Four Saints suspended - Vilma for the year

[Predestined]

NEWS</a>[url="http://www.cbssports.com/#"]<a id="breakingNewsPlus" href="http://www.cbssports.com/#">[/url]
<div id="breakingNewsContent"><div id="breakingNewsHolder">

The NFL has suspended four players for their roles in the Saints' bounty program: Jonathan Vilma (one season), Anthony Hargrove (eight games), Will Smith (four), Scott Fujita (three).</p></div></div><span id="breakingNewsCornerLT"></span><span id="breakingNewsCornerRT"></span><span id="breakingNewsCornerLB"></span><span id="breakingNewsCornerRB">Discuss.</span>First thought, RGIII debut just got a lot easier.

 

[Predestined]

NEWS</a>[url="http://www.cbssports.com/#"]<a id="breakingNewsPlus" href="http://www.cbssports.com/#">[/url]
<div id="breakingNewsContent"><div id="breakingNewsHolder">

The NFL has suspended four players for their roles in the Saints' bounty program: Jonathan Vilma (one season), Anthony Hargrove (eight games), Will Smith (four), Scott Fujita (three).</p></div></div><span id="breakingNewsCornerLT"></span><span id="breakingNewsCornerRT"></span><span id="breakingNewsCornerLB"></span><span id="breakingNewsCornerRB">Discuss.</span>First thought, RGIII debut just got a lot easier.

 

[FlabLoser]

errbodyku

 

[Chesusdog]

Goodell is a piece of ****. They can appeal... to Goodell. Makes no sense to have one person serve as judge, jury and executioner.

 

[Maroon Flounder]

Doesn't make much difference, because the Saint's D sux, and has sucked for a while. Couldn't tackle Marshon Lynch in Seattle in the playoffs year before last....couldn't tackle Steven Jackson in St. Louis last year....couldn't cover Vernon Davis in SF back in January.

I think one of the reasons the bounty scandal came about was out of frustration over ****** Defense.

 

[patdog]

Overall, seems pretty fair though. </p>

 

[freddawg]

It's hard to believe that some Saints defensive players were getting paid extra. They should have have a payroll deduction program. They couldn't stop anyone.

With that said, doesn't the timing on these suspensions seem a little suspect? You know that the commissioner has had this information for a long time and knew who he was going to suspend. Now the Saints management is gone, and they have to try to fill a few holes in the defense after the draft and most of the offseason. That may be the point.

 

[hulkbuster]

Overall, seems pretty fair though. </p>

Those that have hate for Goodell are silly. First of all I had this discussion at work the other day. My boss HATES the NFL! Hates it! To Goodell the NFL is a "girl" he has to protect and make as "pretty" as he can (hence possible suspension of the probowl) for people like my boss. Not for fans who already watch & love it. But to bring in NEW fans. Kind of like the spring game this year @ DWS. I absolutely HATE country music, but I understand WHY they did had Sugarland there. It's for the same reason. If my boss' watching fox news & sees them talking about "bounty gate" it will FURTHER increase his disdain for the leauge! Plus lawsuits were looming. The guy HAD to act swiftly and effectively. Next to Stern, the guy is the best I've seen. Remember, take the emotion out of it his job is to make this already hot "girl" even hotter! And he can't do that by slupping off.

 

[Optimus Prime 4]

I remember PTI talking about it. Which is where I get about 95% of my sports news...

 

[BiscuitEater]

Overall, seems pretty fair though. </p>

Those that have hate for Goodell are silly.

Anybody that thinks that the Saints were the ONLY team that ever offered a bounty are simply dilusional.

So, what does Goodell do when word leaks out about coaches or players half way through the season or better yet ... right before playoffs? And, I think it is only a matter of time, before someone gets mad at a player, team or coach and says they were on the team with xxxx who got extra $$ for a hit?

Now we are in the 'off season' and Goodell can 'investigate and take time to 'pass judgement'... what happens when it hits the streets the week before the superbowl?

 

[freddawg]

All I remember is some sort of press release about there not being an announcement on suspensions during the week before the draft.

 

[patdog]

but they are the only team that was proved to have done this. I don't think it was anywhere near as widespread as a lot of you Saints fans want to claim it was. Afrer this, I don't think you're going to see anybody being paid extra to take a player out again. But if allegations do surface during a season, they'll be investigated and suspensions handed out when the investigation is complete, which would probably be after the season was over. Not fair, but there's really no other way. You can't suspend players or coaches for allegations.</p>

 

[BiscuitEater]

Not fair, but there's really no other way.

You can't suspend players or coaches for allegations.</p>

I have to 'respectfully' disagree. Goodell suspended Ben Roethlisberger six games ... based solely on 'allegations.' Ben was never convicted of any crime, yet he was suspended. I'm not saying it wasn't justified BUT the point is Godell and do what ever he wants and there is no 'appeal' process.


ESPN Article ...


Neither allegation resulted in charges being filed; however, the latter act resulted in Roethlisberger being suspended for six games (reduced to four) under the NFL's personal conduct policy for the start of the 2010 season.

 

[patdog]

that has nothing at all to do with the burden of proof in a sports league dealing with its players/coaches and suspensions. Hell, the vast majority of player suspensions in all leagues don't result in any criminal charges. OJ Simpson being found not criminally guilty didn't stop a civil court from finding against him.

 

[FreeDawg]

that these big suspension are a preventive measure. The NFL is bracing itself for possible future litigation and wants to posture itself as being adamantly against any of these rogue actions, or at least thats the way they will play it.

This from a denver post article http://www.denverpost.com...afety-balance-litigation
<span id="redesign_default"></span>

<span id="redesign_default">But as litigation mounts from former players
over the long-term effects of repeated concussions in the shadow of the
Saints' Bounty-gate scandal — off-the-books cash payments to New
Orleans players that league investigators say targeted specific opposing
players — Goodell finds himself trying to show that the league's shield
protects the game's players as well.</span><div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"></div>

<div style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;">
And there has already been one lawsuit using bounty gate in Atlanta courts http://www.bmelaw.com/news-86.html

<font color="#000000"></font>

<font color="#000000">The complaint is the first to detail how the NFL’s recent bounty-gate scandal relates to the ongoing concussion litigation. </font>

</div>

 

[hullabaloodog]

The punishments are excessive, but this is the reason.

 

[BiscuitEater]

that has nothing at all to do with the burden of proof in a sports league dealing with its players/coaches and suspensions. Hell, the vast majority of player suspensions in all leagues don't result in any criminal charges. OJ Simpson being found not criminally guilty didn't stop a civil court from finding against him.

I understand the difference. So, when Ben was 'sued' for another 'sexual assualt,' why was he not suspended again?


From USA Today, 12/27/10, about Ben...


But still pending is a civil suit filed against him in 2009 by a Nevada woman, Andrea McNulty, accusing him of sexually assaulting her while he was in Nevada in 2008 for a celebrity golf tournament.


From what I remember, Ben never lost a civil suit in the Georgia 'assualt' because all witnesses agreed that both parties were 'way drunk.'


So, my point is ... all Goodell has to do is point at the NFL 'Code of Conduct' and do whatever "HE" decides to do. And, there is absolutely 'ZERO' due porcess ... period.

 

[patdog]

The day this was first announced I posted that the Saints were going to get absolutely hammered because of the liability issue. The NFL had no real choice in how to handle this. This was just the warning. If something like this happens again, the Saints penalties are going to look like a day in the park.

 

[o_OxfordAndrew]

<div>Like with the NCAA, the lying about it may be worse than the doing it.</div><div>
</div>I like the Saints. It sucks. It's highly probable other teams had similar programs in place. That said, the Saints have no one to blame but themselves.

 

[hometowndawg]

Roger!

 

[Seinfeld]

I don't know how much of all these stories is true, but it's definitely making the Saints look like one dirty *** team.

 

[Forrest4Moore]

I wanted to leave it alone, but Oxpatch and Derhntr talked me into it.

Truce? In case I ever leave mine logged on in McCool.

 

[FreeDawg]

I wanted to leave it alone, but Oxpatch and Derhntr talked me into it.

Truce? In case I ever leave mine logged on in McCool.

I missed the whole "note to self thread" but I saw my response at 9:09 in another thread. I was thinking what the 17? I was taking a final at that time. I was thinking my phone may have posted from my pocket. I pm DS and everything. Then I checked my profile and put everything together. Bravo. I will even use the signature you made in your honor. 1 more thing, what were you doin on 6pack in McCool, werent you supposed to be studying?**

 

[bulldogbaja]

But as of yet, there HAVEN'T been any allegations that I'm aware of toward other teams. Seems like if it were really that common, something would have come out by now.

-disclaimer #1: I don't like the Aints
-disclaimer #2: I don't really follow the NFL that closely at all
-disclaimer #3: The system is obviously broken if Goodell is the judge, jury, and executioner.