nolaskwidd
Rookie
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 85
- Reaction score
- 17
Offline
...the idiotic comments on this story...[/URL]
Someone recently came up with the perfect name for those anon idiotic comments: "digital graffiti."
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...the idiotic comments on this story...[/URL]
Current Redskins linebacker Lorenzo Alexander, who played under Williams in Washington, said a player could get rewarded for knocking a player out of a game with a clean hit, but only after the fact - not as a pre-planned "bounty." Sometimes players wrote each other checks for such plays.
"It wasn't always Coach Williams" who paid up, Alexander said.
i remember ed werder months ago on espn saying that williams gave vilma the 10K and told him to do that as a way to rally the team. so when vilma said he's never put any money in he's not lying but i guess that could be what williams is talking about.
If Vilma did that he's guilty as charged. It doesn't matter where the money came or if they never intended to actually pay the money, if Vilma threw 10 grand on the table said that it goes to whoever knocks Favre out of the game, then he's guilty.
I wonder why vilma doesn't take polygraph from a highly respect testing group and challenge the two coaches to do same. They'd look like complete liars if he did that. I think it would totally force almost all public opinion to his side and totally embarrass the nfl
Agreement to injure means people involved understand within the context that there was an agreement to injure (see, I can double-speak like goodell).
If Vilma said "I give 2 high-fives to anybody who <fill in the blank with whatever potty mouth football players say> Favre/Warner" and everybody involved understood those statements are figurative, not literal, there are no agreement to injure.
GW declaration repeatedly stated there were no agreement to injure, that nobody involved in the program understood they could received award only for injuring another player.
If one want to play semantics game on whether Vilma phrasing could be construed as a pledge for injury, good luck getting an independent arbitrator or a federal judge to buy that slippy slope logic.
Do you honestly think that a judge or arbiter would look at the statement "I've got $10,000 for anyone who knocks Brett Favre out of a game"" and say "oh, that's not a real offer to pay someone to injure Brett Favre..that's just football talk"??? I mean, the judge in the Vilma case said that in her opinion the talk about Cart Offs sounded like a bounty.
That's right. Williams declaration is that the program he was running did not have any agreement to injure and that players could be "fined" for such actions. However, he states that Vilma did offer money for someone to injure someone, and implies (I don't think he ever directly said it) that Vilma's actions had nothing to do with the program that Greg was running.
A friend of mine, a safety for the 2-legit-2-quit era dirty birds, said I'll give you 5 bills if you rape that m*f*, among many other potty mouth statements. Do you really believe in full context peep will take that literally?
Go listen to GW rant before the whiners game. He really solicited assault??
Cerullo declaration stated GW designed the program with the intention of escalating cart-off & knockout during the play-off. That GW looked at Cerullo and nodded when the alleged Vilma pledge during the cardinal game.
GW declared that he got nothing to do with vilma's pledge because it was a pledge for injury.
Oh really?? GW got nothing to do with a "knockout" -- a term he defined and a term he alone determine if a player get awarded for; where he is the "supreme court" if a player got a problem with any fines/rewards? That he didn't look at Cerullo and nodded like Don Corleone giving Nero the look to kill his own brother?