Saints coach should be freed, too

Euphoria · 09-09-2012, 08:23 AM

Originally Posted by burningmetal

Euphoria,

The judges made it pretty clear that they don't think Roger presented evidence for pay to injure by telling him he could not suspend the players without evidence for pay to injure... Make sense?

Officially, this goes down as just a clarification of terms of suspension, and Goodell could decide to issue the same penalties, which I think he will, just as you do. But with the understanding that Roger had in fact accused and suspended these players on the basis of a pay to injure system, the panel overturned his rulings. If they had agreed with Goodell and felt there was sufficient proof, needless to say, they would not have done this.

As I said, I do suspect that Roger will suspend them again, but if he does so with the same lack of evidence, it won't hold up long, and it will come back to haunt him in the long run. The seeds of doubt are now planted in the minds of his supporters. Every time he loses a battle, the more that doubt will grow.

Negative.

That isn't what the panel said at all about evidence. What it is is that Goodell has no authority to impose suspensions on "pay to injury" that falls on someone else. So the suspensions have to be lifted.

However, changing the wording to the suspensions to 'Detriment to the game of Football'... then he does have the authority.

Now he may be ticked off enough to keep the same amount of suspensions based on that but luckily there isn't much proof that the players purposely injured anyone except for Harper. So we have that in our favor but we are still looking at suspensions just based on the wording of the reason for the suspensions.

09-09-2012, 08:23 AM	#13
Euphoria 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 7,601 Blog Entries: 5	Re: Saints coach should be freed, too Originally Posted by burningmetal Euphoria, The judges made it pretty clear that they don't think Roger presented evidence for pay to injure by telling him he could not suspend the players without evidence for pay to injure... Make sense? Officially, this goes down as just a clarification of terms of suspension, and Goodell could decide to issue the same penalties, which I think he will, just as you do. But with the understanding that Roger had in fact accused and suspended these players on the basis of a pay to injure system, the panel overturned his rulings. If they had agreed with Goodell and felt there was sufficient proof, needless to say, they would not have done this. As I said, I do suspect that Roger will suspend them again, but if he does so with the same lack of evidence, it won't hold up long, and it will come back to haunt him in the long run. The seeds of doubt are now planted in the minds of his supporters. Every time he loses a battle, the more that doubt will grow. Negative. That isn't what the panel said at all about evidence. What it is is that Goodell has no authority to impose suspensions on "pay to injury" that falls on someone else. So the suspensions have to be lifted. However, changing the wording to the suspensions to 'Detriment to the game of Football'... then he does have the authority. Now he may be ticked off enough to keep the same amount of suspensions based on that but luckily there isn't much proof that the players purposely injured anyone except for Harper. So we have that in our favor but we are still looking at suspensions just based on the wording of the reason for the suspensions.
	E U P H O R I A