- 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 4:26 pm to TigerinATL
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:26 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
Vilma refusing to defend himself
you cant say just bc vilma didnt meet up with goodell after he accused him publicaly that it shows the jury that he actually did what goodell is saying.
thats like if i was your boss and i said publicly on the news whatever that TIGERinATL molested me. then i asked you to meet to go over the evidence. you decline. somehow you are thinking that makes you look like you molested me.
1
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:29 pm to jeff5891
quote:
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.
I got ya. The burden of proof is on the Commish, not Vilma. So if Goodell pulls this weak evidence crap with the court, he runs the risk of losing the lawsuit. I don't think Vilma really wants $$$, he's trying to force the NFL to show their hand.
Where this gets very interesting is when the courts start going over all the statements/documents and the differences between what the league has publicly said they mean, and what they actually say (ala, Hargrove's "Confession" that really wasn't a "confession".) I would assume that would play an important role in determining defamation.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:48 pm to jeff5891
quote:
thats like if i was your boss and i said publicly on the news whatever that TIGERinATL molested me.
In that analogy you are making what you KNOW to be a false claim of an action I did to you. This is a case where Goodell is relying on what managers tell him about front line employees. We'll see what happens, but if the standard is that Goodell knew or should have known, I just don't see where Goodell was obligated to do further investigation beyond the corroborated supervisor accusations if Vilma was not cooperating with the investigation. The details of Vilmas non cooperation are sketchy but from what I recall reading they felt anything they said would be twisted and used against Vilma and Goodell had no intention of sharing what he knew so they saw no benefit to cooperating.
You and elprez00 made some good points, so I'm not 100% pessimistic but I'm still not hopeful that anything comes from this other than forcing Goodell into offering a reduced suspension.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:54 pm to TigerinATL
I'd be interested to know what pretenses the coaches were interviewed under. I bet they were not the same pretenses as have been presented to us. Vitt has been pretty vocal and willing to press his luck. I'm curious as to why CSP hasn't said anything, unless Goodell put a pretty big threat out there. Of the three, Vitt has the least amount to lose.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 4:59 pm to elprez00
quote:
Vitt has been pretty vocal and willing to press his luck.
It sounds like he got suspended because his answers didn't support the witch hunt so it was presumed he was lying.
quote:
I'm curious as to why CSP hasn't said anything, unless Goodell put a pretty big threat out there
Was Payton in this meeting? Was he in the San Francisco meeting that was taped and leak? If these were happening at defense only meetings he might not have anything to say other than he's the head coach so it's ultimately his responsibility if he hired a rogue DC.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 5:14 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.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 5:16 pm to TigerinATL
quote:
It sounds like he got suspended because his answers didn't support the witch hunt so it was presumed he was lying.
I love Coach Vitt. Hes got that direct attitude like CSP, but without the "Coach Tact". Loved listening his responses to stupid questions asked by reporters during training camp.
The quotes from Payton's book involving Vitt are priceless. I really hope that his return will bolster this team a bunch. I don't think Vitt is worried about pissing any fellow coaches off.
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 5:17 pm
Posted on 9/18/12 at 5:17 pm to TigerinATL
just my take, but couldn't vilma walk away with a win despite losing the defamation suit?
even if vilma can't prove intent, can't it be enough to get a complete lack of evidence revealed? if the entire basis for the punishment was cerullo's statement then the coerced williams statement, that seems like it would totally discredit the bounty hunt and punishments.
even if vilma can't prove intent, can't it be enough to get a complete lack of evidence revealed? if the entire basis for the punishment was cerullo's statement then the coerced williams statement, that seems like it would totally discredit the bounty hunt and punishments.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 5:24 pm to poe tay toes
quote:
that seems like it would totally discredit the bounty hunt and punishments.
Only works if the ESPN folks get on board and start calling the league out.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 5:29 pm to elprez00
quote:
Only works if the ESPN folks get on board and start calling the league out
sad but true. Unfortunately, the NFL might have something to say to ESPN about that MNF contract if ESPN even so much as decides to completely throw the league under the bus.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 5:31 pm to wope
This is worse than a soap opera.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 5:33 pm to Papa Tigah
Ginsberg's audio interview on Mike and Mike what went down yesterday LINK
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 5:35 pm
Posted on 9/18/12 at 5:56 pm to wope
quote:
NFL gave Jonathan Vilma a sworn affidavit from former Saints DC Gregg Williams that the New Orleans LB offered $10,000 to any teammate who knocked Brett Favre out of the January 2010 NFC Championship game. More on ESPN and ESPN.com.
Does anyone else appreciate the irony of Goodell basing the entire defense of his suspension on the declaration of Greg Williams, who admits that he lied in the same declaration? The NFL's defense is that we should now believe an admitted liar.
It appears to me that this declaration is parsed in a desperate attempt to support Goodell's defense in the defamation suit while also supporting the coaches and players positions that there was a pay for performance pool, but it contained no intent to injure and that the performance pool actually punished illegal conduct.
Thus, the commisioner can back down the length of the suspensions in a face saving gesture, while continuing to deny that his remarks were legally defamatory. There is a difference between a statement being inaccurate and being defamatory.
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 9/18/12 at 6:14 pm to jddawg58
quote:
Does anyone else appreciate the irony of Goodell basing the entire defense of his suspension of the declaration of Greg Williams, who admits that he lied in the same declaration? The NFL's defense is that we should now believe an admitted liar.
Yes, but GW is an honest liar. It's Cerullo who's the dishonest liar.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 7:19 pm to jeff5891
quote:
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 entirely wrong. Vila is the plaintiff. He has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Goodell made false statements. The burden doesn't shift to Goodell just because Vilma says he's lying.
Goodell doesn't have to prove a damn thing. Vilma has to show that Goodell knew the accusations were false.
This is an uphill battle for Vilma.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 7:23 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
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.
False. Truth is an absolute defense. If you want to assert the absolute defense, then you bear the burden. Otherwise, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show that the statements were false.
I'll cite you some case law when I'm not on my phone.
This post was edited on 9/18/12 at 7:25 pm
Posted on 9/18/12 at 7:30 pm to FalseProphet
I'm going to law school next year so i don't know now. Are we gonna win this case?
How long until a federal judge makes Goodell and the NFL show the evidence?
How long until a federal judge makes Goodell and the NFL show the evidence?
Posted on 9/18/12 at 7:30 pm to FalseProphet
I'm going to law school next year so i don't know now. Are we gonna win this case?
How long until a federal judge makes Goodell and the NFL show the evidence?
How long until a federal judge makes Goodell and the NFL show the evidence?
Posted on 9/18/12 at 7:31 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Goodell doesn't have to prove a damn thing. Vilma has to show that Goodell knew the accusations were false.
goodell has one thing to prove. that he had firm evidence.
Posted on 9/18/12 at 7:35 pm to poe tay toes
quote:
Posted by poe tay toes quote: Goodell doesn't have to prove a damn thing. Vilma has to show that Goodell knew the accusations were false.
goodell has one thing to prove. that he had firm evidence.
Only if he decides to assert the absolute defense of truth. Otherwise Vilma has to show that RG knew the statements were false. Knowing it was false is different than having firm evidence.
I literally just got done with one of these cases.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News