NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[Beef]

(05-12-2012 04:41 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  I don't care about any of that. The issue on the table right now is player punishment and the document gives absolutely no proof, as Goodell and White claimed, that players engaged in donating and collecting money directly related to injury. It also did not state that Hargrove admitted to participating himself.

That is the issue. You are dwelling on something totally different.

But, to answer your questions, let's say Williams and Vitt knew that Hargrove was being called in for questioning. They knew it was going to be about claims that the Saints were engaging in a bounty program. They knew they weren't, but they were engaging in a pay for performance program that is against the rules.

Now, it can be interpreted that monies paid for picks or sacks could loosely be called bounties. They were concerned that even in telling the truth Hargrove may make some statement that could be taken in the wrong light. Lawyer commonly coach a witness telling them exactly what to say. They aren't telling them to lie, but to tell the truth in the most efficient way.

Could Williams and Vitt not have been trying to run a little damage control trying to keep a pay for performance program as being interpreted as something quite worse? It even makes more sense with Williams claiming those ******** at the league have been out to get him for years.

It sounds to me like it is very plausible that they were just "getting their ducks in a row" or all "getting on the same page" so they wouldn't say something that could be taken out of context.

Unfortunately, that appears to have happened anyway with the email, for sure, and also with the declaration.

Of course you conveniently "don't care about any of that", because it DOES prove a bounty program existed and players such as Hargove and coaches were involved in it. You don't get to dismiss this like it doesn't matter simply because you see now that it's indefensible logic that proves you're wrong.

You keep saying it doesn't prove anything, but you don't follow it up with any rational logic that can answer every question.

No, it is NOT plausible that this was simply getting on the same page about pay for performance. If it were supposed to be about pay for performance and not bounties, Vitt wouldn't be claiming that Hargove is lying about the entire declaration.

And more than that, Hargove got suspended for participating in "pay for injury bounties", not "pay for performance rewards". Why would Hargove try to pass blame in an attempt to lessen his punishment with a declaration that has nothing to do with what he was punished for?

NFL: We're suspending you for your participation in pay for injury bounties.
Hargrove: But Williams and Vitt told me to deny, play dumb, and stay on the same page about pay for performance rewards!
NFL: So? What's that got to do with why we're suspending you?

You see, the declaration's existence ONLY makes sense if it's about injury bounties, lying, and a cover-up.