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 - Radical - 05-11-2012 10:36 AM
(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.
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."
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-11-2012 10:42 AM
(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.
But they have shown the evidence. Remember when the NFLPA questioned the evidence and the league invited the PA's legal team to review what they had? Remember this ...
The NFL has circulated a transcript of Thursday morning’s media conference call with Mary Jo White, a former federal prosecutor who has been hired by the league to review the evidence regard the Saints’ bounty program.
The NFLPA’s outside counsel, former prosecutor Richard Smith of Fulbright & Jaworski, wasn’t impressed with Ms. White’s characterization of the evidence made available to the union.
“I was at the meeting with the NFL’s lead investigators in March,” Smith said in an email forwarded to PFT by the NFLPA. “She was not there. Anyone, especially former prosecutors like both of us, know that what the league provided could never be called ‘substantial evidence’ of player participation in a pay-to-injure program. Worse yet, Mary Jo provided nothing new or compelling today beyond another press briefing. My guess is that a veteran FBI agent like Joe Hummel would agree as well.”
The competing positions make even more clear the importance of full public disclosure of all relevant evidence to support the NFL’s claims. The league has made this a public issue from the outset, and the NFLPA has joined the battle in very public fashion. Surely, the two sides can agree that it’s in everyone’s best interests for the public to know the facts.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-11-2012 10:49 AM
(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."
So, you agree there is doubt about its meaning. But, it was served up as proof positive that players had contributed money toward injuring opposing players AND collecting money for doing the same. The fact is that it does neither. It was also proclaimed by Goodell and Mary Jo White that in it Hargrove had admitted to taking part in a bounty program himself.
You have read the declaration, right? So have thousands of people by now. What are the media saying now? The declaration clearly DOES NOT state in any way what the league had claimed that it explicitly said prior to its being leaked to the press. This was one piece of evidence that the league wishes had not been shared and I'll guarantee you it was released by the PA.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - ATLBound - 05-11-2012 11:04 AM
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.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-11-2012 11:13 AM
(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 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.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - JDaveG - 05-11-2012 11:15 AM
(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?
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.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Falconidae - 05-11-2012 11:23 AM
(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.
So, Goodell has gone from insane to just an idiot, and his attorney's are still completely incompetent to allow him to go on with something that can't be proven.
And the NFL had plenty of time to talk to players before the NFLPA shut them down, plus, the NFLPA can't force them not to talk if that's what they want to do.
So, your basic contention as I can understand it, is that a disgruntled employee broke open the story, Goodell ran with that, got a little more information and then slammed the Saints and the players without any real proof.
Problem with that scenario is that it requires all the major players to act against their self interest:
Goodell gets fired when he takes the case to court because he doesn't have any evidence and Goodell's player safety program is destroyed. This is inevitable if there's not enough evidence to back his claims up.
The NFL takes another huge PR hit.
The Saints organization, rather than vigorously fighting false charges and getting an injunction to stop the suspensions and loss of draft picks, doesn't even deny it happened.
Williams and Payton, the same thing- no protestations of innocence, no lawsuit or at least threats of lawsuits-there are legal remedies when a company treats you that unfairly.
That means that Goodell, the NFL, the Saints organization, Williams and Payton are all acting differently than they would if there is no evidence. I find that hard to believe.
No, it's much more likely that Goodell has all the evidence he needs, and rather than sweating it out right now, is simply giving the NFLPA enough rope to hang itself. Problem the NFLPA will have is that they will be shown to be protecting the guilty players instead of the players targeted.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - Falconidae - 05-11-2012 11:29 AM
(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.
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.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-11-2012 11:33 AM
(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.
The email was sent to Greg Bensel, the team's spokesman. It wasn't even addressed to Payton. Payton and the other coaches were busy preparing to face Green Bay on the road. I can very easily see Payton ignoring that email with the subject line "from Orny".
And, no, actually paying money to injure a player isn't funny. But, when the league asks about some ridiculous claim from a Vikings player whining about the Saints having a bounty on Favre, then it is funny to joke about that. I can easily see someone saying every week, "So, who do we have a bounty on this week?", in reference to that bogus claim from 2010. That is exactly what Ornstein said was implied in his email. Besides, you know he was in prison, in debt and would have had no way to come through with any bounty payment if it had been serious.
The fact is that the supposed "case" against individual players is becoming unraveled and you know how the media is. When they smell blood it becomes a frenzy and right now the league is squarely in their sites.
RE: Saints Bounty Thread - AsylumGuido - 05-11-2012 11:45 AM
(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:
But Mary Jo also said this in reference to the declaration:
In describing Hargrove's declaration last week, Mary Jo White, a former U.S. attorney hired by the NFL to review its investigation, said the player, "acknowledges the nature of the program and his participation in it, and, which is really the thrust of the declaration, that he was told to lie about it, and he did when he was asked about it in 2010 by the NFL investigators."
Now, we both know that the document clearly does not "acknowledge the nature of the program".
It also clearly does not "acknowledge his participation in it".
It also clearly does not "acknowledge that he was told to lie about it".
There is no way that can be misinterpreted.
So yes, the NFL absolutely DID say that he lied. They totally misrepresented the declaration to the media when announcing the player punishments. The actual declaration didn't surface until later and now Goodell and Ms. White have been caught with their pants down.
There is no way any of you can dispute that fact.
Now, whose credibility might be in question?