Vicodin Scandal: Prepare for the Worst, Hope for the Best
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 6:01 AM CDT
Email
PrintAs much as we'd probably all love this recent alleged vicodin theft scandal to just go away so we can continue to focus on Saints football and defending a championship, it appears these allegations could be a hot topic of discussion for quite a while. This is purely personal opinion, but I'm afraid we've only been exposed to the tip of the iceberg and, as often happens in situations like this, there are more dark secrets yet to be revealed. I've just got a bad feeling that this could be bigger than we think.
What should have Saints fans worried is that this isn't just some "average Joe" off the street filing this lawsuit and making these accusations. Santini is a retired FBI agent who spent four years taking down former Louisiana Governor Edwin Edwards and even testifying against the governor and his brother in court. He was so deeply involved that Edwards was accused of attempting to have Santini's phone lines wiretapped in 1998 because Edwards wanted to know ''what's happening, what he thinks, and what he believes.'' He is no amateur and by comparison, the NFL is probably child's play.
Call me naive, but I don't think this is a guy who would publicly lie on legal record. Regardless of whether he's motivated by greed and attempting to blackmail the organization, that doesn't mean his allegations aren't true or the events listed in the lawsuit didn't occur. And even in the event that he actually was lying, Santini's background and law enforcement history mean his testimony carries significantly more weight in the courtroom than the average citizen. Advantage: Santini.
But who cares about this civil suit? Santini just wants his money. There might even be some penalties handed down from the league Not the worst thing in the world. What would be a concern is a possible criminal investigation brought about by the accusations in the civil suit. The latest news says that local authorities in Jefferson Parish have not begun any probes yet but the DEA has a pending investigation. According to the civil lawsuit filed by Santini, the DEA has actually been involved as early as the summer of 2009...
Subsequent conversations ensued between plaintiff and GM Loomis concerning upcoming discussions with the DEA about the situation and the need to keep SSM A's name out of the conversation.
And the NFL smelled something funny a while back as well...
On July 30, 2009, plaintiff was contacted by NFL security representatives who requested additional information because they believed that NFL security had not been provided with full and complete facts concerning the missing pills.
If criminal investigations have already been underway for this long, why haven't we heard anything about this until a civil suit filing? The fact that this investigation would take them an entire year to perform raises concerns that there's more we might learn. And why is the civil suit only being filed now, a year later? Perhaps it was being held back in conjunction with the completion of the investigation, so as not to get in the way, and now all is ready to be revealed. I'm just not liking it.
We've got no idea what will inevitably happen but as Saints fans, we can only trust this is the worst of it. Because it worked so well last summer, I will once again adopt my famous attitude of cautious optimism as we wait for more details. Hopeful that the Saints dynasty will remain strong, but nervous it could all come crumbling down.
140 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Thanks for starting the week out on such a chipper note. ;)
But yes, hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Kinda like Saints football pre-2006, huh?
“The fact that this investigation would take them an entire year to perform raises concerns that there’s more we might learn.”
Or less. Perhaps it’s taken this long because there’s nothing there. “Did Joe Vitt steal pills?” shouldn’t take a year to determine if you have a video of the act. And the Saints didn’t play last year like a team prepared for the world to crash down on them.
My attitude worked even better last year: I said they’d win the Super Bowl. I think Vitt will resign, that the Saints organization will be fined by the NFL, and that’s it.
We’ll see.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
And another thing
Why is the DEA involved? I didn’t think they investigated individual cases of abuse…only trafficking. The stories that have surfaced recently about the DEA “looking into the cover-up” have the feel of “yeah, we know about it” and nothing else.
Either this is MUCH more serious than is being reported, and the entire Saints organization is going down (could the NFL force Benson to sell the team? To someone who would move it to Los Angeles!?), or else every law enforcement agency has already blown it off.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
DEA involvement
The DEA will sometimes investigate potential high profile cases. Normally they don’t investigate anything that is consider minor “street level” narcotics cases but have been known to make exceptions in various situations such as high profile incidents.
unfortunately
being a 31 year FBI veteran does not make someone above being dishonest.
However, this whole thing seems a little to bizarre to be completely BS. Regardless of what happens this is going to be a distraction. I’ve got all my fingers crossed that this isn’t serious
"But tonight the Superbowl belongs to the City of New Orleans" - Roger Goodell 2/7/2010
Vicodin claim
I dont think that was fabricated out of thin air. I think it’s pretty clear Vicodin was stolen, especially if the guy is claiming he has video evidence. The question is whether he can prove that beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. The Saints will have some pretty awesome lawyers… That said, stealing Vicodin is a felony that carries lots of jail time, so this is a very serious matter. This case is just based on cash, so as fans we shouldn’t care if the team loses a little money to this guy. I’m sure it will be settled out of court. If Joe Vitt and Sean Payton get charged by the state for a felony separately, then this will get a lot more serious. At this point it sounds like Vitt is in a lot deeper shite than Payton, but that could change.
I may not understand the santini intention, but one thing i do not understand this:
1. He was a former FBI agent. With his knowledge of how the legal process works, would it not make more sense to turn the evidence into the police, FBI, DEA.
Say it wasn’t not narcotics involved, lets say embezzlement, would a person file suit before notifying the authoritities?
I do not understand why a individual would spend time filing suit instead of reporting claims and submitting evidence.
Filing suit is a more personal process than expressing your concerns to the authorities, in addition to submitting you evidence.
What's more
If the claims can be proven in criminal court first, that makes winning a civil judgment that much easier.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
Dave, is there something in the suit filed that may lead us to the rational behind the suit.
It cannot be duty bound, because it would simply be reported rather than filed in court.
Wrongful termination perhaps?
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions
plaintiff is seeking damages and back pay
because he was forced to ignore or take part in illegal criminal activities in order to remain employed.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
true or not,
if the guy tried to get hush money, and the saints can prove that, i think that will dampen his credibility, and therefore lessen any action against the saints taken by the league or the law. most likely, if the saints are guilty of anything, fines will be handed down. if joe vitt is guilty, i can see them asking him to resign, but as far as payton and the organization as a whole, i dont think they’ll be greatly affected. but who knows, that’s just my opinion, i’m hoping like hell that i’m right.
"These two teams just should not play each other" ...John Madden during a 1991 Saints-Eagles game
The only thing so far that i have seen VITT guilty of is having access to the drug locker and removing pills from them.
There has to be a paper trail from there of what he did with them to prove anything.
That could be as simple as a intake/outake sheet.
Also the fact that the keys to the locker were not truly in a secure location will come into play.
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions
Now that there are allegations out there...
Does Goodell start throwing around punishments even if the case is dropped?
That’s what scares me about the whole Roethlisberger deal. If Goodell can punish him for something that never went to trial, what’s stopping him from saying that this whole situation is causing bad publicity for the NFL, and that the Saints should give up a 2011 draft pick as a result? Or suspend Sean Payton and Joe Vitt from coaching for 4 games? With the precedent in place, the result of the judicial process doesn’t matter. If bad publicity is the standard for punishment, then the Saints are already S.O.L.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
Which is one of the reasons I hate Goodell. Just one.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
Roger Goodell is an authority figure who was elected by the owners (needed a minimum of 22 of the 32 votes) to represent the owners’ interests (known as “the shield”, the NFL icon). He’s an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill. I know it’s not a popular position, and I’m not trying to be argumentative, but I don’t have a problem with him (except with labor relations). He does what the owners want (unless it’s them he’s doing it to) in order to protect the shield. If he didn’t flex for us once in a while, what’s the point? The alternative is the NBA, and nobody wants THAT.
Very rarely does Goodell take an action that the majority of the owners do not support. Your hate is misdirected.
It's getting better all the time.
Goodell didn’t have the support of all the owners, and doesn’t have the support of all the owners regarding his individual decisions. The only constant in those decisions is Roger Goodell.
Roger Goodell to the owners: “Who’s in charge here, soldier?” “Ain’t you?”
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
nope
He’s under contract until 2015 to do what he thinks is right to protect the shield. There is no hint of indecisiveness in his actions. He’s a hardass. And smart. What do you call assassins who accuse assassins?
It's almost Saturday night.
Did I hint that there’s a hint of indecisiveness about Goodell? It’s the owners who are a bunch of weenies who’d rather pawn their responsibilities off on somebody with a jackboot fetish.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
NFL Security has a big hand in that. They investigate everything. If they decide that the accusations are true — even IF the court system acquits / dismisses / settles / whatever — then Goodell will act. But if they decide it’s false, then unless the Saints LOSE in court, he won’t.
But my problem with that is that there is no real way to defend yourself. The D.A. down in Georgia couldn’t find enough evidence to even bring charges against Roethlisberger, but somehow NFL security conclusively proved his guilt? How does that work? The only thing that Ben doesn’t deny is that he bought drinks for an underage girl, and its a little hard to believe that something that minor can result in a tougher suspension than someone getting popped for steroid abuse. I get the feeling that NFL Security finds what Goodell wants them to find.
And the appeals process is more of a joke than anything. It consists of nothing more than Big Rog himself. Could you imagine going to court, only to have the cop tell his side of the story, then the judge pronounce you guilty? Then you appeal only to have the same judge say “still guilty?”
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
But my problem with that is that there is no real way to defend yourself.
There is no defense for the fact that the Saints allowed this situation to happen (whatever it is), and the slight stain it will leave on the shield will probably require some punishment. The Roemishbermer situation is the same thing: No crime (no charges, anyway) but still punishment for the bad press. Do they have a Court of Appeals at your place of employment? Maybe if it’s a union shop, but most of us don’t. I live by the motto: “Don’t buck the boss”.
It's getting better all the time.
That's Mr. Dave to you.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions
I believe those of us that don’t work under a union contract have laws protecting us from that type of thing. If I am accused of a crime and found to be not guilty, or if charges are never filed, it would certainly seem odd to me if my employer had the right to fine me 1/4 of my wages for that year, or suspend me without pay after I’ve been cleared of any wrongdoing by the police. I would certainly feel confident I would have a solid wrongful termination lawsuit if I was fired under such circumstances. It is actually the union and the arbitrary personal conduct policy that they signed on to that allows the NFL to do this, so it really isn’t a fair comparison.
I’m not saying that the powers Goodell is excercising aren’t legal, I’m just saying that I disagree with the reasoning of giving him the power in the first place.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
Well
That was Rothlisberger’s second NFL tarnishing event. That may have been the primary reason he got the NFL punishment. The only time I remember the NFL punishing a “team” was spygate. And that was something that the NFL probably did have the expertise to figure out. This should be a precedent because i dont remember a team getting in trouble with the law under Goodell.
Again,
I want to point out the Tom Cable incident. Assistant walks into office fine, walks out with a broken jaw. Action by Goodell: Nada. Assuming he stays true to form, I wouldn’t worry too much about him whacking the Saints with the mallet unless law enforcement decides they are guilty of something first. Precedent for players: shoot first, ask questions later. Precedent for coaches: cover eyes with hands, and whistle a happy tune.
This is interesting to me because of the relation of coach employer/player employer.
Are the players’ employers both their individual football team and the NFL?
Are the Coaches employed mainly by their individual team?
That would make a significant difference in what Goodell could do as far as punishment for coaching staff.
Likewise this could also spark some interest in the Starcaps case.
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 11:48 AM CDT up reply actions
roethlisberger
is a repeat offender…i think his suspension is due to habitual behavior unbecoming to the league…i dont think the same would apply to the saints if no criminal action is taken.
"These two teams just should not play each other" ...John Madden during a 1991 Saints-Eagles game
Exactly
Shape up or ship out.
"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." - Vince Lombardi
Roethlisberger has had several instances
I don’t blame the NFL for wanting to stop him from continuing on whatever path he seems to be on. Maybe not everything he has been accused of is true but like with any business big or small when an employee’s actions repeatedly make the company look bad the higher ups are going to do something about it. There is also the issue of letting the younger guys know that type of stuff is inexcusable.
"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." - Vince Lombardi
Just because it didn't go to trial, doesn't mean Little Ben isn't guilty.
It didn’t go to trial because the girl didn’t want the to endure that circus. Now whether or not she acted responsibily that night is a different story, BUT if at any time she decided the “romantic” encounter was over and Little Ben still proceeded with it, means he stil commited a crime. I mean if it was just a simple sexual tryst, why the need for a bodyguard to guard the door? I think we all know why. Why don’t more women report rape? Because then they have to go through it again in the trial and the lousy POS defense lawyers get to smear them and their “reputation” all over the court. No woman deserves to get raped, even prostitutes. Big men understand that, little men (a.k.a. boys) don’t. Little Ben is nothing more than a punk who thinks he is entitled to any woman he wants. I am glad Goodell punished him. At least now we know who has the bigger balls (P.S. It’s Goodell!) Oh yeah and that buying alcohol for underage girls thing isn’t a good thing for a “role model” to be doing either.
by Comp on May 5, 2010 6:52 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
And while we're on the subject...
Since this is now football- and Saints-related, I’d like to state (for the record) that all drug laws should be repealed. No one has any business telling you what you must or must not put into your body. Because the feds are a bunch of nannies with guns, we may lose the chance to defend a championship.
There…I said it, and I’m not sorry. Has this opinion been brought to you by Sprint? I may have to change my mind about them.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
by MtnExile on May 3, 2010 8:07 AM CDT reply actions 1 recs
Legalize it. And then tax it. Kansas schoolchildren need new pairs of shoes.
It's getting better all the time.
Just read noted former chemical enthusiast Robert Downer Jr’s interview in RS where he says he does not favor legalization of pot because it is a real ambition killer. Have to agree with that. But most young people have pretty good self discipline, don’t they? Idiocracy!
It's getting better all the time.
LOL!!!!
Great reference. And so timely.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions
Treme!
jumping and havin’ fun
We've got 27 ways to add up to 11 (players on the field). I came up with another one last night. -- GW
by Hans Petersen on May 3, 2010 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree and disagree
I would be all for legalizing marijuana. It can be a safe drug. In fact, it could be safer if the FDA regulated it to make sure it isn’t laced with something you don’t want.
Cocaine, meth, heroine, and some of the other drugs out there are not safe to be taken under any circumstances. The FDA regulates how much rat feces is acceptable for your sandwiches at McDonald’s (and yes, there is an acceptable limit higher than 0) so you don’t eat something that kills you. I have a hard time believing there is any way for cocaine to pass FDA approval for being something that won’t kill you.
I’m all for letting people kill themselves if that is what they intend, but I don’t think that is the true intent of many drug users, and that is why I say ban the dangerous stuff that can’t be made safe.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
I think you missed the point
Do you, as VAsaintsfan, have the authority to stop me from popping a Vicodin? No? Then your representatives, who derive their authority from the people (you, me, and others) have no authority to stop me. No natural authority, that is—I’m not trying to claim they can’t do whatever their enforcement agents are willing to enforce. But if the drug laws are legitimate, then the whole theory behind American government is bogus.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
If, in the process of acquiring, taking, and experiencing the effects of that Vicodin, you cause harm, directly or indirectly, to me or the community in which I live, then yes, I would argue that I do have the authority to stop you.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
so anybody with or without a perscription for Vicodin would fall in that category?
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 12:07 PM CDT up reply actions
If they meet the criteria I laid out of causing harm to others, then yes
If somebody takes a Vicodin and goes to sleep, then I’m all for it. If somebody takes a Vicodin and gets behind the wheel of a car, then I think we (or our representatives in government) have the authority to protect ourselves from having this happen again.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
I agree, however
our representatives in govervent govern under a system of checks and balances, however flawed it may be. The NFL is governed by the commisioner, who was empowered by the owners at one particular vote. History has shown us that people in a position of power for too long of a time loose the ability to become effective regardless of the impact minimal or maximum. Thats one of the principals between not having a President longer than 8 years.
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 1:09 PM CDT up reply actions
You can still drive after taking Vicodin.
Here's to you, Patrick Robinson, Jesus1000 loves you more than you will know...
technically you cannot.
regardless of the dosage you would be operating a vechical under the influence.
If a car is speeding and is pulled over, if the cop asks have you had anything to drink, you say no, but i had already takin my vicodin pill, then yes that would be illegal.
However i do not believe that most people would be that stupid to volunteer that information.
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 1:27 PM CDT up reply actions
I can only speak from my experience, but when I was prescribed Vicodin after back surgery last year I could barely stand up after taking one pill. I don’t know what the law says, but I can tell you that it would have been beyond stupid for me to drive like that. I gotta figure every state is going to have some kind of law to address that.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
pills work differently for different people
painkillers and anesthesia dont work very well for me. i dont know why (maybe something to do with being prescribed ritalin for years)
AMBUSH!!
by DrewBreesManCrush on May 3, 2010 1:48 PM CDT up reply actions
What you’re referring to, though, is something other than merely taking Vicodin, which is itself of an order of magnitude higher than merely possessing Vicodin. If I harm someone else by, for instance, driving under the influence of Vicodin and hitting another car, it’s the driving and hitting that cause harm, and not the use.
As for indirectly harming someone…there’s no bottom to that pit. I wouldn’t go there.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
House rides a motorcycle and takes vicodin like there are tic tats.
but i guess that is just hollywood.
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions
i guess
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
But it does increase the danger of the action (or almost any action other than taking a nap) exponentially. That is why I see the need to control substances like that. I would put Vicodin and marijuana in the same category as alchohol, in that I agree that it should be made available to the public, but controlled to ensure public safety.
For other drugs there is no safe use. Crack kills an absurd amount of people that use it and people that use it commit an absurd amount of crimes while using it. There is a fine line between making methamphetamines and blowing up a city block. For drugs like that, simple control doesn’t go far enough to protect the public. There simply is no safe way to do some drugs.
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
yet the penalty for possession and intent to distribute marijuana is much less compared to that of Narcotics.
If you are caught in Flordia with one bottle of Vicodin it lands you a 10 year initial sentance.
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 2:15 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree with the legalization of marijuana
can’t say the same thing about the rest of it except maybe acid or ecstasy.
"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." - Vince Lombardi
Holy crap, Sarah. At this point, I’d like to share what I learned recently: George Harrison said he had a religious, spiritual awakening when he took acid for the first time in the ’60’s, which lasted the rest of his life. I read just last month that taking LSD can give the sensation or illusion of a feeling of a closeness to God. I don’t think they wrote that just because of George Harrison. It made me sad because George didn’t question it. He smoked a lot of dope too, and he knew how that made him feel. Taking acid made him feel God-conscious, and he didn’t connect that to the drug? He thought it was real? Or perhaps he had other experiences that validated his beliefs, that had nothing to do with LSD. I’m going with that, now I feel better.
KIRK: Mr. Spock?
SPOCK: Projection, Captain. Unreal.
Four dead in Ohio. Why? How many more?
Stujo, the idea of taking drugs to “get close to God” (or the gods) dates back at LEAST 4000 years. The Babylonian Mystery Religion (among many others, including a ton of the Native American/Islander religions) had that very concept at its heart. So this isn’t exactly “news” here… except perhaps in the specific about that one person.
Then again, I’m sure there are also a ton of people who are so uninformed that it was actually news. Which is kinda sad.
You’ve failed to conceal your scorn for me personally. FriarBob, we need counseling. I’ll go, but will you? And it has to be secular, none of that ’Let’s pray together" crap.
It was then I knew that I'd had enough,
Burned my credit card for fuel
No that wasn’t scorn for you, Stu. Just pointing out that drugs and religion going hand-in-hand aren’t exactly big news.
It is sad if you didn’t realize that. If for no other reason than you should always know your “enemy”. Assuming of course you consider religion an enemy, not sure if you do or not. Rival maybe? Opponent you disagree with? Well whatever.
But it wasn’t intended as scorn. Snarky joke, maybe, but not scorn.
i think this is ridiculous
calling the dea and reporting felonies over a couple of missed pills is crazy. the fact that it is almost a year later and the nfl hasnt leaked anything about this or an ongoing investigation (which they usually leak just about every story of significance) leads me to believe that this is bulls***. as far as the civil suit, any idiot can file a lawsuit… who knows how far this will go.
anyway you slice it, if a new orleans saints coach goes in front of a louisiana jury… i have a hard time believing they will side with the plaintiff.
AMBUSH!!
by DrewBreesManCrush on May 3, 2010 9:38 AM CDT reply actions
Juries nowadays are thoroughly cowed. They don’t understand the rights and powers they possess, and do whatever the judge tells them they must do. I’ve seen juries do the craziest things. If I were ever charged with a serious crime, I’d be in Costa Rica so fast it would suck all the oxygen from North America.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
Depends what you’re guiding. Missiles? That’s a no-no. One among many.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
by MtnExile on May 3, 2010 10:10 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
I’ve sat on 2 juries, one Fed, one county. One was ugly, child molester. He was guilty. The right thing to do would have been to take him out front and string him up from the old oak tree. But he got off because the prosecutor could not prove the case. Nobody on the jury felt anything but sorrow and guilt, but most of us thought we did the right thing. Justice is not always popular.
It's almost Saturday night.
You did the right thing. “Not guilty” means “not proven by the prosecution.”
On the other hand, I’ve seen a jury render a verdict of second-degree murder in a first-degree murder case…not because they believed there was lesser culpability, but simply because there was less certainty. A cop testified he watched a confession being beaten out of the kid, and that confession (repudiated, by the way) was the only evidence they had against him. Still, somebody had to get convicted, and he was the only dish on the menu. So they ordered a smaller portion. He’s in Angola for life…unless he’s dead by now.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
Listen to Florio.... no kidding
The man is an idiot but is generally quite good when it comes to litigation. Check what he has to say
This thing will go away as quickly as it appeared
"Saints don't commit sins, they exorcise demons. The NFL most accurate passer was preaching, and the league MVP watched as the Game MVP delivered an impressive sermon"
The real interesting part
of the legal process will now commence. Once the lawsuit is filed, each side will seek “discovery” of all pertinent documents, emails, photos, videotapes, recordings, etc. that the other side and any third-parties have in their possession. Then each side will want to take the deposition (sworn testimony) of the other side.
If DEA, other feds, and even state law enforcement is involved and criminal charges against one or more Saints’ personnel are possible in the future, do Vitt, Loomis or Payton take the Fifth Amendment due to possible criminal prosecution? Discovery in a high-profile case is often conducted under confidentiality but as we have seen in other cases, there are usually enough leaks to get each side’s details out.
This is going to get dicey in a very big hurry. At least we won’t have the typical boredom until training camp.
"Bow Down Before The One You Serve"
I'd rather be bored...
Repeat? Under construction...
by FrenchFreak on May 3, 2010 10:28 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
The whole thing makes me sick.
I don’t know what to believe. And I don’t know if we’ll ever know the full truth. But the shiny, happiness of the Super Bowl win is being tarnished by the “business” of football and these accusations. I’m sickened.
"It's better to burn out than fade away."
good news according to:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/05/02/offseason/index.html?eref=sihp
The Saints turned over all evidence in the case to the DEA in June and have been waiting for a decision in the case ever since. On Friday, the Saints said the lawsuit had no merit, and that Santini, in effect, had shopped the lawsuit to them before filing it
That shows me that they were not really hiding anything at all. This helps their image overall. I am also thinking if it was as serious as PFT made it out to be Vitt would have been gone a long time ago. At least that is my spin on it.
Great the other Shot from yardbarker.com you posted
I encourage everyone to read it
"Saints don't commit sins, they exorcise demons. The NFL most accurate passer was preaching, and the league MVP watched as the Game MVP delivered an impressive sermon"
How did we ever know it was Payton and Vitt
All i remember reading was that two undisclosed sources revealing it was Payton and Vitt. Did everyone read that and think it was 100% true?
Kenny Wilkerson supposedly said it on the air on Saturday morning on Kaare Johnson's show
But Florio is credited with really breaking the news on Pro Football Talk
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions
True. But what he said is that that’s who he was told it was. Not necessarily that that is who it actually was. Big difference.
Then you add in Payton’s own words. If he simply said that he’d never abused Vicodin he could still have stolen it to given it to somebody else. Or he could have taken something else. Or something else. This is the kind of narrow, bare-minimum of the truth I can get away with statement that he’ll give about injuries. But I’m not actually trying to drag that argument up, I’m mentioning this for a different reason. That being that he goes for the minimum possible about stuff like injuries. Yet he goes well beyond the minimum in stating that “I have never abused or stolen Vicodin or any other medication.” That’s a much broader statement, which suggests to me that he’s not actually trying to hide anything. At least about his own actions. Notice he didn’t say “nor has any member of my staff”. So Vitt or somebody else may be guilty and Sean is simply proclaiming his own innocence.
Gah. Enough trying to read the tea leaves for one day.
Vitt is supposedly on camera
so he’s screwed if that’s true.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions
Not necessarily
In a strictly legal sense, perhaps he didn’t have any authority to dispense drugs. But what if they had an informal arrangement, whereby Vitt knew where the keys were and picked up the pills to hand out to his injured players. He may be guilty of nothing other than violating some FDA guidelines, which is a hell of a lot less serious than felony theft and drug possession.
I don’t know one way or the other…I’m just spinning scenarios. In fact, if I said “according to an inside source,” I’d be doing the same thing as Mike Florio.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
the inside source being your a**, right?
you’d have to be paid to be doing the same thing as Florio
We've got 27 ways to add up to 11 (players on the field). I came up with another one last night. -- GW
by Hans Petersen on May 3, 2010 2:04 PM CDT up reply actions
if Vitt handed out a CDS he is in violation
Unless Vitt is a pharmacist, doctor, or any other approved licensed entity recognized by Louisiana law, he is not authorized under Louisiana law to dispense or distribute a controlled dangerous substance to anyone. Vicodine is a schedule II drug classified by the DEA therefore if he had done so, even only one, then he’d be guilty of distribution of CDS II under Louisiana and federal law. If he took the pills and was not authorized to do so by a prescribing doctor he could be guilty of theft of CDS or obtaining CDS by fraudulent means depending on the circumstances. Possession of the CDS, distribution, and obtaining it by fraud are all felonies. Still not sure where Payton would have come in to play in all of this, unless he was aware that it was happening and either aided in some way or took action to cover it up or minimize it. I can’t see him being that stupid though.
I love that we have a narcotics officer (or former officer) in our midst
Payton is involved because his name is on the log as being dispensed 120 pills. Everyone seems to be missing this fact.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 2:28 PM CDT up reply actions
Not unless I’m grossly misreading things. Payton was named by some “inside sources”. But it was “SSMB” whose name is in the log. Payton has been alleged to be SSMA (and may or may not actually be him).
Both were named by inside sources. That part is correct.
But both SSM A and SSM B were noted in the log as having been dispensed pills. That is where this whole thing started. When they set up the video camera, only SSM B was caught ACTUALLY stealing. But pills were still missing and were attributed to being taken by BOTH SSM A and SSM B. This is important to remember!! People keep thinking there is no evidence against SSM A (Payton) and that Vitt will take all the heat. This is not necessarily true. There are missing pills attributed to BOTH SSM’s. There’s just MORE evidence against SSM B (Vitt).
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 3:01 PM CDT up reply actions
and YES, that would mean that SSM A (Payton) was STUPID enough to have the taking of these pills on record
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 3:02 PM CDT up reply actions
thanks Dave
yea I do have a good bit of experience in the field. 16 years and counting. I can see the potential of this thing and where it could go so it’s got me worried. Hopefully it works out and turns out to be less than what it appears to be.
could you tell us what the possible punishments could be?
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 2:54 PM CDT up reply actions
penalties under Louisiana law
If Vitt for instance is charged and convicted of theft, depending on the value of the total pills he is charged with stealing, it could either be a felony of misdemeanor. If he took the pills on separate occasions which seems to be what happened, they would normally charge him with multiple counts of theft, one count for each occurrence. Each count however would be a misdemeanor crime unless the value of the pills taken during one of the incidents totals more than $500.00 value which in that case of $500 value or more would constitute a felony. For misdemeanor theft under Louisiana law, he could get up to 6 months in jail or up to $500.00 in fines or both. If it is felony theft, he could face up to 10 years in jail and fines of no more than $3,000.00 or both. If he is charged and convicted of obtaining CDS by fraud, he could face up to 5 years in jail or fines up to $5,000.00 or both. If charged and convicted of possession of CDS II, he could be jailed up to 5 years or pay fines up to $5,000.00 or both. If he is charged and convicted of distribution of CDS II he could be jailed for up to 30 years and no less than 2 years and pay up to $50,000.00 in fines or both. No it depends on the circumstances involved and from those circumstances; the law enforcement agency tasked with the investigation will determine the most appropriate charge. Now as far a sentencing goes, a Judge determines the punishment based of the parameters of punishment described by law as stated above. For instance, for distribution, he could be sentenced to no less than two years and no more than 30. The judge could say you go to jail for thirty years, or as little as two. He could also say I’ll sentence you to two years but let you serve those two years on probation which means that there will be no jail time unless there is a crime committed during that time that would cause him to violate his probation then he’d go to jail for the full two years or whatever is left of those two years on his probation from the time of the violating offense. In this case I couldn’t see no more than probation handed out by the judge for any of the offenses given a first offense.
But what if they had an informal arrangement, whereby Vitt knew where the keys were and picked up the pills to hand out to his injured players.
Sloppy policy and procedures, stain on the shield, Herr Goodell will decide the punishment.
Four dead in Ohio. Why? How many more?
both Payton and Vitt
would not be authorized by law to do so. Like I stated earlier as per LA and federal laws, both are not recognized licensed entities (i.e. pharmacist, doctor, etc.) under the law. Therefore both would be guilty of distribution of CDS II if both had done so. The organization could not authorize either to do so. That’s why teams hire team doctors who under law would be authorized to despise controlled substances to players.
everyone's growing to despise this whole situation
so you’re closer than you think…
We've got 27 ways to add up to 11 (players on the field). I came up with another one last night. -- GW
by Hans Petersen on May 3, 2010 3:33 PM CDT up reply actions
What I meant, in my proposed scenario, was akin to Patton saying, “Hey, Joe…could you step into the office and get me a dozen Vicodin?” “Sure, Scotty.” …traipse…traipse…traipse…(down the hall, this is sound effects).
Under these circumstances, Vitt might be technically just as guilty as the guy who sells pills on a street corner…but the actual difference is enormous. I think most DAs would decline to prosecute. As stujo says, however, the iron hand of the Commish would come down hard.
This comment is sponsored by Southern Bell, the 'Then' Network.
regardless of any arrangement
If Vitt is not a licensed pharmacist, he is not legally able to dispense CDS to anyone even under a doctor’s request. Now of course that’s just according to the way the laws are worded, but under certain cirmstances like that the DA always has the discretion to look at those cirmstances and decline prosecution. In the event of a federal indictment, the attorney general would have the discretion to proceed with prosecution or not. So basically it could be one of those “well it’s technically against the law but under those circumstances, I think we could decline prosecution and cut some slack”.
Good article, Dave
Thx for writing this.
SB Nation's Indianapolis Colts blogger at Stampede Blue. Please make an account so you can post a FanPost, make a FanShot, add some comments, and make some noise. Accounts are free, and only require an email address.
Thanks BBS!
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 2:58 PM CDT up reply actions
dang that sucks
if that is so I wonder if he was just trying to cover in some way for a friend that may have a problem. bad move if so because he involved himself in something potentially criminal. I really do hope all this crap does get solved and dealt with quickly with minimal damage done to the organization. If Vitt has a problem hopefully he will go get treatment and overcome it.
that's the one aspect of it not really mentioned yet...
abuse and addiction and people needing help for these problems. Thanks for bringing that up, 301. All I read was Mickey or someone saying/asserting that they had “spoken with someone” about the pills and that it “wouldn’t happen again.”
The right thing is dealing appropriately with any wrongful acts that were committed, and getting people help with whatever underlying problems led to these acts being committed.
We've got 27 ways to add up to 11 (players on the field). I came up with another one last night. -- GW
by Hans Petersen on May 3, 2010 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions
and from a fan's point of view
Hopefully Payton didn’t put himself out there because I love the guy. I don’t want to see his reputation take a hit nor do I want to see any bad media thrown his way or towards the Saints organization. Hopefully if it was Vitt who did wrong, then he alone gets his dues and receives some help.
the orginization could also be held accountable
The organization could also be held criminally accountable as well. The DEA is tasked with the monitoring and regulating of controlled substances under federal law. If it is proven that there was mismanagement or mishandling of controlled substances by the organization, then the DEA could charge accordingly and the organization could be held criminally responsible depending on the circumstances and details involved in this case.
Why would a trainer have access to Schedual II narcs if he could not distribute them?
Could the Saints staff work off of a verbal MD order?
Sounds like they need to change some of there protocol.
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 6:01 PM CDT up reply actions
My guess...
This all goes away fairly quickly. The fact that this has been going on since summer of last year without any leaks until now (particularly given the stage of the Super Bowl etc) is very telling.
If anyone gets into trouble – i’m guessing its Loomis for the cover up. If we’ve learned anything in the past dozen years or so – it’s not the crime that gets you the time – it’s the cover up.
Being a recovering addict myself, I would sincerely find it hard to believe that Payton has an issue. The job of an NFL head coach is far too stressful and requires way too much focus for someone addicted to opiates to have success in my experience.
Furthermore, as many have pointed out – it seems with the public statements by the Saints that they have nothing to hide. Added to the fact that this Santini joker solicited what is fundamentally hush money – I’d say this will pass promptly.
Though, I hope this isn’t merely wishful thinking.
Illusions, Michael. Tricks are what whores do for money...and candy.
Hey guys!
Just wanted to say I think you’ve all done a good job of being respectful and sticking to this somewhat sensitive, hot topic. Pat on the back. Please don’t make me regret saying this.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
well THAT doesn't happen very often
Sorry I’ve disappointed you on all the other topics.
Four dead in Ohio. Why? How many more?
Is this the first non-football topic we’ve had that didn’t end with “Yeah, well F—- YOU!”? By the way, sorry about that one…
"I want to hand this trophy to the MVP of the Super Bowl -- and the MVP of the entire league.''
-- Saints coach Sean Payton, handing the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Drew Brees after Super Bowl 44.
just a thought....
i bet King Favre had free access to the candy box in Green Bay when he was eating vicoden like it was going out of style, the DEA never investigated that.
"These two teams just should not play each other" ...John Madden during a 1991 Saints-Eagles game
I'm sure it's that way for most all of them
Think of how much hurt they put their bodies through. I am doubting this is really more than anything than any other team does but of course I could be wrong.
"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." - Vince Lombardi
What makes me question this security guy
is that this didn’t come out until after they won the Superbowl. He waited until he knew they had money and fame, then filed a civil suit?
Also I have serious issues believing someone who wants money in exchange for anything. If he only reported it to the officials without a civil suit then I might believe he only wants justice for wrongdoing. The fact that he waited until after a sb win to file a civil suit screams bs to me.
"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." - Vince Lombardi
Thats exactly what i think
A man of justice allows the system to make their own judgement.
A man of greed makes his own.
by jeremysherwin on May 3, 2010 6:38 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Here here!!!
"I firmly believe that any man's finest hour, the greatest fulfillment of all that he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle - victorious." - Vince Lombardi
Or....
He was instructed not to file his suit because there was an ongoing investigation (which there was) and the DEA didn’t want this information coming out yet.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 6:46 PM CDT up reply actions
If that’s true (which I strongly doubt) then he’s violated the instructions of a federal agency. Either way, his timing stinks worse than the contents of the average porta-potty.
I'm saying that for the last year he's been instructed to keep quiet while they investigate
Now that he’s filed suit, I would assume they gave him the green light and their investigation is close to finished. Just speculation here.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 4, 2010 12:32 AM CDT up reply actions
In which he did not allow the system due process.
Sometimes these so called stings can take months to years to fully develop.
Some comments & concerns
Great post & thread. There’s a lot of intelligence & thoughtfulness going on.
I also have a lot of the concerns Mr. Dave & others have already expressed.
We may tend to view the justice system in idealistic ways (we were taught to), but it does not exist separate from politics. Politics is everywhere, from the local & national level to the NFL Commisioner’s offfice. If Vitt and or SP did wrong, punishments will have to be levied, but IMO politics argue against it being severe. The Saints truely are a local, regional, and national “feel good” story. Considering their emergence after the horror of Katrina, strong punishments do not make for good politics. In effect, there would be a “halo effect.” Punishment: yes, if warranted. Severe punishment: I don’t think so.
Unless it does turn out a cover-up is involved. There are certainly precedents for a cover-up being seen as worse than the crime being covered up (Watergate being a super-famous example), and for punishment of cover-ups being politically popular. One of my biggest concerns is that we could potentially lose Loomis if various allegations are proven.
Of course all this is premature. I’m initially tempted to think the jury’s still out, but Hell, it may be that a jury won’t even be convened in the first place.
"Dang! The Saints won the Super Bowl!" - my wife, Meso "Happy" Hu Dat.
One of my biggest concerns is that we could potentially lose Loomis if various allegations are proven.
Exactly! Same here. They might not even WAIT for allegations to be proven. They may say, “We don’t need this. Let’s just cut him loose now and separate ourselves from this mess.” And that, in my opinion, would have serious consequences on the field.
Wanna say something? Sign up! It's free!
by Dave Cariello on May 3, 2010 8:17 PM CDT up reply actions
yep...
this is my biggest concern as well. If Loomis was trying to squelch the story, that might be harder to survive than somebody with “a problem” stealing pills.
"But tonight the Superbowl belongs to the City of New Orleans" - Roger Goodell 2/7/2010
We better accept that even if the Saints are cleared, the story
won’t be forgotten. The damage has been done and whether it is made up or not is irrelevant, media wise…it will be NFL suspension wise
It sucks but we will have this hover over us until we get it completely done court-wise
Here's what really happened
The real scoop:
Sean Payton walks into the locker room and says" Lets go take it to the Vikes again!" which most of the players misunderstood as “Let’s go take 2 Vicoden” so they asked Vitt to go pick them up some because “The coach said so!”.
It is all just a simple misunderstanding……………….
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
