Drew Brees submits affidavit on behalf of Vilma (1 Viewer)

[UptownSaintsFan]

Nothing really new to report in it, denies bounty allegations, etc.

 

[St.Fury]

These affidavits are a big black to the leagues case. Although they don't bring anything new to the table, the fact that these men are willing to put everything on the line with a legal document of this nature and take such a firm stance, is very telling. These guys strongly disagree with the league and the feel they have a very solid case.

 

[thebutler007]

Just the fact he (DREW) submitted an affidavit puts tons more pressure on Good-for nothing-dell. Offensive player and well known and liked around the league and fans.

 

[Brennan77]

That's pretty huge imo.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[lades]

Brees is a standup leader.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

human effluence has actualized

 

[UptownSaintsFan]

That's pretty huge imo.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

It's huge in that Brees, Vilma, and Vitt have all risked perjury to state there was no Bounty System. However, it doesn't really add anything new to the litigation.

 

[gboudx]

That's pretty huge imo.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

How so? He doesn't really say much of substance. Yeah he says he didn't know of any pay-to-injure program, but then again he's an offensive player. All he really does is speak to Vilmas character.

 

[mt15]

Plenty of people are "sure" that everyone on the team knew about the "bounties". Coach Payton is being punished harshly for "knowing" or "he should have known". This is big, IMO, because Brees is willing to swear that he knew nothing of a PTI program. It just may help people realize that the PTI was a figment of the imagination of a disgruntled ex-employee that the NFL seized and used for their own shady reasons.

 

[Brennan77]

How so? He doesn't really say much of substance. Yeah he says he didn't know of any pay-to-injure program, but then again he's an offensive player. All he really does is speak to Vilmas character.

It is a sworn statement. Legally it doesn't do much but I think it has the potential mean a great deal in terms of PR going forward. Brees and Vitt have submitted themselves to be held legally liable for the truthfulness of their statements and are directly, publicly,and legally in opposition to their employer.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[AARPSaint]

human effluence has actualized

 

[Saint Tex]

It is a sworn statement. Legally it doesn't do much but I think it has the potential mean a great deal in terms of PR going forward. Brees and Vitt have submitted themselves to be held legally liable for the truthfulness of their statements and are directly, publicly,and legally in opposition to their employer.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

In comparison to what Goodell has--the main document being a piece of paper with numbers on it written well after what it supposedly memorializes transpired, it does a lot. Goodell has no sworn statements as far as we know. A sworn statement means that if it is found to be knowingly false, the swearer risks sometimes severe prison terms.

Must have a sworn statement for it to be admitted in evidence in court. Goodell's state is not only not sworn, it was not written at the time, which makes it more unreliable.

Because of the issues raised in the lawsuit, it may not do a lot, but you're right--it does a lot in terms of pr. Our guys are risking prison if they are lying. Goodell's guy--not so much. These sworn statements will get picked up by sports reporters like Pat Y who have to have the court proceedings explained to them, but who can write a quick story on what a player said in a sworn statement, and because the sworn statement story is easier for them, that is what will get written about.

 

[bornnraisedwhodat]

Drew is a hell of a leader.

 

[thegoldenapple]

Offensive player and well known and liked around the league and fans.

Not only that but a leader for the NFLPA and someone who has been doing a lot of work for concussion awareness and generally working to make the game safer. If it was something really egregious, I have trouble believing he wouldn't take a stand against it. He made sure to emphasize the legal hits aspect of it, which is important in two ways.

1) He's stating that the hits are hits that are condoned by the league and doesn't go beyond what is considered kosher by the rules.

2) He's putting the onus on the league to change the rules if they don't like the hits being doled out. This is doubtful that the league would do such a thing because, as it is, the league has already neutered much of the hard hits and hard hits are still a draw for watching football. If there's any doubt in that, just reference all the various shows both on the NFL's channel and other sports channels that highlight such hard, injurious hits.

 

[saintsfan26]

human effluence has actualized

Lmao how long have you been waiting to use that one?