78 replies to this topic

[soxhop411]

mike freeman ‏@realfreemancbs
Larry Holder reports from New Orleans that Vilma is suing Roger Goodell for defamation. Oh boy.

realfreemancbs
Copy of lawsuit provided by Larry Holder. Vilma suing Goodell. Here is suit: http://t.co/2mxpNpdL

Better Link to the lawsuit
http://www.webwisefo...int - Filed.pdf


This will NOT end well, Im betting...

Edited by soxhop411, 17 May 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Stuffy McInnis]

So, he's trying to force whatever evidence and testimony the NFL has on him out into the public? The saints that didn't get suspended will love that.

[lostjumper]

His agent must love this. I'm sure its going to help him in the appeals meeting...

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

His agent must love this. I'm sure its going to help him in the appeals meeting...

He was going to lose the appeal no matter what he did - this just allows for proper discovery.

[Dogman2]

Is Vilma betting Goodell conjured the evidence he used to suspend him out of thin air?

[collings94]

I'd like to place a gag order on ESPN, for they will never shut the fuck up about this.

[Judge Mental13]

This could be interesting if the burden falls on Goodell to prove that Vilma actually set the bounties and then paid them out. If Vilma was actually making hand to hand cash transactions in the locker room in front of people then he'll probably lose, but if he wasn't.....?

[wutang112878]

This could become very interesting if Vilma's lawyers can get to the discovery stage. And if the NFL settles this out of court that is pretty telling as well and kind of opens up Pandoras box for them. Regardless of how this goes, its going to be interesting for sure.

Oh, and I am sure within 24hrs the NFL will put a call into ESPN and this wont be on their headlines or on Sportscenter anymore.

[gammoseditor]

Whose the burden of proof on for a defamation law suit?

edit: I'm pretty sure in a defamation law suit Vilma has to proove what Goodell said was a lie AND that Goodell knew it was a lie when he said it.

Edited by gammoseditor, 17 May 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[Gene Conleys Plane Ticket]

Does anyone believe that Goodell and the NFL were not expecting this? Of course they were and I am certain that they have their response and more importantly, their evidence ready to roll out. This seems like a PR move to save face. This suit will get a flurry of publicity, the line will be, "He must be innocent! Why would he risk suing if he was guilty?"

Then once the publicity dies down, the lawsuit will be quietly dropped.

[Ed Hillel]

Whose the burden of proof on for a defamation law suit?

edit: I'm pretty sure in a defamation law suit Vilma has to proove what Goodell said was a lie AND that Goodell knew it was a lie when he said it.

Vilma's a public figure, which means the standard you have articulated is essentially correct. I'm not sure how production would work in a case like this, though. It's a good question. I'd be surprised if Vilma could prove that without Goodell producing his own emails, docs, etc.

[Judge Mental13]

The burden of proof for everything is on the plaintiff.

Basically Vilma is going to have to prove that Goodell said something about him that wasn't true, which means he has to prove he didn't participate in the bounty system the way the NFL claims he has

[Reverend]

He was going to lose the appeal no matter what he did - this just allows for proper discovery.

This is an excellent point A&O makes and I don't think it can be overemphasized enough. Win or lose (if that's even the point), this is a potentially brilliant attempt to force the issue out of the internal rules the NFL sets into a more transparent process from Vilma's perspective; it alters the amount of control the NFL has over the evidence.

[gammoseditor]

So if the standard of proof is on Vilma, is Goodell under any obligation to turn over any evidence of why Vilma was suspended? I wouldn't think he is, in which case this is a giant waste of time.

[Reverend]

So if the standard of proof is on Vilma, is Goodell under any obligation to turn over any evidence of why Vilma was suspended? I wouldn't think he is, in which case this is a giant waste of time.

Discovery

Burden of proof doesn't affect the fact that discovery occurs prior.

Edited by Reverend, 17 May 2012 - 04:02 PM.

[Shelterdog]

So if the standard of proof is on Vilma, is Goodell under any obligation to turn over any evidence of why Vilma was suspended? I wouldn't think he is, in which case this is a giant waste of time.

He probably is. In most lawsuits you're entitled to very broad discovery. In other words, you get the other side's stuff. However, if the other side is a rich company (like the NFL) they can make it very expensive and time consuming to do so.

[gammoseditor]

He probably is. In most lawsuits you're entitled to very broad discovery. In other words, you get the other side's stuff. However, if the other side is a rich company (like the NFL) they can make it very expensive and time consuming to do so.

For some reason I thought that was only in criminal trials. The ESPN article quotes Vilma's lawyer and from his quote he certainly expects Goodell to provide his evidence for the suspension.

Also, while Goodell has plenty of money, he's the one being sued here, not the NFL.

[Was (Not Wasdin)]

For some reason I thought that was only in criminal trials. The ESPN article quotes Vilma's lawyer and from his quote he certainly expects Goodell to provide his evidence for the suspension.

Also, while Goodell has plenty of money, he's the one being sued here, not the NFL.

Just a guess, but I would be very surprised if the NFL doesnt fully indemnify Goodell (and advance all defense costs) any time he gets sued arising out of his duties as Commissioner.

[Caspir]

Also, while Goodell has plenty of money, he's the one being sued here, not the NFL.

I have to imagine that, given the suit originates from actions undertaken as commissioner, the NFL lawyers are handling this one.

[maufman]

This is a creative effort by Vilma's lawyers to force review of Goodell's decision.

In general, unionized employees can be forced to arbitrate employment claims, with the notable exception of Title VII (discrimination) claims. Therefore, I would normally expect the NFL to move to compel arbitration, ending the lawsuit (or at least forcing it behind closed doors). In this case, however, Goodell's suspensions were for conduct detrimental to the game. Such suspensions are not subject to arbitral review under the NFL collective bargaining agreement.

Vilma's odds of getting reinstated are slim, but they are probably better in front of an arbitrator (who at least has that power) than in front of a judge (who probably doesn't). Therefore, if the NFL moves to compel arbitration, Vilma likely won't oppose that result.

If the NFL fights this in court, expect Vilma to move for a preliminary injunction forcing the NFL to let him play. The NFL will say the judge doesn't have jurisdiction to issue such an order; Vilma will say that the judge needs to review the evidence before reaching that determination. If the judge agrees with Vilma, there will be expedited discovery. There would presumably be protective orders in place, but that doesn't mean evidence wouldn't leak, and in any event, most evidence that's submitted by either party in support of its motions would become part of the public record.

Edit: And Caspir is right -- the NFL is certainly indemnifying Goodell here, and consequently will control the defense in all likelihood.

Edited by maufman, 17 May 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[Curtis_Lesspanic]

I am so behind Vilma here. I hope this ends in humiliations galore for the NFL.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I am so behind Vilma here. I hope this ends in humiliations galore for the NFL.

So you're a proponent of players targeting existing injuries, taking cheap shots, taking head shots and otherwise trying to intentionally injure and/or possibly end the careers of the players on the other team? You sir, are admirable.

[wutang112878]

So you're a proponent of players targeting existing injuries, taking cheap shots, taking head shots and otherwise trying to intentionally injure and/or possibly end the careers of the players on the other team? You sir, are admirable.

Dont want to speak for Curtis, but I think the reason he is rooting for Vilma is because he believes NFL players deserve to see the evidence against them before they are fined. I dont think anyone is supporting Vilma and bounties, but its probably fair for Vilma to be given evidence on why he was suspended especially when any appeal goes directly back to Goodell. Basically, the due process system in the NFL could use some tweaking, and shame on the NFLPA for not addressing this during the last CBA.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Dont want to speak for Curtis, but I think the reason he is rooting for Vilma is because he believes NFL players deserve to see the evidence against them before they are fined. I dont think anyone is supporting Vilma and bounties, but its probably fair for Vilma to be given evidence on why he was suspended especially when any appeal goes directly back to Goodell. Basically, the due process system in the NFL could use some tweaking, and shame on the NFLPA for not addressing this during the last CBA.

I'm sorry, but Vilma knows damn right well why he was suspended and he knew it was coming when he restructured his deal. He deserves what he got. So does Payton, so does Williams, so does Loomis and so does every other person involved. They were interviewed and investigated and tried to cover it up. They got caught then were shocked it wasn't a slap on the wrists like they were expecting.

All this is going to lead to is the names of the players and employees that cooperated being leaked and being blackballed in the league and despised by teammates and fans (obviously of the Saints). Awesome. More careers ended prematurely. More bullshit I have to watch on ESPN.

(begin rant) I don't often get up on my moral soapbox, but shit like this pisses me off, be it in personal life or in matters such as this. I can forgive someone for pushing the boundaries or exploiting a grey area, be it taking steroids or filming someones play calls or skirting a rule at work - but when you are caught and given a strict memorandum to CUT THE SHIT and you still do it, then your arrogance deserves to punished harshly and I think any due process goes out the window. (end rant)

I guess it's just a matter of opinion but I, for one, like the way it works in the NFL and especially how Goodell lays the smack down. I hate the way the other league pussy foot around (I'm looking at you NBA), have no consistency (hello NHL) or automatically reduce penalties upon filing of an appeal (hey there MLB). And as you said, the NFLPA didn't address it so they have no complaint.

[Curtis_Lesspanic]

So you're a proponent of players targeting existing injuries, taking cheap shots, taking head shots and otherwise trying to intentionally injure and/or possibly end the careers of the players on the other team? You sir, are admirable.

I am a proponent of NFL football. A brand of football which whether you want to admit it or not, has always included players targeting existing injuries, taking cheap shots, taking head shots and otherwise trying to intentionally injure and/or possibly end the careers of the players on the other team to some extent. Bounties were levied before. You think this was isolated? You think this was the first time this ever happened? Did you root for Rodney Harrison when he played for the Pats? You watch College ball? You think the defense get all those stickers on their helmets for getting good grades?

Spare me your moral outrage. This is a cap circumvention issue combined with NFL CYA in the face of player lawsuits. Nothing more.

Vilma, Payton and the rest of the Saints deserve to have a fair shake before their livelihoods are impacted and Goodell should absolutely be forced to submit all evidence and accusations to a discovery process and they deserve to have their appeals heard by someone other the power mad administrator/dork who suspended them in the first place.

As far as Goodell him self goes...

Consistent? How do the Cowboys and Redskins have cap violations in an uncapped year? He's consistently colluded maybe.

He lays the smack down? Name one player other than James Harrison (for one game!) suspended for headshots. Shanahan puts him to shame. He commuted Big Ben and Vicks suspensions for no reason other than they didn't fuck up again. Fines mean nothing. Players get fined for untucked jerseys more often than they are fined for foul play.

I think Goodell is a total and complete fraud who gets off on his power has little practical knowledge of the game itself and will ultimately be bad for the league if he hasn't been already.

[Hendu's Gait]

Good for Jonathan. I'm all for the separation of judge, jury, and executioner roles.

[simplyeric]

Could there also be an issue of Vilma saying "you don't want to go public, because while I probably can't prove defamation, i will use all the OTHER tangential information that will come out to drag you down with me". Who knew what, and when. Not about Vilma per se, but about other stuff (concussion issues, targeting, steroids, etc).

[Spelunker]

You can very much be in support of his suspension, be against what he did on and off the field, and still be a fan of this lawsuit, if only for the transparency that it promotes.

[Harry Hooper]

Could there also be an issue of Vilma saying "you don't want to go public, because while I probably can't prove defamation, i will use all the OTHER tangential information that will come out to drag you down with me". Who knew what, and when. Not about Vilma per se, but about other stuff (concussion issues, targeting, steroids, etc).

Yeah, if it turns out to be true the NFL gave the Saints multiple warnings yet didn't take action until now, it will not look very good for the Commish.

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I am a proponent of NFL football. A brand of football which whether you want to admit it or not, has always included players targeting existing injuries, taking cheap shots, taking head shots and otherwise trying to intentionally injure and/or possibly end the careers of the players on the other team to some extent. Bounties were levied before. You think this was isolated? You think this was the first time this ever happened? Did you root for Rodney Harrison when he played for the Pats? You watch College ball? You think the defense get all those stickers on their helmets for getting good grades?

Quite the contrary, I'm certain that bounty systems existed long before this and on many different teams. We all, in fact, know that Gregg Williams did it at least with the Skins. I believe Buddy Ryan has admitted to doing it as well. That doesn't excuse it, nor does it make it "part of the game". You can have a perfectly entertaining NFL product without bounty systems or cheap shots. You can hit someone hard and do it within the confines of fair play. Of course there is inherent risk of injury or your career ending, but that is far from a coach or player encouraging players to go after the head of someone who is known to have a concussion history, or targeting the knee of a guy a year or two off of ACL surgery. Are you a Pats fan? If James Harrison took a dive at Brady's left knee and ended his career, would you be ok with that?

Spare me your moral outrage. This is a cap circumvention issue combined with NFL CYA in the face of player lawsuits. Nothing more.

Perhaps I spoke poorly about my soapbox. My little rant was not so much in reference to the bounties themselves but towards the arrogance of everyone involved in this. The league sent out a memo to everyone saying "stop the bounty programs". The Saints owner told the team to cut it out. And THEY STILL KEPT DOING IT. At that point, I could give two shits about what happened to them when they got caught. And yes, as a Pat fan, I think BB got what he had coming to him for SpyGate - he was told to stop and he thought he could beat the system.

Vilma, Payton and the rest of the Saints deserve to have a fair shake before their livelihoods are impacted and Goodell should absolutely be forced to submit all evidence and accusations to a discovery process and they deserve to have their appeals heard by someone other the power mad administrator/dork who suspended them in the first place.

So what consideration do the players they targeted get in your book? The ones whose not only livelihoods but also long term health and careers were at risk through no fault of their own? We have audio of Williams telling his players to go after 3 different players in the head, at least one of which had a history of concussions. I'm supposed to feel bad for Sean Payton, who will miss one season, half his $7.5M salary and then return after a nice vacation and resume his career, but if Kyle Williams, who makes $490K, had taken a head shot and his career was over and PCS ruined his life, that's just part of the game? How hypocritical can you be?

And as for Vilma's rights, the CBA negotiated by his union that signed off on does not allow him an appeal to anyone other than Goodell. Whether you think that is right or wrong is up to you. If he wants to bitch take it up with DeMaurice Smith and his player rep. As for discovery, they know how the NFL acted in investigating this because they were a part of that. Vilma wants names to come out because he feels some kind of code has been broken.

Edited by Papelbon's Poutine, 17 May 2012 - 10:53 PM.

[Reverend]

I'm unclear as to why some think I need to take either Vilma or Goodell's side.

I can support the NFL cracking down on the bounty system and still like the idea of the mechanations of the league being brought to light.

If Mr. Goodel and the NFL have done nothing wrong, they ought have nothing to hide, yes? Is that how it goes?

[Papelbon's Poutine]

You don't and while the discussion between myself and Curtis has kind of devolved into that, I don't necessarily oppose the curtain being pulled back so long as the process is not changed as a result. I think Goodell gets some heat because he can act autonomously, unlike other commissioners (aside from Selig's "good of the game" exemption) yet I fail to see how any other league is any more transparent. As far as I know, Stern didn't make a public statement about why Artest only got 7 games or why Wade was allowed to play tonight when both decisions were pretty bad. People have an opinion about the result but no one is calling the decision maker out to explain how he arrived at that conclusion. Why are 90% of MLB suspensions reduced upon appeal? We never get a reason for that. How does Brendan Shananhan decide punishment? It appears to be with a dart board but players aren't suing him to find out. I am not a Goodell fanboy by any stretch - I think you can clean up the league without pussifying it and he's walking a thin line there - but I am a fan of the fact that he doesn't fuck around.

I guess it just comes down to my own personal opinion on the matter. I don't view the NFL or any other sport as comparable to real world justice. I consider it an at will arrangement with rules and guidelines that all parties have agreed upon and if you don't like it then you don't have to be a part of it. The players just went through a pretty long, intense negotiation of their CBA and they saw fit to agree to allowing Goodell to retain his rights to act as judge, jury and executioner. They voted unanimously to approve it. If any of them have a bitch, take it up next time.

But this isnt a criminal case where someone is governed by rules laid upon them without their consent. This isn't even Kurt Flood challenging the reserve system. It's a frivolous lawsuit that he has very little chance of winning and a blatant attempt to try to challenge his power. If you don't like his power you shouldn't have given it to him.

[maufman]

(begin rant) I don't often get up on my moral soapbox, but shit like this pisses me off, be it in personal life or in matters such as this. I can forgive someone for pushing the boundaries or exploiting a grey area, be it taking steroids or filming someones play calls or skirting a rule at work - but when you are caught and given a strict memorandum to CUT THE SHIT and you still do it, then your arrogance deserves to punished harshly and I think any due process goes out the window. (end rant)

The point is that we don't know if Vilma was "given a strict memorandum," as the Saints' coaches and front office were. Isn't Sean Payton sitting out the 2012 season because he was ordered to put a stop to the bounty program and didn't do so?

Oh, and if the NFL handed down a one-year suspension on anyone who ever targeted an opposing player's existing injury, every NFL team would be fielding a defense full of prep schoolers this fall. (Williams crossed the line by bringing up concussion history, because intentional hits to the head are against the rules.) You talk about "cleaning up the league without pussifying it," but I wonder if you fully understand the degree of violence that's inherent in football. Payton, Williams and Loomis crossed bright lines; from what we've seen so far, it seems to me Vilma and the other punished players crossed a fine one. (Unless you think throwing $10k on the table, by itself, merits a one-year suspension -- I don't.)

Unlike the coaches' suspensions, the Vilma suspension seems arbitrary. Perhaps Goodell has justification for it that we haven't seen, but I don't blame Vilma for not slinking into the shadows for the season (and forfeiting a few million dollars in the process) without pursuing every legal avenue at his disposal.

[Curtis_Lesspanic]

Quite the contrary, I'm certain that bounty systems existed long before this and on many different teams. We all, in fact, know that Gregg Williams did it at least with the Skins. I believe Buddy Ryan has admitted to doing it as well. That doesn't excuse it, nor does it make it "part of the game". You can have a perfectly entertaining NFL product without bounty systems or cheap shots. You can hit someone hard and do it within the confines of fair play. Of course there is inherent risk of injury or your career ending, but that is far from a coach or player encouraging players to go after the head of someone who is known to have a concussion history, or targeting the knee of a guy a year or two off of ACL surgery. Are you a Pats fan? If James Harrison took a dive at Brady's left knee and ended his career, would you be ok with that?

If you think an extra 5 or 10K is the difference between a Safety obliterating someone like Austin Collie with a history of concussions or going for a form tackle you’re kidding yourself. If the only thing that changed about this story is that there were no bounties Gregg Williams would be coaching the Rams next season.

Go watch the 2000 Ravens. Watch what they did to Rich Gannon in the AFC championship game. As far as we know there were no bounties involved but their intent was simple. Take Gannon out.

I hate to break it to you but that is Football and that was a defense that was both the best ever and something we will never see again because the game is being pussifed.

BTW I am a Pats fan. You mean if James Harrison did what Bernard Pollard already did to Tom Brady's knee in a play that wasn't dirty and yet was made illegal. Did that make you feel better than it is naughty now? I thought that was as stupid then as it was now as Pollard was just trying to make a play. If that was Derek Anderson who Pollard injured it would still be a legal play. Oh how I love the consistency.

Perhaps I spoke poorly about my soapbox. My little rant was not so much in reference to the bounties themselves but towards the arrogance of everyone involved in this. The league sent out a memo to everyone saying "stop the bounty programs". The Saints owner told the team to cut it out. And THEY STILL KEPT DOING IT. At that point, I could give two shits about what happened to them when they got caught. And yes, as a Pat fan, I think BB got what he had coming to him for SpyGate - he was told to stop and he thought he could beat the system.

But the Saints Bounty program was soo dangerous that Goodell let it go on for years after he knew about it just so he could make a giant look at what a tough guy I am punishment proclamation. hypothetically, are you ok if a handful of players got hurt because of the Bounties because Goodell waited so he could dish out yearlong suspensions instead of 2 gamers?

If you think the Pats got what they deserved for Spygate then I really can't help you. The penalty for Spygate was Roger Goodell showing the league what a big pee pee he had. The Broncos circumvented the cap TWICE and Tagliabue docked them 3rd rounders. But Goodell didn't care about historical precedent because he lacks any connection to football other than how it can help him look like a big tough bad ass. Go read Peter King's puff piece about him again and see if you cant tell me this isn't a delusional egomaniac?

So what consideration do the players they targeted get in your book? The ones whose not only livelihoods but also long term health and careers were at risk through no fault of their own? We have audio of Williams telling his players to go after 3 different players in the head, at least one of which had a history of concussions. I'm supposed to feel bad for Sean Payton, who will miss one season, half his $7.5M salary and then return after a nice vacation and resume his career, but if Kyle Williams, who makes $490K, had taken a head shot and his career was over and PCS ruined his life, that's just part of the game? How hypocritical can you be?

Because it is part of the game. Injuries get targeted because these are hyper competitive athletes in a combat sport. You have an issue with that? Go talk to a league that tells the players exactly where to hit their opponents because it is more concerend with giving gamblers as detailed an injury report as possible instead of allowing teams to protect their own players.

And as for Vilma's rights, the CBA negotiated by his union that signed off on does not allow him an appeal to anyone other than Goodell. Whether you think that is right or wrong is up to you. If he wants to bitch take it up with DeMaurice Smith and his player rep. As for discovery, they know how the NFL acted in investigating this because they were a part of that. Vilma wants names to come out because he feels some kind of code has been broken.

Vilma wants Goodell's bullshit exposed, plain and simple. And stop throwing around the CBA because apparently it only counts when Goodell says it does. Ask the Cowboys and the Redskins how the CBA worked out for them. An uncapped year was collectively bargained for by the players and the two teams that chose to take advantage of it got fined by Goodell for not colluding with the rest of ownership. I can't wait for Goodell to get sued there too.

[wutang112878]

I'm sorry, but Vilma knows damn right well why he was suspended and he knew it was coming when he restructured his deal. He deserves what he got. So does Payton, so does Williams, so does Loomis and so does every other person involved. They were interviewed and investigated and tried to cover it up. They got caught then were shocked it wasn't a slap on the wrists like they were expecting.

I also believe that Vilma was in the wrong, and that the NFLPA should have addressed this in the CBA. I dont think its unfair that Vilma gets suspended, but I do think its unfair that before he is suspended that he isnt shown the evidence that they have against him. The NFL discipline system isnt completely just, if we were in an US court he would be allowed discovery, but in the NFL Goodell judges the evidence, hands out suspensions and in this case didnt even detail the evidence against Vilma. If he showed Vilma what he had, even if the names of those who detailed the stuff was left out, then I wouldnt have a problem with this. I just think Vilma should be entitled to discovery.

I guess it's just a matter of opinion but I, for one, like the way it works in the NFL and especially how Goodell lays the smack down. I hate the way the other league pussy foot around (I'm looking at you NBA), have no consistency (hello NHL) or automatically reduce penalties upon filing of an appeal (hey there MLB). And as you said, the NFLPA didn't address it so they have no complaint.

I like the NFL system as well, about 95% of the time its better than any of the other 4 major sports, its just in this case I have a small issue with how they handled the Vilma situation.

[lithos2003]

BTW I am a Pats fan. You mean if James Harrison did what Bernard Pollard already did to Tom Brady's knee in a play that wasn't dirty and yet was made illegal. Did that make you feel better than it is naughty now? I thought that was as stupid then as it was now as Pollard was just trying to make a play. If that was Derek Anderson who Pollard injured it would still be a legal play. Oh how I love the consistency.

That's not what he's saying at all though - you're just twisting the argument to support your point. Suppose Harrison gets into a situation where he has a clear shot at Brady and Brady still has the ball, so it would be a legal hit. You'd be OK with him purposefully diving at the knee instead of making a clean tackle, with the intent to take him out completely, possibly ending his season or career? There is a difference here. Elvis Dumervil's hit on Brady last fall was spectacular - yet clean. To me - that's football. He had the opportunity to knock Brady's head off, take his knees out, whatever he wanted to do really, but he chose to deliver a good clean hit that Brady probably felt for a few days afterwards.

A lot of this stuff is self policed I believe, much like baseball. In baseball, if someone gets beaned intentionally, the other team will retaliate. I believe this happens in football as well. Remember when Meriweather hit Todd Heap up high and knocked him out? I said at the time and I still believe to this day that Belichick didn't let him back in the game after that because if he didn't police the dirty hit, the Ravens would retaliate and who knows how that would've gone down.

Edit to add that it's my opinion that the bounty program made guys less likely to care about retaliation, which is why it was so dangerous.

Edited by lithos2003, 18 May 2012 - 10:21 AM.

[Myt1]

You don't and while the discussion between myself and Curtis has kind of devolved into that, I don't necessarily oppose the curtain being pulled back so long as the process is not changed as a result.

I don't understand this. What if pulling back the curtain demonstrates that the process is a farce? What if it shows that Goodell isn't acting in good-faith (as he may be required to do)?

The players just went through a pretty long, intense negotiation of their CBA and they saw fit to agree to allowing Goodell to retain his rights to act as judge, jury and executioner. They voted unanimously to approve it. If any of them have a bitch, take it up next time.

But this isnt a criminal case where someone is governed by rules laid upon them without their consent. This isn't even Kurt Flood challenging the reserve system. It's a frivolous lawsuit that he has very little chance of winning and a blatant attempt to try to challenge his power. If you don't like his power you shouldn't have given it to him.

I'm going to guess that you don't have a lot of experience with labor law and CBAs. That's not a value judgment, just a descriptive statement. As a general matter, while the CBA granted disciplinary rights to Goodell, it didn't grant him the right to defame a player. And labor arbitrators often just throw out CBA clauses that are being enforced unfairly or in bad faith. It's early as hell, and there are about a billion paths this could take. And I don't know how you can characterize the lawsuit as frivolous: could you explain?

I don't understand how you can defend the process when you have no idea what it was (and, apparently, neither do the players). Is it simply because you like the fact that Goodell acts like a hardass?

Edited by Myt1, 18 May 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[Curtis_Lesspanic]

That's not what he's saying at all though - you're just twisting the argument to support your point. Suppose Harrison gets into a situation where he has a clear shot at Brady and Brady still has the ball, so it would be a legal hit. You'd be OK with him purposefully diving at the knee instead of making a clean tackle, with the intent to take him out completely, possibly ending his season or career? There is a difference here. Elvis Dumervil's hit on Brady last fall was spectacular - yet clean. To me - that's football. He had the opportunity to knock Brady's head off, take his knees out, whatever he wanted to do really, but he chose to deliver a good clean hit that Brady probably felt for a few days afterwards.

I guess I went off track and did a terrible job trying to convey what my point was there. Sorry. I connected his example and the Pollard hit thinking that is what he ment.

If Harrison legitimately and overtly cheapshotted Brady would I be pissed? Sure I would. Hes that kind of player and it honestly wouldn't surprise me. But how many times does that happen in a season or ever? How many overt cheapshots like that happen in a season? If Goodell fined him 50K and sat him for a game what would it really accomplish?

The reality is that the intent to injure or, at the very least do as much damage, is there even if the play is clean. Jack Tatum absolutely was trying to destroy Darryl Stingley in a PRESEASON game in 1978. Does it make it any easier to swallow that he did it by the rules?

And to use the above example, if Dumervil got handed a 2K for a sweet lick on Brady would it make you upset?

Cheapshots and Bounties are a diversionary boogeyman and "cracking down" on them doesn't make the game appreciably safer.

[maufman]

And I don't know how you can characterize the lawsuit as frivolous: could you explain?

You weren't asking me, but I'll play devil's advocate -- if Vilma knows that every factual statement Goodell has made concerning him is true, then the lawsuit is frivolous.

I don't think the lawsuit is frivolous, but that's because I think Vilma honestly believes that at least some of the things that have been said about him are untrue. Someone (like Poutine) with a less charitable view of Vilma's motives could reasonably disagree.

Edited by maufman, 18 May 2012 - 11:14 AM.

[Myt1]

You weren't asking me, but I'll play devil's advocate -- if Vilma knows that every factual statement Goodell has made concerning him is true, then the lawsuit is frivolous.

Well, yeah. I just can't see how anyone on the outside can come to that conclusion, yet. And the heightened evidentiary standard for defamation cases involving public figures is a really tough hurdle to leap, but unless someone has inside information, it seems way to early to be casting those sorts of aspersions.

[pappymojo]

what statements did Goodell make that would equal defamation for Vilma?

These are all I could find:

"It is the obligation of everyone, including the players on the field, to ensure that rules designed to promote player safety, fair play, and the integrity of the game are adhered to and effectively and consistently enforced," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement. "Respect for the men that play the game starts with the way players conduct themselves with each other on the field."

"In assessing player discipline," Goodell said, "I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation."

"No bounty program can exist without active player participation," Goodell added. "The evidence clearly showed that the players being held accountable today willingly and enthusiastically embraced the bounty program. Players put the vast majority of the money into this program and they share responsibility for playing by the rules and protecting each other within those rules.”

[Reverend]

what statements did Goodell make that would equal defamation for Vilma?

These are all I could find:

"It is the obligation of everyone, including the players on the field, to ensure that rules designed to promote player safety, fair play, and the integrity of the game are adhered to and effectively and consistently enforced," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in a statement. "Respect for the men that play the game starts with the way players conduct themselves with each other on the field."

"In assessing player discipline," Goodell said, "I focused on players who were in leadership positions at the Saints; contributed a particularly large sum of money toward the program; specifically contributed to a bounty on an opposing player; demonstrated a clear intent to participate in a program that potentially injured opposing players; sought rewards for doing so; and/or obstructed the 2010 investigation."

"No bounty program can exist without active player participation," Goodell added. "The evidence clearly showed that the players being held accountable today willingly and enthusiastically embraced the bounty program. Players put the vast majority of the money into this program and they share responsibility for playing by the rules and protecting each other within those rules.”

Would it just be easier to read the filing?

It's also worth noting that Vilma is part of the grievance the union is pushing with respect to the CBA concerning various jurisdiction issues with respect to player discipline (NYTimes Link).

I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, and I know it's the off-season, but that doesn't mean we should waste bandwidth conjecturing, guessing and assuming when we can just, like, look stuff up.

This was a neat line that suggests this is all part of a larger strategy IMO:

“It’s important because Jonathan is fighting on two fronts — he’s fighting legally and to get his reputation back,” Ginsberg said. “It’s important to get evidence or what Roger Goodell says is evidence.”

Both the article and the filing claim that they haven't gotten to see the evidence. Even if Vilma did do it, punishment ought to be based on evidence and one wonders if it's lacking. And if he didn't do it, he certainly would seem to have a claim.

Did he do it? That's why we have process, and I have trouble with the idea of refusing a guy process, guilty or not.

[pappymojo]

Would it just be easier to read the filing?
.

yeah...

[Myt1]

FWIW, Ginsberg has represented other players in disputes with the NFL. He seems to know the drill.

[DannyHeep]

Both the article and the filing claim that they haven't gotten to see the evidence. Even if Vilma did do it, punishment ought to be based on evidence and one wonders if it's lacking. And if he didn't do it, he certainly would seem to have a claim.

Did he do it? That's why we have process, and I have trouble with the idea of refusing a guy process, guilty or not.

This process argument has been made a bunch of times.

Generally a person has no right to know why they are suspended or let go from a job. Period. Either party may terminate the employment contract at any time.

I understand that there is the fact that players in the NFL have different rules based on the union and contracts etc, but the vast majority of us could be tossed (and can leave) and not even know why (as long as it isn't because of race/gender/age etc).

Edited by DannyHeep, 18 May 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[maufman]

This process argument has been made a bunch of times.

Generally a person has no right to know why they are suspended or let go from a job. Period. Either party may terminate the employment contract at any time.

I understand that there is the fact that players in the NFL have different rules based on the union and contracts etc, but the vast majority of us could be tossed (and can leave) and not even know why (as long as it isn't because of race/gender/age etc).

What is it about this issue that causes normally intelligent people to check their brain at the door?

Vilma's situation is in no way comparable to a workaday employee who got fired. That analogy might apply if the Saints had cut him, but in that case he'd be entitled to whatever guaranteed money he has coming, and he'd be free to sign with another team.

And if your former employer slandered you on the way out the door, you'd have every right to sue for defamation, just as Vilma did. The only difference is your reputation (and mine, for that matter) probably isn't worth paying a high-priced lawyer to defend.

[DannyHeep]

In one brea

What is it about this issue that causes normally intelligent people to check their brain at the door?

Vilma's situation is in no way comparable to a workaday employee who got fired. That analogy might apply if the Saints had cut him, but in that case he'd be entitled to whatever guaranteed money he has coming, and he'd be free to sign with another team.

And if your former employer slandered you on the way out the door, you'd have every right to sue for defamation, just as Vilma did. The only difference is your reputation (and mine, for that matter) probably isn't worth paying a high-priced lawyer to defend.

Not sure where you checked your brain at, but his former employer didn't slander him. He isn't employed by the NFL, he is employed by the Saints who play by the in the NFL under the NFL rules. The NFL said "you can't play this year" they have no obligation (much like an employer which was my point) to give him evidence around why they made a decision that he is suspended from playing in the NFL.

[Reverend]

Not sure where you checked your brain at, but his former employer didn't slander him. He isn't employed by the NFL, he is employed by the Saints who play by the in the NFL under the NFL rules. The NFL said "you can't play this year" they have no obligation (much like an employer which was my point) to give him evidence around why they made a decision that he is suspended from playing in the NFL.

But as you pointed out, all of this is covered by the CBA, making it nothing like any other employment situation but rather sui generis. Moreover, as per the NYTimes Article above:

The union’s argument before the arbitrator Shyam Das centers on whether Commissioner Roger Goodell is allowed to discipline players for actions that were committed before the labor agreement was signed in August.

The N.F.L. interprets that contention as a request for immunity for player behavior and said the union never raised that point about any other discipline matter or when the labor agreement was reached.

The union also will ask that even if Das determines Goodell has the jurisdiction to impose discipline, the appeals should be heard by Ted Cottrell and Art Shell, who oversee on-field conduct appeals. The N.F.L. has been careful to label bounties as conduct detrimental to the league, which, according to the rules, is behavior that only the commissioner can discipline.

In a separate hearing on May 30, the system administrator Stephen Burbank of the University of Pennsylvania will address the union’s contention that the bounties amount to a salary-cap violation, which falls under Burbank’s jurisdiction. The decisions are unlikely to take more than two weeks from the hearing dates.

So whether or not Vilma was properly suspended within the rules of the CBA is quite precisely one of the points being argued in one of the law suits. Also, as Maufman pointed out, the contractual situation is very different for someone who is suspended without pay versus being fired. I'm sure there is contractual language that lets the team off the hook in case of suspension, but as per above, there is a law suit haggling about jurisdiction.

As for defamation of character, it obviously doesn't matter if it's his employer who defamed him or not (if he was defamed). If he did commit the offenses, then the statements made by Goodell referred to in the filing cold easily be construed as detrimental to his professional reputation. It may be true that the league doesn't need to release the evidence it claims it has, but were Vilma to win his suit, the league would look really, really bad, which makes this a pretty shrewd move, IMO.

Edit: It's also worth noting that you can, in some instances, sue an employer for not following it's own procedures. This could become relevant as Vilma's appeal moves forward, especially since the appeals process does have its own discovery process--so apparently, under the CBA, the league will have to offer some sort of reasons for the suspension.

Discovery. In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing. Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.

Here's the relevant portion of the CBA for anyone who is interested:

Spoiler

ARTICLE 46 COMMISSIONER DISCIPLINE

Section 1. League Discipline: Notwithstanding anything stated in Article 43:

(a) All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field (other than as described in Subsection (b) below) or involv-ing action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within three (3) business days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approv-al, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.

(b) Fines or suspensions imposed upon players for unnecessary roughness or unsportsmanlike conduct on the playing field with respect to an opposing player or players shall be determined initially by a person appointed by the Commissioner after consultation concerning the person being appointed with the Executive Director of the NFLPA, as promptly as possible after the event(s) in question. Such person will send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within three (3) business days following such notification, the player, or the NFLPA with his approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.

© The Commissioner (under Subsection (a)), or the person appointed by the Commissioner under Subsection (b), shall consult with the Executive Director of the NFLPA prior to issuing, for on-field conduct, any suspension or fine in excess of $50,000.

(d) The schedule of fines for on-field conduct will be provided to the NFLPA prior to the start of training camp in each season covered under this Agree-ment. The 2011 schedule of fines, which has been provided to and accepted by the NFLPA, shall serve as the basis of discipline for the infractions indentified on that sche-dule. The designated minimum fine amounts will increase by 5% for the 2012 League Year, and each League Year thereafter during the term of this Agreement. Where cir-cumstances warrant, including, but not limited to, infractions that were flagrant and gratuitous, larger fines, suspension or other discipline may be imposed. On appeal, a player may assert, among other defenses, that any fine should be reduced because it is excessive when compared to the player’s expected earnings for the season in question. However, a fine may be reduced on this basis only if it exceeds 25 percent of one week of a player’s salary for a first offense, and 50 percent of one week of a player’s salary for a second offense. A player may also argue on appeal that the circumstances do not war-rant his receiving a fine above the amount stated in the schedule of fines.

Section 2. Hearings:

(a) Hearing Officers. For appeals under Section 1(a) above, the Commis-sioner shall, after consultation with the Executive Director of the NFLPA, appoint one or more designees to serve as hearing officers. For appeals under Section 1(b) above, the parties shall, on an annual basis, jointly select two (2) or more designees to serve as hear-ing officers. The salary and reasonable expenses for the designees’ services shall be shared equally by the NFL and the NFLPA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Com-missioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion.

(b) Representation. In any hearing provided for in this Article, a player may be accompanied by counsel of his choice. The NFLPA and NFL have the right to attend all hearings provided for in this Article and to present, by testimony or otherwise, any evidence relevant to the hearing.

© Telephone Hearings. Upon agreement of the parties, hearings under this Article may be conducted by telephone conference call or videoconference.

(d) Decision. As soon as practicable following the conclusion of the hear-ing, the hearing officer will render a written decision which will constitute full, final and complete disposition of the dispute and will be binding upon the player(s), Club(s) and the parties to this Agreement with respect to that dispute. Any discipline imposed pur-suant to Section 1(b) may only be affirmed, reduced, or vacated by the hearing officer, and may not be increased.

(e) Costs. Unless the Commissioner determines otherwise, each party will bear the cost of its own witnesses, counsel and other expenses associated with the ap-peal.

(f) Additional Procedures for Appeals Under Section 1(a).

(i) Scheduling. Appeal hearings under Section 1(a) will be scheduled to commence within ten (10) days following receipt of the notice of appeal, except that hearings on suspensions issued during the playing season (defined for this Section as the first preseason game through the Super Bowl) will be scheduled for the second Tuesday following the receipt of the notice of appeal, with the intent that the appeal shall be heard no fewer than eight (8) days and no more than thirteen (13) days following the suspension, absent mutual agreement of the parties or a finding by the hearing officer of extenuating circumstances. If unavailability of counsel is the basis for a continuance, a new hearing shall be scheduled on or before the Tuesday following the orignal hearing date, without exception.

(ii) Discovery. In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing. Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.

(iii) Record; Posthearing Briefs. Unless the parties agree otherwise, all hearings conducted under Section 1(a) of this Article shall be transcribed. Posthearing briefs will not be permitted absent agreement of the NFL and NFLPA or the request of the hearing officer. If permitted, such briefs shall be limited to five pages (single-spaced) and must be filed no later than three (3) business days following the conclusion of the hearing.

Section 3. Time Limits: Each of the time limits set forth in this Article may be ex-tended by mutual agreement of the parties or by the hearing officer upon appropriate motion.

Section 4. One Penalty: The Commissioner and a Club will not both discipline a player for the same act or conduct. The Commissioner’s disciplinary action will preclude or supersede disciplinary action by any Club for the same act or conduct.

Section 5. Fine Money:

(a) Fines will be deducted at the rate of no more than $2,500 from each pay period, if sufficient pay periods remain; or, if less than sufficient pay periods remain, the fine will be deducted in equal installments over the number of remaining pay pe-riods. For the 2016–2020 League Years, the amount will increase from a rate of $2,500 to $3,500 from each pay period.

(b) For any fine imposed upon a player under Section 1(b), no amount of the fine will be withheld from the player’s pay pending the outcome of the appeal, except that if: (i) the fine is imposed on or after the thirteenth (13th) week of the regular season; (ii) the player or the NFLPA does not timely appeal; or (iii) the hearing on a fine im-posed for conduct occurring through the thirteenth (13th) week of the regular season is delayed by the player or the NFLPA for any reason beyond the time provided for in Section 2(b) of this Article, the full amount of the fine shall be promptly collected.

© Unless otherwise agreed by the parties., fine money collected pursuant to this Article shall be allocated as follows: 50% to the Players Assistance Trust and 50% to charitable organizations jointly determined by the NFL and the NFLPA. In the absence of said joint determination, the NFL and the NFLPA shall each determine a charitable organization or organizations to which half of the second 50% shall be allocated.

Edited by Reverend, 19 May 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[Myt1]

This process argument has been made a bunch of times.

Generally a person has no right to know why they are suspended or let go from a job. Period. Either party may terminate the employment contract at any time.

I understand that there is the fact that players in the NFL have different rules based on the union and contracts etc, but the vast majority of us could be tossed (and can leave) and not even know why (as long as it isn't because of race/gender/age etc).

I mean, why even post this? Would you go into a salary-cap thread and begin discussing the compensation rules applicable to the vast majority of us who don't play in professional sports leagues with salary caps?

Not sure where you checked your brain at, but his former employer didn't slander him. He isn't employed by the NFL, he is employed by the Saints who play by the in the NFL under the NFL rules.

If only maufman knew this. Oh, wait:

Vilma's situation is in no way comparable to a workaday employee who got fired. That analogy might apply if the Saints had cut him, but in that case he'd be entitled to whatever guaranteed money he has coming, and he'd be free to sign with another team.

Edited by Myt1, 21 May 2012 - 02:08 PM.

[lostjumper]

http://sports.yahoo....ty-scandal.html

Vilma wanted to see the evidence? Well, here it is. I can't believe they were stupid enough to put this in writing. My guess is Vilma's defamation lawsuit disappears quickly!