re: .

quote:

---

Is it? Maybe I'm not looking at this objectively enough, but since the players have already been convicted and sentenced, what would be eye opening about more evidence of their guilt? Also, if it's bad for the Saints, why will PFT have a "field day" with it when they are the ones that have been ripping the so far flimsy case to pieces? Maybe the field day comment is about how much legal minutiae there is to go through, but it's hard to think how things could have gotten worse for the players short of Vilma's bank statement showing a $10,000 withdrawl.

---

Of course it is. The NFL has always said they had plenty of evidence and testimony, but weren't producing it because they simply didn't have to and wanted to protect sources.

"Eye-opening" infers that something was "seen" (ie came to light) to make someone take note. This would SUGGEST that it is evidence that had not yet been brought up by the League.

Since it suggests new evidence, and since the Players argument is a LACK of evidence, "eye-opening" likely means that new evidence AGAINST the players was presented.

The term, as used, again SUGGESTS that it is bad for players.