Help Me Understand...
 

How is the league going to manage to punish players for this pay-for-play thing? What 'evidence' do they have?

I mean, the league fines players regularly (and excessively IMO) for hits and such on the field - fines for which they have evidence, even if it's questionable in some cases.

But with this pay-for-play thing, is simply being mentioned in an email enough? If somebody (the snitch I guess?) SAYS that so-and-so player was paid such-and-such for "x", "y", or "z" hit, is that enough?

Consider the league has already indicated through it's actions that a player SAYING their team had similar pay-for-play programs, whether formal or not, is not enough to pursue sanctions against a given team or player. If that's the case, then what kind of 'evidence' can the league POSSIBLY point to as justification for actions against players?

That the program was going on at all and that they have even some shred of proof like emails and the like - I mean I can see where that could be enough to punish the leaders of an organization, I'm just not sure how they are going to have anything to point to other than some reference in an email to a payout, and do they even have that?

I guess what I'm saying is the NFL can't really prove anybody took any money. And if not, I'm wondering how they can ding a single player. I guess the NFLPA is going to ask the same questions?

And why is Gotohell waiting until Loomis n Sean are suspended before announcing what players are going to be suspended? Not much for the conspiracy thing, but in this case...

I think the answer to your question is in the fact that 1- Goodell hasn't done anything yet and 2- He said he has been talking to the NFLPA as to their thoughts on sanctions. That tells me that there is no provable (sp?) evidence against players and he has to be careful as to what suspensions and/or fines he levies. If there is proof that money changed hands and that certain players had the intent to injure someone then yes I can see the suspensions. But if he just comes out and starts suspending our defensive players over he said this or they said that then the players association will come unglued and won't allow it. JMO

It looks to me like the only current Saints player that they have any proof on is Vilma. Other than that, the dirty "bounty" hits that everyone talks about involve Sharper and McCray... two players that aren't with us anymore. I don't see any current Saints player but Vilma facing a suspension.

It's almost like the league is going to have to say:

"If your name is mentioned we are fining you"

And if I'm a player I'm calling BS on that immediately.

And even with Vilma, maybe they have an email where he offered money, or is it just somebody's opinion? Did he actually GIVE anybody any money?

Vilma: Yeah, I said I'd give somebody 10k, but I was just kidding.

NFL: No, you were serious.

Vilma: Prove it or have a nice effing day...

I agree Chris. I've seen a list of players who could be suspended but I just don't see how, unless there is undeniable proof, that anyone other than Vilma will get a big suspension and fine. I'm sure there will be more than him but I haven't seen the evidence or proof. Like I said, Goodell is treading lightly with the union because he knows they aren't going to let the suspensions and fines be outrageous like the one given to Sean.

Spot on, SF. I been arguing this in my circles all week. There's a TON of video proof OTHERWISE that shows grown men playing football.

The hit on Chris Smith would be an exception. It took place after the play. There may be others, but they don't look like pre-planned, premeditated shots to hurt anyone.

On another note; Payton got a broken leg. Now THAT's ironic.

Alaska

I agree with jlouhill. Player's Union has a lot of say in this.
Of course, with Player's Union, sexual assualt, dog fighting, drugs, being around someone who murdered someone , etc. is all A-OK.
It is easier to go after something like this Saints' case rather than real, legit cases I mentioned.
We will see.

Vilma's name is all I ever see mentioned and that's just because supposedly he put up 10k for Favre out of the game

And if I'm Vilma I'm saying PROVE it. PROVE I did something more than say it in jest, just as I might bet somebody here a thousand dollars on some thing or other in jest.

If the NFL cannot PROVE it, then what?