(09-02-2012 09:08 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  phocis, I absolutely know far more about this than you can imagine. Most people around here believe what they first heard and have not adjusted that thinking.

Besides, the pieces fit the puzzle because they belong, unlike the puzzle the league attempted to assemble as they have repeatedly thrown pieces away when they were proven not to fit.

(09-02-2012 09:02 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  No,the reason Goodell "chose" the Saints was because he thought he had evidence. That evidence included two emails that contained a running joke about bounties based upon the false charges in 2010 by the league that the Saints had a bounty on Favre. It included a ledger that was supposed to be for a game against the Bill but was changed to be a game against a different team after it was shown that it had no correlation to the Bills game. It also had no correlation to the second game given. It included a handwritten ledger stating that Vitt gave $5000 as a bounty, which was admitted to be in error by Goodell. It included the claim that Vilma offered $10000 to take out Favre and Warner, a claim denied, under oath in District Court by seven Saints players and coach that were in every defensive meeting since 2009.

And yes, they were guilty of running a pay for performance program and I do blame the moron who made that decision ... Gregg Williams. But, that does not warrant penalties that were administered for something far, far more sinister without any justification.

Quote:Obviously Judge Berrigan agrees and that was after hearing the case from the NFL lawyers.

(09-02-2012 05:35 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  This, of course would be Ginsberg, Vilma's lawyer, since Williams would be a witness for the plaintiff.


"I was forced to accept the suspension even after my appeal in which I presented several witnesses that stated that no bounty existed and I was unaware of the pay for performance program allegedly run by the defensive squad. I had no recourse and was instructed by Mr. Goodell to make no comments on the case if I wanted to be reinstated."


"I can't say for certain, but the offensive and defensive units are extremely segregated and it is my understanding that those type of programs stay in the defensive meeting rooms. I do understand that Mr. Brees has sworn, under oath, that he had no knowledge of any program."


"Um, well, ... er, the only player we interviewed at all was Anthony Hargrove, but now he is complaining that we took his statements out of context and put words in his mouth. All other players refused to meet with me after I made these claims. But, I know it all happened because Mike Cerullo told me so."

(09-02-2012 09:27 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  Let's let it play out. I have no problem with it.

(09-02-2012 09:35 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  This was said like 50 pages ago...lol

But when Guido says things like...

"Saints players and coaches were under oath"

"There are several devout Christians in the locker room. They wouldnt let this happen"

It makes him look stupid and discredits his argument. His heart is wayyyyy too much into it to have an unbiased opinion on the matter. No matter how much he tries to deny it.

Saying things under oath and/or being a Christian doesn't make a person more or less true or capable/incapable to doing wrong things

(09-02-2012 09:12 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  We keep going back to this Mike Cerullo guy who if I'm not mistaken was fired AFTER the Super Bowl season but wasn't there an investigation on the bounty for Brett Favre in 2010 PRIOR to him being fired?

Please correct me if I'm wrong

(09-02-2012 09:14 PM)Jesus Wrote:  Don't matter no more. Season starts Wed and everyone is still suspended.

(09-02-2012 09:27 PM)TeamPlayer1 Wrote:  Let's let it play out. I have no problem with it.