NFL: Saints Bounty Thread - Printable Version
+- Atlanta Falcons Talk (http://atlantafalconstalk.com)
+-- Forum: Falcons Fans Message Boards (/Forum-Falcons-Fans-Message-Boards)
+--- Forum: Talk About The Falcons & So Much More (/Forum-Talk-About-The-Falcons-So-Much-More)
+--- Thread: NFL: Saints Bounty Thread (/Thread-NFL-Saints-Bounty-Thread)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 12-14-2012 12:36 PM
Dave, can I get your input on this latest information?
New Vilma filing targets alleged Warner bounty, Cerullo’s credibility
The bounty case definitely isn’t over.
In a new court filing opposing the efforts of Commissioner Roger Goodell to obtain a dismissal of Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s defamation lawsuit, Vilma takes aim at two key factors: the alleged bounty on Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner prior to the 2009 NFC divisional playoff game, and the credibility of former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo.
The overriding goal is to persuade Judge Helen Berrigan that Goodell knew the allegation of a bounty on Warner was false, or that Goodell made the statement with reckless disregard as to whether the claim of a Warner bounty was true or false. This enhanced legal standard applies in cases of defamation brought by public figures.
Along the way, Ginsberg calls Goodell’s statements “wanton and malicious,” “fictional,” and “inflammatory,” and Ginsberg writes that Goodell accused Vilma of engaging in “quasi-criminal” behavior.
In making the argument that the case against Goodell should proceed, Vilma’s lawyer, Peter Ginsberg, explains that the NFL’s May 2, 2012 press release states that “multiple independent sources . . . confirmed” that Vilma offered the bounty on Warner. Ginsberg then alleges that, ultimately, the only source was Cerullo. “Even former Saints defensive coordinator Williams, the mastermind of the alleged Bounty Program, does not contend that Vilma put a bounty on Warner,” Ginsberg writes.
The lawyer for Vilma next contends that the league knew or should have realized that Cerullo’s story was false.
“[A]s Goodell well knew,” Ginsberg writes, “Cerullo was fired for his incompetence and repeated and material lies to the Saints which caused him to miss several weeks of the 2009 season.” (Cerullo has denied that he was absent from work, in a recent letter to Tagliabue.)
Here’s the kicker from Ginsberg: “The Saints were so concerned about Cerullo’s stability, as Goodell also knew, that, when Cerullo was terminated, Saints head coach Sean Payton also was forced to obtain police protection at his house for fear that Cerullo would seek some type of retribution.” (Cerullo has denied that he held a grudge against the team.)
Ginsberg likewise points out that Cerullo’s story has changed, arguing that “Goodell was well aware of these inconsistencies during the months before he imposed discipline on Vilma but nonetheless kept polluting Vilma’s reputation publicly with this fictitious allegation.”
The attack on Cerullo includes not only his motives but his accuracy. Ginsberg writes that Cerullo allegedly told NFL investigators in November 2011 that he had taken “detailed notes” about the bounties offered as to Warner. At the hearing before Tagliabue, Cerullo admitted that he made no notes during the defensive team meeting before the game against the Cardinals.
As to the spreadsheet of pledges for the Favre bounty a week later, Cerullo now says the numbers were “inaccurate,” and that “I don’t know what I was trying to do with this document.”
We know what Ginsberg is trying to do with his latest document. He’s trying to show that the league trumped-up its case against Vilma based solely on the testimony of a former Saints employee who is, in Ginsberg’s apparent view, mistaken and/or corrupt. And while Ginsberg continues to push the notion that Vilma didn’t offer $10,000 as to Vikings quarterback Brett Favre (and that, as Tagliabue concluded, if it happened it was simply “talk” and not a real offer), it’s clear that the defamation case against Goodell will be driven by the notion that the league knew or should have known that the allegation of a Warner bounty was false.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 12-14-2012 12:46 PM
(12-14-2012 12:21 PM)phocis850 Wrote: I'm tired of hearing about this crap. Its been all year with the same crap over and over. As the admin I can't just ignore the thread and have to come in a check it every now and then.
Phocis, I'm sorry but you are incorrect. It is not just the same crap over and over again. Yes, three or four members come into this thread every so often to spout the same crap, but most of us have moved on to the much different and current subjects involving the case. Your "spot-checking" has probably missed this fact. Some of the most interesting parts of the whole ordeal are just now coming to light with the leaking of the appeals testimony and the upcoming Vilma vs. Goodell case.
I am as sick of the same old crap as you and have repeatedly asked that handful of members to just avoid the thread so the rest of us can continue sharing opinions and discussing the news.
I really feel you would be remiss in closing this thread as it is still serving a purpose. This whole thing is not over. It is just now beginning and this thread gives those of us with a real interest a place to share.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 12-14-2012 01:47 PM
Sorry Guido, but I don't really care either way. If it stays up, then I will discuss what is interesting. If it doesn't, then that's fine too.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - mdrake34 - 12-14-2012 02:12 PM
(12-14-2012 12:21 PM)phocis850 Wrote: Lol. That's funny. Our 2007 season was lacking any performance at all.
So that there are no claims of unfairness, what will the result be for any member posting about the saints bounty scandal after today? Temp ban? Warning?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - phocis850 - 12-14-2012 02:20 PM
I don't believe it will go that far. We don't need to hear about it anymore. Follow along on news sites and other forums etc. When the case is closed then we can have a brief discussion about it. Until then everything will continue to be hearsay and the final outcome is just an opinion. Let's bring to focus back on the Falcons and not the Saints.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - phocis850 - 12-14-2012 02:25 PM
(12-14-2012 12:46 PM)AsylumGudo=110483 Wrote:Phocis, I'm sorry but you are incorrect. It is not just the same crap over and over again. Yes, three or four members come into this thread every so often to spout the same crap, but most of us have moved on to the much different and current subjects involving the case. Your "spot-checking" has probably missed this fact. Some of the most interesting parts of the whole ordeal are just now coming to light with the leaking of the appeals testimony and the upcoming Vilma vs. Goodell case.
The decision is final. Please post links to other places for those members to stay updated.