(05-06-2012 07:10 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  I don't think anyone is going to give up until real evidence is shown. I think it is going to end ugly for the NFL. The lead investigator, Hummel, already resigned. Yes, supposedly to go to a better job. Right. Could it maybe be that he didn't feel there was enough to go on? Goodell can do what he wishes with coaches and others not protected by a union, but I think he underestimated the player's union.

I honestly believe he "convicted" the players with no more evidence than we have already seen. And what about the other 23 players that he said so willingly took part in the bounty program? Why didn't they get ANY penalty. Possibly because it didn't happen?

(05-06-2012 07:01 PM)phocis850 Wrote:  All the coaches got suspended but the players didn't do anything.
Goodell is showing why corporations are bad.
The report is lying.
Everyone is lying except the players.
The NFLPA is trustworthy.
The facts haven't been presented.
Oh, the FBI woman was paid off.

That's Guido's summary.

Did I miss anything?

I told you just to accept the unacceptable a long time ago. You just look foolish now.

(05-06-2012 07:26 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  You didn't answer any of my questions but it's cool. As for the other 23 players Goodell already explained he targeted specifically the players, but you are way too far gone man. It's futile trying to debate. I agree with phocis that all of these factors have to be true for you to be correct in your assessment. Without looking at the facts it's just too much. You are the epitome of the conspiracy theorists. I wasn't nearly this bad with Vick's situation. I pray dearly for your soul and health once this is all "proven" to be true and/or it gets worst.

I will say that the grievance filed is not related to it not being enough evidence. The grievance filed is for the Goodell to have the rights to punish the players based on the offense, unless there was something that I missed.

(05-06-2012 07:26 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Payton, Vitt, Loomis and even Williams denied any pay to injure. Read both of williams' apologies and all he mentions is pay for performance. The only person that may be truly lying is the ex-coach for defensive quality control that got fired after the 2009 season. Goodell isn't lying. He is just going off loosely pieced possibilities.

(05-06-2012 07:52 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  So you're assuming then? The apologies never mentioned pay for injure but they never denied it either. No mention does not mean no system.

AND

How is it so easy to point at the "disgruntled" ex-coach as the one who is lying as opposed to everybody else INCLUDING Williams, of whom you seemed to think did try to establish a pay for injure system? This is based off of your previous statements. It seems convenient for you to imply that Williams is absolved in one instance because it goes along with your theory. In this case, the fact that the apologies, which have all been prepared by lawyers btw, did not mention pay for injure bounties.

But earlier when it came to the fact that Williams was a head case and a rogue, then he was the creator of it but none of the players followed him up on it. Which one is it?

Is he a part of the group of coaches who submitted lawyer approved apologies that never mentioned the pay for injure program, which somehow means it didn't happen?

Or is he the rogue "fuck you" clause coach who ran the program of which was under investigation on multiple occassions, but he somehow ran it by his lonesome and none followed him on it?

(05-06-2012 08:38 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  As for the apologies, Williams specifically apologized for pay for performance only. Loomis and Payton both apologized for the fact that it happened under their watch. Both Payton and Loomis denied any pay to injure. Of course they wouldn't have denied it in their "apology" because it would have pissed off Goodell who had the agenda train roaring down the track.

(05-06-2012 04:58 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Yeah, I read that when it first came out. I have never been much of a fan of John DeShazier's work. The two regular beat writers are Duncan and Triplett and both are very good. DeShazier seldom lets logic stand in the way of a column. He gave the example of Cedric Benson as why the August 8, 2011 deadline won't work for the player. The difference is that the PA didn't fight Benson's battle with as much ammo as they are bringing to the table this time.

DeShazier has an agenda, of course, with this opinion piece and that is that he believes the NFLPA sold out to the owners in the CBA dispute by allowing Goodell to remain with all of the control on off field issues. But, most importantly, it is opinion only and he far from being any type of legal expert.

(05-06-2012 09:49 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  I have no problem with your opinion of the post but this column was published, according to the dateline, on May 5th 2012 so when you say "Yeah I read it when it first came out " you imply it is outdated. It came out yesterday.