- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PFT: Only 200 pages turned over, No ledger. No evidence of payments.
Posted on 6/17/12 at 7:17 am to Bayou
Posted on 6/17/12 at 7:17 am to Bayou
Can someone in the know explain something to me???
The evidence the NFL put forth Friday...is that supposedly the evidence that is going to be used to make their case Monday or can they sandbag and pull out something completely different and more substantial?
I'm just curious how this is to work?
Also, if the Saints are found to be guilty of a chip-in pool for rewards for performace (Shanle admitted) then they are in violation of NFL policy but definitely not warranting the suspensions and fines levied.
And IF this is the case then Roger needs to examine EVERY other club just as diligently as the Saints - without question.
The evidence the NFL put forth Friday...is that supposedly the evidence that is going to be used to make their case Monday or can they sandbag and pull out something completely different and more substantial?
I'm just curious how this is to work?
Also, if the Saints are found to be guilty of a chip-in pool for rewards for performace (Shanle admitted) then they are in violation of NFL policy but definitely not warranting the suspensions and fines levied.
And IF this is the case then Roger needs to examine EVERY other club just as diligently as the Saints - without question.
1
Posted on 6/17/12 at 7:47 am to Bayou
The CBA Art. 46 Sec. 2(f), entitled "Discovery", states that the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits they intend to use at the hearing at least 3 days prior to the hearing.
Art. 46 Sec. (2)(a) provides for a "hearing" with a hearing officer. Section 2(b) allows the player to be represented by counsel and it allows the NFLPA or NFL to attend and even "to present, by testimony or otherwise, any evidence relevant to the hearing." (credit to Superchuck500 at SR, who is an attorney and has followed this all closely, for pointing this out.)
To answer your question, no, they cannot pull something out of their arse at the last minute and present it. The league has to provide it at least 3 days in advance to the appealing parties.
However, it should be pointed out that exhibits are not evidence, just aids to assist in the presentation of evidence.
Reading the above-referenced CBA provisions, the league in this case has either: (a) cynically provided only a bare minimum of "evidence" it used in making its decisions but is withholding the lions share of evidence, including exculpatory evidence, thereby not giving the appellants a full chance to challenge the "evidence" and defend themselves, making a mockery of the process and eliminating any pretense of fair play, or (b) the league just doesn't have any real evidence.
Vilma and Ginsberg have stated clearly that option B is the case here; who am I to disagree ? JV and Ginsberg have given me NO reason to disbelieve them; Goodell has given me lots of reasons to disbelieve him.
A reasonable reading of the any evidence relevant to the hearing provision is that the league should have given all evidence it used in making it's decision, which is what I believe the appellants asked for. If so, the league may be in violation of the CBA by not providing this evidence for the hearing and also for not compelling the testimony of persons requested by the appellants (SP, GW, etc).
Art. 46 Sec. (2)(a) provides for a "hearing" with a hearing officer. Section 2(b) allows the player to be represented by counsel and it allows the NFLPA or NFL to attend and even "to present, by testimony or otherwise, any evidence relevant to the hearing." (credit to Superchuck500 at SR, who is an attorney and has followed this all closely, for pointing this out.)
To answer your question, no, they cannot pull something out of their arse at the last minute and present it. The league has to provide it at least 3 days in advance to the appealing parties.
However, it should be pointed out that exhibits are not evidence, just aids to assist in the presentation of evidence.
Reading the above-referenced CBA provisions, the league in this case has either: (a) cynically provided only a bare minimum of "evidence" it used in making its decisions but is withholding the lions share of evidence, including exculpatory evidence, thereby not giving the appellants a full chance to challenge the "evidence" and defend themselves, making a mockery of the process and eliminating any pretense of fair play, or (b) the league just doesn't have any real evidence.
Vilma and Ginsberg have stated clearly that option B is the case here; who am I to disagree ? JV and Ginsberg have given me NO reason to disbelieve them; Goodell has given me lots of reasons to disbelieve him.
A reasonable reading of the any evidence relevant to the hearing provision is that the league should have given all evidence it used in making it's decision, which is what I believe the appellants asked for. If so, the league may be in violation of the CBA by not providing this evidence for the hearing and also for not compelling the testimony of persons requested by the appellants (SP, GW, etc).
Posted on 6/17/12 at 9:07 am to kclsufan
quote:
(a) cynically provided only a bare minimum of "evidence" it used in making its decisions but is withholding the lions share of evidence, including exculpatory evidence, thereby not giving the appellants a full chance to challenge the "evidence" and defend themselves, making a mockery of the process and eliminating any pretense of fair play, or (b) the league just doesn't have any real evidence.
That $10,000 quote tied to Vilma had to come from somewhere. I get why they thought the coaches and team would roll over and play dead, they had no choice, but they also HAD to predict the players would fight this, especially with a new union head that just "lost" the CBA negotiations. Someone earlier said their source was probably the same disgruntled employee that pushed the Loomis wiretapping story. The league saw "evidence" it wanted and didn't bother verifying it and now that their feet are being held to the fire they feel producing no evidence is better than producing bad evidence.
Posted on 6/17/12 at 9:18 am to TigerinATL
quote:
they feel producing no evidence is better than producing bad evidence.
Amazingly they've managed to simultaneously do both.
All hail Roger the Incompetent!
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News