(05-11-2012 10:34 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  That's easy. If someone came to you and said you were about to be accused of participating in a bounty scheme that didn't exist what would you do? You would deny it.

Any inconsistencies can be misleading. I deal with third parties all the time and as a work group we always "get on the same page", "stay on the same page" or "get our ducks in a row" before meeting with them. That doesn't mean we are lying about anything or hiding anything. It means we just want to be consistent in our replies so that we do not seem unprofessional or untrustworthy.

(05-10-2012 10:12 PM)juraitwaluzka Wrote:  Whatever evidence the NFL has, regardless of its merit will only be shown when it has to be shown and not a second earlier. So to answer the question "well why hasn't the NFL shown it's evidence"? Because they don't have to. You may not like it but it's as simple as that.


This is completely plausible, no conspiracy required. Sounds to me like something some very high paid NFL lawyers would do.

(05-11-2012 10:36 AM)Radical Wrote:  There's getting on the same page, and then there's, "Hey, you're about to be accused of something highly illegal, we need you to deny it, remember who brought you into this league."

(05-11-2012 11:04 AM)ATLBound Wrote:  Its pointkess because he has an excuse for everything and it doesn't make sense. Your explanation for the declaration is extremely off-based.

Once again there is NO NEED for the declaration other than to place blame on someone else other than himself.

He already had the interview with the NFL back in 2010 so why would he need to bring that interview back up if there was nothing more to it?

Let's go back over these quotes again:
"Remember that I brought you into this league and to the Saints"

"Just play dumb"

"We want you to play Defensive end" (Hargrove stated he never got the opportunity)

And look at the conflict between Hargrove and Vitt here. If this declaration didn't mean anything in regards to the bounty, then WHY is Vitt so strongly denying it.

If Vitt told him to deny it and play dumb and it was because he didn't want to provide the NFL with any unnecessary ammo for somethinf that didn't happen, then why is he so adamant about this being incorrect?

I finally figured it out. Vitt and Gregg called Guido into a conference room and told him to play dumb and deny it.

(05-11-2012 10:14 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  First of all, this email was sent to the team spokesman. You would think that the man that deals with the media would have had a concern if the PS was nothing more than an ongoing joke, right?

(05-11-2012 10:05 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  No, I think that he honestly thought he had enough evidence and that he, as the judge and jury, would simply be taken at his word. But, I honestly believe that he and his staff are coming to the realization that what little "evidence" they had does little more than point to a pay for performance program to which the Saints have admitted. He felt that the Hargrove declaration, the second hand account claiming Vilma's alleged $10,000 and the Ornstein emails were proof enough that players were participating in a pay to injure scheme.

But, he is beginning to realize he may have jumped the gun. I don't think he is blatantly lying or insane. Cases go to court all the time with minimal circumstantial evidence and end up being thrown out or lost due to discrediting of that evidence. The evidence against the players was reviewed in a vacuum. Mike Silver, the journalist from California that broke the Pamphilon story, says that he has interviewed several people that were interviewed by the league and was told by them that the investigation was very suspect and the investigators consistently ignored any evidence showing the players innocence. Silver also said he interviewed several Saints defensive players and to a man they all denied paying money or collecting money for injuring an opponent.

And what if Goodell's lead investigator, Hummel, told him that he felt there wasn't enough real evidence to go forward with? That could explain why he "resigned" suddenly just as the players received their punishment.

And there is no way he has statements from twenty Saints players. The only Saints player interviewed in the entire process was Hargrove. I am sure that another "source" is the ex-defensive quality assurance coach that was fired after the 2009 season. He claimed that Loomis and Payton had blackballed him from the NFL. He is currently working with the UConn football program.

(05-11-2012 11:13 AM)AsylumGuido Wrote:  Once again you are ignoring the fact that the declaration did not convey what Goodell and White both claimed that it did. Right now I am addressing the player punishments levied. The declaration DID NOT explicitly prove that any player paid money for injury to another player or collected money for injuring another player. That is what Goodell and Mary Jo White claimed when announcing the player punishments.

Loomis, Payton, WIlliams and Vitt have already received their punishments. That is water under the bridge. The current issue is the evidence as it relates to the players. That is what is in the news today.

(05-11-2012 11:15 AM)JDaveG Wrote:  Yes, a long running joke. But Sean Payton didn't even read the e-mail. But if he did, it's cool because paying money to injure other players is funny. But he still didn't read it.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

(05-11-2012 11:29 AM)Falconidae Wrote:  No, what they claimed is that the statement did not dispute the existence of a bounty program. From the statement the NFL released about the player suspensions:

"...One player (Hargrove) submitted a written statement in which he did not dispute the existence of the program..."

You are right it didn't explicitly prove the bounty program, didn't disprove it either, which is all the NFL has said.

The most common interpretation of that by media and commentators is that means Hargrove lied [with good reason], but the NFL didn't actually say that.