The other day I read and interesting article from PFT. Within the article it had this to say:

"The four players were suspended for "conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football." Under Paragraph 15, suspensions may be imposed "only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice."

"The question then becomes whether the players are entitled to a hearing before, or after, the initial decision. It’s a technical legal concept, the difference between due process before and after imposition of discipline. But the league contending that the Commissioner has the right to review the decision that the Commissioner made, a pre-decision hearing could be far more valuable than a post-decision hearing."

Did the Commissioner violate the players due process as outlined in the CBA? I will let you decide on that one.

Just the other day when I posted Hargorve's declaration, what did it say. What it didn't says seems to be more important. At no point did he admit that there was a bounty system in place.

"He simply stated he was instructed to deny any existence. What does this really say. I have tried to be rational with all of the information thus far. I have tried to not be bias (if that is even possible), but the NFL's Case in its entirety is starting to dwindle in credibility. They misrepresented (lied) to the media about the contents of Hargrove declaration, which they called a "Confession"

Why would they do this?

Today I read another article from USA. Dominique Foxworth had this to say:

It's a cruel insult to conclude that we would place hundreds of NFL athletes who play by the rules at risk in order to protect a handful of players proven guilty of literally gambling with the safety and livelihoods of others. Why would the NFLPA risk alienating themselves just for four players.

Why would Foxworth put his job on the line for four people?

This article goes on the say that the evidence is not present to suggest a pay-to-injure scheme was in place. I think the majority of Saint fans believe there was an incentive pool, but other that that is yet to be proven. My favorite part of the article is when Foxworth begins to illuminate what Saints fans have been feeling all the time.

He says "Instead of transparent and fair due process for the four suspended players, the NFL chose news media leaks, character assassinations, PR campaigns and legal manipulation to mislead the public

Is this not how we have been feeling the entire time?

The NFLPA goes on the say

"Our obligation is to protect every NFL player in the game and in the business of football. We're obligated to ensure that the league is fair, accountable and transparent and upholds our collective bargaining agreement. If we are not vigilant in protecting these basic tenets, the consequences put every player's livelihood and career at risk.

Why is it that all of this makes sense to me. Is it that I want to believe in the Saints, that I am blinded by common sense, or is it common sense to believe that finally the pieces of the puzzles are beginning to fit and we as fans are starting to feel justified?

Let me know what you think.