Sean Payton implicated in alleged Vicodin theft. (1 Viewer)

[Tau837]

This is only "theft" (criminally speaking) is there is a victim. What if the Saints wish to deal with the situation internally and do not want Law Enforcement involved? Obviously the DEA have already been involved, but the "theft" implications can go away by the Saints simply choosing not to be a victim of a crime.

Wrong. All narcotic medication must be accounted for and handed out only via proper doctor prescriptions. If pills were stolen and not accounted for appropriately, it's a crime regardless of whether or not the Saints want it to be.

 

[Rodeojones]

This is only "theft" (criminally speaking) is there is a victim. What if the Saints wish to deal with the situation internally and do not want Law Enforcement involved?

Obviously the DEA have already been involved, but the "theft" implications can go away by the Saints simply choosing not to be a victim of a crime.

Wrong. All narcotic medication must be accounted for and handed out only via proper doctor prescriptions. If pills were stolen and not accounted for appropriately, it's a crime regardless of whether or not the Saints want it to be.

You raise a good point but I would think their ability to distribute medication would be affected (fines, etc) but not Law Enforcement forcing their way into investigating "who" was responsible for the theft.

To have a crime of "theft", there must be a victim who wishes to be a victim. The Saints ability to distribute medication and penalties that could come are a completely different topic in my opinion.

 

[fatness]

The Associated Press now reports that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration previously has launched an investigation into the situation, which is still "pending." The lawsuit filed by Santini contends that he referred the matter to federal authorities before Santini resigned in August 2009. Per the AP, Louisiana officials have not yet begun to investigate whether any state laws were violated.

Whether the DEA investigation results in prosecution remains to be seen. Based on the allegations contained in the lawsuit, the unidentified person who is Payton did not steal Vicodin; instead, he merely had been issued (allegedly) an amount of the medication that would be sufficient to constitute abuse in the absence of a painful medication condition. The unidentified person who is Vitt allegedly removed Vicodin from a drug locker.

As to Vitt, that could spell trouble. And if the feds begin to ask him tough questions, he likely will be pressed to give up details regarding whether Payton or anyone else was involved in the unauthorized removal and/or use of Vicodin without a valid prescription, and/or whether Saints doctors were handing out narcotics like after-dinner mints.

The lawsuit alleges that videotape exists of the unidentified person who is Vitt removing the Vicodin from the drug locker. We're told that Santini has a copy of the tape in his possession.

Link

 

[B-Deep]

IF this is true, the legal issues will define how it works out. If this turns nto a big legal mess for the coach, team, or league then he is in toruble. If the legal issues go away he can probably do the rehab thing and make it through.

Time will tell

 

[jackdubl]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV...and no Holiday Inn Express last night.

This is a civil suit, correct? What damage befell the guy? What is he suing for? I assume that he wants damages for losing his job over it... whatever that is called legally. It seems to me that it WOULD be a big deal if it was criminal and the cops were busting him here, but that's not the case. No "crime" is being prosecuted. It's apparently only a civil matter. Help us out legal guys.

Furthermore, when it comes to the NFL there is an entirely different realm of ... lets call it "law". A law that transcends both civil and criminal matters.

Happy to oblige. First, this is a civil case and the employee is suing for constructive termination. "Constructive" means fictional; he was never actually fired but resigned. He is essentually arguing that he quit because the Saints were forcing him to participate in this cover up, and the cover up is a federal crime. You cannot be forced to participate in a crime by your employer, so he is saying that they basically forced him to quit because he refused to work there and not reveal the cover up. His damages would at least be back pay. Now if the DA(or Feds) gets a hold of enough evidence then the DA(or Feds) can bring a criminal case as well. Two seperate things, but the civil case could certainly lead to a criminal case. He probably did try to extort money, but that would be near impossible to prove against him, so he's probably not too worried about that. My guess is an FBI agent knows how to extort and not leave a paper trail.

 

[jackdubl]

The Associated Press now reports that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration previously has launched an investigation into the situation, which is still "pending." The lawsuit filed by Santini contends that he referred the matter to federal authorities before Santini resigned in August 2009. Per the AP, Louisiana officials have not yet begun to investigate whether any state laws were violated.

Whether the DEA investigation results in prosecution remains to be seen. Based on the allegations contained in the lawsuit, the unidentified person who is Payton did not steal Vicodin; instead, he merely had been issued (allegedly) an amount of the medication that would be sufficient to constitute abuse in the absence of a painful medication condition. The unidentified person who is Vitt allegedly removed Vicodin from a drug locker.

As to Vitt, that could spell trouble. And if the feds begin to ask him tough questions, he likely will be pressed to give up details regarding whether Payton or anyone else was involved in the unauthorized removal and/or use of Vicodin without a valid prescription, and/or whether Saints doctors were handing out narcotics like after-dinner mints.

The lawsuit alleges that videotape exists of the unidentified person who is Vitt removing the Vicodin from the drug locker. We're told that Santini has a copy of the tape in his possession.

Link

This was my take on it. Vitt might have some problems here. If a cover up is proven, that could be a problem. Peyton being issued Vicodin in an amount that could constitute abuse, that won't go anywhere. It is not illegal to be issued Vicodin in an amount that could constitute abuse. It is illegal to ABUSE Vicodin. But it is a news story to say that Peyton is getting large amounts of Vicodin which he may be abusing.

 

[jackdubl]

This is only "theft" (criminally speaking) is there is a victim. What if the Saints wish to deal with the situation internally and do not want Law Enforcement involved? Obviously the DEA have already been involved, but the "theft" implications can go away by the Saints simply choosing not to be a victim of a crime.

Wrong. All narcotic medication must be accounted for and handed out only via proper doctor prescriptions. If pills were stolen and not accounted for appropriately, it's a crime regardless of whether or not the Saints want it to be.

The Saints don't get to decide if federal or state prosecutors can charge someone with a crime.

 

[fatness]

Peyton being issued Vicodin in an amount that could constitute abuse, that won't go anywhere. It is not illegal to be issued Vicodin in an amount that could constitute abuse. It is illegal to ABUSE Vicodin. But it is a news story to say that Peyton is getting large amounts of Vicodin which he may be abusing.

I can't tell if the contention in the lawsuit is that Payton got the Vicodin for his own consumption, or for distribution to players, or what.

 

[JAA]

"I have reviewed Geoff Santini's lawsuit and the unwarranted publicity it has received," Payton said in a statement released by the team. "I have never abused or stolen Vicodin or any other medication and I fully support the Saints' position in this matter."

I love how he never calls the allegations lies nor does he call the other guy a liar. He frames his response outside of any allegations.

Wouldnt it be a lot easier to say:

"He is a liar and what he said is untrue"

Nope, not gonna happen and we all know why

 

[jackdubl]

Peyton being issued Vicodin in an amount that could constitute abuse, that won't go anywhere. It is not illegal to be issued Vicodin in an amount that could constitute abuse. It is illegal to ABUSE Vicodin. But it is a news story to say that Peyton is getting large amounts of Vicodin which he may be abusing.

I can't tell if the contention in the lawsuit is that Payton got the Vicodin for his own consumption, or for distribution to players, or what.

Everything I've read seems to imply that Peyton is the one with an abuse problem. Not to mention I've noticed that same meth'd-out appearance on Peyton's face that others seem to have noticed, so I'd assume it was him taking it.

 

[gandalas]

You need a prescription to legally obtain Vicodin. If Payton took it - even with the Saints permission - then he still committed a crime.

I would assume that the Saints have someone on their staff that is allowed to write prescriptions. If Payton had the Saints permission, then I would assume that they covered their bases on the prescription issue.

 

[Mr.Underhill]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV...and no Holiday Inn Express last night. This is a civil suit, correct? What damage befell the guy? What is he suing for? I assume that he wants damages for losing his job over it... whatever that is called legally. It seems to me that it WOULD be a big deal if it was criminal and the cops were busting him here, but that's not the case. No "crime" is being prosecuted. It's apparently only a civil matter. Help us out legal guys. Furthermore, when it comes to the NFL there is an entirely different realm of ... lets call it "law". A law that transcends both civil and criminal matters.

I think the phrase used in the suit was "constructive discharge". That means essentially that the action/inaction of the Saints forced him into resigning. Usually a resignation (being a voluntary act) would not be a basis for claiming unemployment benefits and would, by definition, prevent you from claiming you were wrongfully discharged. But the theory here is that the working relationship is so damaged, and perhaps the work environment so hostile, at the employer's design, that the employee has no reasonable alternative but to quit. So the employer contructively discharged the employee even though, technically, the employee resigned.His damages, if he won, would likely be lost salary and benefits until rehire and potentially the differential in income if he is unable to acquire employment at a similar rate of pay.It's an interesting theory, this contructive discharge. An employment law case is going to be a state law issue, so the relevent facts are going depend on the individual state's stautes and definitions. It doesn't look like federal law subject matter but the NFL's anti-trust exemption may provide subject matter jurisdiction. You can remove a state civil action to federal court is the two (or more) parties are citzens of different states. But I'm not sure why either the Saints or their security chief would be citizens of a state other than Louisiana.Federal investigation by the FBI or DEA would be for criminal purposes, not civil.This does start to sound like extortion but don't be so quick to conclude that it is. As long as the security chief and his counsel were negotiating a settlement of his wrongful discharge after he resigned, there isn't a problem discussing confidentiality in that setting, it wouldn't be extortion. However, while he was still employed, if he was shaking down the Saints for money to keep quiet about what he knew, that would be extortion. And if in the settlement negotiations he says "Pay me this amount or I go to the police", that would be extortion even though in the context settlement negotiations. That may appear a subtle disctinction, but it's huge in the legal analysis.

 

[Mr.Underhill]

This is only "theft" (criminally speaking) is there is a victim. What if the Saints wish to deal with the situation internally and do not want Law Enforcement involved?

Obviously the DEA have already been involved, but the "theft" implications can go away by the Saints simply choosing not to be a victim of a crime.

Wrong. All narcotic medication must be accounted for and handed out only via proper doctor prescriptions. If pills were stolen and not accounted for appropriately, it's a crime regardless of whether or not the Saints want it to be.

You raise a good point but I would think their ability to distribute medication would be affected (fines, etc) but not Law Enforcement forcing their way into investigating "who" was responsible for the theft.

To have a crime of "theft", there must be a victim who wishes to be a victim. The Saints ability to distribute medication and penalties that could come are a completely different topic in my opinion.

I think you are off base.You really think law enforcement ignores a situation where an employee at a pharmacy was stealing or selling prescription narcotics out the back door so long as the pharmacy owner shrugs his/her shoulders at the inventory shrinkage? Not likely. This situation isn't that different. And it sure isn't going to happen when it makes it to the press and the public officials know people are watching what they do. Law enforcement just loves to appear soft on drug crimes.

Can the alleged victim sway the mind of the prosecutor? Sure, especially if it's a minor thing. But the prosecutor and police still have complete discretion as to whether to pursue the matter or not. The disappearance of controlled substances from the inventories of a licensed dispensor isn't a minor thing. Criminal offenses against a person are usually concurrently offenses against the State as well.

 

[cstu]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV...and no Holiday Inn Express last night. This is a civil suit, correct? What damage befell the guy? What is he suing for? I assume that he wants damages for losing his job over it... whatever that is called legally. It seems to me that it WOULD be a big deal if it was criminal and the cops were busting him here, but that's not the case. No "crime" is being prosecuted. It's apparently only a civil matter. Help us out legal guys. Furthermore, when it comes to the NFL there is an entirely different realm of ... lets call it "law". A law that transcends both civil and criminal matters.

I think the phrase used in the suit was "constructive discharge". That means essentially that the action/inaction of the Saints forced him into resigning. Usually a resignation (being a voluntary act) would not be a basis for claiming unemployment benefits and would, by definition, prevent you from claiming you were wrongfully discharged. But the theory here is that the working relationship is so damaged, and perhaps the work environment so hostile, at the employer's design, that the employee has no reasonable alternative but to quit. So the employer contructively discharged the employee even though, technically, the employee resigned.His damages, if he won, would likely be lost salary and benefits until rehire and potentially the differential in income if he is unable to acquire employment at a similar rate of pay.It's an interesting theory, this contructive discharge. An employment law case is going to be a state law issue, so the relevent facts are going depend on the individual state's stautes and definitions. It doesn't look like federal law subject matter but the NFL's anti-trust exemption may provide subject matter jurisdiction. You can remove a state civil action to federal court is the two (or more) parties are citzens of different states. But I'm not sure why either the Saints or their security chief would be citizens of a state other than Louisiana.Federal investigation by the FBI or DEA would be for criminal purposes, not civil.This does start to sound like extortion but don't be so quick to conclude that it is. As long as the security chief and his counsel were negotiating a settlement of his wrongful discharge after he resigned, there isn't a problem discussing confidentiality in that setting, it wouldn't be extortion. However, while he was still employed, if he was shaking down the Saints for money to keep quiet about what he knew, that would be extortion. And if in the settlement negotiations he says "Pay me this amount or I go to the police", that would be extortion even though in the context settlement negotiations. That may appear a subtle disctinction, but it's huge in the legal analysis.

It doesn't sound like he was wrongfully discharged and I don't think he has a case. Let's assume he's not an extortionist and follow what happened: He was doing his job, found out someone was stealing pills, and the Saints refused to do anything so he quit. His job as head of security was to report to the Saints any security issues, not to act as an officer of the law. He didn't like having his hands tied so he quit. I personally think he's bitter that he's no longer in law enforcement and was working as a glorified security guard.

 

[az_prof]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV...and no Holiday Inn Express last night. This is a civil suit, correct? What damage befell the guy? What is he suing for? I assume that he wants damages for losing his job over it... whatever that is called legally. It seems to me that it WOULD be a big deal if it was criminal and the cops were busting him here, but that's not the case. No "crime" is being prosecuted. It's apparently only a civil matter. Help us out legal guys. Furthermore, when it comes to the NFL there is an entirely different realm of ... lets call it "law". A law that transcends both civil and criminal matters.

I think the phrase used in the suit was "constructive discharge". That means essentially that the action/inaction of the Saints forced him into resigning. Usually a resignation (being a voluntary act) would not be a basis for claiming unemployment benefits and would, by definition, prevent you from claiming you were wrongfully discharged. But the theory here is that the working relationship is so damaged, and perhaps the work environment so hostile, at the employer's design, that the employee has no reasonable alternative but to quit. So the employer contructively discharged the employee even though, technically, the employee resigned.His damages, if he won, would likely be lost salary and benefits until rehire and potentially the differential in income if he is unable to acquire employment at a similar rate of pay.It's an interesting theory, this contructive discharge. An employment law case is going to be a state law issue, so the relevent facts are going depend on the individual state's stautes and definitions. It doesn't look like federal law subject matter but the NFL's anti-trust exemption may provide subject matter jurisdiction. You can remove a state civil action to federal court is the two (or more) parties are citzens of different states. But I'm not sure why either the Saints or their security chief would be citizens of a state other than Louisiana.Federal investigation by the FBI or DEA would be for criminal purposes, not civil.This does start to sound like extortion but don't be so quick to conclude that it is. As long as the security chief and his counsel were negotiating a settlement of his wrongful discharge after he resigned, there isn't a problem discussing confidentiality in that setting, it wouldn't be extortion. However, while he was still employed, if he was shaking down the Saints for money to keep quiet about what he knew, that would be extortion. And if in the settlement negotiations he says "Pay me this amount or I go to the police", that would be extortion even though in the context settlement negotiations. That may appear a subtle disctinction, but it's huge in the legal analysis.

It doesn't sound like he was wrongfully discharged and I don't think he has a case. Let's assume he's not an extortionist and follow what happened: He was doing his job, found out someone was stealing pills, and the Saints refused to do anything so he quit. His job as head of security was to report to the Saints any security issues, not to act as an officer of the law. He didn't like having his hands tied so he quit. I personally think he's bitter that he's no longer in law enforcement and was working as a glorified security guard.

You are wrong. If he discovered illegal activity and was told by the Saints not to report it, then quitting under those circumstances would give him a case for seeking settlement. You say he wasn't hired "to be an officer of the law," but you can't require someone to ignore violations of the law. As far as your conjecture about him being bitter that he is no longer in law enforcement--that's completely unfounded. You have no way of knowing that and it isn't relevent in any case.Now that the feds are investigating it could become much more serious than a civil case. If federal charges are filed prepare for a major situation.

 

[buster c]

drop Brees & Colston down a few notches in our rankings?

 

[az_prof]

drop Brees & Colston down a few notches in our rankings?

I think that Brees is enough of a professional that he won't let the circus bother his performance. One question you have to ask yourself is how much of the NO offensive success is Payton and how much is Brees? If Payton is affected by the controversy, will it spill over? I don't think so but I am not sure.

 

[Mr.Underhill]

You need a prescription to legally obtain Vicodin. If Payton took it - even with the Saints permission - then he still committed a crime.

I would assume that the Saints have someone on their staff that is allowed to write prescriptions. If Payton had the Saints permission, then I would assume that they covered their bases on the prescription issue.

Then why would the security director think that something was amiss or think he had anything with which to extort the Saints? Why would the Saints even talk settlement if it's that air-tight? If someone qualified wrote Payton a script and the script was filled and tracked in the records as it should be, I don't see how we get to where we are today.

 

[cstu]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV...and no Holiday Inn Express last night. This is a civil suit, correct? What damage befell the guy? What is he suing for? I assume that he wants damages for losing his job over it... whatever that is called legally. It seems to me that it WOULD be a big deal if it was criminal and the cops were busting him here, but that's not the case. No "crime" is being prosecuted. It's apparently only a civil matter. Help us out legal guys. Furthermore, when it comes to the NFL there is an entirely different realm of ... lets call it "law". A law that transcends both civil and criminal matters.

I think the phrase used in the suit was "constructive discharge". That means essentially that the action/inaction of the Saints forced him into resigning. Usually a resignation (being a voluntary act) would not be a basis for claiming unemployment benefits and would, by definition, prevent you from claiming you were wrongfully discharged. But the theory here is that the working relationship is so damaged, and perhaps the work environment so hostile, at the employer's design, that the employee has no reasonable alternative but to quit. So the employer contructively discharged the employee even though, technically, the employee resigned.His damages, if he won, would likely be lost salary and benefits until rehire and potentially the differential in income if he is unable to acquire employment at a similar rate of pay.It's an interesting theory, this contructive discharge. An employment law case is going to be a state law issue, so the relevent facts are going depend on the individual state's stautes and definitions. It doesn't look like federal law subject matter but the NFL's anti-trust exemption may provide subject matter jurisdiction. You can remove a state civil action to federal court is the two (or more) parties are citzens of different states. But I'm not sure why either the Saints or their security chief would be citizens of a state other than Louisiana.Federal investigation by the FBI or DEA would be for criminal purposes, not civil.This does start to sound like extortion but don't be so quick to conclude that it is. As long as the security chief and his counsel were negotiating a settlement of his wrongful discharge after he resigned, there isn't a problem discussing confidentiality in that setting, it wouldn't be extortion. However, while he was still employed, if he was shaking down the Saints for money to keep quiet about what he knew, that would be extortion. And if in the settlement negotiations he says "Pay me this amount or I go to the police", that would be extortion even though in the context settlement negotiations. That may appear a subtle disctinction, but it's huge in the legal analysis.

It doesn't sound like he was wrongfully discharged and I don't think he has a case. Let's assume he's not an extortionist and follow what happened: He was doing his job, found out someone was stealing pills, and the Saints refused to do anything so he quit. His job as head of security was to report to the Saints any security issues, not to act as an officer of the law. He didn't like having his hands tied so he quit. I personally think he's bitter that he's no longer in law enforcement and was working as a glorified security guard.

You are wrong. If he discovered illegal activity and was told by the Saints not to report it, then quitting under those circumstances would give him a case for seeking settlement. You say he wasn't hired "to be an officer of the law," but you can't require someone to ignore violations of the law. As far as your conjecture about him being bitter that he is no longer in law enforcement--that's completely unfounded. You have no way of knowing that and it isn't relevent in any case.Now that the feds are investigating it could become much more serious than a civil case. If federal charges are filed prepare for a major situation.

The Saints make the ultimate determination whether it was stealing or not. When confronted by the head of security they could just say he had permission to access the pills.The only issue here is whether it can be proved that Payton took the pills for his own personal use and didn't have a prescription.

 

[cstu]

Also, the head of security has admitted to stealing from his employer and should be charged.

 

[az_prof]

CTSU, with all due respect, you don't have any idea what you are saying.

Here are the latest facts.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ajmw...nts-druglawsuit

DEA looking into Saints case

By BRETT MARTEL, AP Sports Writer

May 2, 8:27 pm EDT

Buzz up! 12 PrintNEW ORLEANS (AP)—Federal authorities are looking into allegations made in a civil lawsuit accusing the New Orleans Saints of trying to cover up a senior staff member’s theft of prescription Vicodin pills from the club’s training headquarters.

“The DEA was referred this case and there is a pending investigation,” said Special Agent Roberto Bryan Jr., a New Orleans-based spokesman for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The civil suit was filed Friday by former Saints security director Geoffrey Santini, a retired FBI agent who gave federal authorities evidence he collected before resigning from the team last August.

The accusations also could constitute state offenses, but local authorities say they have yet to begin a probe of their own.

Jefferson Parish sheriff’s spokesman Col. John Fortunato said his department did not become aware of the allegations until after the civil lawsuit was filed.

“It hasn’t been turned into a criminal investigation as of yet,” Fortunato said.

The Saints have said the allegations are false and represent an attempt by Santini, who resigned last August, to shake down the club. Team spokesman Greg Bensel has said the club will aggressively defend itself in court.

Head coach Sean Payton is so far the only member of the franchise other than Bensel to comment on the case.

Payton issued a statement through the team, asserting he has never abused or stolen Vicodin, a narcotic used to relieve moderate to severe pain.

Payton spoke out when people familiar with the lawsuit said the coach was the unidentified person in the complaint who allegedly was permitted to take a large enough amount of Vicodin from the team’s drug locker to constitute abuse.

Nothing in the complaint indicated that Payton, who was not named in the lawsuit, had done anything illegal. However, the complaint said another “senior staff member” used a trainer’s key to steal Vicodin from the drug locker.

The people who spoke to The Associated Press about the case—on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the allegations—said that other staff member was linebackers coach Joe Vitt.

The lawsuit describes video surveillance catching Vitt taking keys from a trainer’s office and using them to get into the team’s drug locker to take Vicodin.

Vitt did not respond to a message sent to his work e-mail seeking comment. The Saints and their defense lawyers also did not respond to requests for help in contacting Vitt to see if he had anything to say on the matter.

In his lawsuit, Santini claims he was ordered to keep quiet about the Vicodin matter. He also claims two trainers were told by a top team executive to forge entrees in official logs so the amount of Vicodin stolen would be reflected as an amount that had been properly distributed.

Santini said being ordered to either undertake or ignore activity he thought may be criminal was what led him to resign, and he is seeking damages and back pay.

Meanwhile, Saints owner Tom Benson traveled to New York on Sunday in advance of regularly scheduled NFL finance committee meetings. NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said there were no immediate plans for Commissioner Roger Goodell to meet with Benson about Santini’s lawsuit. Aiello said the NFL has a copy of the complaint and is following developments for now.

 

[Mr.Underhill]

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV...and no Holiday Inn Express last night. This is a civil suit, correct? What damage befell the guy? What is he suing for? I assume that he wants damages for losing his job over it... whatever that is called legally. It seems to me that it WOULD be a big deal if it was criminal and the cops were busting him here, but that's not the case. No "crime" is being prosecuted. It's apparently only a civil matter. Help us out legal guys. Furthermore, when it comes to the NFL there is an entirely different realm of ... lets call it "law". A law that transcends both civil and criminal matters.

I think the phrase used in the suit was "constructive discharge". That means essentially that the action/inaction of the Saints forced him into resigning. Usually a resignation (being a voluntary act) would not be a basis for claiming unemployment benefits and would, by definition, prevent you from claiming you were wrongfully discharged. But the theory here is that the working relationship is so damaged, and perhaps the work environment so hostile, at the employer's design, that the employee has no reasonable alternative but to quit. So the employer contructively discharged the employee even though, technically, the employee resigned.His damages, if he won, would likely be lost salary and benefits until rehire and potentially the differential in income if he is unable to acquire employment at a similar rate of pay.It's an interesting theory, this contructive discharge. An employment law case is going to be a state law issue, so the relevent facts are going depend on the individual state's stautes and definitions. It doesn't look like federal law subject matter but the NFL's anti-trust exemption may provide subject matter jurisdiction. You can remove a state civil action to federal court is the two (or more) parties are citzens of different states. But I'm not sure why either the Saints or their security chief would be citizens of a state other than Louisiana.Federal investigation by the FBI or DEA would be for criminal purposes, not civil.This does start to sound like extortion but don't be so quick to conclude that it is. As long as the security chief and his counsel were negotiating a settlement of his wrongful discharge after he resigned, there isn't a problem discussing confidentiality in that setting, it wouldn't be extortion. However, while he was still employed, if he was shaking down the Saints for money to keep quiet about what he knew, that would be extortion. And if in the settlement negotiations he says "Pay me this amount or I go to the police", that would be extortion even though in the context settlement negotiations. That may appear a subtle disctinction, but it's huge in the legal analysis.

It doesn't sound like he was wrongfully discharged and I don't think he has a case. Let's assume he's not an extortionist and follow what happened: He was doing his job, found out someone was stealing pills, and the Saints refused to do anything so he quit. His job as head of security was to report to the Saints any security issues, not to act as an officer of the law. He didn't like having his hands tied so he quit. I personally think he's bitter that he's no longer in law enforcement and was working as a glorified security guard.

You are wrong. If he discovered illegal activity and was told by the Saints not to report it, then quitting under those circumstances would give him a case for seeking settlement. You say he wasn't hired "to be an officer of the law," but you can't require someone to ignore violations of the law. As far as your conjecture about him being bitter that he is no longer in law enforcement--that's completely unfounded. You have no way of knowing that and it isn't relevent in any case.Now that the feds are investigating it could become much more serious than a civil case. If federal charges are filed prepare for a major situation.

I think the probative question is what the Saints told him do or told him they would do if he talked.If they told him to destroy the tapes under penalty of firing, that would be contructive discharge. He has to commit a criminal act or be fired.If he told them he had the tapes and they shrugged and said "So what?", that's not constructive discharge. Their failure to press charges does not require him to do anything illegal. He could keep on doing his job (legally) just like before or leave, his choice.If they told him "So what? And if you don't keep quiet we'll see that you never work in the league again." That could be constuctive discharge if he reasonably concludes that the instruction to keep quiet implies that he destroy evidence or fabricate records or lie to investigators. Things done with a wink and a nod, or a throat slash gesture, can still count.This type of case, as you can see, is a bit messy. It can be hard to prove and can turn on the very small details. One thing should be noted, he does not have an affirmative obligation to report crimes to law enforcement absent a black letter statutory requirement. I don't know if Louisiana has one or not. I assume there isn't one and just because he knew of wrongdoing does not mean he had to tell someone. So his discovery of this situation does not in and of itself create a constructive discharged situation. There would have to be some pressure in terms of the duties required of him that were at odds with state or federal law before he can get to constructive discharge.That said, the line between an innocent bystander that "knows things" and a co-conspirator can be pretty blurred. Usually that works to the benefit of the defense. But it's not unheard of for a jury to assume someone was in on the conspiracy because they seemed to know too much about what was going on and derived some benefit from keeping quiet, even though investigators didn't find their finger prints on anything.It's going to be interesting to see how this one plays out.

 

[elbowrm]

http://www.bettercallsaul.com/

 

[Doug B]

You need a prescription to legally obtain Vicodin. If Payton took it - even with the Saints permission - then he still committed a crime.

I would assume that the Saints have someone on their staff that is allowed to write prescriptions. If Payton had the Saints permission, then I would assume that they covered their bases on the prescription issue.

I've been wondering this exact same thing. If I'm following this right, Payton DID, indeed, have prescriptions ... while Vitt just helped himself to the stash.

 

[fatness]

I haven't seen any news articles saying Payton had a prescription.

I did find this:

According to the suit, 130 Vicodin pills were not accounted from January and April 2009. After 110 pills were found to be missing, Santini said that general manager Mickey Loomis set up surveillance cameras in the trainer's room and “SSMB was subsequently caught on tape stealing pills,” the report said.

"As long as the doctor writes the prescription, you can keep it on hand as bulk medication," an NFL trainer said. "In the old days, it is what every club used to do. Some trainers at professional and college level got into hot water over it. There are a lot newer ways to do it. A lot of trainers feel like me. I call the doctor. He calls the prescription in."

LinkAnd this:

Also, Santini says two trainers were told by a top team executive to forge entries in official logs so the amount of Vicodin stolen would be reflected as an amount that had been properly distributed

ESPN legal analyst Roger Cossack said Monday on the network, "In my opinion, general manager Mickey Loomis is the one who is facing the most problems from this case. Santini claims that Loomis came to him and told him that he was going to alter the drug logs in order to try an protect assistant coach Joe Vitt and head coach Sean Payton. Obstructing justice and witness tampering is a very serious crime," said Cossack.

LinkAnd this:

one trainer from another NFL team says he no longer even stocks prescription medication.

"The Saints apparently keep stock on hand. I don't," the trainer told the Daily News on Monday. "I have a pharmacy deliver two or three times a day as needed. Everything is individually wrapped with a player's name on it. I don't keep anything in our safe. I don't keep medications now.

"I get it delivered and hand it out for the people that it is for. Then you don't have these kind of issues. When you have a big bulk of medications is when you have pills missing. That's what we are all trying to avoid."

Santini details disagreements he had with Loomis over how to handle the situation, which led to his resignation. SSMB (Vitt) had a painful medical condition, according to the suit, while SSMA (Payton) did not. Vitt interviewed for the Jets' head coaching job in 2006 before Eric Mangini was hired.

Link

 

[Mr.Underhill]

I haven't seen any news articles saying Payton had a prescription.

I did find this:

Also, Santini says two trainers were told by a top team executive to forge entries in official logs so the amount of Vicodin stolen would be reflected as an amount that had been properly distributed

ESPN legal analyst Roger Cossack said Monday on the network, "In my opinion, general manager Mickey Loomis is the one who is facing the most problems from this case. Santini claims that Loomis came to him and told him that he was going to alter the drug logs in order to try an protect assistant coach Joe Vitt and head coach Sean Payton. Obstructing justice and witness tampering is a very serious crime," said Cossack.

Link

Not to keep harping on this, but the quotes in red are troubling to me.Santini isn't showing what he was being told to do. He's only pointing to what other people were doing or were going to do. What you witness others doing isn't a basis for constructive discharge IMHO.

Santini could only be in a compromising position if they come to him and try and force him to be part of the cover-up and threaten his job if he doesn't play ball. So far, I haven't seen anything involving him other than that he discovered what was going on and disagreed with the Saint's front office on how the Saint's front office was going to handle it.

So far, all I've seen is a guy who knew something but wasn't asked to take part in anything himself. It's starting to look more like an extortion attempt and Santini had his bluff called by the Saints. They basically said they don't care as much about the bad PR as they do the money he was asking for when they said "Screw you. Sue us".

So this constructive discharge suit may simply be cover against an extortion charge. It may be just close enough to a valid constructive discharge situation to keep prosecutors from charging Santini with extortion. If he doesn't go forward with the suit and the Saints report him, it looks even more like extortion.

 

[fatness]

Saintini said he was ordered to ignore activity he thought might be criminal prompting him to submit his resignation. He is seeking damages of back pay.

According to Santini's lawyers, Santini reported the possible violations to federal authorities on June 23 of 2009. He resigned from the New Orleans Saints on Aug. 16, 2009 and first informed the team of his intent to sue the organization on Sept. 14, 2009.

Link

 

[Doug B]

Santini withdrew his lawsuit against the Saints yesterday, moving the entire affair to a closed arbitration hearing.

This beat writer still thinks the facts will get leaked and that legal and/or league repercussions are coming.

 

[cstu]

CSTU, with all due respect, you don't have any idea what you are saying.

And yet he dropped the case as I expected.

 

[Adebisi]

This really isn't that big of a deal. If it's true, Payton will come out and admit he has a problem, the NFL and the Saints will condemn his actions but lend him their support, he'll overcome the whole thing, then everyone will think he's a huge hero for having done so. He'll end up further ahead than he'd be if the whole thing had never happened.

And Goodell will say we all make mistakes, no big deal carry on Payton.Dream on this is a BIG DEAL, and if true PAYTON's future is muddy at best as a head coach. Drugs is one thing, but STEALING is another, especially from your BOSS.

Nonsense. Young, quality, Super Bowl-winning coaches do not just grow on trees. Worst-case scenario is a suspension. Not really that big a deal. You're crazy if you seriously think the Saints would fire Payton over this. If these allegations turn out to be true, Payton will be painted as a guy who has a problem (which would obviously be true) and the theft aspect of this will be glossed over. He'll get a fine, maybe a brief suspension, he might get criminally charged (but he'll only end up with probation), he'll have to get "help," and he'll be painted as a hero a year or two from now for having overcome his demons.I know it's a slow part of the year right now, but the sky isn't falling here, guy.

 

[BoulderBob]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...

He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

If there any pictures floating around of Payton with absolute pin-point pupils, it's pretty much the tell-tale sign...

 

[Adebisi]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

 

[BoulderBob]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

I've been addicted to both, and heroin was easier to quit than vicodin...synthetic vs pure or something like that makes a difference. Opiate addiction is opiate addiction, bottom line...hopefully Payton doesn't have a problem, but it shouldn't be come as surprise, as the NFL has a bit of an opiate/painkiller problem. I know the word HEROIN is pretty scary, and it is a terrible thing to be addicted to, but I actually got a better high from vicodin than heroin...it's the whole street-drug stigma, imo...any type of derivative from the poppy plant can lead to a hell of a problem.Again, I hope the reports are false, but if they aren't, Saints management should make sure Payton gets the help he needs. He will be fine as long as he has access to the drug, but it will take more and more, and eventually you are forced to do something stupid(like steal an Rx) to get a fix.

 

[Adebisi]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

With all due respect, I've been addicted to both, and heroin was easier to quit than vicodin...synthetic vs pure or something like that makes a difference. Opiate addiction is opiate addiction, bottom line...hopefully Payton doesn't have a problem, but it shouldn't be come as surprise, as the NFL has a bit of an opiate/painkiller problem.

This is sort of a pointless debate to have, so let's just both agree to respectfully disagree and move on.

 

[BoulderBob]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

With all due respect, I've been addicted to both, and heroin was easier to quit than vicodin...synthetic vs pure or something like that makes a difference. Opiate addiction is opiate addiction, bottom line...hopefully Payton doesn't have a problem, but it shouldn't be come as surprise, as the NFL has a bit of an opiate/painkiller problem.

This is sort of a pointless debate to have, so let's just both agree to respectfully disagree and move on.

You're right, sorry if I came off as argumentative...not my intent. Just wanted to point out that stealing an Rx is something an opiate addict would certainly do. Just not thinking correctly due to the pull of the drug. Best of luck to Payton either way...as long as his family/team/fans stick by him, and the media leaves him alone(which they absolutely should, if he has a problem)...he will get through this and coach the Saints for quite some time.

 

[PitbullTD]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

I've been addicted to both, and heroin was easier to quit than vicodin...synthetic vs pure or something like that makes a difference. Opiate addiction is opiate addiction, bottom line...hopefully Payton doesn't have a problem, but it shouldn't be come as surprise, as the NFL has a bit of an opiate/painkiller problem. I know the word HEROIN is pretty scary, and it is a terrible thing to be addicted to, but I actually got a better high from vicodin than heroin...it's the whole street-drug stigma, imo...any type of derivative from the poppy plant can lead to a hell of a problem.Again, I hope the reports are false, but if they aren't, Saints management should make sure Payton gets the help he needs. He will be fine as long as he has access to the drug, but it will take more and more, and eventually you are forced to do something stupid(like steal an Rx) to get a fix.

You should probobly go ahead and create an alias or a new one. Comparing heroin to Vicodin is like comparing tylenol to Vicodin. Vicodin is one of the weakest codine's prescribed, and has nothign to do with heroin at all other than being classified as an opiate. If you kicked Heroin easier than Vicodin then you weren't addicted to heroin at all other than in the sense of, "Man I'd like some."Also, Vicodin is never prescribed as a synthetic heroin. Vicodin would do nothing for a Heroin Addict at all.

 

[BoulderBob]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

I've been addicted to both, and heroin was easier to quit than vicodin...synthetic vs pure or something like that makes a difference. Opiate addiction is opiate addiction, bottom line...hopefully Payton doesn't have a problem, but it shouldn't be come as surprise, as the NFL has a bit of an opiate/painkiller problem. I know the word HEROIN is pretty scary, and it is a terrible thing to be addicted to, but I actually got a better high from vicodin than heroin...it's the whole street-drug stigma, imo...any type of derivative from the poppy plant can lead to a hell of a problem.Again, I hope the reports are false, but if they aren't, Saints management should make sure Payton gets the help he needs. He will be fine as long as he has access to the drug, but it will take more and more, and eventually you are forced to do something stupid(like steal an Rx) to get a fix.

You should probobly go ahead and create an alias or a new one. Comparing heroin to Vicodin is like comparing tylenol to Vicodin. Vicodin is one of the weakest codine's prescribed, and has nothign to do with heroin at all other than being classified as an opiate. If you kicked Heroin easier than Vicodin then you weren't addicted to heroin at all other than in the sense of, "Man I'd like some."Also, Vicodin is never prescribed as a synthetic heroin. Vicodin would do nothing for a Heroin Addict at all.

It's an opiate, and it gets one high like ALL opiates do at certain levels. It's usually the first opiate an addict uses/abuses, and therefor some addicts put it on a pedastal(as the first few opiate "highs" are the best, not even IV heroin can compare to the first few times...hence chasing the dragon), and "like" it more than heroin and oxycontin. I know it is weaker than heroin mate(and eventually it did not get me high, and I moved on to something stronger, like most opiate addicts do)...but you'd be shocked how many "vicodin/norco" addicts end up in rehab. At high enough doses, it can give one pretty much the exact same feeling heroin can. And as I said, it was easier for me to quit heroin than the norcos. Unless you've been addicted to opiates, you really don't know what I went through...and what Payton may be going through. We all have different brain chemistry, some like vicodin more than heroin(I'm FAR from alone here mate)...and some think it sucks. In many ways, a vicodin addiction is worse than a heroin addiction due to the damage the APAP/tylenol in vicodin does to the liver. At my worst point, I was popping 20 10mg/325mgAPAP or Tylenol per day...the tylenol has done permanent damage to my liver according to my doc. I never IV'd, and those that do IV are the reason heroin gets its well deserved reputation. If used orally, vicodin blows it out of the water.Again, sorry for the tangent...I hope Payton is clean as a whistle, because I wouldn't wish painkiller/opiate addiction on anyone. It was very easy for me to hide my problem, as thousands of Americans do, and like I said earlier if an opiate addict has enough pills to avoid withdrawal/detox he or she can still perform his or her job at a high level. Once you move on to the needle, that changes, of course, but I got help before it reached that point.I know I'm an easy target here, and I expected that. Nobody likes to hear the stuff I'm saying. I'm ashamed of the fact I allowed myself to become dependant on opiates, but I'm just one of millions who have had the same problem over time. I'm not worried about people knowing this, as my boss was the one who helped me the most, and I'm forever grateful to him for helping me keep this addiction in check. I just wanted to pass along my experience with vicodin/opiates in an attempt to explain why(if Payton indeed has a problem/stole the pills) the coach would do such a thing. It doesn't make him a bad person, opiate addiction strikes the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor. I hope he gets the help he needs, if he does, in fact, need help.

 

[PitbullTD]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

I've been addicted to both, and heroin was easier to quit than vicodin...synthetic vs pure or something like that makes a difference. Opiate addiction is opiate addiction, bottom line...hopefully Payton doesn't have a problem, but it shouldn't be come as surprise, as the NFL has a bit of an opiate/painkiller problem. I know the word HEROIN is pretty scary, and it is a terrible thing to be addicted to, but I actually got a better high from vicodin than heroin...it's the whole street-drug stigma, imo...any type of derivative from the poppy plant can lead to a hell of a problem.Again, I hope the reports are false, but if they aren't, Saints management should make sure Payton gets the help he needs. He will be fine as long as he has access to the drug, but it will take more and more, and eventually you are forced to do something stupid(like steal an Rx) to get a fix.

You should probobly go ahead and create an alias or a new one. Comparing heroin to Vicodin is like comparing tylenol to Vicodin. Vicodin is one of the weakest codine's prescribed, and has nothign to do with heroin at all other than being classified as an opiate. If you kicked Heroin easier than Vicodin then you weren't addicted to heroin at all other than in the sense of, "Man I'd like some."Also, Vicodin is never prescribed as a synthetic heroin. Vicodin would do nothing for a Heroin Addict at all.

It's an opiate, and it gets one high like ALL opiates due at certain levels. It's usually the first opiate an addict uses/abuses, and therefor some addict prefer it compared to other opiates, even harder ones like heroin and oxycontin. I know it is weaker than heroin mate(and eventually it did not get me high, and I moved on to something stronger, like most opiate do)...but you'd be shocked how many "vicodin/norco" addicts end up in rehab. At high enough doses, it can give one pretty much the exact same feeling heroin can. And as I said, it was easier for me to quit heroin than the norcos. Unless you've been addicted to opiates, you really don't know what I went through...and what Payton may be going through. We all have different brain chemistry, some like vicodin more than heroin(I'm FAR from alone here mate)...and some think it sucks. In many ways, a vicodin addiction is worse than a heroin addiction due to the damage the APAP in vicodin does to the liver. At my worst point, I was popping 20 10mg/325mgAPAP or Tylenol per day...the tylenol has done permanent damage to my liver according to my doc. I never IV'd, and those that do IV are the reason heroin gets its well deserved repuation. If used orally, vicodin blows it out of the water.Again, sorry for the tangent...I hope Payton is clean as a whistle, because I wouldn't wish painkiller/opiate addiction on anyone. It was very easy for me to hide my problem, as thousands of Americans do, and like I said earlier if an opiate addict has enough pills to avoid withdrawal/detox he or she can still perform his or her job at a high level. Once you move on to the needle, that changes, of course, but I got help before it reached that point.I know I'm an easy target here, and I expected that. Nobody likes to hear the stuff I'm saying. I just wanted to pass along my experience with vicodin/opiates in an attempt to explain why(if Payton indeed has a problem/stole the pills) the coach would do such a thing. It doesn't make him a bad person, opiate addiction strikes the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor. I hope he gets the help he needs, if he does, in fact, need help.

I don't think anyone, at the very least me, is saying people dont go to rehab for vicodin, but comparing it to Heroin is absolutely ridiculous. I don't doubt you've done permanent damage to your liver due to overdosing on Acetomenophine(aka APAP) but to compare it to heroin is ridiculous. And saying Vicodin is a "gateway" to heroin is ridiculous as well. Thats right up there with the people that say Alcohol/Marijuana are "gateway's" to harder drugs. If someone has an addictive personality it doesnt matter what drug they start out with they will naturally move onto others. There are no ways that a Vicodin addiction is worse than a Heroin addiction so stop trying to convince yourself. You were addicted to Vicodin. NOT Heroin. And the reason I say this is because of your first post saying it was harder to quit than Heroin. There is no possible way in the world someone who has been addicted to BOTH has a harder time quitting panzy ### Vicodin as they do Heroin. I commend you for being able to move away from drugs though. Grats, but please dont fool yourself. Vicodin is panzy in the realm of Opiates. Its like saying someone who was addicted to Energy Drinks had a harder time quitting them than they did Cocaine/Crystal

 

[Mr.Underhill]

Saintini said he was ordered to ignore activity he thought might be criminal prompting him to submit his resignation. He is seeking damages of back pay.

According to Santini's lawyers, Santini reported the possible violations to federal authorities on June 23 of 2009. He resigned from the New Orleans Saints on Aug. 16, 2009 and first informed the team of his intent to sue the organization on Sept. 14, 2009.

Link

Still makes it somewhat iffy to my mind. Though there could be some contrary case law that addresses this situation.If Santini has no obligation to report the crime, then the Saints could argue that they can order him to keep quiet since that isn't requiring him to engage in illegal activity.

There's a huge difference in simply not reporting a crime and actually taking part in the cover-up (like destroying evidence or altering records). If he was just told to keep quiet, and he isn't required by law to report it, then that may not be constructive discharge.

 

[Mr.Underhill]

CSTU, with all due respect, you don't have any idea what you are saying.

And yet he dropped the case as I expected.

He withdrew the case and entered arbitration. That doesn't mean he had a BS case.That's not the same as "dropping the case" at all.Arbitration is a means of resolving the claim outside of court. Santini, if he has enough evidence to support his claim, could get a nice payday through arbitration the same as he could in court.If arbitration doesn't work, it could be right back in court.Curious if his employment contract had an arbitration clause.

 

[oukurt]

It should be legal anyway.

Couldn't disagree more. Pain pills are so addictive. I had an addiction to oxycontin that cost me a lot of money and almost cost me my life. Legalize pot? You bet. Leagalize pain pills? Hell no.

 

[oukurt]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

You are quite uninformed.

 

[cstu]

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

I've been addicted to both, and heroin was easier to quit than vicodin...synthetic vs pure or something like that makes a difference. Opiate addiction is opiate addiction, bottom line...hopefully Payton doesn't have a problem, but it shouldn't be come as surprise, as the NFL has a bit of an opiate/painkiller problem. I know the word HEROIN is pretty scary, and it is a terrible thing to be addicted to, but I actually got a better high from vicodin than heroin...it's the whole street-drug stigma, imo...any type of derivative from the poppy plant can lead to a hell of a problem.Again, I hope the reports are false, but if they aren't, Saints management should make sure Payton gets the help he needs. He will be fine as long as he has access to the drug, but it will take more and more, and eventually you are forced to do something stupid(like steal an Rx) to get a fix.

You should probobly go ahead and create an alias or a new one. Comparing heroin to Vicodin is like comparing tylenol to Vicodin. Vicodin is one of the weakest codine's prescribed, and has nothign to do with heroin at all other than being classified as an opiate. If you kicked Heroin easier than Vicodin then you weren't addicted to heroin at all other than in the sense of, "Man I'd like some."Also, Vicodin is never prescribed as a synthetic heroin. Vicodin would do nothing for a Heroin Addict at all.

It's an opiate, and it gets one high like ALL opiates due at certain levels. It's usually the first opiate an addict uses/abuses, and therefor some addict prefer it compared to other opiates, even harder ones like heroin and oxycontin. I know it is weaker than heroin mate(and eventually it did not get me high, and I moved on to something stronger, like most opiate do)...but you'd be shocked how many "vicodin/norco" addicts end up in rehab. At high enough doses, it can give one pretty much the exact same feeling heroin can. And as I said, it was easier for me to quit heroin than the norcos. Unless you've been addicted to opiates, you really don't know what I went through...and what Payton may be going through. We all have different brain chemistry, some like vicodin more than heroin(I'm FAR from alone here mate)...and some think it sucks. In many ways, a vicodin addiction is worse than a heroin addiction due to the damage the APAP in vicodin does to the liver. At my worst point, I was popping 20 10mg/325mgAPAP or Tylenol per day...the tylenol has done permanent damage to my liver according to my doc. I never IV'd, and those that do IV are the reason heroin gets its well deserved repuation. If used orally, vicodin blows it out of the water.Again, sorry for the tangent...I hope Payton is clean as a whistle, because I wouldn't wish painkiller/opiate addiction on anyone. It was very easy for me to hide my problem, as thousands of Americans do, and like I said earlier if an opiate addict has enough pills to avoid withdrawal/detox he or she can still perform his or her job at a high level. Once you move on to the needle, that changes, of course, but I got help before it reached that point.I know I'm an easy target here, and I expected that. Nobody likes to hear the stuff I'm saying. I just wanted to pass along my experience with vicodin/opiates in an attempt to explain why(if Payton indeed has a problem/stole the pills) the coach would do such a thing. It doesn't make him a bad person, opiate addiction strikes the richest of the rich and the poorest of the poor. I hope he gets the help he needs, if he does, in fact, need help.

I don't think anyone, at the very least me, is saying people dont go to rehab for vicodin, but comparing it to Heroin is absolutely ridiculous. I don't doubt you've done permanent damage to your liver due to overdosing on Acetomenophine(aka APAP) but to compare it to heroin is ridiculous. And saying Vicodin is a "gateway" to heroin is ridiculous as well. Thats right up there with the people that say Alcohol/Marijuana are "gateway's" to harder drugs. If someone has an addictive personality it doesnt matter what drug they start out with they will naturally move onto others. There are no ways that a Vicodin addiction is worse than a Heroin addiction so stop trying to convince yourself. You were addicted to Vicodin. NOT Heroin. And the reason I say this is because of your first post saying it was harder to quit than Heroin. There is no possible way in the world someone who has been addicted to BOTH has a harder time quitting panzy ### Vicodin as they do Heroin. I commend you for being able to move away from drugs though. Grats, but please dont fool yourself. Vicodin is panzy in the realm of Opiates. Its like saying someone who was addicted to Energy Drinks had a harder time quitting them than they did Cocaine/Crystal

Vicodin is absolutely comparable to heroin, if taken orally. Orally ingested heroin has a bioavailability of only 35% so it's definitely possible to get more hooked on Vicodin than heroin if you aren't shooting up.

 

[TitusIII]

Vicodin is pretty damn strong and euphoric if you've never abused opiates. It's almost always the first opiate addicts use and abuse, and yes, many of them find it just as hard to quit as heroin. Everyone is different, and most move on to something like heroin simply because of its relatively low cost, but if it was possible(and tolerance didn't come into play) I'd wager most addicts would stick with Vicodin.

Many an NLF'er has an opiate habit/problem, it comes with the territory given the beating they take. Best of luck to Payton.

 

[TitusIII]

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football...l#ixzz0oRe2gDbs

Getting ugly....

"New Orleans Saints coach Sean Payton must confront Vicodin issue to preserve good-guy image" is the title of the article, which makes me angry. Anyone, rich/poor/etc, can lose themselves in an opiate addiction. It doesn't take much at all, as the pull of opiates is so very strong. I hate how our society paints drug users as criminals, when the vast majority of them are in need of help(some don't want the help, as a constant supply of the drug means the addict never has to go through detox and everything is rosy) and treatment. Being caught up in the web of opiates does not make someone "bad", as it can happen to anyone. Best of luck to Payton, if the allegations are indeed true....

 

[Adebisi]

It should be legal anyway.

Couldn't disagree more. Pain pills are so addictive. I had an addiction to oxycontin that cost me a lot of money and almost cost me my life. Legalize pot? You bet. Leagalize pain pills? Hell no.

I don't mean any disrespect when I say the following, although I acknowledge that it's a potentially sensitive issue for you... but I'll assume you're willing to talk about it openly, or you wouldn't have bothered to comment.This is quickly spiraling into a debate for another thread, but I don't believe that everyone should be prevented from doing something that makes them happy just because some people (or even most people) can't handle it. What good does criminalizing it do, anyway? Clearly, it didn't stop you, right?

 

[Adebisi]

I have a painkiller problem as well, and in the midst of detox, yeah, I'd probably steal an Rx as well...very powerful addiction, same as a heroin habit, or any opiate. Hopefully Payton mans up and gets the help he needs...because it will ruin his life in the long run, guaranteed...He really shouldn't be coaching if true...with that being said...opiate addicts can be quite functional WHILE they have plenty of drugs around, at least functional enough to coach a team to a Super Bowl title, nothing like alchohol/coke/amphetamines/etc...but it's the periods without the drugs that leads to Rx theft(and things that a non-opiate addicted person would NEVER do)...if you've ever gone through that pain, you'd understand. I've been able to stay away from opiates for the past two years, but it's not easy, that high is about as good as a human can possibly feel...and hell, it all started with three vicodin.

With all due respect, it's not really in the same ballpark as a heroin addiction, IMO.

You are quite uninformed.

As someone who's been around addicts of both and dabbled a bit myself, I beg to differ.

 

[oukurt]

It should be legal anyway.

Couldn't disagree more. Pain pills are so addictive. I had an addiction to oxycontin that cost me a lot of money and almost cost me my life. Legalize pot? You bet. Leagalize pain pills? Hell no.

I don't mean any disrespect when I say the following, although I acknowledge that it's a potentially sensitive issue for you... but I'll assume you're willing to talk about it openly, or you wouldn't have bothered to comment.This is quickly spiraling into a debate for another thread, but I don't believe that everyone should be prevented from doing something that makes them happy just because some people (or even most people) can't handle it. What good does criminalizing it do, anyway? Clearly, it didn't stop you, right?

You are right this probably a debate for another thread. IMO this type of addiction is just taken way too lightly. Those that have experienced withdrawals from vicodin, oxy, or similar know exactly what I am talking about. I have never been through anything so frightening and painful in my life those weeks of my oxy withdrawals. Who knew something that was supposed to help ease the pain from back surgery would almost kill me.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I can't get up in the morning without a cup of joe, so I know exactly what he's going through. Exactly. I say cut him a break.