+- 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 - Radical - 05-15-2012 03:51 PM
(05-15-2012 03:31 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: If it goes to the arbitrator for appeal instead of Goodell he'll have to prove it wasn't just a joke. The first grievance hearing is tomorrow.
No, they'll have to prove it was. Again, you can't ask people to prove a negative. Nothing in that email suggests it was a joke, so why do we have to prove that it wasn't?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-15-2012 05:30 PM
(05-15-2012 03:35 PM)pauliwood Wrote:
![[Image: 582304_4002543427218_1390059067_3577150_695232564_n.jpg]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/582304_4002543427218_1390059067_3577150_695232564_n.jpg)
Au contrar! Quite a few people care. This could help chip away Goodell's stranglehold on disciplinary affairs.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-15-2012 05:37 PM
(05-15-2012 03:51 PM)Radical Wrote: No, they'll have to prove it was. Again, you can't ask people to prove a negative. Nothing in that email suggests it was a joke, so why do we have to prove that it wasn't?
You don't have to prove anything. Neither do I. But, if tomorrow's grievance forces the appeal to go in front of an arbitrator the league will be forced to show evidence that the player did indeed do what he is being punished for and that the punishments levied were reasonable.
There wasn't anything in the email to suggest it wasn't a joke. The league would have to supply some sort of money trail or something that would collaborate their interpretation of the single line postscript.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - phocis850 - 05-15-2012 06:04 PM
That email will be the smallest of evidence presented.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 05-15-2012 06:12 PM
(05-15-2012 05:37 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: You don't have to prove anything. Neither do I. But, if tomorrow's grievance forces the appeal to go in front of an arbitrator the league will be forced to show evidence that the player did indeed do what he is being punished for and that the punishments levied were reasonable.I don't think you understand. The quote in the email has NO implication of the joke. So as face value the quote in the email will be taken as is.
There wasn't anything in the email to suggest it wasn't a joke. The league would have to supply some sort of money trail or something that would collaborate their interpretation of the single line postscript.
Matter of fact before Ornstein came out and said that line was in jest you nevee believed it was a joke. You just had denial of player participation.
Once again the lesson for the day children is "Face Value"....say it with me "Face Value"....Yes you got it now.
The key thing is that there isn't a smiley face or a "Lol"...no expression shown because it was im an email. No follow up statement in the email saying "don't take me seriously" or "I'm just joking"
It was just I got $5k on Rodgers and that's it. Ornstein has to prove that is a joke. His only recourse is to show another email or something where he said that and it implied a joke. But like phocis said you are harping on a lil email that has not been talked about all that much in the media.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-15-2012 07:03 PM
(05-15-2012 06:12 PM)ATLBound Wrote: I don't think you understand. The quote in the email has NO implication of the joke. So as face value the quote in the email will be taken as is.
Matter of fact before Ornstein came out and said that line was in jest you nevee believed it was a joke. You just had denial of player participation.
Once again the lesson for the day children is "Face Value"....say it with me "Face Value"....Yes you got it now.
The key thing is that there isn't a smiley face or a "Lol"...no expression shown because it was im an email. No follow up statement in the email saying "don't take me seriously" or "I'm just joking"
It was just I got $5k on Rodgers and that's it. Ornstein has to prove that is a joke. His only recourse is to show another email or something where he said that and it implied a joke. But like phocis said you are harping on a lil email that has not been talked about all that much in the media.
While it wasn't talked about in the media that much it was talked about to the NFLPA and mentioned as key evidence by both Goodell and White. My only question is why isn't the other email that Ornstein sent from the halfway house before the Carolina game being touted more by the league. You were aware of that one, right? I not sure that one made it to the coaches or not, but Ornstein also said he jokingly mentioned $5000 on Newton, too.
According to Goodell's statement when laying down penalties, they had indication that Favre (Jan 2010), Warner (Jan 2010), Rodgers (Sept 2011) and Newton (Oct 2011) had been targeted. Those correspond directly to the word of mouth from the Vikings source and the two emails from Ornstein. Those are the only players the league has mention as being targeted. All four are directly related to questionable evidence. Don't forget that the original Vikings source recanted on his claim. That was shared by the league. That's why they dropped the investigation back in February 2010 and didn't open it again until January of 2012 when another source that had been fired back in 2010 came up with claims.
Could it be that the second email from Ornstein had a smilie or an "LOL"?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-15-2012 07:05 PM
(05-15-2012 06:12 PM)ATLBound Wrote: I don't think you understand. The quote in the email has NO implication of the joke. So as face value the quote in the email will be taken as is.
Matter of fact before Ornstein came out and said that line was in jest you nevee believed it was a joke. You just had denial of player participation.
Once again the lesson for the day children is "Face Value"....say it with me "Face Value"....Yes you got it now.
The key thing is that there isn't a smiley face or a "Lol"...no expression shown because it was im an email. No follow up statement in the email saying "don't take me seriously" or "I'm just joking"
It was just I got $5k on Rodgers and that's it. Ornstein has to prove that is a joke. His only recourse is to show another email or something where he said that and it implied a joke. But like phocis said you are harping on a lil email that has not been talked about all that much in the media.
Oh, and you don't convict on face value. There isn't a court in the land that would assume that was a serious statement without some support. Ask lawyer Dave. An arbitrator would also look at it as a non-definitive statement.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Beef - 05-15-2012 08:32 PM
(05-15-2012 07:05 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Oh, and you don't convict on face value. There isn't a court in the land that would assume that was a serious statement without some support. Ask lawyer Dave. An arbitrator would also look at it as a non-definitive statement.
That's just not true. You're basing this notion on the idea that there wasn't really ever a bounty program. So for someone to say Gregg put me down for $5k on Rodgers, it would appear to be a farce if there actually is no bounty program.
But if there really IS a bounty program, it looks absolutely 100% like direct participation.
And right now, the league believes there was a bounty program, so there's no question they are taking that email on it's face value and considering it evidence of participation.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Falconidae - 05-15-2012 09:11 PM
So, guido, Sorry if I'm making you repeat yourself but, when the coaches suspensions ruling came down, this was part of it:
10. When interviewed in 2012, Sean Payton claimed to be entirely unaware of the program, a claim contradicted by others. Further, prior to the Saints' opening game in 2011, Coach Payton received an email from a close associate that stated in part, "PS Greg Williams put me down for $5000 on Rogers (sic)." When shown the email during the course of the investigation, Coach Payton stated that it referred to a "bounty" on Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers.
When did he change that statement and why didn't he say it was a running joke then?
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Beef - 05-15-2012 09:31 PM
I think Guido selectively chose to forget that existed. He's been contending the whole time that Payton never admitted the email was about a bounty even though he clearly did.