- 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: Vilma meeting with Goodell 6/18 @ 10AM
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:43 am to sicboy
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:43 am to sicboy
quote:
Vilma has already filed a defamation lawsuit against Goodell personally in federal court in New Orleans.
Anyone know the timing on the defamation lawsuit? Being in New Orleans, I hope Vilma gets a judge that expedites the process.
0
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:44 am to NorthshoreTiger76
quote:
per the new CBA Goodell doesn't have to show proof
Per logic he does. And that's where I have the biggest problem with this:
SI made it a cover story without any proof. If King and others had demanded proof--if the media would have applied the requisite amount of pressure by showing an ounce of journalistic integrity, Goodell would not have suspended Payton for the season.
Because they failed themselves and us by essentially ceding all power in this case over to Goodell (allowing him to dictate and control the narrative swayed public opinion to his side, which is all he needed to overpunish the Saints), they created this monster.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:48 am to Sophandros
The failure of the media to do investigative research is a completely different matter. The NFL should have to show some type of proof of illegal behavior to warrant these types of penalties.
And is it really true that Goddell doesn't have to show proof? Are was that an attempt at being facetious?
And is it really true that Goddell doesn't have to show proof? Are was that an attempt at being facetious?
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:50 am to NorthshoreTiger76
quote:
per the new CBA Goodell doesn't have to show proof
Wrong. I covered this in another thread.
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."
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 6/18/12 at 11:50 am to jembeurt
In the medias defense (not to say they weren't in the wrong), who would have foreseen the NFL acting this way?
This post was edited on 6/18/12 at 11:51 am
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:52 am to jembeurt
quote:
The failure of the media to do investigative research is a completely different matter.
I disagree.
If the media did their job in the beginning, then public sentiment would have been on the Saints' side from the start, and Goodell would not have felt confident in his suspension choices and the Saints would have received a more appropriate penalty, which is along the lines of what the Patriots got for SpyGate.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:53 am to kclsufan
quote:
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).
From what I've read this morning and early afternoon, it appears that Vilma hasn't even been shown any evidence from the league showing that he made the alleged $10,000K offer...
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:53 am to Sophandros
I love how vilma is challenging goodell at every turn instead of laying down!!!
Vilma for saints hall of fame!!!
Vilma for saints hall of fame!!!
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:54 am to Patrick O Rly
quote:
In the medias defense (not to say they weren't in the wrong), who would have foreseen the NFL acting this way?
True.
HOWEVAH!!!
You're still taught not to run a story without anything to support it.
Anyone want to revisit those initial bounty articles with talk of between 22 and 27 players involved over 3 seasons getting paid to maim other players?
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:55 am to motorbreath
Vilma knows his career is over, so he has to fight for what he can salvage with his reputation.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:58 am to Sophandros
What I meant was that the media now is nothing more than rumor spreaders. It is a complete joke what it has become today.
As what Patty said, why would they think the NFL would just make up this whole story? But that goes back to my original statement. Why would you do any extra work? Its not like your job would be on the line if it weren't true..... Oh wait.
As what Patty said, why would they think the NFL would just make up this whole story? But that goes back to my original statement. Why would you do any extra work? Its not like your job would be on the line if it weren't true..... Oh wait.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 11:58 am to Sophandros
quote:
You're still taught not to run a story without anything to support it.
true unfortunately the media just runs stories with little or no proof at all nowadays.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 12:01 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
The theory I've heard (and tend to agree with) is that if they do have hard proof evidence, they may be unwilling to show it because they could be shown liable in lawsuits that they were aware of something that was endangering player safety and did not act quickly enough.
While that makes sense, I'm not buying it. I just don't see how documenting the claim that Vilma offered $10,000 for an injury hurts the league's legal case. Even if the league knew about this in 2009, supposedly the teams were warned so it sounds like due diligence happened.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 12:02 pm to jembeurt
quote:
As what Patty said, why would they think the NFL would just make up this whole story?
I don't think they did. I think most of their evidence is the word of an ex-employee, probably the same game who charged Loomis wiretapped other teams.
I think they believed him and scrambled to find things to support his claims.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 12:04 pm to Patrick O Rly
Probably. Instead of looking for actual evidence, they found things that look like what said person described.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 12:05 pm to kclsufan
quote:
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."
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).
First off, got a link to the new CBA?
Second, the common sense reading of the provision (as you quoted it) would lead one to believe that either the the players, the NFL or the NFLPA to present any relevant evidence at the hearing.
Then Sec. 2(f) would seem to require the parties to exchange the evidence they intend to use at the hearing to the other parties three days prior to the hearing.
If the NFL didn't plan to use other evidence they have possession of, then it appears they are not required to turn it over to the players, their representatives, or the NFLPA.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 12:07 pm to jembeurt
quote:
Probably. Instead of looking for actual evidence, they found things that look like what said person described.
That's my theory.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 12:14 pm to Patrick O Rly
And they completely ignored stuff like Duke Naiphon's testimony because he doesn't fit their narrative.
confirmation bias at its best.
confirmation bias at its best.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 12:16 pm to bbrownso
quote:
First off, got a link to the new CBA?
LINK
quote:
Second, the common sense reading of the provision (as you quoted it) would lead one to believe that either the the players, the NFL or the NFLPA to present any relevant evidence at the hearing.
Then Sec. 2(f) would seem to require the parties to exchange the evidence they intend to use at the hearing to the other parties three days prior to the hearing.
If the NFL didn't plan to use other evidence they have possession of, then it appears they are not required to turn it over to the players, their representatives, or the NFLPA.
There's nothing I know of in the CBA that says evidence has to be the property of or in possession of the players for them to access it. The phrase "any evidence relevant to the hearing" means just that. That's what discovery is for.
Since the NFL is the accuser, the judge, and oh, also the holder of the "evidence" in this case, their refusal to provide what the players asked for constitutes an act by the NFL to prevent the players from exercising their rights under the CBA.
Posted on 6/18/12 at 12:36 pm to NorthshoreTiger76
quote:Which is why I think Saints fans are being too optimistic.
per the new CBA Goodell doesn't have to show proof
Goodell will close the case and that will be that.
THere is the Vilma court case, but it's hard to win a defamation case.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News