DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Bountygate, players turn to face the music?

Vitt denies that he told Hargrove to lie

Posted by Mike Florio on May 8, 2012, 12:15 AM EDT

Saints interim head coach Joe Vitt, who has been suspended six games for his role in the Saints’ pay-for-performance/bounty program, allegedly told defensive end Anthony Hargrove to deny that a bounty had been placed on Brett Favre in the 2009 NFC title game, and to deny generally the existence of a bounty program.

Vitt denies it, according to Mike Triplett of the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

“At no time did I ever tell Anthony Hargrove to lie or deny the existence (of the alleged bounty program),” Vitt said. “He can say whatever he wants to say. It just didn’t happen.”

But here’s the thing. Vitt consistently has denied the existence of a “bounty” program. Instead, he has admitted that the Saints had a pay-for-performance system.

“We had a pot for big plays, the same thing everyone else in the league has, now they call them pay-for-performance. But we never paid for dirty hits,” Vitt said. “I’ll say it again, the exact same thing I told the Commissioner, our players never crossed the white lines with an intent to maim or injure. They never threatened the integrity of the game when they crossed the white lines.”

That’s where the gap in the facts exists. The league says that money was paid for “cart-offs” and “knockouts,” but the league has yet to identify a single cent contributed or paid for a “cart-off” or a “knockout” caused by the Saints in 2009, 2010, and/or 2011.

If it happened, why not disclose the proof of it? If it didn’t, why isn’t this simply being characterized as an illegal pay-for-performance program?

web page

Of course they don't say WHAT was misrepresented or how it was, just that it happened, and we are supposed to believe them?

I don't doubt it may have happened, but to claim it and not give any proof or examples other than "because I'm telling you so" is not going to gain any support for your cause.

I feel the NFL should disclose this information to the NFLPA and players associated. But, they should do so under a very tight wrap.

the problem is, and they know it, that once they do, the NFLPA will leak whatever little information might benefit them.

what we know: there was a bounty program in place. there were coaches and players involved. the main ones have been punished. everyone should leave it alone and move on.

floridafan...the NFLPA might have good reason for not cooperating with the commissioner's office.

They have asked to see the evidence Goodell is basing his punishment on and so far, the Commissioner has not produced the evidence they claimed to have...paying for "cart offs" and "knockouts"

Coach Vitt claims “We had a pot for big plays, the same thing everyone else in the league has, now they call them pay-for-performance. But we never paid for dirty hits,” Vitt said. “I’ll say it again, the exact same thing I told the Commissioner, our players never crossed the white lines with an intent to maim or injure. They never threatened the integrity of the game when they crossed the white lines.”


I say, if the players never crossed the line, why is Goodell punishing them?


It should be noted, when PFT and Mike Florio first started reporting on Bountygate, he was squarely behind Goodell and the NFL. Now Florio is challenging the Commissioner...making a very reasonable request....

Florio says..."That’s where the gap in the facts exists. The league says that money was paid for “cart-offs” and “knockouts,” but the league has yet to identify a single cent contributed or paid for a “cart-off” or a “knockout” caused by the Saints in 2009, 2010, and/or 2011.

If it happened, why not disclose the proof of it? If it didn’t, why isn’t this simply being characterized as an illegal pay-for-performance program?"

We're on the same page mac, I was just stating that the article above claims the statements were inaccurate, but does nothing to show how and which ones. He just wants us to believe him. He never gave an example of what the NFL put out and what he claims was actually said. Not that I don't believe him or them, just that when your second in the game, you have to bring something to the table to prove your position or it's just "he said she said."

I'm not backing anyone.. BUT, I would like to see all the evidence on both sides. I suppose that showing me, Joe Fan doesn't mean a thing because I'm not in the position to hold anyone responsible, but I would LIKE to see the evidence.

...jc...

Cris Carter admits to using bounties during his career

Posted by Mike Florio on May 8, 2012, 9:15 PM EDT

On Monday, former NFL receiver Cris Carter provided great insight regarding the concussion issue during ESPN’s Outside the Lines. On Tuesday, Carter chimed in on the other big issue in the NFL.

Actually, it was more than a chime. It was a freaking gong.

Carter told ESPN Radio’s Hill & Schlereth that Carter placed cash bounties on opposing players during his career.

“I’m guilty of it,” Carter said. “It’s the first time I’ve ever admitted it. But I put a bounty on guys before. I put bounties on guys. And the guys tried to take me out, a guy tried to take a cheap shot on me, I put a bounty on him, right now.”

“A money bounty?” Mark Schlereth asked.

“Absolutely,” Carter said.

“Protect me. . . . Protect me from him. . . . Especially if he’s playing a different position where I can’t protect myself,” Carter said. “I’d tell one of them guards, ‘Hey man, this dude is after me, man. Bill Romanowski.’ He told me he’s gonna me out before the game, in warmups. No problem. ‘I’m gonna end your career, Carter.’ No problem. I put a little change on his head before the game. Protect myself, protect my family. That’s the league that I grew up in.”

Asked whether he was the only one to do that, Carter was emphatic: “Heck no!”

Carter added that he has no regrets. “Matter of fact, if I see a couple of them dudes that was trying to cheap shot me walking through ESPN, I’d put a bounty on them right now.”

Carter explained that the bounty was “based on protection or big hit, excitement or helping your team win, it wasn’t to maim or hurt the dude.” And that sounds a lot like how the Saints would explain the use of bounties from 2009 through 2011, if any of them were to admit to it and/or if there were evidence of it.

Carter also said that he was in the Eagles locker room for the 1989 Bounty Bowl, and that he was present when former Eagles coach Buddy Ryan “put the bounties on the guys.” Carter said he disregarded those types of bounties, but other players didn’t. “I saw guys getting wiped out, guys going for the money,” Carter said.

Later in the interview, Carter said that bounties also were used by the Vikings to protect players like Randy Moss, Daunte Culpepper, and Randall Cunningham.

Carter’s remarks generally support the notion that bounties have indeed been part of the game for a long time before the Saints were caught using them. But the league has shown no inclination to look any deeper into history than the 2009 through 2011 Saints — probably because the league realizes that the rabbit hole runs far deeper than anyone realizes.

And so the NFL instead has opted to make an example of the Saints and to hope that, moving forward, no one “puts a little change” on anyone’s head before a game. Or during a game. Or ever.

web page

this doesn't surprise me one bit. it happens in high school- I'm sure it happens all the time in the Pros

...jc...

Vilma’s lawyer calls NFL process “a kangaroo court”


Posted by Mike Florio on May 9, 2012, 12:30 AM EDT

On Monday, lawyer Peter Ginsberg submitted a 17-point request to the NFL for information regarding the allegation that Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma was involved in a bounty program. On Tuesday, Ginsberg said he has heard nothing in response.

Ginsberg discussed the situation on WWL radio, and he used strong words to describe the league’s investigative process.

“The fact that we haven’t received a single piece of evidence from the Commissioner not only makes the whole process suspect but made it important that we ask the Commissioner as specifically as we possibly could what we think we should be able to see in order to even the playing field and in order to give Jonathan a fair hearing,” Ginsberg said, via Nakia Hogan of the New Orleans Times-Picayune. “And I must say that the Commissioner still hasn’t responded to this most recent request. This is not the first time we have asked them for the evidence.”

Ginberg also criticized the the league’s public comments regarding the situation.

“[A]s we have seen in the press the last few days that the Commissioner’s office and the Commissioner’s outside counsel have discernibly misrepresented even the information that the Commissioner has gathered,” Ginsberg said. “When you put that in the context of the Commissioner’s high-priced outside counsel saying that when we asked for evidence and when we wanted to know what we were answering to — and this is [outside counsel Mary Jo White's] quote ‘a red herring,’ it really puts into perspective the kangaroo court that Jonathan and the others have been subjected to.

“I can’t think of any other forum in the United States where this kind of abusive process is permitted. If you want to ask me why it is permitted, you are asking the wrong person. I wasn’t a part of the CBA negotiations. And I don’t think that the CBA as it stands permits this kind of abusive process.”

Ginsberg also reiterated his position (predictable as it may be) that Vilma is innocent of the charges. “What the Commissioner has said publicly, the accusations and allegations against Jonathan are not true,” Ginsberg said. “They are simply not accurate. . . . The evidence is not what the commissioner says it is,” he said. “At the end of the day, I think all of you will come to the conclusion that what the Commissioner has been accusing Jonathan and the others of doing is not correct. It’s not accurate. It was said publicly in an irresponsible manner. I think that’s why we haven’t received the evidence. And I think that’s the Commissioner’s biggest fear that at some point we will find the right forum that will make the Commissioner answer for what he’s said and what he’s done.”

The fact that the league has continued to refuse to produce raw evidence of guilt despite mounting questions as to its validity and/or existence will serve only to increase suspicion that the evidence isn’t what the league thinks it is — or that the evidence simply isn’t there. Amid growing indications that the coaches primarily were nailed for maintaining an illegal pay-for-performance program and lying about its existence but that there may not have been hard evidence of a bounty program, it’s critical that the league put some of its cards on the table.

With each passing day that the league fails to do that, the suspicion will only intensify.

web page

Quote:

---

Vilma’s lawyer calls NFL process “a kangaroo court”

---

As much as I don't like the idea of bounties on players heads,, (in fact, I hate it) It does feel a little like a kangaroo court.

The way the league handled it seems a bit odd to me. Why won't they release the facts behind thier findings. Ya know, if the facts bear out what they are saying, then I got no issue with thier decisions. But them withholding information bothers me.,

Let the sun shine on the facts..

Cris Carter said that he put bounties on defensive players when he played



If you think that defensive players are the only ones capable of putting bounties on opponents -- paying teammates to exact physical retribution of any type -- on the field, former receiver Cris Carter is here to give you a nice little reality check. Carter, who caught 1,101 passes in his 16-year career and may be the best eligible player not in the Hall of Fame, told Mike Hill and Mark Schlereth of ESPN Radio on Tuesday that he did indeed pay what he called "protection money" to do what needed to be done.

"I'm guilty of [bounties] -- I mean, first time I've ever admitted it -- but I put a bounty on guys before," Carter said. "I put bounties on guys. If a guy tries to take me out, a guy takes a cheap shot on me? I put a bounty on him right now!"

Carter admitted that the bounties were financial in nature, but that the intentions were not the same as the ones put out by Gregg Williams and his New Orleans Saints players -- these were more about "an eye for an eye" than "kill the head and the body will die."

"But you have to realize the league we grew up in, the bounty was based on protection, or a big hit, excitement or for helping your team win," he said. "It wasn't to maim or hurt the dude," said Carter, who retired from the NFL following the 2002 season. "When a guy said he was going to hurt me, my recourse was to put a bounty on him to make sure."

On ESPN's "Mike and Mike" show on Wednesday morning, Carter explained exactly how the process worked.


"When you come out onto the field, you're getting ready to run the first play, and you see the guy across the line, and [he says]. 'If you come across the middle, I'll end your career.' Well, no problem, because you ain't gonna end my career! I've got a wife to take care of, and two kids, and a couple of houses, and several cars, and I'm gonna protect that. So I go to Randall McDaniel, who's the left guard, and an All-Pro, and I say, 'Bill Romanowski is acting a fool -- I need some protection.' I go to Todd Steussie, the left tackle, and say, 'Keep an eye on Romanowski.' I go to Korey Stringer, the right tackle, and say, "Hey, big Korey, I've got some fools [out there] -- keep an eye on Romanowski.' It goes something like that."

What does "keep an eye on Romanowski" mean?

"I know you might find this kinda hard, but in football, you're going to get tackled," Carter told ESPN's Mike Greenberg. "There's only a certain amount of protection you can get. You're just trying to get protection against the extra activity." Carter said that retribution could come against a targeted defender in pile-ups, or on plays where Carter was not specifically targeted and the officials might be looking the other way.

"I'm not asking for any extra protection if it's a cornerback or safety, but if it's a linebacker coming in on me, I expect a lineman to be able to handle that. There is no pure protection from everyone -- you don't want that -- but it's just to create an even playing field so that you can concentrate on your assignment and your job."

One suspects that Carter is far from the only NFL player -- past or present -- who's availed himself of this kind of protection against the extracurricular activities of defenders. Especially in decades past, when the on-field code was less stringent when it came to the culture of intimidation, you can imagine an offensive lineman blocking for John Elway, or the tight end who isn't going to the Super Bowl if that New York Giants defensive end keeps hitting Joe Montana in his already-injured back, going out of his way to ensure that equal playing field. That defenders may have had specific bounties on him makes Carter's statements less black-and-white. Was this a weird case of self-defense in an NFL that let these things go on?

"I don't regret it," Carter said. "It's a part of the game. I have a clear conscience with God, and a clear conscience with my family. I feel like I did everything for us to win."

On the Saints' practices, however, Carter had a different take when asked if intentional injury for money was commonplace in the NFL at any time. "The Saints took a model that most teams have, and they put a little extra on it."



web page

Yeah,, maybe.. I guess

For the record, I'm sick to death of it. But here's something new w/ Fujita heavily mentioned . . .

Lengthy Sean Pamphilon diary seems to implicate Scott Fujita

Lengthy Sean Pamphilon diary seems to implicate Scott Fujita

Posted by Mike Florio on June 1, 2012, 3:07 PM EDT

He’s back.

One day short of three months since the NFL disclosed the alleged existence of a bounty system in New Orleans and nearly two months since the name “Sean Pamphilon” became attached to it, Pamphilon has posted at his website a lengthy, rambling diary regarding his decision to release against the wishes of former Saints special-teams ace Steve Gleason the audio of former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams’ remarks before a January 2012 playoff game against the 49ers.

Though Pamphilon’s objective isn’t quite clear (unless he’s simply hoping to reset the 15-minute clock to 14:59), Pamphilon implicates former Saints linebacker Scott Fujita as a participant in the bounty culture that existed within the organization in 2009, Fujita’s final year with the team.

Pamphilon also claims that quarterback Drew Brees was involved in the communications regarding whether the audio would be released, and that Brees ultimately was opposed to it.

What follows is an effort to trim paragraphs of fat and get to the steak lurking in chunks within it.

And, like managing to devour each bite of a three-pound Porterhouse, I feel like there should be a prize of some sort for finishing all 10,000-plus words of Pamphilon’s post.

Keep in mind that these following summary comes only from Pamphilon’s allegations and/or recollections. Fujita, Brees, and Gleason have not yet responded to Pamphilon’s version of the events.

1. Despite being a member of the Browns, Fujita was present in the room for the Gregg Williams diatribe. The video that goes with the audio shows Fujita sitting next to Gleason, smiling when players chanted “give it back!” upon receiving envelopes of cash from the prior weekend’s win over the Lions.

2. After Williams spoke, Fujita said to Pamphilon, “I can’t believe I used to be that guy.”

3. In an interview for Pamphilon’s documentary, The United States of Football, Fujita talked about whether he allow his child to play the game: “If I had a son, f–k no I would never let him play football! And this is my journey my wife and I decided to take on. But I wouldn’t want that for one of my kids. No way in hell!”

4. On March 7, Fujita said that he was “appalled” by the things Williams had said. But Fujita did not believe at that point the audio should be released. Still, Fujita admitted to Pamphilon that Fujita was once “semi-complicit” in the mindset reflected by Williams’ words. Fujita believed that the issue was “an indictment on the culture of football, a big part of which is still archaic & has yet to evolve.”

5. Fujita said that he watched the video of Williams’ remarks with his wife, that she was “shocked” by what she heard, and that they both cried while watching it. “She said she felt sorry for me that I had been part of something for so long that made me desensitized to the suffering of another,” Fujita told Pamphilon. “Her second thought: People who say things like that to a group of impressionable men, shouldn’t be able to lead a group of impressionable men.”

6. As of mid-March, Fujita still believed that Pamphilon should not release the audio, because of the stress it was creating for Steve Gleason and his wife, Michel.

7. Eventually, the NFLPA learned of the audio. Fujita told Pamphilon that the union plans to make the NFL aware of the existence of the tape, apparently as part of the “rogue coach” defense. Pamphilon claimed that the NFL would be able to connect the dots back to him, which caused him to have “personal safety concerns,” if the tape were not publicly released.

8. Pamphilon received a text message from Brees, who “wanted to reassure” Pamphilon. Brees also asked, “How are you feeling?”

9. As of a week later, Pamphilon had again decided to drop the issue. On April 2, Fujita “re-engage[d]” Pamphilon, inquiring as to his “vision” for the release of the tape. He later tells Pamphilon via text, “I’m convinced the league doesn’t really have sh-t on anybody.”

10. On April 3, NFLPA lawyer Heather McPhee suggested via Fujita that, while the union wouldn’t tell Pamphilon to release the tape, if he were still considering doing so, he “might want to do it ‘the sooner the better.’” At that point, Pamphilon called Mike Silver of Yahoo! Sports, laying the foundation for releasing the Gregg Williams audio.

11. Fujita told Pamphilon that Brees agrees the audio should be released the “sooner the better.” Fujita continued to offer words of support and encouragement.

12. On the evening of April 3, Brees called Pamphilon. Instead of saying “the sooner the better,” Brees says we need to “wait for the right time” to release the audio. Pamphilon says it’s too late to stop the process.

13. The next day, Brees left Pamphilon a voice message, asking for a copy of the essay Pamphilon planned to post on his website when the audio was released. Pamphilon ultimately refused, and Gleason then told Pamphilon that what he planned to do is “illegal” and that Gleason wa not giving permission for the audio to be released.

14. On April 14, Fujita recommendeds that Pamphilon not cooperate with the league. “I would ignore the NFL if I were you,” Fujita said via text message. “They clearly want the tapes to see if there’s anything they can use to further implicate players, mainly because they don’t have sh-t, other than heresay [sic] and anecdotal evidence of tough talk. I’ve been denying their request for an interview for weeks now because there’s nothing good that can come out of that. That’s why it’ll be hilarious when I show up at their offices on Monday with the rest of the Executive Committee to discuss other issues. No more NFL talk. F–k them.”

15. On May 17, Pamphilon went to the league office and played a portion of the video of Williams’ comments for NFL Security. Pamphilon also allowed NFL Security to listen to the audiotapes. In return, he asked the NFL to stop disseminating “incorrect information about me to anymore lapdog league journalists.”

16. Pamphilon describes “the final straw” as Fujita’s comments to the media on May 23. He points to Fujita’s assertion that the Williams audio “wasn’t evidence of anything, other than a coach saying some inappropriate things.” Says Pamphilon: “When he said that the tape wasn’t evidence of anything, I that felt like he stuck his football helmet up my ass and through my ribcage. It hurt that much. If this was true, then why did we spend so much time and energy on this issue? Why did it resonate so strongly with our culture, including those who don’t cheer for the home team on Sunday’s? This was the first time he had spoken on-camera since the Bounty Gate scandal broke. It was two and a half months since he and his wife were crying in bed and lamenting the fact that he had been ‘semi-complicit’ in a football culture that ‘desensitized’ him to the suffering of another.”

Of those 10,000-plus words, nine are particularly damning for Fujita: “I can’t believe I used to be that guy.”

Fujita could deny that he said the words, and that he said or did anything else that would represent an admission of past involvement in a bounty program. But it’s safe to say that Pamphilon will soon be asked to testify at the eventual appeal hearings.

From the players’ perspective, that could be the best strategy. Given Pamphilon’s inability to be concise, his testimony could last long enough to allow each of them to finish their NFL careers before the hearings end.

The only disturbing part was that he cried while watching the video. I could understand if he was watching a sappy movie but come on we are supposed to believe he and his wife cried after watching a coach fire'em up rant? I guess now we are all supposed to feel sympathy for him.

Agreed and when they get busted he tries to put it all on the coaches by ratting out the coach. I really hope Acho or JMJ can beat the guy out. guy is becoming the Dilfer of the Defense.

Lots of folks involved that I didn't think would have been.

I'm sure they aren't the only team to do this kinda stuff.. for me, it's shameful.

Suddenly, Pamphilon remembers he has a diary of Bountygate?

...I wonder if the ink is dry yet?

Here's the first step in settling the question of "Bountygate" jurisdiction.

Arbitrator rules against Saints’ appeal; says Goodell has the right to punish | Shutdown Corner - Yahoo! Sports
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdo...OBR+Newswire%29

At some point, Jonathan Vilma and the other "aggrieved parties" involved in the Saints' bounty scandal who are still fighting the fight against their own suspensions will have to realize that they're running out of air. Jason Cole's story late last week about the existence of a ledger detailing bounties struck a blow against Vilma and his buddies in the court of public opinion, and now, the arbitrator assigned to hear the Saints' appeal in certain suspensions has rules decisively in the NFL's favor.

On Monday morning, Special Master Stephen Burbank ruled that Roger Goodell had jurisdiction to suspend Vilma for a year, and three other current and former Saints players for a series of games, based on a collective bargaining agreement that was established after some of the alleged "pay-to-injure" incidents took place. That was the big blow to the Saints' case. as Burbank ruled that the idea of "pay-for-performance" was more onerous than any specific incident that may have come out of it.

The NFL summarized it thusly in a statement:

"System Arbitrator Stephen Burbank upheld the commissioner's authority under the Collective Bargaining Agreement to impose "conduct detrimental" discipline on players who provided or offered to provide financial incentives to injure opponents. He also upheld the commissioner's authority to impose such discipline against players who obstructed a league investigation. The System Arbitrator thus confirmed the commissioner's authority to suspend Mr. Fujita, Mr. Smith and Mr. Vilma. He invited the commissioner to clarify the precise basis for his discipline of Mr. Hargrove who, among other things, was found to have lied to the league's investigators and obstructed their investigation."

While the players and the NFLPA believe that the suspensions fall outside the purview of the "conduct detrimental" clause Goodell invoked in his letters to the players informing them of the suspensions, Burbank ruled that such arguments are irrelevant.

The NFLPA, of course, disagreed.

In the opinion, system arbitrator Stephen Burbank wrote, "t is important to emphasize — with respect to all of the Players — that nothing in this opinion is intended to convey a view about the underlying facts or the appropriateness of the discipline imposed."

The union believes that the players are entitled to neutral arbitration of these issues under the CBA and will continue to fight for that principle and to protect the fair due process rights of all players.

Vilma, Saints end Will Smith, and current Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita are still awaiting a decision from arbitrator Shyam Das on a grievance filed in early May. That claim states that since the alleged incidents happened on the field, the penalties for any involvement are the jurisdiction of collectively bargained arbitrators Ted Cottrell or Art Shell. The NFL went with the global "conduct detrimental" argument in that case as well, and if Das rules in favor of the league, you can expect "conduct detrimental" language to be used as the hammer for every league ruling against the players.

As for ex-Saints and current Green Bay Packers defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove, Burbank asked the league why Hargrove's suspension went eight games, while Fujita's and Smith's were shorter. Per the letter from the NFL to Hargrove, it is believed that Hargrove lied to the NFL during the initial bounty investigation, and thus the extra games.

"With respect to your particular involvement, the record establishes that you actively participated in the program while a member of the Saints. Your declaration makes clear that the program existed at the Saints, and establishes that you knew about and participated in it. In addition, although you later denied it, the circumstances strongly suggest that you told at least one player on another club about the program, and confirmed that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre was a target of a bounty.

"Moreover, and perhaps most important, you admitted that you intentionally obstructed the league's investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators. Your declaration acknowledges that you lied, but claims that you were instructed to do so by the coaching staff. Assuming that to be the case, it in no way absolved you from your obligation to cooperate with the investigation, particularly with respect to matters involving player safety and the integrity of the game.

"I will retain jurisdiction as to Mr. Hargrove pending further action by the Commissioner either in a revised letter or in connection with Mr. Hargrove's appeal," Burbank wrote in his ruling.
Again, if the Das ruling comes back as the league would like it -- that "conduct detrimental" language is enough to establish jurisdiction -- the only hope for the players at that point is if the discovery process in Vilma's libel/defamation lawsuit shows that the league didn't have the evidence indicated.

And if the league does have that evidence ... well, you can pretty much put this case to bed, once and for all, and to the great relief of the majority of fans and observers tired of the moral outrage, generic posturing, and billable hours.

j/c

For some reason I highly doubt we would be hearing about any of this in a public setting if it weren't for pure posturing by the NFL about this the impending concussion lawsuits facing the NFL.

To me, it just goes to show that the old bait and switch con game is still alive and well.

There's nothing really new about bounties on several teams. It's wrong, needed correcting and there's no doubt that this will help that.

But it's gone on so much, for so many years that.............well, the timing of this whole thing is fishy at best....

Oh I'm sure that it went on for a long time as well.

The only question is regarding a team supporting the bounty system, and intentionally and illegally trying to injure other players.

I have no problem with a guy being rewarded by his teammates because he put a nasty, but 100% legal, hit on an opposing player. I would have no problem with a Browns player flattening Roethlisberger on a perfectly legal hit and knocking his ass out of the game. However when guys are encouraged to take out an opposing player no matter what, even using illegal tactics, that's where it crosses the line in my eyes.

I do think that the Saints crossed that line, and stomped all over it as they did.

Looks like the players took another shot to the chin, with another arbitrator ruling against them.

Saints, union denied in bounties grievance - NFL - SI.com
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/fo...l?sct=nfl_t2_a3

NEW YORK (AP) -- A second arbitrator ruled Friday that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has the authority to discipline Saints players for their roles in a bounty program.

The players' union claimed Goodell is prohibited from punishing players for any conduct before the CBA was signed last August. The union also sought to have player appeals heard by Art Shell and Ted Cottrell, who are jointly appointed by the league and union to review discipline handed out for on-field conduct.

But arbitrator Shyam Das ruled Friday that Goodell is entitled to hand out the punishment and hear any appeals in the matter. Arbitrator Stephen Burbank ruled the same way Monday in a different grievance claim brought by the NFLPA, and the union said it would appeal.

Goodell suspended Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma for the entire 2012 season and defensive end Will Smith for four games. Former Saints defensive end Anthony Hargrove, now with Green Bay, was suspended for eight games, while linebacker Scott Fujita, now with Cleveland, was docked three games.

All four players appealed, and the league has set June 18 as the hearing date.

Das dismissed the grievance, saying Goodell did not relinquish authority to impose discipline for conduct detrimental to the game that occurred before the CBA was signed last August.

Vilma also has sued Goodell for defamation in a U.S. District Court in New Orleans and Goodell has been given until July 5 to respond to the action.

NFL makes less than 200 pages available in bounty case


Posted by Mike Florio on June 15, 2012

When it comes to the Saints bounty case, it’s finally time to dust off one of the most memorable catch phrases of the 1980s.

At roughly 2:00 p.m. ET on Friday, the NFL delivered by courier to the NFLPA the information on which the league plans to rely at Monday’s appeal hearings as to suspensions imposed on Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Saints defensive end Will Smith, Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove, and Browns linebacker Scott Fujita.

From a much-ballyhooed 50,000-page file (which by its sheer volume presumably means that there was a bounty system, right?), the NFL surrendered, we’re told, fewer than 200 pages of information, arising from 16 total documents, which includes among other things handwritten notes, the email from Mike Ornstein containing the reference to the alleged $5,000 bounty on Aaron Rodgers, and seven different Power Point presentations shown by Saints coaches to players.

The league also produced footage from the 2009 NFC title game, with emphasis on a legal hit applied to Vikings quarterback Brett Favre followed by a player being heard asking for his “money.”

Surprisingly, the “evidence” produced by the NFL includes things that clearly aren’t evidence. For example, the league’s submission includes the rambling 10,000-plus word online manifesto posted on May 31 by Sean Pamphilon, and a June 6 article by Mike Triplette of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, in which he interviews linebacker Scott Shanle.

Per a source familiar with the information produced by the NFL, the packet contains no obvious smoking gun. ”It’s a water gun,” the source said.

That said, the source cautioned that review of the materials is ongoing. Initial scrutiny of the information reveals evidence of salary cap violations, but it includes no evidence of players being paid to inflict injury, players paying others to inflict injury, or players offering money to others to inflict injury. For example, the NFLPA has yet to locate in the packet any evidence establishing that linebacker Jonathan Vilma offered $10,000 to anyone who inflicted injury on Brett Favre or Kurt Warner during the 2009 playoffs.

Perhaps most significantly, the submission doesn’t include the bounty ledger about which Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported a couple of weeks ago.

The source said that the package of information also contains no list of witnesses to be called by the NFL, which reinforces the perception that Commissioner Roger Goodell will simply give the players the opportunity to explain their side of the story.

With such a limited compilation of evidence and no apparent plan to call witnesses — and no likely inclination to make witnesses available to be questioned by the players — it wouldn’t surprise us if linebacker Jonathan Vilma, who has sued Commissioner Roger Goodell, refuses to proceed. Or if, at a minimum, Vilma refuses to say anything until the NFL produces real evidence showing that Vilma offered money for injury to be inflicted on another player.

web page

IMO- Other than Modells move to Baltimore, Goodell is the worst thing that's happened to the NFL in my lifetime.

A power hungry little man who commands the spotlight and cares more about his self image than the sport itself. The day he was named commissioner was a sad day for the sport.....

JMHO

I think Goodell does a fine job as well. I don't understand why he gets so much hate.

The guy gets boo'd at the start of every NFL Draft now.. smh.

Bounty hearings end abruptly, may resume this afternoon

Posted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2012, 11:52 AM EDT

As expected, the bounty hearings didn’t last long. The only question is whether one or more of them will resume.

Not long after unnamed NFL sources told Jim Varney of the New Orleans Times-Picayune that “we could be here awhile,” the hearings ended “unexpectedly quickly,” as Varney explained it via an excellent stream of tweets.

Regardless of whether Saints defensive end Will Smith, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, and Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove return, Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma (pictured) won’t be back.

Per Varney, attorney Peter Ginsberg has hinted that additional legal proceedings could be pursued on Vilma’s behalf. “It’s clear the Commissioner has withheld thousands of pages of documents from us,” Ginsberg said Monday.

Varney reports that the NFL said the players requested more time to review the evidence submitted by the league to the NFLPA on Friday, and that the hearings will resume at 1:45 p.m. ET. Ginsberg claims the NFL not the players asked for more time, and Ginsberg said the “disarray” is further evidence that the process is a “sham.”

The proposed delay until 1:45 p.m. ET possibly was selected because the NFL delivered the evidence the league intends to introduce to the NFLPA at roughly 2:00 p.m. ET on Friday. The labor deal requires that any evidence on which the league plans to rely must be disclosed at least three calendar days prior to the hearing.

Still, deeper questions exist regarding the quality of the evidence that the NFL plans to use, and the fundamental fairness (or lack thereof) of the procedures employed. The league apparently plans to give the players a chance to explain themselves, without giving them a chance to properly confront the evidence that established their guilt.

Or, more importantly, without an opportunity to even know what that evidence is.
web page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NFLPA document: A number of problems with league evidence

Posted by Darin Gantt on June 18, 2012, 2:28 PM EDT

When Jonathan Vilma’s attorney Peter Ginsberg left league offices this morning after a brief stay at his client’s bounty hearing, he described the league’s process as a “sham.”

It’s clear that the Players Association agrees with that stance.

According to an NFLPA document obtained by PFT, the union took five main points away from the 200 pages of documents the league turned over Friday.

They are:

1. None of the slides the NFL presented as evidence were ever shown to any Saints coaches by league investigators.

2. The union believes it has valid explanations from Saints players, coaches and individuals who attended defensive meetings for the information the league is using as evidence of bounties.

3. The union believes after interviewing players who were present in the defensive meetings, that the words of former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams which are being used as the focus of their investigation were intended to be motivational, rather than literal.

4. The union learned that Sean Payton associate Mike Ornstein told NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell personally that he never intended the email as a “bounty,” telling Goodell of a message from Williams indicating the team never took it as such.

5. The league never informed players of any of potentially “exculpatory or mitigating evidence.”

The NFLPA also takes issue with the fact the league would not identify who created the documents or when, where, and how they were obtained, or whether players had seen them.

The NFLPA then asked for a three-day continuance to find out more answers, but that request was denied. At that point, the Commissioner informed players the league would not offer any witnesses at Monday’s hearing who created the documents.

Other key findings from the NFLPA information include:

1. A chart showing “Kill the head” hits, which are graded by coaches from coaches tape. That film doesn’t include sound, so officials’ whistles are inaudible, which they feel explains the high number of such hits shown in the chart.

2. A slide prepared by Williams to illustrate “assessing the opponent.”

This slide features an image of the reality television character “Dog the Bounty Hunter,” and includes the phrase “Now its time to do our job…collect bounty$$$!” along with “No apologies! Let’s go Hunting!”

The NFLPA document refers to it as “a poorly chosen and ironic example to use but life plays havoc on us at times.”

We’ve also acquired the information the league turned over, and obviously, we’ll have more on that as the day goes along.

web page

After appeal hearings, Fujita says he still hasn’t seen proof of guilt


Posted by Mike Florio on June 18, 2012, 5:08 PM EDT

The start-and-stop bounty hearings started again this afternoon, and they finally have stopped.

Though Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma didn’t return (as expected), the other three players returned. And after Saints defensive end Will Smith, Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove, and Browns linebacker Scott Fujita left the league offices, Fujita stopped to speak to the media.

“The NFL’s investigation has been highlighted by sensationalized headlines and unsubstantiated leaks to the media. I have yet to see anything that implicates me . . . not in the last three months and not today,” Fujita said, via Barry Wilner of the Associated Press. “The NFL has been careless and irresponsible, and at some time will have to provide answers.”

Per Jim Varney of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Fujita was “clearly fighting emotions” as he spoke.

“It’s been very hard,” Fujita said, adding that anyone who has disagreed with the league’s take on the bounty case has been labeled a “liar.”

Now that I’m back in PFT headquarters after a day in Pittsburgh getting my annual full physical (and all that that implies), I’m going to look at every page that the NFL produced to the NFLPA on Friday, and that PFT obtained earlier today.

Then, I’ll give my take on whether and to what extent the evidence shows guilt. And I may have one or two more things to say about whether and to what extent the NFL’s effort to protect the shield has in this case actually done damage to it.

web page

for me, if I was Vilma, Hargrove, etc. then I would be furious at Fujita for being one of the main player rep's at the last CBA hearings who gave up the power of appeals to be held by Goodell. The NFLPA bought off on this process (I agree it's an unfair process, but I laugh when Fujita complains about it - he was supposedly one of the chief negotiators for the NFLPA side).

These guys are a bunch of lying cry babies. Each one of them says "it wasn't me, you got no real proof ! Yea some stuff happened but no one did it .. give me a friggen break. The NFL released videos of the coaches rant, video and audio from the sideline sayin Favre has a broke leg and PAY ME MY MONEY ! Emails and other paper trails listing the money contributed and how big the pot was..

Now they say.. well, err, it was just a performance bonus thingy.. like every other team has and you don't actually have any video of me with the cash in hand and smiling over a cribbled body.

No harm no foul ?
No one got really hurt,, we didn't even get a lot of penalties.. See, nothing happened ! Yea.. tell that to any judge or any jury in the land. But your honor, I MISSED his head when I was trying to blow his brains out so I'm not guilty of anything.. He never got hurt !

Don't like it ? QUIT.. People get FIRED from their jobs everyday from employers after years of dedicated work and it happens with a phone call or an escort out of the office in less than 5 minutes.. With NO reason given except "the needs of the company".. No proof of anything, no questions answered, no appeals, no NADA.

Maybe they can sue for defamation but they ain't gonna win.

Haystack of NFL evidence has a few possible bounty needles


Posted by Mike Florio on June 19, 2012, 1:03 AM EDT

The 50,000 pages in the bounty file became fewer than 200 that were given to the NFLPA on Friday, which via careful, time-consuming, page-by-page scrutiny by yours truly reveal a handful of documents that suggest the existence of a bounty program in New Orleans.

There’s no doubt that the Saints maintained an illegal pay-for-performance program, which rewarded defensive players for good plays and penalized them for mental errors and penalties. For that violation, the coaches and the team should indeed be punished. As to player discipline, the question is whether and to what extent players offered, paid, or received money for the infliction of injury on opponents.

As Gantt mentioned on Monday afternoon, one document indicates that several persons pledged money to what is described in at least one of the other documents as a “kitty pool” for the 2009 NFC title game against the Vikings, and that several of the contributions were tied to the opposing quarterback, Brett Favre.

The league didn’t produce to the NFLPA a copy of the handwritten notes. Instead, the league converted the handwritten notes into a typed document, providing the typed document and not the handwritten notes.

For the non-lawyers in the crowd, this is very unusual. Disputes routinely involve handwritten notes, which may or may not readily be legible. The standard procedure in such situations is to: (1) figure out who wrote the notes; and (2) question that person as to what the notes say. In 18 years of practicing law, I never encountered or heard of a party to any type of litigation converting handwritten notes to typed notes, producing the typed notes, and not producing the handwritten notes for scrutiny and witness questioning.

In this case, at a bare minimum, the NFL should have produced both — especially since the NFLPA will now argue that the typed version does not qualify as an acceptable alternative, and that the typed notes should not be considered because they weren’t produced at least three days before the appeal hearing.

With that caveat, the typed translation of the handwritten notes state “Vilma $10,000 QB,” which the NFL presumably interprets as linebacker Jonathan Vilma pledging $10,000 to anyone who knocked Brett Favre out of the game. The document similarly indicates that defensive end Charles Grant pledged $10,000 with the “QB” designation, as did non-Saints employee Mike Ornstein. The notes likewise reflect that assistant head coach/linebackers coach Joe Vitt contributed $5,000 to the “QB out pool,” and that linebacker Scott Fujita and defensive end Will Smith contributed $2,000 and $5,000, respectively, to the “General Pool.” (Vitt’s lawyer, David Cornwell told PFT on Monday night that Vitt was never accused nor suspected of contributing money to a bounty pool.) Finally, safety Darren Sharper pledged $5,000 for a “Pick 6″ and “QB hits.”

Another document (also a typed version of handwritten notes) lists a variety of names and amounts, with no specific designation as to what the amount reflects. The presence of Ornstein on the list, along with $5,000, suggests that it’s a list of pledges for an unknown game. Vilma is down for $2,000, Smith for $1,500, Grant for $1,500, linebacker Scott Shanle for $500, cornerback Leigh Torrence for $500, and “Evans” (presumably linebacker Troy) for $500. The document in a separate column states “Fujita to DL,” with “$500 Sack” and “$500 FF” below that.

Other documents raise questions, including a 2009 email from Ornstein to Gregg Willliams regarding future contributions from Ornstein, and an October 11, 2009 email from former Saints assistant Mike Cerullo to Williams that says, “Here’s Ornstein’s slide, I also added Jets injury to our Monday slide . . . Here’s what it looks like.” (The Saints played the Jets on October 4; October 11 was the Sunday of the Saints’ bye week.)

One item lists the “Kill the Head Totals” for 2010, with Vilma leading the way at 62. It’s unclear what “Kill the Head” means in that context. Another document shows safety Roman Harper being paid $1,000 for a “cart-off” against the Giants, with no indication as to the subject of the “cart-off” or what specifically happened to him.

Finally, the slide containing the photo of “Dog The Bounty Hunter” looks bad on the surface, but it seems to be an exaggeration, with entries like “Must suspected be delivered dead or alive?”

Though most of the documents produced by the NFL to the NFLPA contain no evidence of a bounty program, a few of the pages keep the bounty case alive. But it may not be enough to constitute persuasive and adequate evidence that players paid, offered to pay, or received money for inflicting injuries — especially without the handwritten notes and in the absence of testimony from the person(s) who created them.

web page

Drew Brees compares evidence for bounties to evidence for WMDs


Posted by Michael David Smith on June 19, 2012, 6:49 AM EDT

Saints quarterback Drew Brees has offered up an interesting analogy for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s case that some of Brees’s coaches and teammates on the Saints were involved in a bounty program: Brees says it’s reminiscent of President George W. Bush’s case for the Iraq War.

On Monday, as reporters were scrutinizing about 200 pages of what the NFL says is a 50,000-page file of evidence in the Saints’ bounty program, Brees wrote on Twitter that he isn’t buying it.

“If NFL fans were told there were ‘weapons of mass destruction’ enough times, they’d believe it,” Brees wrote. “But what happens when you don’t find any????”

In the run-up to the Iraq War, the Bush Administration repeatedly said Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, a claim that most Americans believed and that turned out to be false. Bush later called his biggest regret as president.

If I were Brees, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for Goodell to call suspending the Saints his biggest regret as commissioner.

web page

Cleveland Browns Scott Fujita calls NFL's investigation into bounty program a "smear campaign"


Published: Monday, June 18, 2012, 5:37 PM Updated: Monday, June 18, 2012, 10:20 PM

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Browns linebacker Scott Fujita said the NFL is conducting a "smear campaign" against players accused of participating in the New Orleans Saints bounty program and he still sees no evidence linking him to the scandal.

Fujita, suspended by the league for three games last month, met with reporters minutes after an appeal hearing with the league and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in New York on Monday.

The 32-year-old linebacker repeatedly has said he's never contributed money to the Saints' bounty system that allegedly offered cash bonuses for injurious and big hits on targeted opponents. Former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, suspended indefinitely by the NFL, has admitted to running the operation.

Evidence released by the league on Monday seems to indicate Fujita gave no pool money for “knock out” or “cart off” hits.

Fujita played for the Saints from 2006-09 before joining the Browns as a free agent. He was among the four players to appeal to Goodell on Monday. New Orleans linebacker Jonathan Vilma has been banned for the entire 2012 season, while defensive end Will Smith received four games and defensive end Anthony Hargrove, now with Green Bay, must sit eight games.

Goodell is expected to leave the appeal process open until Friday and not make a ruling until next week, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter.

"In the last couple months the NFL has embarked on a smear campaign highlighted by sensationalistic headlines . . . and unsubstantiated leaks to the media," Fujita told reporters. " I have yet to see anything that implicates me in some pay-to-injure scheme – not in the last three months, not in the last three days, not today. And perhaps that’s because there is nothing that can implicate me in some pay-to-injure scheme.

"You know, throughout this process it has become increasingly clear to me that just because someone disagrees with NFL’s interpretation of an incredibly flawed investigation it’s assumed that he’s lying and to me and that’s a shame."

Fujita received the lightest league sentence, but he's fighting as much to protect his reputation. The allegations are damaging to a player who's a member of the NFL Players Association executive committee and a vocal advocate for player safety.

"I’ve played 10 years in this league and throughout my career I’ve done nothing but conduct myself in a positive manner," he told reporters. "This has impacted my reputation, this has impacted my ability to provide for my family now and in the future and I have a hard time with that. The NFL has been careless and irresponsible and they have made mistakes. At some point they have to answer questions."

The Plain Dealer has sent emails to Fujita and his agent Donald Yee seeking further comment.

After the hearings, league officials showed reporters evidence that they say they presented to players on Monday. The findings included the allegation of a $35,000 bounty to knock then-Minnesota Vikings' quarterback Brett Favre out of the 2009 NFC championship game.

Also, league officials showed slides from Saints computers on Jan. 17, 2011, Schefter reports, saying: "Now's the time to do our jobs, collect bounty $" and "No apologies. Let's go hunting."

According to a New Orleans Times-Picayune report, Fujita was not a major contributor. In the NFC championship game in January 2010, he was marked down for $2,000 to a "general pool." He was not linked to any 'knock out' or 'cart off' hits. One document showed he pledged $500 for a sack or forced fumble.

On Friday, the NFL turned over the findings to the four players, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. Overall, the league planned to use 16 exhibits against the players, according to a statement from the NFLPA. The union states the documentation "can hardly be characterized as hard evidence."

Neither Fujita nor Vilma believe the evidence they saw proved any guilt.

Vilma told reporters Monday he cannot receive a fair hearing when Goodell is "judge, jury and executioner." Prior to their hearing, three of the players, including Fujita, released a statement saying they are "profoundly disappointed with the NFL's conduct in this matter."

On his Twitter account, Fujita wrote Saturday: "Ever sit through a bad movie or read 200 pages of complete garbage & feel like you've just wasted a few hours of your life?"

Fujita and the other players appealed after the players association lost two grievances challenging Goodell's authority to discipline for the bounty system.

It's unclear what Fujita's next legal step will be if Goodell upholds his ruling. Vilma has filed a defamation lawsuit against the commissioner.

Beyond the players, Goodell previously suspended Saints coach Sean Payton for the season and assistant Joe Vitt for for six games. Saints general manager Mickey Loomis was docked eight games.


web page