NFL: Saints Bounty Thread

[AsylumGuido]

(05-15-2012 12:18 AM)pauliwood Wrote:  I demand proof that that email was a joke!
























































































































































.































































.

















































































.



























































.





























See how fucking annoying that is?

Kinda funny.

[Beef]

No really. I want proof that the email was a joke. I want proof that Hargrove's declaration didn't infer he and his coaches involvement in a pay for injury bounty program. I want proof that Vilma didn't offer $10k bounties. I want proof that Goodell and dozens of other people have concocted an evil conspiracy against the Saints. And I want proof supporting the reason for why.

Until you have all of that, you have nothing.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-15-2012 04:30 AM)Beef Wrote:  No really. I want proof that the email was a joke. I want proof that Hargrove's declaration didn't infer he and his coaches involvement in a pay for injury bounty program. I want proof that Vilma didn't offer $10k bounties. I want proof that Goodell and dozens of other people have concocted an evil conspiracy against the Saints. And I want proof supporting the reason for why.

Until you have all of that, you have nothing.

Proof is required to be guilty, not innocent. Just because something is spoken on talk radio doesn't mean it is fact.

[Falconidae]

OK, go away for a weekend and Guido takes my name in vain. I concede one technical point to him while completely denying his premise in the same email and he thinks I agree with him.

I said the NFL hadn't said the Hargrove statement proved his guilt, because the original statement about the player suspensions didn't, he showed me that White did say that and I conceded the point, never agreed with his interpretation of that.

Here's the problems with assuming that there isn't any evidence because it hasn't been made available to the public.

Public doesn't have a right to see it. NFL DOES have a right to protect the players who confessed.

Main problem though, is if there isn't any evidence, all the major players are acting against their self interest:

Goodell, as all the Saints fans so happily point out, if there's no evidence, will have this blow up in his face. I know, and you know that he'll be forced to show the evidence in a court of law. Goodell has to know, as do his lawyers. It's insane, stupid or incompetent to come down this hard on the bountygate participants without evidence. Goodell would be fired and his player safety program would take a huge hit.

White is an independent contractor hired to make sure the NFL has the evidence it needs, if she's wrong, she loses credibilty in a profession where credibility is worth millions of dollars a year.

NFL has taken a huge public relations hit with bountygate, if it's proven they've punished without proof, it's a second major PR hit.

Saints, if the coaches and players were innocent, are taking a huge hit to their season without any legal action at all. If they're innocent, why not file a lawsuit, seek an injunction, demand to see the proof before the penalties go into effect?

Williams,if innocent, why not go to court? Why not try to win the court of public opinion? Why not declare loudly and firmly that you had nothing to do with bounties?

Payton- Same thing, if there's no proof, why lose 6 million and a year of coaching Brees in his prime without a lawsuit?


For there not be to be any proof requires all these people and groups to be acting either insanely or bizarrely indifferent to horrible injustice.

[JDaveG]

(05-15-2012 10:35 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Proof is required to be guilty, not innocent. Just because something is spoken on talk radio doesn't mean it is fact.

No one has been charged with a crime, so you're completely wrong about this.

And there is affirmative proof of a bounty system. You want to accept the explanation of someone you otherwise say is unreliable and untrustworthy to refute that proof. That's called special pleading.

[Beef]

(05-15-2012 10:35 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Proof is required to be guilty, not innocent. Just because something is spoken on talk radio doesn't mean it is fact.

There was more than one question there. So your attempt to avoid the post is lame.

They have been found guilty of breaking league rules already (which specifically includes pay for injury bounties). They are not innocent according to those who have the evidence to say-so. You are significantly less informed than those who have investigated this issue and dealt out punishment.

Therefore at this time, your only recourse is to PROVE they are not guilty.

[Radical]

(05-15-2012 10:35 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Proof is required to be guilty, not innocent.

I don't think you know how this works in regards to the e-mail. He made a statement that is being taken at face value. Until you provide proof that it was something other than what it is, it shouldn't be taken as a joke. You're asking us to prove a negative, which doesn't fly in the real world or court of law.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-15-2012 12:12 PM)Beef Wrote:  There was more than one question there. So your attempt to avoid the post is lame.

They have been found guilty of breaking league rules already (which specifically includes pay for injury bounties). They are not innocent according to those who have the evidence to say-so. You are significantly less informed than those who have investigated this issue and dealt out punishment.

Therefore at this time, your only recourse is to PROVE they are not guilty.

Not my recourse at all. Depending upon the result of the first grievance hearing tomorrow the Goodell may have to prove that his suspensions are warranted to an arbitrator. Proof of guilt is still in play.

[AsylumGuido]

(05-15-2012 03:10 PM)Radical Wrote:  I don't think you know how this works in regards to the e-mail. He made a statement that is being taken at face value. Until you provide proof that it was something other than what it is, it shouldn't be taken as a joke. You're asking us to prove a negative, which doesn't fly in the real world or court of law.

If it goes to the arbitrator for appeal instead of Goodell he'll have to prove it wasn't just a joke. The first grievance hearing is tomorrow.

[pauliwood]

(05-15-2012 03:31 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  If it goes to the arbitrator for appeal instead of Goodell he'll have to prove it wasn't just a joke. The first grievance hearing is tomorrow.