- 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: NFL presented Vilma w/sworn affidavit of GW stating Vilma offered 10k for Favre
Posted on 9/18/12 at 2:30 pm to klewis
Posted on 9/18/12 at 2:30 pm to klewis
I bet the reality is he offered to add 10k to the overall pool to increase motivation prior to that big game. Never intending someone to get it for injuring Favre. Its all perception and semantics.
0
Posted on 9/18/12 at 2:37 pm to klewis
quote:
I'm still not understanding why Will Smith, Fujita, and Hargrove are suspended.
When the bounty story initially broke my first thought was that Roman Harper ridiculously late hit on Steve Smith made sense. I was surprised when he wasn't one of the suspended players. But we have since learned this isn't about justice or the truth. The original story was supposedly sourced by Cerullo, so maybe he had an axe to grind against those 4, but I can see why Goodell would target them too.
Vilma - Captain of the defense, obvious target.
Will Smith - Was part of the Star Capps case where the courts got into the league's business and delayed penalties that Goodell had issued.
Fujita - Was outspoken during the CBA negotiations IIRC.
Hargrove - Is an easy target with his addiction past and possibly was a mistaken identity with the video tape.
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 9/18/12 at 2:41 pm to jeff5891
quote:
I hate to tell you but Vilma doesn't have to prove anything. Statements made by two people is not enough to justify going in a public forum and defaming the character of an individual. Goodell needs hard evidence for him to have the right to say what he has said and if he doesn't produce evidence that justifies his claims in court well then he broke the law. All Vilma has to do is say in court " Mr. Goodell show me what your working with" and GD has to produce evidence. Goodell can say that his interpretation justified him to make his statements but that doesn't matter it all comes down to the interpretation of the jury. And what's been produced so far, vilmas attorney will have no problem showing the gigantic holes in the evidence GD has aquired
x's a billion.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 2:42 pm to SouljaBreauxTellEm
It's pretty blatantly obvious the NFL Is not looking for the truth but only pieces that can push with what they want to be the truth.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 2:44 pm to TigerinATL
[
What I said is goodell has to prove he had sufficient evidence that allowed him to make the statements he made. thats what will have to be shown here. Vilmas attorney will have to show how bad the evidence is and show that bc of how bad it is goodell should have known his statements are false
I never said the statements would be thrown out. What i said is they won hold much weight in court. As in they wont mean much bc his statement and situation he is in is a conflict of interest. Vilmas attorney will charcterize GW as having a conflict of interest. So his statement in the eyes of the jury will be weak but not thrown out.
The fact that both statements that the nfl has from gw and corr that are conflicting in the order of events looks really bad. and any decent attorney will show the jury why that looks bad. So basically one can assume now that their statements wont hold a lot of weight to show goodell could say what he said. He will need written evidence prove himself.
Oh and this isn't a criminal case what happens there does not follow in this situation
quote:
Vilma's defamation suit isn't about whether or not he actually put out a bounty or not, it's about whether Goodell had reason to believe he did. Criminall cases regularly use conflicted witnesses that sell out there colleagues for lesser sentences. Their testimony isn't thrown out because it's conflicted, it's often critical to making the case.
What I said is goodell has to prove he had sufficient evidence that allowed him to make the statements he made. thats what will have to be shown here. Vilmas attorney will have to show how bad the evidence is and show that bc of how bad it is goodell should have known his statements are false
I never said the statements would be thrown out. What i said is they won hold much weight in court. As in they wont mean much bc his statement and situation he is in is a conflict of interest. Vilmas attorney will charcterize GW as having a conflict of interest. So his statement in the eyes of the jury will be weak but not thrown out.
The fact that both statements that the nfl has from gw and corr that are conflicting in the order of events looks really bad. and any decent attorney will show the jury why that looks bad. So basically one can assume now that their statements wont hold a lot of weight to show goodell could say what he said. He will need written evidence prove himself.
Oh and this isn't a criminal case what happens there does not follow in this situation
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 2:50 pm
Posted on 9/18/12 at 2:46 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
It's pretty blatantly obvious the NFL Is not looking for the truth but only pieces that can push with what they want to be the truth.
agreed... Goodell thought he saw enough circumstantial evidence to take action.
Ive always thought that GW would be Goodell's ace in the hole... but even that seems to have backfired with the apparent contradiction.
Due to their conduct, I dont see how the league and Goodell in particular can escape unscathed even if they are able to resume suspensions.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:03 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
Vilma's defamation suit isn't about whether or not he actually put out a bounty or not, it's about whether Goodell had reason to believe he did.
The NFL has reportedly claimed thousands of pages of hard evidence and more importantly that the players and coaches have admitted to their roles in a Pay for Injury scheme. The players have all denied this under oath. Were those claims of evidence and admissions demonstrably false? And can they be proven to have come directly from Goodell?
Side note: What was Cerullo's role in the Saint's organization? People keep referring to two coaches implicating Vilma but I thought Cerullo was some minor administrative functionary.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:07 pm to jeff5891
quote:
He will need written evidence prove himself.
And he will have someone write it
quote:
goodell has to prove he had sufficient evidence that allowed him to make the statements he made.
How are statements from supervisors about a subordinate's actions during a meeting not sufficient? Remember that the players who were accused refused to meet with Goodell and defend themselves. They had their reasons for that, but this appears to be the sequence of events:
1) Cerullo gives the initial story which lines up with the NFL's legal interests and the witch hunt is on. Now all RG needs is a good villain or 2.
2) Saints cooperate fully and turnover all of their emails.
3) FO/Coaching staff are interviewed
- GW squeals like a pig and throws everyone under the bus in the process
- Payton and Loomis may or may not know what went down but they do know they were letting GW do his own thing so they accept responsibility while blaming everything on GW
- Vitt denies things and Goodell decides that he is lying and suspends him for lying.
4) Accused players refuse to meet with Goodell.
So all of Goodell's evidence either corroborates the Vilma bounty, or has been determined to be a lie. The players do not meet with Goodell to refute the accusations and offer their own version of events. At this point Goodell has no reason to doubt his information. Again, the defamation suit isn't about Goodell having to prove that Vilma offered a bounty but Vilma proving that it was unreasonable to assume that he did. Vilma didn't bother defending himself when given the chance and none of his superiors defended him.
I'm no lawyer but short of an email from Goodell proving it was a witch hunt, I don't see how Vilma proves defamation. Goodell had every reason to believe what had been discovered and no obligation to investigate further that I can see. Now if Vilma had met with Goodell and denied the accusations and said every single teammate and a few coaches would back him up and Goodell refused to follow that up and then made the bounty claims he might have a case, but I think Vilma not defending himself gave Goodell the green light to stop the investigation with the limited "evidence" he had.
quote:
Side note: What was Cerullo's role in the Saint's organization? People keep referring to two coaches implicating Vilma but I thought Cerullo was some minor administrative functionary.
He was a "Saints Quality Control Coach"
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:16 pm to TigerinATL
its outlined in his declaration all of his important duties.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:17 pm to TigerinATL
What you have to understand is in a defamation suit the accuser is the who made the statement that is said to hurt the character of someone else( goodell). Vilma is really the defendant ( even though he is technically accusing goodell of defamation, it doesn't matter BC in the eyes of the court Vilma is defending himself from accusations made be goodell)
That's why goodell has to prove his evidence was strong enough to make a statement about Vilma. If the court says his evidence isn't, then he did not have the right publicly state what he did and will be penalized for it.
That's why goodell has to prove his evidence was strong enough to make a statement about Vilma. If the court says his evidence isn't, then he did not have the right publicly state what he did and will be penalized for it.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:19 pm to 10888bge
What's also interesting is that the meeting lasted 3 hrs, according to what I heard on M&M early this morning. This affidavit never came up. According to Ginsberg, he & Vilma had just left the commish's office & was literally just down the street when it got leaked by the NFL. And then the league did not leak the contradictory affidavit. Goodell playing media games as opposed to honestly trying to be fair as he indicated he wanted the meeting to be.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:32 pm to jeff5891
quote:
That's why goodell has to prove his evidence was strong enough to make a statement about Vilma. If the court says his evidence isn't, then he did not have the right publicly state what he did and will be penalized for it.
What court would say the evidence is lacking though? The evidence Goodell was working with were accusations by Vilma's superiors and Vilma refusing to defend himself. Seems pretty black and white to me. I wish Vilma had enough to take Goodell down because I think he's bad for the game, but I just don't see it.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:33 pm to TigerinATL
quote:huh
Vilma refusing to defend himself.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:34 pm to Keltic Tiger
And where exactly is the $10,000? GW says one thing, Cerulla another, Vilma said it didn't happen at all. He should be able to produce bank records, showing this amount was/was not withdrawn. But 10 grand is not pocket change & according to GW & Cerulla, it was put on the table.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:43 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
huh
He refused to meet with Goodell early on in the process.
quote:
In addition to Vilma walking out of the original appeals hearing, the NFL notes that he also requested in August a meeting with Goodell to re-open the appeals process and eventually canceled before appearing.
LINK
This is all I can find on it, but IIRC none of the players except maybe Hargrove met with the commissioner early on.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 3:44 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
He refused to meet with Goodell early on in the process.
cause goodell is a coward. there's so much wrong with the NFL right now, i don't know how the owners are ok with where they are going now.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:00 pm to Chad504boy
"snitches get stitches ..."
i once heard a not so wise man say
i once heard a not so wise man say
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:02 pm to motorbreath
quote:
If all this implodes on goodell and he is revealed to be corrupt and altered or influenced evidence and testimony, I'll be as happy as I was when the saints won the superbowl.
we should have another superbowl parade
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:15 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
and he will have someone write it
im sure that loser will
quote:
How are statements from supervisors about a subordinate's actions during a meeting not sufficient?
1.corr.'s statement is one and that has good weight by itself( but most likely will not be good enough in the eyes of the jury to prove jsutification. they need more)
2.GW's statement can be shown as a conflict of interest bc he isnt fired he is suspended indef. and has chance to get his job back.
3. from what i heard so far, the statements contradict each other in a small but important way. now GW statement is holds less weight than before and corr's statement which was fine on its own is now shown to contradict someone else's. so his statement will hold less weight just bc of that small contradiction bc you can show they obviously how things happened 100%. bc of this there needs to be written documents, but what has been shown so far is that written documents contradict events like saying fujita was on the team in 2010
quote:
Remember that the players who were accused refused to meet with Goodell and defend themselves
yea but in court this doesnt matter.you dont have to meet with someone who is accusing you publicly to go over there evidence. its the responsibility of the accuser to make sure his evidence is valid before going public. (and im pretty sure he asked them to meet after he had accused them publicly) OSN - this whole thing is going to have to come down to court bc im sure goodell will uphold the suspensions with bs justifications.
quote:
Again, the defamation suit isn't about Goodell having to prove that Vilma offered a bounty .
yes it is
quote:
I don't see how Vilma proves defamation
he doesnt have to
i am a media member and say on air that you used steroids while playing baseball. you file a defamation suit against me. the suit goes to court. i will be required to show what evidence i have and show how it justifies my statement. you are not required to prove anything but have your attorney poke wholes in the evidence you present to show the evidence is not valid enough for me to make the statement that i did.
alright somehow TD messed up quotes and what i wrote
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 4:20 pm
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News