ESPN article links to a chameleon....

I posted this reply to the story:

This is what happens in witch hunts. Tiny grains of sand are dressed up to look like mountains, and innuendo becomes hard fact. The league set out to prove what they thought--and hoped, for the sake of being able to look as if they were protecting players for the upcoming lawsuit--MIGHT be true. When evidence presented turns out to be completely different from what they assumed it was in their flawed investigation, as in the case of the video, they decide it isn't all that important after all when it comes to the punishments levied. Seifert is joining the many responsible journalists in asking the right questions and implying maybe there is LESS to this than the league has said. Intelligent people will wonder why the league brought out scant evidence when they claimed to have reams of it. Intelligent people are the ones who ask hard questions, not blindly accept what is said. Other reporters bought the league's contention that Hargrove said those words. Now, they look silly. (Are you listening, Peter King?)

The video and other pieces of "evidence" were presented by the league's paid mouthpiece, the former prosecutor whose name escapes me. She claimed the video was evidence that Hargrove made the statement. She claimed to have gotten others convicted on less evidence, which makes me wonder how many innocent people might be in prison right now because of her. The leaps in logic by the league are becoming wider and wider. The sad part is that these players, not all of whom play for the Saints, will probably never see any real evidence against them.

Saints fans are angry about this, but the only player they will miss MIGHT be Will Smith. They have replaced Vilma in the starting lineup with a younger version of him, Curtis Lofton. They have some younger DEs who may end up outplaying Smith, who seems to have been declining recently. The only thing I can think of as to why so many people are clammoring for the full disclosure of the documents is that so far no proof has been established. I am only glad that the courts are a place that, if I am ever charged with a crime, I have the right to see all the evidence against me. The "we are protecting the identity of the whistleblower" line by the league is garbage, since everyone and his brother knows it is Cerullo, who is a very disgruntled former employee who was fired for good cause. And anyone with any sense knows not to accept what a disgruntled former employee has to say.

So, come on, Goodell. Let's see the REAL evidence. If it is as damning as you say it is (which would be a first in this saga), I will gladly accept it. My guess, though, is that it isn't nearly as convincing as you think it is. Otherwise, you wouldn't have trotted out two items--a newspaper interview and a rant by a videographer--that occurred AFTER you suspended the players as evidence you used to convict them.