Vilma Suing Goodell for Defamation (1 Viewer)

[uconnalum]

Remember one of the reasons for this lawsuit is the lack of evidence given to the NFLPA to implicate Vilma. Now remember this is no longer the NFL Judicial System but the US Judicial System. Ginsburg already defeated the NFL when he represented the Vikings Williams brothers. Ginsburg has said Hargroves signed statement will not stand up in a US Court System. Ginsburg wants the NFL to publicly present evidence showing Vilma giving money to players and him stating this was for hits that occurred in games. Ginsburg has been on record stating the NFL does not have any hard evidence such as Video of monetary transactions taking place with Vilma, no bank statements showing large out of the ordinary withdrawals from Vilmas accounts. Ginsburg is stated Williams audio tapes and player statements such as Hargroves are heresay and will not stand up in court. I cannot wait for this to unfold and see what evidence the NFL rolls out and Ginsburg wants all evidence to be Public.

 

[BassNBrew]

Anyone else think Vilma will win and will be awarded $1?

 

[Christo]

I'm kinda wondering if this will force (and is the driving motivation behind this) for lots of information to come out that the NFL didn't want out.

Something makes me feel that the NFL was right but they may have found out that it was more wide-spread and perverse than they would like the image of the NFL be known.

Why would that happen? Vilma needs to prove that Goodell is lying. He didn't say "Vilma is the only player who offered a bounty". Why would information about other teams come out?

This is where you're wrong. He doesn't need to prove Goodell was lying...Goodell needs to prove that he wasn't lying. Otherwise, he's in deep $&!#.

That's wrong.

 

[Chairshot]

I'm kinda wondering if this will force (and is the driving motivation behind this) for lots of information to come out that the NFL didn't want out.

Something makes me feel that the NFL was right but they may have found out that it was more wide-spread and perverse than they would like the image of the NFL be known.

Why would that happen? Vilma needs to prove that Goodell is lying. He didn't say "Vilma is the only player who offered a bounty". Why would information about other teams come out?

This is where you're wrong. He doesn't need to prove Goodell was lying...Goodell needs to prove that he wasn't lying. Otherwise, he's in deep $&!#.

That's wrong.

Yeah, I thought Vilma has to prove that Goodell knew what he was saying wasn't true and said it anyway, no?

 

[Christo]

Remember one of the reasons for this lawsuit is the lack of evidence given to the NFLPA to implicate Vilma. Now remember this is no longer the NFL Judicial System but the US Judicial System. Ginsburg already defeated the NFL when he represented the Vikings Williams brothers. Ginsburg has said Hargroves signed statement will not stand up in a US Court System. Ginsburg wants the NFL to publicly present evidence showing Vilma giving money to players and him stating this was for hits that occurred in games. Ginsburg has been on record stating the NFL does not have any hard evidence such as Video of monetary transactions taking place with Vilma, no bank statements showing large out of the ordinary withdrawals from Vilmas accounts. Ginsburg is stated Williams audio tapes and player statements such as Hargroves are heresay and will not stand up in court. I cannot wait for this to unfold and see what evidence the NFL rolls out and Ginsburg wants all evidence to be Public.

Ginsburg's statements are dumb. Defamation requires Vilma to prove that Goodell knew his statements were false. Goodell doesn't have to prove that the evidence he relied upon was infallible.

 

[Chairshot]

Remember one of the reasons for this lawsuit is the lack of evidence given to the NFLPA to implicate Vilma. Now remember this is no longer the NFL Judicial System but the US Judicial System. Ginsburg already defeated the NFL when he represented the Vikings Williams brothers. Ginsburg has said Hargroves signed statement will not stand up in a US Court System. Ginsburg wants the NFL to publicly present evidence showing Vilma giving money to players and him stating this was for hits that occurred in games. Ginsburg has been on record stating the NFL does not have any hard evidence such as Video of monetary transactions taking place with Vilma, no bank statements showing large out of the ordinary withdrawals from Vilmas accounts. Ginsburg is stated Williams audio tapes and player statements such as Hargroves are heresay and will not stand up in court. I cannot wait for this to unfold and see what evidence the NFL rolls out and Ginsburg wants all evidence to be Public.

Ginsburg's statements are dumb. Defamation requires Vilma to prove that Goodell knew his statements were false. Goodell doesn't have to prove that the evidence he relied upon was infallible.

I think it's all just a ploy by Vilma to find out who snitched. Plus, he wants his money.

 

[John Bender]

I don't fell bad for Vilma. The guy could have talked to the league before the suspension came down and he decided not to say anything about his innocence then, even though he knew that his name was involved at this point. He still decided to act like a baby and not come forward to tell Goodell "hey I didn't do this" before the decision. Now he wants to proclaim his innocence after the punishment has come down?

 

[fatness]

My post wasn't intended to "prove" anything. My point was that the NFL brought in a former AG to review the evidence the NFL has amassed before taking action. That AG not only said there was sufficient evidence, but something to the effect that it was the most overwhelming evidence she has seen. Whether this is true or not isn't the point. The point is that it shows the NFL got an independent review before acting. Who paid for that review is inapposite.

And the former AG's inability to answer specific questions about her review pretty much showed that her review was worthless.

 

[Christo]

My post wasn't intended to "prove" anything. My point was that the NFL brought in a former AG to review the evidence the NFL has amassed before taking action. That AG not only said there was sufficient evidence, but something to the effect that it was the most overwhelming evidence she has seen. Whether this is true or not isn't the point. The point is that it shows the NFL got an independent review before acting. Who paid for that review is inapposite.

And the former AG's inability to answer specific questions about her review pretty much showed that her review was worthless.

Link?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Honestly, I am surprised that it took this long for someone to file against Goodell. The fact that he is in charge of the investigating, handing out punishment, & of all things hearing any appeals to his own rulings.

To me it's not so much about Vilma actually winning, more about knocking Goodell down a peg. If this happens, it would be a success.

While I never wanted to see it happen, I think until the players or coaches feel that Goodell is at least partially able to be challenged, it will continue to happen

How would his suit knock him down a peg if the NFL and Goodell easily win?And I doubt this suit changes how NFL suspensions and appeals are done.

It won't. That's how it's set up under the CBA. That's the way the owners/league wanted it and the players agreed to it. The players have no recourse. They had the ability to change it when negotiating the last CBA and didn't.

 

[dickey moe]

I'm kinda wondering if this will force (and is the driving motivation behind this) for lots of information to come out that the NFL didn't want out.Something makes me feel that the NFL was right but they may have found out that it was more wide-spread and perverse than they would like the image of the NFL be known.

If this is the case then Vilma has just become public enemy No. 1, if he wasn't already. my opinion of this guy, who I used to respect as a player, is lower than a snake's taint.

Snakes don't have a taint. They have a cloaca.

 

[Silver & Black]

My post wasn't intended to "prove" anything. My point was that the NFL brought in a former AG to review the evidence the NFL has amassed before taking action. That AG not only said there was sufficient evidence, but something to the effect that it was the most overwhelming evidence she has seen. Whether this is true or not isn't the point. The point is that it shows the NFL got an independent review before acting. Who paid for that review is inapposite.

And the former AG's inability to answer specific questions about her review pretty much showed that her review was worthless.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. In any event, I think you are missing my point. At this point, its not about whether her investigation is accurate or not. My point is that the NFL brought in an investigator to look into the situation. They relied on her findings, coupled with its own investigation before acting. This, on its face anyway, shows good faith by the league thus making Vilma's defamation suit look virtually impossible to win.

 

[fatness]

My post wasn't intended to "prove" anything. My point was that the NFL brought in a former AG to review the evidence the NFL has amassed before taking action. That AG not only said there was sufficient evidence, but something to the effect that it was the most overwhelming evidence she has seen. Whether this is true or not isn't the point. The point is that it shows the NFL got an independent review before acting. Who paid for that review is inapposite.

And the former AG's inability to answer specific questions about her review pretty much showed that her review was worthless.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. In any event, I think you are missing my point. At this point, its not about whether her investigation is accurate or not. My point is that the NFL brought in an investigator to look into the situation. They relied on her findings, coupled with its own investigation before acting. This, on its face anyway, shows good faith by the league thus making Vilma's defamation suit look virtually impossible to win.

I disagree. She was a show pony hired to put an official-looking stamp on what the NFL had decided to do, to try to deflect criticism and questioning. She wasn't at the meeting with NFL investigators about the bounty investigation.

Richard Smith, outside counsel for the union, disputed White's evaluation of the evidence.

"I was at the meeting with the NFL's lead investigators in March. She was not there," Smith said. "Anyone, especially former prosecutors like both of us, know that what the league provided could never be called 'substantial evidence' of player participation in a pay-to-injure program.

"Worse yet, Mary Jo provided nothing new or compelling today beyond another press briefing."

Mary Jo White conference call transcript

On detailing the evidence and why it has not been released and Packers DE Anthony Hargrove's signed declaration:

I'm not going to comment on all of the specifics of the evidence that has been submitted by anyone.

No specifics.

When asked twice whether any players actually were paid for hits, White confirmed they were without going into specifics.

She was hired to sell what the NFL did because Billy Mays was unavailable.

 

[Christo]

My post wasn't intended to "prove" anything. My point was that the NFL brought in a former AG to review the evidence the NFL has amassed before taking action. That AG not only said there was sufficient evidence, but something to the effect that it was the most overwhelming evidence she has seen. Whether this is true or not isn't the point. The point is that it shows the NFL got an independent review before acting. Who paid for that review is inapposite.

And the former AG's inability to answer specific questions about her review pretty much showed that her review was worthless.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. In any event, I think you are missing my point. At this point, its not about whether her investigation is accurate or not. My point is that the NFL brought in an investigator to look into the situation. They relied on her findings, coupled with its own investigation before acting. This, on its face anyway, shows good faith by the league thus making Vilma's defamation suit look virtually impossible to win.

I disagree. She was a show pony hired to put an official-looking stamp on what the NFL had decided to do, to try to deflect criticism and questioning. She wasn't at the meeting with NFL investigators about the bounty investigation.

Richard Smith, outside counsel for the union, disputed White's evaluation of the evidence.

"I was at the meeting with the NFL's lead investigators in March. She was not there," Smith said. "Anyone, especially former prosecutors like both of us, know that what the league provided could never be called 'substantial evidence' of player participation in a pay-to-injure program.

"Worse yet, Mary Jo provided nothing new or compelling today beyond another press briefing."

Mary Jo White conference call transcript

On detailing the evidence and why it has not been released and Packers DE Anthony Hargrove's signed declaration:

I'm not going to comment on all of the specifics of the evidence that has been submitted by anyone.

No specifics.

When asked twice whether any players actually were paid for hits, White confirmed they were without going into specifics.

She was hired to sell what the NFL did because Billy Mays was unavailable.

 

[Silver & Black]

My post wasn't intended to "prove" anything. My point was that the NFL brought in a former AG to review the evidence the NFL has amassed before taking action. That AG not only said there was sufficient evidence, but something to the effect that it was the most overwhelming evidence she has seen. Whether this is true or not isn't the point. The point is that it shows the NFL got an independent review before acting. Who paid for that review is inapposite.

And the former AG's inability to answer specific questions about her review pretty much showed that her review was worthless.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. In any event, I think you are missing my point. At this point, its not about whether her investigation is accurate or not. My point is that the NFL brought in an investigator to look into the situation. They relied on her findings, coupled with its own investigation before acting. This, on its face anyway, shows good faith by the league thus making Vilma's defamation suit look virtually impossible to win.

I disagree. She was a show pony hired to put an official-looking stamp on what the NFL had decided to do, to try to deflect criticism and questioning. She wasn't at the meeting with NFL investigators about the bounty investigation.

Richard Smith, outside counsel for the union, disputed White's evaluation of the evidence.

"I was at the meeting with the NFL's lead investigators in March. She was not there," Smith said. "Anyone, especially former prosecutors like both of us, know that what the league provided could never be called 'substantial evidence' of player participation in a pay-to-injure program.

"Worse yet, Mary Jo provided nothing new or compelling today beyond another press briefing."

Mary Jo White conference call transcript

On detailing the evidence and why it has not been released and Packers DE Anthony Hargrove's signed declaration:

I'm not going to comment on all of the specifics of the evidence that has been submitted by anyone.

No specifics.

When asked twice whether any players actually were paid for hits, White confirmed they were without going into specifics.

She was hired to sell what the NFL did because Billy Mays was unavailable.

It's hard to discuss these things without having all the information. This much is certain. I was taking her comments at face value.I don't believe the NFL had an ulterior motive here. To me, it doesn't matter if things the Saints did is rampant in the NFL. It's not a valid or advisable defense to say, well, you got us but everyone else does it so you shouldn't punish us. At least not to me. Making matters worse, it certainly appears as though the Saints lied to the NFL and tried very hard, for a very long time to cover it all up. IMO, this is what has Goodell's panties all in a bunch. And rightfully so.

I look forward to seeing the evidence and seeing exactly what the Saint organization knew and when they knew it. Until then, it's all just pr and spin....

 

[Chairshot]

I'm interested in seeing what the evidence is. I would be shocked if, after 3 years of investigation, dozens of interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents (allegedly) the Commish had nothing on Vilma. He'd be a complete idiot to suspend people like he has with no evidence.

 

[sho nuff]

My post wasn't intended to "prove" anything. My point was that the NFL brought in a former AG to review the evidence the NFL has amassed before taking action. That AG not only said there was sufficient evidence, but something to the effect that it was the most overwhelming evidence she has seen. Whether this is true or not isn't the point. The point is that it shows the NFL got an independent review before acting. Who paid for that review is inapposite.

And the former AG's inability to answer specific questions about her review pretty much showed that her review was worthless.

I'm not sure I know what you are referring to here. In any event, I think you are missing my point. At this point, its not about whether her investigation is accurate or not. My point is that the NFL brought in an investigator to look into the situation. They relied on her findings, coupled with its own investigation before acting. This, on its face anyway, shows good faith by the league thus making Vilma's defamation suit look virtually impossible to win.

I disagree. She was a show pony hired to put an official-looking stamp on what the NFL had decided to do, to try to deflect criticism and questioning. She wasn't at the meeting with NFL investigators about the bounty investigation.

Richard Smith, outside counsel for the union, disputed White's evaluation of the evidence.

"I was at the meeting with the NFL's lead investigators in March. She was not there," Smith said. "Anyone, especially former prosecutors like both of us, know that what the league provided could never be called 'substantial evidence' of player participation in a pay-to-injure program.

"Worse yet, Mary Jo provided nothing new or compelling today beyond another press briefing."

Mary Jo White conference call transcript

On detailing the evidence and why it has not been released and Packers DE Anthony Hargrove's signed declaration:

I'm not going to comment on all of the specifics of the evidence that has been submitted by anyone.

No specifics.

When asked twice whether any players actually were paid for hits, White confirmed they were without going into specifics.

She was hired to sell what the NFL did because Billy Mays was unavailable.

So...because she did not comment on specifics that you feel you should have access to...and because the Union's counsel said the evidence was not that good...she must be lying right?

 

[sho nuff]

I'm interested in seeing what the evidence is. I would be shocked if, after 3 years of investigation, dozens of interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents (allegedly) the Commish had nothing on Vilma. He'd be a complete idiot to suspend people like he has with no evidence.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

I'm interested in seeing what the evidence is. I would be shocked if, after 3 years of investigation, dozens of interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents (allegedly) the Commish had nothing on Vilma. He'd be a complete idiot to suspend people like he has with no evidence.

I will echo that. I keep saying it, but Goodell and his team are not idiots. They would have taken everything into consideration.

Vilma is looking like an idiot by playing this card imo.

 

[5-ish Finkle]

Fajita

Lol

Peter: "I'll have three chicken fah-jai-tuhs..."Brian: "...and one sow-sag McMuffin."

 

[Tau837]

I'm interested in seeing what the evidence is. I would be shocked if, after 3 years of investigation, dozens of interviews and tens of thousands of pages of documents (allegedly) the Commish had nothing on Vilma. He'd be a complete idiot to suspend people like he has with no evidence.

I will echo that. I keep saying it, but Goodell and his team are not idiots. They would have taken everything into consideration.

 

[fatness]

So...because she did not comment on specifics that you feel you should have access to...and because the Union's counsel said the evidence was not that good...she must be lying right?

Not knowledgeable about what she was speaking about.

 

[fatness]

I'm interested in seeing what the evidence is.

So am I. My guess is that the NFL is going to keep much of it hidden, and release things selectively if it's necessary to release anything at all.

 

[fatness]

I don't believe the NFL had an ulterior motive here.

I think they had other motives.I think the harsh punishments were designed, among other things, to be a public show that the NFL is working hard to prevent player injuries. They are being sued by hundreds of players, after all. I think trotting out Mary Jo White a to provide a veneer of objective respectability for their actions was akin to "8 out of 10 dentists prefer...."; done to sell a product. I think they have a great deal of evidence against the Saints. I would also imagine they have other evidence that points in a contrary direction to the conclusions the NFL reached. I'd love to see all the evidence and so would everyone here, I'm sure. But I doubt we will.

 

[Instinctive]

Remember one of the reasons for this lawsuit is the lack of evidence given to the NFLPA to implicate Vilma. Now remember this is no longer the NFL Judicial System but the US Judicial System. Ginsburg already defeated the NFL when he represented the Vikings Williams brothers. Ginsburg has said Hargroves signed statement will not stand up in a US Court System. Ginsburg wants the NFL to publicly present evidence showing Vilma giving money to players and him stating this was for hits that occurred in games. Ginsburg has been on record stating the NFL does not have any hard evidence such as Video of monetary transactions taking place with Vilma, no bank statements showing large out of the ordinary withdrawals from Vilmas accounts. Ginsburg is stated Williams audio tapes and player statements such as Hargroves are heresay and will not stand up in court. I cannot wait for this to unfold and see what evidence the NFL rolls out and Ginsburg wants all evidence to be Public.

Ginsburg's statements are dumb. Defamation requires Vilma to prove that Goodell knew his statements were false. Goodell doesn't have to prove that the evidence he relied upon was infallible.

I think it's all just a ploy by Vilma to find out who snitched. Plus, he wants his money.

I thought defamation required a "reckless disregard for the truth". So it doesn't matter if Goodell knew they were false or not, just that he didn't do enough to figure it out for sure. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, but knowledge of falsity is not a requirement for guilt. That was my understanding though, you're the lawyer, aren't you? I'm just an aspiring undergrad still...Edit: to bold

 

[Christo]

So...because she did not comment on specifics that you feel you should have access to...and because the Union's counsel said the evidence was not that good...she must be lying right?

Not knowledgeable about what she was speaking about.

 

[Christo]

Remember one of the reasons for this lawsuit is the lack of evidence given to the NFLPA to implicate Vilma. Now remember this is no longer the NFL Judicial System but the US Judicial System. Ginsburg already defeated the NFL when he represented the Vikings Williams brothers. Ginsburg has said Hargroves signed statement will not stand up in a US Court System. Ginsburg wants the NFL to publicly present evidence showing Vilma giving money to players and him stating this was for hits that occurred in games. Ginsburg has been on record stating the NFL does not have any hard evidence such as Video of monetary transactions taking place with Vilma, no bank statements showing large out of the ordinary withdrawals from Vilmas accounts. Ginsburg is stated Williams audio tapes and player statements such as Hargroves are heresay and will not stand up in court. I cannot wait for this to unfold and see what evidence the NFL rolls out and Ginsburg wants all evidence to be Public.

Ginsburg's statements are dumb. Defamation requires Vilma to prove that Goodell knew his statements were false. Goodell doesn't have to prove that the evidence he relied upon was infallible.

I think it's all just a ploy by Vilma to find out who snitched. Plus, he wants his money.

I thought defamation required a "reckless disregard for the truth". So it doesn't matter if Goodell knew they were false or not, just that he didn't do enough to figure it out for sure. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation, but knowledge of falsity is not a requirement for guilt. That was my understanding though, you're the lawyer, aren't you? I'm just an aspiring undergrad still...Edit: to bold

Read the sentence following that one. Reckless disregard for the truth is essentially not performing an investigation. Not only did the league perform an investigation, it hired outsiders to review the findings of the investigation. So this case will come down to whether Goodell knew the statements to be false despite the investigation.

 

[Carter_Can_Fly]

Via Twitter from Jeff Darlinghton who is reporting on Goodell's presser today.

-Will we see some public proof, at some point, of bounties being paid as it pertains to the Saints controversy? Goodell says, "Yes, I do."

-Goodell would not respond with specifics, particularly as it pertains to Vilma lawsuit. But he clearly believes there's more to be revealed.

 

[sho nuff]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--sources--new-orleans-saints-kept-a--ledger--detailing-weekly-earnings-in-bounty-scandal.html

They apparently have a ledger.

 

[GroveDiesel]

at Atallah's lame response. "Fair due process." Ok. Maybe the NFL's response will be that they would have confronted the players with the evidence if they had actually shown up to the meetings the league requested of them before the punishments were levied.

 

[DoubleG]

So...because she did not comment on specifics that you feel you should have access to...and because the Union's counsel said the evidence was not that good...she must be lying right?

Not knowledgeable about what she was speaking about.

You realize that just because she doesn't tell the press what she knows, doesn't mean she doesn't have evidence, right?It is completely possible that she actually does have some idea what she's talking about - and that she just isn't sharing that information until the time is right.

Let's presume she actually does have all kinds of evidence that has been uncovered - what would be wiser:

1) Tell everyone in the press (and thus those that are the accused - and thus giving their attorney's plenty of time to manipulate public opinion, deny claims, come up with elaborate defense, etc.) or

2) Withold comment - assuring people that there is substantial evidence, and release it when/as necessary - and only when it is a legal necessity.

 

[Burl]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--sources--new-orleans-saints-kept-a--ledger--detailing-weekly-earnings-in-bounty-scandal.htmlThey apparently have a ledger.

Is there really any reason to deny this any longer? Suck it up and take your punishment like a man. Vilma only looks like a bigger idiot after this...

 

[fatness]

So...because she did not comment on specifics that you feel you should have access to...and because the Union's counsel said the evidence was not that good...she must be lying right?

Not knowledgeable about what she was speaking about.

You realize that just because she doesn't tell the press what she knows, doesn't mean she doesn't have evidence, right?It is completely possible that she actually does have some idea what she's talking about - and that she just isn't sharing that information until the time is right.

Let's presume she actually does have all kinds of evidence that has been uncovered

When she can't answer specific questions, you presume that means she knows what she's talking about. I presume it means she doesn't.

 

[fatness]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--sources--new-orleans-saints-kept-a--ledger--detailing-weekly-earnings-in-bounty-scandal.htmlThey apparently have a ledger.

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah said via text message that the league "made mention" of the ledger in a meeting with the union in April, but that the NFLPA had not seen the ledger yet.

So the NFL leaks what it wants to leak to the press, who reports it without seeing the ledger. OK.

 

[DoubleG]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--sources--new-orleans-saints-kept-a--ledger--detailing-weekly-earnings-in-bounty-scandal.html

They apparently have a ledger.

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah said via text message that the league "made mention" of the ledger in a meeting with the union in April, but that the NFLPA had not seen the ledger yet.

So the NFL leaks what it wants to leak to the press, who reports it without seeing the ledger. OK.

You're funny. You kinda left out this part:

According to sources, the NFL showed portions of the ledger during meetings with some of those who have been investigated in the scandal.

Kinda tough to show something you don't actually have.

Hey, that's okay - you can keep believing that the NFL really doesn't have any eveidence and that the earth is flat and whatever else you want. Please note: denying reality does not make it cease to be so.

 

[Christo]

So...because she did not comment on specifics that you feel you should have access to...and because the Union's counsel said the evidence was not that good...she must be lying right?

Not knowledgeable about what she was speaking about.

You realize that just because she doesn't tell the press what she knows, doesn't mean she doesn't have evidence, right?It is completely possible that she actually does have some idea what she's talking about - and that she just isn't sharing that information until the time is right.

Let's presume she actually does have all kinds of evidence that has been uncovered

When she can't answer specific questions, you presume that means she knows what she's talking about. I presume it means she doesn't.

Can't?

 

[Burl]

So...because she did not comment on specifics that you feel you should have access to...and because the Union's counsel said the evidence was not that good...she must be lying right?

Not knowledgeable about what she was speaking about.

You realize that just because she doesn't tell the press what she knows, doesn't mean she doesn't have evidence, right?It is completely possible that she actually does have some idea what she's talking about - and that she just isn't sharing that information until the time is right.

Let's presume she actually does have all kinds of evidence that has been uncovered

When she can't answer specific questions, you presume that means she knows what she's talking about. I presume it means she doesn't.

Can't?

I believe it is more a "can't" because the NFL doesn't want her to discuss things in detail more than a "can't" because she has no clue.

 

[Zigg]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--sources--new-orleans-saints-kept-a--ledger--detailing-weekly-earnings-in-bounty-scandal.html

They apparently have a ledger.

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah said via text message that the league "made mention" of the ledger in a meeting with the union in April, but that the NFLPA had not seen the ledger yet.

So the NFL leaks what it wants to leak to the press, who reports it without seeing the ledger. OK.

You're funny. You kinda left out this part:

According to sources, the NFL showed portions of the ledger during meetings with some of those who have been investigated in the scandal.

Kinda tough to show something you don't actually have.

Hey, that's okay - you can keep believing that the NFL really doesn't have any eveidence and that the earth is flat and whatever else you want. Please note: denying reality does not make it cease to be so.

Everything, including the wire tapping accusations, have been according to sources. Just show the evidence.

 

[sho nuff]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--sources--new-orleans-saints-kept-a--ledger--detailing-weekly-earnings-in-bounty-scandal.htmlThey apparently have a ledger.

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah said via text message that the league "made mention" of the ledger in a meeting with the union in April, but that the NFLPA had not seen the ledger yet.

So the NFL leaks what it wants to leak to the press, who reports it without seeing the ledger. OK.

So in your mind, they are lying about having it huh?Just how deep in the sand is your head buried?

 

[sho nuff]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--sources--new-orleans-saints-kept-a--ledger--detailing-weekly-earnings-in-bounty-scandal.html

They apparently have a ledger.

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah said via text message that the league "made mention" of the ledger in a meeting with the union in April, but that the NFLPA had not seen the ledger yet.

So the NFL leaks what it wants to leak to the press, who reports it without seeing the ledger. OK.

You're funny. You kinda left out this part:

According to sources, the NFL showed portions of the ledger during meetings with some of those who have been investigated in the scandal.

Kinda tough to show something you don't actually have.

Hey, that's okay - you can keep believing that the NFL really doesn't have any eveidence and that the earth is flat and whatever else you want. Please note: denying reality does not make it cease to be so.

Everything, including the wire tapping accusations, have been according to sources. Just show the evidence.

Why do you think you are entitled to see it?

 

[Zigg]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nfl--sources--new-orleans-saints-kept-a--ledger--detailing-weekly-earnings-in-bounty-scandal.html

They apparently have a ledger.

NFL Players Association spokesman George Atallah said via text message that the league "made mention" of the ledger in a meeting with the union in April, but that the NFLPA had not seen the ledger yet.

So the NFL leaks what it wants to leak to the press, who reports it without seeing the ledger. OK.

You're funny. You kinda left out this part:

According to sources, the NFL showed portions of the ledger during meetings with some of those who have been investigated in the scandal.

Kinda tough to show something you don't actually have.

Hey, that's okay - you can keep believing that the NFL really doesn't have any eveidence and that the earth is flat and whatever else you want. Please note: denying reality does not make it cease to be so.

Everything, including the wire tapping accusations, have been according to sources. Just show the evidence.

Why do you think you are entitled to see it?

I'm entitled to nothing, I assume the union however, is. To the best of my knowledge, the union and league are supposed to work together as best they can. If they have obvious proof of bounties, let the union have it. What's the point of playing games?

 

[sho nuff]

I believe the players had their chance and all declined meeting with the league prior to any suspensions.

 

[GregR]

One of the three grievances filed by the players has been denied by the special master. From PFT:

Five days after a hearing was held on the question of whether the discipline imposed on four players connected to the Saints alleged bounty system falls within Burbank’s sole jurisdiction under the labor deal, a source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that Burbank has rejected the players’ argument....Still pending is a separate grievance filed before arbitrator Shyam Das, who has been asked to decide whether the new CBA prevents Goodell from imposing any discipline on players for conduct occurring before it was signed, and also whether the appeals should be handled by Ted Cottrell or Art Shell, who have been jointly appointed by the NFL and the NFLPA to review discipline imposed by Goodell for on-field misconduct.