(10-26-2012 07:07 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  7. Cerullo and Williams submitted the SAME 10K pledge story from Vilma without even knowing what the other person said. Yes, there stories of how the 10K was handed over differed, but they both connected Vilma with the 10K. Please explain how the story of two people who never spoke about the issue matched in an amount as high as that and also the person pledging the amount. AND under oath.

(10-26-2012 07:07 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  There are a few things that I find difficult to explain for the ones claiming innocence and also some things that need to be cleared up. This may be long so I apologize ahead of time.

1. Fujita was not involved in the bounty as noted by Goodell. He recognizes this and found nothing to contradict Fujita's claims. He punished Fujita for being a defensive leader and not stepping up as a team leader.

How in the world is that a punishable offense? That makes no sense at all.

2. Hargrove's punishment has been the same throughout the whole process. Don't lie to the commish.

Lot's of Saints players have stuck to their guns and directly disputed the Vilma story. None of them have been punished. Hargrove was punished so severely because they thought he was the guy on the tape saying "Give me my money". The league ultimately admitted they were wrong about that.

3. Smith's statement is the 2nd mention of the cart-off payments. Just like JDave brilliantly mentioned. Cart-off is a well known term around the NFL and fans of the NFL. Goodell is basically saying it is extremely difficult to believe that cart-offs doesn't mean what cart-offs has always meant in the NFL world.

Cart off probably means you knocked someone out of the game for at least a minute.

4. Smith's punishment is is the same punishment as Vilma's minus the 10K pledge.

I've got no comment on this one.

5. Getting paid when a player needs smelling salts under a trainer's care. This was testified by Vilma AND Vitt. Correct me if I'm wrong but you don't need smelling salts for havign the wind knocked out of you. I'm pretty sure it's used for concussions.

Or this one.

6. Throughout the whole statement to Vilma, Goodell is clearly punishing him for being involved in the program and also for pledging money. He NEVER mentions specific intent to injury. He implies it but it's not mentioned in his reasoning for punishing ANY of the players.

You don't think that specific intent to injure has been part of this case?

7. Cerullo and Williams submitted the SAME 10K pledge story from Vilma without even knowing what the other person said. Yes, there stories of how the 10K was handed over differed, but they both connected Vilma with the 10K. Please explain how the story of two people who never spoke about the issue matched in an amount as high as that and also the person pledging the amount. AND under oath.

See my previous post.

8. Fujita and Vitt mentioned the meeting got out of hand, while Vilma claimed nothing out of the ordinary happened. Very minor detail but also very telling. Why don't you ever talk about their stories differing?

I don't see that as remotely important. Certainly not as important as the difference in Cerullo and Williams sworn statements.

9. Why would a player say " Give me my money" in response to Vitt inadvertently advising the players that Favre's leg was broken???

I couldn't really tell you why an unknown player made that particular comment at that particular time.

10. Also the 3 judge panel gave Goodell a way out. Why would he reestablish these punishments if he knew that the investigation was shoddy? By the time of the beginning of October he knew everything that we all knew back in August. There was no different or new news. It was all the same. So why subject himself to this again?

Why did he reduce the punishments if his investigation was not shoddy? I mean, Roger Goodell is a very arrogant and stubborn man. I think that much is obvious, not just from this case, but from the player lock out and also the referees lock out.

These are questions that have yet to be answered and gives me plenty of reasons to believe that something happened and I may quite possibly have been incorrect in my assessment that the punishments were too extensive. I would appreciate a VALID response to all the questions

(10-26-2012 03:28 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  If it was meant to be literal one would think that there would have been more injuries in Saints games than others, wouldn't you? Numbers have been shown that this is not the case. In fact, someone said that the only two players carted off from a Saints game between 2009 and 2011 were both Saints players.

Quote:But, the fact is that the Saints were punished for supposedly having a bounty program that targeted specific players for intentional injury. The fact that they had a pool that paid for big plays including big hits that could have resulted in incidental injury does not meet that definition. While you, or others, may have a problem with it, what they had going on was not what they were punished for nor was it what they were even accused of doing.

(10-27-2012 08:49 AM)Peyton Wrote:  Williams just signed his statement last month. You really don't think he knew what the NFL wanted him to say at that point?

And your point about them being under oath is important, because it is obvious that at least one of them is lying in their statement.

So...apparently being under oath isn't as big a deal as people make it out to be in a civil case.

Actually, having been in a civil case, I already know that to be true.

(10-27-2012 09:11 AM)Peyton Wrote:  Well I'll give you my opinions. I think you were looking for Guido's, but I have something to say about these.

(10-27-2012 02:56 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  By the way, I have been out with my wife all day. I just made it back in.

(10-27-2012 02:52 PM)JDaveG Wrote:  Not necessarily. One can incentivize something without having necessarily an increase in what is incentivized. It's not easy to hurt someone so bad they leave the game. The human body is pretty resilient. That doesn't mean they weren't planning to pay if someone managed to overcome those odds. And the best evidence of that is the use of the term itself -- it defies all common sense to use the term "cart off" if what you really mean is "they had to leave the game for at least one play."


I don't think it's anywhere near that simple, as others have demonstrated. And I think Goodell has made clear that just having such a program is reason enough for punishment, and severe punishment at that. Particularly since they were told to stop and didn't.

(10-27-2012 03:22 PM)ATLBound Wrote:  I just say those things to mess with you. We all got lives to deal with instead of being on a messageboard.