Saints players just set FREE (1 Viewer)

[fatness]

I don't see how this diminishes Goodell in the slightest. The basic findings on which Tags ruled appear unchanged. The players engaged in conduct detrimental to the league, and the Saints organization subverted and contaminated the process.

Tagliabue's law firm is defending Goodell in Vilma's defamation lawsuit. Pretending Tagliabue's findings are in any way objectively determined is hilarious. But keep grasping at straws to defend your boy.

 

[fatness]

Careful examination of the 22-page, single-spaced ruling generated by Tagliabue definitely confirms that Tagliabue has indeed tried to insulate Goodell from liability for defamation, if for no reason other than to insulate Tagliabue’s law firm from losing one of its most important clients.

link

Tagliabue is telling Goodell he shouldn’t have tried to defuse a time bomb with a hammer. The process requires more nuance, and Goodell’s predecessor invoked his own predecessor in order to show Goodell, in subtle fashion, why Tagliabue possibly thinks Goodell can’t hold the jock of the man whose car, according to the new TIME article, Goodell used to drive.

Specifically, Tagliabue cites “an important example” from the tenure of former Commissioner Pete Rozelle, who used “a short-term exemption from discipline as a means of swiftly facilitating an intensified effort to change a negative culture to enhance the health and safety of NFL players.” Tagliabue then explains (or, from Goodell’s perspective, lectures) the details.

It was the 1980s. And the NFL was (finally) waking up to the problem of steroids. “Rozelle developed and implemented a set of policies, prohibitions and testing regimens to identify steroid abusers and eliminate the safety and health risks,” Tagliabue writes, knowing full well that Goodell knows this because he was working in the league office at the time. “[Rozelle] included a discipline-free transition year in the new policy. Rozelle warned one-year in advance that a discipline policy suspending players for steroid use would be implemented the following season. Four months prior to the enforcement of the policy, all players were advised by letter of the specific disciplinary actions for steroid use. For that year, Rozelle sharpened the rules and set escalating penalties while withholding player discipline. Rozelle recognized the realities of team operations and sought to ensure uniform compliance and enforcement in several dozen team workplaces. He understood that sometimes it is necessary to clarify the rules — make sure everyone understands; postpone discipline for a while, not forever, but maybe for a season; and then enforce the rules with strict discipline.”

In other words, Tagliabue is telling Goodell, as gently as possible, that he needs to pump the brakes the next time he wants to break balls over whatever longstanding problem he suddenly decides needs to be eradicated. The fact that Tagliabue sent the message in a 22-page document that has been disclosed for the media to study makes it even more of a slap by the master to his former servant.

 

[fatness]

Tagliabue’s ruling doesn’t undermine Vilma’s defamation case

“[T]here is little evidence of the tone of any talk about a bounty before the Vikings game,” Tagliabue writes. “Was any bounty pledged serious? Was it inspirational only? Was it typical ‘trash talk’ that occurs regularly before and during games? The parties presented no clear answers. No witness could confirm whether Vilma had any money in his hands as he spoke; no evidence was presented that $10,000 was available to him for purposes of paying a bounty or otherwise. There was no evidence that Vilma or anyone else paid any money to any player for any bounty-related hit on an opposing player in the Vikings game.”

In other words, Tagliabue wasn’t able to determine that the words uttered by Vilma were real, that he meant what he said and intended to act on it.

Vilma's lawyer wants all the testimony released to the public

attorney Peter Ginsberg says that while former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue did the right thing by lifting Vilma’s suspension, Tagliabue now needs to publicly release all of the testimony he relied on in making his decision in the bounty case.

 

[Doug B]

For the novelty value -- Stephen A. Smith apologizes to Jonathan Vilma.

Good links, fatness. Though ... the more I read about Vilma's defamation case, the less of a chance I think he has to win. Still, that makes me think that just getting to discovery in Judge Berrigan's court is Vilma and Ginsberg's true goal.

 

[cobalt_27]

Since some of you have set a pretty low bar here for Vilma in this defamation case, i'd be curious to hear what exactly you would like to learn in this discovery / testimony process? I ask because many of you seem highly defensive and protective of Vilma and others, and seem to regard the public record and perception of this program's existance as flawed.

In light of the fact that, realistically, Vilma is fighting a fool's battle on the defamation issue, and you've conceded this is about setting the record straight, what exactly are you hoping comes out that will change anyone's mind? In other words, what would information would get you to come in here and say to me and others, "Ha! See, I told you so, now eat some crow."

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Since some of you have set a pretty low bar here for Vilma in this defamation case, i'd be curious to hear what exactly you would like to learn in this discovery / testimony process? I ask because many of you seem highly defensive and protective of Vilma and others, and seem to regard the public record and perception of this program's existance as flawed.

In light of the fact that, realistically, Vilma is fighting a fool's battle on the defamation issue, and you've conceded this is about setting the record straight, what exactly are you hoping comes out that will change anyone's mind? In other words, what would information would get you to come in here and say to me and others, "Ha! See, I told you so, now eat some crow."

I don't know what to say at this point.This whole thing is a prism through anyone watching from afar can take away whatever they want to take away.

My thought: these men and the fans, and the people whose livelihoods are affected by Saints games and attendance and success and the like, are entitled to see all the evidence.

That means:

- All the emails that the NFL has and all the electronic and paper documents they have collected and all the notes and transcripts from all of their interviews and other research. I do not expect all of the public to see all of this but if the men who were suspended or their union get the chance to look at everything I am sure "the other side of the story" will come out. - I say this as a matter of due process and also just pure right and wrong.

Example: Jimmy Kennedy of the Minnesota Vikings. The NFL put his statements up as evidence in their support. As it turns out he has stated under oath that the NFL completely fabricated (ie lied) about almost everything. Now if it weren't for Vilma this would have never come to light.

Another example: if the Union and the Saints 4 had not pressed their case Tags would not have overruled Goodell. I get it, he said the process was tainted and the Saints' organization was "dirty" as you have put it. Odd thing is the Saints ORGANIZATION was from the beginning the least penalized party in all of this as they were fined just $500,000.

Another example: What Tags said about the Saints' organization is itself compromised (ie tainted) because (1) the NFL is faced with a much huger looming crisis in the concussion damages cases, to what extent did that impact their decision making? (2) The NFL is both complaining party and the judge and the jury here; to what extent did they put up a firewall between fairly considering the evidence versus letting their own prejudices and desires affect their judgements? (3) Once challenged on their own pronouncements how much did the NFL seek to cover up their own impure (ie "dirty") activities, not only in this particular case but in the decades going back as to similar "pay for performance" programs? An example of the third would be their 1996 memo to all teams authorizing the exact same kind of program with Hall of Famer Reggie White and the hallowed Green Bay Packers and their 1999 settlement with the family of Steelers great Mike Webster.

(4) Just how much did the NFL actively and consciously manufacture evidence? - Example: bringing forth as public evidence (a) the fact that the Saints' coaches had a picture of "Dog The Bounty Hunter" and (b) an audio of an unidentifiable person shouting the equivalent of "show me the money" is basically like a DA bringing a case based on evidence including a picture of the defendant holding a knife and then accusing him of a knife murder, essentially saying "See! See! He's clearly a knife wielding maniac!"

Etc.

I have much due respect for all the intelligent football fans who defend the NFL on this. It is a matter of principle, that people should not be trying to intentionally injure and harm others, but it is quite another thing to realize that there is always much much much more to the picture when the accusing person tries so hard to keep you from seeing ALL the evidence.

 

[Doug B]

... many of you seem ... to regard the public record and perception of this program's existance as flawed.

In light of the fact that, realistically, Vilma is fighting a fool's battle on the defamation issue, and you've conceded this is about setting the record straight, what exactly are you hoping comes out that will change anyone's mind? In other words, what would information would get you to come in here and say to me and others, "Ha! See, I told you so, now eat some crow."

Ginsberg prepared a statement for the players Tuesday that contains some telling choices of words:

"Roger Goodell has been trying every conceivable maneuver to avoid real and honest scrutiny of his manufactured allegations that Jonathan Vilma engaged in a bounty program aimed at opposing players and Jonathan has been fighting to have an open and fair review of those accusations."

I take that to mean that they feel like Goodell (or someone reporting to him) straight up invented "facts" about this case. If -- an immense if, obviously -- that could be proven in a public forum ... well, the ramifications don't need to be spelled out.

 

[Doug B]

I don't know what to say at this point.

This whole thing is a prism through anyone watching from afar can take away whatever they want to take away.

That's why I asked "what is truth?" a posts back.

 

[Doug B]

Example: Jimmy Kennedy of the Minnesota Vikings. The NFL put his statements up as evidence in their support. As it turns out he has stated under oath that the NFL completely fabricated (ie lied) about almost everything. Now if it weren't for Vilma this would have never come to light.

Maybe this is one example of what Ginsberg was getting at. ...

EDIT: Perhaps another example:

I searched and didn't see this discussed in the other multiple threads about the release of the transcripts. Anyway, I think it's important enough for its own thread and want to discuss in detail. According to the AP story, Cerullo testified in the recent hearings that he didn't collect any money during the 2009 playoffs. From the AP article:

Cerullo testified that league investigators misrepresented what he told them, and that, during the playoffs following the 2009 regular season, he kept track of large playoff pledges on note pads but didn’t collect the money.

Now, compare that to what [Cerullo] said in his affidavit back in May:

I personally collected the money that Mr. Vilma left on a table at the front of the room and subsequently gave it to Mr. Williams for safekeeping.

This quote was in reference to the pre-game meeting before the playoff game against the Cardinals in 2009. The full quote is in Paragraph 13 of his affidavit.

How in the world can anyone reconcile these two statements? And this is the guy Tagliabue found to be credible, particularly his testimony pertaining to the alleged bounty offered by Vilma. Am I missing something here? How did it get to the point that this idiot was allowed to derail an entire season for an NFL team? WOW!!!

Disclaimer: I have not read the recent hearing transcripts and am relying on what the AP reporter wrote. However, if the article is accurate, it's more obvious now than ever that Cerullo is a liar, and shame on Tabliabue for believing anything he said.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Example: Jimmy Kennedy of the Minnesota Vikings. The NFL put his statements up as evidence in their support. As it turns out he has stated under oath that the NFL completely fabricated (ie lied) about almost everything. Now if it weren't for Vilma this would have never come to light.

Maybe this is one example of what Ginsberg was getting at. ...

EDIT: Perhaps another example:

I searched and didn't see this discussed in the other multiple threads about the release of the transcripts. Anyway, I think it's important enough for its own thread and want to discuss in detail. According to the AP story, Cerullo testified in the recent hearings that he didn't collect any money during the 2009 playoffs. From the AP article:

Cerullo testified that league investigators misrepresented what he told them, and that, during the playoffs following the 2009 regular season, he kept track of large playoff pledges on note pads but didn’t collect the money.

Now, compare that to what [Cerullo] said in his affidavit back in May:

I personally collected the money that Mr. Vilma left on a table at the front of the room and subsequently gave it to Mr. Williams for safekeeping.

This quote was in reference to the pre-game meeting before the playoff game against the Cardinals in 2009. The full quote is in Paragraph 13 of his affidavit.

How in the world can anyone reconcile these two statements? And this is the guy Tagliabue found to be credible, particularly his testimony pertaining to the alleged bounty offered by Vilma. Am I missing something here? How did it get to the point that this idiot was allowed to derail an entire season for an NFL team? WOW!!!

Disclaimer: I have not read the recent hearing transcripts and am relying on what the AP reporter wrote. However, if the article is accurate, it's more obvious now than ever that Cerullo is a liar, and shame on Tabliabue for believing anything he said.

That part about Cerullo is pretty incredible. The NFL was not exactly placing their bet on a sterling witness there at any rate.

If the NFL would just back off that statement about the $10,000 cash payout Vilma might just be satisfied, they could roll over Cerullo before Cerullo rolls them.

I also think Vilma's point about asking why he would supposedly offer a bounty for Warner in the NFCD playoff and $10,000 for Favre's head in the NFCC but make no such offer of any kind for Payton Manning in the actual Super Bowl is a really good one. Makes no sense.

 

[Zigg]

Let's face it, Goodell won. He made it look like he cares about player safety, he sabotaged the Saints season, and no one cares that at no point did he have any credible proof. Lemmings like cobalt, and many others continue to think the Saints are evil, completely disregarding the lack of evidence against the Saints. Looks like the Saints season was sacrificed for PR, and worst of all, Benson seems ok with that.

 

[cobalt_27]

It is disingenuous and inaccurate to say there is no evidence, zigg. There is evidence. Whether it is credible, accurate, and enough to warrant punishment is up for disagreement. But, you undermine any credibility when you make statements like that.

 

[cobalt_27]

I don't know what to say at this point.

This whole thing is a prism through anyone watching from afar can take away whatever they want to take away.

My thought: these men and the fans, and the people whose livelihoods are affected by Saints games and attendance and success and the like, are entitled to see all the evidence.

I agree with you. My concern is this: The NFL claims the Saints organization, top to bottom, has been less than forthcoming in cooperating with the allegations and, in fact, have obstructed the process throughout. I think the confusion here has been treating this as though is a court of law. It is not. In the judicial branch, we are rightfully conditioned to believe the onus is on the prosecution to deliver on the evidence. And, the prosecution in this sense wields a pretty mighty stick that can compel individuals, organizations, entities to provide such evidence in such a way that the NFL in its investigation cannot, nor should it. The league and NFLPA bargained that the commissioner's office has the right to make such decisions at its discretion. And, honestly, what peeves me about this whole thing is that, say what you want about the evidence for/against the bounty system...the Saints clearly have not cooperated. And, they have been recidivist offenders in this. So, yeah, I'd like to see the evidence, too. But, the Saints own a huge portion of the blame here in not revealing--and in fact obstructing--what evidence there is

That means:

- All the emails that the NFL has and all the electronic and paper documents they have collected and all the notes and transcripts from all of their interviews and other research. I do not expect all of the public to see all of this but if the men who were suspended or their union get the chance to look at everything I am sure "the other side of the story" will come out. - I say this as a matter of due process and also just pure right and wrong.

Again, see above. Not sure why the NFL would hand everything over when the players and coaches have not done the same.

Example: Jimmy Kennedy of the Minnesota Vikings. The NFL put his statements up as evidence in their support. As it turns out he has stated under oath that the NFL completely fabricated (ie lied) about almost everything. Now if it weren't for Vilma this would have never come to light.

Another example: if the Union and the Saints 4 had not pressed their case Tags would not have overruled Goodell. I get it, he said the process was tainted and the Saints' organization was "dirty" as you have put it. Odd thing is the Saints ORGANIZATION was from the beginning the least penalized party in all of this as they were fined just $500,000.

Wait a minute? So, a half-a-million and how many draft picks...that isn't significantly penalizing the organization? Are you suggesting that the NFL didn't put its money where its mouth is in punishing the team? Because, gosh...I think it was harsh. I applaud it, but I think that was a severe punishment for the repeat offense and obstructing the investigation. And, I recall most Saints fans going ape #### over this. Are we now feeling this wasn't a significant punishment? Because, if so, that's really interesting. I thought they got hammered good.

Another example: What Tags said about the Saints' organization is itself compromised (ie tainted) because (1) the NFL is faced with a much huger looming crisis in the concussion damages cases, to what extent did that impact their decision making? (2) The NFL is both complaining party and the judge and the jury here; to what extent did they put up a firewall between fairly considering the evidence versus letting their own prejudices and desires affect their judgements? (3) Once challenged on their own pronouncements how much did the NFL seek to cover up their own impure (ie "dirty") activities, not only in this particular case but in the decades going back as to similar "pay for performance" programs? An example of the third would be their 1996 memo to all teams authorizing the exact same kind of program with Hall of Famer Reggie White and the hallowed Green Bay Packers and their 1999 settlement with the family of Steelers great Mike Webster.

Honestly, I've read this 4 times, and I still don't have any idea where you're going with this. Can you cliff notes this for me? I didn't take my Adderall this afternoon.

(4) Just how much did the NFL actively and consciously manufacture evidence? - Example: bringing forth as public evidence (a) the fact that the Saints' coaches had a picture of "Dog The Bounty Hunter" and (b) an audio of an unidentifiable person shouting the equivalent of "show me the money" is basically like a DA bringing a case based on evidence including a picture of the defendant holding a knife and then accusing him of a knife murder, essentially saying "See! See! He's clearly a knife wielding maniac!"

If the evidence were limited to just this, sure I'd agree it's not sufficient. But, it's not. And, none of this to my knowledge was manufactured.

I have much due respect for all the intelligent football fans who defend the NFL on this. It is a matter of principle, that people should not be trying to intentionally injure and harm others, but it is quite another thing to realize that there is always much much much more to the picture when the accusing person tries so hard to keep you from seeing ALL the evidence.

I am with you. I think all of the evidence should be considered, the Saints as a team and all the individual players should have cooperated fully with the investigation, and then see how it all played out. I think it would have been much less of an ordeal, overall.

 

[GroveDiesel]

A federal judge just dismissed Vilma's lawsuit. Game over for Vilma's revenge. Looks like Bountygate is all wrapped up.