Tags vacates suspensions

[Mr. WEO]

It'll be interesting if he does keep pushing. The fact that it could be so mishandled, even if the nfl did actually get the end narrative right is just.... Astonishing. They very well might've (which gets me killed when I say it in N.O.) but its been such an absolute disaster in public that..... I just don't know.

 

I would pay to watch the vitt cerullo and Williams interviews at this point. As a season ticket holder that's been dragged through a terrible season, I think the nfl should send a copy on over to me.

 

I would like to read Payton's mind too. He knows everything but says nothing.

If you get a copy of the transcripts you can be sure that they will be redacted more than a CIA enhanced interrogation session recording in Guantanamo Bay.

 

In general I like Roger Goodell, even realizing that he works primarily for the owners. In this bounty saga the mistake he made was not taking his time to consult with a variety of people before making a determination. I feel that he was genuinely outraged at what he thought was going on and became a bull on a rampage. The source of his anger probably had to do with the fact that the Saints' organization was warned about the questionable behavior. When it didn't stop he was determined to hammer everyone in sight. There is an appropriate time to be angry and also an appropriate time to be judicious. These two different qualities shouldn't be mixed together.

 

 

To be fair, he did have Mary Jo White reveiw the evidence before suspending. Obviously she was a paid consultant, but I don't think that makes her a shill--any more than Lou Freeh was a shill for Penn State when they asked him to review evidence against their institution.

 

At the time before the suspensions, White said this:

 

"No question," White said. "This was a pay-for-performance bounty program -- prohibited, clearly prohibited for the players to participate in, for the coaches to participate in. And it did involve funding that pool. The players funded the vast majority of the pool, and it involved payouts of money for plays that included legitimate defensive plays but also plays that plainly involve injuries to other players ... this program provided rewards for those kinds of things."

 

Maybe Goodell's anger did get the best of him, but it remains that Vilma is still on the hook to prove false what Goodell, White and now Tagliabu say is true about his role in this.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I would like to read Payton's mind too. He knows everything but says nothing.

 

 

 

To be fair, he did have Mary Jo White reveiw the evidence before suspending. Obviously she was a paid consultant, but I don't think that makes her a shill--any more than Lou Freeh was a shill for Penn State when they asked him to review evidence against their institution.

 

At the time before the suspensions, White said this:

 

"No question," White said. "This was a pay-for-performance bounty program -- prohibited, clearly prohibited for the players to participate in, for the coaches to participate in. And it did involve funding that pool. The players funded the vast majority of the pool, and it involved payouts of money for plays that included legitimate defensive plays but also plays that plainly involve injuries to other players ... this program provided rewards for those kinds of things."

 

Maybe Goodell's anger did get the best of him, but it remains that Vilma is still on the hook to prove false what Goodell, White and now Tagliabu say is true about his role in this.

 

You do realize white is considered a corporate mess clean up specialist within legal circles? She's got a reputation as the one the big boys call in to dig them out of a hole, which the nfl was falling into when they hired her. She's the same woman that also said unequivocally that it was Anthony Hargrove in the tape on the sideline which was very much not true and a far less complicated judgement to make. So her take in this, leaves me totally in persuaded. I put more stock in your opinion then hers at this point.

 

Frankly, how in the world is Vilma supposed to prove innocence on this short of a secret recording of goodell or cerullo saying they made it up?

[JohnC]

 

 

 

 

Maybe Goodell's anger did get the best of him, but it remains that Vilma is still on the hook to prove false what Goodell, White and now Tagliabu say is true about his role in this.

 

How do you prove your innocence when you are not allowed to see the full range of evidence against you? Whatever you think of Vilma he is willing to go to the mat in a courtroom setting against the league. Roger G was never willing to open up his file to him on this issue. He was only willing to show Vilma and his reps what he wanted him to see. From Vilma's standpoint that is a not an acceptable proposal.

 

Sometimes a person can be wrong but not to the extent that his transgression has been portrayed by the pugnacious other party. Vilma is willing to put up and not shut up. That is his prerogative. Goodell's outside lawyers unsurprisingly have a particular perspective and judgment. And Vilma and his own lawyers unsurprisingly have a very different perspective and judgment.

 

The next time you have a legal complaint try using the argument that my own paid for attorneys take a position favoring me. The case should now be closed. I'm sure the party you are disagreeing with would not only disagree with your stance but they would have to snicker at your laughable arrogant attitude.

[NoSaint]

Vitt speaks out:

 

“Number one, in my testimony, I was never asked that question, whether or not I wanted to keep a bounty program going. I was never asked that question. I was told that accusation was made and I volunteered at the time in front of Commissioner Tagliabue to take a lie detector test that afternoon to deny that allegation. So, if anybody’s keeping a scorecard here, let’s take a look at this. I said back in April in my first interview with the press and the media that at no point in time did our players cross the white line with the intent of injuring, maiming or ending the career of another player. That never took place. I testified before a federal judge with my hand on the bible.

 

“Now what’s going to happen now? All participants in all these accusations are going to go to a federal court and they’re going to go to a judge and from top to bottom she’s going to hear testimony and the penalty for perjury with her is going to be jail time. So let’s stop. That’s the scorecard right now. Our players have already been cleared by three bodies of work; Judge Berrigan, a panel of three judges and Commissioner [Paul] Tagliabue. Myself, Sean [Payton] and Mickey [Loomis] did not have that right. Now until the day I die and I think I’ll be able to find six pallbearers, I’m going to defend the intent of our football players. I am going to defend the integrity of this organization and the high moral standards that our owner hold us all to and that’s just the truth. With that I think that I’ve covered all bases.”

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/13/vitt-braces-for-scuds-presumably-from-park-avenue/

 

Edited December 13, 2012 by NoSaint

[NoSaint]

yeeesh.... vilma filed a petition today saying that when cerullo was fired that sean payton had to hire security for fear of retribution at his home. i believe the claim is that the nfl and goodell knew about this and should have been assessing a certain level of care to the accusations that cerullo brought before them. if they didnt do enough due diligence, or went in with the attitude that the saints will obviously lie and they needed to coerce people, while knowing the accuser had credibility questions.... vilma may have some more ground under his feet on this defamation case.

 

just saying "but he told me...." doesnt work if you didnt vet the "he" and the information in that statement properly to begin with.

Edited December 14, 2012 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

You do realize white is considered a corporate mess clean up specialist within legal circles? She's got a reputation as the one the big boys call in to dig them out of a hole, which the nfl was falling into when they hired her. She's the same woman that also said unequivocally that it was Anthony Hargrove in the tape on the sideline which was very much not true and a far less complicated judgement to make. So her take in this, leaves me totally in persuaded. I put more stock in your opinion then hers at this point.

 

Frankly, how in the world is Vilma supposed to prove innocence on this short of a secret recording of goodell or cerullo saying they made it up?

 

Why thank you!

 

Vilma will have all evidence subpoeanaed for his trial. He can refute it all in open court. That's his plan, as far as I can tell.

 

How do you prove your innocence when you are not allowed to see the full range of evidence against you? Whatever you think of Vilma he is willing to go to the mat in a courtroom setting against the league. Roger G was never willing to open up his file to him on this issue. He was only willing to show Vilma and his reps what he wanted him to see. From Vilma's standpoint that is a not an acceptable proposal.

 

Sometimes a person can be wrong but not to the extent that his transgression has been portrayed by the pugnacious other party. Vilma is willing to put up and not shut up. That is his prerogative. Goodell's outside lawyers unsurprisingly have a particular perspective and judgment. And Vilma and his own lawyers unsurprisingly have a very different perspective and judgment.

 

The next time you have a legal complaint try using the argument that my own paid for attorneys take a position favoring me. The case should now be closed. I'm sure the party you are disagreeing with would not only disagree with your stance but they would have to snicker at your laughable arrogant attitude.

 

It's a case of whether Vilma put money up for the bounties or not. It's not about anything else. If he did it, he's just another guilty party seeking his day in court hoping he can convince a jury that he didn't do it. But even if he is completely innocent, he has to prove that Goodell knew the charges were false, yet publicly announced them anyway. That's defamation.

 

You may not trust or give weight to White's opinion, but others, such as potential jurors may. And Vilma's lawyer had no problem with Tagliabu reviewing the evidence and making a decision. It's interesting you give full full credence to Vilma, but no one else.

 

...and it's "laughably arrogant", or, "laughable, arrogant..."

 

yeeesh.... vilma filed a petition today saying that when cerullo was fired that sean payton had to hire security for fear of retribution at his home. i believe the claim is that the nfl and goodell knew about this and should have been assessing a certain level of care to the accusations that cerullo brought before them. if they didnt do enough due diligence, or went in with the attitude that the saints will obviously lie and they needed to coerce people, while knowing the accuser had credibility questions.... vilma may have some more ground under his feet on this defamation case.

 

just saying "but he told me...." doesnt work if you didnt vet the "he" and the information in that statement properly to begin with.

 

You may be right, but the burden is steep for Vilma to prove he was defamed. He would have to prove that Goodell knew it all of the evidence either exonerated Vilma, or made his guilt extremely unlikely---and that Goodell, with malicious intent, went ahead and named Vilma anyway.

 

I just don't see why Goodell would do that--knowingly name a guy who he knew was innocent. You believe he would (certainly JohnC believes this), but it doesn't make sense to me.

[JohnC]

yeeesh.... vilma filed a petition today saying that when cerullo was fired that sean payton had to hire security for fear of retribution at his home. i believe the claim is that the nfl and goodell knew about this and should have been assessing a certain level of care to the accusations that cerullo brought before them. if they didnt do enough due diligence, or went in with the attitude that the saints will obviously lie and they needed to coerce people, while knowing the accuser had credibility questions.... vilma may have some more ground under his feet on this defamation case.

 

just saying "but he told me...." doesnt work if you didnt vet the "he" and the information in that statement properly to begin with.

 

Goodell had an agenda before he even got involved in this fiasco. What happened, as you have previously noted, prior Saint situations had accumulated in Goodell's mind that made RG see the so called "bounty" situation as being bigger than what it really was. The rampaging Goodell was too energized to conduct a sober and thorough investigation. He should have gotten an outside party to conduct this investigation. He was simply too invested with animus against the organization that was to be examined.

 

You and I agree (I think) that there was some inappropriate player conduct on the field. In a game of aggression it was taken to an undisciplined level. But from a league wide perspective there is nothing unusual about that type of border-line behavior. Every week players are disciplined for risky actions, intentional or not. The ominipotent Roger over-reached on this issue and gave it an elevated status that it didn't deserve.

 

What Tags is attempting to do is walk back the overly punitive actions of the Bull in the China Shop Commissioner. Tags knows that if Vilma continues on his legal crusade to challenge the NFL it will expose the sloppy and contradictory evidence from which RG made his determination. Tags primary motivation is not acting in the interest of the players; he is trying to salvage the league's interest from the commissioner's poor judgment. His goal is to get this matter finished with with no outside court delving into the NFL's business. Vilma is not cooperation. As I said before I salute him for not allowing a powerful office steam roller him into submission.

 

Just because a commissioner has unlimited authority it doesn't mean that it is right to excercise that authority in a non-judicious and unbalanced manner.

[NoSaint]

 

 

Why thank you!

 

Vilma will have all evidence subpoeanaed for his trial. He can refute it all in open court. That's his plan, as far as I can tell.

 

 

 

It's a case of whether Vilma put money up for the bounties or not. It's not about anything else. If he did it, he's just another guilty party seeking his day in court hoping he can convince a jury that he didn't do it. But even if he is completely innocent, he has to prove that Goodell knew the charges were false, yet publicly announced them anyway. That's defamation.

 

You may not trust or give weight to White's opinion, but others, such as potential jurors may. And Vilma's lawyer had no problem with Tagliabu reviewing the evidence and making a decision. It's interesting you give full full credence to Vilma, but no one else.

 

...and it's "laughably arrogant", or, "laughable, arrogant..."

 

 

 

You may be right, but the burden is steep for Vilma to prove he was defamed. He would have to prove that Goodell knew it all of the evidence either exonerated Vilma, or made his guilt extremely unlikely---and that Goodell, with malicious intent, went ahead and named Vilma anyway.

 

I just don't see why Goodell would do that--knowingly name a guy who he knew was innocent. You believe he would (certainly JohnC believes this), but it doesn't make sense to me.

 

I believe (and I don't claim to be an expert) but if he can solidly claim that goodell took off running with shaky evidence and didnt give it the needed analysis - then went further possibly using "you sign this or else" tactics that have been rumored around Williams- there's a middle ground where RG could've thought he got it right, but by being reckless in his approach could still get nailed. Especially once he doubled down on everything once things started to appear shaky. Some sort of middle ground exists I think where both sides ultimately messed up in a variety of ways. Both ultimately likely get off pretty easy by letter of the law, although the conduct of each may fall far short of what you hope to see.

Edited December 14, 2012 by NoSaint

[JohnC]

 

 

...and it's "laughably arrogant", or, "laughable, arrogant..."

 

I stand corrected with the sloppy grammar. How about laughable and arrogant attitude? Is that acceptable?

 

 

You may be right, but the burden is steep for Vilma to prove he was defamed. He would have to prove that Goodell knew it all of the evidence either exonerated Vilma, or made his guilt extremely unlikely---and that Goodell, with malicious intent, went ahead and named Vilma anyway.

 

I just don't see why Goodell would do that--knowingly name a guy who he knew was innocent. You believe he would (certainly JohnC believes this), but it doesn't make sense to me.

 

You are creating a standart that won't be applied. It isn't a question of whether Goodell knew that all the evidence exonerated Vilma, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether Goodell knew that there was plenty of contradictory and questionable evidence from credible and non-credible sources that made his judgment egregiously bad.

 

There is an obvious reason why Tags doesn't want a court to review the shoddy investigation and contradictory evidence. Why do you think he lifted the punishmet meted out by RG?

[Mr. WEO]

I believe (and I don't claim to be an expert) but if he can solidly claim that goodell took off running with shaky evidence and didnt give it the needed analysis - then went further possibly using "you sign this or else" tactics that have been rumored around Williams- there's a middle ground where RG could've thought he got it right, but by being reckless in his approach could still get nailed. Especially once he doubled down on everything once things started to appear shaky. Some sort of middle ground exists I think where both sides ultimately messed up in a variety of ways. Both ultimately likely get off pretty easy by letter of the law, although the conduct of each may fall far short of what you hope to see.

 

Didn't Goodell suspend the players weel after the coaching staff? And what Williams signed or didn't sign would not come in to Vilma's case, I bet.

 

I have a problem with Williams or Payton or any of these guys coming out after they admitted they were doing what they were charged with doing (and accepted harsh punishment without a peep at the time) and trying to change the narrative.

 

 

I stand corrected with the sloppy grammar. How about laughable and arrogant attitude? Is that acceptable?

 

 

 

 

You are creating a standart that won't be applied. It isn't a question of whether Goodell knew that all the evidence exonerated Vilma, that isn't the issue. The issue is whether Goodell knew that there was plenty of contradictory and questionable evidence from credible and non-credible sources that made his judgment egregiously bad.

 

There is an obvious reason why Tags doesn't want a court to review the shoddy investigation and contradictory evidence. Why do you think he lifted the punishmet meted out by RG?

 

Oh relax John!

 

I don't think it's arrogant to not believe in Vilma's innocense at this time. It's very fashionable to pile on Goodell. I'm just not jumping on yet.

 

I am not "creating" the standard for proving defamation of a public figure--it is well established. Vilma would have to prove that due diligence did not take place--i.e., none. Obviously Goodell disagrees. Tagliabu concurred.

 

Let me ask you this, if it is actually true that Vilma put bounty money on players, would you still support him in his fight agaisnt Goodell to clear his name? Or are you just saying even if he did, Goodell over-reacted by suspending him?

[NoSaint]

 

 

Didn't Goodell suspend the players weel after the coaching staff? And what Williams signed or didn't sign would not come in to Vilma's case, I bet.

 

I have a problem with Williams or Payton or any of these guys coming out after they admitted they were doing what they were charged with doing (and accepted harsh punishment without a peep at the time) and trying to change the narrative.

 

 

well, you cant forget that payton, vitt and loomis all did appeal the decision early. payton technically still has to pass reinstatement, and the organization still wants that second rounder back this year. not to mention they didnt have the same options open to them. vitt has gone very far to publicly fight this though. Unfortunately much of the decision on loomis and SP was "if they didnt know, they shouldve known" which is impossible to defend. especially when what "they shouldve known" that escalated it to historic punishment, may not have even happened in hindsight. its the epitome of what was wrong with goodells approach. "it obviously must have happened so anyone denying it is a liar and must be punished" despite there being solid reasons right from the start to question things.

 

all have denied point blank anything related to vilmas alleged 10k. the only thing admitted by any was the weekly, and described as normal around the nfl, pools.

Edited December 14, 2012 by NoSaint

[JohnC]

 

Didn't Goodell suspend the players weel after the coaching staff? And what Williams signed or didn't sign would not come in to Vilma's case, I bet.

 

I have a problem with Williams or Payton or any of these guys coming out after they admitted they were doing what they were charged with doing (and accepted harsh punishment without a peep at the time) and trying to change the narrative.

 

 

 

Oh relax John!

 

I don't think it's arrogant to not believe in Vilma's innocense at this time. It's very fashionable to pile on Goodell. I'm just not jumping on yet.

 

I am not "creating" the standard for proving defamation of a public figure--it is well established. Vilma would have to prove that due diligence did not take place--i.e., none. Obviously Goodell disagrees. Tagliabu concurred.

 

Let me ask you this, if it is actually true that Vilma put bounty money on players, would you still support him in his fight agaisnt Goodell to clear his name? Or are you just saying even if he did, Goodell over-reacted by suspending him?

 

If Vilma put up money I would still support his case against Goodell. There is a bigger issue here. It is the process. In my view Goodell led a contaminated process that makes his transgression more serious than the bounty issue.

 

You and I agree that Goodell has "almost" unlimited authority in all NFL matters. Given that, he doesn't have the authority to maniupulate the results of an investigation to make a determination that appears was made in advance.

 

The Tag review clearly shows that Goodell over-reached with his punishment decisions. As I stated in a prior post just because RG has nearly unlimited authority that doesn't give him the right to act in an imprudent and injudicious manner. The point isn't about being imprudent, the point is about the level of imprudence. Even with his exceptional power there has to be some accountability that goes with that power.

 

My position is if Vilma wants to go to court because he believes he has been treated unfairly then that is his prerogative. Do you really believe that if he was involved with $$$ exchanges in this so called bounty saga that he would be the party demanding to go to court? I don't

 

As I stated on numerous posts there are no angels in the room. Was there inappropriate behavior on the field by the players? I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it existed. There are many occasions where players while performing in a sport of aggression go beyond where they should, intentional or not. There is a standard way of handling that type of on field behavior. In this case RG acted way beyond the norm and elevated a possible bad behavior beyond what it really was.

[Mr. WEO]

well, you cant forget that payton, vitt and loomis all did appeal the decision early. payton technically still has to pass reinstatement, and the organization still wants that second rounder back this year. not to mention they didnt have the same options open to them. vitt has gone very far to publicly fight this though. Unfortunately much of the decision on loomis and SP was "if they didnt know, they shouldve known" which is impossible to defend. especially when what "they shouldve known" that escalated it to historic punishment, may not have even happened in hindsight. its the epitome of what was wrong with goodells approach. "it obviously must have happened so anyone denying it is a liar and must be punished" despite there being solid reasons right from the start to question things.

 

all have denied point blank anything related to vilmas alleged 10k. the only thing admitted by any was the weekly, and described as normal around the nfl, pools.

 

I'm gonna draw the line there! It's impossible for me to believe Payton did not know all about this all along. I also don't believe Goodell punished Payton because "he should have known", but becuase he did know. Tags describes systematic organizational obstruction of the investigation (coverup?).

 

Payton accepted full responsibility before he appealed. Not sure what he based his appeal on.

 

Williams copped to it after also. Says he should have stopped it but didn't.

[JohnC]

Oh relax John!

 

I don't think it's arrogant to not believe in Vilma's innocense at this time. It's very fashionable to pile on Goodell. I'm just not jumping on yet.

 

I never said it is arrogant to not believe in Vilma's innocense. I don't know how you can come up with such a distorted interpretation of my prior comments. I said it is an arrogant position to have one party believe that because their own paid attorneys conclude in a favorable manner that it should be the standart for deciding against a complainant whose own paid attorneys have a different conclusion.

Edited December 14, 2012 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

If Vilma put up money I would still support his case against Goodell. There is a bigger issue here. It is the process. In my view Goodell led a contaminated process that makes his transgression more serious than the bounty issue.

 

You and I agree that Goodell has "almost" unlimited authority in all NFL matters. Given that, he doesn't have the authority to maniupulate the results of an investigation to make a determination that appears was made in advance.

 

The Tag review clearly shows that Goodell over-reached with his punishment decisions. As I stated in a prior post just because RG has nearly unlimited authority that doesn't give him the right to act in an imprudent and injudicious manner. The point isn't about being imprudent, the point is about the level of imprudence. Even with his exceptional power there has to be some accountability that goes with that power.

 

My position is if Vilma wants to go to court because he believes he has been treated unfairly then that is his prerogative. Do you really believe that if he was involved with $$$ exchanges in this so called bounty saga that he would be the party demanding to go to court? I don't

 

As I stated on numerous posts there are no angels in the room. Was there inappropriate behavior on the field by the players? I can't say for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it existed. There are many occasions where players while performing in a sport of aggression go beyond where they should, intentional or not. There is a standard way of handling that type of on field behavior. In this case RG acted way beyond the norm and elevated a possible bad behavior beyond what it really was.

 

If Vilma is guilty of what Goodell suspended him for, then Goodell came the correct conclusion in his investigation. How can you say he manipulated the investigation if he came to the correct conclusion? And how would Vilma win a defamation case if Goodell correctly concluded Vilma's guilt?

 

I never said it is arrogant to not believe in Vilma's innocense. I don't know how you can come up with such a distorted interpretation of my prior comments. I said it is an arrogant position to have one party believe that because their own paid attorneys conclude in a favorable manner that it should be the standart for deciding against a complainant whose own paid attorneys have a different conclusion.

 

Tagliabu wasn't acting as Goodell's attorney (and no one else has mistakenly identified him as such) and Vilma's attorney had no problem with Tgaliabu deciding this issue.

[NoSaint]

 

 

I'm gonna draw the line there! It's impossible for me to believe Payton did not know all about this all along. I also don't believe Goodell punished Payton because "he should have known", but becuase he did know. Tags describes systematic organizational obstruction of the investigation (coverup?).

 

Payton accepted full responsibility before he appealed. Not sure what he based his appeal on.

 

Williams copped to it after also. Says he should have stopped it but didn't.

 

Running a pool vs putting 10k on a players head is a jump. Everyone admitted the former and denied the latter. Goodells suspension letter made it very clear that loomis and SP were for organizational control and that not knowing about a bounty was no excuse. You sometimes blend, sometimes seperate the two halves of pfp vs pfi which makes it tough. I know you are firm in the belief that knockouts are not just big legal hits in this though, so I get it. One of our agree to disagree points.

 

Problem is the nfl narrative has changed several times so its hard to have a discussion on the finer points.

Edited December 14, 2012 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

Running a pool vs putting 10k on a players head is a jump. Everyone admitted the former and denied the latter. Goodells suspension letter made it very clear that loomis and SP were for organizational control and that not knowing about a bounty was no excuse. You sometimes blend, sometimes seperate the two halves of pfp vs pfi which makes it tough. I know you are firm in the belief that knockouts are not just big legal hits in this though, so I get it. One of our agree to disagree points.

 

Problem is the nfl narrative has changed several times so its hard to have a discussion on the finer points.

 

Watching the beating Favre took was like nothing I had seen before. Not for a whole game.

 

The amount of punishment Payton received to me suggests that if Payton said he knew nothing about it, Goodell figured him for a liar. Otherwise, no way he gets a year suspension.

 

As for the $10K bounty, it don't see any circumstance where anyone in that organization, player, FO, or coaching staff would ever cop to that---precisely because it is such a giant leap from "pay for performance". Why on earth would anyone admit to that? Their whole defense was to claim that this was a widespread and accepted practice in the league (minus the 10k bonus for injuries, of course).

 

Such denials carry little weight--they are expected. It's easier to accept blame for what is considered a minor infraction and deny everything else ("hey, we're no angels...it's a rough game!"...etc).

[JohnC]

If Vilma is guilty of what Goodell suspended him for, then Goodell came the correct conclusion in his investigation. How can you say he manipulated the investigation if he came to the correct conclusion? And how would Vilma win a defamation case if Goodell correctly concluded Vilma's guilt?

 

I don't understand your reasoning. It makes no sense. Cases get thrown out of court all the time even when the verdict is correct. When the party running the proceeding is acting in an appropriate manner the case, on appeal, is thrown out. In addition, the party running the proceeding will get officially reprimanded for acting in an inappropriate fashion. An attorney representing the prosecuting side of a court proceeding has an ethical obligation to act in a responsible manner. There is a strict code of conduct that must be abided. RG could not function in such a formal ethical environment because he is used to being whimsical and capricious in the way he functions.

 

Of course the disciplinary system in the NFL is not the same as a regular legal proceeding. But the issue of fairness and transparency still should be a basis for even this less than formal legal process.

 

There is a simple way for the NFL to resolve the Vilma challenge: Show him all the evidence that was used for the basis of the commissioner's punishment. When Tags studied the evidence his reaction was much different from RG's. Vilma strongly believes that the process moreso than the punishment that was originally meted out to him was unfair. He wants his day in court. Why do you find that so objectionable?

 

 

Tagliabu wasn't acting as Goodell's attorney (and no one else has mistakenly identified him as such) and Vilma's attorney had no problem with Tgaliabu deciding this issue.

 

Let's not be naive here. Who selected Tags to review the case? Did the NFLPA have a say in his selection as an arbitrator? Tags was acting on behalf of the interests of the NFL, not the players. He recognized after reviewing the evidence that RG exercised bad judgment in the way he ran his investigation and in the determination he made based on his biased investigation.. With some dexterity he did his best to rectify a wrong and settle this growing mess.

Edited December 14, 2012 by JohnC

[Mr. WEO]

I don't understand your reasoning. It makes no sense. Cases get thrown out of court all the time even when the verdict is correct. When the party running the proceeding is acting in an appropriate manner the case, on appeal, is thrown out. In addition, the party running the proceeding will get officially reprimanded for acting in an inappropriate fashion. An attorney representing the prosecuting side of a court proceeding has an ethical obligation to act in a responsible manner. There is a strict code of conduct that must be abided. RG could not function in such a formal ethical environment because he is used to being whimsical and capricious in the way he functions.

 

Of course the disciplinary system in the NFL is not the same as a regular legal proceeding. But the issue of fairness and transparency still should be a basis for even this less than formal legal process.

 

There is a simple way for the NFL to resolve the Vilma challenge: Show him all the evidence that was used for the basis of the commissioner's punishment. When Tags studied the evidence his reaction was much different from RG's. Vilma strongly believes that the process moreso than the punishment that was originally meted out to him was unfair. He wants his day in court. Why do you find that so objectionable?

 

 

 

 

Let's not be naive here. Who selected Tags to review the case? Did the NFLPA have a say in his selection as an arbitrator? Tags was acting on behalf of the interests of the NFL, not the players. He recognized after reviewing the evidence that RG exercised bad judgment in the way he ran his investigation and in the determination he made based on his biased investigation.. With some dexterity he did his best to rectify a wrong and settle this growing mess.

 

Yes, when prosecutors violate the rights of a defendant, guilty men do go free. They are no less guilty nor are they less deserving of punishment, though---are they? And The players agreed to the manner in which the Cmommissioner is allowed to conduct investigations. They gave Goodell all of the power that he yielded in this case. In the CBA, they knowingly and willfully surrendered certain rights that are due anyone else in criminal and civil courts.

 

As for the bolded parts--obviously they are incorrect. From ESPN (and everywhere else):

In his ruling, Tagliabue agreed there is evidence that suggests Vilma placed a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre before the Saints faced the Minnesota Vikings in the 2010 NFC Championship Game....My affirmation of Commissioner Goodell's findings could certainly justify the issuance of fines.

 

Also, Both Ginsberg and the NFLPA were "pleased" with Tagliabu's decision, so I assume they had no problem with his selection as arbitrator.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Mr. WEO

[JohnC]

Yes, when prosecutors violate the rights of a defendant, guilty men do go free. They are no less guilty nor are they less deserving of punishment, though---are they? And The players agreed to the manner in which the Cmommissioner is allowed to conduct investigations. They gave Goodell all of the power that he yielded in this case. In the CBA, they knowingly and willfully surrendered certain rights that are due anyone else in criminal and civil courts.

 

Yes RG has the authority to act in this case. Giving him exceptional authority doesn't give him the authority to act in a process that is a sham. Using your logic the president of North Korea and Syria can do whatever they want without being accountable for their wretched behavior simply because they have such unchallenged authority. As far as I'm concerned because RG has so much authority to act and judge he has more of a responsibility to exercise that authority in a more judicious and less erratic way.

 

As for the bolded parts--obviously they are incorrect. From ESPN (and everywhere else):

In his ruling, Tagliabue agreed there is evidence that suggests Vilma placed a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre before the Saints faced the Minnesota Vikings in the 2010 NFC Championship Game....My affirmation of Commissioner Goodell's findings could certainly justify the issuance of fines.

 

 

 

You need to read Tags well crafted response more carefully. He used words such as "evidence that suggests" and "findings could justify ...." None of those carefully chosen words categorically state anything. He is in diplomatic parlance saying it could be this or it could be that. In other words he is not taking a direct stand on the matter. But the effect of his ruling was that Vilma was free to get back on the field.

 

Also, Both Ginsberg and the NFLPA were "pleased" with Tagliabu's decision, so I assume they had no problem with his selection as arbitrator.

 

Of course the NFLPA was pleased with his decision. He in contorted terms repudiated RG and gave Vilma a free pass. Why wouldn't they agree with him????

Edited December 15, 2012 by JohnC