Comments on: Memo shows NFL knew Cerullo was disgruntled

By: xakle

xakle — Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:10:23 +0000

fuglyflorio says:
Dec 16, 2012 12:41 PM
Of course there’s always those confessions and admissions of guilt. They count … except in New Orleans where no evidence will ever be enough.
__________________________

Coaches & Players only ever admitted to a pay for performance program, never a bounty or pay to injure program that Roger Goodell originally claimed.

Only after the players fought back did the NFL try to make it sound like it was merely a pay for performance program… which is also why the CBA Appeals Panel overturned their original decision considering that Goodell has no authority on player suspensions in such as scenario.

By: pftcensorssuck

pftcensorssuck — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:46:36 +0000

fuglyflorio says:Dec 16, 2012 12:41 PM

Of course there’s always those confessions and admissions of guilt. They count … except in New Orleans where no evidence will ever be enough.
———————————————————
Funny how all that has been forgotten, isn’t it?

Let the smearing of Cerullo begin, it’s the only way Vilma and the Saints can cling to any hope.

By: fuglyflorio

fuglyflorio — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:41:25 +0000

Of course there’s always those confessions and admissions of guilt. They count … except in New Orleans where no evidence will ever be enough.

By: wayne1693

wayne1693 — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:33:01 +0000

Although somewhat of a fine line, it’s not that the NFL/Goodell will have to show that Cerullo was ‘reliable’…just that they were not in ‘reckless disregard of the truth’ in relying on his testimony.

By: FinFan68

FinFan68 — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:30:04 +0000

This is just a smokescreen to fool those that can’t think for themselves or are unable to believe someone they view highly could do something wrong. EVERY “whistleblower” is disgruntled about something. Some spitefully attack those that have “wronged” them. Others can no longer deal with their conscience or continue to take part in something they believe is wrong. Regardless, the fact that Ceruello has an axe to grind does not in and of itself mean that the allegations are untrue. There are some inconsistencies that are problematic but there are also corroborating accounts of other things as well. The bounty case was hard to prove. The defamation case is even harder.

By: eatitfanboy

eatitfanboy — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:27:56 +0000

I have long believed that the Saints were guilty of this while also believing the penalties were too harsh.

However, if it turns out that the bulk of their case rested on the testimony of THIS guy, they are in trouble.

Witness credibility is huge in court cases. If Vilmas’s lawyers get this guy on cross-examination in open court, they will rip him to shreds.

By: jeremywflores

jeremywflores — Sun, 16 Dec 2012 17:23:22 +0000

I’m always down for another plot twist.