NoSaint Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Am I the only one irritated by looking at the first page of TSW and seeing this topic with Goodell's name misspelled? Yes, I'm sick. The god joke is one I've grown accustomed to seeing. Not sure if this is a typo or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 that would have been relevant 2 months ago. at this point the only evidence that they are acknowledging as held back is the gregg williams statement, and the mystery witness that is pretty widely speculated (and with each day becoming more likely) to be former coach Mike Cerullo. as its not been confirmed, that could be wrong, but at this point it would be SHOCKING for anyone that has followed closely to find out the mystery source was a player and not him, given the type of information that this source has provided (the ledger, for instance). Quoted for emphasis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Quoted for emphasis. so you are asserting that they are putting out an intentionally thin case but punishing on a much higher standard without allowing anyone to see why? they arent allowed to introduce anything else later at this point, what was released is what they have to work with. theres no "ha we got you" moment left to come. in fact what they have released might still be kicked out which would be a terrible way for all this to end (player suspensions over turned but the nfl maintaining they were right) and given the quality of what was released (the hargrove video as the most obvious example) why anyone would trust what they have kept back is beyond me. Edited June 27, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 so you are asserting that they are putting out an intentionally thin case but punishing on a much higher standard without allowing anyone to see why? they arent allowed to introduce anything else later at this point, what was released is what they have to work with. theres no "ha we got you" moment left to come. in fact what they have released might still be kicked out which would be a terrible way for all this to end (player suspensions over turned but the nfl maintaining they were right) and given the quality of what was released (the hargrove video as the most obvious example) why anyone would trust what they have kept back is beyond me. Why aren't they allowed to release something later on if they aren't legally compelled to release anything at all? I get their attempts at playing this out in the court of public opinion until they ARE compelled and I agree they are looking a bit cheap at the moment, but why would anyone assume that they HAVE shown all their is? There are just as many reasons to assume what they have shown is just the tip of the iceberg both from a future legal standpoint as well as from a public relations standpoint if further evidence can cause the league, Saints, and players further harm. As for Hargrove, if that tape is all they got, he should be reinstated with a full apology. But SOMEONE wants to get paid upon learning that Favre is out of the game with an injury. Why is that? And how does that lessen the idea that the Saints implemented such a system? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Why aren't they allowed to release something later on if they aren't legally compelled to release anything at all? I get their attempts at playing this out in the court of public opinion until they ARE compelled and I agree they are looking a bit cheap at the moment, but why would anyone assume that they HAVE shown all their is? There are just as many reasons to assume what they have shown is just the tip of the iceberg both from a future legal standpoint as well as from a public relations standpoint if further evidence can cause the league, Saints, and players further harm. As for Hargrove, if that tape is all they got, he should be reinstated with a full apology. But SOMEONE wants to get paid upon learning that Favre is out of the game with an injury. Why is that? And how does that lessen the idea that the Saints implemented such a system? GO BILLS!!! 72 hours before the last hearing was the last chance to introduce any evidence intended to be used in the punishments. although you are correct they could dump out a folder full of pictures of vilma with cash, it wouldnt be able to be used in any punishment but may help defend against the defamation lawsuit. the next round of appeals being that what they did use was turned over too late and should be excluded as well, meaning the whole thing is out the window. i dont much like that possibility personally though. as ive said, i want fair punishment for what was really done - not both sides arguing loopholes until someones lawyer prevails on a technicality. i do believe a level of punishment is deserved for what has been shown. all that said, as for the hargrove incident - it speaks to the quality of the investigation. they maintain even now that they believe hargrove said it, though its not part of his punishment. if we are to believe they are still arguing that is hargrove, what other logical jumps are they making in the evidence that they have? are they properly vetting things? it bothers me that the independant review came from a firm that is employed by the nfl, personally presented the nfl case (sounds more like prosecutor than independant review, no?), never spoke to the players and is known for cleaning up "the big mess" - recent clients include the us govt in the water boarding mess--- that should not have been presented as an independant reviewer and continues down the rabbit hole of whatever they have held back holding any weight. this company being among the finest in the world but looking reporters in the eye and saying its clearly hargrove even when questioned. at this point if you dont have any questions about how its been handled and can still accept a "trust us" from the nfl, i think we will continue to fall on opposite sides. i get that the nfl has had the right to do what has been done, but i think its been highly questionable, at best. i also think the same about the cowboys and redskins punishments. its been an ugly offseason for the head office if you are worried about integrity. Edited June 27, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San-O Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I have always been a supporter of the commissioner especially over the last couple of years when he has cracked down on bad drug and alcohol related issues when they have come up. There has not been one individual player that was larger than the image that the NFL wanted to portray and "come hell or high water", poor decisions were to be met with swift and pretty harsh punishments. There have been some on the field stuff too. Rule changes to protect quarterbacks and helmet-to-helmet collisions that are very pro offense were and are implemented to maintain safety, the general offensive integrity of the game, and an image to fans that the words tough and violent can mean two different things. If you consider the media induced push for kids to "move" sixty minutes a day, as a parent I think it is great and my image is heightened even higher. My problem, however, is with the Saints bounty penalties. I really think that the inability to trust the general fan base's understanding of a future lawsuit (or present one) defense is irresponsible. My image is that any one of the plaintiffs will say that the NFL knew how violent the sport was and did nothing to protect the players. Roger Goddell's response will be to say, "Well, in 2012 when we heard what the Saints were doing, we implemented harsh and swift penalties for the players and coaches sending a very swift and direct message that those types of behaviors would not be tolerated". The question then becomes, would Goddell have to be this harsh if the 1800 plaintiffs hadn't sent through the paperwork for the suit. My answer is probably not. If you consider his main responsibility as commissioner is to maintain the present and future NFL, can you blame him especially when it is at the top of sports world. There are some members of the media and players that want the commissioner to start the process over because of a general lack of evidence and there may be some truth to that. If, however, he is preparing himself for that one answer from that question that will come up in court may two or three years down the road, would you blame him if he didn't change anything related to the punishments. ??? Players get hurt playing Pro sports and signed a release saying so. And were paid, and had the NFLPA rep'ing them. Done. Sue the NFLPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kota Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 They have witness testimony, audio footage, documentation, etc.... showing that there was a bounty program. Not sure what else is needed. The players involved are grasping at strays. They go from not knowing it existed to acknowleding it that it did but it was for performance not injury and now Bree's is saying the NFL needs to prove that cash exchanged hands. The players are acting guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 They have witness testimony, audio footage, documentation, etc.... showing that there was a bounty program. Not sure what else is needed. The players involved are grasping at strays. They go from not knowing it existed to acknowleding it that it did but it was for performance not injury and now Bree's is saying the NFL needs to prove that cash exchanged hands. The players are acting guilty. its always been pay for plays that they have argued, with pay for injury being denied. i think showing what they have would be a nice step that is needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 The existence or lack of evidence isn't going to be the biggest problem in this case. The issue will come down to whether Goodell actually has the authority to issue punishment to players for what technically is an on the field infraction (the act of purposely trying to hurt some one). Furthermore, the new CBA dated August 4, 2011 has a release clause in it for prior actions by players. Goodell has handed out suspensions based on alleged infractions prior to that. Essentially, he believes that somehow he has authority that is beyond the CBA. I think Goodell has done the right things for the most part in the past. However in this case, I can't see how he can be the judge, jury, and executioner all at the same time. It just doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) The existence or lack of evidence isn't going to be the biggest problem in this case. The issue will come down to whether Goodell actually has the authority to issue punishment to players for what technically is an on the field infraction (the act of purposely trying to hurt some one). Furthermore, the new CBA dated August 4, 2011 has a release clause in it for prior actions by players. Goodell has handed out suspensions based on alleged infractions prior to that. Essentially, he believes that somehow he has authority that is beyond the CBA. I think Goodell has done the right things for the most part in the past. However in this case, I can't see how he can be the judge, jury, and executioner all at the same time. It just doesn't make sense. the crazy part is while i agree with most of what you wrote on a gut level - its also probably about half wrong technically. an arbitrator already gave this power to goodell, and goodell was given his power by the CBA. that much leaves little room for debate these days - though the NFLPA claims they plan on challenging it again, it doesnt make a lot of sense.... beyond perhaps a stall tactic? with the where this goes from here - you did hit one nail square on the head - there will be a challenge to whether anything pre-cba can be punished outside of the small number of exceptions that each side agreed to. amusing is the nfl is arguing that the NFLPA has no recourse on the make believe salary cap that the redskins and cowboys were punished for violating as it pre-dated the cba, but at the same time laying down player punishments that predate the cba. this aspect may still get messy. additionally, the players will be arguing that all evidence should be thrown out for violating the cba and not providing the evidence atleast 3 days before the hearing. it would be ticky-tack, but technically it is the letter of the law, if you will. if goodell loses that, he would only be able to say "i punished these guys because i felt like it" as there would be no backing evidence at that point. though, as ive said i dont like this outcome one bit, i will say the result being the team is punished still (loss of picks, fine) and the coaches punishments stand, while the players get put on the field.... it might actually be close to a reasonable compromise. just the wrong way to get there. Edited June 27, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 the crazy part is while i agree with most of what you wrote on a gut level - its also probably about half wrong technically. an arbitrator already gave this power to goodell, and goodell was given his power by the CBA. that much leaves little room for debate these days - though the NFLPA claims they plan on challenging it again, it doesnt make a lot of sense.... beyond perhaps a stall tactic? with the where this goes from here - you did hit one nail square on the head - there will be a challenge to whether anything pre-cba can be punished outside of the small number of exceptions that each side agreed to. amusing is the nfl is arguing that the NFLPA has no recourse on the make believe salary cap that the redskins and cowboys were punished for violating as it pre-dated the cba, but at the same time laying down player punishments that predate the cba. this aspect may still get messy. additionally, the players will be arguing that all evidence should be thrown out for violating the cba and not providing the evidence atleast 3 days before the hearing. it would be ticky-tack, but technically it is the letter of the law, if you will. if goodell loses that, he would only be able to say "i punished these guys because i felt like it" as there would be no backing evidence at that point. They're challenging it again because of the "evidence" presented. I put that in quotes, because like you I think it's pretty loose. Of all the fields, I actually work in litigation consulting (corporate tort), so I have a decent understanding of what's needed from that perspective. So the real issue that I'm raising you see is that none of the evidence provided suggests any player committed an infraction after the new CBA was signed in 2011, under which Goodell is claiming he has the authority to issue punishment. As a result, if the old CBA actually applies, then the System Arbiter has the sole authority of exacting punishment to players for on the field infractions and not Goodell. If neither CBA applies, then Goodell has stepped way beyond his authority altogether. Honestly, I think he has overstepped his authority as far as the players are concerned, and that this will go away for the players. For the coaches, not so much so. Anyway, good string and will chat another time. Time to get out of the office and go home! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) They're challenging it again because of the "evidence" presented. I put that in quotes, because like you I think it's pretty loose. Of all the fields, I actually work in litigation consulting (corporate tort), so I have a decent understanding of what's needed from that perspective. So the real issue that I'm raising you see is that none of the evidence provided suggests any player committed an infraction after the new CBA was signed in 2011, under which Goodell is claiming he has the authority to issue punishment. As a result, if the old CBA actually applies, then the System Arbiter has the sole authority of exacting punishment to players for on the field infractions and not Goodell. If neither CBA applies, then Goodell has stepped way beyond his authority altogether. Honestly, I think he has overstepped his authority as far as the players are concerned, and that this will go away for the players. For the coaches, not so much so. Anyway, good string and will chat another time. Time to get out of the office and go home! Thanks for the insight. It doesn't quite match what I had previously heard so it's something I will consider. I suppose if they can get a future arbitrator to agree that the evidence doesn't match the claims they previously said it would fulfill (which it doesn't seem to) that could be a gamechanger. Under the new CBA there was a blanket provision to essentially prohibit any actions against either Side for causes known or unknown at the time with 5-10 names excepted as they had conduct issues current. The nfl was quick to cite that one when the nflpa wanted to sue for lost wages due to an illegal cap. Not so much now. Edited June 28, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 so you are asserting that they are putting out an intentionally thin case but punishing on a much higher standard without allowing anyone to see why? The goal was to get the NFL to show evidence. They don't need much evidence to fight Vilma's case. The NFL isn't worried about losing the case. DeSmith isn't worried about winning. It's access to the evidence that is the fight here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The goal was to get the NFL to show evidence. They don't need much evidence to fight Vilma's case. The NFL isn't worried about losing the case. DeSmith isn't worried about winning. It's access to the evidence that is the fight here. I was talking about the punishments not the defamation case. Perhaps my fault for mixing terms some. Yes - the defamation case is about that. The nfl holding back proof in the suspension appeals may be true but I don't believe the smoking gun exists that some assert and that's what I was addressing. In fact, there is a good chance some of what was held back could contradict claims. Hence the defamation case - to obtain that stuff- as you note. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Local news covering that vilma has declared To judge berrigan that if the suspension isn't rescinded he will be formally filing for a court injunction - a twist that would be unexpected. Edited June 28, 2012 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 this idea that the cheatriots were hit hard is absurd belicheat fined 500k, the team fined 250k, and one draft pick forfeited. no suspensions. no asterisks. just money and one draft pick for the magnitude of the advantage the cheating gave them, that is a slap on the wrist. the cheating coach should have been suspended for at least a year if not life in addition to his fine. any coach who used that information should have been suspended for at least the year also. and their tainted superbowl 'wins' should have been forever marked as fraudulent hit hard indeed you must be out your damn mind At the time it was the harshest punishment ever handed down against a team. So yes they were hit hard. Maybe not enough for you and I. And I agree Belichick shoudl have been suspended games not just fined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRH Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I was talking about the punishments not the defamation case. Perhaps my fault for mixing terms some. Yes - the defamation case is about that. The nfl holding back proof in the suspension appeals may be true but I don't believe the smoking gun exists that some assert and that's what I was addressing. In fact, there is a good chance some of what was held back could contradict claims. Hence the defamation case - to obtain that stuff- as you note. Sorry, I don't come here enough to have a running conversation, but I wanted to check to see where this thread had gone. I agree that we don't know what kind of evidence was held back, or why. All I know is that the NFL made a decision as to how much evidence it needed to release in order to support its disciplinary decisions, because it could (theirs not being a court of law). Now it is up to the PA to decide whether it is worth it to get ALL of the evidence on the table in court. The reward of finding exculpatory evidence could be outweighed by the risk of outing some of their members as having provided incriminating evidence, which would at worst end their careers and at best paint targets on their backs. Tough situation for the PA. Defend Vilma et al to the hilt and hurt other players, or protect the other players and let Vilma et al go up the river? Goodell is playing hardball. Smith will make a lot of noise but I doubt he wants to go to any court other than the court of public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Sorry, I don't come here enough to have a running conversation, but I wanted to check to see where this thread had gone. I agree that we don't know what kind of evidence was held back, or why. All I know is that the NFL made a decision as to how much evidence it needed to release in order to support its disciplinary decisions, because it could (theirs not being a court of law). Now it is up to the PA to decide whether it is worth it to get ALL of the evidence on the table in court. The reward of finding exculpatory evidence could be outweighed by the risk of outing some of their members as having provided incriminating evidence, which would at worst end their careers and at best paint targets on their backs. Tough situation for the PA. Defend Vilma et al to the hilt and hurt other players, or protect the other players and let Vilma et al go up the river? Goodell is playing hardball. Smith will make a lot of noise but I doubt he wants to go to any court other than the court of public opinion. no problem - honestly though - ill say again, unless theres still a real shocker out there it seems that most of the evidence has been provided by gregg williams and mike cerullo. Being both coaches, i think the nflpa is operating under the assumption that they arent about to screw one of their own. thats obviously a degree of speculation, but having followed the case very closely i feel like thats kind of the area they are operating in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts