Comments on: Bounty suspension do-over raises tough questions for NFL

By: andrewproughcfe

andrewproughcfe — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:42:20 +0000

@awl1998 – correct – often, the whistleblower is not the testifying witness. His/her information is used to help locate evidence and develop the case.

However, if the person were to testify in an adversarial hearing, then of course their identity would most likely be made known and the defense would have an opportunity to cross-examine.

But, if the NFL is claiming that its “testifying witnesses” are “whistleblowers”, then they are probably simply mis-applying the term. I guess we’ll find out a lot more if the full case ever makes it to court.

By: ureviewonline

ureviewonline — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:14:06 +0000

Fact is do you think a judge WANTS to rule in favor of an employee? Its a lot easier to rule for big business. But if Goddell had the proper evidence that the players were WRONG then this would never be an issue. He is a liar and a fraud and he damaged these guys careers permanently just to make a statement.

By: thetokyosandblaster

thetokyosandblaster — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:53:21 +0000

I hate the Vikings AND the Saints.

The saints marred and muddied a game that I love. There isn’t a “death sentence” in the NFL, but there should be.

3 year ban from the playoffs, no draft picks for two years, and every coach should be suspended until further notice.

That would stop cheating pretty quickly.

By: xxwhodatxx

xxwhodatxx — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:45:56 +0000

A lot of crybaby vikes fans on here. THE 2009 SEASON IS OVER!! The Saints won the SB the vikes lost the NFCCG. Brett Farve is not coming back! GET OVER IT!!!

By: awl1998

awl1998 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:32:21 +0000

The last comment assumes that the league’s tale is correct.Except possibly for ONE tackle on Favre-and I’ve seen similar many times-no other film study has even hinted at proof of that.

Re; whistleblowers, the obvious question is are they WITNESSES? If you have a statement of a whistleblower and that is evidence you are relying upon, you cannot keep his identity secret while asserting the truth of what he says. This is basic. In any non-star chamber proceeding,the accused is entitled to impeach him by showing bias, mistake, or the lack of a presence when the offense was committed, just for example.

By: anarchopurplism

anarchopurplism — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:05:51 +0000

1. Whistleblowers should be protected. Media is biased against this because it makes their job harder. More info = more stories

2. Players should be suspended. They clearly had money changing hands and clearly tried to hurt other players. Now they try to get off on technicalities. What are they teaching the youth who worship them?

3. Goodell should adjust discipline process. Have a team of lawyers write up guidelines and make them public. Have former players and league reps manage discipline. Goodell should have a high-level voice & be involved PR-wise….that’s it

4. Saints fans…..stop being annoying homers. It’s embarrassingly stupid.

If the Saints Coaches and players had complied with the League when they quietly investing the 1st time…. none of this would have happened. They pissed off the League and had a ton of bricks come down on them…. that’s normal.

The twist gets harder when you don’t say Uncle

By: andrewproughcfe

andrewproughcfe — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:04:06 +0000

@Mike – you are confusing the role of the whistleblower with the role of a plaintiff. The whistleblower is not an “accuser” you are supposed to “face” in an adversarial proceeding. The whistleblower is someone who handed over inside information at great risk to themselves. Offering to keep their name confidential is one of the few methods that can be used to encourage whistlebblowers to come forward. Normally, once their names are known, their careers are ruined, as other employers (in this case other teams) won’t hire them.

In my job as a health insurance fraud examiner, we value the confidentiality of the whistleblower over all other considerations.

Andy Prough, CFE
Kyle, TX

By: thomasreilly

thomasreilly — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:25:52 +0000

Do the Saints have to waive players on the 53 man roster as a result of this ruling? If they must waive a few players and if the suspensions are returned on Monday it could really hurt the team.

By: promickey

promickey — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:13:56 +0000

The Judge told both sides to settle, instead they continue with this nonsense. I would think that the weight of importance for a person earning a living trumps keeping witnesses anonymous.

By: vegasvinnie

vegasvinnie — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:09:53 +0000

To those who say “It was only a pay for performance program, not a bounty”:

Judge Berrigan has already agreed with the NFL that “pay for performance” is a “bounty”.

To those who say that “all teams have a pay for performance program”:

Most of you have said countless times that you want to see the evidence.

Well, before you convict 31 other teams using only your opinion – I want to see the evidence that “everyone” did it.

Using the “everyone did it” defense is an child’s excuse – and not a very good one at that.

So here’s what we know:

1. The Saints fans have admitted to “pay for performance”.

2. The Saints players have admitted to “pay for performance”.

3. The Saints coaching staff have admitted to “pay for performance.

4. Judge Berrigan has stated that “pay for performance” is a bounty.

Once the NFL clears up a few minor procedural errors – as directed by the appeals panel – the suspension will be reinstated and upheld.
————————————————–
Countless current and former players from other teams have already stated that pools exist on every NFL team.

Giants players have admitted to targeting Kyle Williams in the NFC championship game because of his concussion issues. That alone is more credible evidence against them than anything that the NFL has currently put forward against the Saints.

The NFL can’t even clear up who said what on the Hargrove tape, nor can they decide which game that the Saints supposedly carried out their cart off hits in. I’d say that they have a little more than a few ” minor procedural errors.”

Goodell will likely reissue the suspensions. Then he’ll get undercut again. He’s starting to look like those desperate gamblers I see every day around town. The ones that are losing badly, yet they keep reaching into their wallets, hoping for a lucky strike that pulls them back ahead. Like them, he may luck out but chances are far greater that he just keeps losing.

By: emmonsh

emmonsh — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:00:02 +0000

yes the nfl has won court cases multiple times. latest being the star caps. the monkey in charge of the players union always files in a state that helps them. starcaps was done in minn where the judge was 100% for the players. not till the case got to st louis did the nfl win. The nflpa filed in taint country hoping the judge would love the taints. she did but the appealt court beat her to it. there ruling gives the nfl a win in 2 ways. first this will throw out vilmas case. second the punishments have to be rewrote and the appealet court did not 1 time say the penaltys were wrong. just the way it was worded. the end of the taints is near.

By: vegasvinnie

vegasvinnie — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:58:17 +0000

What a f*****g joke. Saints fans, there’s still an asterisk next to that SuperBowl win and there always will be.
—————————————————-
That’s funny. I’ve yet to see one anywhere, save for the Vikings fans that are still bitter about their classic choke job.

I keep looking for an asterisk on their Super Bowl banner. Haven’t seen one yet. I’ve seen the Lombardi trophy up close and don’t see one on it, either. It’s not a tainted trophy, either. Very shiny and nice to look at.

If only you haters had any clue just how much us Saints fans enjoy laughing at your stupidity.

By: electionconfidential

electionconfidential — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:53:07 +0000

The league should fix the problem with the sideline comments. They obviously are punishing the wrong guy there and they don’t seem to care.

As far as Vilma and the rest are concerned I think Goodell should INCREASE the suspensions since the players obviously have no regrets or contrition.

By: bencoates57

bencoates57 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:49:11 +0000

This changes nothing. This only delays the inevitable. No vindication for vilma

By: nesuperfan

nesuperfan — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:45:29 +0000

“If the league is committed to fairness, the league will persuade the persons who provided information the league plans to use against the players to allow their names to be attached to the evidence.”

That could not be more wrong. This is not a criminal case, so that comparison is moot. If they were to follow this advice, with the NFL being such a boys club, you would never see anyone else come forward in the future…ever.

By: gtodriver

gtodriver — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:19:20 +0000

To those who say “It was only a pay for performance program, not a bounty”:

Judge Berrigan has already agreed with the NFL that “pay for performance” is a “bounty”.

To those who say that “all teams have a pay for performance program”:

Most of you have said countless times that you want to see the evidence.

Well, before you convict 31 other teams using only your opinion – I want to see the evidence that “everyone” did it.

Using the “everyone did it” defense is an child’s excuse – and not a very good one at that.

So here’s what we know:

1. The Saints fans have admitted to “pay for performance”.

2. The Saints players have admitted to “pay for performance”.

3. The Saints coaching staff have admitted to “pay for performance.

4. Judge Berrigan has stated that “pay for performance” is a bounty.

Once the NFL clears up a few minor procedural errors – as directed by the appeals panel – the suspension will be reinstated and upheld.

By: omniusprime

omniusprime — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:08:05 +0000

Stinking players have too much power on top of too much money. This is sports and corrupt lawyers don’t belong in the punishment equation. The NFL needs to be able to punish wrongdoers without some jerky lawyer whining about precise wording. Goodell had better get the wording correct to properly punish those who participated in Bountygate.

Stinking Saints should be banned from the playoffs for a few years to send a clear message to all teams that cheating will never be tolerated in the NFL.

By: doublebase

doublebase — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:02:04 +0000

I could care less about this bounty gate thing – you can’t tell me that there isn’t a single team in this league that the players don’t have really bad intentions when they tackle/sack a quarterback or player. To me this is about a commissioner with an axe to grind – who doesn’t want to lose. I think the embbarrasement done to the team and coaches was enough…let it end.

By: dryheaveone

dryheaveone — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:30:17 +0000

does it make me a bad person that I have no interest in “BountyGate”?….none at all

By: jimr10

jimr10 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:29:57 +0000

Has the NFL ever won a court case?

By: tatum064

tatum064 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 10:44:39 +0000

one question is…

Damn, you really cant punish someone on rumor and innuendo and some documentary footage…you really need actual evidence?

By: pencilmonkeymagic

pencilmonkeymagic — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 10:22:19 +0000

Who needs fair play & sporting ethics when you’ve got good lawyers?

By: h0c2000

h0c2000 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 10:13:48 +0000

Snitches get stitches

By: fflnick

fflnick — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:57:30 +0000

Revealing whistleblowers would be a huge mistake.
You would subject them to exposure to violence and backlash from certain factions of the general public.

By: wayupsouth

wayupsouth — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 09:17:46 +0000

Okay, so they had a pay for performance pool (only 31 other teams had similar pools). I think it’s chicken**** that they’re hiding whatever evidence they think they have behind the whole “whistleblower” thing. What’s more important, players’ reputations or protecting mythical whistleblowers? If you have evidence that they were injuring for cash, COME ACROSS WITH IT. If all it is is a cap issue (extra cash for making big plays), say so, suspend ‘em for a few games and move on. If these concussion lawsuits hadn’t been in play, we wouldn’t even be talking about this right now. I could be a Falcon fan and I would be sick of hearing about this.

By: verytalldad

verytalldad — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:40:27 +0000

The Great “Concussions are killing retired players” diversion by Goodell continues.

Anybody who defends Goodell is a fan of a team he has not screwed yet.

By: warcover

warcover — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:51:07 +0000

It’ll be a short lived victory for Vilma and company. Morbidly curious to see how this dance macabre plays out.

By: larryjames836

larryjames836 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:44:48 +0000

To me the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell should count it as a loss and come with a better plan next year because this plan is not going to work it going to make matter worse. So Roger Goodell you just got beat at your game just call it quits don’t dig a bigger hole what’s already been dig by you. The owners need to find a new commissioner if you refuse to give up it’s over.

By: stirlingdat

stirlingdat — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:27:20 +0000

I hope Berringer jumps in quickly and says enough is enough before they bastardize the legal system. She should say that what you ave presented thus far as evidence just isn’t substanial, and proclaim the innocence of the players and the coaches, and set them free.

Its almost like the NFL is writing a script for a hollywood movie, creating at will whatever the storyline is they want along the way.

By: hor2012

hor2012 — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:17:32 +0000

I won’t try to hide the fact that I’m a huge Saints fan. And, I’ve been one my entire life. So, I’m going to acknowledge that I’m not impartial. With that being said I’ve watched this unfold from the beginning. When this first started I have to admitt that I found it a little funny. I even made a joke about it. But, now I find it distrubing. For a moment let’s forget about the bounty issue. If any of us were to be accussed by our employer of doing anything wrong and then get discplined by that employer without having any proof of what we were being accused of provided, I doubt any of us would accept such punishment without disputing it. I’m confused as to why all those who belive that the Saints are guilty of what they are being accused of would expect the saints to take thier punishment without fighting it. Now, concerning the actual charges. I’ve heard from those who believe that the Saints are guilty because the coaches admitted to the existence of a bounty state, the if the coached admitted to it then it must be true. The problem I have was that it wasn’t made clear exactly what they were admitting to. The statements were vague at best. What I believe will happen is that this issue is over. The NFL will not want to take away from the season by continuing this fight. As far as the reality of the bounty program is concerned, I really don’t know if it was real. And, at this point I don’t think that it matters. But, I really believe that it ends hear. And, can I suggest to the Saints hatters losing our coach for the year is nothing to sneeze at.