Saints Player Suspensions Announced

**festivus** · 05-02-2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

For example, if Suggs says he is going to take out Ben R. You don't automatically assume that he means by doing it with illegal hits. Your interpretation is most likely that Suggs means he is going to hit him as hard as he can, within the rules of the game.
The Saints are not getting that interpretation, they all are getting the opposite. They must mean illegal hits. They bring up the hit on Kurt Warner for example. A hit that was completely legal. But somehow, now that is evidence.

k0493300.jpg

In the context of criminal law, a conspiracy exists when there is an agreement to violate the law. You do not need to show an *actual* murder in a prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder. Just the agreement to break the law, and some action taken as part of the conspiracy.

If you conspire to circumvent the salary cap, and conspire to injure players, and conspire to obstruct an investigation, and conspire to be a p.o.s. of a human being, there does not need to be a demonstration that a single hit or a single group of hits was legal or illegal.

It's enough that there was a conspiracy.

You are assuming there was not enough evidence, which is quite a startling and unreasonable assumption. There was no public trial and none of these clowns is entitled to a public trial. I will not, though, assume it didn't happen just because I never received a personal invitation from Goodell to observe the meetings and read the memos.

**Captain Offense** · 05-02-2012, 01:38 PM

So if I am reading this thread correctly, we have two differing views of the punishment:

1. If you put money down on people deliberately injuring or targeting someone (as opposed to earning your money to play until the whistle), and lie to obstruct an investigation, then there should be a penalty imposed.

2. If the first part of # 1 applies but there is no evidence that anyone actually made an illegal hit or otherwise actually injured someone, then there is to be no penalty.

The story so far as I understand it is that this was going on at one time, that the NFL said "knock it off", that they heard it was still going on, were told "no, it is not", then found out that certain people lied to cover it up, because it in fact was still in place. So the penalties dished out are for doing it, doing it and lying and covering it up when it was investigated.

So what exactly is the reason that there should be no penalties? Or is it the length of the penalties? Or is there a claim that this is pure fiction?

**RavensQB** · 05-02-2012, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by BcRaven

Oh man, there goes Cleveland's Super Bowl hopes down the drain... Bc

Welcome to the

**wickedsolo** · 05-02-2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Offense

So if I am reading this thread correctly, we have two differing views of the punishment:

1. If you put money down on people deliberately injuring or targeting someone (as opposed to earning your money to play until the whistle), and lie to obstruct an investigation, then there should be a penalty imposed.

2. If the first part of # 1 applies but there is no evidence that anyone actually made an illegal hit or otherwise actually injured someone, then there is to be no penalty.

The story so far as I understand it is that this was going on at one time, that the NFL said "knock it off", that they heard it was still going on, were told "no, it is not", then found out that certain people lied to cover it up, because it in fact was still in place. So the penalties dished out are for doing it, doing it and lying and covering it up when it was investigated.

So what exactly is the reason that there should be no penalties? Or is it the length of the penalties? Or is there a claim that this is pure fiction?

Overall this is about image.

Whether or not folks want to agree or disagree on the "evidence" or lackthereof, this ultimately is about the image of the NFL and more importantly, the image of Roger Goodell.

There are legitimate reasons for why he suspended those players and coaches, but I think if this wasn't such a big deal (as in US Congress and potentially IRS getting involved) then it wouldn't have been nearly as severe.

**blah3** · 05-02-2012, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

In my interpretation it has less to do with the hits and more to do with the exchange of non-contract money.

The exchange of non contract money is going on in every locker room in the NFL.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-02-2012, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

The exchange of non contract money is going on in every locker room in the NFL.

1. Prove it

2. That doesn't make it okay, does it?

**NCRAVEN** · 05-02-2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by festivus

k0493300.jpg

In the context of criminal law, a conspiracy exists when there is an agreement to violate the law. You do not need to show an *actual* murder in a prosecution for conspiracy to commit murder. Just the agreement to break the law, and some action taken as part of the conspiracy.

If you conspire to circumvent the salary cap, and conspire to injure players, and conspire to obstruct an investigation, and conspire to be a p.o.s. of a human being, there does not need to be a demonstration that a single hit or a single group of hits was legal or illegal.

It's enough that there was a conspiracy.

You are assuming there was not enough evidence, which is quite a startling and unreasonable assumption. There was no public trial and none of these clowns is entitled to a public trial. I will not, though, assume it didn't happen just because I never received a personal invitation from Goodell to observe the meetings and read the memos.

Thread win.

BTW - I spit out my water when I saw that picture.

**blah3** · 05-02-2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Offense

So if I am reading this thread correctly, we have two differing views of the punishment:

1. If you put money down on people deliberately injuring or targeting someone (as opposed to earning your money to play until the whistle), and lie to obstruct an investigation, then there should be a penalty imposed.

2. If the first part of # 1 applies but there is no evidence that anyone actually made an illegal hit or otherwise actually injured someone, then there is to be no penalty.

The story so far as I understand it is that this was going on at one time, that the NFL said "knock it off", that they heard it was still going on, were told "no, it is not", then found out that certain people lied to cover it up, because it in fact was still in place. So the penalties dished out are for doing it, doing it and lying and covering it up when it was investigated.

So what exactly is the reason that there should be no penalties? Or is it the length of the penalties? Or is there a claim that this is pure fiction?

It's the length.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-02-2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

The exchange of non contract money is going on in every locker room in the NFL.

And the Saints got caught, we're told to stop, ignored that warning and kept going.

You're defending the indefensible, especially in the shadow of Seau's death. The league is bending over backwards to stop players from getting hurt and the Saints were doing their own thing in spite of a direct warning from the league.

**alien bird** · 05-02-2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

The exchange of non contract money is going on in every locker room in the NFL.

Not money put up by outside agents like what happened in New Orleans.

**blah3** · 05-02-2012, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by alien bird

Not money put up by outside agents like what happened in New Orleans.

But we are talking about players being punished for putting up money. That is the crime here right? So there money is the same.

**blah3** · 05-02-2012, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

And the Saints got caught, we're told to stop, ignored that warning and kept going.

You're defending the indefensible, especially in the shadow of Seau's death. The league is bending over backwards to stop players from getting hurt and the Saints were doing their own thing in spite of a direct warning from the league.

Seau's death is irrelevant to this discussion.

**HoustonRaven** · 05-02-2012, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

Seau's death is irrelevant to this discussion.

So far, yes.

How about Dave Duerson then? Or the voluminous evidence about concussions linked to suicide, depression, etc.

The league is trying to do the players right and crack down on the excessive violence. The Saints were doing their own thing, got caught, lied about and kept going.

**Captain Offense** · 05-02-2012, 02:08 PM

" It's the length. "

I knew it. That is always the debate.

**festivus** · 05-02-2012, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

But we are talking about players being punished for putting up money. That is the crime here right? So there money is the same.

Let's assume for a moment you are correct that players putting their own money into the pot is not against the rules. I don't know whether that's the case, and I suspect it is *not* the case if the money is still a bounty for physical injury and "cart offs" and the like, but for the sake of argument I'll assume you are correct about that.

The players are still (a) knowingly mixing their money with money from non-player sources, making it an illegal pot of money (a cup of wine and a cup of sewage gives you two cups of sewage), (b) collecting the money from the pool including money from non-player sources, (c) verbally encouraging each other to participate in the scheme, and (d) obstructing the investigation.

It appears the NFL believes each of those things to be the case, and none of those requires Goodell to decide whether (i) any particular hit was related to the bounty or (ii) any particular player was *trying* to collect money from the bounty.

On a mostly-unrelated note, I wouldn't feel quite so much like I was picking on a kid if you would bother to distinguish between "there" and "their."

**blah3** · 05-02-2012, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by festivus

Let's assume for a moment you are correct that players putting their own money into the pot is not against the rules. I don't know whether that's the case, and I suspect it is *not* the case if the money is still a bounty for physical injury and "cart offs" and the like, but for the sake of argument I'll assume you are correct about that.

The players are still (a) knowingly mixing their money with money from non-player sources, making it an illegal pot of money (a cup of wine and a cup of sewage gives you two cups of sewage), (b) collecting the money from the pool including money from non-player sources, (c) verbally encouraging each other to participate in the scheme, and (d) obstructing the investigation.

It appears the NFL believes each of those things to be the case, and none of those requires Goodell to decide whether (i) any particular hit was related to the bounty or (ii) any particular player was *trying* to collect money from the bounty.

On a mostly-unrelated note, I wouldn't feel quite so much like I was picking on a kid if you would bother to distinguish between "there" and "their."

A pot of money mixed with another pot of money, makes a pot of money.
So, it goes on in every NFL locker room, yet there is no crack down. It goes on in the NO"s locker room and it's a 1 year suspension. Not a fine, not a 2 game, not a 4 game, one full year. The same punishment Sean Payton got. The same Sean Payton who has decades left in his career in coaching. Vilma doesn't have that amount of time left in his career.

I'll worry about grammar when I am turning in a report. I couldn't care less about in on a fricking message board.

**blah3** · 05-02-2012, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Captain Offense

" It's the length. "

I knew it. That is always the debate.

**Jayc00** · 05-02-2012, 02:25 PM

damn_friday.jpg

**festivus** · 05-02-2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

A pot of money mixed with another pot of money, makes a pot of money.
So, it goes on in every NFL locker room, yet there is no crack down. It goes on in the NO"s locker room and it's a 1 year suspension. Not a fine, not a 2 game, not a 4 game, one full year. The same punishment Sean Payton got. The same Sean Payton who has decades left in his career in coaching. Vilma doesn't have that amount of time left in his career.

I'll worry about grammar when I am turning in a report. I couldn't care less about in on a fricking message board.

Right, turning in a report. Like I said, arguing with a kid.

You take as a premise that "it goes on in every locker room." Your entire argument is based on that premise. Without it, you have nothing.

Now go back it up. And explain how it's like the NO situation, including the cover up, the prior warnings, the outside money, all of it.

I won't hold my breath.

**NCRAVEN** · 05-02-2012, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

A pot of money mixed with another pot of money, makes a pot of money.
So, it goes on in every NFL locker room, yet there is no crack down. It goes on in the NO"s locker room and it's a 1 year suspension. Not a fine, not a 2 game, not a 4 game, one full year. The same punishment Sean Payton got. The same Sean Payton who has decades left in his career in coaching. Vilma doesn't have that amount of time left in his career.

I'll worry about grammar when I am turning in a report. I couldn't care less about in on a fricking message board.

So the reason for your argument all boils down to you felt Vilma's suspension was too much. And partly because "this goes on in every locker room".

What do you feel he should have been suspended for, or do you even feel he should have been suspended at all for plunking down 10k in an attempt to get other player injured (regardless if the were successful or not).