League backs off view that Hargrove said “give me my money”
 

In the end, it apparently didn’t matter who said “give me my money” in the notorious 2009 NFC title game sideline video.

The eight-page, single-spaced letter sent Tuesday by Commissioner Roger Goodell to the four players suspended for involvement in the Saints alleged bounty scandal indicates that Goodell made his decision without accepting as true and accurate the league’s insistence that Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove uttered the four key words at issue. (The letter, which the league didn’t release publicly on Tuesday, was attached as an exhibit to Goodell’s motion to dismiss Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s defamation lawsuit.)

“For purposes of addressing Mr. Hargrove’s appeal,” Goodell writes, “I need not resolve the issue of who made the statement. Instead, I am prepared to assume — as he apparently stated publicly — that he did not make it. But that statement is relevant because, regardless of which player said it, it corroborates other evidence that there was an incentive in place for knocking Mr. Favre out of the game and that the members of the Saints defense, including Mr. Hargrove, were well aware of that fact. The identity of the player who made the statement was immaterial to my decision on your appears and did not affect the level of discipline imposed on Mr. Hargrove.”

League backs off view that Hargrove said “give me my money” | ProFootballTalk

If it didn't matter who said it, and you were going to give him an 8 game suspension regardless, then why isn't the whole defense suspended, and all of them for 8 games for that matter? You're saying that just because he supposedly knew something, he deserved his suspension. That isn't close to being consistent, or fair.

And furthermore, if you seem to be admitting that you were never sure who said it, then it absolutely mattered to either get it right or name no one at all. Just say you have this tape of "someone" saying give me my money. By mentioning Hargrove, you have made it seem that he participated rather than just being aware. That's a huge difference, and unjustly brings questions about his character.

But even all of that doesn't bring up the biggest problem... How the hell do you know what whomever that was, was even referring to? It could have been a joke, or even if it were related to some pay for performance bonus, it might have been just for making a big play. Because again, nobody even knows who said it. Brett Favre hurt his ankle, but we didn't knock him out of the game, so why would anyone be expecting money for that? If the goal were really to get him out of the game, then they failed to do so and would not have earned any "bounty money".

You don't think Kommisar Goodell is going to let a little thing like FACTS get in his way do you?

Nope, but it never ceases to anger me.

He's prepared to assume he didn't say it but not prepared to assume that whoever did could have been refering to something entirely different?

Well I assume Roger, who never played collegiate sports, has no background in law would not even be commish if not for his father in law who was Transportation Secretary under Bush. Their first choice was Jeb Bush but he turned em' down. There were certainly more qualified candidates available.

His own statement Kommisar Goofdell, basically implicated the entire defense if one believes "it corroborates other evidence that there was an incentive in place for knocking Mr. Favre out of the game and that the members of the Saints defense, including Mr. Hargrove, were well aware of that fact."

Yet, only FOUR players were suspended...

The Kommisar statements appears to be calling into question his investigation/decision making/and impartiality status at least in my view.

I hope the NFLPA & Ginsberg use the same tactic the league used - use his own words against his the same way he used Triplett's article against Fujita.

I keep saying this again and again -- the ONLY people (besides the fans) who got "punished" for this whole bounty thing, ALL OF THEM, to a man, were players and coaches who had some kind of PREVIOUS prior run-ins with Rodger Goodell -- specific incidents which either caused Goodell headaches or embarrassed him, or actually made him look bad, personally, as commissioner of the league. Every one.

I mean ask yourself honestly, as a Saints fan -- was Hargrove like some kind of big ringleader, a leadership figure or some hugely important lynchpin in the '09 season defense? Nah, if we're honest about it, most of the year, the dude was barely even on the team! There was a lot of talk about it being his chance for redemption, and would he be able to stay focused and make it, and for most of the year he was on the bubble of getting cut.

But he has a prior rap for DRUGS, which the league is VERY concerned about as a PR and image issue...they don't like that....so it makes it VERY CONVENIENT and EASY for Goodell to single him out and throw the book at Hargrove.

BESIDES the fact that Goodell had already said that the penalties would be focused on defensive "captains," so WTF is Hargrove even doing in this mess anyway? And now they're saying he didn't say the thing he was accused of saying, that was cited as the initial evidence for his suspension?

The screamingly obvious question to me, is why is Hargrove lumped in with all these other dudes? What do they all have in common with each other, that other Saints players who were NOT punished don't have? They ALL have a prior history with Goodell of either being troublemakers for the league's PR image or else actively clashing with Rodger Goodell and making him look bad. Every single one of 'em, from Payton and Loomis on down.

The reason Hargrove is lumped in, is because of his declaration. The league needed something to use as leverage so they took Hargrove's words and twisted them around, then accused him of being the voice in the video saying "give me my money" to try to discredit his claims (fact, really) that his declaration had been twisted.

Of course, this is completely wrong of Goodell and HE should be subject to punishment for smearing people's names just to suit his agenda, but somehow he's getting away with it. So far.

CBA or no CBA, there is no way anyone shoud be allowed to go around aimlessly smearing someone. Someone needs to be held accountable.