- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
A Favor To Ask...
Posted on 6/18/12 at 7:24 am
Posted on 6/18/12 at 7:24 am
Our filters at work won't let us open up SI.com because the site was categorized in: Lingerie/Bikini (bogus right?). Can someone post what Peter King has to say on the bounty case this morning?
1
Posted on 6/18/12 at 7:27 am to lsufanguy
***
I expect some angry grievers today on Park Avenue in New York.
It's clear the suspended players and their representatives are not going to agree with the NFL's version of what happened over the last three years in the Saints' defensive team meetings. The NFL claims it has clear evidence that there was a bounty system in place, with players being offered money for performance-related accomplishments and for trying to knock foes out of games.
Remember: The NFL doesn't have to have proof of bounty money being paid to a defensive player for intentionally injuring an opponent, or for knocking an opponent out of a game, whether intentional or not. The NFL has to show that a bounty was offered. That's it.
But until the NFL shows that proof, there will be significant skepticism that it has enough evidence to throw Jonathan Vilma out of the game for a full season, and to suspend three Saints from the 2009 season for lesser periods. I question whether the league will show evidence today, in the face of increasing pressure to do so.
Vilma's attorney, Peter Ginsburg, claimed Friday that the evidence he received was specious and didn't prove the NFL's claim that Vilma either offered or paid $10,000 during the '09 playoffs to knock out Kurt Warner or Brett Favre from playoff games. We'll see what emerges today.
But the fact that the NFL didn't produce the clear evidence Friday in advance of today's grievance hearing in the league office gave the players the ammo they needed in the court of public opinion. It's all well and good for Roger Goodell, league counsel Jeff Pash and the former high-profile prosecutor the NFL retained, Mary Jo White, to believe in the strength of the league's case against the players. If it's so strong, the league will have to show its cards at some point, or the public will simply believe the league oversold the story and overcharged the players.
Last week in Montana, I asked Goodell what he thinks the legacy of this bounty scandal will be. I didn't run his answer in my column because it didn't break new ground. But this is what he said: "I think what the bounty legacy will be is that it's not part of football. There's a rule that prohibits it. We obviously had a violation of it. We found it, dealt with it aggressively, and I don't think it will happen again. I think it will help in that continuing effort to create the culture of safety that we want. I hope by the actions that have been taken here that the fact that we discovered it, and the fact that we penalized it with unprecedented discipline, and by the focus that it's gotten, that people understand not to engage in that.''
I think whether the NFL names names or not, witness corroboration of the bounty program is going to have to come out at some point. The NFL surely wants to protect the whistleblowers, but there's a way to do that. And there's a way for insiders like suspended former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams -- who has been public in saying he was wrong to engage in a pay-for-performance system with the Saints -- to buttress the NFL's case. Williams says he'll do what the league asks in order to get back in the game and to repair the damage from this. If so, he should tell what he knows.
The NFL can't just say, "Trust us on this.'' Too many lives, too many reputations, are on the line here for that.
***
I expect some angry grievers today on Park Avenue in New York.
It's clear the suspended players and their representatives are not going to agree with the NFL's version of what happened over the last three years in the Saints' defensive team meetings. The NFL claims it has clear evidence that there was a bounty system in place, with players being offered money for performance-related accomplishments and for trying to knock foes out of games.
Remember: The NFL doesn't have to have proof of bounty money being paid to a defensive player for intentionally injuring an opponent, or for knocking an opponent out of a game, whether intentional or not. The NFL has to show that a bounty was offered. That's it.
But until the NFL shows that proof, there will be significant skepticism that it has enough evidence to throw Jonathan Vilma out of the game for a full season, and to suspend three Saints from the 2009 season for lesser periods. I question whether the league will show evidence today, in the face of increasing pressure to do so.
Vilma's attorney, Peter Ginsburg, claimed Friday that the evidence he received was specious and didn't prove the NFL's claim that Vilma either offered or paid $10,000 during the '09 playoffs to knock out Kurt Warner or Brett Favre from playoff games. We'll see what emerges today.
But the fact that the NFL didn't produce the clear evidence Friday in advance of today's grievance hearing in the league office gave the players the ammo they needed in the court of public opinion. It's all well and good for Roger Goodell, league counsel Jeff Pash and the former high-profile prosecutor the NFL retained, Mary Jo White, to believe in the strength of the league's case against the players. If it's so strong, the league will have to show its cards at some point, or the public will simply believe the league oversold the story and overcharged the players.
Last week in Montana, I asked Goodell what he thinks the legacy of this bounty scandal will be. I didn't run his answer in my column because it didn't break new ground. But this is what he said: "I think what the bounty legacy will be is that it's not part of football. There's a rule that prohibits it. We obviously had a violation of it. We found it, dealt with it aggressively, and I don't think it will happen again. I think it will help in that continuing effort to create the culture of safety that we want. I hope by the actions that have been taken here that the fact that we discovered it, and the fact that we penalized it with unprecedented discipline, and by the focus that it's gotten, that people understand not to engage in that.''
I think whether the NFL names names or not, witness corroboration of the bounty program is going to have to come out at some point. The NFL surely wants to protect the whistleblowers, but there's a way to do that. And there's a way for insiders like suspended former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams -- who has been public in saying he was wrong to engage in a pay-for-performance system with the Saints -- to buttress the NFL's case. Williams says he'll do what the league asks in order to get back in the game and to repair the damage from this. If so, he should tell what he knows.
The NFL can't just say, "Trust us on this.'' Too many lives, too many reputations, are on the line here for that.
***
Posted on 6/18/12 at 7:28 am to Paco_taco
thanks!
Posted on 6/18/12 at 7:32 am to Paco_taco
quote:
"I think what the bounty legacy will be is that it's not part of football. There's a rule that prohibits it. We obviously had a violation of it. We found it, dealt with it aggressively, and I don't think it will happen again. I think it will help in that continuing effort to create the culture of safety that we want. I hope by the actions that have been taken here that the fact that we discovered it, and the fact that we penalized it with unprecedented discipline, and by the focus that it's gotten, that people understand not to engage in that.''
This is a freakin joke!
Posted on 6/18/12 at 7:37 am to Paco_taco
Pretty amazing that now more and more media personalities are actually starting to think like Saints fans did in the beginning of all this mess. You know like, "Oh, you caught us doing stuff that was wrong. And now you suspended us. Cool, can we actually see the EVIDENCE that prove our guilt?"
Goodell better pull the rabbit out of his hat real quick, because this is starting to turn on him.
Goodell better pull the rabbit out of his hat real quick, because this is starting to turn on him.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 7:42 am to jembeurt
quote:
We obviously had a violation of it. We found it, dealt with it aggressively, and I don't think it will happen again.
That is the funny part. Obviously????? Then prove it. If it was so obvious then show us. Why hide it?
Posted on 6/18/12 at 8:54 am to lsufanguy
Unfortunately the way I see this playing out is the NFL sheep (King, Schefter,et al) will just claim that whatever was"presented" today as justifiable evidence for the suspensions and that we shouldn't question GODdell.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News