Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

AsylumGuido · 06-03-2012, 07:42 PM

(06-03-2012 05:03 PM)Beef Wrote: Bullshit. You've only just now started narrowing this down to some story about the exact words of Goodell. Only since the ledger story broke have you begun this nonsense that Goodell punished the 4 players, 3 coaches, and 1 GM only for paying to injury only Farve, Warner, Rodgers, and Newton. Your weeks of prior arguments have been focused on a pay for injury bounty program not existing at all. Even after Hargrove's declaration and his being told to play dumb shot that notion down, you continued misrepresenting it's context and true logical inferences and meaning. And now, in the face of "cart-offs" and absolutely no way to realistically spin it's meaning (even though you're trying real hard to), you've suddenly changed your entire argument to some narrow version of it that's actually very different from your original.

You've lost dude. You have nothing anymore. You've been wrong at every spin attempt and now you've gone so far off the deep end of what's rational, you just look silly.

Give it up. You're burnt toast.

No. My original has always been that there was no bounty program that was in place to intentionally take out opposing players for money.

That has yet to be proved though any of the shady claims of evidence released to date.

AsylumGuido · 06-03-2012, 07:58 PM

(06-03-2012 05:47 PM)ATLBound Wrote: I agree.

At first it was this will blow over in a few weeks

Then, it was all Gregg Williams fault

Then, it was only pay for performance

Then, it was Mary Jo White lieing

Then, it was context of the Hargrove declaration

Now, there is the context of goodell's punishment and what exactly is the meaning of a cart-off ---- You sound like Bill Clinton here

Everytime new evidence comes out you refute it and slightly change your tune to a difference defense. If you don't realize that, then it really is no use.

I might have missed a few of your defenses there, but you get the picture....hopefully

First, I am glad it didn't blow over in a couple of weeks.

Next, this whole thing was Gregg William's fault. He was the one that carried the coach speak to the locker room. He is the one that organized these pay for performance deals elsewhere everywhere he had been.

And yes, to date, it has only been proved to be pay for performance. Not a dedicated bounty program as claimed.

And Mary Jo White did misrepresent, as she was paid to do, the flimsy evidence gathered.

And Hargrove's "declaration" has been shot down many times over as anything of substance.

And, no, it isn't the definition of a cartoff that is in question. It is he definition of a bounty which Goodell stated was far, far beyond that of an incidental cartoff. He stated, on RECORD, that the Saints players were engaged in an organized plan to target and injure specific players for reward of money and said player also donated funds for that same activity.

To date there has been no evidence of a targeting of opposing players for pay.

That is what the whole thing is about. Don't you get it?

Beef · 06-03-2012, 08:08 PM

(06-03-2012 07:42 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: No. My original has always been that there was no bounty program that was in place to intentionally take out opposing players for money.

That has yet to be proved though any of the shady claims of evidence released to date.

And yet the ledger DOES show exactly that. Money rewarded for cart-offs (injured players).

You're just trolling us at this point. Nothing you say has any ounce of truth or rational substance.

***phocis850*** · 06-03-2012, 11:02 PM

(06-03-2012 07:42 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: No. My original has always been that there was no bounty program that was in place to intentionally take out opposing players for money.

That has yet to be proved though any of the shady claims of evidence released to date.

Your problem is believing that this "evidence" was leaked on purpose. I mean seriously? Goodell gonna give Yahoo a scrap of evidence? LOL. That is the comedy right there.

LOL, Goodell giving Yahoo some evidence, LOL.

ATLBound · (This post was last modified: 06-04-2012 12:36 AM by ATLBound.)

(06-03-2012 07:58 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: To date there has been no evidence of a targeting of opposing players for pay.

That is what the whole thing is about. Don't you get it?

It's funny that you keep going to the "targeting opposing players" line. Here's a nice little paragraph for you and ocne again you have YET to answer the questions I asked earlier. So let's try this again:

Yahoo first reported that the NFL has the ledger, which describes $1,000 payments for ''cart-offs,'' or hits which left opponents needing help to the sideline. It noted $400 payments for ''whacks,'' or hard hits, and $100 deductions for mental errors.

Now I ask AGAIN

What is a cart-off?

What is a "hit which left opponents needing help to the sideline?"

What is a $1000?

What does it mean when the ledger advises that they were intending to pay $1000 for cart-offs or a hit which left opponents needing help to the sideline?"

From my understanding it shows EVIDENCE of a pay to injure program. It doesn't matter if the hit was legal. It doesn't matter if it never happens. It doesn't matter if a particular player on that team wasn't targeted. THIS EVIDENCE COMPLETELY SHOWS A PAY TO INJURE PROGRAM. We're not discussing the targets for specific players. That evidence has yet to come out. We are talking about this ledger and how it proves a pay for injure program. Whether you choose to believe the evidence is another story and your own personal right, but this is evidence that people were asking for.

I await your response although I know now that you will not answer questions that you can't spin.

What you're mistaken is that this whole thing is only about targeting specific players. NOOOOOO. It's about a program that consists of pay for performance AND pay for injure. Period. Now don't you get it? Rolleyes

ATLBound · 06-04-2012, 12:51 AM

BTW: This post is by no means a reason to ignoring the preceding post of mine. I would still like for you to answer the questions.

To help you out because you seem to think it is only related to targeting specific players. Here goes a lovely statement by no other than Goodell himself.

“In assessing player discipline,” Commissioner Goodell said, “I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that POTENTIALLY injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation.” Each of the four players disciplined today met one or more of those criteria, Commissioner Goodell said.

It doesn't mention specific players. Like I said the specific players comes from just other evidence that the NFL has. It is not the means of the suspension, but it just may have been the reason behind others getting an extended suspension.

Further evidence has yet to come out but it's coming. I do recall you saying that Goodell had NO MORE EVIDENCE, but now this comes out. It's more Guido...I don't think you understand how much worst it's gonna get. Because right now not all of the players/coaches are against the Saints but when more evidence is brought up and people really see how deep this thing is, then it's gonna be a shitstorm.

Falconidae · 06-04-2012, 09:06 AM

The ledger's validity is called into question because it fails to correspond to either game stated as being the game it pertained to. Who is to say that it wasn't just filled out by someone with an ax to grind with the Saints. Perhaps the assistant coach fired by the Saints following the 2010 Super Bowl win? Some feel he is one of the two or more "multiple unnamed sources". The supposed ledger was allegedly kept by an assistant coach on the defensive staff according to the Yahoo story. What if this coach faked a ledger to pay back the Saints?

Right, let me give you an analogy- I take a lump of raw gold in to determine its purity, the man doing the tests screws up one and tells me the gold 98% pure gold instead of 99% pure gold, he indeed made a mistake, and guess what, it's still gold.
It's still a ledger, having a couple of dates misreported by a second hand source hardly qualifies as surprising or a reason to negate the whole thing.

That is what caused the huge backlash. Many players, current and former, have come out saying they have participated in pay for performance programs including things like hard hits and bell ringers, but what they chastised the Saints about were the claims of targeted premeditated attempts to injure specific players for payment.

Here's the actual language from the leagues statement when the suspended the coaches
& Loomis... targeting opposing players or rewarding players for injuring an opponent...
and this

9. A summary prepared following a Saints preseason game included the statement, "1 Cart-off – Crank up the John Deer (sic) Tractor" in reference to a hit on an opposing player. Similar statements are reflected in prepared documents or slides in connection with other games in multiple seasons. A review of the game films confirms that opposing players were injured on the plays identified in the documents.

Note that it says targeting opposing players OR payment for injury

As I said, the supposed ledger proves nothing first, unless proved valid. And then, if proved valid, proves nothing more than a pay for performance program that has never been denied.

Yeah, good bet that book exists, and it shows payments made to player when they injured someone. That's much more than pay for performance.

It also reinforces my point that the major player on both sides must be insane or stupid if they evidence doesn't exist.

If the NFL doesn't have a ledger proving payments for injury, it's just crazy to claim they do, they'll look like fools when it's presented; if the Saints had a ledger proving they just had a pay for performance and still apologized for a bounty system, they're just stupid.

ChrisD · 06-04-2012, 09:34 AM

I've been reading this thread, just sitting and reading. And it's quite comical.

We've got everyone telling Guido the facts, what we know, and the REAL text of Rodger Goodell's comments. Then Guido keeps coming back with the same exact defense in every post. Really, this thread is going no where. I'm really not sure what the point in the thread is. It's just a big circle-jerk.

mdrake34 · 06-04-2012, 10:54 AM

Saints dealt another blow. I'm sure somebody here thinks this is a BS result, and it will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court where the truth will be known and justice will prevail.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/800667...ounty-plea
NEW YORK -- An arbitrator ruled Monday that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has the authority to discipline New Orleans Saints players for their role in a bounty system.

The NFL Players Association challenged Goodell's power to impose penalties for what the league says was a three-year bounty program that targeted specific players. Stephen Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, took only five days to determine that Goodell has the power to punish the players under the collective bargaining agreement reached last August to end the lockout.

Saints Bounty Scandal

An NFL investigation found that the New Orleans Saints operated a bounty system rewarding between 22 and 27 players for hard hits and injuring opposing players. ESPN.com Topics brings you full coverage of this developing story. Profile »

Goodell suspended Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma for the entire 2012 season and teammate Will Smith for four games. Former Saints defensive end Anthony Hargrove, now with Green Bay, was suspended for eight games, while linebacker Scott Fujita, now with Cleveland, was docked three games.

Those players have appealed the suspensions. And the players' union said Monday it expects to appeal Burbank's decision because it believes salary cap violations are involved in the payment. That would give Burbank the authority to rule on penalizing any players involved.

Burbank did, however, retain temporary jurisdiction on Hargrove's role and asked Goodell for more information on Hargrove's "alleged participation."

Burbank "invited the commissioner to clarify the precise basis for his discipline of Mr. Hargrove who, among other things, was found to have lied to the league's investigators and obstructed their investigation," the NFL said in a statement.

The union filed another grievance with a different arbitrator, Shyam Das, claiming the new CBA prohibits Goodell from punishing players for any conduct before the CBA was signed. The league's investigation showed the bounty program ran from 2009-11.

Das has yet to rule on that grievance, which also seeks to have player appeals heard by Art Shell and Ted Cottrell, who are jointly appointed by the league and union to review discipline handed out for on-field conduct.

JDaveG · 06-04-2012, 12:53 PM

(06-04-2012 10:54 AM)mdrake34 Wrote: Saints dealt another blow. I'm sure somebody here thinks this is a BS result, and it will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court where the truth will be known and justice will prevail.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/800667...ounty-plea
NEW YORK -- An arbitrator ruled Monday that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has the authority to discipline New Orleans Saints players for their role in a bounty system.

The NFL Players Association challenged Goodell's power to impose penalties for what the league says was a three-year bounty program that targeted specific players. Stephen Burbank, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, took only five days to determine that Goodell has the power to punish the players under the collective bargaining agreement reached last August to end the lockout.

Saints Bounty Scandal

An NFL investigation found that the New Orleans Saints operated a bounty system rewarding between 22 and 27 players for hard hits and injuring opposing players. ESPN.com Topics brings you full coverage of this developing story. Profile »

Goodell suspended Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma for the entire 2012 season and teammate Will Smith for four games. Former Saints defensive end Anthony Hargrove, now with Green Bay, was suspended for eight games, while linebacker Scott Fujita, now with Cleveland, was docked three games.

Those players have appealed the suspensions. And the players' union said Monday it expects to appeal Burbank's decision because it believes salary cap violations are involved in the payment. That would give Burbank the authority to rule on penalizing any players involved.

Burbank did, however, retain temporary jurisdiction on Hargrove's role and asked Goodell for more information on Hargrove's "alleged participation."

Burbank "invited the commissioner to clarify the precise basis for his discipline of Mr. Hargrove who, among other things, was found to have lied to the league's investigators and obstructed their investigation," the NFL said in a statement.

The union filed another grievance with a different arbitrator, Shyam Das, claiming the new CBA prohibits Goodell from punishing players for any conduct before the CBA was signed. The league's investigation showed the bounty program ran from 2009-11.

Das has yet to rule on that grievance, which also seeks to have player appeals heard by Art Shell and Ted Cottrell, who are jointly appointed by the league and union to review discipline handed out for on-field conduct.

Guess what this does to Jonathan Vilma's lawsuit?