New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com

New Orleans Saints Forums - blackandgold.com (https://blackandgold.com/community/)
-   Saints (https://blackandgold.com/saints/)
-   -   League backs off view that Hargrove said “give me my money” (https://blackandgold.com/saints/45278-league-backs-off-view-hargrove-said-give-me-my-money.html)

WhoDat!656 07-06-2012 07:56 AM

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

burningmetal 07-06-2012 08:17 AM

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".

WhoDat!656 07-06-2012 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burningmetal (Post 416643)
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?

burningmetal 07-06-2012 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhoDat!656 (Post 416645)
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.

Beastmode 07-06-2012 08:52 AM

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.

TXGSP 07-06-2012 08:55 AM

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.

SaintsBro 07-06-2012 09:15 AM

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.

burningmetal 07-06-2012 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SaintsBro (Post 416658)
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.

TheOak 07-06-2012 09:48 AM

http://www.statesymbolsusa.org/IMAGE..._plate-380.jpg

Beastmode 07-06-2012 09:51 AM

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

TheOak 07-06-2012 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beastmode (Post 416667)
CBA or no CBA, there is no way anyone shoud be allowed to go around aimlessly smearing someone. Someone needs to be held accountable.

From a moral standpoint I agree 100%!


From a legal standpoint, the precedent has been set. If public slander, or inaccurate accounts were culpable offenses there would be no news agencies in business and prisons would be full of politicians.

I have never seen a political candidate taken to task for outright lies about his opponent during a campaign.

burningmetal 07-06-2012 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 416670)
From a moral standpoint I agree 100%!


From a legal standpoint, the precedent has been set. If public slander, or inaccurate accounts were culpable offenses there would be no news agencies in business and prisons would be full of politicians.

I have never seen a political candidate taken to task for outright lies about his opponent during a campaign.

That's because politicians and news agencies aren't suspending or firing people that they're in the process of slandering. It's bad enough to start a rumor, but to convict upon nothing more is outrageous.

saintfan 07-06-2012 11:18 AM

Alright 626. Tell me again why it is they can't just refuse to show up for camp? Not saying the Union could even muster the momentum to make that happen, but explain to me why it is that they can't. I'm still not convinced they have much choice...

TXGSP 07-06-2012 11:30 AM

I believe a media boycott by NFLPA members could make a statement to the league. All the NFLPA needs to do is make a press release that the players words are being taken out of context and used against them.

The players could be instructed to give the following statement "I understand your question, but all questions should be routed through the NFLPA".

Make the union work for them. Seems harsh and would not be viewed in the media or fans as positive, but would definately make a statement more than holding up a finger at the start of a game to show solidarity.

saintfan 07-06-2012 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXGSP (Post 416702)
I believe a media boycott by NFLPA members could make a statement to the league. All the NFLPA needs to do is make a press release that the players words are being taken out of context and used against them.

The players could be instructed to give the following statement "I understand your question, but all questions should be routed through the NFLPA".

Make the union work for them. Seems harsh and would not be viewed in the media or fans as positive, but would definately make a statement more than holding up a finger at the start of a game to show solidarity.

I like it. The have to do SOMEthing. For real.:goodidea:

TheOak 07-06-2012 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 416697)
Alright 626. Tell me again why it is they can't just refuse to show up for camp? Not saying the Union could even muster the momentum to make that happen, but explain to me why it is that they can't. I'm still not convinced they have much choice...

They can refuse to show up for camp... They will be fined for it though.

Keep something in mind.. The CBA governs the Players Union and the Leagues relationship.... The contract between the Team and the Player governs that relationship... The League doesn't care if they do not show up for camp, the Saints front office will and there are probably terms in the players contract with the team that covers that, which usually results in some sort of forfeiture of pay...

if I understood your question correctly?

burningmetal 07-06-2012 02:05 PM

Obviously, when you strike you don't get payed. There isn't any question of that. I don't want to see a strike at all, I'm tired of all the drama, but if it's the last option they have at some point, then maybe they should.

saintfan 07-06-2012 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 416730)
They can refuse to show up for camp... They will be fined for it though.

Keep something in mind.. The CBA governs the Players Union and the Leagues relationship.... The contract between the Team and the Player governs that relationship... The League doesn't care if they do not show up for camp, the Saints front office will and there are probably terms in the players contract with the team that covers that, which usually results in some sort of forfeiture of pay...

if I understood your question correctly?

But if (in my wet dream) players league-wide did this it's same-same since they wouldn't be getting paid if they went on strike either. I just wanna see 'em DO something damnit. LOL

Rugby Saint II 07-06-2012 02:42 PM

Godhell is finally starting to feel the heat. He is trying to use semantics at this point. But it isn't going to work. We won't let this die. Godhell may die but this won't.

Rugby Saint II 07-06-2012 02:59 PM

Roger will be held accountable......it will just take some time. He thought he was going to bully us and we'd roll over. Well' I guess he's thinking about crapping his britches now. Every bully deserves an ass beating and I want to give it to him.

TheOak 07-06-2012 07:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saintfan (Post 416744)
But if (in my wet dream) players league-wide did this it's same-same since they wouldn't be getting paid if they went on strike either. I just wanna see 'em DO something damnit. LOL


Missing practice hurts the team.
Missing games is a strike and against the CBA.

Now... If all players showed up for the first preseason game ... everything normal, coil flip... everyone sits on the 50 yard line and refuses to play...

Nation takes notice.

TXGSP 07-06-2012 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 416810)
Missing practice hurts the team.
Missing games is a strike and against the CBA.

Now... If all players showed up for the first preseason game ... everything normal, coil flip... everyone sits on the 50 yard line and refuses to play...

Nation takes notice.

Not sure how the CBA would view that, but would depend on participation clauses in contract(s) - including each player's contract. I know the example contract in the CBA from the NFLPA site had a Publicity clause requiring cooperation. Something like that could be viewed as not requiring a player to speak - silence in this case could be a valid strategy.

The players have the constructional right to Free Speech - they also have the right not to exercise it. The union could show solidarity, not particularilly for the suspended players, but against the disciplinary process in the CBA.

The largest impact would be to the fans due to the limited information that would be available as far as sound bites from the players. The media would still have access to coaches interviews and practices, but nothing to print regarding player comments.

saintfan 07-06-2012 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by x626xBlack (Post 416810)
Missing practice hurts the team.
Missing games is a strike and against the CBA.

Now... If all players showed up for the first preseason game ... everything normal, coil flip... everyone sits on the 50 yard line and refuses to play...

Nation takes notice.

But if all the players do it, then all the teams are hurt equally. :airguitar:

WhoDat!656 07-06-2012 08:35 PM

Check out the analysis of this; Hargrove is getting hammered!

Green Bay Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove has insisted on multiple occasions that a key piece of evidence against him in the New Orleans Saints bounty issue is a case of mistaken identity. Voice recognition analysis confirmed that Hargrove was not the person who said "Bobby, give me my money," a quote captured on an NFL Films video of the 2009 NFC Championship Game. Amazingly, it now appears the league has agreed.

As Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk points out, commissioner Roger Goodell wrote in a letter to Hargrove and three other suspended players that he is "prepared to assume" Hargrove was not the one speaking. But Goodell went on to claim that the video, which the league introduced during the appeal hearing and in a meeting with reporters, was not a factor in Hargrove's eight-game suspension.


[+] Enlarge

Tom Hauck/Getty Images
Commissioner Roger Goodell says a quote captured on an NFL Films video of the 2009 NFC Championship Game had no bearing on Anthony Hargrove's eight-game suspension."The identity of the player who made the statement was immaterial to my decision on your appeals and did not affect the level of discipline imposed on Mr. Hargrove," Goodell wrote in a letter that was attached to legal filings submitted Tuesday. The commissioner said the video nevertheless provides ample evidence of a bounty program, no matter who said the words, and that "members of the Saints defense, including Mr. Hargrove, were well aware" of it.

Wow. The league was wrong, but the inaccuracy doesn't matter? That's convenient.

So once again, we're back to a question we've asked several times: What evidence does the NFL have to justify Hargrove's eight-game suspension? Was Hargrove "very well aware" of a bounty program because he was in a sideline huddle when one player said "give me my money" to another? That's a bit of a leap.

Let's go back to the original accusation the NFL publicized against Hargrove in March. As you might recall, here is what the league wrote:

Defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove (now with the Green Bay Packers) is suspended without pay for the first eight games of the 2012 regular season. Hargrove actively participated in the program while a member of the Saints. Hargrove submitted a signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it. The evidence showed that Hargrove told at least one player on another team that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre was a target of a large bounty during the NFC Championship Game in January of 2010. Hargrove also actively obstructed the league’s 2010 investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators."

Now let's go through those sentences one-by-one:
•"Hargrove actively participated in the program while a member of the Saints." If the NFL has evidence of this, it remains private.
•"Hargrove submitted a signed declaration to the league that established not only the existence of the program at the Saints, but also that he knew about and participated in it." As we discussed in the spring, this sentence is at best a mischaracterization. In the declaration, Hargrove said only that "I denied all knowledge of a bounty or bounty program." To me, there is a big leap between establishing the existence of and participation in a program when all that happened was a denial of knowledge.
•"The evidence showed that Hargrove told at least one player on another team that Vikings quarterback Brett Favre was a target of a large bounty during the NFC Championship Game in January of 2010." In the declaration, Hargrove said former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams told him that "some people" thought he had told Minnesota Vikings defensive lineman Jimmy Kennedy about the bounty. Both Hargrove and Kennedy have denied that conversation took place.
•"Hargrove also actively obstructed the league’s 2010 investigation into the program by being untruthful to investigators." That goes back to Hargrove originally denying all knowledge of any program, something he said Williams and fellow Saints assistant Joe Vitt asked him to do. It requires an assumption that Hargrove knew all of the details of any program that might have existed in order for a denial to be interpreted as "untruthful."

The video evidence was introduced later in the process, but now that the NFL has disregarded it, we're back to the original accusations. So essentially, again, we're left to assume that Hargrove was suspended eight games because he denied existence of a bounty program in 2010 -- even if there is no evidence that he participated in it or was aware of it. Yikes.

Hargrove penalty: NFL now discredits video - NFC South Blog - ESPN

SaintsBro 07-06-2012 08:53 PM

This is amazing because Goodell has just thrown Mary Jo White under the bus...she was very outspoken and insistent upon this being an important piece of the evidence, that it was Hargrove speaking.

Beastmode 07-06-2012 10:28 PM

I sure would like to know what the owners are thinking right now. Since RG took over stadium attendance has declined every single year, lawsuits are at an all time high, and the numbers of fans and media agents who are generally disgusted with him has become more than a minor distraction. Granted, it's not all his fault but it is happening on his watch.

The Dude 07-06-2012 10:37 PM

The NFL sucks. I don't think it will last beyond another 7-8 years.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:16 AM.


Copyright 1997 - 2020 - BlackandGold.com