Do you know of a way in which a non-injured player is going to require a cart to get off the field?
Me either.
So when there are monetary amounts listed next to the phrase "cart-off hits," that's pretty indicative of players being rewarded for injuring opposing players.
And where in the report did the term "cart-off hits" come from? Purely the NFL's words. Not from any alleged "note", slide, or recorded "admission".
http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2012/06/nfl_presents_case_against_4_pl.htmlThe only listing the NFL showed Monday where a Saints player allegedly received cash for a "cart-off" or "knockout" hit -- that is, one that required an opponent to miss all or part of a game -- was safety Roman Harper. Harper was recorded as receiving $1,000 for a "cart off" for the game against the New York Giants in 2009, according to the league presentation. In that game, White said, Giants running back Brandon Jacobs was forced out of the game with a shoulder injury after Harper tackled him in the third quarter.
Now, let's pull up the play-by-play on NFL.com, shall we?
http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2009101804/2009/REG6/giants@saints#menu=highlightsThe only play in which Jacobs was taken out of the game is here:
1-10-NO 19 (9:00) 27-B.Jacobs right guard to NO 13 for 6 yards (42-D.Sharper).NYG-27-B.Jacobs was injured during the play. His return is Probable.
So that was Sharper, not Harper who made the tackle. It was in the 2nd quarter, not the 3rd. And he returned to the game shortly after and finished the game. There was no play in which he was taken out of the game after a Harper tackle.
Seems like a lot of facts to get wrong in what is supposed to be such damning "evidence."
Which brings me to this:
What the hell kind of logic is that article using? Because no opponents actually got carted off or knocked out, there was no program rewarding players for doing so?
I'm going to give AWK $50 to drive to New Orleans and burn your house down. But if your house doesn't burn down, then there was no conspiracy to burn it down.
Que?
So if according to that infallible "evidence", Harper got paid in that game for a "cart-off" on Brandon Jacobs, and yet Harper did not tackle anyone, let alone Jacobs, that removed them from the game. How can that be considered legitimate?
And by the way, Harper wasn't even suspended.
Did they say that all 2,000 pages included references to the bounty system, or did they say that they had 2,000 total pages that the Saints turned over for review? I would imagine they said the latter, but I don't have whatever statement/article you're referencing in front of me, and I'm too lazy to find it in this thread.
Excuse me, I misspoke. It was originally
5,000 pages of "evidence" that they claimed to have.
http://www.nola.com/saints/index.ssf/2012/06/saints_roman_harper_takes_time.htmlThe NFL, complying with a collective bargaining rule that says it must furnish evidence to appellants before the hearing, provided on Friday less than 200 of the supposed 5,000 pages of evidence against the Saints and players Jonathan Vilma and Will Smith and former Saints Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargove, who were implicated and suspended in the bounty scandal.
There are no other references of shooting people; there are other references of paying players for specific acts (pay for performance), some of which include injuring opponents (pay for injury).
Keep in mind that prior to the NFL's reports and media firestorm, the term "Bounty" had no connotations with a football pool. Its only meaning was its literal meaning of the reward money on a Wanted poster. Now that the NFL has created that buzz word, and told you to look for it in their "evidence", it stands out. At the time, the term "bounty" was used as motivation similarly to the sniper rifle picture. Yet because ESPN didn't scream for two months about a "Sniper" scandal, you can recognize that as hyperbolic, metaphorical motivation.
We're all guilty of it at one point or another, myself included. We want to hear what we want to hear, and sometimes we slant other things that are of the contrary. Like I said, Chizad has ran with some bullshit posted by "reputable bloggers" and message boards before on different topics. When there is at least one document that is real evidence floating around about something he doesn't want to believe, his head is firmly planted in the sand.
If you can tell me one thing from that document that is irrefutable "smoking gun" evidence, then fine. As you've ignored, the NFL & Goodell have proven they can't be trusted. Why is it such a stretch that these "transcribed" notes, which they can't provide a source for or even say who wrote them might be bullshit as well?
And again,
nothing I've posted came from any message board. I only frequent this one. I provided links to the NBCSports.com & ESPN.com posts. Yes, I posted two articles from the same blog, that if you actually read from top to bottom, does shed some light on some things and raises some critical questions that should be considered. Not based on rumor, speculation, or wild-assed conspiracy theories but based on verifiable facts with links provided.