Saints coach should be freed, too

burningmetal · 09-10-2012, 03:34 AM

Originally Posted by Euphoria

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.

I read a quote where they clearly said Roger cannot suspend players unless he has "proof" of conduct detrimental. The Judges, as of yet, have not seen any such proof. The only thing the league has brought up are things pertaining to pay for performance. And even that, as we know, seems to be more hearsay than anything else. So unless Roger has something definitive, he's not going to be able to hold up his case, IMO.

09-10-2012, 03:34 AM	#14
burningmetal 1000 Posts + Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 3,923 Blog Entries: 3	Re: Saints coach should be freed, too Originally Posted by Euphoria 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. I read a quote where they clearly said Roger cannot suspend players unless he has "proof" of conduct detrimental. The Judges, as of yet, have not seen any such proof. The only thing the league has brought up are things pertaining to pay for performance. And even that, as we know, seems to be more hearsay than anything else. So unless Roger has something definitive, he's not going to be able to hold up his case, IMO.