Jump to content

Nfl Shows Reporters Proof Of Saints Suspensions


Recommended Posts

Why did the Saints apologize for bounties?

Why, if there was was no bounty program, didn't the Saints fight the accusations? Why not file a lawsuit and force Goodell to prove his case?

The coaches have to bow down to RG to be reinstated. There is no coaches union for fight for them. He put a gag order on them and threatened them.One man decides if they will ever coach again in the NFL.

Coach Vitt is finally had enough of the lies and is finally calling RG on it. Good for him.

The players are fighting it. Vilma is suing RG directly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 404
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Gritz

The coaches have to bow down to RG to be reinstated. There is no coaches union for fight for them. He put a gag order on them and threatened them.One man decides if they will ever coach again in the NFL.

Coach Vitt is finally had enough of the lies and is finally calling RG on it. Good for him.

The players are fighting it. Vilma is suing RG directly.

Yeah, I'm sure Goodell sees the error of his ways. Why I bet he is going to rescind all of the suspensions and that everything is going to be straightened out for you guys before the season starts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch the Saints Vikings NFCCG. One of the dirtist football games ever played, by the cowards in black and yellow.

The refs may have turned a blind eye to the repeated late hits and cheap shots, but the footage speaks for itself. It makes a lot of sense when its admitted that there was a $35k bounty on favre's head.

What ever dude. If the Falcons had any sort of a pass rush you would be all excited the opposing QB was getting sacked or knocked down.

I guess according to that theory, any team that creates a lot QB pressure must have had a bounty, because otherwise they wouldn't be trying to hit him as hard as they could.

You could also use that same argument to prove that the Falcons could never be guilty of a bounty since they never get consistent pressure on opposing QBs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with your nightmare yingers. The biggest problem I have with your fanbase is that they have gone over the top denying any wrongdoing. Clearly your staff was unprofessional in handling this whole scandal and your fanbase refuses to demand firings and newhires for the coverups and deceit. I am certain our fans would be livid at how unprofessional our staff was had it been our scandal. Regardless of how this finalizes itself, there is a large chunk of wrongdoing that must be owned by your team. But most of the whodat fans I encounter are nothing but agitators! Just telling you how I feel about it and I think I am pretty close to the truth...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'm sure Goodell sees the error of his ways. Why I bet he is going to rescind all of the suspensions and that everything is going to be straightened out for you guys before the season starts.

He will never admit he made a giant leap from PFP to PFI.

I would like to see a Judge suspend his disciplines for the player and the coaches until RG actually proves what he is claiming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He will never admit he made a giant leap from PFP to PFI.

I would like to see a Judge suspend his disciplines for the player and the coaches until RG actually proves what he is claiming.

Dont be overconfident that RG doesnt have a stash of nastiness just waiting to unleash. This guy has been backed up by very formidable and capable investigators and attorneys. If you think he is unprepared to lay the wood, you might end up being sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with your nightmare yingers. The biggest problem I have with your fanbase is that they have gone over the top denying any wrongdoing. Clearly your staff was unprofessional in handling this whole scandal and your fanbase refuses to demand firings and newhires for the coverups and deceit. I am certain our fans would be livid at how unprofessional our staff was had it been our scandal. Regardless of how this finalizes itself, there is a large chunk of wrongdoing that must be owned by your team. But most of the whodat fans I encounter are nothing but agitators! Just telling you how I feel about it and I think I am pretty close to the truth...

PFP is still against the rules. If the penalty was inline with that, my only gripe then would be that every team does it, so why are we singled out. But at least it would be valid

I still think we will be in the SB hunt regardless of RG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PFP is still against the rules. If the penalty was inline with that, my only gripe then would be that every team does it, so why are we singled out. But at least it would be valid

I still think we will be in the SB hunt regardless of RG.

Yeah I'm sure you will field a good team. The real problems I see is that your franchise took a beating because of the scandalous way they handled every single detail. Arrogance is a strong word but it fits the mold here. The tradgedy is that the franchise lost an extremely large amount of respect around the league and this tag you earned will live on for many years to come. The crowds in the stadiums, the signs, the taunts, the reputations that were tarnished, the distrust, the payback mentality etc.. etc. etc... It's real damage yingers. I am so thankful it was not us!! Really.

Edited by HASHBROWN3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont be overconfident that RG doesnt have a stash of nastiness just waiting to unleash. This guy has been backed up by very formidable and capable investigators and attorneys. If you think he is unprepared to lay the wood, you might end up being sorry.

If he unleashed damning evidence, then so be it for us.

I wish GW wasn't too afraid to come forward and make some public statements. He knows exactly what did and didn't happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was some sort of coaches organization with no power instead of a union.

First sentence in the article:

"In a legal skirmish between unions, the NFL Players Association is suing the NFL Coaches Association in D.C. Superior Court for about $650,000."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm sure you will field a good team. The real problems I see is that your franchise took a beating because of the scandalous way they handled every single detail. Arrogance is a strong word but it fits the mold here. The tradgedy is that the franchise lost an extremely large amount of respect around the league and this tag you earned will live on for many years to come. The crowds in the stadiums, the signs, the taunts, the reputations that were tarnished, the distrust, the payback mentality etc.. etc. etc... It's real damage yingers. I am so thankful it was not us!! Really.

I don't disagree with any of that. But the tide is slowly turning in our favor because a lot more journalists are doing their job now and scrutinizing what RG is claiming, and not just regurgitating the NFL propaganda.

From listening to players from other teams, I think most of them think it's way overblown and know they have had PFP programs too at some point in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First sentence in the article:

"In a legal skirmish between unions, the NFL Players Association is suing the NFL Coaches Association in D.C. Superior Court for about $650,000."

I'll read your article if you read the article I posted a few pages back.

Organization... Association... but not a union.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*1) ALLEGATION: The NFL's Original Statement, claiming a three-year bounty program:

A lengthy investigation by the NFL's security department has disclosed that between 22 and 27 defensive players on the New Orleans Saints, as well as at least one assistant coach, maintained a "bounty" program funded primarily by players in violation of NFL rules during the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons, the NFL announced today.

>1) FLAW: First, if the NFL's investigation was so comprehensive and airtight, why couldn't they identify exactly how many players were involved? Why the nebulous range? More importantly, why were only four players punished if, at the least, 22 were involved?

Additionally, nowhere in any of the evidence the NFL has disclosed is there any indication of misdeeds occurring during 2010. The only accusations beyond those in 2009 (three games) are an alleged bounty on Aaron Rodgers in the opening game of 2011 season (more on these games later). How does this constitute violations for three consecutive seasons?

*2) ALLEGATION: More from SI's Peter King in his original report on the scandal:

Goodell is angry about this sustained use of paying players to hurt players on other teams.

"The payments here are particularly troubling because they involved not just payments for performance, but also for injuring opposing players," Goodell said in a league statement Friday afternoon.

>2) FLAW: Where has "sustained use" to "hurt players" ever been shown? Moreover, what opposing players were ever deliberately injured? And who was paid for doing so? Does anyone know the answer to these simple questions? Or is it just some baseless PR drivel the NFL hopes to pawn off as truth?

The

evidence presented on Monday indicates money exchanged for performance benchmarks--legal plays--but what "payments for injuring opposing players" have been shown to exist? The NFL is still yet to verify this claim with on-field proof, corroborated by documentation of payment. Even if one player was targeted in one game, it is not evidence of a three-year, pay-to-injure scheme.

*3) ALLEGATION: Anthony Hargove's Declaration verifies existence of a bounty program.

Initially, the NFL presented Anthony Hargrove's "declaration" as proof that a bounty system existed. Specifically, the NFL's hired gun, Mary Jo White, said this about Hargrove's declaration. Emphases mine:

There
hasn't been any denial
of the existence of that program. One of the Saints players (current Packers DE Anthony Hargrove) who was disciplined yesterday actually submitted a declaration in which
he
acknowledged that the program existed, acknowledged his participation
and admitted that he lied to the NFL investigators in 2010.

>3) FLAW: When Hargrove's declaration was subsequently made public by Yahoo!, we learned that Hargrove actually said this, verbatim. Again, emphasis mine:

The NFL security personnel then asked several questions about whether there was a bounty program, whether Saints' players contributed money to a bounty pool, and whether I had ever received bounty money. In response to these questions, I followed the clear directions I had received from Coach Williams and Coach Vitt, and
I repeatedly denied any knowledge of any bounty or bounty program
.

No matter how you interpret what Hargrove said, it's (ahem) proof that he denied the existence of a bounty program when the NFL just days prior said he "acknowledged that the program existed, [and] acknowledged his participation in it." Which, of course, he didn't.

Why would the NFL publicly lie about this? Were they not anticipating this document being leaked to the public? Were they trying to deceitfully sway public opinion by delivering what now appear to be stark, transparent falsehoods?

Furthermore, Hargrove responded to the NFL's initial characterization of his statements by saying the NFL "grossly mischaracterized [his] words."

*4) ALLEGATION: Anthony Hargrove on video, demanding bounty payment.

Initially, the NFL accused Anthony Hargrove of asking for a bounty payment related to a hit on Brett Favre in the NFC Championship game during the 2009 season.

Months ago, Peter King reported that Hargrove was overheard on camera saying "Pay me my money!" Later the NFL claimed Hargrove said "Bobby, give me my money!" For whatever reason, Hargrove's alleged words were either altered, misinterpreted, or falsified.

>4) FLAW: Even if you're unconcerned with the disparity in the descriptions of what Hargrove was accused of saying, Hargrove took to the streets on Monday and stridently defended himself by delivering a lengthy statement in front of NFL headquarters. In part, about the demand for payment in that game, he said:

I felt similar to how I had felt when I read the NFL's statement about my declaration. Bewildered ...

The NFL has a sideline shot of our defense gathered around Joe Vitt discussing what we might should expect if the backup quarterback comes into the game. It shows me off to the side with some of our other defensive linemen on the bench with their backs to the camera. The final snippet has an arrow pointed at me with the caption indicating that I had said, “give me my money.”

Here's the problem with that. It wasn't me. That's right. The NFL got their evidence all wrong. In their rush to convict me, they made a very serious error. Is it intentional? I don't know. But one thing I do know with absolute certainty...it...was...not...me!

Like I said, lean in closer, look closer, listen closer. It is not my voice. Anyone who knows me well knows that it is not me. But the NFL does not know me well. They simply make assumptions.

Furthermore, on Wednesday an ex-Saint came to Hargrove's defense. Earl Heyman, a Saints' player during the '09 season, had this to say:

I was right there, right there in that closeup [of the defensive huddle] they're talking about ... Every time they came off the field I was standing right there talking to them, and I know who said it, and I can say with 100 percent accuracy who said it, and I know 100 percent it wasn't Anthony.

So why did the NFL get this wrong? Why was Hargrove implicated? Did they believe Hargrove was an easy target for coercion because he's twice violated the NFL's drug policy? Did they select him as a participant because he'd likely fear for his career prospects if he didn't go along with the allegations? Did they decide to incriminate him with these words because there's another video--shown far and wide--of Hargrove shouting on the sideline "Favre is done!" after a particularly vicious hit?

Twice the NFL has publicly accused Hargrove of something and twice they've wholly misrepresented it. Doesn't this call into question the quality of the NFL's investigation as a whole? If not, doesn't it at least undermine the authenticity of the public characterizations of what they've claimed as evidence?

*5) ALLEGATION: The Saints kept a ledger detailing bounty payments.

In early June, Yahoo! broke a seemingly explosive story about a ledger that documented bounty payments. The original story from Yahoo! (via league sources) indicated that "bounty" payments were paid after the Saints-Giants game in 2009 and the Saints-Buffalo game in 2009.

>5) FLAWS: Where to start? First, soon after Mike Florio (along with numerous Saints' fans) caught onto the fact there wasn't anything questionable about the Bills' game, PFT reported it as a fraudulent claim, and the NFL immediately amended its report. Oops. Oh yeah, it wasn't the Buffalo game, it was actually the Carolina game in 2009! Sorry guys, honest mistake!

Soon after that, The Angry Who Dat blog further debunked the claim of bounties in the Carolina game and Mike Florio reported on AWD's yeoman's effort and backed his sentiments.

To make matters worse, the NFL also claimed that the ledger indicated that Roman Harper was paid $1000 for knocking Brandon Jacobs out of the 2009 game against the Giants. However, Jacobs only went out of the game momentarily after a clean, legal tackle by Darren Sharper (look at the play-by-play starting at 12:40 of the 2nd quarter). Ultimately, that allegation didn't mesh with its original public implication nor did it indicate any sort of malice or intent to injure.

Again, what we have is a series of allegations later proven to be fatally flawed or just outright wrong. Is the NFL really this incompetent? Or are they just hoping that the players and the public will capitulate to their barrage of half-truths?

Ultimately, in the case of the "ledger"--a piece of evidence Yahoo's Jason Cole said could be "extremely damning to the players' cause"--the NFL failed to even submit this, just as they chose not to submit Hargrove's Declaration, as official evidence to the NFLPA.

Specious. If not completely fabricated.

*6) ALLEGATION: Mike Ornstein offered a $5000 bounty on Aaron Rodgers in 2011.

Initially, the NFL claimed they were in possession of an email from Mike Ornstein, sent to Sean Payton, pledging a bounty on Aaron Rodgers in 2011.

>6) FLAW: Two months later, when the complete contents of Ornstein's email were revealed, we learned that this email wasn't sent to Sean Payton but rather to Saints' spokesman Greg Bensel, who then forwarded the email to several Saints' coaches.

Further, the lengthy email touched on a variety of subjects and included the bounty pledge as a postscript, one Ornstein insisted was a running joke for years among coaches after accusations of the Favre bounty.

As I previously discussed here, no matter Ornstein's credibility, the discrepancy between what the NFL initially reported and the actual truth reveals a continued effort by the NFL to alter events into something more damning and concrete in order to bolster their tenuous body of evidence.

The continuing act of evident prevarication is tacit admission by the NFL that their case is exceptionally weak.

*7) ALLEGATION: Mike Ornstein corroborates a $10k bounty on Favre.

On Tuesday June 19th, media reports surfaced that Mike Ornstein confirmed to NFL officials that there was indeed a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre. An official league transcript stated:

Mr. [Gregg] Williams and Mr. [Mike] Ornstein and another member of the Saints defensive coaching staff, all of whom were present at the meeting, all stated to NFL investigators that Mr. Vilma pledged $10,000 to any player who knocked Brett Favre out of the next week’s NFC championship game against the Minnesota Vikings.

>7) FLAW: Just hours after that report surfaced, Ornstein vehemently denied the allegation. He said:

I never corroborated $10,000 ... The only thing that I told them was that we had the [pregame] meeting, we jumped around, we screamed around, and I never saw [Vilma] offer one dime. And I never heard him say it.

Did I say to the league that I saw Jonathan Vilma offer $10,000? Absolutely not.

Mike Florio continues:

I asked Ornstein the question several different ways, to ensure there was no ambiguity. He consistently and repeatedly (and at times profanely) denied ever telling the NFL that Vilma offered money to anyone who knocked Favre and/or Warner out of the 2009 playoff games.

Why such a glaring disparity in what actually happened? Why would the NFL claim corroboration by Ornstein when he's so pointedly denies doing so? Somebody's lying here. Who is it? Did the NFL think that because Ornstein's credibility is largely shot, they can falsely implicate him without risk?

* 8) Allegation: Joe Vitt contributed $5,000 to a bounty on Favre

When the NFLPA released on Monday the evidence submitted to them by the NFL, the now-infamous "transcribed note" indicated Joe Vitt pledging $5000 to a "QB out pool" prior to the NFCCG against Minnesota. Stuff like this immediately made the rounds in the media:

Ex. 10: Transcription of notes from Vikings game -- "$$ -- QB out. QB out pool. $10K Vilma. $10K Grant. $10K Ornstein. Vitt $5K."

— Jeff Duncan (@JeffDuncanTP)

> 8) Flaw: Vitt forcefully denied pledging the money, going so far as to call Roger Goodell and discuss the situation. After Vitt's conversation with Goodell, the NFL confirmed that Vitt did not offer money even though their most damning evidence--the transcribed handwritten note--said that he did.

Specifically Vitt said in a statement on June 20th:

I did not pledge any money for any incentive, pay for performance, bounty or any other alleged program in connection with any game, including the 2010 NFC Championship.

Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough, none of our players, particularly those who are facing suspensions, ever crossed the white line with the intent to injure an opponent.

The clarification of this allegation is the most important development of the entire bounty scandal. The transcribed note (see it in this post), which is the only piece of "evidence" the NFL possesses that actually hints at an actual bounty--which mind you, was what these harsh punishments were for--contains information that the NFL publicly admits is unverifiable and, by extension, incorrect.

Doesn't that discredit the validity of this note entirely? Even aside from the fact that it's a transcription (which was smartly compared to "a drawing of a fingerprint [as] evidence")? Are we supposed to believe one portion of a transcription is legitimate, while the NFL readily admits that another portion is not? So the person who is either interpreting the actual note, or dictating from memory what he remembers about a note that might or might not even exist, is to be trusted even when the NFL admits that what he's shared with them can't be verified as truth?

Even though it will make no difference whatsoever, it's revelatory of the fatally-flawed and hastily-constructed body of evidence used to condemn the Saints. This note--its relevance, its authenticity, its actuality versus its characterization--is a perfect microcosm of the events of BountyGate. Even if you ignore all of the other reasonably dubious claims, this alone should be enough to invite a healthy skepticism.

In short, whether you look at these events alone or in composite, it's abundantly clear that what the NFL has so desperately tried to sell the general public has been overwhelmingly flawed and less than damning every step along the way.

It's been little more than an orchestrated exercise in quackery.

Written by: RNG

So you don't have to look for it. I am surprised none of you have tried to poke hole in the arguments the guy is making about the flawed evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with any of that. But the tide is slowly turning in our favor because a lot more journalists are doing their job now and scrutinizing what RG is claiming, and not just regurgitating the NFL propaganda.

From listening to players from other teams, I think most of them think it's way overblown and know they have had PFP programs too at some point in the past.

Yeah, the players have been sympathetic to a degree. I really dont think RG dislikes the players either. In fact I think he really loves these athletes to be honest. But his position forces him to be that "aloof monster". This thing has tapered some and now we get to drone on with legal proceedings and media jockeying... The sooner the saints can get out from under this ugly story the sooner they can move on. The problem I have is that heads should have rolled in bensons franchise. It would have been the best way to move on once and for all. Imagine if payton has another questionable event in the future? wow.

Edited by HASHBROWN3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know if I were RG, I would have presented my most quirky and most questionable evidence first so as to show weakness. I think that is what has been seen. Then, when absolutely forced to, unload the heavy artillery.

He told Adam Schefter that that was all he had on the players when he asked RG or the ones putting on the show for the 12.

I think that is all he had too. Unless Vilma can get this in front of a real judge though we may never know for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Fibonacci

I could careless....Goodell is sadly in the position he can do what ever he wants.

Goodell never mentioned this being about illegal hits, ESPN or some guy made it about illegal....when all it was about, was just give guys money that was not in the cap.

correct me if I am wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the players have been sympathetic to a degree. I really dont think RG dislikes the players either. In fact I think he really loves these athletes to be honest. But his position forces him to be that "aloof monster". This thing has tapered some and now we get to drone on with legal proceedings and media jockeying... The sooner the saints can get out from under this ugly story the sooner they can move on. The problem I have is that heads should have rolled in bensons franchise. It would have been the best way to move on once and for all. Imagine if payton has another questionable event in the future? wow.

Dude I gotta stop this agreeing with you but I can see that. My guess on Benson is that he believes the coaches about not having a PFI program and may be in a position to actually know it if he is more involved than I thought.

Payton and Loomis gave him a SB title after years of either mediocrity or losing so I'm sure he's not going to can his cash cows.

If you guys ever do win a SB, as fans of a long suffering team (like us) I can't put into words what a high that feeling is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I could careless....Goodell is sadly in the position he can do what ever he wants.

Goodell never mentioned this being about illegal hits, ESPN or some guy made it about illegal....when all it was about, was just give guys money that was not in the cap.

correct me if I am wrong.

Wrong, he stated players intentionally tried to injure players.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another good article for you guys to chew on.

Posted by Mike Florio on June 21, 2012, 8:45 PM EDT

Lost in the debate regarding whether Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma offered a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre prior to the 2009 NFC title game and whether former Saints defensive end Anthony Hargrove said, “Bobby, give me my money” after it appeared Favre had been knocked out of the 2009 NFC title game is the fact that former Saints linebacker Scott Fujita faces no specific allegation that he contributed to the alleged bounty on Favre — or to any specific bounty on any specific player.

Instead, the bounty case against Fujita consists of two claims: that he contributed money for the pool that paid players for sacks and forced fumbles (which necessarily isn’t and can’t be a “bounty”), and that he contributed $2,000 to the “general” pay-for-performance pool prior to the 2009 NFC title game.

(The latter comes from the same notes that the NFL regarded as sufficiently unreliable to result in Saints assistant head coach Joe Vitt even being asked about whether he contributed $5,000 to the alleged bounty on Favre. But those same notes nevertheless have fueled Fujita’s punishment.)

So why has Fujita been suspended three games to start the 2012 regular season?

The answer comes from the league’s focus on the payment of cash for big, clean, legal hits that caused a player to leave, for part of the game (clumsily dubbed a “cart-off” by the Saints) or for the rest of the game (less clumsily labeled a “knockout”). That’s why the NFL seized so aggressively upon Mike Triplett’s recent interview with Saints linebacker Scott Shanle, who as Triplett writes “admitted some wrongdoing on the Saints’ part, including the existence of rewards for legal hits that led to injuries and terms such as ‘cart-offs’ and ‘knockouts.’”

And so the league’s case against the players amounts to a contention that the pay-for-performance program included payments for big, clean, legal hits that caused a player to exit the field, whether for one or more plays or the rest of the game. The problem with the league’s logic is that, even without the extra cash, professional football players (especially defensive players) already are paid to deliver big, clean, legal hits. The goal in delivering big, clean, legal hits is to break the opponent’s will or, at a minimum, get him thinking not about doing his own job, but about avoiding another big, clean, legal hit.

An unspoken (usually) goal of delivering big,clean, legal hits is to make opposing players unavailable to play. As long as the big hit is clean and legal, there’s no rule (yet) against trying to hit a player so hard that he can’t keep playing.

Perhaps that’s why the NFL has felt compelled to make its case seem stronger than it is, and to make the Saints’ behavior seem more sinister than it was. By painting a picture of players who were looking to go beyond the rules to inflict injuries, the league successfully has glossed over the philosophical question of whether a player who already is paid to deliver big, clean, legal hits should be punished for providing or receiving a little extra pay to (wait for it) deliver big, clean, legal hits.

It’s not that the Saints were trying to injure players. It’s that the Saints were offering extra money for big, clean, legal hits that advanced the pre-existing objective of victory through attrition, a concept that has been part of the game since the game was invented.

This inconsistency first surfaced when comparing the huge gap between Gregg Williams’ cartoonish remarks the night before the January 2012 playoff game against the 49ers and the absence of any extracurricular hits or stomps or knee-whackings or conduct other than big, clean, legal hits. (Of course, most of the big, clean, legal hits applied in that game were applied to members of the Saints.) But the distinction between talk and action largely has been lost in the PIRATED VIDEO IS ILLEGAL of flawed evidence leaked and/or published by the league.

So instead of debating whether it’s fair and just to dub as a “bounty” program money paid to a player for doing the job he already is paid to do, much of the debate has centered on topics like the accuracy and credibility of the league’s interpretation of items like: the Anthony Hargrove declaration; the Mike Ornstein email of September 2011; the bounty ledger that was summarized for Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports; the specific proof that Jonathan Vilma offered a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre; and the question of whether sideline video from the 2009 NFC title game actually proves that Hargrove said, “Bobby, give me my money.”

Maybe that’s precisely what the league has wanted. Maybe the league hopes to avoid a full-blown debate on what’s really going on here. Players were paid extra money for doing the jobs they already were paid to do. Absent proof linking the pooled cash to dirty or illegal hits aimed at inflicting injury, the Saints did nothing between the white lines that any other team ever sets out to do. Instead, some members of the Saints simply got a little extra money for doing what they already were supposed to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...