Many newspapers in America gave front-page coverage to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell’s decision to suspend New Orleans Saints head coach Sean Payton for the coming year (costing him his $7.5 million salary), former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams indefinitely, Saints general manager Mickey Loomis for the first eight regular-season games next season and assistant head coach Joe Vitt for six games. In addition, the franchise was fined $500,000 and lost several high future draft picks.
The penalties were leveled in the aftermath of an investigation of the Saints’ illegal bounty program designed, in part, to injure opposing players from 2009 to 2011. It was the strongest punishment in league history.
Drew Brees, the Pro Bowl quarterback of the Saints, said via Twitter, “I am speechless. Sean Payton is a great man, coach, and mentor. The best there is. I need to hear an explanation for punishment.”
How about (for starters) lying to the NFL during its investigation and refusing to stop the program after the league had ordered it to do so. You could add to the list conduct that is disgraceful (paying a bounty to players whose hit causes another player to be taken off the field on a stretcher borders on malevolence). And protecting players from injury. And the integrity of the game. And sending a message that will prevent anything like this from every happening again.
It is precisely because football is an inherently violent game that clear boundaries need to be drawn and certain rules abided by. The New Orleans Saints, a franchise that a few years ago was the feel-good sports story of the year, has stained itself in ways that will be hard to recover from.
Roger Goodell, on the other hand, acted in an appropriate and impressive manner. He sent a powerful message, including a powerful moral message that will become a model for other profession sports leagues.
I disagree. Goodell is a megalomaniac who thinks it's all about him. Whether systematically fining defenders for doing things that are otherwise known as "football" or (probably illegally) docking teams salary cap space because they had the audacity to actually spend money in an uncapped year, I think he is a disgrace. Add this to the list. My problem isn't so much with the punishment, though I do think it is excessive. I mean, a year suspension? Really? But even though I think the punishment is excessive, I could tolerate it if Goodell was at least consistent. But he's not. How many games was Bill Belichick suspended for cheating his way to three Super Bowls by illegally videotaping other teams' defensive signals? That's right, zero. And I actually think what the Patriots did was worse. Maybe not morally, since intentionally trying to injure an opponent is wrong. But for the integrity of the game, there really isn't anything worse than cheating. That's why steroids in baseball was such a big deal (though nobody cared about amphetamines in baseball or steroids in football). And anyone who argues that the Patriots didn't benefit from their cheating needs to get a clue. Anyone who honestly tries to argue that knowing what the defense will do does not benefit the offense should not be taken seriously. That would be like arguing that a military commander wouldn't benefit from knowing the enemy's battle plan. Of course it helps. And if it didn't help, why is there a rule against it, and why were the breaking it? And anyone who tries to argue that the only time the Patriots did it also happened to be the time they got caught is hopelessly naive. Of course, Goodell reacted very differently to that, basically letting the Patriots off with a slap on the wrist (a first-round draft pick, some fines and no suspensions) and then even going so far as to DESTROY THE EVIDENCE. The Patriots didn't destroy it (well, they might have destroyed something before they sent whatever they sent to the league). The NFL did. What's more suspicious than that? And yet, people still keep giving Goodell credit for being a "great commissioner," when in fact he is quite the opposite.
Actually, why aren't there criminal charges and civil suits? These guys on the Saints were acting in a conspiracy the INTENT of which was to cause grievous bodily injuries to specific individuals. n nHow is this any different form Tonya Harding and her boyfriend conspiring and acting to injure Nancy Kerrigan? They went to jail for that. So should the players and the coaches involved in this conspiracy.
What do they hope to accomplish? A contact free NFL? A maximum # of hits per season?
If you truly can't make a distinction between assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the game itself, then the game itself is the problem as is in fact the case with boxing. But i don't think it is impossible to make that distinction, and I think people who claim they can't, like the Empress Judy above, are using ignorance as a defense.
So if players are renumerated with non cash awards or some other benefit/praise/whathaveyou to basically 'do their job' then how is THAT materially different?
I don't think you understand what was happening here. there was a deliberate plan to grievously injure opposing players so that they were physically damaged in a potentially life changing way. These were not attempts to execute a play or tactical maneuver within the objectives of the game. they were attempts to severely injure opposing players, just as Tonya Harding and her boyfriend did to Nancy Kerrigan. n nDo you truly not understand this point?