Saints bounty evidence released to players

[-X-]

05:24 – As one of 12 reporters to see the NFL's "bounty" evidence, Steve Wyche shares his findings with co-host Jason Smith.

[YouTube]09000d5d82a083f5[/YouTube]
http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-orleans-s ... -breakdown

1. Wyche works for a media subsidiary of NFL Corporate.

2. Wyche is not a lawyer, judge, and I don't think he has any legal background.

Did you watch it? Because he's not making a case for the league.

The evidence is there. There's just no way around it. But Wyche doesn't buy all of it either.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I think it is very possible that this case is contrived for alterior motives. I think it is possible that in a court of law, with a reasonably fair jury, and a good cross-examination attorney, that the case could be destroyed. So yeah, I don't put much stock into any of the media driven noise everyone else seems to be relying upon.

How is this case "contrived"? They have a ledger, they have emails, they have player testimony, they have tapes. ETC.

The only thing contrived is the denial.

And bear in mind, they have a very easy case to prove.

ALL they have to prove is that a coach offered a non-contractual reward. Of any kind. At any time.

That;s it.

No one even has to be paid.

There doesn't have to be injuries, illegal hits, anything.

JUST the offer.

And they already have more than that. Like, way more.

Naw, this one is painfully simple. The league told the Saints to quit their bounties program. The Saints denied it and then kept doing it. The league then escalated. The point? When we tell you to stop, you stop. Or--see what happened to the Saints.

Anything else is conspiracy theory.

 

[Stranger]

05:24 – As one of 12 reporters to see the NFL's "bounty" evidence, Steve Wyche shares his findings with co-host Jason Smith.

[YouTube]09000d5d82a083f5[/YouTube]
http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-orleans-s ... -breakdown

1. Wyche works for a media subsidiary of NFL Corporate.

2. Wyche is not a lawyer, judge, and I don't think he has any legal background.

Did you watch it? Because he's not making a case for the league.

The evidence is there. There's just no way around it. But Wyche doesn't buy all of it either.

This isn't evidence, this is a media exercise. Evidence is information submitted in a fair process, within context, and able to be srutinized. This just can't happen when all the representatives presenting the information work for the judge, jury and executioner.

Would you really want your own career & life subjected to such a process?

Yeah, I think it is very possible that this case is contrived for alterior motives. I think it is possible that in a court of law, with a reasonably fair jury, and a good cross-examination attorney, that the case could be destroyed. So yeah, I don't put much stock into any of the media driven noise everyone else seems to be relying upon.

How is this case "contrived"? They have a ledger, they have emails, they have player testimony, they have tapes. ETC.

The only thing contrived is the denial.

And bear in mind, they have a very easy case to prove.

ALL they have to prove is that a coach offered a non-contractual reward. Of any kind. At any time.

That;s it.

No one even has to be paid.

There doesn't have to be injuries, illegal hits, anything.

JUST the offer.

And they already have more than that. Like, way more.

Naw, this one is painfully simple. The league told the Saints to quit their bounties program. The Saints denied it and then kept doing it. The league then escalated. The point? When we tell you to stop, you stop. Or--see what happened to the Saints.

Anything else is conspiracy theory.

Everything is being presented by the prosecution in this case, via media professional. Are you telling me that you trust this sort of process?

 

[-X-]

[
This isn't evidence, this is a media exercise. Evidence is information submitted in a fair process, within context, and able to be srutinized. This just can't happen when all the representatives presenting the information work for the judge, jury and executioner.

Would you really want your own career & life subjected to such a process?

Evidence is evidence. How are they going to levy charges without it? And again, this isn't new. The Saints were warned beforehand, without having to provide any evidence, that they needed to stop this program installed by Williams and approved by Vitt and Payton. They didn't. So what does the league have to do? Say, "Okay, we're warning you a 2nd time, but you REALLY better stop this time." No, they just have to say, "Look, we told you to stop, you didn't, and now you're going to get hammered." It was all behind closed doors initially until the media got a hold of the story. And the league didn't release anything but allegations, and that, you thought, was insufficient. Now they release the evidence DEMANDED by the NFLPA, and you think they're using the media to further their cause? I don't get it.

And no, I wouldn't want my own career & life subjected to such a process. But you know what? I wouldn't BE in this position if I was given fair warning the first time.

 

[Anonymous]

Everything is being presented by the prosecution in this case, via media professional. Are you telling me that you trust this sort of process?

Well that was part of the league constitution from the start and was ratified by several CBAs.

It's a sports league. Like every other sports league in existence, the commissioner has final say over rules violations. He IS the judge jury and prosecutor. And appeal court.

You were fine with that when Bellichick got whacked, right? No cries for democracy in a sports league constitution then, right? When the CBA came up and the union had a chance to ratify, you weren't pounding the table for the NFL to be different from other leagues when it came to enforcing rules violations then, were you?

Every fine, every suspension, in every sports league is handled the same way.

 

[Stranger]

If you haven't even seen this 1957 Henry Fonda movie, then I strongly recommend it, because that movie couldn't be more applicable to this thread.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/

A dissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the
others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KeHD9J5PKI[/youtube]

 

[-X-]

lol. Except you're on your own in this one, pally. 11 guilty, 1 not guilty. Of course, you could be the cause of a hung jury, so you got that going for you ... which is good.

 

[Stranger]

lol. Except you're on your own in this one, pally. 11 guilty, 1 not guilty. Of course, you could be the cause of a hung jury, so you got that going for you ... which is good.

No, that's not the issue here. The issue is that everyone wants to side with the prosecution's media blitz prior to a trial ever happening. I'm saying we should withhold judgement until a fair process is completed.

But yeah, the mob is already moving with torches lit and swords drawn, so why should anyone waste their breath.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Re:

lol. Except you're on your own in this one, pally. 11 guilty, 1 not guilty. Of course, you could be the cause of a hung jury, so you got that going for you ... which is good.

No, that's not the issue here. The issue is that everyone wants to side with the prosecution's media blitz prior to a trial ever happening. I'm saying we should withhold judgement until a fair process is completed.

But yeah, the mob is already moving with torches lit and swords drawn, so why should anyone waste their breath.

Picking sides is picking sides though. Just because someone didnt pick your side doesn't mean they did anything different than you. They just have their own opinion on the matter.

 

[-X-]

Re:

lol. Except you're on your own in this one, pally. 11 guilty, 1 not guilty. Of course, you could be the cause of a hung jury, so you got that going for you ... which is good.

No, that's not the issue here. The issue is that everyone wants to side with the prosecution's media blitz prior to a trial ever happening. I'm saying we should withhold judgement until a fair process is completed.

But yeah, the mob is already moving with torches lit and swords drawn, so why should anyone waste their breath.

Uhhh ... there's not going to be any trial.

I'll withhold judgement though. That's fair. Again, this really doesn't appeal to, or offend, my senses. I did see enough in those documents to satisfy my suspicion that Saints players (and coaches) were involved in offering and paying non-contract bonuses for a great many things. Including, but not limited to, "whacks" and "cart-offs." Even though those are the extreme instances, everything else they did also violates the collective bargaining agreement entered into by both the league and players.

It's not any more complicated than that. If you're displeased with the way both parties are fighting their battles (i.e., in the media), there's nothing I can do about that. This is the way it is on every front in our culture. The media drives everything we do, and we're all pawns in that game. Sensationalism sells, and both parties are "guilty" of participating in it, and exploiting it.

 

[Stranger]

Re: Re:

lol. Except you're on your own in this one, pally. 11 guilty, 1 not guilty. Of course, you could be the cause of a hung jury, so you got that going for you ... which is good.

No, that's not the issue here. The issue is that everyone wants to side with the prosecution's media blitz prior to a trial ever happening. I'm saying we should withhold judgement until a fair process is completed.

But yeah, the mob is already moving with torches lit and swords drawn, so why should anyone waste their breath.

Picking sides is picking sides though. Just because someone didnt pick your side doesn't mean they did anything different than you. They just have their own opinion on the matter.

The side I have picked is one of due process. And I'll let the chip fall where they may if we can get some due-process on this matter.

The union has gone as far as to ask NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to redo the investigation.

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah was particularly pointed in his criticism of NFL general counsel Jeff Pash's characterization of the NFL's case as a "mosaic."

"In short, small pieces of (obscenity) pieced together might be a mosaic, but it just amounts to one big mosaic of (obscenity)," Atallah said.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... y-hearings

Well said, George.

 

[-X-]

Yeah. That was articulate. One big mosaic piece of shit.

That's their spokesman? :lol:

 

[bluecoconuts]

Re: Re:

lol. Except you're on your own in this one, pally. 11 guilty, 1 not guilty. Of course, you could be the cause of a hung jury, so you got that going for you ... which is good.

No, that's not the issue here. The issue is that everyone wants to side with the prosecution's media blitz prior to a trial ever happening. I'm saying we should withhold judgement until a fair process is completed.

But yeah, the mob is already moving with torches lit and swords drawn, so why should anyone waste their breath.

Picking sides is picking sides though. Just because someone didnt pick your side doesn't mean they did anything different than you. They just have their own opinion on the matter.

The side I have picked is one of due process. And I'll let the chip fall where they may if we can get some due-process on this matter.

Due process applies to the state. It's to limit the government's powers in legal matters. It does not apply to a business, nor is it supposed to.

 

[Stranger]

Re: Re:

Yeah. That was articulate. One big mosaic piece of shit.

That's their spokesman? :lol:

1. I agree that NFL Corporate has most definitely assembled a mosaic that is a piece of shit, or worse. Quite frankly, the comment sums it up quite appropriately.

2. I also agree that the NFLPA got hosed on this CBA and could have gotten a much better deal had they had competent leadership. So yean, if the players were smarter, they'd replace most of those running the union.

Due process applies to the state. It's to limit the government's powers in legal matters. It does not apply to a business, nor is it supposed to.

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

When Goodell blasted all of these players, coaches and teams repeatedly in the media, potentially depriving them of property, the players certainly became entitled to calling-in the gov't in order to have the issue fairly mitigated under due-process.

Yes, the current, and stupid, CBA give Goodell the contractual power to fine, punish, and suspend NFL franchise staff, but one cannot contractually give away their right to life, liberty and property. When Goodell infringed on those rights by possibly defaming these players, he stepped into a legal mindfield where due-process can be called upon.

Of course, the burden of proof for the players is a tall hill to climb. That's what sucks here, and what was so stupid about the current CBA language. Instead of Goodell having to prove his claims about BountyGate in a fair impartial process, we now have the players having to prove defamation against the commissioner. The players got a raw raw deal, and Union negotiators should be fried for such irresponsible negotiating.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I know what the 5th Amendment says, again it applies to the Federal Government, not private business. That's not up for debate either, that is a fact.

Even if it did apply to the NFL though...

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,

Wasn't a capital crime, doesn't apply.

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;

Doesn't apply.

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;

They weren't punished twice for the same event, doesn't apply.

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

Doesn't apply.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

They're not in jail, nor were they executed, nor did they have stuff taken from them. Other than being suspended from work for a year, (which does not violate any of those as companies are free to suspend people who break their rules), doesn't apply.

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

Doesn't apply.



Companies have rules and standards, but they're not held to the same level as the federal government. If that was the case, the fry cook at McDonalds would be going to court because they told him to go home when he showed up drunk again after they told him not to once before. This is just on a larger scale. The NFL players violated rules, the NFL hammered them for it, and now they're suing basically because they're pissy about getting caught and looking bad. That doesn't however justify their argument. If they want to complain about the Commissioner having the power he has, then they shouldn't have agreed to him having it.



*edit* It's not that I have anything wrong with your view, I know you just want all the facts to be out, but speaking from a strictly legal standpoint, laws weren't broken by the NFL, unless proof comes out that they made up facts and evidence, things like that.

 

[Stranger]

Sorry, but you're talking apples, organges & strawberries.

Anyway, Fujita is stepping up his campaign...

Scott Fujita: NFL engaging in 'public smear campaign'
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8 ... r-campaign

By Dan Hanzus
Published: June 24, 2012 at 04:29 p.m.
Updated: June 24, 2012 at 05:28 p.m.

Cleveland Browns linebacker Scott Fujita continues to tell anyone who will listen that the NFL is wrong on every level about the "bounty" scandal. He views the fallout over the past several months as a "public smear campaign."

"I'm not saying the NFL is intentionally lying," Fujita said in an interview with The Associated Press. "I've been willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they may have just been working with the information they've been given, even though much of that information was inaccurate and lacked credibility.

"It's their cavalier interpretation of everything that's been way off. They clearly proceeded with a public smear campaign with very little regard for the truth."

Fujita was suspended three games this season for his involvement in a player pool that monetarily rewarded New Orleans Saints defenders for injuring the opposition. A union leader outspoken on player-safety issues, Fujita's implication painted him as a hypocrite.

"When you look at Scott, who was here for one season (of the three spanned by the bounty probe), for him to get three games, I just felt like there had to be more of a personal issue with that," Saints linebacker Scott Shanle said. "When you look at how outspoken he is and a lot of the issues he tries to address, it probably doesn't sit well with the league."

The last time we heard from Fujita (which wasn't very long ago), he was describing an awkward handshake and exchange with Commissioner Roger Goodell at his appeal hearing. Fujita has challenged Goodell in the past, including a tense lockout-related exchange with the commissioner in a meeting with the Cleveland Browns in the summer of 2010.

Fujita has never been afraid to speak up. Now he believes he's paying for it.

Ouch, is Roger just getting some personal payback here?

 

[-X-]

Sorry, but you're talking apples, organges & strawberries.

C'mon, man. No he's not. The legal injustices you're claiming aren't applicable to businesses. Particularly the way the NFL is set up. We do have an apple and orange here though, and they are entirely different. Plus, you're only providing the statements of players accused of breaking the rules (and that's backed by evidence provided TO them). You're not providing anything from the league, and that's because they're just not answering every claim or accusation offered by an ill-informed and boisterous attorney and/or embarrassed player. And if there's nothing to this, why would Greg Williams voluntarily accept his punishment? He's the last person you would expect to do something like that.

 

[Stranger]

Sorry, but you're talking apples, organges & strawberries.

C'mon, man. No he's not. The legal injustices you're claiming aren't applicable to businesses. Particularly the way the NFL is set up. We do have an apple and orange here though, and they are entirely different. Plus, you're only providing the statements of players accused of breaking the rules (and that's backed by evidence provided TO them). You're not providing anything from the league, and that's because they're just not answering every claim or accusation offered by an ill-informed and boisterous attorney and/or embarrassed player. And if there's nothing to this, why would Greg Williams voluntarily accept his punishment? He's the last person you would expect to do something like that.

So, you're arguing that the players can not seek due process if they believe that the NFL Commissioner defamed them? Is that your position?

Further, as I've said repeatedly, I have not made up my mind on this case. What I've continued to argue for is an open, fair and transparent process. And that simply hasn't happened yet. Until then, I'm simply not going to join the mob and castrate these players.

As far as Williams goes, history is littered with people who suffer injustice and don't speak up. In fact, that's how most people are. Now, I'm not saying Williams suffered an injustice, because we really don't know since the NFL has basically run a media slam campaign over this entire affair.

Tell me, did you guys also buy into everything Colin Powell said and presented at the United Nations when he presented so-called evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction against Iraq? That was a pretty convincing media campaign as well.

 

[-X-]

I'm out, man. Honestly, this has gone WAY beyond what I feel this is really about.

And it ain't that much.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So, you're arguing that the players can not seek due process if they believe that the NFL Commissioner defamed them? Is that your position?

Legally, no they cannot.

Further, as I've said repeatedly, I have not made up my mind on this case. What I've continued to argue for is an open, fair and transparent process. And that simply hasn't happened yet. Until then, I'm simply not going to join the mob and castrate these players.

I'm not joining a mob to castrate players. However other than them going "Nuh-uh! He's just mad because of ____ and making stuff up!" without anything but their word to back them up, I haven't really seen anything from the players. If they come up with anything new other than "It's not fair" which makes them sound like a bunch of children, then I might care again. At this point though, I just don't care about it at all.

As far as Williams goes, history is littered with people who suffer injustice and don't speak up. In fact, that's how most people are. Now, I'm not saying Williams suffered an injustice, because we really don't know since the NFL has basically run a media slam campaign over this entire affair.

From everything I've heard/read about Williams, I can't imagine he'd be quiet at this point if it was all made up. But nobody can comment on that.

Tell me, did you guys also buy into everything Colin Powell said and presented at the United Nations when he presented so-called evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction against Iraq? That was a pretty convincing media campaign as well.

No I didn't. That being said, there was some WMD's in Iraq, the issue was more about the threat to the US and their assets than existing. I've seen some of them with my own eyes though, they were just really shitty and weren't a threat to anything but his own people. Which up north, he liked to use. A lot. That's not to say I supported the invasion of Iraq either, that's another discussion though.

I wasn't really into the discussion in the past, because my lack of caring, I was mostly talking from legal standpoints.