Scott Fujita releases strong statement on revised suspension

[ChrisPozz]

Boom. Via Schefter on whosay:

"I'm pleased the Commissioner has finally acknowledged that I never participated in any so-called "bounty" program, as I've said for the past 7 months. However, his condescending tone was neither accurate nor productive. Additionally, I am now purportedly being suspended for failing to confront my former defensive coordinator for his inappropriate use of language. This seems like an extremely desperate attempt to punish me. I also think it sets a bad precedent when players can be disciplined for not challenging the behavior of their superiors. This is an absolute abuse of the power that's been afforded to the Commissioner.

For me, the issue of player health & safety is personal. For the league and the Commissioner, it's about perception & liability.

The Commissioner says he is disappointed in me. The truth is, I’m disappointed in him. His positions on player health and safety since a 2009 congressional hearing on concussions have been inconsistent at best. He failed to acknowledge a link between concussions & post-career brain disease, pushed for an 18-game regular season, committed to a full season of Thursday night games, has continually challenged players' rights to file workers compensation claims for on-the-job injuries, and he employed incompetent replacement officials for the start of the 2012 season. His actions or lack thereof are by the league’s own definition, “conduct detrimental”.

My track record on the issue of player health & safety speaks for itself. And clearly, as I just listed, the Commissioner's does too."

 

[tabascojet]

props to the asian assassin

 

[DoobieKeebler]

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

"For me, the issue of player health & safety is personal. For the league and the Commissioner, it's about perception & liability."

Good line. The league office is obsessive about perception. I've always thought that the "appearance" of justice is more important than actual justice to them, and there's a big difference. More about making examples of people, destroying scapegoats and making a big deal of it, ignoring other situations as long as its not a public story.

(People may roll their eyes, but this is exactly how the Bush Administration worked. They would prosecute a few high-profile people and ignore the vast majority of wrongdoing. For instance, Martha Stewart held up as arch insider trader while Wall Street ran rampant.....Tommy Chong sent to jail for selling bongs while a zillion others sold freely.....if you think Goodell wouldn't make a great GOP senator just like his dad you don't know him well)

 

[BINGO]

Bravo for Scott!!




I mean seriously, are you going to suspend because he didn't stand up and challenge his supervisor (coach) regarding the unethical issue that took place? If you're going to suspend him for that then why him? Why not the entire audience? Why single him out...that's all I am saying!

 

[MHSL82]

Bravo for Scott!!




I mean seriously, are you going to suspend because he didn't stand up and challenge his supervisor (coach) regarding the unethical issue that took place? If you're going to suspend him for that then why him? Why not the entire audience? Why single him out...that's all I am saying!

Well, he has to appeal now. Think about it: If you are suspended for not standing up to your superiors, not appealing would be NOT standing up to your superiors, again. Second offense is punished harder than the primary offense. Goodell would have to suspend him again!

 

[TobyTyler]

That was well said and, if accurate, paints a pretty dismal picture of the commissioner. I tend to believe Fujita. The "not confronting his superiors about his language" is nothing less than absurd.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I've been calling this witch hunt a farce from the onset. Clearly Goodell just wanted someone - anyone - to be the victim of his political perception that he and the NFL actually care about players' safety. The fact that the NFL made such a monstrous deal about football culture that's prevalent since Pop Warner is nothing short of ludicrous, and Goodell has fully shown his hypocrisy and utter stupidity with these over handed punishments.

Fujita has every right to be pissed. You're gonna suspend him because he didn't tell on his DC? Really, Goodell? That's what you've come up with you weasel after the players themselves have proven that your investigation is nothing but a sham?

Good for Scott.

 

[clyde_carbon]

"For me, the issue of player health & safety is personal. For the league and the Commissioner, it's about perception & liability."

Good line. The league office is obsessive about perception. I've always thought that the "appearance" of justice is more important than actual justice to them, and there's a big difference. More about making examples of people, destroying scapegoats and making a big deal of it, ignoring other situations as long as its not a public story.

(People may roll their eyes, but this is exactly how the Bush Administration worked. They would prosecute a few high-profile people and ignore the vast majority of wrongdoing. For instance, Martha Stewart held up as arch insider trader while Wall Street ran rampant.....Tommy Chong sent to jail for selling bongs while a zillion others sold freely.....if you think Goodell wouldn't make a great GOP senator just like his dad you don't know him well)

Agree 100%. Truth.

 

[Kinzu]

From what I read the new suspensions are based on the players own admittance of having the pay for play system. Goodell has sworn testimony from the players that they did have a program that paid for things like a hit causing a player to miss a play or plays. He even got one one or all of them to admit to paying if a trainer had to use to smelling salts on the guy hit.

If that is true these guys basically incriminated themselves and have no legs to stand on. They say it was not a pay to injure program and it only rewarded legal hits, but when you're paying for hits that take guys out of games what do you think it is other than a pay to injure program?

Here was the article,
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8483996/suspended-new-orleans-saints-snared-own-words

 

[clyde_carbon]

From what I read the new suspensions are based on the players own admittance of having the pay for play system. Goodell has sworn testimony from the players that they did have a program that paid for things like a hit causing a player to miss a play or plays. He even got one one or all of them to admit to paying if a trainer had to use to smelling salts on the guy hit.

If that is true these guys basically incriminated themselves and have no legs to stand on. They say it was not a pay to injure program and it only rewarded legal hits, but when you're paying for hits that take guys out of games what do you think it is other than a pay to injure program?

The entire NFL is a pay for play system.

 

[MHSL82]

That was well said and, if accurate, paints a pretty dismal picture of the commissioner. I tend to believe Fujita. The "not confronting his superiors about his language" is nothing less than absurd.

Did the NFL say that they are suspending him for not confronting his superiors or was that just part of the list of things they say he did in addition to paying a bounty? This was likely written by someone who knows how to spin things. Naturally, you raise the rediculousness and temper the rest to make it seems more off than it is (even if it is off to begin with). If Fujita did it (pay a bounty), he's wrong enough morally for me not to believe what he said in this statement. But I don't know if he did, so I won't say that this is false, either.

 

[MHSL82]

For all those calamouring for evidence, what kind of evidence do you expect? There are some dumb criminals, but it's not like you can expect someone who knows they are doing something illegal to write it down, record it, announce it, etc. I suppose they wouldn't want to rely on the honor system or memories, but there are trash cans, etc. They supposedly do have a ledger saying cartoffs, money amounts, etc. That's as close as you're going to get and they have it. Interpretation of what it means might be off (with Williams deciphering it for the league) and I don't know who would verify it besides Williams (yes, Commissioner, that is me and this is a bounty, but I'm innocent!). Can't expect anyone to validate it, so questioning it isn't damning.

There are some honest players, but I doubt anyone would turn on their own teammates, at least not in a way that Goodell could then produce them on the stand, so to speak. I know that they didn't check bank accounts to see if 10,000 were taken out, but something about the millions of dollars that are spent by athletes make me think that perhaps it's not solid proof that they didn't have cash. Vilma said he pays everything by credit card. Great, that doesn't mean he doesn't have cash. None of this means he's guilty, just that I don't expect there to be much evidence out there. I expect players to plead their innocence and the NFLPA must stand for them, so the passion they have for justice doesn't exonerate them, in my opinion. In law, they may be.

I understand that we need evidence because we can't just trust that the NFL is right. I just think the expectation of the NFL finding solid evidence is a bit optimistic. The assumption that because you can't see something means it's not there or didn't happen is silly (no, I'm not talking about religion). It just means you can't prove that it did - the threshold for suspending players. So I get the "this is wrong, they have no evidence" sentiment, but I won't buy the innocent victim thing either. They do have Williams saying he did it and the players did it. He could be saying it for the future chance to come back, but it doesn't make it necessarily false.

I'm trying to take it more neutrally because it's not my team.

 

[ChrisPozz]

Did the NFL say that they are suspending him for not confronting his superiors or was that just part of the list of things they say he did in addition to paying a bounty? This was likely written by someone who knows how to spin things. Naturally, you raise the rediculousness and temper the rest to make it seems more off than it is (even if it is off to begin with). If Fujita did it (pay a bounty), he's wrong enough morally for me not to believe what he said in this statement. But I don't know if he did, so I won't say that this is false, either.

My own personal understanding prior to today's stuff was that it was the latter.

 

[MHSL82]

Ran out of time for editing.

They have questionable emails (in which I think they must produce as evidence). I expect the NFL to interpret those emails with suspicion after the rest of the stuff because no one's going to write on the email the whole bounty in details ("I am putting down xxx amount if you get Favre injured in the game."). Do people expect the players or caoches to be specific?

 

[MHSL82]

After my novel, here's the conclusion: I don't think the NFL has enough to suspend the players. It doesn't mean they are innocent, just the nature of prosecuting someone for things that are hard to prove. So while suspensions are likely unsupported enough, I don't share the passion for their release, so to speak. I don't know enough to say they are guilty, I just don't share remorse for them because I don't give them specifically the benefit of the doubt and don't hate Goodell. In criminal prosecutions, I tend to give some benefit of the doubt.

 

[NinerSickness]

Man I hate the Saints so much. I've never heard a team bitch so much. They're becoming my 4th most hated team behind the Cowboys, Raiders & cheaters.

 

[jordan20_3]

Those guys played dirty and they have to face it. Take it like a man, because bounties arent cool at all in the NFL

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Man I hate the Saints so much. I've never heard a team bitch so much.

Did you see the Brees quotes this morning? He is being a huge baby about this.

"We've acknowledged for the most part that this whole bounty thing is just a big sham,"

"for the most part" - weasel words, basically admitting there *was* something, but trying to downplay it. He's not saying there was no bounty, but its a "sham". I think he has a future as a criminal defense attorney.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8...aints-qb-says-bounty-penalties-based-rhetoric

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

On the other hand:

"If Goodell won't appoint another person to hear the appeal, they'll go to court,"

Its ludicrous that he does both the punishment and appeals, the whole point of an appeal is getting a different perspective. Again, more about the "appearance" of due process rather than actual justice - "hey, they got their appeal!". Judge, jury, appellate judge, and executioner.