Death to Google Ads! Texans Talk Tip Jar! 🍺😎👍
Thanks for your support!
Just heard this..... OUCH!!!!!
Just heard this..... OUCH!!!!!
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...
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...
NFLPA will fight this, IMO.
What do I tell my Saints friends who say, "Every team does it."?
What do I tell my Saints friends who say, "Every team does it."?
NFLPA will fight this, IMO.
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.
What do I tell my Saints friends who say, "Every team does it."?
I think they were involved. Whether or not they signed off on the actual suspension time is unknown.
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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
RT @adbrandt: NFLPA has filed grievance vs. NFL challenging Commissioner Goodell's authority to suspend the four players he did.
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.
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 ?!
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.
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.
Not so fast...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.
Their lawyers sure do.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
Ah, but what exactly do they say?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 () 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.
Evidently, it's all in the interpretation.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
LinkIn 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.
Until we see the actual grievance it is hard to know what they are defending.
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.
In the filings, the NFLPA argues that the punishments issued to the players for their alleged actions violated the [leagues] duty of fairness to the players because the process violated various procedural requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, including limits on Goodells 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 NFLPAs 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 Commissioners letters to the players. Therefore jurisdiction over these actions is with the System Arbitrator not the Commissioner
The NFLPAs 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.
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.
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-s...9--nfl.html;_ylt=Asnr7x0dSn.Ye2_hJaegweo5nYcB