loaf Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 RT @jasonlacanfora: NFL announces Vilma suspended for the season; Hargrove 8 games, Will Smith 4 games and Fujita 3 games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piles Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Sounds about right to me. Will be interesting to see how this plays out with the NFLPA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) posted this in the IDP Forum: http://nfllabor.file...ts-players1.pdf Four players – Scott Fujita, Anthony Hargrove, Will Smith, and Jonathan Vilma – were notified today that they have been suspended without pay for conduct detrimental to the NFL as a result of their leadership roles in the New Orleans Saints’ pay-for-performance/bounty program that endangered player safety over three seasons from 2009-2011. Participation by players in any such program is prohibited by the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, the standard NFL Player Contract, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The specific discipline was determined by Commissioner Roger Goodell after a thorough review of extensive evidence corroborated by multiple independent sources. Under Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the standard NFL Player Contract, a player is subject to discipline by the commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the NFL. The discipline imposed today for such detrimental conduct is as follows: Scott Fujita (now with the Cleveland Browns) is suspended without pay for the first three games of the 2012 regular season. The record established that Fujita, a linebacker, pledged a significant amount of money to the prohibited pay-for-performance/bounty pool during the 2009 NFL Playoffs when he played for the Saints. The pool to which he pledged paid large cash rewards for "cart-offs" and "knockouts," plays during which an opposing player was injured. Defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove (now with the Green Bay Packers) is suspended without pay for the first eight games of the 2012 regular season. Hargrove actively participated in the program while a member of the Saints. Hargrove submitted a signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it. The evidence showed that Hargrove told at least one player on another team that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre was a target of a large bounty during the NFC Championship Game in January of 2010. Hargrove also actively obstructed the league’s 2010 investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators. Will Smith of the Saints is suspended without pay for the first four games of the 2012 regular season. Smith, a defensive end, assisted Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams in establishing and funding the program during a period in which he was a captain and leader of the defensive unit. Multiple independent sources also confirmed that Smith pledged significant sums to the program pool for "cart-offs" and "knockouts" of opposing players. Linebacker Jonathan Vilma of the Saints is suspended without pay for the 2012 NFL season, effective immediately per league policy for season-long suspensions. The investigation concluded that while a captain of the defensive unit Vilma assisted Coach Williams in establishing and funding the program. Multiple independent sources also confirmed that Vilma offered a specific bounty -- $10,000 in cash – to any player who knocked Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner out of the 2009 Divisional Playoff Game and later pledged the same amount to anyone who knocked Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC Championship Game the following week (played on January 24, 2010). Vilma is eligible to be reinstated after the Super Bowl in 2013. Fujita, Hargrove, and Smith may participate in all off-season activity, including preseason games, prior to the suspensions taking effect. Each player disciplined today is entitled to appeal the decision within three days. If an appeal is filed, Commissioner Goodell would hold a hearing at which the player may speak on his behalf and be represented by counsel. "It is the obligation of everyone, including the players on the field, to ensure that rules designed to promote player safety, fair play, and the integrity of the game are adhered to and effectively and consistently enforced," Commissioner Goodell said. "Respect for the men that play the game starts with the way players conduct themselves with each other on the field." The evidence conclusively demonstrated that from 2009-2011 Saints players of their own accord pledged significant amounts of their own money toward bounties, that players accepted payments for "cart-offs" and "knockouts" of injured opposing players, and that the payout amounts doubled and tripled for playoff games. Commissioner Goodell concluded, as he did with the Saints’ non-player employees, that it was appropriate to focus on those individuals who had a higher degree of responsibility and whose conduct warranted special attention. While a significant number of players participated in the pay-for-performance program, whether by contributing funds to the pool or collecting cash rewards, the players disciplined participated at a different and more significant level, Commissioner Goodell noted. "In assessing player discipline," Commissioner Goodell said, "I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation." Each of the four players disciplined today met one or more of those criteria, Commissioner Goodell said. The evidence supporting today’s disciplinary decisions is based on extensive documentation and interviews with multiple sources. The information was developed by NFL Security, working with independent forensic analysts, and the disciplinary decisions are each based on evidence that has been independently corroborated by multiple sources. The facts supporting the discipline issued today are largely the same as the facts that Commissioner Goodell relied upon in March in assessing discipline on the club and several non-player employees. Those facts have been part of the public record for two months and have not been disputed by the team or the individuals involved. "No bounty program can exist without active player participation," Commissioner Goodell said. "The evidence clearly showed that the players being held accountable today willingly and enthusiastically embraced the bounty program. Players put the vast majority of the money into this program and they share responsibility for playing by the rules and protecting each other within those rules." The NFL Players Association received the confidential March 2 and March 21 reports on the Saints matter that were distributed to the clubs. In addition, members of the NFL staff, including the NFL Security investigators, met with NFLPA officials to review the results of their investigation. A number of current and former players, including each player disciplined today, were offered the opportunity to be interviewed with counsel present. One player (Hargrove) submitted a written statement in which he did not dispute the existence of the program, but no player agreed to be interviewed in person. In addition, the NFLPA publicly stated that it conducted its own investigation into this matter, but it has shared no information from that investigation with the NFL. Commissioner Goodell also has advised the NFLPA of the names of all other players shown by the NFL’s investigation to have participated in the Saints’ pay-for-performance/bounty program but were not disciplined. The commissioner again invited the union to provide recommendations on how best to promote fair play, player safety and the elimination of bounties from the game at all levels. He said that identifying the other participants may assist the union in its stated desire to advance those goals. Discipline for the Saints and club management was announced by the NFL on March 21. The Saints were fined $500,000 and forfeited two second-round draft choices (one in 2012 and one in 2013). In addition, suspensions without pay were issued to former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams (indefinitely), head coach Sean Payton (2012 NFL season), general manager Mickey Loomis (first eight regular-season games of 2012), and assistant head coach Joe Vitt (first six regular-season games of 2012). LEAGUE-WIDE INITIATIVE ALSO ANNOUNCED In a memo sent to NFL clubs today, Commissioner Goodell re-emphasized that any program of non-contract bonuses, however it is characterized, is a violation of league rules. To ensure a full understanding of these rules, the commissioner informed the NFL clubs of several measures that will be completed prior to the opening of the 2012 preseason: The policies prohibiting bounties and any related activity will be re-stated and re-emphasized for all league personnel, detailing with specificity the scope of prohibited activities. Each NFL head coach will be required to review the relevant league rules with his players and assistant coaches during mini-camp or preseason training camp. Information will be distributed to each player in the league on how to confidentially report violations of rules pertaining to player safety and the integrity of the game. Programs will be developed to teach safe and fair play, and respect for the game and its participants, at all levels of play. Several Saints employees have expressed their strong interest in participating in the development and implementation of these programs. Commissioner Goodell also re-emphasized in the memo to the NFL clubs that it remains everyone’s obligation to ensure that the rules designed to protect player safety, fair play, and the integrity of the game are consistently followed and effectively enforced. Edited May 2, 2012 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Menudo Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Wow. Will be interesting to see how this plays out with the NFLPA. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Sounds about right to me. Will be interesting to see how this plays out with the NFLPA. I think there were something like 30 players implicated...only 4 got suspensions....reading between the lines I don't think the NFLPA will havemuch to say...or much it can say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Seems fair, and also seems like many other players could have been suspended for participating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I think there were something like 30 players implicated...only 4 got suspensions....reading between the lines I don't think the NFLPA will have much to say...or much it can say I haven't really kept up on what evidence they have of the players' involvement. Is it only players who received the extra money for vicious hits who are suspended? I say this because all of the defensive players were probably aware of the bounty program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I haven't really kept up on what evidence they have of the players' involvement. Is it only players who received the extra money for vicious hits who are suspended? I say this because all of the defensive players were probably aware of the bounty program. this is from the above article: "In assessing player discipline," Commissioner Goodell said, "I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation." Each of the four players disciplined today met one or more of those criteria, Commissioner Goodell said. The evidence supporting today’s disciplinary decisions is based on extensive documentation and interviews with multiple sources. The information was developed by NFL Security, working with independent forensic analysts, and the disciplinary decisions are each based on evidence that has been independently corroborated by multiple sources. The facts supporting the discipline issued today are largely the same as the facts that Commissioner Goodell relied upon in March in assessing discipline on the club and several non-player employees. Those facts have been part of the public record for two months and have not been disputed by the team or the individuals involved. "No bounty program can exist without active player participation," Commissioner Goodell said. "The evidence clearly showed that the players being held accountable today willingly and enthusiastically embraced the bounty program. Players put the vast majority of the money into this program and they share responsibility for playing by the rules and protecting each other within those rules." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I haven't really kept up on what evidence they have of the players' involvement. Is it only players who received the extra money for vicious hits who are suspended? I say this because all of the defensive players were probably aware of the bounty program. I would characterize it as focusing on the "ring-leaders" only. Kind of like how I'm sure every position coach and assistant was aware as well, but they only went after Loomis, Payton, and Williams. "In assessing player discipline," Commissioner Goodell said, "I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation." Each player individually was broken down in detail on Sirius XM, this is my synopsis of the reasons: Vilma - assisted Williams in the creation, execution, and funding of the program. Also specifically offered $10k (reportedly slapped a stack of cash on the table for emphasis) for injury to Warner in the playoff game, and repeated the offer for Favre the following week. Hargrove - contributed funds to the program. Signed a declaration stating he obstructed the 2010 investigation. Fujita - contributed large sums of money into a fund that generally rewarded "cartoffs" and "knockouts" - Schein stressed the quotes in the release he was reading. Smith - I didn't catch his details, I was listening at lunch at the park and was distracted by a hottie that was doing some power stretching getting ready to jog or w/e. I wanna say it was contributing large sums as Fujita above - maybe he paid more into it? They then noted Goodell's emphasis on focusing on players in positions of leadership or influence being held to higher standards. Still discussing of course, and Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I am surprised at a few names that are not on the list of suspensions. I expected much worse than this on the players side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chargerz Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 this is from the above article: "In assessing player discipline," Commissioner Goodell said, "I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation." Each of the four players disciplined today met one or more of those criteria, Commissioner Goodell said. The evidence supporting today’s disciplinary decisions is based on extensive documentation and interviews with multiple sources. The information was developed by NFL Security, working with independent forensic analysts, and the disciplinary decisions are each based on evidence that has been independently corroborated by multiple sources. The facts supporting the discipline issued today are largely the same as the facts that Commissioner Goodell relied upon in March in assessing discipline on the club and several non-player employees. Those facts have been part of the public record for two months and have not been disputed by the team or the individuals involved. "No bounty program can exist without active player participation," Commissioner Goodell said. "The evidence clearly showed that the players being held accountable today willingly and enthusiastically embraced the bounty program. Players put the vast majority of the money into this program and they share responsibility for playing by the rules and protecting each other within those rules." I would characterize it as focusing on the "ring-leaders" only. Kind of like how I'm sure every position coach and assistant was aware as well, but they only went after Loomis, Payton, and Williams. "In assessing player discipline," Commissioner Goodell said, "I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation." Each player individually was broken down in detail on Sirius XM, this is my synopsis of the reasons: Vilma - assisted Williams in the creation, execution, and funding of the program. Also specifically offered $10k (reportedly slapped a stack of cash on the table for emphasis) for injury to Warner in the playoff game, and repeated the offer for Favre the following week. Hargrove - contributed funds to the program. Signed a declaration stating he obstructed the 2010 investigation. Fujita - contributed large sums of money into a fund that generally rewarded "cartoffs" and "knockouts" - Schein stressed the quotes in the release he was reading. Smith - I didn't catch his details, I was listening at lunch at the park and was distracted by a hottie that was doing some power stretching getting ready to jog or w/e. I wanna say it was contributing large sums as Fujita above - maybe he paid more into it? They then noted Goodell's emphasis on focusing on players in positions of leadership or influence being held to higher standards. Still discussing of course, and Thanks. Both are very informative posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 One thing I still find interesting regarding Fujita. He admits to putting money into the pool. But denies that it included payouts for the "cartoffs" & "knockouts". So either he really didn't know what he was putting money in for, or he is completely lying. Considering he is part of the NFLPA executive committee and seems like a pretty bright guy I'm going to go with the latter. Of course other players (notably Vilma) who specifically offerred large sums of money for injuries to specific players were punished more severely, which makes sense. As well as the higher punishment for Hargrove because he obstructed the investigation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Why would the NFLPA have anything to say? Isn't it their job to protect players like those targeted rather than defending the pricks involved in the bounty program? Yes, those are rhetorical questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Of course other players (notably Vilma) who specifically offerred large sums of money for injuries to specific players were punished more severely, which makes sense. As well as the higher punishment for Hargrove because he obstructed the investigation. Totally speculating, but Hargrove sounds like a plea-bargain bluff. "Hey, sign this, which we will release publicly, and give us others that contributed, which we won't, and we'll make sure you don't lose the whole year". And once they got testimony against Vilma, they give him a year, Hargrove feels like he got off easy at only 8 games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I am surprised at a few names that are not on the list of suspensions. I expected much worse than this on the players side. Same here. I think in the end it did come down to the evidence on the field for a lot of the players involved. Vilma, Fujita, Smith & Hargrove all ran the show of sorts, so they are the one's who are taking the heat. Just a couple of things I will say though, first & foremost I have no argument over any of these suspensions. I do however think that although it is not mentioned, the penalty on Hargrove is mostly based on the Minnesota game and the hit on Warner. Given the league already penalized him for the hit on Favre & the hit on Warner was completely legal, I'm not so sure the NFL did the smart thing by going that route if in fact that is why his was longer. On Vilma, I am a bit surprised that it was a year long suspension when compared to others who have been suspended for a year. I think the league needs to do a much better job of deciding the length of suspensions as well as deciding monetary fines. When Vilma gets the same length suspension as someone who killed a man while driiving drunk or a person wearing the wrong colored socks recieves a higher fine than one for hitting a defenseless reciever, I just think the priorities there are a bit skewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Totally speculating, but Hargrove sounds like a plea-bargain bluff. "Hey, sign this, which we will release publicly, and give us others that contributed, which we won't, and we'll make sure you don't lose the whole year". And once they got testimony against Vilma, they give him a year, Hargrove feels like he got off easy at only 8 games. It wouldn't surprise me. It's already come out that the NFL wrote Greg Williams' apology letter, so I could see this happening as well. Why would the NFLPA have anything to say? Isn't it their job to protect players like those targeted rather than defending the pricks involved in the bounty program? Yes, those are rhetorical questions. Rhetorical question or not, it's the NFLPA's job to represent all players, right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 It wouldn't surprise me. It's already come out that the NFL wrote Greg Williams' apology letter, so I could see this happening as well. Rhetorical question or not, it's the NFLPA's job to represent all players, right or wrong. That's the first I've heard of that. I tried a quick search to find some story reporting it, and all I could find were comments by posters on a couple of stories that claim this happened. One was in a comment on this story from Monday http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/04/30/head-of-saints-bounty-probe-submits-resignation-letter/ Anybody seen anything more concrete than that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt770 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 This is an outrage. Those suspensions are way too harsh. What a joke. This will not stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 That's the first I've heard of that. I tried a quick search to find some story reporting it, and all I could find were comments by posters on a couple of stories that claim this happened. One was in a comment on this story from Monday http://profootballta...gnation-letter/ Anybody seen anything more concrete than that? It was reported on the Dan Patrick show. I believe around the 17:00 mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrab Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 It was reported on the Dan Patrick show. I believe around the 17:00 mark Thanks I've listened to it now. Basically Dan Patrick saying this is what I'm getting, he wrote his apology then the NFL said, "that's nice but this is what we want you to say." Sorry but that isn't all that convincing to me. Somebody on a radio show saying "they believe something happened" is just their opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Thanks I've listened to it now. Basically Dan Patrick saying this is what I'm getting, he wrote his apology then the NFL said, "that's nice but this is what we want you to say." Sorry but that isn't all that convincing to me. Somebody on a radio show saying "they believe something happened" is just their opinion. Here is verbatim what was said: Here's another thing I learned yesterday. Greg Williams at first came out and said some things or had a statement and you know what the NFL said? Here's our version of what you need to say Greg. Sign this one Greg. So when people said "well he apologized for this. If they didn't do anything wrong then what's he apologizing for?" What I learned is, the NFL said "we don't like your statement Greg. We like our statement that you're going to be saying. Sign this please." And Greg Williams is probably thinking, "I've got an indefinite suspension. I'm at their mercy here." This isn't just some local hack on a radio station or a fan on a FF message board. If you believe all the other sources who have been speaking out against the Saints then why not believe somebody like Dan Patrick? He's not saying that this is something he "believes" happened, he's saying that this is something he learned happened. Whether or not that changed anything, I really don't know. But that, among MANY other things are why I question whether the NFL is completely on the up-and-up in this whole situation and it also shows just how much the media can & does form the public perception. You only have to look back a few months for proof of that. I've already sent you a bunch of info dealing with the reporter in New Orleans who broke the wire tapping story for Outside the Lines... The same people who are in hot water over the Bernie Fine mess. But you go on believing everything they report as 100% accurate. I'll keep my homers opinion as well as an open mind. Edited May 2, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Rhetorical question or not, it's the NFLPA's job to represent all players, right or wrong. Yeah, it is quite a quandry and conflict of interest they find themselves in, huh... They effectively represent both the defendant and plaintiff here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flemingd Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Who cares who wrote what? Most of what's said at press conferences is scrubbed umpteen times over anyway. If the NFL didn't write the apology, his lawyer would. And his publicist would review it. And someone from the league office would need to approve it. And on and on. This has been happening for years, big freaking deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) Yeah, it is quite a quandry and conflict of interest they find themselves in, huh... They effectively represent both the defendant and plaintiff here. Being a player's association I would think they should do what is best for the collective association, you know like protecting the well being of said players. Edited May 3, 2012 by keggerz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.