• Mutiny About the Bounty

    by
    Rich Gapinski
    Published on 12-11-2012 07:10 PM
    11 Comments Comments


    Today's announcement about the ruling on Bountygate by Paul Tagliabue has turned the media world into a frenzy. Any glance at Twitter today has the players declaring victory while every football site around has some sort of argument going on about it. Some people think the current commissioner has lied. Some people think that there is enough reaffirmation of the facts to prove that the players involved are the ones who lied. Actually, everyone has lied to an extent. Everything else is just positioning in the public relations game.

    What truly happened is some shade of grey where everyone involved is guilty in some way. Roger Goodell is guilty of using the two-year investigation as a way to enforce old rules by making a team the example of the new, safer NFL that is concerned about the health and future of the players. The players are at least guilty for ignoring their own safety and violating a league policy they knew about. The coaches of the Saints are guilty of violating league rules and using antiquated ways to instill a fire into their team. Drew Brees is guilty of being a self-righteous loudmouth who has thrown seven interceptions during many playoff runs for fantasy teams. He also seems to not realize that league rules were broken.

    Jonathan Vilma may or may not be guilty of putting a bounty on Brett Favre. He is guilty of not putting a bounty on those awful Crocs Favre wore. His position against the league is so contentious that his story will have to be presented to and decided by a federal court.

    The only person I do feel some sympathy toward is Anthony Hargrove. It is my opinion that the facts seem to paint a clear path where Hargrove was coerced into making false statements because coaches wanted to cover their rears. Hargrove tried to play the game the way he felt was needed to keep his job. He doesn't have one. Still, Hargrove was in New Orleans while league rules were being violated.

    All in all, no one over-played their hand more than Roger Goodell. He is going to need to send a body double to the Super Bowl. How could something that took over two years still feel so rushed and so indecisive? Goodell has been around the game a long time. Several former players have come out during the time Bountygate has been in the news and have made comments that seem to make it obvious that more than a few teams had pay for performance programs in the league. Why didn't he go after other teams? Why take the extra step to bring up the pay to injure issue?

    Well, the answer to that last question is the heavy cloud of concussion lawsuits hanging over the league. Goodell wanted the biggest umbrella he could find. Evidence in courts has to be airtight for a reason. He should have treated his own investigation the same way.

    Look, each person in the general public is going to have their perception about the whole ordeal. Just remember, though, if you are a person who isn't sick of hearing about Bountygate that each side is hoping to shape your perception. That is what PR is. Don't forget that shaping perception often involves stretching of the truth, blatant lies and propaganda. Every single person involved did something wrong to bring the situation to this point.

    Comments 11 Comments
    1. msclemons's Avatar
      The more info that comes out the worse the Taints look. Tagliabue has decided the fault lies with management rather than the bounty hunters. Hard to argue with him.

      Vilma is continuing his lawsuit under the basis that "I was just following orders". I'm guessing Sean Payton and his merry band will look even worse in the future.
      Reply
    1. Pruitt's Avatar
      I read something in Deadspin that made me completely change my attitude on this issue.

      (I know, Deadspin is usually full of crap...)

      And it's an obvious point too - in a league where the coach's words are supposed to be treated like the gospel, how could players refuse to take part in something that was sanctioned by members of the coaching staff? How could they say "no" when their coordinator was screaming "do it!"?

      I am shocked that this thought never occurred to me before, and I now think that Goddell is a complete jackass on this issue. The suspensions to the players should have been a token single game at the most.
      Reply
    1. Bengals1181's Avatar
      Pruitt, I'd buy that if these were kids. They weren't, they're adults.


      It's not ok to do something wrong just because your boss tells you to do it. Adults are expected to know better. To know what's right and wrong. To know that its not ok to intentionally try to injure someone else.
      Reply
    1. Ragar's Avatar
      My feling on this was always that the "theory of Nuremberg" applied to this case; that the top leaders are held more accountable then the middle leaders, who are held mroe accountable then the low leaders, who are held more accountable then the followers, with the followers told to never do it again.

      As always, we've disagreed on where each person in the system is located, and then more importantly, where the levels of punishment should be enforced. (and some disagree that the facts that have been presented are there justify it or not).
      Reply
    1. Pruitt's Avatar
      Bengals - Completely understand, but this is a business where the men in charge have the ability to bench players, to trade them or to even cut them.

      While I feel that some punishment was called for - and certainly the suspensions of Payton, Williams, Vitt and Loomis were severe - the players should not have been expected to pay such a heavy price.

      Things may be changing in the NFL, but it is still a league where the players are expected to jump when the coaches tell them to. In any event, it is satisfying that the Saints are eliminated from the post season. And with Brees starting to show some wear and tear, it seems like their window is closing.
      Reply
    1. wxwax's Avatar
      For me, the issue all along has been the Commissioner's kangaroo court. His lack of accountability. His lack of ethical behavior. His presumption of guilt without the evidence to support it.

      The players had to take him into a court of law before Goodell finally, reluctantly agreed to have the sorry affair reviewed. By his own lawyer, for goodness sakes. Talk about a conflict of interest.

      I have deep misgivings about the Tagliabue document. The majority of it is written to protect his client, the NFL, from two sets of lawsuits: Vima's defamation action, and the concussion lawsuits.

      And yet Tagliabue contorts his way to vacating every single punishment against the players. He ought to be in the circus.

      I'm pleased with the outcome for the players. Not because I like them. Not because I like the Saints. Not because I trivialize bounties.

      But because I have a deep dislike of power when it is abused. And Goodell abused his power.
      Reply
    1. darvon's Avatar
      I have read Tag's finding (all 22 pages of it) and wrote an article in user articles.

      Basically, it comes down to not following historical precedents on player discipline, not getting out all the information which is pertinant (did you know that the Patriots were found to violate The Bounty Rule in 2008??? Neither did I. Actually I didn't even know there WAS a Bounty Rule.)

      This is all about bouncing blank checks.

      Both sides didn't hammer out details in the CBA, so we get to go to court and go through these conniption fits to sort out the details.

      And a ton of it is that the league office doesn't like to live by the rules. Quick, tell me if the NFL approved Sean Peyton's 9/11 contract extension, and if not, when they told him. They like to make it up as they go along.

      Roger is trying to CYA for the concussion litigation by stealing the pants from Vilma.
      Reply
    1. mikesteelnation1's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by wxwax View Post
      For me, the issue all along has been the Commissioner's kangaroo court. His lack of accountability. His lack of ethical behavior. His presumption of guilt without the evidence to support it.

      The players had to take him into a court of law before Goodell finally, reluctantly agreed to have the sorry affair reviewed. By his own lawyer, for goodness sakes. Talk about a conflict of interest.

      I have deep misgivings about the Tagliabue document. The majority of it is written to protect his client, the NFL, from two sets of lawsuits: Vima's defamation action, and the concussion lawsuits.

      And yet Tagliabue contorts his way to vacating every single punishment against the players. He ought to be in the circus.

      I'm pleased with the outcome for the players. Not because I like them. Not because I like the Saints. Not because I trivialize bounties.

      But because I have a deep dislike of power when it is abused. And Goodell abused his power.
      Goodell was afforded that court in the cba. He had evidence, and plenty of it. I don't believe he was unethical. His mistake was in verbage, not intent or action from either side.

      Had he suspended them for pay for performance, and not pay for injury this whole mess would have never taken place. He made it an on field issue by use of words, one he doesn't hold extreme power like off field issues like pay for performance. The court process exposed that gaffe, not that he was unethical in how he handled the situation. The players were saved with legal maneuvering, not a finding of them being innocent. Let's remember that. Goodell didn't abuse his power, he just invoked the wrong words to use it.
      Reply
    1. darvon's Avatar
      Had he suspended them for pay for performance, and not pay for injury this whole mess would have never taken place.
      I think that is exactly incorrect. Tags finding explicitly finds that P4P is NOT a Conduct Detrimental issue, and actually that it isn't a player punishable offense at all. It wasnt in 2007 when the Packers were found guility of it and in 2008 when the Patriots were found guilty of it. Only small fines to the clubs.

      I think that Goodell could have handled the player side of p4i through CD, but the punishment had to be much smaller.

      What Tags ultimately decided is that although Goodell has ultimate power with CD, punishments need to be historically consistant, even though the CBA has no verbage one way or the other.

      Another case of the need to spell out the frigging details in advance, just like HGH.

      But, no, that's too hard....
      Reply
    1. wxwax's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by darvon View Post
      Basically, it comes down to not following historical precedents on player discipline
      I think the fundamental problem goes deeper than that. Goodell handed down draconian -- potentially career-ending, for Vilma -- punishments without even a pretense of due process.

      The unfairness of his process is what precipitated the anger and the legal action. He cornered them. Dumb.
      Reply
    1. mikesteelnation1's Avatar
      Quote Originally Posted by darvon View Post
      I think that is exactly incorrect. Tags finding explicitly finds that P4P is NOT a Conduct Detrimental issue, and actually that it isn't a player punishable offense at all. It wasnt in 2007 when the Packers were found guility of it and in 2008 when the Patriots were found guilty of it. Only small fines to the clubs.

      I think that Goodell could have handled the player side of p4i through CD, but the punishment had to be much smaller.

      What Tags ultimately decided is that although Goodell has ultimate power with CD, punishments need to be historically consistant, even though the CBA has no verbage one way or the other.

      Another case of the need to spell out the frigging details in advance, just like HGH.

      But, no, that's too hard....
      I'm quite surprised historical precedence of rulings played a part. Forgive me for not reading tags statement in whole. I like most, is quite tired of the subject. Glad it was balanced. In normal business, that's exactly how it's handled. What's the policy, and how has it been handled previous? What's the historical precedent on the matter?

      Guess I just figured that aspect didn't matter given how Goodell handled the Roethlisberger suspension. Still the only guy suspended without even an arrest on off field stuff. Vick and pacman were indicted before they were suspended.
      Reply