League confirms Vitt wasn’t accused of contributing to bounty pool
Quote:
In other words, the league concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to formally accuse Vitt of kicking in money for the Favre bounty for imposing discipline on Vitt, but that there was enough evidence to informally accuse Vitt of kicking in money for the Favre bounty for imposing discipline on others.
While the handling of Vitt’s discipline has no direct bearing on the handling of player discipline, the disconnect suggests that the notes detailing the contributions made to the Brett Favre bounty — which perhaps constitute the only piece of clear written evidence pointing to the use of a bounty system — are for some reason not as reliable and credible as the NFL would have us all believe. And the curious failure of the league to take aggressive action against Vitt for conduct that, if it occurred, should have triggered a suspension of at least one year or more illustrates why, regardless of guilt or innocence, real questions need to be asked regarding the key details of this case.
[Mod edit: Please be careful to quote sources - keep separate from personal commentary. Thanks.]
Well, they'll say that was for not cooperating with the investigation.
But the bigger question is why the NFL is agreeing that Vitt didn't do it when his name is in the ledger - as the OP points out.
Quote:
However, NFL officials have said that the presence of Vitt's name on a ledger concerning the NFC Championship Game following the 2009 season was not a factor in the coach's suspension because it was not corroborated by a second source.
If the ledger is not credible, what else isn't credible? Credibility is critical to any evidence and this is why it's so strongly troubling that the league won't share the evidence with the players and the NFLPA.
If the ledger is not credible, what else isn't credible? Credibility is critical to any evidence and this is why it's so strongly troubling that the league won't share the evidence with the players and the NFLPA.
Didn't do it and didn't have 2 other people witness the offer are two different things. This is an example of the nfl attempting to use discretion and look for duplication... Unfortunately it was seemingly both unreliable and coerced if what were hearing come out is true.
Didn't do it and didn't have 2 other people witness the offer are two different things. This is an example of the nfl attempting to use discretion and look for duplication... Unfortunately it was seemingly both unreliable and coerced if what were hearing come out is true.
It is true that those are two different things, but Vitt apparently was so troubled by it that he called Goodell for confirmation - and Vitt's version of that response:
Quote:
"The Commissioner confirmed that there is no such allegation or suspicion in a conversation that we had today and the NFL has publicly sought to clarify that the document that has been mischaracterized was not intended to implicate me — formally or informally."
If that's accurate, it's a little more than simply saying that there's no corroboration. But it begs the question of why the league would disregard the evidence as unreliable, or even to reject the evidence outright.
Roger Dodger GdamDell is no longer credible which makes this whole witch hunt no longer credible, especially since it wasn't credible to begin with. SHOW ME THE (carted off) BODIES!!!
__________________ I hope G'Dell has to eat the same kind of pie served in "The Help"!
i have been reading comments on saints articles,and this seems to have changed the minds of other fans.fans calling us idiots and players thugs and whiners are changing.fans are noticing how much the NFL has exaggerated accusations.now other teams fans want to see true evidence.
If the ledger is not credible, what else isn't credible? Credibility is critical to any evidence and this is why it's so strongly troubling that the league won't share the evidence with the players and the NFLPA.
I would be curious how many coaches have EVER been suspended for any amount of games for "not cooperating with the investigation".
Maybe I misunderstand, but anything over 1 game is unprecedented,right? May have read that wrong.
__________________
Failure is not an option, but it is certainly a possibility.
Location: Born and bred in Chalmette, but Katrina has me in Baton Rouge
Posts: 1,159
So, the Vitt gave $5,000 to a bounty pool written on a scratch sheet of paper isn't good enough to use against Vitt, but it is good enough to use against the players? Because that's what they did when Mary Jo White rambled on during the appeals hearing and during the meeting of the 12 media members. Honestly how can anyone still think the NFL is being honest now, was honest then, and has in any way, shape or form did any kind of credible job during their "investigation"? At least I'm seeing more and more people questioning the NFL in blog message boards. As the NFL has proven, perception is huge and I think the people are starting to perceive how idiotic the NFL is and has been up to this date.
__________________
_______________________
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. -- Thomas A. Edison
Well, they'll say that was for not cooperating with the investigation.
'not cooperating' in this case is not signing an apology written by the NFL.
This is what I've been saying all along. Goodell came out strongly saying that the Saints lied and obstructed the investigation. It seems all the Saints did is deny his charges (based on false evidence given by a disgruntled ex-employee) and defend themselves. The NFL is getting to be like North Korea.
Didn't do it and didn't have 2 other people witness the offer are two different things. This is an example of the nfl attempting to use discretion and look for duplication... Unfortunately it was seemingly both unreliable and coerced if what were hearing come out is true.
So under the NFL's theory does 2 noncredible sources= 1 credible source? Does a handwritten note without verification and the word of a scumbag like Cerullo give conclusive proof to suspend a player for a year?
I know there are people on this board that are smarter than I am so please explain to me how the NFL can use evidence in the ledger it determined to be unreliable against the players?
?
Linear Mode
