#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
You want to be the Congresman that tries to end football?

Depending on where you live, you'll immediately alienate between 20% and 70% of your voters. And probably piss off a few campaign donors, too, not to mention a couple of lobbies.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
33,832
And you're missing the point that it wouldn't have accomplished that and in fact would have worsened future rounds, while probably increasing the odds of them existing.

In no world was the NFL backing down if Kraft sued. Have you watched Goodell at all? I mean seriously, this is the guy still appealing Brady in court. And you honestly think that if Kraft filed a frivolous lawsuit he had no chance of winning, the league and the other owners would have just kowtowed to him? And dared not cross him again? Come on dude.
I never said to go the lawsuit route. Pats could have been much more aggressive on the PR front with strategic leaking and other tactics, and they also should have filed an official appeal with the league. Could have made things much more painful and embarrassing for all concerned. The ex-Jet miscreants in NFL HQ want to stick it to the Pats every chance they can. Have to make them less eager to jump on the next complaint they get from the Atlanta Falcons or whomever.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,200
Newton
You want to be the Congresman that tries to end football?

Depending on where you live, you'll immediately alienate between 20% and 70% of your voters. And probably piss off a few campaign donors, too, not to mention a couple of lobbies.
I'm now posting about this in two threads so apologies to the mods. Lobbies and donors are one thing but I think you are overestimating how passionate voters would be about this. Seventy percent of voters in their district would object?!? I mean, Henry Waxman was the guy who tried to end the era of the long ball by holding steroid hearings. He didn't suffer politically for it. I mean, would you vote against Ed Markey or Al Franken if they took this on?

Bigger picture: yes, football is more popular than baseball and the NFL is more powerful than MLB. And yes, it might still be a lonely fight at first for whoever takes this on. But it is not as steep an uphill battle as it would've been even three or so years ago. The league has been getting roundly creamed for health, domestic violence, corporate welfare, labor practices and other things for a number of years now. The quality of the game has indisputably begun to suffer. And fans, while still flocking to the game in record numbers, have begun to take notice. This isn't taking on a knight in shining armor – and there is more than enough smoke.

All of which is to say that a smart pol with the right political situation (no team in his/her district, etc.) would be able to make hay of this.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Fighting "steroids" in the MLB was, in reality, a fight against specific players, most of whom were either retired or soon-to-be retired.

By calling out the NFL, you're not going up against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, you're attacking a massive business that has gobs of liquid cash and, not to mention, basically it's own propaganda wing in ESPN.

I'm not saying Congress won't eventually take it up, but you said you were surprised that Congress isn't doing anything, and I can see some reasons why they'd be reluctant to.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
29,095
Fighting "steroids" in the MLB was, in reality, a fight against specific players, most of whom were either retired or soon-to-be retired.

By calling out the NFL, you're not going up against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, you're attacking a massive business that has gobs of liquid cash and, not to mention, basically it's own propaganda wing in ESPN.

I'm not saying Congress won't eventually take it up, but you said you were surprised that Congress isn't doing anything, and I can see some reasons why they'd be reluctant to.
I suspect the NFL would rather have Congress get involved than to have some state legislature get involved due to worker's comp issues. Its a hook for some local yahoo (lets say a pissed-off Missouri legislator) to start digging around whether the league or a team has been truthful about injury causation.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I suspect the NFL would rather have Congress get involved than to have some state legislature get involved due to worker's comp issues. Its a hook for some local yahoo (lets say a pissed-off Missouri legislator) to start digging around whether the league or a team has been truthful about injury causation.
Why? The one thing that the NFL is frightened of is bad publicity, and a Congressional investigation would be a font of bad publicity. A federal grand jury would have the potential to put the NFL in a real bind.

A local issue is, by its very nature, not as big of a deal. Some Missouri legislator thinks they found something...then what? Who cares? It's just a butt-hurt ex Rams fan from Missouri! Don't pay attention to that nonsense!
 

Dr. Gonzo

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2010
5,015
Pat's Pulpit article was mentioned earlier but it uses this article as one of its sources.

On this week’s edition of Kirk Minihane’s “Enough About Me” podcast, Sirius XM radio host Chris “Mad Dog” Russo said he has spoken with nine NFL owners who told him that the Deflategate discipline handed down by commissioner Roger Goodell was more about punishing Patriots owner Robert Kraft than quarterback Tom Brady.
“‘We got Kraft. We don’t like Kraft. We got him already. We nailed him for a million dollars, and he lost a first-round pick and a fourth-round pick. And we made sure that Kraft did not appeal it because we all bombarded him at the owners’ meetings and said, ‘Bob, you’ve got no support here. Do what you have to do. You have no support. Nobody is going to back you up.’ ”

He added: “So Kraft took the sword and that was the end of it. ‘We didn’t need Brady, too. We got Kraft.’ ”
 
Last edited:

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,514
Pat's Pulpit article was mentioned earlier but it uses this article as on of its sources.
I am not saying anything new here, but if this is true, to me, this seems very short-sighted of the other owners. By striping the Patriots of draft picks, they are severing limiting the ability of the team to improve itself in the immediate future. The group that is most hurt by this action is not Kraft and the ownership. The group that is most hurt are the fans of the Patriots, or as I would call them, a significant portion of the NFL's customer base. I do concede that fans of other teams make up a larger portion of the NFL's customer base.

If this practice continues over the years, in the long term, the league's approach of alienating the fans of successful teams is going to piss off more and more of their customers.

Except the Jets fans because those fuckers will never be successful. May Woody Johnson live forever.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,379
Los Angeles, CA
How many owners are up in arms about how the Saints were completely disembowled as an organization for a bounty scandal that we now know didn't really happen?

The Pats got screwed and outside of New England fans, no one - not a single causal fan and most certainly not the owners who have been getting their teeth kicked in for years - cares. People here really need to move on.
I ask this every time this is brought up - mostly in this thread - and I haven't seen anyone answer. How do we know that the Bountygate scandal never really happened? Are you referring to Tagliabue's reversal of the player punishments? Because that's not why he reversed them (according to his own words). Were there subsequent facts that came out which vindicated the Saints? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm more skeptical after having seen how DFG went down, and I'd really like to know.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I am not saying anything new here, but if this is true, to me, this seems very short-sighted of the other owners. By striping the Patriots of draft picks, they are severing limiting the ability of the team to improve itself in the immediate future. The group that is most hurt by this action is not Kraft and the ownership. The group that is most hurt are the fans of the Patriots, or as I would call them, a significant portion of the NFL's customer base. I do concede that fans of other teams make up a larger portion of the NFL's customer base.

If this practice continues over the years, in the long term, the league's approach of alienating the fans of successful teams is going to piss off more and more of their customers.

Except the Jets fans because those fuckers will never be successful. May Woody Johnson live forever.
I think your question presumes a lot more long term thinking and maturity than the average NFL owner, or average person, normally demonstrates.

There are so many reasons why an owner would not let the "if it can happen to him, it can happen to me" type rationale drive him. Owners think that they wont be on the receiving end or ignore the risk because

- they don't think much past the present

- they believe that their team doesn't cheat so nothing bad like this is likely

- they believe in their own ability to control unexpected problems

- damn it, the Patriots are cheaters, so they deserve all that's coming

- damn it, they don't like Kraft for other reasons, so he deserves what he got

- damn it, they don't like the Pats winning all the time, so let's tie one hand behind their backs
 

johnmd20

mad dog
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2003
60,398
New York City
Fighting "steroids" in the MLB was, in reality, a fight against specific players, most of whom were either retired or soon-to-be retired.

By calling out the NFL, you're not going up against Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, you're attacking a massive business that has gobs of liquid cash and, not to mention, basically it's own propaganda wing in ESPN.

I'm not saying Congress won't eventually take it up, but you said you were surprised that Congress isn't doing anything, and I can see some reasons why they'd be reluctant to.
People also cared about the "sanctity" of baseball and the records that were bring broken. Nobody cares about the sanctity of football and PEDs and I would like to think most people realize every athlete is doing something for an advantage.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I ask this every time this is brought up - mostly in this thread - and I haven't seen anyone answer. How do we know that the Bountygate scandal never really happened? Are you referring to Tagliabue's reversal of the player punishments? Because that's not why he reversed them (according to his own words). Were there subsequent facts that came out which vindicated the Saints? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm more skeptical after having seen how DFG went down, and I'd really like to know.
Tagliabue reversed discipline that was unprecedented and unlawful. That's what matters. I don't really care whether Bountygate happened or not, because you can't go hog wild on the discipline just because your sensibilities were aggrieved.

The simple fact is that other teams and players have been screwed by this League - and Bawb Kraft supported Goodell in the screwing.
 

RIFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,057
Rhode Island
I don't think Kubler-Ross thought of this scenario when thinking of the 7 stages of grief. I don't think some people are going to move on until they hear "Arizona in on the clock" and probably not even then.

Everyone has to face it. The NFL is run by a bunch of unethical, self-interested assholes. Common sense and decency don't apply. I increasingly get the taste of bile when watching the NFL and all the crap that goes on off the field makes it easier to find something better to do with my Sundays. I suggest those who keep wishcasting for a happy ending to this saga either get used to the taste of bile or move on to acceptance. Hopefully we can lock this thread when pick #29 comes and goes.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,410
I agree. Last year I didn't watch a second of non-Patriot or Packer football. When Brady and Rodgers are gone that probably goes to zero minutes of football.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,267
where I was last at
There will be no happy ending.

The NFL will probably prevail on the appeal (on the rightness of the flawed arbitration process and not what happened on a cold winter night in Foxboro) Brady will sit 4 games, and Nantz and Simms and will be given fresh meat to cast doubt on the franchise.

The NFL will be smug fuckers about the integrity of the game.

We will survive the lost draft picks.

But the Pats get portrayed as serially cheaters, and Pat fans will be pissed for another decade.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,410
You want to be the Congresman that tries to end football?
Sure, if I'm from the San Diego area, or Missouri, or any locale screwed over by the NFL I wouldn't have a second thought about making the billionaire boys club pay up. It would not only make me really popular in my district, it's good for the bottom line as the billionaire boys club will need to start funneling me money to make sure nothing untoward happens.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
46,210
I don't think Kubler-Ross thought of this scenario when thinking of the 7 stages of grief. I don't think some people are going to move on until they hear "Arizona in on the clock" and probably not even then.

Everyone has to face it. The NFL is run by a bunch of unethical, self-interested assholes. Common sense and decency don't apply. I increasingly get the taste of bile when watching the NFL and all the crap that goes on off the field makes it easier to find something better to do with my Sundays. I suggest those who keep wishcasting for a happy ending to this saga either get used to the taste of bile or move on to acceptance. Hopefully we can lock this thread when pick #29 comes and goes.
Why would this thread get locked? There is still a very important appeals process that appears to be months away from getting resolved. Once that has concluded, I agree that we will have exhausted the discussion but definitely not until then. And if the wishcasting, whining, etc. bothers people so much, just stay out of the thread.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,379
Los Angeles, CA
Tagliabue reversed discipline that was unprecedented and unlawful. That's what matters. I don't really care whether Bountygate happened or not, because you can't go hog wild on the discipline just because your sensibilities were aggrieved.

The simple fact is that other teams and players have been screwed by this League - and Bawb Kraft supported Goodell in the screwing.
dcmissile - That's an understandable position, but it's not what RA said, nor what has been repeated here time and again. A few people keep saying Bountygate didn't happen, and I have seen no evidence to support that. You don't need to misconstrue facts in order to show that the league is corrupt.
 

PayrodsFirstClutchHit

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie
SoSH Member
Jun 29, 2006
8,257
Winterport, ME
dcmissile - That's an understandable position, but it's not what RA said, nor what has been repeated here time and again. A few people keep saying Bountygate didn't happen, and I have seen no evidence to support that. You don't need to misconstrue facts in order to show that the league is corrupt.
I do not profess any expert knowledge of Bountygate. The link below is from a Saints fan that calls into question much of the "evidence" . The only confession came from the former DC Williams a year after he left the Saints and following significant pressure by the league office. Most of the players on the team have given sworn statements that the allegations are all BS.

There is also the argument that if the Saints were running a bounty program, then it wasn't very successful given the low amount of injuries teams that competed against the Saints suffered.

"If the Saints tended to injure more players, then teams that played them would tend to list more injuries the following week. To test whether the Saints injured more players than a typical team, one need only compare the number of players added to injury reports after a Saints game to the league-wide average. Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players? The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking.


http://www.saintswin.com/2012/06/examining-flaws-of-bountygates-evidence.html
 
Last edited:

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
dcmissile - That's an understandable position, but it's not what RA said, nor what has been repeated here time and again. A few people keep saying Bountygate didn't happen, and I have seen no evidence to support that. You don't need to misconstrue facts in order to show that the league is corrupt.
I don't have the time to do it, but I do believe if you dig back through steph stradley's stuff pre-Deflategate, you'll find a lot on the Saints case.

Here's one of the ones to start you with that also includes links to other pieces she did.

I've made the point before that Goodell keeps moving the goal line of what the Saints are being punished for as clearer evidence comes out. Goodell claimed this weekend that pay to injure is not a semantic issue, but the Saints players and coaches have a vehement, reasoned disagreement with him. Is there evidence of bounties, pay-to-injure, pay-for-performance? There's solid evidence on pay-for-performance, but the players and coaches are being punished for intent to injure and lying.
Reading this stuff will probably cause you to break out in hives as watch/read all the earmarks of a classic NFL investigation and punishment that we all have come to love.

One type of evidence being used to infer a completely different meaning simply on Roger's say so? That happens? There's gambling going on in this establishment.

Basically all the plays that were used against the Pats and Brady are right here. It's just almost no Pats fans cared.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,379
Los Angeles, CA
I do not profess any expert knowledge of Bountygate. The link below is from a Saints fan that calls into question much of the "evidence" . The only confession came from the former DC Williams a year after he left the Saints and following significant pressure by the league office. Most of the players on the team have given sworn statements that the allegations are all BS.

There is also the argument that if the Saints were running a bounty program, then it wasn't very successful given the low amount injuries teams that competed against the Saints suffered.

"If the Saints tended to injure more players, then teams that played them would tend to list more injuries the following week. To test whether the Saints injured more players than a typical team, one need only compare the number of players added to injury reports after a Saints game to the league-wide average. Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players? The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking.


http://www.saintswin.com/2012/06/examining-flaws-of-bountygates-evidence.html
Yes, I'm aware of the study which shows that more players than expected weren't injured. I can think of several reasons why that could be the case. It doesn't mean that a bounty program didn't exist, nor that it isn't immoral activity which should be stamped out of the league.

I'm not saying Bountygate definitely happened. I'd love to see an independent review of the facts of the case.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,514
I think the simple point is that no one should trust that the NFL was being honest in any of their past investigations.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,379
Los Angeles, CA
I don't have the time to do it, but I do believe if you dig back through steph stradley's stuff pre-Deflategate, you'll find a lot on the Saints case.

Here's one of the ones to start you with that also includes links to other pieces she did.

Reading this stuff will probably cause you to break out in hives to watch all the earmarks of a classic NFL investigation and punishment that we all have come to love.

One type of evidence being used to infer a completely different meaning simply on Roger's say so? That happens?
Thank you! I'll take a look at this later. I know the handling of the matter was similar to DFG in many ways, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. I guess the thing that bugs me is that they do have someone who admitted to the whole thing. Not even the Dorito Dinks cracked...why would they?

Sorry for the tangent!
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
Like a greek tragedy, going through Deflategate has made me realize my own hubris in taking the official story about Bountygate and never looking beyond it into the details, and duly punished me by making me read 38,000-odd posts on the internet about it.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
Thank you! I'll take a look at this later. I know the handling of the matter was similar to DFG in many ways, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. I guess the thing that bugs me is that they do have someone who admitted to the whole thing. Not even the Dorito Dinks cracked...why would they?

Sorry for the tangent!
Not a problem. I'm not sure where I land on the Bountygate case anymore. I'd have to say I'm guesising nothing happened at least in any semblance of what the NFL claimed.

I used to be a person that believed they were all guilty simply because I never went beyond the surface headlines, but when you start looking at it with a critical eye you start to see all the hallmarks of the NFL punishment system. A big one being the one that I quoted there. A shifting goalpost of what they were punished for and the way they talked about it in releases versus what was said elsewhere. The idea that the Saints players all talked about pay per performance bonuses versus them being pay to injure bonuses. With the NFL twisting into this thing where situations definitely happened when there is no evidence that it did, beyond when Williams needed to grovel on his knees in order to get past basically a "show cause" (NFL version of the NCAA) hiring ban a year or so later.

It's a long rabbit hole to go down, but Stradley writes well enough with a critical eye that you can educate yourself fairly quickly plus you have the benefit of doing it in conjunction of knowledge gained from deflategate and how it played out. Remember when Bountygate was out there we didn't have actual evidence of Goodell altering and lying about people's testimony (Rice and Brady). Now we do so it's a lot easier to see the Saints players objections in a different light.

PS If I had had access to someone like Steph Stradley during all of this I might have been a lot more tuned in. Back then there were almost no independent non-sports journalist non toadies covering this stuff. No one at SI, ESPN, etc where I probably got most of my news would go near it, not to mention it was still the "New Sheriff" in town Goodell worshiping time. Plus the ecosystem wasn't quite as developed for twitter, social media, etc for finding someone like her.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,379
Los Angeles, CA
I think the simple point is that no one should trust that the NFL was being honest in any of their past investigations.
True. I guess my biggest problem is with people saying "we know it didn't happen". I don't know what to believe, but thank you for bringing me back down to Earth. We do know the NFL league office is corrupt.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,045
Southwestern CT
Thank you! I'll take a look at this later. I know the handling of the matter was similar to DFG in many ways, but that doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. I guess the thing that bugs me is that they do have someone who admitted to the whole thing. Not even the Dorito Dinks cracked...why would they?

Sorry for the tangent!
I'm not going to focus on the details, if only because there's plenty out there (much of it cited here already) to support what I said.

What I am going to focus on is your reaction, which has been incredulity followed by repeated requests that I (or someone) prove a negative. Not for the NFL to prove it's case, but for me to show you evidence that it did not happen, which is logically impossible. (I should note here that every time the cases were heard by an individual with any level of independence from the NFL, the NFL lost.)

You have essentially proven my contention, which is that the average fan out there is convinced that the Pats are guilty and will not change their mind, because no one will prove to their satisfaction that it didn't happen.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,045
Southwestern CT
True. I guess my biggest problem is with people saying "we know it didn't happen". I don't know what to believe, but thank you for bringing me back down to Earth. We do know the NFL league office is corrupt.
We know the bounty program did not happen as the NFL outlined the case because as a matter of logic, it could not have.

Every player accused was cleared. Hell, one of them (Scott Fujita) demonstrated pretty conclusively that he was only named by Goodell because he was an NFLPA activist on the issue of player safety, so naming him served two political purposes: (1) it reinforced the NFL's contention that they did take player safety seriously and (2) it discredited one of Goodell's biggest critics. (Of course, the NFL contended that the fact they they were/are in litigation on the matter of concussions and player safety had nothing at all to do with this ....)

It's a free country so believe what you want. I'm not going to waste a ton of time and go back into the individual details of each case. (I did that a long time ago.). Suffice to say that an examination of the actual evidence laid out in those individual cases convinced me.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,379
Los Angeles, CA
We know the bounty program did not happen as the NFL outlined the case because as a matter of logic, it could not have.

Every player accused was cleared. Hell, one of them (Scott Fujita) demonstrated pretty conclusively that he was only named by Goodell because he was an NFLPA activist on the issue of player safety, so naming him served two political purposes: (1) it reinforced the NFL's contention that they did take player safety seriously and (2) it discredited one of Goodell's biggest critics. (Of course, the NFL contended that the fact they they were/are in litigation on the matter of concussions and player safety had nothing at all to do with this ....)

It's a free country so believe what you want. I'm not going to waste a ton of time and go back into the individual details of each case. (I did that a long time ago.). Suffice to say that an examination of the actual evidence laid out in those individual cases convinced me.
Who were they cleared by?
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
52,138
He actually didn't clear them.

Tagliabue affirmed the NFL's findings, he just vacated the punishment.

"My affirmation of Commissioner Goodell's findings could certainly justify the issuance of fines. However, this entire case has been contaminated by the coaches and others in the Saints' organization."

Tagliabue's ruling made it clear that he found Vilma still "guilty" of offering a bounty. Per Albert Breer of the NFL Network, Fujita is the only player involved that's "completely cleared."

Because Tagliabue stated that there was clearly misconduct by the players, it would be difficult to prove that Goodell was purposely malicious in issuing his original punishments to the players.
 
Last edited:

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,045
Southwestern CT
By "cleared" by Tagliabue do you mean that Tagliabue said that 3 of them still participated in conduct detrimental to the league?
Vilma's case was actually heard in Federal court first. Under oath, every individual who testified denied the existence of a bounty program.

Tagliabue's ruling threaded the needle by vacating the suspensions but upholding the findings. (Except in the case of Fujita, which he spent very little time on because the overreach on the part of Goodell was embarrassing and indefensible.) I don't buy this because he was engaged in the same kind of damage control that Goodell and his lawyers have been pushing with respect to Brady and ball deflation, in the sense that the entire crusade becomes about the power of the Commissioner and not what actually happened.

I've looked at the evidence and I am very comfortable with the notion that the NFL's version of what happened is a fabrication. And the burden is not on me or the players to prove that it didn't happen. It's on the NFL. And as far as I can tell, the only actual evidence that they have is a tape of Greg Williams using military references in the locker room that sounds like every coach ever.

I don't believe that the players were "innocent" because I don't believer that any NFL players are innocent in terms of their desire to injure other players. (I say that as a fan of the Eagles and I remember clearly the Buddy Ryan had a bounty program of his own that actually resulted in a player receiving a concussion. He had the special teams players take out the Cowboys' kicker, because Buddy, like the entire Ryan family, is a craven coward.) It's a brutal game played by brutal people. But in their zeal to demonstrate how tough they could be on player safety, the NFL threw gasoline on the Bountygagte scandal by making apocalyptic, unsupported claims about how the Saints' behavior was somehow different. And those claims logically had to be followed by harsh suspensions. But they never delivered the goods in terms of evidence, Tagliabue's nuanced ruling to the contrary.
 
Last edited:

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
He actually didn't clear them.

Tagliabue affirmed the NFL's findings, he just vacated the punishment.
Which is precisely what TB and the Union are asking for -- and what Bob Kraft asked for, only to be denied. And I would be delighted to have this much.
 
Dec 21, 2015
1,410
Ain't that the truth. The Pats are never going to get their reputation back with the public (maybe Ray Donovan can tell them what office to go to for that), but having the picks back would mean nothing of value was lost. Delighted would be an understatement.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,379
Los Angeles, CA
You seem to be very curious about this case. Which makes your inability to actually use your fingers to type questions into the Google monster yourself very puzzling indeed.

That's my recommendation. But I'm done here.
AR, if you read my orginal reply to you, you'd know that I did indeed research the case. You seem to have ignored the point I made about Tagliabue specifically not clearing them, which is why I asked the question. If someone else cleared them, I'd like to hear it. I'm not trying to start anything - I'm interested in facts, that's all.

Edit: I now see your last post and understand that you're using a very loose definition of "cleared".
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nfl-demands-retraction-of-new-york-times-story-on-concussions/

That the NFL is demanding a retraction of the NYT story based largely on a lack of direct evidence is quite obviously ironic.

The most disconcerting part of the story to me is that they did so with absolutely no fear or concern that they would be called out on this by folks who are not Pats fans. It's not just that it's ironic; it's that Goodell and company had to know that with an objective public, they would be in some trouble for repeating part of the Pats' argument, and they had to know that the public is so bought into nailing the Patriots that virtually no one will care.

In the grand scheme of all things DG, this is quite minor. But it's a vista into the NFL's bravado, and consistent with all we have seen thus far.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,514
Is there any chance that the concussion debate is playing out in the New York Times influences the appeals court to reconsider the validity of the appeals court?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
30,262
I think you would have been better off noting that Article III does not require there to be a Court of Appeals.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
14,037
Richmond, VA
You want to be the Congresman that tries to end football?

Depending on where you live, you'll immediately alienate between 20% and 70% of your voters. And probably piss off a few campaign donors, too, not to mention a couple of lobbies.
What about being the congressperson who 'fixed' football? Help the NFL and football in general find a way over the threshold to the next iteration. We know it's coming...someone could try to make a litte name for himself or herself in that way.
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,637
Wayland, MA
I suppose I could look this up, but how long does the average 2nd Circuit opinion take?

It seems like we're waiting forever, and the thought that a longer wait is a less favorable sign to Brady is not helping my disposition either
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
I thought people said June or July would definitely be well within realm of possibility.

Not sure about 2nd, but we are also still waiting on the Peterson ruling if I'm not mistaken.

Which was before the Brady hearing.