- 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
0
Posted on 8/10/12 at 5:53 pm to purplepylon
quote:
If this same judge is the one that will hear Vilma's defamation of character suit, then She just gave us a hint as to which way she's leaning on that case too. If she already thinks Vilma was "irreparably harmed" by this sham than the NFL needs to settle everything now.
Nah. Harm isn't the hard thing to prove in a defamation suit. He lost a year's salary, so obviously there is harm.
The difficult thing in a defamation case, is that Vilma will be considered a public figure, which means he has to prove Goodell acted with actual malice with knowledge that what he was saying was false.
That is Vilma's problem with the defamation case. It's almost impossible to prove.
But I do agree that the judge is not happy with Goodell and wants the arbiter to throw out the suspensions. If he doesn't, I think she'll use Article 14 of the CBA as her authority to throw them out and let an appeals court decide.
How can Goodell just declare a matter is pay for injury instead of pay for performance, thereby bringing it under his jurisdiction without showing the evidence that prove that it was actually pay to injure, including naming his sources?
That is her best legal theory to attack this.
Posted on 8/10/12 at 9:05 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
The difficult thing in a defamation case, is that Vilma will be considered a public figure, which means he has to prove Goodell acted with actual malice with knowledge that what he was saying was false.
That is Vilma's problem with the defamation case. It's almost impossible to prove.
The sliver of evidence that has been released has been grotesquely misrepresented in the media. Maybe they have more; I don't know. If a defamation suit is ever winnable this is it. The biggest issue should be proving it came directly from Goodell and I don't see sports writers taking a bullet for their sources the way hard news journalists sometimes do.
Posted on 8/10/12 at 9:09 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
The difficult thing in a defamation case, is that Vilma will be considered a public figure, which means he has to prove Goodell acted with actual malice with knowledge that what he was saying was false.
This is an interesting point but I think the nature of the CBA defined relationship between these two under these circumstances trump your point. Time will tell.
Posted on 8/10/12 at 9:16 pm to Tiger Voodoo
quote:
The difficult thing in a defamation case, is that Vilma will be considered a public figure, which means he has to prove Goodell acted with actual malice with knowledge that what he was saying was false.
I think it might be possible in this case considering the lengths at which the commissioner went to not release evidence for a long time. He made sure public perception was set before anything came out, and he didn't do that until the players appeals. At that time a lot of people were like "Really?"
To anyone paying attention it's clear that the NFL misrepresented the facts.
Posted on 8/10/12 at 9:28 pm to Tiger Voodoo
The biggest problem with his defamation case is that all the precedent in federal law is in favor of preemption by the CBA. She wants them to settle this case, because she knows that a ruling in his favor on the defamation claim is not sustainable under the law and would be reversed by the 5th Cir and affirmed by the Supreme Court.
The only thing the judge can do, and not be overruled immediately by the 5th circuit, is to vacate the original arbitration award. Her grounds could be both that Goodell did not have jurisdiction, ( should have gone to the system arbitrator pursuant to CBA article 14) and that the NFL has not met its burden of proving a pay for injury scheme (NFL put on no testimony from witnesses with personal knowledge of said scheme). I blame the NFL lawyers for this travesty more so than Goodell. If they have the goods on the Saints, put Greg Williams or Sean Payton on the stand.
At the end of the day, if someone receives a monetary reward for a clean tackle that results in an opposing player missing part of the game, is that a bounty? It seems to me that a bounty is the rewarding of an illegal hit (helmet to helmet) or a late hit on a QB after the whistle. That is what should be removed from the game, not penalizing clean play that results in a cart-off.
The only thing the judge can do, and not be overruled immediately by the 5th circuit, is to vacate the original arbitration award. Her grounds could be both that Goodell did not have jurisdiction, ( should have gone to the system arbitrator pursuant to CBA article 14) and that the NFL has not met its burden of proving a pay for injury scheme (NFL put on no testimony from witnesses with personal knowledge of said scheme). I blame the NFL lawyers for this travesty more so than Goodell. If they have the goods on the Saints, put Greg Williams or Sean Payton on the stand.
At the end of the day, if someone receives a monetary reward for a clean tackle that results in an opposing player missing part of the game, is that a bounty? It seems to me that a bounty is the rewarding of an illegal hit (helmet to helmet) or a late hit on a QB after the whistle. That is what should be removed from the game, not penalizing clean play that results in a cart-off.
This post was edited on 8/11/12 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 8/10/12 at 10:54 pm to jddawg58
quote:
Does anyone think this will affect Payton as well?
quote:
Not from a legal standpoint. IMO
Perhaps it allows RG to reduce SP's suspension but only if he chooses which I doubt
I have to agree with this, however Goodell would seem to be unjustified with any punishment to the coaching staff without any solid proof. Goodell totally over reached with this and now can't back out without looking weak. I hope the owners kick him to the curb.
Posted on 8/11/12 at 1:24 am to Chrome
quote:
Goodell totally over reached with this and now can't back out without looking weak. I hope the owners kick him to the curb.
I hope Goodell is fired from his job over this fiasco. Further I hope he loses all his money in a Ponzi scheme or something of the sort and he goes bankrupt and becomes homeless.
Posted on 8/11/12 at 9:48 am to jddawg58
quote:
At the end of the day, if someone receives a monetary reward for a clean tackle that results in an opposing player missing part of the game, is that a bounty? It seems to me that a bounty is the rewarding of an illegal hit or play after the whistle.
I'm not so sure Judge Berrigan agrees with you. Referring to the term "cart off", she said, "It seems to me that in effect is a bounty. I know that Mr. Vitt and Mr. Vilma made a point to say that the hits were legal, but I'm not sure there is a whole lot of difference."
The case will be won or lost on the CBA, due process, procedural and evidentiary issues.
Posted on 8/12/12 at 7:46 pm to VOR
quote:
I'm not so sure Judge Berrigan agrees with you. Referring to the term "cart off", she said, "It seems to me that in effect is a bounty. I know that Mr. Vitt and Mr. Vilma made a point to say that the hits were legal, but I'm not sure there is a whole lot of difference."
If you suspend players for a cart off you are suspending them for a result and not for misconduct. You can have an injury on a perfectly legal play (you even have non contact injuries). The NFL should be required to show a pattern of misconduct on opposing "star" players before they can discipline someone so harshly.
Otherwise this is simply grandstanding, and Goodell is an attention whore. How can you clean up the game if their was no misconduct.
I cannot understand NFL's reluctance to provide evidence in this case, or of the need to protect or keep secret the identity of the witnesses. That argument would seem to be in favor of the players, that they were simply following instructions and the failure to do so would result in them being cut. If MGT would remove a player for being a rat then they would remove him for not going along with it.
NFL has to show its cards before suspending someone for a year. No discipline without public evidence, including the right to confront your accuser.
Posted on 8/12/12 at 8:07 pm to jddawg58
quote:
If you suspend players for a cart off you are suspending them for a result and not for misconduct
Speaking on just this hypothetical, I disagree.
If u have 2 gite, exactly the same, but only on one does a guy get injured and is helped off the field. Well, if you're only rewarding that hit and not the other, then you're clearly rewarding the injury.
Granted, I still agree that if it is a legal git, then who gives a shite.
Page 10 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News