OT: Vilma walks on out Bounty-Gate hearing - Page 11 - New England Patriots Forums

pherein · 06-23-2012, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

There doesn't have to be evidence of anyone being paid for injuring someone or even anyone injured. You just don't get it. And LOL at what it would take you to participate in a bounty program. Would those assurances need to be in writing...

Yeah, I know, I read Duncan to at NOLA

NFL is not a court of law.

Quote:

There is plenty of evidence the bounty aspect of the pay for play existed. The way it works is similar to the way it works in civil matters as opposed to criminal matters. Preponderance of evidence as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. Meanwhile guys like yourself and Tyrone seem to be arguing for jury nullification...

Pay for play. I think yes, I can't even say that for certain. To me they admitted to it. So thats a closed chapter. Pay to injure no. No one has ever admitted to that. I don't see it as a real possibility , but yes ID love to see this go to court. Their is no preponderance of evidence that a pay to injure program was in place in NO, so far.

Quote:

So far Goodell's legal team has carried the day, fwiw. In fact as usual the only winners in all of this are the lawyers, including Florio - who is driving his own sites ratings by championing as many overwrought tin foil theories as he can. Media frames these debates, and in this case and in this twitter age, they have done their damndest to make it the kind of soap opera drama that grabs and spins audiences through an entire off season. Kind of like what they did throughout the lockout...which at the end of the day turned out just about the way rational observers always predicted it would.

The NFL has had this story plastered on their site, leaked information, and talked about it constantly on the NFL channel. They are just as much to blame for keeping this alive. I don't even think this story would have gain this much ground if so much of what they are releasing as evidence was found to be misrepresented, disputed, and/or flawed later. Its pretty incompetent to do so.
They should have just released nothing but blanket statements, and said this is in the past now. They were never required to explain themselves to anyone. But, the building controversy is really their own fault.
Lawyers are making bundle on this one.

Quote:

And Kraft and Belichick weren't gagged, just accountable and smart enough to know that winning wars is more important than flailing around fighting unwinnable individual battles.

well we never professed to be as smart as Kraft and BB

So, I hope you don't mind if we just don't decide to lay down on this one. Its really not our style anyway.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 06-23-2012, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funktopus

So, if I understand this correctly, the suspensions given to hargrove, fujita, vilma and smith are for participating in a pay-for-performance activity not pay-to-injure?

Yup. That the program as run in NO also incorporated a pay to injure aspect was just the frosting on the cake. It has always been against the rules to have such a program but they are almost impossible to police because they are so loosly run by players. This was an organized program that coaches were not only aware of but participated in, as were and did leaders on the team. And the pools that accumulated, even if not fully funded, were exponentially larger than run of the mill player run pools. And records were created and maintained documenting payouts, and it doesn't matter what you were paid for or whether you recontributed those amounts to the pool. Bounties also clearly existed within the pool whether any ever played out or not being immaterial. The players punished in lieu of punishing almost everyone on the roster and crippling the Saints and perhaps other teams, were either team leaders and/or their union rep who is now a member of the Executive Committee, and players with suspension records preceding this incident or guys who flat out lied or refused to cooperate during the course of the investigation - whether instructed or advised to or not.

And like the lemmings they all are they chose to close ranks and take the advice of counsel or their union to refuse to cooperate or participate in the process, including even in their own appeal and instead focus their defense on spinning the unfairness of the process they and their union again signed off on 10 months ago. The hope being they will gain support from those who just hate the system for ever penalizing anybody's potential fantasy player or home town team, not to mention those simply succombing to the latest gate fatigue.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 06-23-2012, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pherein

The NFL has had this story plastered on their site, leaked information, and talked about it constantly on the NFL channel. They are just as much to blame for keeping this alive. I don't even think this story would have gain this much ground if so much of what they are releasing as evidence was found to be misrepresented, disputed, and/or flawed later. Its pretty incompetent to do so.
They should have just released nothing but blanket statements, and said this is in the past now. They were never required to explain themselves to anyone. But, the building controversy is really their own fault.

Oh, pahleeeeeeese...You were demanding evidence as was the media. That was the battle cry. You wanted all 50K pages and names of sources...LOL

Goodell should have handled this like BB would have. No comment. It is what it is. Moving on to...whatever.

pherein · 06-23-2012, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funktopus

thanks Pherein. What was the logic behind giving different suspension lengths? For example, is there a portion of Vilma's suspension that can be attributed to pay-for-performance and a portion for pay-to-injure?

Im not sure. I think everything has been bunched together and presented as an example to the NFL teams that the Days of pay for performance or injury are over in the NFL, because we can't handle the law suits.
We are more of an example to the rest of the teams. Like NE was with Spygate.

As far as I know the severity of the fines, draft picks, and suspensions are based on a Pay to Injure only + lying. I say that because its pretty historic.
Most of the fines are for team captains, and people in authority. I say that because they didn't fine Harper.
I think the media would have gone nuts if they fined the Saints this badly for a pay to performance only. The truth is I don't really know. Just how I see it at this time.

pherein · 06-23-2012, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

Oh, pahleeeeeeese...You were demanding evidence as was the media. That was the battle cry. You wanted all 50K pages and names of sources...LOL

Goodell should have handled this like BB would have. No comment. It is what it is. Moving on to...whatever.

Well, turns out there are only 200 pages right, lol ? The NFL was exaggerating greatly, again to the fans and we knew it. So they were right to ask. They never had to answer.

I completely agree. Goodell should have done exactly what you said. That would have worked perfectly. Thats why I was saying Goodell dorked this up, and their seems to be a level of incompetence as to how this was handled.
I don't think for a second that this is turning out the way Goodell wanted it to. I think he greatly misjudged our reaction.

TyronePoole · 06-23-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoLewisrocks

Apparently like Fujita, you Tyrone have a comprehension problem. That sometimes happens to guys who suffer from smartest guy in the room syndrome. Just ask Bill how that worked out for him. As Bedard tweeted in a series of comments last night before beginning his summer vacation...

I quoted the NFL's official release on it's justification for the suspensions of the 4 players. You quoted Greg Bedard's tweets. You were incorrect on what they were suspended for.

As to your other post on "jury nullification" and criminal v. civil cases, this analogizes to a criminal case, since they are being accused of something and then being given punishment. And jury nullification has nothing to do with it (there is no jury here so I'm not even sure what you are talking about with this). It's about the evidence the NFL says it has, how it has presented it to the public and what the NFL is claiming happened v. reality.

I brought up the reasons behind "due process" before to make the point that in any situation where an authority has the ability to punish, if the accused isn't given some kind of basic rights (access to evidence, right to confront their accuser, appeals etc.) then the conviction is inherently unreliable. Goodell has the right to punish them, but as far as any reasonable person is concerned there is nothing you can go on to say "I know X did what he is accused of here" because you don't. You have a one sided system of punishment where only selective evidence is released and some of it has already been shown to have been exaggerated/lied about/falsified etc.

Fujita fully accepted that he was part of something technically illegal that has been ingrained in football for a long time, and if you read his quote he would have no problem being punished for that if that is what had happened here. But it isn't, and Goodell and the NFL has created a narrative way beyond the baseline participation in a bounty program act you claimed.

You talk about "comprehension problems" but apparently you won't even read what Fujita said and don't understand that just because he did something technically wrong (participate in a pay for performance program that has existed since the dawn of time in football) that it gives the NFL the right to claim any number of wild things about what it was and how it went down simply because they are trying to posture themselves in a way that they can later bring up when they are sued by injured NFL alumni.

And I'm not sure why it's necessary for you to throw in your little "smartest guy in the room" quip, but it certainly doesn't help your argument. In fact it's a pretty obvious sign of weakness.

It's kind of disappointing to see this from Pats fans after spygate; making sure that all the FRAMe stuff and other good points we make about why that was such a joke looks like nothing more than complete homerism.

***MoLewisrocks*** · 06-23-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyronePoole

I quoted the NFL's official release on it's justification for the suspensions of the 4 players. You quoted Greg Bedard's tweets. You were incorrect on what they were suspended for.

You just don't grasp what the NFL official press release stated. Bedard and I do.

As to your other post on "jury nullification" and criminal v. civil cases, this analogizes to a criminal case, since they are being accused of something and then being given punishment. And jury nullification has nothing to do with it (there is no jury here so I'm not even sure what you are talking about with this). It's about the evidence the NFL says it has, how it has presented it to the public and what the NFL is claiming happened v. reality.

No, it's not. That's just what the players and the union and the critics persistently want to make it out to be. The jury in this instance is public opinion.

I brought up the reasons behind "due process" before to make the point that in any situation where an authority has the ability to punish, if the accused isn't given some kind of basic rights (access to evidence, right to confront their accuser, appeals etc.) then the conviction is inherently unreliable. Goodell has the right to punish them, but as far as any reasonable person is concerned there is nothing you can go on to say "I know X did what he is accused of here" because you don't. You have a one sided system of punishment where only selective evidence is released and some of it has already been shown to have been exaggerated/lied about/falsified etc.

And as DI pointed out to you that argument is immaterial.

Fujita fully accepted that he was part of something technically illegal that has been ingrained in football for a long time, and if you read his quote he would have no problem being punished for that if that is what had happened here. But it isn't, and Goodell and the NFL has created a narrative way beyond the baseline participation in a bounty program act you claimed.

The bounty program existed within the framework of the pay for play program in NO. Fujita admitted he kicked in money. He claims he never intended for any of his to be used to reward injury. Unfortunately he made no such distinction at the time, and the funds were comingled. He knew what was going on. He rationalized he wasn't really part of it. Although he cried crocodile tears as he and his wife watched the tape (the existence he knew about and along with Brees and the NFLPA debated the release of only because they felt it would shift focus/blame off of players and onto their coach) of a meeting he actually had attended in person (while a member of the NFLPA Executive Committee) and he lamented to her that he was once that guy...remorse and innocence aren't one in the same.

You talk about "comprehension problems" but apparently you won't even read what Fujita said and don't understand that just because he did something technically wrong (participate in a pay for performance program that has existed since the dawn of time in football) that it gives the NFL the right to claim any number of wild things about what it was and how it went down simply because they are trying to posture themselves in a way that they can later bring up when they are sued by injured NFL alumni.

And I'm not sure why it's necessary for you to throw in your little "smartest guy in the room" quip, but it certainly doesn't help your argument. In fact it's a pretty obvious sign of weakness.

It's kind of disappointing to see this from Pats fans after spygate; making sure that all the FRAMe stuff and other good points we make about why that was such a joke looks like nothing more than complete homerism.

The Patriots did what they did. For some FRAMe was little more than homerism. What it did document was the timeline and nature of offense. Unfortunately few in the media or other fan bases cared and the simple fact remained we broke a rule (however ambiguous) and were punished because of what we or others could have done with the information and because Bill chose to rationalize he had them on language ambiguity rather than simply comply with what he knew they wanted and because a first term Commissioner was determined to change that culture too the discipline was severe in relation to the actual offense. And that is why this organization chose to be accountable and accept their discipline anyway. Another was apparently prepared to as well, at least until the players refused to.

Unfortunately for them the only way to put an end to the pay for play culture that opens up the possibility of bounty culture continuing to exist is to punish coaches and players who were clearly involved in one for three seasons - even moreso when they refuse to simply be accountable. Because this **** encourages injury, and there is inherently enough of that in this league without encouragement.

TyronePoole · 06-23-2012, 03:15 PM

Quote:

You just don't grasp what the NFL official press release stated. Bedard and I do.

You said that they were suspended merely for their involvement at any level in the pay for performance program. The NFL's release explicitly says you are wrong. Even Bedard's tweets that you posted don't support your position. I'm not sure what you are having so much trouble with.

Quote:

No, it's not. That's just what the players and the union and the critics persistently want to make it out to be. The jury in this instance is public opinion.

Yes, it is. It is a punishment from an authoritative body. Why you would try and analogize that to a civil proceeding is incomprehensible.

If the jury is public opinion then "jury nullification" has absolutely zero to do with it. I think you should re-check what the term means. The jury in this case should remain unconvinced of what the NFL has claimed due to insufficient evidence and because the elements of the alleged crime have not been satisfied by the prosecution.

It's pretty illuminating that you'd tell me I'm wrong about it being analogous to a criminal and not civil proceeding and then bring up jury nullification though.

Quote:

And as DI pointed out to you that argument is immaterial.

Actually DI has yet to respond to that argument in any coherent way. Instead he chose to argue endlessly that the players aren't legally entitled to due process.

Quote:

The bounty program existed within the framework of the pay for play program in NO. Fujita admitted he kicked in money. He claims he never intended for any of his to be used to reward injury. Unfortunately he made no such distinction at the time, and the funds were comingled. He knew what was going on.

As did two dozen other Saints players and hundreds of NFL players for decades. But the NFL distinguished him on several grounds that I've already enumerated and singled him out for punishment on extremely disingenuous grounds, and they've since painted a picture that is inconsistent with the evidence provided.

Quote:

He rationalized he wasn't really part of it.

Do you have a link for this claim? I haven't seen him say anything like this.

Quote:

Although he cried crocodile tears as he and his wife watched the tape (the existence he knew about and along with Brees and the NFLPA debated the release of only because they felt it would shift focus/blame off of players and onto their coach) of a meeting he actually had attended in person (while a member of the NFLPA Executive Committee) and he lamented to her that he was once that guy...remorse and innocence aren't one in the same.

You don't know anything about the guy if you think those were "crocodile tears." You also don't seem to understand that remorse for one thing does not amount to admission of another.

***ausbacker*** · 06-23-2012, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TyronePoole

I quoted the NFL's official release on it's justification for the suspensions of the 4 players. You quoted Greg Bedard's tweets. You were incorrect on what they were suspended for.

As to your other post on "jury nullification" and criminal v. civil cases, this analogizes to a criminal case, since they are being accused of something and then being given punishment. And jury nullification has nothing to do with it (there is no jury here so I'm not even sure what you are talking about with this). It's about the evidence the NFL says it has, how it has presented it to the public and what the NFL is claiming happened v. reality.

I brought up the reasons behind "due process" before to make the point that in any situation where an authority has the ability to punish, if the accused isn't given some kind of basic rights (access to evidence, right to confront their accuser, appeals etc.) then the conviction is inherently unreliable. Goodell has the right to punish them, but as far as any reasonable person is concerned there is nothing you can go on to say "I know X did what he is accused of here" because you don't. You have a one sided system of punishment where only selective evidence is released and some of it has already been shown to have been exaggerated/lied about/falsified etc.

Fujita fully accepted that he was part of something technically illegal that has been ingrained in football for a long time, and if you read his quote he would have no problem being punished for that if that is what had happened here. But it isn't, and Goodell and the NFL has created a narrative way beyond the baseline participation in a bounty program act you claimed.

You talk about "comprehension problems" but apparently you won't even read what Fujita said and don't understand that just because he did something technically wrong (participate in a pay for performance program that has existed since the dawn of time in football) that it gives the NFL the right to claim any number of wild things about what it was and how it went down simply because they are trying to posture themselves in a way that they can later bring up when they are sued by injured NFL alumni.

And I'm not sure why it's necessary for you to throw in your little "smartest guy in the room" quip, but it certainly doesn't help your argument. In fact it's a pretty obvious sign of weakness.

It's kind of disappointing to see this from Pats fans after spygate; making sure that all the FRAMe stuff and other good points we make about why that was such a joke looks like nothing more than complete homerism.

That's a throw away comment if ever I read one. Most Patsfans supporters accept Spygate. We know the Patriots transgressed committing a minor rules infraction. We also accept that Goodell excessively punished the Patriots. That's the kicker. Every man and his dog realises by now it was a nothing story and a major overkill. Outside of that, it's a nonsensical point to raise when considering Bountygate.