Jump to content

Nfl Shows Reporters Proof Of Saints Suspensions


Recommended Posts

Were there players that were asked or warned about this 3 years ago?

As far back as 3 years ago at least 2 years ago. That's why Vitt told Hargrove to deny there was a porgram. Remember, Hargrove left the Ain'ts in 2010. The NFL didn't start questioning this offseason, the NFL has been on this for years.

Not to mention, I don't see Williams and Payton crying about how these players punishments. They threw them under the bus.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

I guess that's kind of easy to say if you aren't the person whose livelihood is being taken away for an entire year. Agreed that the NFLPA really screwed up in letting Goodell have anything to do with the appeals process. The NFLPA's lawyers got whipped by the NFL for sure, not even close.

If Jonathan Vilma had cried about this when the allegations came out, I'd have more sympathy. He didn't say anything until the suspension was levied. It was reported that he was preparing for a 4 game suspension. If he was innocent, the accusation itself would have would have been outrageous. If you are truly innocent, why would yu be preparing for a suspension. He denied nothing until he saw how bad it would hurt his wallet. He's just ticked he took the brunt of the punishment. He needs to focus his ire on the 20 something players and coaches that sold him out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jonathan Vilma had cried about this when the allegations came out, I'd have more sympathy. He didn't say anything until the suspension was levied. It was reported that he was preparing for a 4 game suspension. If he was innocent, any punishment would have been outrageous. He denied nothing until he saw how bad it would hurt his wallet.

Yup, He had his chances to meet with the nfl with his lawyer and he declined.

I have posted it a few times but Stephen A Smith hit the nail on the head with a **** jack hammer

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jonathan Vilma had cried about this when the allegations came out, I'd have more sympathy. He didn't say anything until the suspension was levied. It was reported that he was preparing for a 4 game suspension. If he was innocent, the accusation itself would have would have been outrageous. If you are truly innocent, why would yu be preparing for a suspension. He denied nothing until he saw how bad it would hurt his wallet. He's just ticked he took the brunt of the punishment. He needs to focus his ire on the 20 something players and coaches that sold him out.

Do you know when the very first time that anybody from the NFL ever said anything to Jonathan Vilma about any bounty program or "pay for performance" progam was? I'll admit I don't know the answer, just wondering if anybody else does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Jonathan Vilma had cried about this when the allegations came out, I'd have more sympathy. He didn't say anything until the suspension was levied. It was reported that he was preparing for a 4 game suspension. If he was innocent, the accusation itself would have would have been outrageous. If you are truly innocent, why would yu be preparing for a suspension. He denied nothing until he saw how bad it would hurt his wallet. He's just ticked he took the brunt of the punishment. He needs to focus his ire on the 20 something players and coaches that sold him out.

You are criticizing Vilma for not disputing findings before the findings were ever made. So I just can't buy that criticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just listened to an interview with Adam Schefter, who was one of the 12 press personnel who got the presentation from the league yesterday. He says a lot of things that are very interesting to me, including the fact that he doesn't think this evidence in any way proves that the Saints were paying players to injure other players.

But....the most interesting thing he says.....he says that he asked the NFL directly if they had more evidence, and the NFL told him that this represents ALL of the evidence used to punish the players.

WOW. Can't believe that. That's unreal.

Here is a link for anyone interested. http://espn.go.com/espnradio/play?id=8070934

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shefter talks about the evidence shown behind closed doors:

http://espn.go.com/e...play?id=8070934

So, the NFL says:

The league said Williams admitted there was a bounty program, that Williams, Vitt and some players "voluntarily" funded it and it was spearheaded by Williams. Williams started the program upon his arrival in 2009 and pushed it through to players after consulting with defensive captains Smith and Vilma, who, the league said, also contributed "seed" money to get the bounty pot in place.

Williams, who was banned by the league indefinitely for his actions, was such a cooperative witness that he told the NFL he was "rolling the dice with player safety and someone could have been maimed."

According to the NFL, Williams and Vitt both repeatedly said bounties happened.

Do you believe the NFL here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the NFL says:

The league said Williams admitted there was a bounty program, that Williams, Vitt and some players "voluntarily" funded it and it was spearheaded by Williams. Williams started the program upon his arrival in 2009 and pushed it through to players after consulting with defensive captains Smith and Vilma, who, the league said, also contributed "seed" money to get the bounty pot in place.

Williams, who was banned by the league indefinitely for his actions, was such a cooperative witness that he told the NFL he was "rolling the dice with player safety and someone could have been maimed."

According to the NFL, Williams and Vitt both repeatedly said bounties happened.

Do you believe the NFL here?

The NFL lies alot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with all this is lumping in the "pay for performance" system with the "pay for injury" concept.

The NFL is having real problems with thier evidence.

Just today, Ornstein and Vitt, two of their alleged corroborating witnesses, have come out and said the NFL is not telling the truth.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL lies alot.

The NFL has better things to do than lie about those kind of statements. Plus, stating claims like that could cost them big bucks if it can be proven that it's a lie. I think they are more professional than that and I think you are in a little denial like the taint trolls have been. Just sayin.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The NFL has better things to do than lie about those kind of statements. Plus, stating claims like that could cost them big bucks if it can be proven that it's a lie. I think they are more professional than that and I think you are in a little denial like the taint trolls have been. Just sayin.

No, just stating the facts. The NFL made a lot of claims about Anthony Hargrove's statement that he turned into them that just turned out to be true. They said that he admitted the program existed. They said he admitted that he had lied to investigators.

Those things weren't true. They were lies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would the NFL lie and shine a negative light on it's product? That's not a good business decision.

You just can't convince or change the mind set of someone that is that wrapped up in thinking the NFL treated some of the players wrong. I guess that's why they make chevy's and fords.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You just can't convince or change the mind set of someone that is that wrapped up in thinking the NFL treated some of the players wrong. I guess that's why they make chevy's and fords.

Now that I have seen the actual "evidence", I am more convinced than ever that Vilma got a raw deal. The Saints coaches probably got what they deserved though, they were the guys that were warned repeatedly....allegedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just stating the facts. The NFL made a lot of claims about Anthony Hargrove's statement that he turned into them that just turned out to be true. They said that he admitted the program existed. They said he admitted that he had lied to investigators.

Those things weren't true. They were lies.

So, if the NFL had a statement from Williams that he ran a bounty program, what other interpretation is there of Hargrove's statement except that he was told to lie about a bounty program?

Do you really think the NFL would claim that Williams said that without a signed statement by Williams or video evidence of William's confession?

To make themselves look serious about player safety in light of over 2000 players suing them for head injuries.

What they do now doesn't affect the earlier players. Claiming you locked the barn after the horses ran off isn't an effective defense if you're on trial for letting the horses run off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with all this is lumping in the "pay for performance" system with the "pay for injury" concept.

The NFL is having real problems with thier evidence.

Just today, Ornstein and Vitt, two of their alleged corroborating witnesses, have come out and said the NFL is not telling the truth.

according to all the reports, Williams admitted to a bounty program that was putting players at risk - given that, why do you assume its the NFL who is making the wrong distinction between "pay for performance" and "pay for injury" - perhaps in Vilma's mind, or more appropriately, as part of his defense, he thinks trying to knock out the QB is performance? why can it not be pay for injury?

And so corroborating witnesses are backtracking on previous testimony - happens all the time - its why you have written and othewise sworn statements

The problem is that you assume its the NFL which is twisting the truth instead of the players and the NFLPA - the NFLPA claims to have released all teh evidence given to them by the NFL, and we now know that is not true - so why do they get the benefit of the doubt?

You don't like the way the NFL characterized the Hargrove affidavit - fine - I happen to think they characterized it correctly - his affidavit makes no sense if he did not know of the inappropriate behaviour about which he was asked to lie.

And, I am sorry, you cannot ignore the little things - maybe you think the quote about paying bounties and the picture of Dog the Bounty hunter are stupid - but its those kind of things which prove an individual's intent - intent is almost impossible to prove with direct evidence, so you look to circumstantial evidence for proof of intent - the power point slides are evidence of that intent

personally, I think the NFL has a ton of evidence. If you are looking simply for players to admit they were wrong, well, its not gonna happen. Moreover, to me, Vilma's hystrionics yesterday (planned by his lawyer) are nothing more than a PR ploy - to show up for the appeal, knowing the process, and then storm out becuase of hte process, that,to me, is simply a way to avoid talking about the facts

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just listened to an interview with Adam Schefter, who was one of the 12 press personnel who got the presentation from the league yesterday. He says a lot of things that are very interesting to me, including the fact that he doesn't think this evidence in any way proves that the Saints were paying players to injure other players.

But....the most interesting thing he says.....he says that he asked the NFL directly if they had more evidence, and the NFL told him that this represents ALL of the evidence used to punish the players.

WOW. Can't believe that. That's unreal.

Here is a link for anyone interested. http://espn.go.com/e...play?id=8070934

Peter King said the opposite - said the NFL told them there was a significant amount of additional evidence they were not making public to protect the individuals from whom the evidence came

Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter King said the opposite - said the NFL told them there was a significant amount of additional evidence they were not making public to protect the individuals from whom the evidence came

Well I guess we have a descrepancy there. Adam and Peter should work that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, if the NFL had a statement from Williams that he ran a bounty program, what other interpretation is there of Hargrove's statement except that he was told to lie about a bounty program?

Do you really think the NFL would claim that Williams said that without a signed statement by Williams or video evidence of William's confession?

Legal affidavits are not open to interpretation. They say what they say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, hey, in the last two days I've heard two people that I respect a lot that cover football for a living, Chris Landry and Adam Shefter, say that the NFL was too hard on the players here. So I am at least comfortable that my opinion is not radical.

probably the only reason I got involved in this is because I think there is a difference between saying I disagree with the punishment and I think the NFL lied - reasonable people may differ on whether the punishment fit the crime, but to me that is different than saying the NFL set these guys up and lied about it

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...