delusions of grandeur Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 I don't see anywhere in that statement where the admitted to anything but being the people in charge at the time. They only admitted being in charge? That's like me admitting that Matt Ryan is the Falcon's quarterback. Seriously, why would you think that they needed a statement to say that they were in charge? Let me break down that statement again for you: Part 1: "We acknowledge that the violations disclosed by the NFL during their investigation of our club happened". Now this is the important part, not the part that we already knew that it anything that happens in their locker room was "under our watch". Then they go on to take responsibility and apologize... Apologize and take responsibility for what? Untrue allegations? Now we get to paragraph three, where that pesky little word "happen" pops up again: "These are serious violations and we understand the negative impact it has had on our game. Both of us have made it clear within our organization that this will never happen again, and make that same promise to the NFL and most importantly to all of our fans." So they're saying that they'll never have false accusations levied against them again? Seems like a tough thing to guarantee.... C'mon man, that statement is 100% clear that they're acknowledging it happened, apologized and took responsibility for it, and then said it won't happen again.... There is literally no other way to read that statement than them confirming that the "violations" are true. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papajohn Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 They only admitted being........"violations" are true. Let it go. It is of no use. You are just wasting your time and energy. It's like beating a dead horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Let it go. It is of no use. You are just wasting your time and energy. It's like beating a dead horse. And forego a chance to slap some sense into delusional Aints fans.... What's the fun it that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 They only admitted being in charge? That's like me admitting that Matt Ryan is the Falcon's quarterback. Seriously, why would you think that they needed a statement to say that they were in charge? Let me break down that statement again for you: Part 1: "We acknowledge that the violations disclosed by the NFL during their investigation of our club happened". Now this is the important part, not the part that we already knew that it anything that happens in their locker room was "under our watch". Then they go on to take responsibility and apologize... Apologize and take responsibility for what? Untrue allegations? Now we get to paragraph three, where that pesky little word "happen" pops up again: "These are serious violations and we understand the negative impact it has had on our game. Both of us have made it clear within our organization that this will never happen again, and make that same promise to the NFL and most importantly to all of our fans." So they're saying that they'll never have false accusations levied against them again? Seems like a tough thing to guarantee.... C'mon man, that statement is 100% clear that they're acknowledging it happened, apologized and took responsibility for it, and then said it won't happen again.... There is literally no other way to read that statement than them confirming that the "violations" are true. You are spot on. They acknowledged that the violations happened. It's like confessing to a crime, and then later finding out that the evidence the authorities have may be shakey, so they want to recant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Vitt now saying the documents the NFL has have been falsified. Well, that explains everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 You are spot on. They acknowledged that the violations happened. It's like confessing to a crime, and then later finding out that the evidence the authorities have may be shakey, so they want to recant. I think that's exactly what's going on... All it is at this point for the players is lawyering, saying "you don't have anything on me". More power too them if they can show that the NFL doesn't have good evidence against them (though this is a company investigation, so I'm not sure that anything close to habeus corpus is in play here. You don't have to be proven guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" for you to be obligated by contract to allow Goodell to rule the way he sees fit. Who's to say that a few credible witnesses and just a little bit of evidence isn't enough for him to see what's going on, especially after Payton and Williams have now acknowledged it happened. I don't think that a courtroom level of overwhelming evidence is required for him to see the writing on the wall). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 lol, you guys do remember that all along the Saints staff denied any wrong-doing until they met with Goodall, right? They was the whole reason they were punished so severely. Goodall accused them of lying about it. So if this is the only real evidence they have and the Saints staff were told they had to cooperate in order to be reinstated then what does that tell you? Take the blinders off and look at the actual evidence. Look at how much the league has played it up to be much more than out actually was. look at how many holes have already been shot through it. Yes, three Saints clearly ran a pay-for-performance system.Yes, Gregg Williams is obviously a bit off in his approach, but there are just too many holes in what the NFL is selling to not question it. I can take the punishments for pay-for-performance, but what they are doing to the Saints is bullCHIPS AHOY!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) lol, you guys do remember that all along the Saints staff denied any wrong-doing until they met with Goodall, right? They was the whole reason they were punished so severely. Goodall accused them of lying about it. So if this is the only real evidence they have and the Saints staff were told they had to cooperate in order to be reinstated then what does that tell you? Take the blinders off and look at the actual evidence. Look at how much the league has played it up to be much more than out actually was. look at how many holes have already been shot through it. Yes, three Saints clearly ran a pay-for-performance system.Yes, Gregg Williams is obviously a bit off in his approach, but there are just too many holes in what the NFL is selling to not question it. I can take the punishments for pay-for-performance, but what they are doing to the Saints is bullCHIPS AHOY!. And as for the Brett Favre bounty document or Peyton acknowledging the email about Rodgers? Any thoughts on those? The Seahawks slide was also pretty suggestive, with Dog the Bounty Hunter references of "let's go huntin'!" Anwyays, rajn, sorry to give you a hard time about it, but if you're talking about blinders, well, I think you're seeing what you want to see and what they want you to believe... I mean, think about it. The league has absolutely no interest in overreacting to a "pay-for-performance pool" amid the concussion suits. Why would you possibly conduct a witch-hunt at that time where it might only make you all look worse? Now, I know you're probably going to come back with them using the Saints as an example, but you know what's a better example: Being able to say that nothing like that ever went on. Surely the NFL would have gladly swept it under the rug. In fact, they actually did (as the story goes anyway) warn the Saints about it, before they were pretty much forced to make this public... If you think that this is anything but what the NFL was forced to do, I'm sorry, that's just not thinking clearly... I mean, unless Goodell threatened them or something, do you really think Payton and Williams were just fine to go along with their suspensions? Cmon man... Edited June 22, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 lol, you guys do remember that all along the Saints staff denied any wrong-doing until they met with Goodall, right? They was the whole reason they were punished so severely. Goodall accused them of lying about it. So if this is the only real evidence they have and the Saints staff were told they had to cooperate in order to be reinstated then what does that tell you? Take the blinders off and look at the actual evidence. Look at how much the league has played it up to be much more than out actually was. look at how many holes have already been shot through it. Yes, three Saints clearly ran a pay-for-performance system.Yes, Gregg Williams is obviously a bit off in his approach, but there are just too many holes in what the NFL is selling to not question it. I can take the punishments for pay-for-performance, but what they are doing to the Saints is bullCHIPS AHOY!. Based on what we know right now, I find the argument that the league pressured them to make that statement, or perhaps even wrote it for them, to be very plausible. Again, with what evidence we have, it seems like Drew Brees' comparison to weapons of mass destruction is a fair analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 And as for the Brett Favre bounty document or Peyton acknowledging the email about Rodgers? Any thoughts on those? The Seahawks slide was also pretty suggestive, with Dog the Bounty Hunter references of "let's go huntin'!" Anwyays, rajn, sorry to give you a hard time about it, but if you're talking about blinders, well, I think you're seeing what you want to see and what they want you to believe... I mean, think about it. The league has absolutely no interest in overreacting to a "pay-for-performance pool" amid the concussion suits. Why would you possibly conduct a witch-hunt at that time where it might only make you all look worse? Now, I know you're probably going to come back with them using the Saints as an example, but you know what's a better example: Being able to say that nothing like that ever went on. Surely the NFL would have gladly swept it under the rug. In fact, they actually did (as the story goes anyway) warn the Saints about it, before they were pretty much forced to make this public... If you think that this is anything but what the NFL was forced to do, I'm sorry, that's just not thinking clearly... I mean, unless Goodell threatened them or something, do you really think Payton and Williams were just fine to go along with their suspensions? Cmon man... Why not? They want to return to the NFL, so they have to play ball whether they agree or not. They can be replaced. Anyone can be replaced. The NFL is a good cash cow. I'm sure they don't want to ruin their opportunity to keep that ride going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) And as for the Brett Favre bounty document or Peyton acknowledging the email about Rodgers? Any thoughts on those? The Seahawks slide was also pretty suggestive, with Dog the Bounty Hunter references of "let's go huntin'!" Electric Relish already answered the rest pretty well, so I'll just address this part. As I referred to in my previous post, the NFL lied about the email from Orenstein to Payton. The email was not actually to Payton, but to a Saints marketing director who then forwarded it to Payton & Gregg Williams. The NFL also misrepresented the content of the email stating that it was proof detailing Ornstein and Payton's involvement in a bounty system. Here's a quote from an article explaing the email: The bulk of Ornstein's note to the Saints discusses his experiences in prison and offers sometimes brash words of encouragement to various coaches, including then-Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams. The last line states: "PS Gregg Williams put me down for $5000.00 on Rogers (sic)." Ornstein says now that was written "in total jest." Ornstein was sentenced to eight months in federal prison, which he served in Florence, Colo., for conspiring to scalp Super Bowl tickets and hawking fake "game-worn" spamshirts. He was released last fall. "It's a running joke going for three years," Ornstein said in a phone interview this week, explaining that he had been kidding Williams about bounties ever since the NFC championship game in 2010, after which the Vikings told the NFL that they believed the Saints had a bounty on quarterback Brett Favre. Originally Payton said that he knew of no such email from Ornstein pledging money for a bounty & was supposedly shown the email during his meeting with Goodell. Considering the context of the email, I think I could fairly say that I wouldn't remember it either. The Dog the Bounty Hunter slide is just idiotic. If you think that is any kind proof of a pay for injury bounty system then it's only because you want to believe it. Again, go back and watch that game, just like the San Francisco playoff game & show me even ONE instance where you think a Saints defender was trying to injure another player. One more thing I will say... Payton, in his statement was all towing the company line. But there have been a lot of rumors and reports that things did not go well between him & Goodell in their meetings & it's speculated that is the reason why his suspension was so much harsher than the others as well as Goodell later adding the stipulation that Payton had to continue to tow the line in order to be reinstated after his year was up. Edited June 22, 2012 by rajncajn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Why not? They want to return to the NFL, so they have to play ball whether they agree or not. They can be replaced. Anyone can be replaced. The NFL is a good cash cow. I'm sure they don't want to ruin their opportunity to keep that ride going. Why turning to the conspiracy side with the Saints fans? I understand being objective, but I think Williams and Payton going along with losing millions, with still having recourse if they can show that they were unlawfully terminated and libeled otherwise, seems pretty far-fetched... I know they agreed to let Goodell rule the way he saw fit, but if it's to the extent that Vilma, Rajn and other Saints fans claim that this is all pure BS, then I'm pretty certain they would have plenty of legal recourse if the accusations were totally baseless (different than just circumstantial evidence and witnesses which if I understand correctly, is good enough for him to rule). It seems pretty far-fetched that they would be good soldiers and go along with the NFL's witchhunt, if they knew that Goodell was full of it, and it would come out that he was... And again Rajn, rather than showing why each piece of evidence can be explained away (that doesn't make it any more or less true however, this isn't a court of law, and even there enough pieces of circumstantial evidence can be as good as one piece of hard evidence), why exactly is Goodell inventing a bounty program at a time when they're facing concussion lawsuits? It isn't like Goodell himself is going to be found liable for past concussions I don't think, it's the NFL as an entity that stands to suffer, and so it makes no sense for him jsut to invent this "violation" at a time when it only stood to make them look bad for intentional violence to have happened, when they're trying to claim full innocence in not knowing the dangers of concussions.. If it's true, then yes, Goodell had to do something to show the NFL won't tolerate things like this, but if it's not true or he could see that the evidence was too weak to ever be used against anyone, then they only had interest in sweeping it under the rug. Rather than fabricating an example out of the Saints, they would make a much better example by being able to claim that nothing like this ever happened by any NFL staff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papajohn Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 why exactly is Goodell inventing a bounty program at a time when they're facing concussion lawsuits? We have already established that Goodell acted on personal feelings toward Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis, and that the NFL for some unexplained reason wants to prevent the Saints from winning, while at the same time wants the Patriots to continue winning. How can you not see that fabricating a bounty program in the Saints organization makes the concussion lawsuit go away, prevents the Saints from winning and somehow allows the Patriots to continue to win all at once? They kill three birds with one stone. It makes perfect sense! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) We have already established that Goodell acted on personal feelings toward Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis, and that the NFL for some unexplained reason wants to prevent the Saints from winning, while at the same time wants the Patriots to continue winning. How can you not see that fabricating a bounty program in the Saints organization makes the concussion lawsuit go away, prevents the Saints from winning and somehow allows the Patriots to continue to win all at once? They kill three birds with one stone. It makes perfect sense! Exactly... It isn't like Goodell's actions here will have any positive bearing on the lawsuit that pretty much centers around supposed events well before this scandal, but fabricating the scandal only stands to make them look worse in the concussion lawsuit and PR if things like this are still going on behind the scenes. I cannot see any benefit in doing so at all. Further, as I said earlier, the story goes that the NFL tried to get them to knock it off privately, and it was their insubordination that caused them to have to react publicly and denounce it. That seems much more plausible than this conspiracy theory that is so far-fetched it makes some of my out-there theories look much more reasonable. Edited June 24, 2012 by delusions of grandeur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papajohn Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 (edited) That seems much more plausible than this conspiracy theory that is so far-fetched it makes some of my out-there theories look much more reasonable. Don't forget you are talking to the same kind of people as those who believes the Tuck rule call was a big conspiracy designed to screw The Raiders and let the Patriots win the Super Bowl. The NFL of course knew the Patriots would win against the Rams and decided not to screw the Rams at anytime during the playoff. Logical! Discussing topics like Bounty Gate is really a waste of time, but it is a lot of fun though. Edited June 24, 2012 by Papajohn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Vilma suspension cut to 8 games, Bathrobe suspension dropped. that seems much more reasonable. now if we could get something similar done for Payton.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Vilma suspension cut to 8 games, Bathrobe suspension dropped. that seems much more reasonable. now if we could get something similar done for Payton.. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 What? Not only did I bite on an erroneous report, but I also fell victim to the auto-correct on my phone. Bathrobe = Hargrove. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Why turning to the conspiracy side with the Saints fans? I understand being objective, You answered your own question. You should try it some time. I know I am biased and unlike you I'm willing to admit it, but at least I have a reason to buy into what the Saints are selling. You just accept the NFL for their word despite all the facts that have shown the flaws in thier case. I don't know, I have a difficult time believing the NFL really has it out for the Saints, but if the truth is what I believe it to be, then I don't know what is worse. The NFL trying to "take down" the Saints or them just being extremely poor at performing an investigation and Roger Goodell being one to very quickly jump to dire conclusions based on very thin evidence. Sorry, I just don't buy into the pay-for-injury, bounty bullCHIPS AHOY! the NFL has tried their damnest to sell us on. Did they do wrong? Yes. Should they be punished? Yes. But call it what is and punish accordingly. If it's as bad as you say, they you better damn well be 100% sure and be able to back it up before you do something like this. Don't forget you are talking to the same kind of people as those who believes the Tuck rule call was a big conspiracy designed to screw The Raiders and let the Patriots win the Super Bowl. The NFL of course knew the Patriots would win against the Rams and decided not to screw the Rams at anytime during the playoff. Logical! Discussing topics like Bounty Gate is really a waste of time, but it is a lot of fun though. Wow, aren't we really full of ourselves... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papajohn Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Wow, aren't we really full of ourselves... Sorry, I was under the impression that it was totally justified to twist everything negative associated with your team in an counter-logical, nonsensical and absurd over the top way. I wonder where I got that from? What did I do wrong by the way? Was it because my post wasn't long enough or was it because it wasn't self-contradicting enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ditkaless Wonders Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Not only did I bite on an erroneous report, but I also fell victim to the auto-correct on my phone. Bathrobe = Hargrove. I thought I had missed something. Thanks for clarifying. Now I have to check if my phone will turn Hargrove to bathrobe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I thought I had missed something. Thanks for clarifying. Now I have to check if my phone will turn Hargrove to bathrobe. Which will make your investigation much more thorough than the NFL's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
electricrelish Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Why turning to the conspiracy side with the Saints fans? I understand being objective, but I think Williams and Payton going along with losing millions, with still having recourse if they can show that they were unlawfully terminated and libeled otherwise, seems pretty far-fetched... I know they agreed to let Goodell rule the way he saw fit, but if it's to the extent that Vilma, Rajn and other Saints fans claim that this is all pure BS, then I'm pretty certain they would have plenty of legal recourse if the accusations were totally baseless (different than just circumstantial evidence and witnesses which if I understand correctly, is good enough for him to rule). It seems pretty far-fetched that they would be good soldiers and go along with the NFL's witchhunt, if they knew that Goodell was full of it, and it would come out that he was... Maybe it seems far fetched to you, DoG, but it doesn't seem far fetched to Drew Brees. “I’ve been informed a lot of those coaches feel there are further sanctions being held over their head if they don’t cooperate with the investigation,” Brees said. “If they were to speak out on behalf of the players, maybe that’s the fear they have.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bronco Billy Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Drew Brees is a hard core union stooge. Anything he alleges against the league should be taken with a large degree of skepticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rajncajn Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Drew Brees is a hard core union stooge. Anything he alleges against the league should be taken with a large degree of skepticism. So you're saying Drew Brees has it out for the league? 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.