The players union authorized, by contract, Goddell to make such determinations. He is the final authority, by union contract. Things can be appealed, but within the limits of the union contract.
He can sue for anything, but will it stick? I doubt it ..... because the commissioner has the power by virtue of the union contract, and Vilma is part of the union that agreed to the contract. He can claim defamation, but really what he's fighting is the finding of guilt ... and that's a part of the union contract.
Further, given that he ignored an opportunity to present his case until after he was found guilty does not bode well for him in any case.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: do they give out stickers in college for "cart-offs"? (note: they very well might at some schools. and, if so, it's wrong)
nolo...Whose system was this?
Gregg Williams - former NO DC
Quote: Who rewarded the players for cart offs?
well, GW handed out the checks, but it was apparent that players would pool their money and even push their current reward back into the pot. So, players and coaches (and possibly even outsiders)
Quote: Who wanted the "cart offs"?
players and coaches. if the players had the respect for other players, then they easily could have refused to accept such things and terms.
Quote: People talk about "cart offs" like they can given out on demand...
no, they are not. but, going through a list of where the players you are going to line-up against are currently injured and noting to make sure that you need to target those areas while also having a "cart-off" system in place sure seems like you can increase the odds a bit, no?
Quote: There does seem to be a conflicted of interest there, but on the same hand I'm not a where of any grievances filled by another union member against another player/member.
I only mentioned this, because I'm not a where of any ... I could be mistaken.
Well that's what I'm saying.. I've not heard about a union grievance filed by one player against another player either. Now you have to wonder, if the players are aware of, Let's call it a "bounty" for lack of something better for the moment, Why hasn't a grievance been filed?
It would happen in about any other union setting that I can think of. But not the NFLPA.
I suppose it could be that there isn't a mechanism for that within the union bylaws.. Dunno
Or I suppose it could be that they all do it and don't want to cast a light on their own teams practices. Just let the Saints take the hit and let it go at that.
I really don't know what the truth is... But something smells funny and it isn't my old gym socks.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: There does seem to be a conflicted of interest there, but on the same hand I'm not a where of any grievances filled by another union member against another player/member.
I only mentioned this, because I'm not a where of any ... I could be mistaken.
Well that's what I'm saying.. I've not heard about a union grievance filed by one player against another player either. Now you have to wonder, if the players are aware of, Let's call it a "bounty" for lack of something better for the moment, Why hasn't a grievance been filed?
It would happen in about any other union setting that I can think of. But not the NFLPA.
I suppose it could be that there isn't a mechanism for that within the union bylaws.. Dunno
Or I suppose it could be that they all do it and don't want to cast a light on their own teams practices. Just let the Saints take the hit and let it go at that.
I really don't know what the truth is... But something smells funny and it isn't my old gym socks.
I agree that something smells and it's not merely a case of business as usual. If that where to be true then it would mean that the Saint's where not an isolated issue (and I know GW Coached for other teams) and this was an even bigger problem. I hope that is not true.
Quote: Now you have to wonder, if the players are aware of, Let's call it a "bounty" for lack of something better for the moment, Why hasn't a grievance been filed?
It would happen in about any other union setting that I can think of. But not the NFLPA.
I suppose it could be that there isn't a mechanism for that within the union bylaws.. Dunno
Or they realize that it would put a giant target on thier back for other defensive players....
Quote: Daman...playing "tackle" football, can lead to a player being injured.
I can't say it any plainer than that...
Right. The reason people give you a hard time is you talk out both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say there was no bounty and these guys were just playing tackle football.
On the other when one bangs his head and gets a concussion you say it's the NFLs lack of concern for the players.
If you were consistent in your opinion it might mean something, but it seems to me you simply line up against the NFL no matter what.
Peen...obviously you do not understand the core issues of the lawsuit...
...to sum it up, the players are saying the NFL has evidence that multiple concussions can lead to permanent and irreversible brain damage that dates as far back as the 1920s...AND DID NOT SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH IT'S EMPLOYEES, THE PLAYERS.
The following article focuses strictly on the battle between the plaintiffs and the NFL.
All of the Complaints are based on former NFL players having suffered a form of head injury during their playing days. Independent studies from as early as 2005 indicated that football players who experience more than one concussion suffer from cognitive complications, including major depression, paranoia, panic attacks and early-onset dementia. The key issue will be whether the NFL took affirmative action in an effort to disprove such findings, effectively withholding information and failing to warn players about the long-term health risk when they suit up and enter the field of play. Articles like the one titled, Game Brain, written by Jeanne Marie Laskas in October 2009, will not help the NFL’s position in its fight against the pending litigation. In that article, Laskas wrote that in 2005, three scientists from NFL’s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee (who were on the NFL’s payroll) tried to get an article retracted from the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Neurosurgery, which used scientific evidence to explain that ”repeated blows to the head sustained in football could cause severe, debilitating brain damage.” The NFL’s scientists disagreed with the findings and said that it was a complete misunderstanding.
Yet another study in 2005 based on a survey of more than 2,500 former NFL players found that those who suffered three or more concussions during their playing days were five times as like to develop earlier onset of Alzheimer’s disease than players who had no concussion history prior to retirement. Again, the NFL’s Mild Traumatic Brain Injury committee sought to discredit the study, claiming that a survey does not get at “the underlying cause of what’s happening.” Meanwhile, the committee continued to have its own papers published in major journals, which alleged that enduring multiple concussions “did not demonstrate evidence of neurocognitive decline.” Then, on August 14, 2007, the NFL produced an “NFL Player Concussion Pamphlet.” Along with educating football players by answering the question, “What is a Concussion?” with the obvious, “It’s More Than a ‘Ding,’” the NFL told all players that, “current research with professional athletes has not shown that having more than one or two concussions leads to permanent problems if each injury is managed properly. It is important to understand that there is no magic number for how many concussions is too many” (emphasis added). Meanwhile, the independent studies were showing that three or more concussions suffered could have severe long-term consequences for NFL players.
The point really touches home when one reads the following extremely powerful statement that was made by Representative Linda Sanchez (California) to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell at an October 28, 2009 House Judiciary Committee Hearing:
“And it sort of reminds me of the tobacco companies pre-1990’s when they kept saying no, there is no link between smoking and damage to your health or ill health effects. And they were forced to admit that that was incorrect through a spate of litigation in the 1990’s. And my question to you is wouldn’t the league be better off legally…if instead of trying to minimize this issue, the league took the opposite perspective and said, look, even if there is a risk, however minuscule, that there may be this link, so we really need to jump on top of it and make kids and parents aware of this so that there isn’t this sort of sense that the NFL is really just slow walking the issue to death by saying, well, we have been studying the issue for 15 years, we are going to maybe study it another 15 more years, when there is already non-NFL paid for research that suggests that there is this very high correlation with cognitive impairment? Don’t you think the league, you know, would be better off legally…if you guys just embraced that there is research that suggests this and admitted to it?
It appeared that after that the NFL completely changed its stance on concussions following the House Judiciary Committee Hearing. Importantly, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello stated, “it’s quite obvious from the medical research that’s been done that concussions can lead to long-term problems.” But the plaintiffs are not basing the vast majority of their claims on the NFL’s warnings after the aforementioned Hearing. Instead the litigation is about what the NFL did not do to adequately warn players of the consequences of multiple head injuries during their playing careers.
In 2010, the NFL earned $9 billion in revenues. Should the plaintiffs, who appear to be growing in number by the day, eventually have their Master Complaint reach trial, it appears that the NFL could be confronted with the possibility of paying out tobacco-like damages reaching upwards of billions of dollars. That level of liability would likely bring the NFL to an abrupt end. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Peen...it looks as though the NFL decided to "slow walk" the issue to death, in hearings before Congress, buying opinions from their doctors, to counter the claims of many independent opinions/studies...the NFL did this for years "in Congressional hearings".
I guess Roger Goodell and the NFL thought they could continue this "act" until they were "called on it" by Representative Linda Sanchez (California).
After being confronted by Rep. Sanchez, as the article points out, Goodell and the NFL did a complete 180%...quote: NFL spokesman Greg Aiello stated, “it’s quite obvious from the medical research that’s been done that concussions can lead to long-term problems.”
So, in course of a short period of time, after Goodell's October 28, 2009 appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, Roger Goodell and the NFL flip-flopped on the issue of the dangers of concussions.
Peen, you tell me, is this an example of the NFL being concerned about their players health?...OR, is this an example of the NFL being concerned about their legal liability?
Also, as has been stated, the players are contending they have information dating back to the 1920s, that the NFL has been aware of the dangers of multiple concussions and did not tell or share that information with their players or the player's union.
Quote: Now you have to wonder, if the players are aware of, Let's call it a "bounty" for lack of something better for the moment, Why hasn't a grievance been filed?
It would happen in about any other union setting that I can think of. But not the NFLPA.
I suppose it could be that there isn't a mechanism for that within the union bylaws.. Dunno
Or they realize that it would put a giant target on thier back for other defensive players....
Yeah, which I eluded to in the next sentence of that post you quoted.
I think they don't want to kick up anymore dust. They are content to let the Saints take the heat and let it drop.
And I think Roger Goodell is thinking (or knows for sure) there is WAY more to this and that's why he's willing to deal down the penalty to Vilma.
Just makes me think there is a helluva lot more to the story than we'll ever know.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Vilma files supplemental brief based on Goodell’s public comments
Posted by Mike Florio on August 6, 2012, 3:15 PM EDT
Anyone who has ever watched any cop show on TV is aware of the Miranda warnings. ”Anything you say can and will be used against you,” the officer says after reminding the person under arrest that he/she has the right to remain silent.
The truth is that, in any type of litigation, anything any party to the case says in any setting can be used in court.
And so, with Commissioner Roger Goodell discussing the bounty case on Saturday, the lawyer representing Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma has filed a new legal document arguing that Goodell’s comments prove that the suspension imposed against Vilma should be overturned.
PFT has obtained a copy of the new filing.
The argument under the heading “Goodell has admitted to yet another CBA violation” focuses on Goodell’s statement that the league “has more evidence than it [has] revealed publicly so far” to support Vilma’s suspension.
“Goodell claims to have reviewed 50,000 pages of ‘evidence,’ but produced approximately 180 pages prior to the Appeal Hearing,” lawyer Peter Ginsberg writes. ”It is simply impossible that Goodell only considered the ‘evidence’ produced prior to the Appeal Hearing, both because the 180 pages do not come close to justifying any punishment and because it is humanly impossible to block out, and not consider, over 99 per cent of the information gathered. Now, in light of the airing of the 180 pages, and the dearth of evidence provided, Goodell is publicly attempting to justify his actions based upon purported undisclosed evidence.”
It’s a point we’ve made once or twice here. Goodell knows much more about the investigation than what was introduced at the June 18 appeal hearing. So how can he set aside what he knows and make a decision based only on the documents produced to the players who have been suspended and introduced at the hearing?
Ginsberg also locks on to the subtle shift in emphasis from a full-blown bounty to a pay-for-performance system that rewards players who inflict injury via legal hits. ”Goodell has revised the allegation to be that the Saints engaged in a program that rewarded players for good, clean plays that did not involve designated specific opposing players for injury,” Ginsberg writes.
Finally, Vilma accuses the NFL of leaking to the media the settlement talks between the league and the player. ”Vilma entered into settlement discussions with the NFL in good faith,” Ginsberg writes. ”Vilma is well aware of, and has absolutely complied with, his obligations to safeguard the existence and substance of all such discussions, as have all of his representatives. Media reporting of settlement discussions, attributed to ‘NFL sources,’ coming the day after the harsh and unfortunate comments from Goodell, some of which are identified above, reflect a long-standing media campaign by Goodell and the NFL in this matter. Vilma respectfully requests the Court to make inquiry regarding the breach of the obligations to retain the confidentiality of settlement discussions.”
It’s unlikely that Judge Berrigan will do anything about the leak of the settlement talks. Unless Werdscheftenson or Steve Wyche show up in the courtroom on Friday, she’ll be able to do nothing other than ask each side if they blabbed — and each side will deny doing so.
The broader point here is that Vilma apparently isn’t thinking about settling. He’s thinking about winning. And his lawyer is using everything at his disposal to get there.
The broader point here is that Vilma apparently isn’t thinking about settling. He’s thinking about winning. And his lawyer is using everything at his disposal to get there.
This would mark a presidency in that they would have to prove Goodell is acting alone and out side of the CBA.
Vilma's only leverage is that the NFL doesn't want all the evidence for public consumption because it will hurt the league. Vilma doesn't care because he's at the tail-end of his career and doesn't want to miss out on one of his last paychecks.
Quote: Maybe you do not see this as an integrity of the game issue, that it truly is. This is a bigger issue then the few named defendants.
FL_Dawg...
Did you read any of the material that I posted today?
Saints' 'pay for performance' system commonplace in NFL web page
The Saints were not the only team to use a special fund, donated by players and coaches, to be used as an incentive for their players to deliver big plays.
The writer of the article above, Bucky Brooks, talks about playing for several NFL teams that (all) used a pay for play incentive system to reward their players for impact plays. Brooks had a 5 yr career and here is a list of the teams he played for..
Buffalo Bills (1994) Green Bay Packers (1995–1996, 1997) Jacksonville Jaguars (1996–1997) Kansas City Chiefs (1997–1998) Oakland Raiders (1998)
FLdawg...concerning these teams, would you say they have denigrated the integrity of the NFL, with all 5 teams using a Bounty system as extra incentive...paying their players for big hits or big plays?
Quote: Maybe you do not see this as an integrity of the game issue, that it truly is. This is a bigger issue then the few named defendants.
FL_Dawg...
Did you read any of the material that I posted today?
Saints' 'pay for performance' system commonplace in NFL web page
The Saints were not the only team to use a special fund, donated by players and coaches, to be used as an incentive for their players to deliver big plays.
The writer of the article above, Bucky Brooks, talks about playing for several NFL teams that (all) used a pay for play incentive system to reward their players for impact plays. Brooks had a 5 yr career and here is a list of the teams he played for..
Buffalo Bills (1994) Green Bay Packers (1995–1996, 1997) Jacksonville Jaguars (1996–1997) Kansas City Chiefs (1997–1998) Oakland Raiders (1998)
FLdawg...concerning these teams, would you say they have denigrated the integrity of the NFL, with all 5 teams using a Bounty system as extra incentive...paying their players for big hits or big plays?
...just like the Saints did !
Do you understand the difference between paying extra money for an INT or a DEF TD...
And saying you get 10k if Bret Farve leaves the NFC Title game?
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
Quote: Do you understand the difference between paying extra money for an INT or a DEF TD...
And saying you get 10k if Bret Farve leaves the NFC Title game?
No, he does not. I personally don't know who did what or when or how many teams do it.... there is a world of difference between paying for a big play... and making injuring another player the objective...
That all depends on what their incentives where. ie: INT's Sacks ect... Many players have incentives written into their contracts. That is hardly the same thing as paying a player to knock another player out of the game.
Did he bring it up while a player? ... No he did not and he has no stake in the game to day other then to stir the pot for his company.
You want to believe that what the Saints did is okay, candy coat it, then you have every right ... If I was the Commissioner I would have thrown the book at them.
If any other team is proved to have done the same, then they should suffer a similar fate and I hope they do if that is indeed the case.
osu...do you understand that "big hits" are part of the game?
Legal, big hits...
You ever set in a stadium watching a pro game when one of your players makes a big hit or a player makes big block that levels the defender?...how did the crowd react to those plays?
...did they boo and hiss your player for being so rough on the opponent?
...or did the crowd go absolutely nuts, cheering the player and the team?
Big hits have been celebrated in football forever...since the game began.
You do realize big hits have been "promoted" by the NFL and even "encouraged" by the NFL?
The NFL made a special tv program made up of big hits, it was a huge success...
Everyone that watches this...let me know if you are offended..
Quote: Anyone who has ever watched any co¸ show on TV is aware of the Miranda warnings. ”Anything you say can and will be used against you,” the officer says after reminding the person under arrest that he/she has the right to remain silent.
I am not a lawyer, but I thought that Miranda was read to anyone about to be arrested only to inform them that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. Did Vilma get arrested? What the hell does Miranda have to do with this? someone explain that to me
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Mac, you do understand that hits within the rules are a horse of a different color. Everything you have posted today is but a deflection to the truth and irrelevant.
Two wrong never made a right and even if another team did the same and was not caught, it still doesn't make it right.
Quote: Here's the thing, Sheldon Brown, DESTROYS Reggie Bush on this play, right?
Was he TRYING TO INJURE Bush? No. He wasn't
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE MAC.
osu...so you believe the Saints intended to injure the player they tackled, every time they tackled someone to attempt to win the pot of money?
osu...you can't prove that Sheldon didn't intend to hurt Reggie Bush...you are simply ASSUMING it.
Roger Goodell's PR campaign against the Saints hooked you like a fish that hasn't eaten in a month...you swallowed the hook.
osu...how many of the Saints hits were flagged by the referees on the field as being illegal hits?
Hitting is just as much of the game of football as touchdown pass is for a QB and the WR.
Not a damn thing wrong with a player delivering the hardest hit he can, as long as it is not deemed illegal by the referees.
While Roger Goodell has done his best to make everyone believe hitting is bad for the NFL, it was not that long ago the NFL made money off their very popular program, JACKED UP.
Quote: Mac, you do understand that hits within the rules are a horse of a different color. Everything you have posted today is but a deflection to the truth and irrelevant.
Two wrong never made a right and even if another team did the same and was not caught, it still doesn't make it right.
fl...and the same question to you...how many of the Saints hits were deemed illegal by the refs on the field?
Why is it that you believe the Saints hits were bad hits, illegal hits?
Because Roger Goodell and his campaign against the Saints team and players hooked you too.
Quote: So you're OK with someone going out with the INTENT to INJURE someone?
osu...you ever play football?
I have...there were times, leading up to a game, in practice or in warmups before a game...that guys would talk trash...players would say stuff like I'm gonna rip that guys head off...meaning a player on the other team.
Would you take such talk among players seriously?
I can tell you this...99.999% of the time that a player says he's gonna cause bodily harm to an individual of the other team, that player fails to do so.
osu...if you have played football you know there is huge difference between the players talking tough, making predictions and actually making good on those predictions.
You want to pretend you know Sheldon didn't intend to hurt the RB in the video, Reggie Bush?...that is a bunch of crap...no way you can read Sheldon's mind...and you know it.
Illegal hits are determined on the field of play by the officials...not by some fan that believes he can read the minds of the players.
Quote: Mac, you do understand that hits within the rules are a horse of a different color. Everything you have posted today is but a deflection to the truth and irrelevant.
Two wrong never made a right and even if another team did the same and was not caught, it still doesn't make it right.
fl...and the same question to you...how many of the Saints hits were deemed illegal by the refs on the field?
Why is it that you believe the Saints hits were bad hits, illegal hits?
Because Roger Goodell and his campaign against the Saints team and players hooked you too.
Like I said you are welcome to believe what you want, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it was all fabricated by the Commissioner, because he has some kinda vendetta against the Saints.
That's just ridicules.
Spin it however you like mac, but none of it takes the blame away from the truth and the Saints.
Talk about swallowing the hook line and sinker.
The Commissioner did not ask for this issue to come to him, but then you can't expect him to just let bygones be bygones either.
How someone can defend this unsportsmanlike act(s) is beyond my comprehension. Did the ring master [Williams] deny these allegations? No, but Mac still thinks he has caught the Commissioner in a fabrication.
Quote: Like I said you are welcome to believe what you want, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it was all fabricated by the Commissioner, because he has some kinda vendetta against the Saints.
That's just ridicules.
FL Dawg...a disgruntled ex-Saints assitant coach by the name Mike Cerullo gathered the information on the "Saint's Bounty" program and gave it to Roger Goodell. Cerullo had been fired by the Saints after the Saints won the Super Bowl and this was his way to get even.
Here is a story and there is a good video that explains what happened if you want to learn more...
Bountygate Evidence May Have Been Fake
by Dave Cariello on Apr 10, 2012 10:47 PM CDT
The whistleblower or "snitch" in the Saints Bountygate scandal has allegedly been revealed. According to local New Orleans author Alan Donnes in a Tuesday interview with America's News Radio Network, it was Saints defensive quality control Coach Mike Cerullo who first alerted the league about Gregg Williams' bounty program.
But the other equally interesting tidbit from Donnes' radio interview that seems to have fallen through the cracks is the fact that some of the evidence supplied by Cerullo to the NFL may not have even been real, an hypothesis many Saints fans have posited since news of the scandal first surfaced:
From a source, in the situation, some of the materials - printed materials - that the whistleblower turned in were suspect and may not have actually been real. And I think Roger Goodell overreacted and now he can't get out of it. And look, the Saints aren't, y'know, virgins here, but they're not the evil guys they're being made out to be.
If true, this may very well explain why NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the league have been so tight-lipped about the 10,000 documents and 50,000 pages of evidence they claim to possess. This theory that Cerullo forged evidence would also seem plausible if it's true that, as Donnes revealed, "he believed that it was Gregg Williams and Sean Payton and others in the Saints organization blocking him from getting other work." That would be a potentially legitimate motive.
And it really doesn't matter how much evidence may actually be bogus, because even if it's just a single page it opens a Pandora's Box of questions as to the validity of the entire Bountygate accusations. What other evidence might be phony? Who is checking and looking over this evidence? Everything can and should now be questioned.
Here's the actual audio clip in it's entirety... link
If that link won't work for you, here is the youtube link to the video...the part about the Saints begins at the 3:00 minute mark.
Quote: Like I said you are welcome to believe what you want, but I'm not naive enough to believe that it was all fabricated by the Commissioner, because he has some kinda vendetta against the Saints.
That's just ridicules.
FL Dawg...a disgruntled ex-Saints assitant coach by the name Mike Cerullo gathered the information on the "Saint's Bounty" program and gave it to Roger Goodell. Cerullo had been fired by the Saints after the Saints won the Super Bowl and this was his way to get even.
Here is a story and there is a good video that explains what happened if you want to learn more...
Bountygate Evidence May Have Been Fake
by Dave Cariello on Apr 10, 2012 10:47 PM CDT
The whistleblower or "snitch" in the Saints Bountygate scandal has allegedly been revealed. According to local New Orleans author Alan Donnes in a Tuesday interview with America's News Radio Network, it was Saints defensive quality control Coach Mike Cerullo who first alerted the league about Gregg Williams' bounty program.
But the other equally interesting tidbit from Donnes' radio interview that seems to have fallen through the cracks is the fact that some of the evidence supplied by Cerullo to the NFL may not have even been real, an hypothesis many Saints fans have posited since news of the scandal first surfaced:
From a source, in the situation, some of the materials - printed materials - that the whistleblower turned in were suspect and may not have actually been real. And I think Roger Goodell overreacted and now he can't get out of it. And look, the Saints aren't, y'know, virgins here, but they're not the evil guys they're being made out to be.
If true, this may very well explain why NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the league have been so tight-lipped about the 10,000 documents and 50,000 pages of evidence they claim to possess. This theory that Cerullo forged evidence would also seem plausible if it's true that, as Donnes revealed, "he believed that it was Gregg Williams and Sean Payton and others in the Saints organization blocking him from getting other work." That would be a potentially legitimate motive.
And it really doesn't matter how much evidence may actually be bogus, because even if it's just a single page it opens a Pandora's Box of questions as to the validity of the entire Bountygate accusations. What other evidence might be phony? Who is checking and looking over this evidence? Everything can and should now be questioned.
Here's the actual audio clip in it's entirety... link
If that link won't work for you, here is the youtube link to the video...the part about the Saints begins at the 3:00 minute mark.
So because Cerullo was fired doesn't mean it's not so. In fact that's usually when folks become whistle blowers after a falling out with their company. Most will not chose to endanger their job and blow the whistle while still employed.
Seems to me that a former Coach would be a pretty reliable source.
Either the Saints players were "paid to take cheap shots" outside the context of the rules, or they weren't paid to take cheap shots outside the context of the rules.
I've seen nothing to indicate they were "paid to cheat". Only that they were given an incentive to hit harder.
The term "Bounty Gate" is no more or less of a spin on this than "Pay to Perfrom" is. It's simply a matter of which side of this debate you're on as to which spin cycle you like better and promote.
Unless and until the NFL can show evidence that players were paid to play "outside of the rules", which is something I have not seen, this whole thing is an overblown crock of BS on the part of Goodell....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/FL_Dawg/Logo5_1.gif){kind=logo}
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
