"Who Dat" Bounty Games...

[Vandy Vol]

All this hysteria, slander, and public outcry against the evil Saints is not because they were fucking gambling.

Correct.

It's because they were rewarding the injury of other players.  And then lied when asked if a bounty system was in place.

[AUChizad]

Correct.

It's because they were rewarding the injury of other players.  And then lied when asked if a bounty system was in place.

And you can't read.

[Vandy Vol]

And you can't read.

Or you're gullible enough to believe that the use of the phrase "collect bounty$$$," preceded by a slide consisting of nothing but an image of money, was an honest to God mistake that the poor innocent Saints made while not operating a bounty system.

They're either innocent retards or guilty liars.  I guess you've chosen to believe the former as a means of defending why they should be coddled and given a slap on the wrist.

[AUChizad]

Or you're gullible enough to believe that the use of the phrase "collect bounty$$$," preceded by a slide consisting of nothing but an image of money, was an honest to God mistake that the poor innocent Saints made while not operating a bounty system.

I've said from day one that they probably had some sort of pool going on. You just said:

Correct.

It's because they were rewarding the injury of other players.  And then lied when asked if a bounty system was in place.

How does anything you just posted confirm that they were rewarded for the injury of other players?

And even still, that's not exactly a smoking gun of even a pay for play scheme. The NFL said they had 2,000 pages of evidence, and that's the best they can come up with? That shit wouldn't hold up in a real court of law, and you of all people should know it. There's also a picture of a sniper rifle scope with someone in its sites. So is this irrefutable evidence that Gregg Williams was paying the players to murder someone?

That being said, I'm not going to get caught up in that argument, because as I've consistently that I do believe there was a pay for performance program.

If not for the fact that the term "bounty" will now forever be associated with a pay-for-injury scheme after the NFL and media lapdogs have created this controversy, the word "bounty" would not carry the connotation that it does now.

As the NFL Players Association said:

When [Gregg Williams] arrived, players weren’t familiar/fluent with the technique of “assessing the opponent”. This was part of the training used to teach this. GW used the above slide as a tool to teach by using popular culture to draw players in. It gave players a point of reference that they were familiar with. Unfortunately, “Dog the Bounty Hunter” was a poorly chosen and ironic example to use but life plays havoc on us at times.

They're either innocent retards or guilty liars.  I guess you've chosen to believe the former as a means of defending why they should be coddled and given a slap on the wrist.

The only "guilty liars" is the NFL and Roger Goodell. If you didn't see the plethora of things they have lied about, or in the very least exaggerated, then you must be skipping over my posts from this week.

[AUChizad]

Here is an article from May about Goodell & the NFL's lies and mischaracterizations from before this week.

http://saintswin.blogspot.com/2012/05/keeping-score-in-kangaroo-court.html

Keeping Score in Kangaroo Court
Let's take some inventory.


Here's an overview of the current state of the NFL's increasingly-feeble "evidence" thus far as it slowly seeps into the public domain.


1) KNOCK-OUTS AND CART-OFFS


From 2009-2011, the three seasons the NFL has claimed the Saints operated a bounty program that rewarded "knock-outs" and "cart-offs," not one opposing player was knocked out or carted off from a hit by a Saints' defender.


In fact, the only player carted off the field during those three seasons was one Reggie Bush who, of course, played for the Saints. (update 1: see comments, update 2: see just below)


As such there is definitively no conclusive proof that such a program, if it indeed existed, was ever implemented on the field of play.


But you knew that already. And you know, it's kind of a big deal in the grand scheme of this quagmire.


    [Update 6/2:  With the release of its "ledger" evidence, the NFL reported an injury "cart off" of a Giants player in the Saints-Giants game in 2009. For whatever reason, the NFL refused to disclose this player's identity.

    Apparently, it is Giants OL Kareem McKenzie who injured his groin on two plays: one late in the 2nd quarter, one early in the 3rd quarter. According to the NFL, presumably, this was a bounty: the targeting of an O Lineman's groin.

    Though intimated in Jason Cole's Yahoo! article, there is no mention of a player being paid for McKenzie's injury which doesn't even appear to have directly resulted from a Saints' defender.

    It's also important to note that upon the initial release of this "ledger" report on 6/1, the NFL amended its leak/report a few hours later because their initial information was wrong. Specifically, Jason Cole also reported (per a league source) that three $1000 payments were paid to Saints' players after the Saints-Bills game in '09.

    When it was shown that the only players hurt in that game were Bills' defenders, the NFL soon amended its report to say those payments were actually made after the Saints-Panthers game in '09. But c'mon guys, JUST TRUST US ON THIS ONE!

    With a little cursory research, I found that the Saints recovered three fumbles against the Panthers in week 9 in 2009. Could those fumble recoveries be the source of the three $1000 payouts (if they indeed existed)?

    Remember that this ledger is supposed to be evidence of a pay-to-injure program, not a pay-for-performance program. The Saints admitted to the latter, not the former.

    Thus far, this evidence leak is following the same pattern of the Hargrove Declaration and the Ornstein Email: wildly mischaracterized in an attempt to prove something the NFL continues to appear incapable of existing as publicly stated. 

    As new information becomes available on this issue, I will continue to update this.] 



2) THE GREGG WILLIAMS ADMISSION/APOLOGY


After publicly admitting culpability to a pay-for-performance program in New Orleans, word leaked this past week that the NFL had altered Williams' confession to better suit the message it was publicly delivering. As Mike Triplett of the Times-Pic recently told us:

    "... according to a source close to Williams, the NFL has also misrepresented what Williams said in interviews with the league. According to the source, Williams never admitted a 'bounty program' was in place and that the league 'rephrased his statements to satisfy its needs.' The source also said Williams never identified any players for their involvement in a pay-for-performance or bounty program."

A month ago, I--along with a legion of other Saints' fans--pondered whether Williams' quick turn to accept responsibility was a mitigating strategy aimed at saving a career suddenly in peril at the hands of the retributive Goodell. Now more than a month after Williams' statement released and his punishment accepted, it's been noted by a person close to Williams that the documented content of his admission was manufactured by the league.


This is exceptionally noteworthy in light of everything else unfolding, and yet another indication of the league's besmirched veracity.


3) THE HARGROVE DECLARATION


A key piece of the league's supposedly conclusive proof as to the existence of the Saints' bounty program was Anthony Hargrove's signed declaration confessing to the program's existence and his (and other players') participation in it.


Curiously, this declaration was generated by the NFLPA and submitted to the NFL for their case file (or whatever).


Much like the Pamphilon audio, this was a piece of the NFL's "evidence" that the league had no hand in developing which, if nothing else, calls into question the quality of the league's investigation or--at least--their ability to produce any meaningful output of evidence on their own.


Moreover this declaration is dated 4/13/12, well after the NFL punished the Saints (coaches and team) and much, much later than any prior investigation into the matter. To say that this declaration was vital to the investigation and disbursement of sanctions would simply be incorrect because it didn't exist as hard "proof" until a few weeks ago.


Regardless, prior to this week's release of the actual declaration, Mary Jo White----the NFL's "neutral" third party who was compensated by the NFL to review and comment on the totality of evidence--said this, in a transparent publicity stunt, about the Hargrove declaration:

    "There hasn't been any denial of the existence of that program. One of the Saints players (current Packers DE Anthony Hargrove) who was disciplined yesterday actually submitted a declaration in which he acknowledged that the program existed, acknowledged his participation and admitted that he lied to the NFL investigators in 2010."

This as we now know, is an utter, bald-faced lie. Upon review of the actual declaration, it's become painfully clear that the NFL completely mischaracterized Hargrove's words and fabricated its relevancy to the actual establishment of a bounty program.


In fact, Hargrove's declaration only stated that he answered questions to NFL investigators as instructed by Gregg Williams and Joe Vitt in 2010. More specifically according to Hargrove, they told him in 2010 to "deny the existence of any bounty or bounty program."


No where in the document does Hargrove admit being told to "lie"--a common misconception being perpetuated in media circles--nor does he admit to the existence of a program, nor does he admit to a bounty being placed on Brett Favre in the '09 NFCCG, nor does he admit his participation (or the participation of others) in a bounty program, nor could he have functionally testified to the actuality of a bounty program in future seasons.


The NFL's public presentation of this vis-a-vis the now established truth is troubling, to say the least.


Complicating matters soon after the release of Hargrove's declaration, Joe Vitt refuted instructing Hargrove to deny allegations of a bounty program. Vitt said:

    "At no time did I ever tell Anthony Hargrove to lie or deny the existence (of the alleged bounty program) ... He can say whatever he wants to say. It just didn't happen."

Even aside from that relevant notation, it's still definitive that what the NFL once publicly claimed was rock-solid proof of a bounty program is, in fact, much less than so. And the declaration proves nothing besides the fact that Hargrove denied its existence.


Peter Ginsberg, Jonanthan Vilma's attorney, explains it:

    "[A]s we have seen in the press the last few days that the Commissioner’s office and the Commissioner’s outside counsel have discernibly misrepresented even the information that the Commissioner has gathered. When you put that in the context of the Commissioner’s high-priced outside counsel saying that when we asked for evidence and when we wanted to know what we were answering to — and this is [outside counsel Mary Jo White's] quote ‘a red herring,’ it really puts into perspective the kangaroo court that Jonathan and the others have been subjected to.

    I can’t think of any other forum in the United States where this kind of abusive process is permitted.  If you want to ask me why it is permitted, you are asking the wrong person.  I wasn’t a part of the CBA negotiations.  And I don’t think that the CBA as it stands permits this kind of abusive process."

This issue is a perfect example of why producing the actual evidence for review, not the NFL's characterization of it in memos, is of utmost importance.


4) THE ORNSTEIN EMAIL


Early in the bounty investigation, the NFL trotted out an email sent from Mike Ornstein pledging a $5000 bounty on Aaron Rodgers in the 2011 Saints' opener at Green Bay. In prison at the time for essentially being a flippant hustler, Ornstein is a shadowy figure looked down upon (probably rightfully so) by league higher-ups for his repeated tendency to engage in shady and illegal activities during his time in the NFL.


Initially, the NFL presented Ornstein's email as being sent directly to Payton for the purpose of pledging money for a bounty on Aaron Rodgers.


Forget for a second that Rodgers took virtually nary a hit in that game, we learned last night the complete contents of Ornstein's email which provide more useful context.


For starters, this email was transmitted directly to Greg Bensel (Saints' team spokesman) and not Payton or Williams as previously suggested. After reading through its contents, Bensel forwarded the email to several coaches on the Saints' staff.


The NFL's initial implication that the communication was solely between Ornstein and Payton is to suggest a complicit, reciprocal modus operandi between the two in a concerted effort to financially incentivize Saints' defenders to knock Rodgers out of the game.


However, upon the revelation of the complete email, we learned that it was a wide-ranging, "rambling" message that touched on a variety of subjects and ended with the postscripted bounty pledge, one that Ornstein insists was a running joke among coaches for years ever since the accusations of the Favre bounty years prior.


Ornstein says this:

    "It's a running joke going for three years ... As long as I've worked with people in the NFL, everyone who knows me knows that the only things I've ever done for players is things that help them, not hurt them. First of all, I don't have $5,000 to put down. When I wrote that email, I was in jail. How was I going to pay for it? In stamps? I'm in federal jail in Florence."

No matter his credibility, the initial presentation of the Ornstein exhibit and the recent revelation of its true nature once again indicates an effort by the NFL to alter what it considered evidence into something more damning and concrete--when it in fact wasn't--in an effort to better bolster a tenuous stance.

Ginsberg further says this:

    "Ornstein’s email is just another example of the speciousness of the quote-unquote evidence that Commissioner Goodell claims to have to support his erroneous accusations against Jonathan and the other players. As more of the evidence is revealed in the media, it is becoming more and more apparent how irresponsible the NFL’s actions have been."

And NFLPA counsel Richard Smith adds this:

    "The NFL has not provided the players with any information like this. It is unfortunate that they continue to withhold evidence that can show players’ innocence. This email proves what we have feared:  what they’ve been selling to the media as evidence doesn’t match up with the truth."

What's certain thus far is a concerted effort by the NFL to build a cohesive narrative by mischaracterizing what it desperately hopes to be evidence, but by all accounts isn't really all that damning, all that conclusive, or all that justifiable for the extremity of punishments handed down.


Remember that this is some of the evidence used to ban Sean Payton for 16 games; no NFL coach prior has been suspended for even one game. Yet what appears increasingly-more like flimsy evidence has been employed in Goodell's efforts to make an example of the Saints and discourage other teams from engaging in the practice of bountying. 


SPECULATION
And perhaps buried in all of this is that Joe Hummel, the NFL's lead investigator in this sprawling clusterfuck, announced his resignation two weeks ago before the player penalties were handed down. Predictably, the NFL got out in front of this announcement and relayed that Hummel was leaving for greener pastures in the insurance business. Riiiiight.


It sounded strange and the timing was downright suboptimal in light of the NFLPA's repeated public demands for the evidence they had yet (and still are yet) to see.


In my estimation, it's eminently possible that Hummel was sharp enough to discern the snowballing miasm on the league's hands; informed enough to realize the evidence's weak totality; and prescient enough to foresee how an unraveling might soon unfold during a protracted battle with the NFLPA.


Precarious as such, he may certainly have proactively moved on to another job before potentially allowing Goodell to hang him out to dry for having provided the NFL with a flimsy foundation of evidence that was then mistakenly used to railroad the Saints.


One thing is for certain: if push comes to shove, Goodell will never admit any wrongdoing. He's much more likely to heap that burden upon one of his lackeys in an effort to save face for the league and the owners who hired him. It's not a stretch to presume that Hummel sensed this possibility and smartly moved himself out of harm's way.


Which makes Hummel, potentially, the next key figure in the NFLPA's deconstruction of the NFL's body of evidence. Assuming he's not restricted by a confidentiality agreement, Hummel could prove extremely valuable in revealing exactly what is what at this point.


Finally it's important to note that after two months, it's been firmly established that there is much more here than initially met the eye. Skepticism vindicated.


While lightweight, media gumby Jeff Duncan was busy last week calling Saints' fans conspiracy-theorizing simpletons, more and more info has come to light that undermines the league's initial position and subverts the justification for its punitive, draconian ways.


While Saints' players, the NFLPA, and Saints' fans continue to demand answers that are slowly coming to the fore, and the media-at-large that spent a month adamantly defending the NFL looks increasingly egg-faced, it's become abundantly clear who the blinded simpletons are at this point in the game.


A final question for you to ponder: if you were an NFL owner, would you have faith in this lumbering buffoon of a commissioner to protect your long-term, financial interests?


The clock ticks.

[ssgaufan]

 

[RWS]

 

It's amazing that you will take the most circumstantial rumor that you hear from a message board and run with it if it is what you want to believe, but then ignore cold hard evidence right in front of your face about something you don't want to believe. They even use the phrase "collect bounty $$$" in one document. How much clearer do they need to be? Come on. It doesn't even matter if they weren't successful in knocking a QB out of the game or injuring another player in this game or that game.

Again, the Saints lied to the NFL and got busted. Some guys gave statements and when they got outed, it started turning into "Well, uh, I didn't say exactly that. Uh, they twisted my words." I just don't see what the NFL has to gain out of creating something that doesn't exist. Especially when it is causing more harm than good as it goes on. It's no different than all of the Alabama fans who thought there was an NCAA conspiracy against Alabama. In reality, Alabama (or boosters, etc) just kept doing stupid shit. If you quit fucking up, mysteriously, you will be left alone. Same case here.

[DnATL]

To summarize after 17 pages, AUChizad is now SaintsGrad03

[AUChizad]

It's amazing that you will take the most circumstantial rumor that you hear from a message board and run with it if it is what you want to believe, but then ignore cold hard evidence right in front of your face about something you don't want to believe. They even use the phrase "collect bounty $$$" in one document. How much clearer do they need to be? Come on. It doesn't even matter if they weren't successful in knocking a QB out of the game or injuring another player in this game or that game.

You can't read. What was from a message board? Most of the damning reports about Goodell & the NFL lying are from NBCSports.com & ESPM.com. Yes, there are a few blog posts as well.

What have I presented that is not 100% factual?

You are buying everything Goodell says, despite him getting caught in lie after lie in this.

Again, the Saints lied to the NFL and got busted. Some guys gave statements and when they got outed, it started turning into "Well, uh, I didn't say exactly that. Uh, they twisted my words." I just don't see what the NFL has to gain out of creating something that doesn't exist. Especially when it is causing more harm than good as it goes on. It's no different than all of the Alabama fans who thought there was an NCAA conspiracy against Alabama. In reality, Alabama (or boosters, etc) just kept doing stupid shit. If you quit fucking up, mysteriously, you will be left alone. Same case here.

You seriously can't see his motivation?

Also from NOT A MESSAGE BOARD today...


http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/06/19/goodell-meeting-with-sen-dick-durbin-on-wednesday/

AP
To those who think the NFL intentionally has overstated the bounty case, here’s a strong reason for the league not to draw too much attention to such matters.

On Wednesday afternoon, Commissioner Roger Goodell will meet with Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) regarding the topic of bounties in pro sports.

But it doesn’t sound like Goodell is being dragged to D.C. against his wishes.  He hasn’t been subpoenaed, and Durbin and Goodell will conduct a joint press conference after the meeting, which begins at 4:30 p.m. ET.  The press conference is scheduled to begin roughly 15 minutes later.

And they’ll likely both claim that there’s no place for bounties in pro sports, and Goodell likely will say that he’s trying to eradicate bounties via his imposition of punishment upon the Saints organization, the coaches involved, and the players.

Though Goodell may not specifically blame the players, their lawyers, and/or the NFLPA for trying to frustrate that objective, he may not need to.

[wesfau2]

If this sort of thing were about Alabama football and this type of evidence was released, you would be all over it like a rat on a Cheet-O. You would be beside yourself that Alabama football should cease to exist, circumstantial evidence be damned. Everything is based on what perspective you look at it from.

I'll cop to this.

[Token]

To summarize after 17 pages, AUChizad is now SaintsGrad03

I have no dog in this fight, but that was 

[AUChizad]

My last post was all fucked up. Posting from my phone.

[Vandy Vol]

How does anything you just posted confirm that they were rewarded for the injury of other players?

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.

Same goes for the phrase "QB out," unless you're suggesting that they are supposed to take the opposing quarterback out to dinner and spend $5,000 on him.

The NFL said they had 2,000 pages of evidence, and that's the best they can come up with?

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.

There's also a picture of a sniper rifle scope with someone in its sites. So is this irrefutable evidence that Gregg Williams was paying the players to murder someone?

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).

[RWS]

I'll cop to this.

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.

[Vandy Vol]

Here is an article from May about Goodell & the NFL's lies and mischaracterizations from before this week.

http://saintswin.blogspot.com/2012/05/keeping-score-in-kangaroo-court.html

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?

Granted, the NFL may be pulling shady shit (or simply hurriedly trying to make connections between injuries and payment), but that does not refute the language used in pre-game slides which show payout amounts for "cart off hits" and "QB out."  Just because they couldn't satisfy the bounties does not mean that they didn't exist.

As far as the NFL skewing players' statements, that is definitely shady and wrong, but their paraphrasing of what was stated in Hargrove's signed declaration really doesn't seem too far off the mark.  Have you read Hargrove's statement?  Why would Williams or any other coach have to repeatedly tell Hargrove to "stick to the story," "stay on the same page," and "play dumb?"  If a bounty system didn't exist, then there's nothing to "play dumb" about.  If everyone tells the truth, then there's no need to insure that you "all stay on the same page."

[Saniflush]

To summarize after 17 pages, AUChizad is now SaintsGrad03

I just peed on myself a little.

[GH2001]

It's amazing that you will take the most circumstantial rumor that you hear from a message board and run with it if it is what you want to believe, but then ignore cold hard evidence right in front of your face about something you don't want to believe. They even use the phrase "collect bounty $$$" in one document. How much clearer do they need to be? Come on. It doesn't even matter if they weren't successful in knocking a QB out of the game or injuring another player in this game or that game.

Again, the Saints lied to the NFL and got busted. Some guys gave statements and when they got outed, it started turning into "Well, uh, I didn't say exactly that. Uh, they twisted my words." I just don't see what the NFL has to gain out of creating something that doesn't exist. Especially when it is causing more harm than good as it goes on. It's no different than all of the Alabama fans who thought there was an NCAA conspiracy against Alabama. In reality, Alabama (or boosters, etc) just kept doing stupid shit. If you quit fucking up, mysteriously, you will be left alone. Same case here.

He make fuck goats folks, but every now and then even a blind squirrel finds an acorn. RWS just found one.

[AUChizad]

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.html

The 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=highlights

The 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.html

The 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.

[War Eagle!!!]

Holy shit, you care a lot about this...

[wesfau2]

Holy shit, you care a lot about this...

You think this is bad?  Shit, don't start badmouthing Abita beer, tabasco or Zapp's potato chips.

Shit got serious when Chad relocated.