be Goodell in trouble. What if one or more of his sources recanted?

If they have that proof, share it. I honestly believe that they do not have that proof and this is going to get uglier for the league.

[phocis850]

You can not demand private documents.

Doesn't make the holder of the documents guilty.

You are caught up in the hype that the longer the documents are sealed the more guilty goodell looks.

You will learn the hard way when you hear a large "I told you so" from all if us.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-10-2012 06:42 PM)pauliwood Wrote:  Because It's an evil conspiracy to destroy the Saints,

It won't work though because the Saints are a lock to be the first team to win a Superbowl at home.

Pretty sure that sums it up for ya.

Nope. I think it was a preemptive strike to get out ahead of the concussion lawsuits and he thought he had enough evidence with what he shared with the press. Now I think it is coming back to bite him.

[AsylumGuido]

Accused players, NFL disagree on context of email, whether it is evidence of a bounty system

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, May 10, 6:08 PM

NEW ORLEANS — An email mentioning a $5,000 pledge toward an implied bounty on Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers has become another point of contention between accused players and the way the NFL has portrayed evidence in its investigation of the New Orleans Saints.

The email, obtained by The Associated Press, was written from prison by marketing agent Mike Ornstein, who once represented Reggie Bush.

The last line of the email to the Saints states: “PS Gregg Williams put me down for $5000.00 on Rogers (sic),” which Ornstein says was written “in total jest.”

Peter Ginsberg, attorney for suspended linebacker Jonathan Vilma says the email is “another example of the speciousness of the quote-unquote evidence that Commissioner (Roger) Goodell claims to have.”

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

[ATLBound]

(05-10-2012 07:53 PM)phocis850 Wrote:  You can not demand private documents.

Doesn't make the holder of the documents guilty.

You are caught up in the hype that the longer the documents are sealed the more guilty goodell looks.

You will learn the hard way when you hear a large "I told you so" from all if us.

I keep telling him the evidence is not owed to him or myself. When Spygate came out they destroyed the evidence.

Vilma will most likely see it. John Clayton said that it will most likely take a month. It's just a part of the process.