Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Any information not related to Vilma and the Saints would be redacted anyway. No information about other people or teams will be made public. If anything, Goddell will probably be vindicated and be put in an even stronger position once he wins this defamation suit.
Why are people dismissing Vilma's side so quickly as if he's representing himself? I'm pretty sure his lawyer knows the situation and made an educated decision to file suit. BTW, lets get a lawyer in here to tell us who has to prove what. Obviously makes a huge difference.
And if he loses?
She was paid league counsel. Her word doesn't constitute evidence.That said, if she's right, it will presumably come out.
Not one of our FBG lawyers, but even saintsreport.com has some attorneys as members:
So from the get-go, there's already some hurdles for Vilma's legal team to straddle.
Vilma is a public figure. So to win his case, he has to prove that Goodell lied and knew he was lying.And presumably Vilma is paying his lawyer. I'm not sure why having a lawyer is somehow proof that Vilma is telling the truth.
Even if the team is a united front, you're still missing coaches, players and a GM over this whole flap and your uber franchise QB has not signed yet.Otherwise, yes, I wonder if there will be pressure on certain individuals testimony, whether from the team and/or Vilma, or even the NFL. "The whole truth and nothing but the truth" could really cause some havoc here for either side.
Yeah, good luck with that. This isn't going anywhere, even though I'm sure most fans of the team, stained by the mess they created, certainly hope this is a step toward redemption. But, it's not. It's a dirty team and going to take years to clean house and make it a respectable franchise again. And, to think...was such a feel good story.
Whatever the odds look like now, I'm curious to see where it leads.
This. Vilma (and by extension Saints fans) are throwing a tantrum right now. But, at the end of the day, there is zero chance (not 90%, not 95%, not 99.9999% chance, but 0.0% chance) that Vilma gets this case to trial and wins. His reputation is mud, and he's trying to haul off a Hail Mary in an effort to redeem it...instead of doing the right thing and acknowledging that he's an ###.
You can find a lawyer who will sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean it is justified. Not saying Goodell is always right but his team is made up of pretty much all attorneys so I'm guessing they have a pretty solid case.
Wanted the house to be aware that I edited the top of post #61 to give the link. For a homer-board thread, there's actually some good, grounded info in there.Interesting. Not surprising, but interesting, nonetheless.
That is an interesting question. In theory, if Goodell has evidence of criminal conduct, but deciding to not release that information previously in making his initial suspensions, could Vilma's filing backfire by prompting such a release from the commissioner's office?
I'm an attorney, and while I make no claims whatsoever to be an expert in defamation litigation, I agree with the points made by superchuck above. Also, if Vilma's case does survive Goodell's motion to dismiss, it WON'T be the case as someone suggested in an earlier post that Vilma will have to prove that Goodell is lying. Even if Goodell didn't know that the statements he made were false, if he made the defamatory statements about Vilma "with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity", Vilma wins. The bottom line is that (again, assuming the case past the dismissal motion) Goodell will have to show what evidence he relied upon in making the assertions against Vilma.On a side note, I suspect that Vilma and his attorneys may have at least some basis for the claim. I'm not saying that Vilma was or wasn't involved in the bounty scandal -- I don't have the facts -- but I'd be a little surprised if someone in his shoes would do this if he didn't even have a colorable claim ... for example, if Vilma did do what he was accused of but knows that Goodell has no real evidence to prove it.
From what I heard ont he radio, an announcer said that the document in the investigation is avtually spanning multiple years and was literally a few thousand pieces of paper. What I meant was that maybe these guys do some really thorough investigating and as they have talked to players around the leagues, some of them have expounded some additional information and this isn't an isolated issue. The NFL has a lawsuit consisting of a couple thousand NFL players suing over concussions right now. I think it would be very damaging for the NFL if they had to reveal this lengthy dcument and it came to light that this was more common leaguewide and not isolated. I think that would strengthen the other lawsuit. So, in some ways, I think this is really very little to do about Vilma in the grand scheme and the bigger prize may be that the NFL wants its reputation to be protected and portray this as a one time, isolated issue.'RUSF18 said:
Now I'm really starting to think that there is information in this thing that would hurt the NFL (give them a black eye or support the notion that this is not an isolated event). I know a few people have said that the information wouldn't necessarily become public to all ut I would think there has to be a legitimate fear of leaks. Things get leaked..like the list of all the doped up baseball players a few years ago. I really think the unseen pressure here is that this could open up a can of worms that has little to do with Vilma in the grand scheme of things.'Lambert said:
Yeah for trying to ruin the league by limiting concussions. Oh but let's sue the NFL because we had concussions while we were playing and they did nothing.
Some might have programs...but when it came out that GB had a program among defenders to hold RBs under 100 yards...it was shut down quickly by the league.The Saints are not a scapegoat...they are being used because they got caught big time...warned...lied...and kept going on with their program.More then just the Saints participate in pay for incentive style bonuses. I would bet that the number is closer to the fact that most teams do have programs along these lines, even if it's just quietly among players. The saints are being used a scape goat or as an example by goddell as a warning to the other teams. when the news broke that goddell was going after a defensive coach for a bounty program, 31 other defensive coordinators breathed a sigh of relief when they realized it wasn't them.'Herb said:
not saying they didn't play hard or take shots at players, but man watch some film of the NFL from the 70s and 80s for crying out loud. the steelers may not have won a super bowl in the 70s with the pampering toward offensive players now.
When you go through discovery, the NFL will redact all the non-relevant information before it gets to Vilma's counsel. The parties will go through negotitations to determine what information is relevant and what is not.If the NFL has an original document like this for example:Q: Have you ever participated in a bounty program?Fajita: Yes.Q: For which teams?Fajita: Chiefs and Saints.By the time it gets to opposing counsel it will look something like this:Q: Have you ever participated in a bounty program?[Redacted]: Yes.Q: For which teams?[Redacted]: [Redacted] Saints.You're not gonna really get a ton of extra information from the discovery.
Part of the Saints' collective stance is that (a) while there was ordinary pay-for-performance going on, (b) the league over-reached in regarding it a "bounties for injury" scheme and ( c) the league cannot possibly have evidence that proves a bounties-for-injuries scheme took place.Whether the Saints are right or not is presumably yet to be determined. Note that this is the upshot of the team's many statements, not a collective fans' take. .
I am an attorney here in NY. 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. As a plaintiff, Vilma has the burden to prove his case. Here, he has to prove that Goodell intentionally defamed him. Based upon the above, and everything else I have seen, he has very little chance of proving that, whether he paid for illegal hits or not. Even if he didn't, as long as the NFL had a good faith basis for acting as it did, they can't be found guilty of defamation as that is an intentional act.All the lawyers involved wil know this. This is why I believe it is simply a PR move in an attempt to scare the NFL into reducing the suspension so as to avoid other things that allegedly came up during the investigation.'Zigg said:
It's pretty hard to take claim (c) seriously when anyone can go out to youtube and listen for himself to definitive proof that a bounty was offered for injury.I think the crux of the player's argument is whether there is evidence they participated in the funding and administering of the bounty for injury aspect of the program, which is the primary reason behind their suspensions. The evidence we the public have seen is enough by itself to solidly prove that bounties for injury were offered by at least Gregg Williams, but to prove it of the players the NFL needs more.
Does Williams' speech unambiguously get there, though? Recall that there's no video ... if you're referring to the "I've got the first one ..." statement, that may not be concrete enough.Remember, also -- that audio was not part of the NFL's investigation.
If that evidence and the testimony of the person who recorded it show up in a trial it's concrete enough for anyone not viewing it through homer-colored glasses.
What does that have to do with anything? It's solid evidence. Don't we want to know the truth and for any punishment to reflect what actually transpired? So why would it matter if it was not known before? It certainly is now.Actually, I'm being hasty. There is an important implication. It means that an independent AG thought the other evidence the NFL had was solid, without even taking into account the smoking gun of the tape.
Goodell and his team are not idiots. You have to believe they have covered themselves all the way through this and discussed all the alternatives that may come from the suspensions. My guess is Vilma and his team will have no chance of winning any part of this case. Vilma is grasping at straws. This whole bounty scandal is classless and to me and many fans Vilma trying to counter it by suing the commishoner is another nail in his coffin. Dirt bag move by someone who did a dirt bag act!
One of the lawyers can correct me here if I'm wrong, but to try to avoid confusion on who has to prove what...In Louisiana there are apparently five elements that must be met to be found guilty of defamation. 1) Defamatory words. 2) Published to someone other than the defamed party. 3) Falsity. 4) Malice. 5) Resulting injury.
My guess is the reason is it would be bad for the game. There are some things that are better for the game left discussed between employee and employer. Goodell has done one heck of a job of trying to clean up the NFL on and off the field. I don't know if people on here are Saints fans or Vilam fans, but the commisshoner and his team have been making huge strides in the right direction for the game of football. The owners (who own the teams and players) gave Goodell a huge vote of confidence by extending his contract through to 2018. Some of you need to seriously sort it out. Goodell is far from perfect but he has clearly but doing arguably the best job of any commisshoner in history for his tenure thus far.
So the NFL:1) knows that everyone does it,2) knows that everyone knows that everyone does it and3) still hands out surprisingly harsh penalties...4) ...because they thought the scapegoats wouldn't retaliate?Comeon. If there is this mass conspiracy involving 31 other teams and the league front office, Goodell and company had already game planned Vilma's possible responses BEFORE they handed out the suspensions. And they did so with their primary goal being protection of the brand. If Vilma really had a smoking gun, they never would have hammered him as hard as they did in the first place leaving that as his only play.It's this simple, the NFL calculated that it had more to gain (or less to lose) by hammering Vilma and company and defending the inevitable appeals and counterclaims than it had to gain (or lose) by ignoring the issue or handing out token slaps on the wrist.
Plaintiff's (in this case, Vilma) normally carry the burden of proof. That means Vilma has to prove what Goodell said was both false and malicious. The malicious part can be tricky since someone can be wrong (false) in what they say but not have been malicious. If what Goodell said is a reasonable conclusion based on the info he had available to him, then it's probably game over for Vilma's suit.
Most of us learned that "two wrongs don't make a right" when we were 5 or 6 years old. Even if everyone is participating in a bounty system (which I doubt), if you know your behavior is incorrect and risk getting caught, then it's a no-brainer for me.
And everyone who heard the voice of Williams knows that saying they don't have evidence is pretty much foolish.Whether they are right or not has been determined by most that are not A. connected with the organization or B. fans of said team that can't open their eyes and are still trying to hold on to some hope that their team did not do all of this.
So for the record, Vilma in his suit contends that taking out a bounty on another player is a) a criminal act, and b) an act so egregious that just accusing someone of it is a clear sign of malice.Glad to hear he doesn't think it's something that belongs in the game of football.'Doug B said:
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.
