PDA

View Full Version : Saints Player Suspensions


HOU-TEX
05-02-2012, 11:02 AM
Jonathan Vilma - Entire year, beginning now
Anthony Hargrove - 8 games
Will Smith - 4 games
Scott Fujita - 3 games

Hargrove, Smith and Fujita can attend offseason activities. Vilma's suspension starts now

Texan_Bill
05-02-2012, 11:03 AM
Just heard this..... OUCH!!!!!

toronto
05-02-2012, 11:04 AM
Just heard this..... OUCH!!!!!

Mods, kill my thread...

As i said there - one final lesson to the rest of the NFL

DON'T SCREW WITH ROGER GOODELL

HOU-TEX
05-02-2012, 11:14 AM
Just heard this..... OUCH!!!!!

Yup, big OUCH.

Vilma hired a lawyer before the suspension. I'm not sure what his plans are, but the appeals will be heard by...........the Commisioner. lol

Dutchrudder
05-02-2012, 11:17 AM
Fujita is on the Browns, so they are the team that gets hurt by this. Just like the Gregg Williams in STL thing, the Saints don't incur the penalty. Thanks for sitting on this for a couple years Goodell...

Playoffs
05-02-2012, 11:20 AM
NFLPA will fight this, IMO.

Thorn
05-02-2012, 11:22 AM
Any player or coach that took part in any of this, in any way, should be permanently kicked out of the NFL. No exceptions. Screw 'em.

Anybody that takes part in a pay for hire injury scheme should never be allowed anywhere near professional sports. Not even as a frigging commentator.

toronto
05-02-2012, 11:29 AM
Fujita is on the Browns, so they are the team that gets hurt by this. Just like the Gregg Williams in STL thing, the Saints don't incur the penalty. Thanks for sitting on this for a couple years Goodell...

He didn't sit on it. The second the lie was confirmed and he could prove it, its been bedlam ever since.

The NFLPA can fight this all they want, they won't win. Even if they get the suspensions reversed, all 32 NFL owners will collude here and keep these 4 players unemployed and unpaid.

HOU-TEX
05-02-2012, 11:30 AM
Fujita is on the Browns, so they are the team that gets hurt by this. Just like the Gregg Williams in STL thing, the Saints don't incur the penalty. Thanks for sitting on this for a couple years Goodell...

Hargrove was signed by the Packers, I believe

NFLPA will fight this, IMO.

I think they were involved. Whether or not they signed off on the actual suspension time is unknown.

gwallaia
05-02-2012, 11:31 AM
What do I tell my Saints friends who say, "Every team does it."?

HOU-TEX
05-02-2012, 11:32 AM
What do I tell my Saints friends who say, "Every team does it."?

Tell them they're full of crap

The1ApplePie
05-02-2012, 11:35 AM
What do I tell my Saints friends who say, "Every team does it."?

Tell them they should have been better about covering it up:whip:

XI CMURDER IX
05-02-2012, 11:53 AM
NFLPA will fight this, IMO.

Jason La Canfora ‏ @JasonLaCanfora

Talking to legal/CBA experts. They don't see too many legal options for these players outside of the league office appeal. We shall see

Dutchrudder
05-02-2012, 11:57 AM
He didn't sit on it. The second the lie was confirmed and he could prove it, its been bedlam ever since.

The NFLPA can fight this all they want, they won't win. Even if they get the suspensions reversed, all 32 NFL owners will collude here and keep these 4 players unemployed and unpaid.

I'm not sure what the exact timeline was, but from what I have read it seems that the NFL asked the Saints GM Loomis to put an end to the program a few times. I believe the first time was the offseason after their Super Bowl. Sounds like they took their time investigating it.

Dutchrudder
05-02-2012, 12:06 PM
What do I tell my Saints friends who say, "Every team does it."?

There was a study done that showed in the United States, there is just one arrest for every 27,000 miles driven while drunk. That means you could drive from NY to LA several times, completely hammered and probably not get pulled over. Just because you are that one guy that gets arrested for driving drunk doesn't mean everyone else who does it is OK. The system doesn't catch everyone, but those that do get caught have to face the consequences. The Saints are the ones that got caught this time, in the future it may be someone else.

ChampionTexan
05-02-2012, 12:08 PM
I think they were involved. Whether or not they signed off on the actual suspension time is unknown.

Don't think they signed off:

Update: The NFL Players Association released the following statement from executive director DeMaurice Smith regarding the players' role in the Saints' pay-to-injure program: "After seeing the NFL's decision letters, the NFLPA has still not received any detailed or specific evidence from the league of these specific players' involvement in an alleged pay-to-injure program. We have made it clear that punishment without evidence is not fair. We have spoken with our players and their representatives and we will vigorously protect and pursue all options on their behalf."

LINK (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/seahawksblog/2018121826_formerseahawkhargroveamongnflsuspension s.html)

They're walking a fine line since it's their players putting bounties on their players, so they could do a complete 180 if the proof is provided, but it could well be that they're just putting their heads in the sand about this, making some noise about it to save face, and waiting for the whole thing to go away.

Playoffs
05-02-2012, 12:29 PM
Jason La Canfora ‏ @JasonLaCanfora

Talking to legal/CBA experts. They don't see too many legal options for these players outside of the league office appeal. We shall see


Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove, Saints defensive end Will Smith and Browns linebacker Scott Fujita have all already decided that they will appeal...

The appeals were widely anticipated, but ESPN’s Adam Schefter reported that the players expect to go beyond the usual appeals process within the league office and instead expect to go to federal court.

“Get ready for a massive legal battle on many fronts,” Schefter quoted a source as saying.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/02/vilma-hargrove-smith-fujita-plan-appeal-and-legal-battle/

Stemp
05-02-2012, 01:28 PM
Yeah, but they are covered under the agreement signed by the union which is part of the contracts they signed.

Plus the NFL got anti-trust exemptions from Congress. Unless they can show that the NFL is not following the union agreements or that they are violating their civil rights somehow (:lol:) then I don't expect the players to be able to win. If the feds overrule the commissioner, you can bet that any player that get suspended from here on out sues to stop it.

Blake
05-02-2012, 02:18 PM
Patriots get 3 super bowls from spygate, Saints get 1 from bountygate.

Apparently the saying "if you aint cheatin, you aint tryin" is valid in the NFL as well.

The Pencil Neck
05-02-2012, 02:33 PM
Patriots get 3 super bowls from spygate, Saints get 1 from bountygate.

Apparently the saying "if you aint cheatin, you aint tryin" is valid in the NFL as well.

So when are the Giants and Steelers going to get popped?

GP
05-03-2012, 12:32 AM
What's funny is that there is a whole lot more than those four guys who knew about this and never came forward.

I imagine there are dozens of players who actually played a part in the bounty system being continued for so long...just by virtue of never ratting the main culprits out.

Malloy
05-03-2012, 01:25 AM
Any player or coach that took part in any of this, in any way, should be permanently kicked out of the NFL. No exceptions. Screw 'em.

Anybody that takes part in a pay for hire injury scheme should never be allowed anywhere near professional sports. Not even as a frigging commentator.

Bingo Sir!

The Pencil Neck
05-03-2012, 01:43 AM
What's funny is that there is a whole lot more than those four guys who knew about this and never came forward.

I imagine there are dozens of players who actually played a part in the bounty system being continued for so long...just by virtue of never ratting the main culprits out.

I thought these guys were singled out because they were more than simple participants, they were ringleaders?

Dutchrudder
05-03-2012, 03:07 PM
So get this, Jonathan Vilma's contract is now removed from the Saints cap for the year because he is suspended. They can now use that money to negotiate with Brees! Vilma was rather overpaid last year, so it helps the team save money on a player they would have otherwise had to keep. Wow, who would have thought this was a blessing in disguise.

Stemp
05-03-2012, 03:17 PM
So get this, Jonathan Vilma's contract is now removed from the Saints cap for the year because he is suspended. They can now use that money to negotiate with Brees! Vilma was rather overpaid last year, so it helps the team save money on a player they would have otherwise had to keep. Wow, who would have thought this was a blessing in disguise.

Yeah, but Vilma will be back in 2013 and they'll be over the cap then if they use the Vilma money for Brees.

Unless they somehow front load the cap hit.

Texecutioner
05-03-2012, 05:29 PM
Patriots get 3 super bowls from spygate, Saints get 1 from bountygate.

Apparently the saying "if you aint cheatin, you aint tryin" is valid in the NFL as well.

The Patriots were doing what the entire NFL had been doing going back to the Jimmy Johnson led Cowboys. Hell, that shouldn't even be illegal. Try raining on their SB's all you want, but it's a laugh. Hell, right after that they were a miracle play away from a perfect season and having the best team of all time, they've been in the playoffs every season since than other than when Brady got hurt, and they were a Welker dropped pass away from another SB. The Pats didn't win anything because of a Spygate advantage. THey won, because they had an amazing defense and arguably the best QB to ever play in the NFL.

THe Saints were trying to injure players and take them out of games and ruin their careers potentially. Not a valid comparison at all.

Corrosion
05-03-2012, 06:21 PM
Any player or coach that took part in any of this, in any way, should be permanently kicked out of the NFL. No exceptions. Screw 'em.

Anybody that takes part in a pay for hire injury scheme should never be allowed anywhere near professional sports. Not even as a frigging commentator.

/End Thread. :foottap:

Blake
05-04-2012, 07:19 AM
The Patriots were doing what the entire NFL had been doing going back to the Jimmy Johnson led Cowboys. Hell, that shouldn't even be illegal. Try raining on their SB's all you want, but it's a laugh. Hell, right after that they were a miracle play away from a perfect season and having the best team of all time, they've been in the playoffs every season since than other than when Brady got hurt, and they were a Welker dropped pass away from another SB. The Pats didn't win anything because of a Spygate advantage. THey won, because they had an amazing defense and arguably the best QB to ever play in the NFL.

THe Saints were trying to injure players and take them out of games and ruin their careers potentially. Not a valid comparison at all.

Some might say that the Patriots have been able to sign players for scraps due to the Superbowls they won from cheating.

And who knows, maybe they are still cheating somehow. You dont know.

Playoffs
05-04-2012, 07:56 AM
RT @adbrandt: NFLPA has filed grievance vs. NFL challenging Commissioner Goodell's authority to suspend the four players he did.

HOU-TEX
05-04-2012, 09:17 AM
RT @adbrandt: NFLPA has filed grievance vs. NFL challenging Commissioner Goodell's authority to suspend the four players he did.

I saw this this morning and just thought how dumb the PA looks for doing this. Did they not just agree to a new CBA less than a year ago, explaining Goodell's power in handling discipline? Unless I'm missing something....geesh

Thorn
05-04-2012, 11:44 AM
RT @adbrandt: NFLPA has filed grievance vs. NFL challenging Commissioner Goodell's authority to suspend the four players he did.

So the players association is defending players who deliberatly tried to injure other players? Dumb asses.

Corrosion
05-04-2012, 11:56 AM
So the players association is defending players who deliberatly tried to injure other players? Dumb asses.

Probably just going thru the motions ..... It is in their job description to protect the players .... they do it even when they are wrong.


Waste of time & resources tho ..... but a lawyer or two will get paid .... economic boost ?! :ahhaha:

Thorn
05-04-2012, 12:10 PM
Probably just going thru the motions ..... It is in their job description to protect the players .... they do it even when they are wrong.


Waste of time & resources tho ..... but a lawyer or two will get paid .... economic boost ?! :ahhaha:

You're probably right. This whole situation just irratates the crap out of me though. I love hard hitting football, I love defensive whacks, but there's a HUGE difference in playing with passion and trying to deliberatly injure someone.

Corrosion
05-04-2012, 12:15 PM
You're probably right. This whole situation just irratates the crap out of me though. I love hard hitting football, I love defensive whacks, but there's a HUGE difference in playing with passion and trying to deliberatly injure someone.

We're on the same page , I stated in this thread and the one about Peyton that I'd have suspended everyone involved for life ... This kinda crap is as bad or worse than Pete Rose gambling on Baseball.

infantrycak
05-04-2012, 12:45 PM
So the players association is defending players who deliberatly tried to injure other players? Dumb asses.

Until we see the actual grievance it is hard to know what they are defending.

There is a real thorny issue here. Goodell has ruled on this as an off the field issue which means he hears the appeal. If it is an on the field issue it goes to some kind of panel. So is this off the field or on the field? I lean off if the punishment is being meted out for the bounty system itself rather than any particular play.

RazorOye
05-04-2012, 01:16 PM
Until we see the actual grievance it is hard to know what they are defending.

There is a real thorny issue here. Goodell has ruled on this as an off the field issue which means he hears the appeal. If it is an on the field issue it goes to some kind of panel. So is this off the field or on the field? I lean off if the punishment is being meted out for the bounty system itself rather than any particular play.

this is where I think it gets a bit dicey for the Saints players

As I understand it, they want to have a panel review their appeal rather than Goodell. So that means off the field.

In order for the panel to hear the case, it would have to be on the field.

Well, the players are citing the fact that money was allegedly put up for "cart offs" and "knockouts" there's been no evidence of any of that actually happening. What was being said - by players or coaches didn't translate to on the field actions. Only 1 player was carted off in that time period.

Reggie Bush. When he played for us.

And I think that becomes an important point - Warner said during that playoff run, he felt the Saints played cleaner and less out-to-kill-the-QB than the Packers did.

However, if the players want recourse through the panel, then wouldn't they have to address those on the field actions (or inaction, as it were)?

Fujita said that the money was never claimed for any of those hits and instead were awarded for things like interceptions and fumbles.

If they want to claim that their pools were strictly locker room talk and didn't translate to on-the-field brutality (trying to deliberately end careers), then aren't they saying it's an off-the-field issue? Strictly a locker room affair?

In that case, they get Goodell.

So I'm having trouble seeing the recourse strategy through speculation.

:backtolurking:

disaacks3
05-04-2012, 03:44 PM
He didn't sit on it. The second the lie was confirmed and he could prove it, its been bedlam ever since.

The NFLPA can fight this all they want, they won't win. Even if they get the suspensions reversed, all 32 NFL owners will collude here and keep these 4 players unemployed and unpaid. Not so fast...

Jason La Canfora ‏ @JasonLaCanfora

Talking to legal/CBA experts. They don't see too many legal options for these players outside of the league office appeal. We shall see Their lawyers sure do.

Yeah, but they are covered under the agreement signed by the union which is part of the contracts they signed.

Plus the NFL got anti-trust exemptions from Congress. Unless they can show that the NFL is not following the union agreements or that they are violating their civil rights somehow (:lol:) then I don't expect the players to be able to win. If the feds overrule the commissioner, you can bet that any player that get suspended from here on out sues to stop it. Ah, but what exactly do they say?

I saw this this morning and just thought how dumb the PA looks for doing this. Did they not just agree to a new CBA less than a year ago, explaining Goodell's power in handling discipline? Unless I'm missing something....geesh Evidently, it's all in the interpretation.

I though this would be a slam-dunk too, but then this little nugget popped up on PFT this morning.
In one grievance, filed under Article 43 of the labor deal, the union initially argues that Goodell lacks the authority to discipline players for conduct occurring before August 4, 2011, the date on which the current CBA was finalized. The grievance cites language releasing all players from conduct in which the players engaged before August 4, 2011. Link (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/05/04/nflpa-files-grievances-over-bounty-punishment/)

RazorOye
05-04-2012, 04:48 PM
Until we see the actual grievance it is hard to know what they are defending.


I think this might be it: http://proplayerinsiders.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/NFLPA-Non-Injury-Grievance.pdf

Ah, but what exactly do they say?

Evidently, it's all in the interpretation.

I though this would be a slam-dunk too, but then this little nugget popped up on PFT this morning.


A Saints blogger linked to this article earlier today (which included the article linked to cak above):

http://www.proplayerinsiders.com/nflpa-takes-legal-action-challenges-goodells-authority-over-saints-players/

It's a long'ish read, but I think breaks down the complexity of this case - at least in terms of what the players and lawyers are arguing. That seems to be what cak and disaacks are getting at here - so maybe this might untangle some of those knots. It also addresses a question I had above re: on-field vs. off-field.

some excerpts:

In the filings, the NFLPA argues that the punishments issued to the players for their alleged actions “violated the [league’s] duty of fairness to the players” because the process violated various procedural requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, including limits on Goodell’s authority over the matter and failure to disclosure sufficient evidence of the violations

The system arbitration filing argues that, under the CBA, authority for any punishments to players for a pay-for-performance program rests with the System Arbitrator, not with the Commissioner.

In connection with entering into the 2011 CBA, the NFL agreed to release players of all pre-CBA conduct, which would mean that only events during the 2011 season could even be considered. The NFLPA’s grievance filing states that Goodell is “prohibited from punishing NFL players for any aspect of the ‘pay-for-performance/bounty’ conduct occurring before August 4, 2011.”

The key to this argument is that the alleged actions for which the players are being disciplined are violations of the rule against non-contract bonuses, according to the security reports and the Commissioner’s letters to the players. Therefore jurisdiction over these actions is with the System Arbitrator not the Commissioner

The NFLPA’s grievance letter to Vice President of Labor Arbitration and Litigation W. Buckley Briggs, of the NFL Management Council, states:

In connection with entering into the 2011 CBA, however, the NFL released all players from conduct engaged in prior to execution of the CBA…

As a result of the release, the letter argues that Commissioner Goodell is “prohibited from punishing NFL players for any aspect of the alleged “pay-for-performance/bounty” conduct occurring before August 4, 2011.”

Additionally, the grievance states that if any alleged acts by players took place following August 4, 2011, those acts would fall under the “on-field conduct” policy, not off-field behavior, which is governed by a different set of guidelines.

not sure if that simplifies anything or not...

disaacks3
05-04-2012, 05:08 PM
I started dozing off reading the CBA between pgs 160-195 or so. Maybe some lawyer can explain how Article 43 would apply in this case. (As the magic August date didn't seem to be in that section?) Link to CBA PDF (https://images.nflplayers.com/mediaResources/files/PDFs/General/2011_Final_CBA.pdf)

Wolf
07-03-2012, 09:42 PM
Roger Goodell upholds all Saints suspensions on appeal


The release then copied the letter sent by Goodell to the four suspended players, all of whom disagree with the suspensions set forth, the validity and existence of the entirety of the NFL's evidence, and the process by which the suspensions were implemented.

Throughout this entire process, including your appeals, and despite repeated invitations and encouragement to do so, none of you has offered any evidence that would warrant reconsideration of your suspensions. Instead, you elected not to participate meaningfully in the appeal process.

Although you claimed to have been 'wrongfully accused with insufficient evidence,' your lawyers elected not to ask a single question of the principal investigators, both of whom were present at the hearing (as your lawyers had requested); you elected not to testify or to make any substantive statement, written or oral, in support of your appeal; you elected not to call a single witness to support your appeal; and you elected not to introduce a single exhibit addressing the merits of your appeal. Instead, your lawyers raised a series of jurisdictional and procedural objections that generally ignore the CBA, in particular its provisions governing 'conduct detrimental' determinations.

In sum, I did not make my determinations here lightly. At every stage, I took seriously my responsibilities under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. I determined the discipline for each of you

(1) only after a long, detailed and professional investigation by NFL Security's experienced investigators;

(2) only after the results of that investigation were carefully reviewed by an independent expert, former United States Attorney Mary Jo White;

(3) only after I heard the appeals of the Saints' coaches and staff regarding discipline for their roles in the program;

(4) only after representatives of NFL Security, along with Mr. Pash and Mr. Birch, spoke with Players Association attorneys at length regarding the investigation; and

(5) only after giving each of you multiple opportunities to meet with the NFL investigators and to share with them your version of the events surrounding the program. The suspensions imposed were reasonable action taken to preserve public confidence in, and the integrity of, the game of professional football."

While this decision constitutes my final and binding determination under the CBA, I of course retain the inherent authority to reduce a suspension should facts be brought to my attention warranting the exercise of that discretion. The record confirms that each of you was given multiple chances to meet with me to present your side of the story. You are each still welcome to do so.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/roger-goodell-upholds-saints-suspensions-appeal-205416519--nfl.html;_ylt=Asnr7x0dSn.Ye2_hJaegweo5nYcB

CloakNNNdagger
07-03-2012, 10:15 PM
Roger Goodell upholds all Saints suspensions on appeal

Throughout this entire process, including your appeals, and despite repeated invitations and encouragement to do so, none of you has offered any evidence that would warrant reconsideration of your suspensions. Instead, you elected not to participate meaningfully in the appeal process.

Although you claimed to have been 'wrongfully accused with insufficient evidence,' your lawyers elected not to ask a single question of the principal investigators, both of whom were present at the hearing (as your lawyers had requested); you elected not to testify or to make any substantive statement, written or oral, in support of your appeal; you elected not to call a single witness to support your appeal; and you elected not to introduce a single exhibit addressing the merits of your appeal. Instead, your lawyers raised a series of jurisdictional and procedural objections that generally ignore the CBA, in particular its provisions governing 'conduct detrimental' determinations.



http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/roger-goodell-upholds-saints-suspensions-appeal-205416519--nfl.html;_ylt=Asnr7x0dSn.Ye2_hJaegweo5nYcB

Is this really true? If so, it begs the question is there an advantage to ignore procedure in order not to give credibility to the process, in anticipation of impending lawsuits?