Third, there are some conflicts in the record, including denials of certain allegations by
affected players and club personnel. There are also differences in recollection based on memory
and perspective. It is my responsibility as Commissioner to weigh such differences and make a
determination about what did and did not occur. In that respect, I have adhered from the outset
to a clear principle: I would not find conduct detrimental or impose discipline unless the
challenged conduct was established and corroborated by more than one source.
And yet when multiple sources testified under oath that there was no bounty program, he simply disregards them. Some "principle".
During the latter part of the 2011 season, we received substantial new information,
including documentary evidence, that showed: (i) that a sophisticated and pervasive bounty
program had been in place at the Saints during the 2009 through 2011 seasons; and (ii) that a
specific bounty had been placed on Mr. Favre during the playoffs following the 2009 season.
So something scribbled on the back of a napkin constitutes and "sophisticated and pervasive bounty program". Got it.
The evidence revealed that one of Coach Williams’ responsibilities was to create a “nasty” defense in New Orleans.
After reviewing this matter earlier this year, Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois made
"Unlike many issues that come before us, this issue was discovered by the NFL.
The investigation was initiated by the NFL. And the actions that were taken
against coaches and players was taken by the NFL. There was no denial
here…What I hear from them is a good-faith effort to acknowledge what
happened and deal with it. The NFL has taken the issue of bounties in
professional football seriously and has been open and willing to take additional
steps to protect player safety and football's integrity. They aggressively pursued
the information they were given.”
And here's the kicker. Can you say "lawsuits" and "congressional hearings"?
This post was edited on 10/12 at 5:09 pm