Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

ATLBound · 05-16-2012, 04:13 PM

(05-16-2012 04:04 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Duncan's source in his article from two months ago did say that Payton said it was a joke. Apparently the NFL didn't believe him at the time.

Wow dude...whats going on with the reading comprehension? If the NFL misrepresented your words, then wouldnt you defend yourself? What we are saying is there is no statement fron Payton advising that his words were misrepresented

Beef · 05-16-2012, 04:29 PM

(05-16-2012 04:04 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Duncan's source in his article from two months ago did say that Payton said it was a joke. Apparently the NFL didn't believe him at the time.

Because it's clearly someone who represents Payton and is therefore biased and has a reason to lie.

Why don't you get that?

AsylumGuido · 05-16-2012, 05:06 PM

Here is another article from SI back in March. Note these two quotes.

Quote:The NFL said it examined 18,000 documents totaling some 50,000 pages. One of those was an e-mail from a former team consultant, Mike Ornstein, to Payton, allegedly pledging $5,000 toward a bounty on an opposing quarterback. A source said Ornstein—at one time a close confidant of Payton's who in October 2010 would plead guilty to federal fraud and money-laundering charges in connection with the scalping of Super Bowl tickets and the sale of bogus game-worn NFL jerseys—claimed he was kidding about the pledge, but the league took it seriously.

This was two months ago. Almost two full months prior to the AP getting hold of the email. Ornstein's story has been consistent all along.

And this from the same story:

Quote:The new investigation concluded that Loomis "took no effective action to ensure that these practices ceased" and that Payton knew about the bounty program, though he wasn't in the meetings where bounties were discussed. Last Thursday, Loomis and Payton flew to New York to meet individually with Joe Hummel, the NFL's director of investigations, and Jeff Miller, its lead security officer. Faced with the weight of evidence, one league source said, Loomis admitted he could have done more and that he "let Mr. Benson down."

According to the source, Payton refused to admit he knew much of what Williams was doing. Confronted with the e-mail from Ornstein, Payton expressed surprise and said he hadn't read the e-mail.

Note that this is not from the Times_picayune but from Sports Illustrated.

AsylumGuido · (This post was last modified: 05-16-2012 05:13 PM by AsylumGuido.)

(05-16-2012 04:29 PM)Beef Wrote: Because it's clearly someone who represents Payton and is therefore biased and has a reason to lie.

Why don't you get that?

Just as you claim Mary Jo White represents the NFL and is not biased and would have no reason to lie?

Don't you get that?

Now why would Payton's lawyer (guessing the source) come out of the meeting with the league and lie about what Payton was asked and what he said? That makes no sense. Using your argument wouldn't that ruin his reputation and that of his firm?

Face it, the bounty mentioned in the email has been claimed to have been a joke all along. Everything points to that. It also points to the fact that the NFL ignored the possibility and decided to treat it as a literal statement of fact.

Could this be why the head investigator, Hummel, resigned?

ATLBound · 05-16-2012, 05:23 PM

(05-16-2012 05:12 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Just as you claim Mary Jo White represents the NFL and is not biased and would have no reason to lie?

Don't you get that?

Now why would Payton's lawyer (guessing the source) come out of the meeting with the league and lie about what Payton was asked and what he said? That makes no sense. Using your argument wouldn't that ruin his reputation and that of his firm?

Face it, the bounty mentioned in the email has been claimed to have been a joke all along. Everything points to that. It also points to the fact that the NFL ignored the possibility and decided to treat it as a literal statement of fact.

Could this be why the head investigator, Hummel, resigned?

I think there is still a problem with reading comprehension.

The difference between Mary Jo White and Payton's lawyer is that...read carefully from here....

Payton's lawyer is PAID TO REPRESENT PAYTON

Mary Jo White is PAID TO CONSULT THE NFL. She does not represent the NFL. So when she puts a statwment out it is on her behalf and her employer.

When Payton's lawyer puts his statement out it is to represent his client Payton and since his paid by Payton to represent him, then it is his job to defend him at all costs.

Mary Jo white is not the NFL's lawyer. It has been said thay the NFL has called on Mary Jo white in other cases so for her future it is more beneficial for her to tell the absolute truth as a consultant because if the NFL depends on her to provide them with the right feedback in regards to this case and as a result there is a negative impact then the NFL will be reluctant to use her the next time.

Read it 7 times if you have so that you may get the picture. This is not to say that Payton's lawyers are lieing but it is to show that Mary would have NO benefit from lieing. Please tell me you ubderstand this. It's very simple.

ATLBound · 05-16-2012, 05:27 PM

It's still a source and not a direct quote from Payton

AsylumGuido · (This post was last modified: 05-16-2012 05:37 PM by AsylumGuido.)

(05-16-2012 05:23 PM)ATLBound Wrote: I think there is still a problem with reading comprehension.

The difference between Mary Jo White and Payton's lawyer is that...read carefully from here....

Payton's lawyer is PAID TO REPRESENT PAYTON

Mary Jo White is PAID TO CONSULT THE NFL. She does not represent the NFL. So when she puts a statwment out it is on her behalf and her employer.

When Payton's lawyer puts his statement out it is to represent his client Payton and since his paid by Payton to represent him, then it is his job to defend him at all costs.

Mary Jo white is not the NFL's lawyer. It has been said thay the NFL has called on Mary Jo white in other cases so for her future it is more beneficial for her to tell the absolute truth as a consultant because if the NFL depends on her to provide them with the right feedback in regards to this case and as a result there is a negative impact then the NFL will be reluctant to use her the next time.

Read it 7 times if you have so that you may get the picture. This is not to say that Payton's lawyers are lieing but it is to show that Mary would have NO benefit from lieing. Please tell me you ubderstand this. It's very simple.

We agree on this, then. I don't believe that White lied. You can tell the truth without telling the whole truth. I only brought up White as an example of why no lawyer would blatantly lie like Beef is claiming Payton's lawyer is lying.

Do you not agree that it is most probable that Payton did indeed say he had never read that email before in the interview?

Do you also not agree that he probably also said that the bounty referenced what was an ongoing joke?

I'm asking this of you, ATLBound, because I know Beef would refuse to be open minded enough to agree.

AsylumGuido · 05-16-2012, 05:35 PM

(05-16-2012 05:27 PM)ATLBound Wrote: It's still a source and not a direct quote from Payton

Right, but it is a first person account of what was said to the reporters of these articles and most reporters like Jeff Duncan and Peter King do not quote sources unless they believe it as fact.

RFlagg · 05-16-2012, 05:43 PM

Guido, I used to respect you as a poster here. When you first started here, you made well thought out posts that, while slightly skewed to a Saints perspective, nevertheless were valid and concise. Starting in the middle of the 2011of season, however, your posts began to degrade and homerism started to shine through. This offseason, with this bounty scandal, your posts have become at best delusional, at worst those of a troll. I've seen posts similar to yours before, and I typically refer to these types of posts as blog spam.

Since I joined this board, I only blocked 1 member, swift. Your posts have reached the point I can't stand to see them anymore. Topic after topic is steered away from the Falcons and to the Saints. Its ridiculous. In all earnest, I hope you can get your act straightened out, as the old Guido was kinda fun to have around. However, until then, I've got to block your posts. I can't stand the delusions anymore.

Falconidae · 05-16-2012, 05:47 PM

(05-16-2012 04:04 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Duncan's source in his article from two months ago did say that Payton said it was a joke. Apparently the NFL didn't believe him at the time.

It was Ornstein that claimed it was a joke.
That's not the point.
Two things:

Payton has not been directly quoted anywhere refuting the NFL's interpretation of the email.

And it doesn't matter what the NFL thought of the email, if Payton said it was a joke and they reported that Payton said it was evidence of a bounty system, they're lying through their teeth and Payton should be shouting from the rooftops that the NFL lied.

He's not done that, the only logical interpretation is that Payton said the email showed evidence of a bounty system.