Saints: Criminal Conspiracy?

[Mr. WEO]

I'd be curious on a straw poll:

 

a player makes a hit well within the rules but with intent to cause a damaging injury -crime? For instance hitting Crabtree in the knee, or Williams high anytime he's not defenseless and they get knocked out of the game.

 

 

In that circumstance, not a crime at all, nosaint. The player's motive and intent are known only to him.

 

With the Saints, we have a coach recruiting others into his enterprise of creating incapacitating, game changing injuries. The motives of ALL conspirators are very clear.

 

Here's a straw poll--what if it became known that Greggg was being told by organized crime figures to assemble a group of willing bounty hunter players to take out opponent teams' star players, would you then consider it a criminal conspiracy?

Edited April 11, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[NoSaint]

In that circumstance, not a crime at all, nosaint. The player's motive and intent are known only to him.

 

With the Saints, we have a coach recruiting others into his enterprise of creating incapacitating, game changing injuries. The motives of ALL conspirators are very clear.

 

Here's a straw poll--what if it became known that Greggg was being told by organized crime figures to assemble a group of willing bounty hunter players to take out opponent teams' star players, would you then consider it a criminal conspiracy?

Very potentially. I think there are many circumstances that could be deserving of jail time and have been clear on that in many discussions. I was just curious what people thought of that scenario.

[RealityCheck]

I don't know if or when charges would be filed (you're obfuscating now). I doesn't matter. I think it's an interesting question and as realityheck tells you below, the case for conspiracy is pretty clear. As for the amount of money, again your argument lacks a logical basis. It's clear that the amount of money was enough to entice player to participate in an enterprise who's only goal was to gain an advantage over an opponent not by outplaying them, but by eliminating them from competition with malice aforethought--attempting to injure individuals with hits tailored to specific weaknesses to produce specific injuries.

 

I think your argument is disingenuous (shocking) because there is no way you don't understand what is being discussed here.

 

 

Great post. But the defendants in a criminal case would be coaches and players. These guys are wealthy but nothing like owners--who would never be charged.

 

 

 

Right again mrags. This whole question is interesting, to me, exactly because of the nature of legal conspiracy. Simply planning the crime is a crime. Any talk of "football is violent", "guys get hurt", "it wasn't much money", etc miss the point of this entire conversation completely.

I agree to an extent. We are not fully privy to who had knowledge of the bounty system within the upper ranks of that organization. What many people do not realize is that charges are often brought against individuals when evidence shows that they had knowledge of the intent, even if they are not active participants. Anybody with direct knowledge of this said intent in the eyes of the law is a conspirator. If the GM is proven to have had knowledge of this established intent to harm outside the established rules of the NFL and it"s CBA then he is a coconspirator and the organization would be on the hook. RICO laws were immensely effective in fighting organized crime because law enforcement could effectively pursue low level participants who were merely third party entities and threaten them with significant jail time, thus creating tremendous leverage to get people to turn state's evidence. In criminal conspiracy charges all you have to do is be proven to have had knowledge of the intended crime and you are going to jail. As these laws are clearly worded you are an equally culpable co-conspirator. Thousands of people see jail time coast to coast every year in cases where these individuals are found guilty for RICO violations without ever directly taking part in an actual crime. The crime is knowledge of someone else's intent and is controversial BUT prevalent in the US court system. For example, if you have a friend that is a driver for drug shipments and he confides in you in anyway shape or form that is recorded by an instrument (such as a wire tapped phone) that is in fact a RICO violation and you will most certainly face jail time (which in some cases is equal to you being the one who did the crime in the first place), or at least be threatened with charges unless you cooperate with the authorities. Needless to say this is how law enforcement currently plays dominoes. FWIW, you are a pretty informed dude. Keep it up brother.

[JohnC]

The only plausible argument for RICO is to go after the Saints as an organization and prove that it was the team that promoted criminal activity. I guess you could then stretch the argument that Saints did what they did at the behest of the league.

 

Never mind the difficult legal case you have in proving that the action was criminal, let alone tying the bounty to specific injury vs natural brutal contact of the sport. Then you have to think about the Pyrrhic victory of winning the case and killing the NFL golden goose, if your goal is to get compensation for past injuries.

 

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I made no claim that there was a criminal issue. What I was suggesting was that there was a recklessness and lack of institutional control that could work in the favor of the retired and injured former players against the league in their civil suit.

 

In my view the argument that this is a criminial issue is farfetched and absurd. It isn't worth wasting time discussing.

 

The injured players are not worried about killing any golden goose. They feel that they have been treated unfairly by the league. They want better health coverage and compensation for the injuries they sustained while helping to create such a rich entreprise.

[Mr. WEO]

Very potentially. I think there are many circumstances that could be deserving of jail time and have been clear on that in many discussions. I was just curious what people thought of that scenario.

 

My point in asking was to say that it doesn't matter what Gregg's motivation was. But i think in your scenario of a lone player, there is no way to prove a crime was committed if his hit was deemed legal.

 

I agree to an extent. We are not fully privy to who had knowledge of the bounty system within the upper ranks of that organization. What many people do not realize is that charges are often brought against individuals when evidence shows that they had knowledge of the intent, even if they are not active participants. Anybody with direct knowledge of this said intent in the eyes of the law is a conspirator. If the GM is proven to have had knowledge of this established intent to harm outside the established rules of the NFL and it"s CBA then he is a coconspirator and the organization would be on the hook. RICO laws were immensely effective in fighting organized crime because law enforcement could effectively pursue low level participants who were merely third party entities and threaten them with significant jail time, thus creating tremendous leverage to get people to turn state's evidence. In criminal conspiracy charges all you have to do is be proven to have had knowledge of the intended crime and you are going to jail. As these laws are clearly worded you are an equally culpable co-conspirator. Thousands of people see jail time coast to coast every year in cases where these individuals are found guilty for RICO violations without ever directly taking part in an actual crime. The crime is knowledge of someone else's intent and is controversial BUT prevalent in the US court system. For example, if you have a friend that is a driver for drug shipments and he confides in you in anyway shape or form that is recorded by an instrument (such as a wire tapped phone) that is in fact a RICO violation and you will most certainly face jail time (which in some cases is equal to you being the one who did the crime in the first place), or at least be threatened with charges unless you cooperate with the authorities. Needless to say this is how law enforcement currently plays dominoes. FWIW, you are a pretty informed dude. Keep it up brother.

 

Interesting point regarding the higher-ups (owners in particular). The conspiracy charge is based on 2 or more parties agreeing to commit an unlawful act. Their actions and participation is explicit. You suggest that the owners for example, if they had full knowledge of the unlawful activity and did nothing to discourage (or encourage) might be considered co-conspirators ("implied participation"?).

 

Very interesting question. I think a DA or local prosecutor might pass on that charge. Hard to say.

 

Thanks for your input. It's off season and nice to have these small side discussions that stretch beyond "Nix for GM of the year" and "Gil Brandt's daily update of his top 1000 draft prospects" and "why we must/must not draft a LT/WR/LB/CB/QB at no.10"....etc.

 

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I made no claim that there was a criminal issue. What I was suggesting was that there was a recklessness and lack of institutional control that could work in the favor of the retired and injured former players against the league in their civil suit.

 

In my view the argument that this is a criminial issue is farfetched and absurd. It isn't worth wasting time discussing.

 

The injured players are not worried about killing any golden goose. They feel that they have been treated unfairly by the league. They want better health coverage and compensation for the injuries they sustained while helping to create such a rich entreprise.

 

Come on John! We've got plenty of time--jump in to the convo!

[JohnC]

 

Come on John! We've got plenty of time--jump in to the convo!

 

The bus I'm riding on is going in the opposite direction. Although out of courtesy I will wave to you as we pass by each other.

[GG]

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I made no claim that there was a criminal issue. What I was suggesting was that there was a recklessness and lack of institutional control that could work in the favor of the retired and injured former players against the league in their civil suit.

 

In my view the argument that this is a criminial issue is farfetched and absurd. It isn't worth wasting time discussing.

 

The injured players are not worried about killing any golden goose. They feel that they have been treated unfairly by the league. They want better health coverage and compensation for the injuries they sustained while helping to create such a rich entreprise.

 

But that's where the legal argument gets stretched. The whole point of RICO & the wide net it has afforded to prosecutors is to ensnare organizations and people at the top by implicating that the underlings were acting at the behest of the bosses. This is the exact opposite argument. Because if it goes down this angle, then it exposes the players as willing contributors in the crime or civil violation. I can see the league arguing that the bounty system has been in place for a long time (as verified by many players outside Saints) and the retired players knowingly took part in that system and bear contributory negligence to the unlawful act.

 

I can see where the retired players want to go with it. I just think it would be a stupid move that could seriously backfire.

[Mr. WEO]

But that's where the legal argument gets stretched. The whole point of RICO & the wide net it has afforded to prosecutors is to ensnare organizations and people at the top by implicating that the underlings were acting at the behest of the bosses. This is the exact opposite argument. Because if it goes down this angle, then it exposes the players as willing contributors in the crime or civil violation. I can see the league arguing that the bounty system has been in place for a long time (as verified by many players outside Saints) and the retired players knowingly took part in that system and bear contributory negligence to the unlawful act.

 

I can see where the retired players want to go with it. I just think it would be a stupid move that could seriously backfire.

 

Good point bout RICO, but what about as a state criminal case--just the coaches and players?

[Doc]

I don't know if or when charges would be filed (you're obfuscating now). I doesn't matter. I think it's an interesting question and as realityheck tells you below, the case for conspiracy is pretty clear. As for the amount of money, again your argument lacks a logical basis. It's clear that the amount of money was enough to entice player to participate in an enterprise who's only goal was to gain an advantage over an opponent not by outplaying them, but by eliminating them from competition with malice aforethought--attempting to injure individuals with hits tailored to specific weaknesses to produce specific injuries.

 

I think your argument is disingenuous (shocking) because there is no way you don't understand what is being discussed here.

 

Great post. But the defendants in a criminal case would be coaches and players. These guys are wealthy but nothing like owners--who would never be charged.

 

Right again mrags. This whole question is interesting, to me, exactly because of the nature of legal conspiracy. Simply planning the crime is a crime. Any talk of "football is violent", "guys get hurt", "it wasn't much money", etc miss the point of this entire conversation completely.

Look doc, blame the article you linked. The crux of the conspiracy argument put forth by the retired FBI agent (the only one who has even broached the subject), i.e. "whoever conspires to commit physical violence to any person in furtherance of a plan or purpose which in anyway or degree effects commerce," is doomed because physical violence is inherent in the sport of football and claiming an effect on "interstate commerce" is weak at best since the NFL is one entity. Then the stuff about organized crime getting in on the act was the topper. Nevermind the fact that games are officiated by men who are charged with the duty of penalizing or ejecting players who go beyond the rules, and that players routinely go after players' injuries and try to/do knock key opposing players out of the game all the time, without any monetary reward.

 

And if there was a "conspiracy" that involved Williams, Payton, Loomis, and Vitt that should be prosecuted, should Belichick, Pioli and Walsh have been prosecuted for "conspiring" to illegally videotape signals and affecting "interstate commerce?"

[NoSaint]

My point in asking was to say that it doesn't matter what Gregg's motivation was. But i think in your scenario of a lone player, there is no way to prove a crime was committed if his hit was deemed legal.

 

 

 

Interesting point regarding the higher-ups (owners in particular). The conspiracy charge is based on 2 or more parties agreeing to commit an unlawful act. Their actions and participation is explicit. You suggest that the owners for example, if they had full knowledge of the unlawful activity and did nothing to discourage (or encourage) might be considered co-conspirators ("implied participation"?).

 

Very interesting question. I think a DA or local prosecutor might pass on that charge. Hard to say.

 

Thanks for your input. It's off season and nice to have these small side discussions that stretch beyond "Nix for GM of the year" and "Gil Brandt's daily update of his top 1000 draft prospects" and "why we must/must not draft a LT/WR/LB/CB/QB at no.10"....etc.

 

 

 

Come on John! We've got plenty of time--jump in to the convo!

 

I think as numerous players have admitted it, intent would be easy. Further, I wasn't asking if it would be easy to prove the intent but if you think am intentional injury from a clean hit is criminal

Edited April 11, 2012 by NoSaint

[GG]

Good point bout RICO, but what about as a state criminal case--just the coaches and players?

 

I'm guessing that the only players that could have a case would be the ones who were singled out by Greggo for injuries. It would be difficult for other players to get in the act. For a basic criminal action, I don't think you need a conspiracy case. It should be cut & dry that Greggo instructed his players to hurt & injure players outside the rules of the game. But there's very little precedent in these cases - I'm primarily thinking of hockey brawls & intentional sticks to the head. Bertuzzi copped a plea and served no jail time, and I think that was worse.

 

The best bet for legal action would be civil liability, but then you would need to ensnare Tom Benson & the NFL, and that's where it gets more difficult.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I agree to an extent. We are not fully privy to who had knowledge of the bounty system within the upper ranks of that organization. What many people do not realize is that charges are often brought against individuals when evidence shows that they had knowledge of the intent, even if they are not active participants. Anybody with direct knowledge of this said intent in the eyes of the law is a conspirator. If the GM is proven to have had knowledge of this established intent to harm outside the established rules of the NFL and it"s CBA then he is a coconspirator and the organization would be on the hook. RICO laws were immensely effective in fighting organized crime because law enforcement could effectively pursue low level participants who were merely third party entities and threaten them with significant jail time, thus creating tremendous leverage to get people to turn state's evidence. In criminal conspiracy charges all you have to do is be proven to have had knowledge of the intended crime and you are going to jail. As these laws are clearly worded you are an equally culpable co-conspirator. Thousands of people see jail time coast to coast every year in cases where these individuals are found guilty for RICO violations without ever directly taking part in an actual crime. The crime is knowledge of someone else's intent and is controversial BUT prevalent in the US court system. For example, if you have a friend that is a driver for drug shipments and he confides in you in anyway shape or form that is recorded by an instrument (such as a wire tapped phone) that is in fact a RICO violation and you will most certainly face jail time (which in some cases is equal to you being the one who did the crime in the first place), or at least be threatened with charges unless you cooperate with the authorities. Needless to say this is how law enforcement currently plays dominoes. FWIW, you are a pretty informed dude. Keep it up brother.

I haven't bothered to look up whether the RICO conspiracy statute has been amended, or if the courts have changed their interpretation of it, but here's what one federal appeals court said in 1997 about what the government must prove to make out a RICO conspiracy case:

 

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/55087F3B51C2F08C85256F120065D7D8/$file/95-3157a.txt

 

A RICO conspiracy charge, on the other hand, requires

proof that the defendant agreed to further a substantive

RICO violation. That obliges the government to show "(1)

the existence of an enterprise which affects interstate or

foreign commerce; (2) that the defendant 'associated with'

the enterprise; (3) that the defendant participated in the

conduct of the enterprise's affairs; and, (4) that the partic-

ipation was through a pattern of racketeering activity, i.e., by

committing at least two acts of racketeering activity as de-

fined by 18 U.S.C. s 1961(1)." United States v. Phillips, 664

F.2d 971, 1011 (5th Cir. 1981).

 

Sounds to me like your "friend of a drug driver" example is way off base. But then again, I have never claimed to have any particular education or work experience here, and may not be a "pretty informed dude."

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

Good point bout RICO, but what about as a state criminal case--just the coaches and players?

FWIW:

 

http://law.justia.com/codes/louisiana/2011/rs/title14/rs14-26/

 

For an overview of various circumstances in which courts have considered whether sports violence is legally actionable (in either a civil or criminal case), see:

 

http://sportslaw.uslegal.com/sports-violence/

[RealityCheck]

I haven't bothered to look up whether the RICO conspiracy statute has been amended, or if the courts have changed their interpretation of it, but here's what one federal appeals court said in 1997 about what the government must prove to make out a RICO conspiracy case:

 

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/55087F3B51C2F08C85256F120065D7D8/$file/95-3157a.txt

 

 

 

Sounds to me like your "friend of a drug driver" example is way off base. But then again, I have never claimed to have any particular education or work experience here, and may not be a "pretty informed dude."

As I have clearly stated before, how the laws are currently enforced within the inner city communities in the south when people of limited resources use public defenders is night and day to those who have resources and can afford a proper legal defense. I also stated that no criminal charges are likely due to this distinction. If you are unaware of how these laws are applied in the poorer communities of our nation then it is what it is. To assume that the interpretation of the law in one case in 1997 which was defended by a high powered defense team in an organized crime case ignores a clear history of expansion in scope of the laws, their interpretation, and to exactly whom they are currently applied. Your race, profile, zip code, social status and associations have everything to do with how zealous and over reaching an investigation may or not be. If OJ never played football, was not wealthy,was never on TV nor had his trial aired and used a public defender you can rest assured that he would have been convicted the first time and would still be in jail. Based on how conspiracy and RICO charges are applied to the poor, yes, I do believe that the Saints are in big trouble as their intent was established over the course of years and multiple states, not to mention the obvious impact on all the various types of gambling associated with a single football game. The NFL has money, lawyers and a lot to lose, thus they will likely avoid any criminal charges. How is it that since the market correction of 2008 there have been so few successful investigations of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud? How is it that banks are allowed to grossly misrepresent their earnings through "creative accounting"? If you the working class individual did any of those things the IRS would treat you like Al Capone.

[Mr. WEO]

Look doc, blame the article you linked. The crux of the conspiracy argument put forth by the retired FBI agent (the only one who has even broached the subject), i.e. "whoever conspires to commit physical violence to any person in furtherance of a plan or purpose which in anyway or degree effects commerce," is doomed because physical violence is inherent in the sport of football and claiming an effect on "interstate commerce" is weak at best since the NFL is one entity. Then the stuff about organized crime getting in on the act was the topper. Nevermind the fact that games are officiated by men who are charged with the duty of penalizing or ejecting players who go beyond the rules, and that players routinely go after players' injuries and try to/do knock key opposing players out of the game all the time, without any monetary reward.

 

And if there was a "conspiracy" that involved Williams, Payton, Loomis, and Vitt that should be prosecuted, should Belichick, Pioli and Walsh have been prosecuted for "conspiring" to illegally videotape signals and affecting "interstate commerce?"

 

The article broaches the topic of conspiracy. It did so in the context of interstate commerce. Perhaps that case would be difficult to make, but as you know (because it is what the rest of us are actually talking about), the point of my OP was whether a case could be made for criminal conspiracy--on a local basis, if you will. This case clearly fits the simple definition of conspiracy so I don;t know why you keep going back to interstate commerce. Williams conspired with players to injure other players. If a player wants, on his on volition, to intentionally harm another player to "take him out"-even with a hit that does not draw a penalty, there is not evidence of a crime. But if a group of people decide to do this as a matter of routine, it is conspiracy, which is a crime.

 

And your non sequitor about the "men who are charged with the duty..." is maybe the best piece of doc nonsense ever. Aren't these the same guys you go on every week about blowing obvious calls and all being part of a "conspiracy" to favor certain teams over others? Why would you expect them to blow the whistle on guys bounty hunting? You're getting messy, doc.

 

Since videotaping is not a crime (whereas intentionally inflicting injury on another is) then the obvious answer to your pats fixation related question is no.

[JohnC]

But that's where the legal argument gets stretched. The whole point of RICO & the wide net it has afforded to prosecutors is to ensnare organizations and people at the top by implicating that the underlings were acting at the behest of the bosses. This is the exact opposite argument. Because if it goes down this angle, then it exposes the players as willing contributors in the crime or civil violation. I can see the league arguing that the bounty system has been in place for a long time (as verified by many players outside Saints) and the retired players knowingly took part in that system and bear contributory negligence to the unlawful act.

 

In this New Orleans case you are stretching the RICO legal approach beyond anyone's ability to imagine. The wide-ranging and all encompassing law, at times very much abused, is not applicable to this cirucmstance

 

I can see where the retired players want to go with it. I just think it would be a stupid move that could seriously backfire.

 

If you lost your memory and lived a life of pain and incapcitation you would have a better understanding as to why they are pursuing their own interests. If it can be proved that the league was very aware of the physcial damage and most specifically issues relating to concussions and didn't try to take corrective measures as they are doing now you would be more sympathetic to their cause.

 

There is a less than altruistic reason why Roger Goodell is trying to change the way the game is played: He is trying to limit the liability for the accumulated physical carnage absorbed by the participants (employees). I give him credit for trying to ameliorate a problem that is inherent in the game.

[GG]

In this New Orleans case you are stretching the RICO legal approach beyond anyone's ability to imagine. The wide-ranging and all encompassing law, at times very much abused, is not applicable to this cirucmstance

 

The reason I bring it up is that it's the most widely used statute for conspiracy allegations. That's why I also said it would be a very challenging case. Which brings us to below:

 

If you lost your memory and lived a life of pain and incapcitation you would have a better understanding as to why they are pursuing their own interests. If it can be proved that the league was very aware of the physcial damage and most specifically issues relating to concussions and didn't try to take corrective measures as they are doing now you would be more sympathetic to their cause.

 

There is a less than altruistic reason why Roger Goodell is trying to change the way the game is played: He is trying to limit the liability for the accumulated physical carnage absorbed by the participants (employees). I give him credit for trying to ameliorate a problem that is inherent in the game.

 

Yes, it's obvious that NFL's actions are more self-serving than altruistic. But in keeping within the topic of the thread - whether there was a conspiracy involved in the bounty system and whether there's criminal or civil liability as a result, is very tenuous from a retired players' perspective. In order for the players to get what they want - just compensation - they would need to prove that the NFL was complicit in the conspiracy to hurt & maim the players. I think that's a high legal bar. I think they have a better case arguing that the teams & NFL by extension contributed to the players post retirement conditions by knowingly hiding the effect of head shots, not providing proper safety equipment and rushing the players back into actions while they were still injured.

[papazoid]

Because the coaches weren't doing it to affect the outcomes of their wagers, which is the only reason the mob would do it.

 

but Williams and all his assistant coaches motive was financial gain thru improving thier chances of future employment at higher wages based on past performance.

[Doc]

The article broaches the topic of conspiracy. It did so in the context of interstate commerce. Perhaps that case would be difficult to make, but as you know (because it is what the rest of us are actually talking about), the point of my OP was whether a case could be made for criminal conspiracy--on a local basis, if you will. This case clearly fits the simple definition of conspiracy so I don;t know why you keep going back to interstate commerce. Williams conspired with players to injure other players. If a player wants, on his on volition, to intentionally harm another player to "take him out"-even with a hit that does not draw a penalty, there is not evidence of a crime. But if a group of people decide to do this as a matter of routine, it is conspiracy, which is a crime.

 

And your non sequitor about the "men who are charged with the duty..." is maybe the best piece of doc nonsense ever. Aren't these the same guys you go on every week about blowing obvious calls and all being part of a "conspiracy" to favor certain teams over others? Why would you expect them to blow the whistle on guys bounty hunting? You're getting messy, doc.

 

Since videotaping is not a crime (whereas intentionally inflicting injury on another is) then the obvious answer to your pats fixation related question is no.

The most obvious answer as to why this isn't "criminal conspiracy" is because no one (except for a few internet lawyers here) have even suggested it is, for the reasons I mentioned. IOW, it just isn't. Needing to invoke a "conspiracy" here is as wacky as the conspiracy theories you've laughed at me about, so this time it's me laughing at you. Basically it was one idiot (Williams) who egged-on some other idiots to do stupid stuff. He got punished and they too will likely get punished. Why it needs to go beyond that, when none of the aggrieved parties will likely cooperate, is anyone's guess.

[JohnC]

The reason I bring it up is that it's the most widely used statute for conspiracy allegations. That's why I also said it would be a very challenging case. Which brings us to below:

 

 

 

Yes, it's obvious that NFL's actions are more self-serving than altruistic. But in keeping within the topic of the thread - whether there was a conspiracy involved in the bounty system and whether there's criminal or civil liability as a result, is very tenuous from a retired players' perspective. In order for the players to get what they want - just compensation - they would need to prove that the NFL was complicit in the conspiracy to hurt & maim the players. I think that's a high legal bar. I think they have a better case arguing that the teams & NFL by extension contributed to the players post retirement conditions by knowingly hiding the effect of head shots, not providing proper safety equipment and rushing the players back into actions while they were still injured.

 

On the basis of a civil challenge by the retired players let's get away from the concept of league "conspirancy" to the more attainable legal concept of "negligence" by the league. That is the essence of the point I'm trying to make.

 

I have already emphatically dismissed the notion of a criminal conspirancy on prior postings. I believe that Roger Goodell is very aware of the retired players' civil case against the league and his vulnerability in the case regarding player safety and post-career responsibilities.

 

I give Roger Goodell a lot of credit. What he is trying to do to is in essence change the culture of the sport and how it is played. That is a very tall task to accomplish in a collision sport. He is not doing this out of altruism but out of self-interest of protecting the golden goose.

 

In general, I think we are more in accord than discord on this issue. Sometimes minor or nuanced differences can seem much larger than they actually are.

Edited April 11, 2012 by JohnC