Mr. WEO Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Read this in the Daily Snooze on the plane yesterday. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/retired-fbi-agent-greg-stejskal-saints-bountygate-prosecuted-a-conspiracy-article-1.1058105 Interesting points raised. If "the mob" had payed players to inure other players and "take them out" of the game, obviously to affect the outcome of the game, it would clearly be a conspiracy case (doesn't matter if anyone was actually injured). Why wouldn't the same apply to the Saints coaching staff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Every coaching staff tries to affect the outcome of the game, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Because the coaches weren't doing it to affect the outcomes of their wagers, which is the only reason the mob would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Yeah, not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Read this in the Daily Snooze on the plane yesterday. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/retired-fbi-agent-greg-stejskal-saints-bountygate-prosecuted-a-conspiracy-article-1.1058105 Interesting points raised. If "the mob" had payed players to inure other players and "take them out" of the game, obviously to affect the outcome of the game, it would clearly be a conspiracy case (doesn't matter if anyone was actually injured). Why wouldn't the same apply to the Saints coaching staff? Great question. Motive for the bounties in that instance is irrelevant in that it is money to be paid for physical injury. With the vast number of ways conspiracy laws are applied this is pretty cut and dry. It's ironic that RICO laws do not require motive. Knowledge of said individual's motive for the intended harm does not change the fact that another individual or group carried out the agreed upon crime for a financial reward. When people hear the word conspiracy they assume that all participants have full knowledge of the who, what where, when, and why but that is never the case in real life. It is the very definition of compartmentalization. The usual application of the law allows for greater leverage against low level participants to turn as a witness against the higher level conspirators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 Read this in the Daily Snooze on the plane yesterday. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/retired-fbi-agent-greg-stejskal-saints-bountygate-prosecuted-a-conspiracy-article-1.1058105 Interesting points raised. If "the mob" had payed players to inure other players and "take them out" of the game, obviously to affect the outcome of the game, it would clearly be a conspiracy case (doesn't matter if anyone was actually injured). Why wouldn't the same apply to the Saints coaching staff? I believe there is criminal intent in Williams behavior for sure. If at your job a co-worker said he would pay to have someone "accidently" trip you causing you bodily harm and you could prove it in a court of law, it's a no brainer. In Williams case he is on tape (and video probably) telling his defense to cause ACL, concussion type injuries. Pay or no pay not a smart thing to say. Unless that came from ownership or Payton, Williams could be on the hook. Or one would think so anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) I believe there is criminal intent in Williams behavior for sure. If at your job a co-worker said he would pay to have someone "accidently" trip you causing you bodily harm and you could prove it in a court of law, it's a no brainer. In Williams case he is on tape (and video probably) telling his defense to cause ACL, concussion type injuries. Pay or no pay not a smart thing to say. Unless that came from ownership or Payton, Williams could be on the hook. Or one would think so anyways. right, but to compare what could be a clean tackle at knee level to me tripping someone in an office isnt truly apples to apples. i think if gregg instructed illegal hits that he would pay the fine for, that would be a different story than hitting crabtree low or williams high, which can be totally legal. the illegal hits might be the actual story, but i havent seen it yet and we probably never would from an nfl investigation. having watched every snap of that defense, sure they were obnoxious to the other team, but i rarely saw hits that were flat out illegal. the worst was mccray hitting favre on the running play. outside of that, it was your standard issue hits from games being played at a high speed, nothing out of the ordinary. you have to be careful to not blur the term dirty hit (nfl players frown on it) with dirty hit (its against the rules of the game). im sure they were very careful in their documentation to avoid anything going public that they thought would result in jail time, if that ever existed in the first place. Edited April 9, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 right, but to compare what could be a clean tackle at knee level to me tripping someone in an office isnt truly apples to apples. i think if gregg instructed illegal hits that he would pay the fine for, that would be a different story than hitting crabtree low or williams high, which can be totally legal. the illegal hits might be the actual story, but i havent seen it yet and we probably never would from an nfl investigation. having watched every snap of that defense, sure they were obnoxious to the other team, but i rarely saw hits that were flat out illegal. the worst was mccray hitting favre on the running play. outside of that, it was your standard issue hits from games being played at a high speed, nothing out of the ordinary. you have to be careful to not blur the term dirty hit (nfl players frown on it) with dirty hit (its against the rules of the game). im sure they were very careful in their documentation to avoid anything going public that they thought would result in jail time, if that ever existed in the first place. Yea, for sure the NFL would not want charges or even a lawsuit to come out of this. It would be a PR nightmare, and open a big can of worms for sure. I was amazed at the aggressive defense in the NFC championship game with Favre. Some people I was with remarked their trying to hurt him, and did but nothing illegal I could see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 Every coaching staff tries to affect the outcome of the game, though. They don't do it by paying their players specifically for inflicting game or season ending injuries on the opponent. To put it mildly, there's a difference--it's what we're talking about, actually. Because the coaches weren't doing it to affect the outcomes of their wagers, which is the only reason the mob would do it. As RealityCheck points out, motive has nothing to do with the charge of conspiracy. Yeah, not the same. An unconvincing argument doc. You can do better. Great question. Motive for the bounties in that instance is irrelevant in that it is money to be paid for physical injury. With the vast number of ways conspiracy laws are applied this is pretty cut and dry. It's ironic that RICO laws do not require motive. Knowledge of said individual's motive for the intended harm does not change the fact that another individual or group carried out the agreed upon crime for a financial reward. When people hear the word conspiracy they assume that all participants have full knowledge of the who, what where, when, and why but that is never the case in real life. It is the very definition of compartmentalization. The usual application of the law allows for greater leverage against low level participants to turn as a witness against the higher level conspirators. Great post. Conspiracy can involve as few as 2 people. right, but to compare what could be a clean tackle at knee level to me tripping someone in an office isnt truly apples to apples. i think if gregg instructed illegal hits that he would pay the fine for, that would be a different story than hitting crabtree low or williams high, which can be totally legal. the illegal hits might be the actual story, but i havent seen it yet and we probably never would from an nfl investigation. having watched every snap of that defense, sure they were obnoxious to the other team, but i rarely saw hits that were flat out illegal. the worst was mccray hitting favre on the running play. outside of that, it was your standard issue hits from games being played at a high speed, nothing out of the ordinary. you have to be careful to not blur the term dirty hit (nfl players frown on it) with dirty hit (its against the rules of the game). im sure they were very careful in their documentation to avoid anything going public that they thought would result in jail time, if that ever existed in the first place. It doesn't matter whether they were illegal hits or fined hits (they were of both varieties in the Minnesota game, actually). Guys get injured on "clean hits" all the time. In fact, it's very safe to assume nearly all significant injuries are the result of clean hits. But now we have the Saints coaching staff odering specific hits to produce specific injuries on specific players. Also, whether fines were or niot going to be paid by the coaches is irrelevant--the players were being payed and they knew the pay would cover the fine if they were flagged/fined. All of this boils dons to a very simple and ovious question that I haven't seen answerd yet: If players are always trying to play hard and always encouraged to make big plays with big hits, why would any coaching staff on any team ever have to offer them more money to do it? The obvious answer is that the players and the coaches know what they are doing involves significant risk to the player who isbeing asked to make the "take out hit" (penalty/fine/suspension). The bounty rewards the player for that risk. Therefore, everyone knows what they are doing is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 All of this boils dons to a very simple and ovious question that I haven't seen answerd yet: If players are always trying to play hard and always encouraged to make big plays with big hits, why would any coaching staff on any team ever have to offer them more money to do it? The obvious answer is that the players and the coaches know what they are doing involves significant risk to the player who isbeing asked to make the "take out hit" (penalty/fine/suspension). The bounty rewards the player for that risk. Therefore, everyone knows what they are doing is wrong. right, but a $1000 bounty does not cover a $15,000 fine, or a suspension that loses a game check that could be hundreds of thousands. if that is your question, what about the payment for turnovers? is that in case the league fines the defense for stealing? it was about giving a little extra juice to big game changing plays - and gregg crossed over to include injuries as a way to quantify his big hits. on the tape you can hear him talking about paying out for turnovers the week before. i think if he said hit a defenseless player in the head and ill cover your fine, i would feel much more disgusted by the situation. as is, i think it was pretty bad, dont get me wrong, but on my moral compass, and im guessing in a courtroom, that would make some difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 An unconvincing argument doc. You can do better. How about this: "conspiracy?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) Yea, for sure the NFL would not want charges or even a lawsuit to come out of this. It would be a PR nightmare, and open a big can of worms for sure. I was amazed at the aggressive defense in the NFC championship game with Favre. Some people I was with remarked their trying to hurt him, and did but nothing illegal I could see. mixed bag on those. there we some - the hit on his ankle was a flagged hit, but i dont think the defense really has the time in the hit of the moment to set up a high low like that. i think it was genuinely a result of hit him hard hit him often, and in this case if you hit him enough times, sometimes it might end up at an awkward angle. the bobby mccray hit on a RUNNING play, was ugly. I dont think he was trying to drive through him to cause injury but he certainly went to far. if the goal was knock him out at all costs, it would have happened there, and would have been a backup lineman that could suffer the suspension. i read that hit as him similarly being entirely too amped up and frothing at the mouth for contact, but not as trying to take his head clean off. he got ripped a new one on the sideline when he came back. i dont know if it was shown on tv or not, but he was not in coaches good graces after that hit as one would expect for a knock them out at all costs policy. unless the charade was that practiced and planned. Edited April 9, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 9, 2012 Author Share Posted April 9, 2012 right, but a $1000 bounty does not cover a $15,000 fine, or a suspension that loses a game check that could be hundreds of thousands. if that is your question, what about the payment for turnovers? is that in case the league fines the defense for stealing? it was about giving a little extra juice to big game changing plays - and gregg crossed over to include injuries as a way to quantify his big hits. on the tape you can hear him talking about paying out for turnovers the week before. i think if he said hit a defenseless player in the head and ill cover your fine, i would feel much more disgusted by the situation. as is, i think it was pretty bad, dont get me wrong, but on my moral compass, and im guessing in a courtroom, that would make some difference. The amount of the bounty doesn't matter. ANY extra pay implies that the player is being payed to do something he would not normally do, because he sees it as potentially illegal, immoral or harmful to his livelihood/income. Paying for a positive play (a turnover) has no relation to what the Saints are in deep water for. Williams was detailing how he wanted players hit specifically to harm them enough to take them out of the game. AND he was paying them extra to do this. He wasn't talking about how to force turnovers. He was talking about how to clinically remove a player from competition in order to better his team's chance at winning. That gave his team an illegal competetive advantage. Every player who took the bounty money was essentially demanding that amount for committing the act. The knew what they were doing was wrong, otherwise, to a man, thwy would have said, "heck coach, you don't have to pay me extra--that's just part of my job!". Why do you have to offer a millionaire extra money to do his job? Becuase he knows he would never do these things unless there was something extra in it for him. Football's violent nature and inherent risk for injury does not invite or excuse malicious intent for monetary gain. That can be considered criminal--it certainly is off the field. How about this: "conspiracy?" No, no, no doc--we are talking about criminal conspiracy, not the wacky/paranoid stuff you have been known to traffic in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 The amount of the bounty doesn't matter. ANY extra pay implies that the player is being payed to do something he would not normally do, because he sees it as potentially illegal, immoral or harmful to his livelihood/income. Paying for a positive play (a turnover) has no relation to what the Saints are in deep water for. Williams was detailing how he wanted players hit specifically to harm them enough to take them out of the game. AND he was paying them extra to do this. He wasn't talking about how to force turnovers. He was talking about how to clinically remove a player from competition in order to better his team's chance at winning. That gave his team an illegal competetive advantage. Every player who took the bounty money was essentially demanding that amount for committing the act. The knew what they were doing was wrong, otherwise, to a man, thwy would have said, "heck coach, you don't have to pay me extra--that's just part of my job!". Why do you have to offer a millionaire extra money to do his job? Becuase he knows he would never do these things unless there was something extra in it for him. Football's violent nature and inherent risk for injury does not invite or excuse malicious intent for monetary gain. That can be considered criminal--it certainly is off the field. No, no, no doc--we are talking about criminal conspiracy, not the wacky/paranoid stuff you have been known to traffic in. To say that's the only reason is shortsighted as the same program paid for tons of other stuff though. I think it was also about installing a sense of competition and taking coachs cash, not just selling morals down the line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 No, no, no doc--we are talking about criminal conspiracy, not the wacky/paranoid stuff you have been known to traffic in. Wait, how many people does it take to make a "conspiracy" again? But yes, I can see how adding "criminal" legitimizes it. The answer you're looking for is "nothing further will happen." Call it a "conspiracy" by the NFL to close ranks on this subject, just like with other "conspiracies." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 (edited) Wait, how many people does it take to make a "conspiracy" again? But yes, I can see how adding "criminal" legitimizes it. The answer you're looking for is "nothing further will happen." Call it a "conspiracy" by the NFL to close ranks on this subject, just like with other "conspiracies." It may not be that simple. This day and age when a credible case can be brought, it usually is. In this instance I can see an aggressive prosecutor or headline seeking politicians get involved to "clean up football" like they did baseball. racketeering statute provides them with a lot of authority. Edited April 9, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 9, 2012 Share Posted April 9, 2012 It may not be that simple. This day and age when a credible case can be brought, it usually is. In this case I can see an aggressive prosecutor or headline seeking politicians get involved to "clean up football" like they did baseball. racketeering statute provides them with a lot of authority. Possibly But even if charges were brought, does anyone really think that any player will cooperate, much less testify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted April 10, 2012 Author Share Posted April 10, 2012 Wait, how many people does it take to make a "conspiracy" again? But yes, I can see how adding "criminal" legitimizes it. The answer you're looking for is "nothing further will happen." Call it a "conspiracy" by the NFL to close ranks on this subject, just like with other "conspiracies." Whether something else happens in a possible criminal case has nothing to do with the wishes of the NFL, doc. Possibly But even if charges were brought, does anyone really think that any player will cooperate, much less testify? There reportedly thousands of pages of documentation in the league investigation. All involved can be supoenaed. Goodell can not take the 5th, doc. And all those documents would be in evidence. Doesn't matter what players testify, the league knows who they are based on the testimony of others. A jury would be free to draw conclusions based on any evidence about any suspect who refuses to testify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Read this in the Daily Snooze on the plane yesterday. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/retired-fbi-agent-greg-stejskal-saints-bountygate-prosecuted-a-conspiracy-article-1.1058105 Interesting points raised. If "the mob" had payed players to inure other players and "take them out" of the game, obviously to affect the outcome of the game, it would clearly be a conspiracy case (doesn't matter if anyone was actually injured). Why wouldn't the same apply to the Saints coaching staff? You bring up an interesting issue relating to criminal culpability and the Gregg Williams saga . There are legal issues associated with the New Orleans fiasco but they do not relate to criminality so much as they relate to civil liabilities. There is currently a long list of civil cases brought by former players against the NFL regarding the health and safety of players. Goodell powerfully responded to the New Orleans situation because he knows that it will have a bearing on the impending cases. Just as it was determined that smoking was an unhealthy product Roger Goodell and his legal advisors have the medical data that suggests that playing in the NFL is a dangerous endeavor that will have worker (players) liability issues. Goodell and the NFL are very aware that there will be financial repercussions for the physical toll incurred by the participants in the crash sport. That is why he is doing everything in his power to make an inherently unsafe endeavor a little more safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Whether something else happens in a possible criminal case has nothing to do with the wishes of the NFL, doc. There reportedly thousands of pages of documentation in the league investigation. All involved can be supoenaed. Goodell can not take the 5th, doc. And all those documents would be in evidence. Doesn't matter what players testify, the league knows who they are based on the testimony of others. A jury would be free to draw conclusions based on any evidence about any suspect who refuses to testify. I figured that after you read "interstate commerce," you would have stopped reading. Basically it's a stretch to claim there was a "conspiracy," and no one will justify wasting taxpayer dollars pursuing this, when the NFL is meting-out its own punishment, for a game where the purpose is to hit the other person hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts