Skip to content

Could Kenny Britt suspension influence outcome of bounty cases?

New Orleans Saints v St. Louis Rams Getty Images

With Judge Helen G. Berrigan still pondering the legitimacy of 31 games in total suspensions for four players accused of participation in a pay-for-performance/bounty program, the NFL suspended Titans receiver Kenny Britt only one game for his 10th run-in with the law in three years.

Technically, Britt’s situation has no relevance to the bounty cases.  Suspended under an entirely different policy covering an entirely different set of circumstances, there’s no valid connection between Britt’s suspension and the bounty suspensions.

But Judge Berrigan, or one of her law clerks, will undoubtedly become aware of the Britt suspension.  And she may look at Britt’s suspension and wonder why the league has gone so easy on a repeat offender who was given fair warning from the league last August that he’d better stay out of trouble and then he got in trouble again and still got only one game, while Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma got a full year for something that allegedly happened three years ago — and that he loudly denies doing.  Coupled with wobbly evidence from unnamed witnesses, Judge Berrigan may be even more determined to find a way to correct a perceived injustice that could seem even more unjust when compared to Britt’s arguable slap on the wrist.

We suspect Judge Berrigan already was planning to rule for Vilma and the other players, on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.  The one-game suspension of Britt will serve only to make her feel more confident that she has made the right decision — regardless of whether an appeals court eventually tells her otherwise.

Permalink 14 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cleveland Browns, Home, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, Tennessee Titans
14 Responses to “Could Kenny Britt suspension influence outcome of bounty cases?”
  1. raideralex99 says: Aug 30, 2012 11:30 PM

    How this guy is only suspended for only one game after TEN run ins with the law proves GODell plays favorites … Total crap.

  2. cwwgk says: Aug 30, 2012 11:48 PM

    “Technically, Britt’s situation has no relevance to the bounty cases. Suspended under an entirely different policy covering an entirely different set of circumstances, there’s no valid connection between Britt’s suspension and the bounty suspensions.”

    Yet, this is part of what she’s going to rely on to rule in favor of the players? How preposterous.

    If Judge Berrigan has to stoop that low, it further illustrates how strong a case Goodell and the league have.

  3. raiderinva says: Aug 30, 2012 11:48 PM

    And she may look at Britt’s suspension and wonder why the league has gone so easy on a repeat offender who was given fair warning from the league last August that he’d better stay out of trouble and then he got in trouble again and still got only one game, while Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma got a full year for something that allegedly happened three years ago

    ——————————————–

    I am sorry but I have been under the impression the entire time that the league warned The Saints, Coaches, Players, or a combination to cease and desist. To ignore that warning should count as repeat offending if that warning was issues multiple times.

    There is a reason that Sean Payton, Joe Vitt, Mickey Loomis, Gregg Williams, and every other coach or front office person effected is not questioning the suspensions.

  4. letmesetyoustraight says: Aug 30, 2012 11:57 PM

    The disparity in suspensions from the commish is quite perplexing. I suspect the one-year suspension of Vilma from Goodell stems from the alleged report that he stood in front of his defensive teammates and offered 10 grand for Warner and Favre. Quite reprehensible, if true.

    This is the one thing Vilma and his teammates have vehemently denied, even under oath in a court of law. They have admitted to pay for good performance, but not to injure. Multiple violations gets a one game suspension and a questionable first offense gets a full year.

    What’s up with that, Roger.

  5. tialen says: Aug 30, 2012 11:57 PM

    I hope Vilma’s defamation suit holds up

  6. wealldat says: Aug 31, 2012 12:03 AM

    I must say Mike you have been the only reporter to tell it like it is Thanks!!!!! Go Vilma

  7. randolph32 says: Aug 31, 2012 12:08 AM

    RNC: More happy White People than a John Tesh concert….

  8. rhodeislandpatriotsfan says: Aug 31, 2012 12:32 AM

    Regardless of how Judge Berrigan rules, it will be interesting to see whether she waits for the three-member CBA Article 15 Appeals Panel to first issue its own ruling on the NFLPA’s appeal of System Arbitrator Burbank’s opinion upholding Goodell’s jurisdiction. As to appeals of the System Arbitrator’s award, it’s noteworthy that CBA Article 15, Section 8(e) states, “The decision of the Appeals Panel shall constitute full, final, and complete disposition of the dispute.”

  9. ilovefoolsball says: Aug 31, 2012 1:10 AM

    Hypocrisy at it’s finest. It’s the Roger Goodell show!

  10. eventhorizon04 says: Aug 31, 2012 4:50 AM

    Didn’t Judge Helen G. Berrigan already say that if she had a legal basis to rule against Gooddell and in favor of the players, she would?

    In other words, it seems like the judge has been swayed by Vilma’s argument about the unfairness of the process, she’s just unsure of her legal ability to overrule Goodell, so the leniency shown to Britt doesn’t do much to sway the opinion of a judge who is already inclined to rule against Goodell.

  11. sabatimus says: Aug 31, 2012 6:56 AM

    The judge could simply bring up DUIs, and list the 24834503450345.08 unpunished cases of them.

  12. rmdz7 says: Aug 31, 2012 10:55 AM

    raiderinva says: Aug 30, 2012 11:48 PM

    I am sorry but I have been under the impression the entire time that the league warned The Saints, Coaches, Players, or a combination to cease and desist. To ignore that warning should count as repeat offending if that warning was issues multiple times.

    There is a reason that Sean Payton, Joe Vitt, Mickey Loomis, Gregg Williams, and every other coach or front office person effected is not questioning the suspensions.

    For one, no one knows when/if any warnings actually were issued, how they were issued, why, nor the extend of these alleged warnings. The MEDIA said there were warnings issued. The NFL has never produced the actual documented warnings, if they ever existed.

    And Loomis, Vitt, Payton, Williams, they all questioned their suspensions. They all appealed their suspensions. They all denied any system in which anyone pledged money for injuring an opposing player. but they are in a much different situation than the players.

  13. hoodatnva says: Aug 31, 2012 1:22 PM

    Where is the evidence that the Saints were “warned” 3 years ago? Players and coaches are all saying the league is wrong — they never had a pay to injure program. How can you be warned, if true, to stop something you aren’t doing?

  14. sloppydogg says: Aug 31, 2012 9:52 PM

    Why would any off the coaches say anything at this time, when Goodell still hold their careers in his hand. Get real if you can’t see that he is driving a stake thru the hearts of the saint’s you are blind. Goodell hates when anyone opposes him stand up to him he will want ur head mounted to his wall, so it’s ok for you to repeat dwi’s, domestic violence and all the other crap players are pulling, When all is said an done the house of lie’s Goodell has built will fall down.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!