Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Saints* suspensions upheld

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

Inimicus Mentor

Inimicus

Posted
Posted

http://nfllabor.file...atter-2-doc.pdf

Although you claimed to have been ‘wrongfully accused with insufficient evidence,’ your lawyers elected not to ask a single question of the principal investigators, both of whom were present at the hearing (as your lawyers had requested); you elected not to testify or to make any substantive statement, written or oral, in support of your appeal; you elected not to call a single witness to support your appeal; and you elected not to introduce a single exhibit addressing the merits of your appeal. Instead, your lawyers raised a series of jurisdictional and procedural objections that generally ignore the CBA, in particular its provisions governing ‘conduct detrimental’ determinations…”

Beat me to it Mr Scot...

Looking for the delete button...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Michael David Smith thinks Goodell may be willing to reduce suspensions if players give him a reason to do so (link)

In the league’s announcement about Goodell upholding the suspensions of Saints* linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove, Saints* defensive end Will Smith and Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, a portion of the letter from Goodell to the players indicates that the commissioner still wants to hear from the players and is committed to listening to what they have to say.

“While this decision constitutes my final and binding determination under the CBA, I of course retain the inherent authority to reduce a suspension should facts be brought to my attention warranting the exercise of that discretion,” Goodell wrote to the players. “The record confirms that each of you was given multiple chances to meet with me to present your side of the story. You are each still welcome to do so.”

How much would you like to bet that one of the conditions for such reduction would be public confession?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

one odd statement: "you elected not to call a single witness to support your appeal"

not sure if this makes sense, but how could you call a witness to something that supposedly didnt happen? If it didn't exist, how could there be any witnesses?

They could have called witnesses to say "that stuff didn't happen".

The problem, of course, being that it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CRA Grand Master

CRA

Posted
Posted

one odd statement: "you elected not to call a single witness to support your appeal"

not sure if this makes sense, but how could you call a witness to something that supposedly didnt happen? If it didn't exist, how could there be any witnesses?

A witness would be another teammate (not accused) willing to to state what did or didnt occur....on the record.

And with Greg admitting he ran a bounty program....no player is going to lie to Goodell and be brought into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

omg goodell nuking the Saints** with that statement

can't wait to read the latest SR thread determining whether or not gordell can go to jail for this

I know they were hoping one of their senators would call him before congress and some such craziness that would have led to him being arrested.

The level of raw stupidity over there is at once amusing and depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...