Beat me by a minute!
Not the first time Hargrove has heard the audio. Why now with the "not my voice" defense?
8 game suspension plus the tiring bounty black cloud makes me want to cut ties with this guy now before this circus becomes too big of a sideshow.
8 game suspension plus the tiring bounty black cloud makes me want to cut ties with this guy now before this circus becomes too big of a sideshow.
Timing of evidence disclosure could scuttle bounty suspensions
This could get very interesting.
quote:As Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement goes, there aren’t many technicalities in the appeal process. Here’s one of them, from Article 46, Section (f)(ii): “In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing. Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.”
quote:Commissioner Roger Goodell previously scheduled the hearing in the bounty case for 10:00 a.m. ET on Monday, June 18. The NFL delivered its packet of 16 exhibits to the NFLPA at roughly 1:30 p.m. ET on Friday, June 15.
Three calendar days prior to the hearing translates, in the normal sense of the term, to at least 72 hours before the hearing. (Actually, it could reasonably be argued that the exhibits were due by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, June 14.)
So by failing to deliver the materials before 10:00 a.m. ET on Friday, June 15, the plain language of the CBA (i.e., “shall”) prevents the materials from being introduced at the hearing.
Since the NFL’s entire cases consisted of the 16 exhibits plus comments from outside counsel Mary Jo White regarding their meaning, the failure to deliver the documents by 10:00 a.m. ET on June 15 could get all suspensions thrown out.
This could get very interesting.
Days are days.
Hours are hours.
The documents were delivered within three days.
End of story.
Hours are hours.
The documents were delivered within three days.
End of story.
Rong. Cases get bounced for seemingly stupid crap like this all the time. I'm not saying this one will since it's the Empire of Rog that's basically setting the standards here. In general, though, that's a big problem and somebody's getting fired for that.
Between that and Hargrove's claim that the voice wasn't his, if that was actually true, I'd be suing their ass to the stone age tomorrow morning first thing. It'll be interesting to see if that happens. If so, then perhaps Hargrove is telling the truth. If not, then he'll be sitting his 8.
Between that and Hargrove's claim that the voice wasn't his, if that was actually true, I'd be suing their ass to the stone age tomorrow morning first thing. It'll be interesting to see if that happens. If so, then perhaps Hargrove is telling the truth. If not, then he'll be sitting his 8.
Schefty mentioned back in 2007 how the Packers had a "Pay for Performance" program & TT apologized for it.
Schefty didn't mention the "Performance" part was for TEAM achievements such as stopping Adrian Peterson from rushing for 100 yards. Not attempting to go out & physically maim another player.
The league warned the Packers to stop & they did. End of story.
The League warned the Saints numerous times and they simply poo-poo'd the warning. Hence, we are here today.
Schefty didn't mention the "Performance" part was for TEAM achievements such as stopping Adrian Peterson from rushing for 100 yards. Not attempting to go out & physically maim another player.
The league warned the Packers to stop & they did. End of story.
The League warned the Saints numerous times and they simply poo-poo'd the warning. Hence, we are here today.
JJSD - Gotta disagree. If they intended the time frame to be within 72 hours, the CBA would've been written that way. I don't think the assumption can be made that three days can be interpreted to be exactly 72 hours.
And as far as it being the "Empire of Rog", the players' reps are the one's that signed/agreed to the CBA giving the Commissioner so much power. Blame the NFLPA.
And as far as it being the "Empire of Rog", the players' reps are the one's that signed/agreed to the CBA giving the Commissioner so much power. Blame the NFLPA.
I have real-world experience with this (on the side that didn't screw the pooch on filing deadlines, thankfully) - it isn't a matter of opinion - it's a fact. I've seen trials started, stopped and bounced back to the starting line for smaller technicalities than this. I've also seen lawyers get sanctioned and such. It depends on the specifics of these procedural rules. The other fact, that Rog is the one deciding on the technicalities, was not a comment on how it got to this point. I don't care how it got to this point - that wasn't what I was saying. The point is that Hargrove is probably going to lose because Rog will be the one who decides whether that's a violation. I couldn't care less about the irrelevant bargaining process.
That's why if Hargrove sues, IMHO he's got a good case. If he doesn't, then the evidence he claims to have on top of this technicality is garbage. Depending on the rest of the specifics in the CBA, I guess it could go back to arbitration. Either way, it's a potentially big screwup that may or may not cost the league.
That's why if Hargrove sues, IMHO he's got a good case. If he doesn't, then the evidence he claims to have on top of this technicality is garbage. Depending on the rest of the specifics in the CBA, I guess it could go back to arbitration. Either way, it's a potentially big screwup that may or may not cost the league.
JJSD, what does 3 calender days mean in this context, in your opinion? Is Florio correct in saying that it means 72 hours prior to the hearing which was June 18th at 10:00AM or does it mean 72 hours before 11:59PM on June 18th? My knowledge of the law is limited to what Sam Waterston has taught me, but I would think that "3 days prior to the hearing" would mean June 15th at 10:00AM.
I haven't looked at Florio's site once since he told us all that Rodgers likes to punch old ladies in their cancer, but if he has any credibility in any sense I'd say it would be within a labor-type legal context. IIRC, that's what he did for a living for years before his POS site started.
It's impossible to say IMHO, GD. As I said above, Rog is the one who is the be-all end-all on these things, but I read this morning that the league pulled some sort of delay shenanigans to make sure the hearing didn't start until the 72 hours had passed. Words like 'shall' and '3 calendar days PRIOR' are there for reasons - they're there to eliminate ambiguity.
In general, an issue like this could lead to a case being dismissed, it could lead to a slap on the wrist for the side that violates the timeline or it could lead to nothing more than a scolding from the judge. Once again, though, the judge in this 'case' is Rog. I've seen all of these things happen depending on whether a case was in state or federal court, depending on what rules of civil procedure apply and depending on what sort of judge was handling the case. This is an odd scenario involving a CBA.
Regardless of all of this, it's a big-time ****-up by some atterknee for the league who is probably packing his stuff as we speak. If nothing else it opens the door possibly to an outside legal challenge. The purposeful delay by the league suggests that they knew this was a problem and tried to scuttle it.
All in all, it's a huge mess, and if Hargrove's atterknee has the same basic facts we do, he ought to be filing some paperwork in federal court soon.
It's impossible to say IMHO, GD. As I said above, Rog is the one who is the be-all end-all on these things, but I read this morning that the league pulled some sort of delay shenanigans to make sure the hearing didn't start until the 72 hours had passed. Words like 'shall' and '3 calendar days PRIOR' are there for reasons - they're there to eliminate ambiguity.
In general, an issue like this could lead to a case being dismissed, it could lead to a slap on the wrist for the side that violates the timeline or it could lead to nothing more than a scolding from the judge. Once again, though, the judge in this 'case' is Rog. I've seen all of these things happen depending on whether a case was in state or federal court, depending on what rules of civil procedure apply and depending on what sort of judge was handling the case. This is an odd scenario involving a CBA.
Regardless of all of this, it's a big-time ****-up by some atterknee for the league who is probably packing his stuff as we speak. If nothing else it opens the door possibly to an outside legal challenge. The purposeful delay by the league suggests that they knew this was a problem and tried to scuttle it.
All in all, it's a huge mess, and if Hargrove's atterknee has the same basic facts we do, he ought to be filing some paperwork in federal court soon.
Fuggin' lawyers.This is what I hate the most when issues come up involving suspensions, fines, or other punishments between the league and player(s). What should've been a relatively simple appeals hearing for Hargrove has the potential to be turned into some goddamned technical procedural argument, and raised the threat of suit in outside courts.
And the worst part of it all is many of these same lawyers are the ones who approved the "language" of all the fine print in their CBA. These guys must've spent their college time like so many of the athletes do...
Both sides agree the lockout is still over, right?
That's all I really care about.
That's all I really care about.
I think if they're going to punish Hargrove and company and the NFL can't actually prove they did what they're accused of doing, then they should fight it tooth and nail. The more they drag this out, the worse the NFL is looking in my opinion.
I just heard on 670 the Score in Chicgao that Hargrove's suspension was reversed and Vilma's down to 8 games, cant find anyting about it on the web though.
PackersNews.com @PGPackersNews
NO, people. It's a prank, from ADARN Schefter, not Adam RT @AdarnSchefter: Filed to ESPN: #Packers Anthony Hargrove suspension dropped.
NO, people. It's a prank, from ADARN Schefter, not Adam RT @AdarnSchefter: Filed to ESPN: #Packers Anthony Hargrove suspension dropped.
from Wilde:
Take note NFL players. The punishment for lying to Goddell is 8 games. Precedent has been set.
quote:Rather, the sideline statement – whoever said it – went to prove the NFL’s case against the team and against Hargrove for deceiving investigators.
“I suppose you could watch anything enough times and come up with different conclusions, but we didn’t discipline Anthony Hargrove for taking any money in the context of this program,” Pash said, according to a transcript distributed by the league. “What that video tape rather clearly demonstrates is two things: one, there was a program and it corroborates rather clearly that there was a program where a player could be rewarded for making a play that resulted in an injury to an opponent – you were basically making that point during the break; second, it demonstrates Mr. Hargrove’s awareness of the program and his understanding that it existed, and it demonstrates that his statements to our investigators in early 2010 denying the program and saying there was nothing like that in existence were false. That is the basis on which the commissioner imposed discipline on Mr. Hargrove.”
Take note NFL players. The punishment for lying to Goddell is 8 games. Precedent has been set.
Maybe I'm under thinking it, but I don't understand how they can actually gather all of that evidence from that video clip? You hear Vitt say that Favre has a broken leg and isn't going back in, you see Hargroves face in the picture, you see his face leave the picture and then you hear BOBBY GIVE ME MY MONEY. So no Jeff Pash, the video doesn't clearly demonstrate the existence of a bounty program or Hargrove's awareness of it.
The funny thing is, the hit on Favre that they thought caused Favre's injury didn't involve Hargrove. The hit was actually made by Remi Ayodele who is sitting in front of the camera and is the one covering Hargrove's face when the words are uttered. I think it's actually probably more likely HE is the one who said that because he is the one who hit Favre.
The NFL is committed to this and they think they're going to look like idiots if they reverse the suspensions, so they're not going to.
The funny thing is, the hit on Favre that they thought caused Favre's injury didn't involve Hargrove. The hit was actually made by Remi Ayodele who is sitting in front of the camera and is the one covering Hargrove's face when the words are uttered. I think it's actually probably more likely HE is the one who said that because he is the one who hit Favre.
The NFL is committed to this and they think they're going to look like idiots if they reverse the suspensions, so they're not going to.
I think the NFL already accomplished looking like idiots in this mess.
It's awful convenient that the media is currying favor with the players in the aftermath. These guys get their bread buttered by their relationships with the players so they can break "news". And many of them, after coming out hard condemning the players when the story broke are now casting all sorts of doubt so they can say "see buddy, I'm on your side". A month after the world was all over these players, they are suddeny victims of Goodell's power? BS.
These guys got caught, plain and simple. Now Smith wants to re-open a 3 year investigation? What a joke. They had their chances to come forth and tell the truth about the program. There's no conspiracy. They f-ed up, now they don't want to pay for it. But they will. And they should.
These guys got caught, plain and simple. Now Smith wants to re-open a 3 year investigation? What a joke. They had their chances to come forth and tell the truth about the program. There's no conspiracy. They f-ed up, now they don't want to pay for it. But they will. And they should.
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
These guys got caught, plain and simple. Now Smith wants to re-open a 3 year investigation? What a joke. They had their chances to come forth and tell the truth about the program. There's no conspiracy. They f-ed up, now they don't want to pay for it. But they will. And they should.
You got it all figured out. What evidence has the NFL produced that has convinced you they're guilty?
Dead Spin
I'm no litigator, but to me the "explanations" are thin, and the evidence is more than enough with the video and other testimony.
I have a hard time believing that the NFL, with their endless resources and a vast team of top litigators of their own, would make a mistake that would leave them open to a massive lawsuit. To me they get the benefit of the doubt.
They also have Payton and Loomis making statements of apology for not stopping the program when they knew about it, and Williams' own statement of apology. Yeah, the conspiracy theorists are screaming "FASCISM!!!" and that the NFL coerced everyone into releasing statements that they have written, but it's a hollow claim, IMO.
I'm no litigator, but to me the "explanations" are thin, and the evidence is more than enough with the video and other testimony.
I have a hard time believing that the NFL, with their endless resources and a vast team of top litigators of their own, would make a mistake that would leave them open to a massive lawsuit. To me they get the benefit of the doubt.
They also have Payton and Loomis making statements of apology for not stopping the program when they knew about it, and Williams' own statement of apology. Yeah, the conspiracy theorists are screaming "FASCISM!!!" and that the NFL coerced everyone into releasing statements that they have written, but it's a hollow claim, IMO.
I'm not disputing that they have evidence of a pay for performance or even some sort of bounty program, I think there's enough evidence that it's absolutely reasonable to make that conclusion. The existence of bounty program doesn't mean Hargrove or Vilma or anyone else participated in it though. Do I believe they participated in it? I'm sure they did. The NFL can't prove it though, and the evidence the NFL has put forth regarding these specific players is flimsy and circumstantial at best. If this case were in front of a court and not Roger Goodell, I don't think there would have been any kind of punishment levied against these players. I don't think it's a conspiracy, I think Goodell knows these players were involved and he's trying to make an example of them. I understand what I believe to be the intent behind his decision and I actually do agree with the intent, but he's considering these players guilty until proven innocent and that's absolutely wrong in my opinion.
They were really squirrely about releasing the evidence in the first place, they played games with when they got the evidence to the other side, they had their prosecutor present the evidence to the press and now they're moving the goalposts. I don't think anyone is disputing there was a bounty program. I do think Hargrove could have a legitimate gripe, but that's only based on what we know, which isn't nearly all of it.
This Vilma lawsuit could be really, really interesting. If the league has to disclose this stuff in discovery, it could get ugly - especially since the public would perhaps get a chance to legitimately follow the money for the first time in a long while. I wonder if they'd even cave at that point.
This Vilma lawsuit could be really, really interesting. If the league has to disclose this stuff in discovery, it could get ugly - especially since the public would perhaps get a chance to legitimately follow the money for the first time in a long while. I wonder if they'd even cave at that point.
It wasnt Hargrove that issue the words "give me the money" on tape it was another player and the players know who it was and want him to come forward to clear Hargroves name,hope he does.
quote:Remi Ayodele
from what Remi said publicly after Hargrove denied saying it, and since Remi actually was in on the play that had brent laying on the ground, I'm pretty sure it was Remi who said "give me the money".
edit: from PFT today
quote:Ayodele’s agent Jordan Woy sent PFT an e-mail saying it was not Ayodele.
“Remi does not know who made the statement or in what context it was made,” Woy wrote. “No one from the Saints or the League has indicated in any way Remi made the statement.”
it seems obvious to me that Remi ain't gonna fess up cuz then he might be looking at suspension as well. Remi previously said he knew who said it and that it wasn't Hargrove.
edit: my bad memory. it wasn't Remi that previously said he knew who said it. It was Earl Heyman.
quote:Former New Orleans Saints practice squad defensive lineman Earl Heyman, who was on the sidelines during the NFC Championship Game in which a microphone picked up a Saints player saying "pay me my money," told CBSSports.com on Wednesday, repeatedly, that the player in question was not Anthony Hargrove.
"I don't want to incriminate anyone," Heyman said in explaining why he would not reveal who said it. "I will if I have to, if it goes to court or something like that, I'd testify. But I don't want to get caught up in this or that or getting more people in trouble. That's not what I'm about, but I am about protecting Anthony because he's my friend and he's been done a great injustice and he's been done wrong."
quote:Originally posted by JJSD:
This Vilma lawsuit could be really, really interesting. If the league has to disclose this stuff in discovery, it could get ugly - especially since the public would perhaps get a chance to legitimately follow the money for the first time in a long while. I wonder if they'd even cave at that point.
This is what I'm very interested to see. You would think that, because the evidence is circumstantial at best and their opinions are so strong, there must be other evidence they have kept under wraps. I would hope there is other evidence under wraps that paints a much clearer picture. What are they going to do if they don't though? What if the evidence they have released is truly all they have? Like I said, I'm far from a legal expert, but I just can't imagine a judge siding with the NFL/Goodell based on what we've all seen so far.
quote:Like I said, I'm far from a legal expert, but I just can't imagine a judge siding with the NFL/Goodell based on what we've all seen so far.
There's smoke- but maybe you're right. I still give the NFL lawyers the benefit of the doubt. I find it hard to believe that with the guys they employ to represent them that they didn't have contingencies in place for when the players started pushing back. It would be pretty reckless if they did, and an awful stupid risk to take just one year after an ugly public labor dispute that exposed enough skeltons in both their closets.
Reckless? Goodell? nawww... no way. 
could the fact that goddell knew he was judge, jury and executioner have clouded his vision of where this could go? not saying it did, but could be. one helluva lot of unanswered questions so far.
could the fact that goddell knew he was judge, jury and executioner have clouded his vision of where this could go? not saying it did, but could be. one helluva lot of unanswered questions so far.
quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
Reckless? Goodell? nawww... no way.
could the fact that goddell knew he was judge, jury and executioner have clouded his vision of where this could go? not saying it did, but could be. one helluva lot of unanswered questions so far.
Goodell is all those things and more. The NFLPA can complain as much as they want, but they have no one to blame but themselves. They had a chance to bargain for the mitigation of Goodell's powers, but for some reason did not. Instead, the NFLPA decided to focus on things like the number of OTAs/padded practices. I'm not saying that those things are not worthwhile, but they pale in comparison to things like guaranteed contracts and curtailing the commissioner's power. But the NFLPA (as all unions seem to have trouble doing) couldn't see the forest for the trees and ended up screwing themselves out of securing the best possible deal for the players. I have no sympathy for them.
Hold on a minute... so Goodell is power drunk now? The NFL found a program that was issuing payments for injuries and guys knocked out of games. Is that suddenly in dispute?
I don't see anyone denying that the program existed. I have seen a few try to claim that it wasn't involving cart-offs or knock-outs... that it was merely a rewards program for performance. But the evidence certainly suggests otherwise.
The only thing that seems to be in dispute is the specific roles of the players who were were identified. It's not surprising, since the program seemed to cover their asses a bit. The coaches weren't disputing that it was real, they just appealed the length of the suspension. And the groundswell of player support didn't happen until names were named and punishment dealt. To me, that seems like lawyer speak from the players, not anything genuine. These guys are just fighting to protect their paycheck. I seriously doubt any counter-suit holds water.
I don't see anyone denying that the program existed. I have seen a few try to claim that it wasn't involving cart-offs or knock-outs... that it was merely a rewards program for performance. But the evidence certainly suggests otherwise.
The only thing that seems to be in dispute is the specific roles of the players who were were identified. It's not surprising, since the program seemed to cover their asses a bit. The coaches weren't disputing that it was real, they just appealed the length of the suspension. And the groundswell of player support didn't happen until names were named and punishment dealt. To me, that seems like lawyer speak from the players, not anything genuine. These guys are just fighting to protect their paycheck. I seriously doubt any counter-suit holds water.
Good article from Brandt yesterday
You'll want to skip the video attached to the article.
You'll want to skip the video attached to the article.
quote:
Firsthand experience
I witnessed Goodell's first conduct discipline in 2006 up close. In Green Bay, we signed receiver Koren Robinson, recently released by the Vikings following a DUI charge.
Under former commissioner Paul Tagliabue, a player's case would require adjudication before discipline. Robinson had a February trial, so we expected to have him for the season.
However, there was a new sheriff in town. Goodell saw the police report's mention of the smell of alcohol and, knowing Robinson's history, suspended him for a year. What about the judicial process? What if it wasn't alcohol on his breath? Was that fair? No matter. Goodell was not about to let creative lawyering get in the way of his conduct initiative. Robinson, whom Goodell grew to like, was collateral damage.
Goodell was willing to defer to an independent appeals arbitrator on other matters but not on conduct.
Which brings us back to the CBA, where commissioner rule on conduct continues. The players' righteous anger of today would have been better served a year ago.
Well, it's not exactly surprising that a union is trying to limit the amount of power someone else wields on disciplinary matters. The UAW was famous for keeping guys on the prod line who were found drunk, high, dealing.
You know who doesn't have to worry about the league's disciplinary policy? The guys who don't get DUIs, get in fights in nightclubs, do drugs, don't hit guys in the head purposely, or participate in a bounty program that paid for players getting hurt. There are several thousands of players who fit this description, and they are the ones that deserve to make a ridiculous living playing the game.
You know who doesn't have to worry about the league's disciplinary policy? The guys who don't get DUIs, get in fights in nightclubs, do drugs, don't hit guys in the head purposely, or participate in a bounty program that paid for players getting hurt. There are several thousands of players who fit this description, and they are the ones that deserve to make a ridiculous living playing the game.
quote:You'll want to skip the video attached to the article.
Thanks for the heads up. I paused it on the advertisement
quote:Originally posted by Music City:
You know who doesn't have to worry about the league's disciplinary policy? The guys who don't get DUIs, get in fights in nightclubs, do drugs, don't hit guys in the head purposely, or participate in a bounty program that paid for players getting hurt. There are several thousands of players who fit this description, and they are the ones that deserve to make a ridiculous living playing the game.
*blink*
Ah yes. The classic "if you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to worry about" defense.
quote:participate in a bounty program that paid for players getting hurt
can I have a for instance on this? which player got paid for injuring what player? who got carted off and who got paid?
Personally speaking, I am beginning to hope the Packers cut Hargrove now.
quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
can I have a for instance on this? which player got paid for injuring what player? who got carted off and who got paid?
Follow the logic:
1. There was a bounty program
2. The league investigated it
3. The league investigators couldn't possibly make a mistake
4. The league concluded these players were involved
Conclusion:
IF there was a bounty program and the league said these players were involved and the league couldn't possibly have made a mistake THEN these players were involved in a bounty program and are guilty.
Is your mind blown?
