If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ESPN)   The bounty on Brett Farve during the 2009 NFC Championships was at least $35,000, and that's not even counting the money raised by Packers fans   (espn.go.com) divider line 179
    More: Interesting, Brett Favre, NFC Championship Game, Chris Kluwe, Jonathan Vilma, NFL, Joe Vitt, Seifert, Adam Schefter  
•       •       •

1368 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Jun 2012 at 1:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



179 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-19 08:44:47 PM

Slow To Return: Oh, ok, so you're reading into it. Gotcha.


Its a natural progression since they know the bounty was in place for farvre and is pretty solid in any court case, the point is that its stupid to file lawsuits in the face of this evidence and its not like a court has a say in these matters anyway.
 
2012-06-19 08:47:32 PM

steamingpile: Its a natural progression since they know the bounty was in place for farvre and is pretty solid in any court case


LOL

Oh my Lord. Another GED in Law, I think.

/yes, it's stupid to file lawsuits in the face of such daunting evidence as anonymous sources and transcriptions of handwritten notes by anonymous authors, it's only his reputation at stake
 
2012-06-19 08:53:36 PM

steamingpile: Its a natural progression since they know the bounty was in place for farvre and is pretty solid in any court case,


Exactly, since the Saints had a bounty system (HAD? How do we know they don't still HAVE it??), every single time any current or former Saints player talks about money, they're clearly referring to bounty money. I thought I already made that clear?
 
2012-06-19 08:56:54 PM

steamingpile: and he said "Give me some of that money"


Now I feel dumb, but you're totally lying about what was said on the sideline so it fits your new story about what Hargrove might have said. Is "baldfaced lying to fit your narrative" pretty solid in any court case too?
 
2012-06-19 09:06:43 PM
From Nabb1 via some quote - "You've made it more than apparent that you care more about that than apprising yourself of the actual facts. Did they do something stupid? Yes. Should they have stopped it when they were told? Absolutely. Did they have a "pay for performance" system? Yes, but it included all sorts of plays. It wasn't "cheating" in the sense of altering the outcome of play on the field, and the league has taken the position that this was an "off the field" infraction (i.e., it wasn't the hits - it was the money)."

This is why you're on ignore with Robsul, moronic statements like, "It wasn't "cheating" in the sense of altering the outcome of play on the field."

No it was cheating in the sense that it was against the rules. Which is technically correct, the best kind of correct.

And in fact, they took out Favre, so it definitely DID impact the outcome of play on the field, but since again thats not something you can prove either way, we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's not like theres a mountain of evidence proving they had an illegal bounty for 10s of thousands of dollars on the player, or a recording just after he got carted off specifically asking for part of the bounty. If they had those things.....wait what? They do? Yeah, thats why you idiots are ignored forever.

And to some ignored post from Robsul - Not sure how I was ever inconsistent in the competitive advantage. Money gives an advantage via incentive. This is a basic economic fundamental of society. I have never said that it does not. In fact, the person I was replying to, and Robsul himself are the ones that want to deny this, saying that money offers no incentive while at the same time saying that the money they would have gotten to win the game does. That's your hypocrisy. I have no such inconsistency in my logic.

Thanks for continuing to be retards and entertain this thread. I do get to see about 1/20 of your posts when one of the rare people who doesn't have you on ignore quotes you, and they're always humorously stupid.
 
2012-06-19 09:12:00 PM

justtray: No it was cheating in the sense that it was against the rules. Which is technically correct, the best kind of correct.


Awesome. That's the best, most idiotic, most easily mockable form of what cheating is.

images.sodahead.com

Every time this happens, it's because of cheating.

justtray: Not sure how I was ever inconsistent in the competitive advantage.


You weren't inconsistent, you were quite consistent in putting forth your moronic "MONEY MAKES IT CHEATING" position is.
 
2012-06-19 09:20:31 PM

robsul82: Tickle Mittens: Don't mock clipboard Jesus. If it wasn't for him, the Saints would have travelled to StL to face an 8-8 Rams only to be clowned by Steven Jackson. The history would be much less amusing.

Why, do you think Jackson wouldn't have grabbed his dick?


I suspect not; and, when he broke through he would have just out ran the Saints defense.

And, let's admit it; 7 - 9 is funnier. In fact, the only way the Seahawks of 2010 could have ended the season with a non-losing record would have been if the won the superbowl. That seventh win, over the Rams, and thanks to clipboard Jesus, is the threshold which allowed the Saints to pen a new chapter of football history as the first team to ever lose a playoff game to a team with a losing record. And, for good measure they did it as defending superbowl champions. Even if some 4 and 12 team manages to send to the links an undefeated defending superbowl champion, that result will be following the Saints footsteps. Given how long the sport has been around, and all the permutations and changes, it's amazing that the Saints could blaze a new trail into the uncharted. True pioneers. Because the Seahawks wanted for at least one more regular season win.
 
2012-06-19 09:22:09 PM

Tickle Mittens: I suspect not; and, when he broke through he would have just out ran the Saints defense.

And, let's admit it; 7 - 9 is funnier. In fact, the only way the Seahawks of 2010 could have ended the season with a non-losing record would have been if the won the superbowl. That seventh win, over the Rams, and thanks to clipboard Jesus, is the threshold which allowed the Saints to pen a new chapter of football history as the first team to ever lose a playoff game to a team with a losing record. And, for good measure they did it as defending superbowl champions. Even if some 4 and 12 team manages to send to the links an undefeated defending superbowl champion, that result will be following the Saints footsteps. Given how long the sport has been around, and all the permutations and changes, it's amazing that the Saints could blaze a new trail into the uncharted. True pioneers. Because the Seahawks wanted for at least one more regular season win.


When the Saints win, they do so memorably. When the Saints lose, they do it even more memorably.
 
2012-06-19 10:23:48 PM

steamingpile: Its a natural progression since they know the bounty was in place for farvre and is pretty solid in any court case,


Not enough to build a case on.

the point is that its stupid to file lawsuits in the face of this evidence

Not it isn't.

and its not like a court has a say in these matters anyway.

Yes, it can. It is not a forgone conclusion that Goodell can hide behind the CBA and decree Vilma was laying out cash for bounties without ramifications if he does not have sufficient evidence to back up that claim.
 
2012-06-20 12:08:21 AM

robsul82: Tickle Mittens: I suspect not; and, when he broke through he would have just out ran the Saints defense.

And, let's admit it; 7 - 9 is funnier. In fact, the only way the Seahawks of 2010 could have ended the season with a non-losing record would have been if the won the superbowl. That seventh win, over the Rams, and thanks to clipboard Jesus, is the threshold which allowed the Saints to pen a new chapter of football history as the first team to ever lose a playoff game to a team with a losing record. And, for good measure they did it as defending superbowl champions. Even if some 4 and 12 team manages to send to the links an undefeated defending superbowl champion, that result will be following the Saints footsteps. Given how long the sport has been around, and all the permutations and changes, it's amazing that the Saints could blaze a new trail into the uncharted. True pioneers. Because the Seahawks wanted for at least one more regular season win.

When the Saints win, they do so memorably. When the Saints lose, they do it even more memorably.


LET'S LATERAL TWELVE TIMES TO WIN THE GAME

oh wait
 
2012-06-20 12:14:09 AM

Sargun: LET'S LATERAL TWELVE TIMES TO WIN THE GAME

oh wait


LOL, albeit with a point of order - the River City Relay would've tied the game and sent it to OT, not win.

cdn0.sbnation.com

You know, had this "good effort, good job" moment not happened.

/will always both love and hate Jim Henderson's frustrated "NOOOOOOOOOOO...how could he DO that!" yell post-miss
 
2012-06-20 12:15:29 AM

robsul82: Sargun: LET'S LATERAL TWELVE TIMES TO WIN THE GAME

oh wait

LOL, albeit with a point of order - the River City Relay would've tied the game and sent it to OT, not win.

[cdn0.sbnation.com image 300x200]

You know, had this "good effort, good job" moment not happened.

/will always both love and hate Jim Henderson's frustrated "NOOOOOOOOOOO...how could he DO that!" yell post-miss


I know, but I felt we could have won after that :(
 
2012-06-20 12:17:02 AM

Sargun: I know, but I felt we could have won after that :(


Yeah, after a play like that, you'd THINK the Jags would've been too demoralized to win, but you never know. And at least, weird as it is to say, the Saints would've been eliminated from postseason contention anyway that day.
 
2012-06-20 02:14:34 AM

buckeyebrain: basemetal: As a big OU fan, and an Adrian Peterson fan, the bounty didn't make him fumble the damn ball.

/there's your ball game

Uhhhh, no. The Vikings were in a position to win in regulation. They were tied and in FG range, but BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE BRETT FAVRE couldn't stand to let somebody else be the hero, so he forced a pass across his body to the middle of the field, that was picked off, and forced overtime. The rest, as they say, is history.


as the biggest favre fan ever, I have to tell you that you are full of crap about the having to be the hero part. The throwing the ball across the body part is just who Brett is, overly confident in his own abilities, and a bit stupid at times.

/by "the body part" I am not saying what you perverts think im saying.
 
2012-06-20 02:15:58 AM
but if he WERENT overly confident, you dont make the NFC championship game to begin with.

/ hows post favre life working out for you? oh, yeah. Looks like you could use a little overconfience.
 
2012-06-20 02:22:05 AM
Why are we having this thread again? The Saints got caught cheating and are being punished for it. Evidence has been presented (unless you're a Saints fan) to an acceptable extent.

/the level of denial of Saints fans reminds me of the willful ignorance of the Tea Party
 
2012-06-20 02:30:16 AM

TwoBeersOneCan: Why are we having this thread again? The Saints got caught cheating and are being punished for it. Evidence has been presented (unless you're a Saints fan) to an acceptable extent.

/the level of denial of Saints fans reminds me of the willful ignorance of the Tea Party


Everytime someone fills robsul with candy, we have this thread. Why do you hate candy?
 
2012-06-20 02:51:36 AM
Hahaha...so many brave souls who never appear in the "turns out _____ isn't what the NFL said" threads. It's exhausting being right this often.
 
2012-06-20 05:19:11 AM

Nabb1: steamingpile: Its a natural progression since they know the bounty was in place for farvre and is pretty solid in any court case,

Not enough to build a case on.

the point is that its stupid to file lawsuits in the face of this evidence

Not it isn't.

and its not like a court has a say in these matters anyway.

Yes, it can. It is not a forgone conclusion that Goodell can hide behind the CBA and decree Vilma was laying out cash for bounties without ramifications if he does not have sufficient evidence to back up that claim.


This is where you are incorrect, the CBA gives him absolute authority on off the field matters, paying them is started to be argued that since payment took place off the field that makes it his call and most lawyers agree with that point. That is what makes the lawsuit and Vilma moronic, under the CBA if it is even implied he would give out cash for shiat like this then he is farked.
 
2012-06-20 07:59:46 AM

steamingpile: This is where you are incorrect, the CBA gives him absolute authority on off the field matters, paying them is started to be argued that since payment took place off the field that makes it his call and most lawyers agree with that point. That is what makes the lawsuit and Vilma moronic, under the CBA if it is even implied he would give out cash for shiat like this then he is farked.


Oh, good, Iove it when people without law degrees say stupid uninformed shiat like that.
 
2012-06-20 08:10:22 AM
Okay, that was unnecessarily harsh. In any case, the relief sought by the lawsuit is not to overturn Goodell's discipline. Goodell can suspend him. That's not in question. The lawsuit is arguing that Goodell committed libel and slander by tarnishing his reputation and seeks monetary damages. The court cannot second guess Goodell's discipline, but if the evidence is insufficient to support what he said about Vilma in connection with that, he can still have committed libel. The League will no doubt take the position that this is purely a CBA matter, but that is far from a foregone conclusion. The existence of a CBA is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for anything and everything. If Goodell determined that Vilma should face the lash for his violation of some "off the field" rules, he could not do that.
 
2012-06-20 12:45:32 PM

xynix: "and Mike Ornstein, a marketing official with ties to coach Sean Payton."

Why do they have to point that out? Just to get Sean's name in there.. that's why. He was head coach so he would have "ties" with everyone on the farking team. That's like saying I have ties to the CEO of my company if I do something stupid.

Also.. WHO DAT!

[static6.businessinsider.com image 398x299]


That picture along justifies the punishment he got. Remember that at the time it was believed that farve's leg was broken. Compare his reaction Farve on the ground writhing in pain to Lawrence Taylor's the Night he snapped Joe Theismann's leg. Even hopped up on coke and half Berserk, LT had the grace to be horrifed at what happened and do all he could for Joe.
 
2012-06-20 12:54:42 PM
Yes, a picture of a football player posing over a fallen quarterback justifies unprecedented punishments, because God knows that's never happened before. Clutch your pearls a little less tightly and be outraged that player isn't even among the suspended.
 
2012-06-20 01:20:24 PM

Tickle Mittens: TwoBeersOneCan: Why are we having this thread again? The Saints got caught cheating and are being punished for it. Evidence has been presented (unless you're a Saints fan) to an acceptable extent.

/the level of denial of Saints fans reminds me of the willful ignorance of the Tea Party

Everytime someone fills robsul with candy, we have this thread. Why do you hate candy?


That guy just isn't any fun anymore. He has a childlike understanding of the bounty situation and a childlike energy and enthusiasm for cheering the Saints and staying in denial. He practically trolls himself.
 
2012-06-20 01:23:08 PM
"Claim victory and depart the field," "claim victory and depart the field," "claim victory and depart the field," LOL...so much easier than actually having to argue every time Smoking Guns #1-17 starts to smell like day old Gorgonzola.
 
2012-06-20 01:36:26 PM
Wow, only three minutes. Turn off your notifications and go outside, man. I'm worried that you're going to give yourself a hemorrhage because some people on the internet don't like the Saints.

Keep ignoring the evidence if you want though. You have one heck of a fan boy filter.

/fark is serious business...
 
2012-06-20 01:38:58 PM
LOL, there are no notifications, just a +1 denoting yet another fool who just wants to lick Roger Goodell's boots in peace and not be troubled by the flimsy evidence getting more holes shot in it by the day.
 
2012-06-20 03:27:26 PM

Magorn: Remember that at the time it was believed that farve's leg was broken.


Yes, the doctor came out in the middle of the sack celebration and said "I think his leg's broken!"
 
2012-06-21 01:51:14 PM
i14.photobucket.com

/Why yes, my crappy Paint work amuses me
 
Displayed 29 of 179 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report