But all of that is really beside the original point of the post–that for the NFL to accomplish its PR goals, it does need to disclose the evidence, regardless of any legal or contractual obligation to do so.

1) The NFL is NOT just any private business that can do whatever they like. They’re an organization that is governed by a collective bargaining agreement that allows it to get around many anti-trust laws that it could not necessarily violate if not for the CBA. It therefore HAS to comply with said CBA in ANY decisions regarding how it operates it’s players, especially in regards to how it affects it’s employees (players).

2) Then, there’s the idea that the NFLPA has signed over complete authority to Goodell to hand out discipline and then review the appeal as he sees fit without any independent body in the pipeline to second guess him. That’s wrong. Goodell has that authority (wrongly I beleive. Thank you Pac Man Jones you idiot!!) for incidents happening OFF the field of play. He does NOT have the same authority when it comes to ON field discipline. The NFLPA is arguing, and I think they’re dead on, that the pay to injure scheme was an on field situation and therefore the appeals process should run through Ted Cottrell and Art Shell who have been hired jointly for on the field situations. Instead of utilizing that method Goodell has utilized his authority under the player off the field conduct policy in an attempt to circumvent the accused players from mounting a successful defense.

3) Some fans are also throwing out the idea that the NFL doesn’t have to prove anything to anyone. Unfortunately, that’s also untrue. People this is not a court of law. It’s a grievance proceeding governed by a CBA. Unless this is the first CBA in the history of the world that allows the employer to arbitrarily fine and suspend employees without providing a shred of evidence then the NFL is REQUIRED to provide the evidence requested by the NFLPA. They don’t have to give the media anything but their obligations under the CBA and the National Labor Relations Act state that the employer must provide relevant information that it is using to justify their discipline to the employee’s union representative. Under a CBA, the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the employer to prove that the the discipline was justified and reasonable, and that the employer did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in utilizing their right to discipline said employee. Unions even have the right to interview witnesses that the employer is using to support their case for discipline. Otherwise the due process rights of the accused are violated. Especially since the evidence so far sounds like its all allegations from other players and maybe coaches. If the only evidence the NFL has against these accused players is testimony from these “witnesses/whistleblowers” then the Union has every right to refuse to take the NFL’s word for it that they said what they said and they then have every right to attack the credibility and testimony of these witnesses in defense of their accused members Again, I’m not talking about a court of law. All of these things are allowed for under every CBA I have ever seen and under the NLRA. Hell, I’m only surprised the NFLPA has t filed a labor charge as of now.

4) I’m also hearing an argument that “Of course this independent counsel isn’t really independent but the NFLPA lawyer isn’t either!!” The big difference in the two is that the NFLPA lawyer isn’t pretending to be independent either as is the NFL’s little fraud. The NFLPA lawyer will tell you right up front who he’s representing. Will Mary Jo??

Of course, who’s to say they aren’t paid at a later date…right? I’m not necessarily sticking up for her, I am saying she doesn’t seem to be getting the benefit of the doubt here…quite the opposite, in fact.

As far as assuming that I give her a free pass, just because of her credentials. No, I typically don’t trust lawyers any further than I can throw them. However, I find it interesting that major figures in both the Republican and Democratic party’s have used this woman in the past, and appointed her to fairly important and high profile assignments. And while wading through the mire that is both political parties she kept her nose clean….quite interesting.

Could she be a puppet for the NFL? Certainly, but she’d be risking her reputation, and likely her position at her private firm in the process, possibly more….would think the kind of person that takes, would sell out long before this point in their career.

In any event, your suggestion that someone’s credentials make them immune from any wrongdoing is somewhat laughable.

She isn’t leading the prosecution of a case, she simply observed the facts they had. Now, before we go questioning this woman’s integrity. How about we take a look at her credentials, shall we?

-B.S. from College of William and Mary, 1970
-Obtained her law degree from Columbia Law School in 1974
-Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York in 1992
-Appointed US Attorney for the Southern District of New York in March 1993 by President Clinton

Notable cases she oversaw the prosecutions of:
-John Gotti
-1993 WTC Terrorists including Ramzi Yousef

She was also appointed by AG Ashcroft to investigate the pardon (Clinton) of Marc Rich, who was indicted for oil deals w/ Iran during the 70′s and 80′s.

What strikes me here is that both Clinton and Ashcroft used her during their terms, which means she’s pretty good at staying impartial. And her more noteworthy cases aren’t fluff either. She’s been doing this awhile and knows the responsibilities of any lawyer.

“I represent the NFL. Since I have come back into private practice, I have advised the NFL on a number of matters, including other significant disciplinary matters. In terms of am I independent, the answer is yes I am. Indeed, my task was, although retained by the NFL, to do an independent review of the evidence and the process in order to ensure that it was clearly the case, based on my review, that there was strong evidentiary support and that the process being followed was thorough and fair.”

Based on that, she fully disclosed her conflict of interest, so the label “independent” is more a matter of opinion than representation of fact.

I will say this though, if it IS worse, again it falls under perception of image. The NFL represents a MASSIVE amount of money, and Gooddell, the owners, team management and their players certainly do not want to see their image tarnished any further. They’re constantly wanting to draw in new people, and that typically isn’t going to happen if you keep making the news for underhanded events, such as this.

In all likelihood, the reasoning is damage control. They probably feel that the more evidence they present, the NFL will be viewed that much more negatively. But, who knows, I could totally be wrong.

If this DOES go to court, then the entire thing changes. Because then the NFL will be forced into full disclosure, and the offending parties are certainly due their chance to address their accusers. But, right now, at this stage of the incident, the NFL simply does not have to do anything more than they already have.

I know, it’s naive to trust any lawyer, in anything (Florio’s a Lawyer, isn’t he?), but it really depends on what the NFL hired her to do. If they hired her simply to analyze the evidence they have, and give them a no BS assessment of what they have…shouldn’t that believable?

HP is one such company, EDS (before HP bought them out) is another. These aren’t just small entities, they’re massive.

And you’d be surprised as to how many companies function this way, because they can. Is it right? Nope. But they do it anyway. That’s how they’ve forced worker productivity to rise 100%+ in the years of the financial crisis, while increasing profits to record levels, keeping wages stagnant, and not hiring new people. I’m really being honest here, this is common practice for most Big Businesses.

I wouldn’t presume to know why, but who knows, it could be far worse than we know. Understand? I can see how this is probably frustrating for some, but honestly, I just don’t care. The Saints did bad, and they’re getting punished for it. Will we ever see all the information? No. Will those who’re accused/guilty? Unlikely, but they’ll probably see more than we ever will (and probably already have).

I just don’t see what the big deal is, nor do I agree that ‘all the evidence’ should be made public, as Florio keeps clamoring for.

Beyond that, you’re more than welcome to continue barking up this tree as long as you want. You can join Florio on this one. It won’t change a thing. You’re not getting any information you’re not entitled to by law, unless Gooddell feels its in the NFL’s best interest. You can label them with Nazi-esque names all you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that neither you, nor Florio, have any authority over this matter.

If you back out of a meeting with your boss, that in itself is grounds for dismissal. Heck, making an appointment with your boss, and then backing out of it, especially under these circumstances in itself is grounds for some kind of punishment.

Full disclosure of evidence would mean that people are asking for the names of the whistle blowers and their testimony. Mike Florio has not stated otherwise.

There is no tide to turn here, until it goes to court, period. As the duly appointed boss of the NFL (By the owners, and agreed upon by the players), Gooddell, by law, has every right to continue as he has. The only possible exception to this, is if Gooddell feels the image of the NFL is being tarnished by him withholding the information, and I posit the NFL’s image has already been tarnished by the Saints behavior over the past 3 years.

“It’s also entirely likely that Vilma will never be given the names of the original whistle blowers.”

And I still don’t have a clue where some of you are getting this idea. Is it something y’all are just making up? Nobody involved in this has asked about the “whistle blowers”. They just want to see the evidence of wrongdoing that led to their punishment. The tide is quickly turning in their favor on this also. Not just from fans but from fellow athletes and reporters too.

Two things-

1. Because Roger Goodell isn’t required to.

2. If the evidence is as damning as Goodell makes it out to be it might actually be in the players and coaches/coordinators involved best interests that he holds on to that evidence and it never sees the light of day. Its possible the reason Goodell is holding on to that evidence is to protect said involved person(s) from further punishment/ legal action outside of the NFL. And further more if I’m Vilma or any of the other players/ coaches, and I believe I’m innocent, I’m not preparing to appeal the NFL’s punishment, I’m lawyering up for a defamation suit. Goodell has very good reasons to hold his cards tight to his chest. Damage control being the most important.

Not sure if you’re aware, but if you are going to get fired, or suspended, not going to meet the boss doesn’t stop that from happening.

Again, people are just upset that the public isn’t being given the full facts to this case. Sorry, but that’s just not going to happen. Not now, and likely not ever.

It’s also entirely likely that Vilma will never be given the names of the original whistle blowers. Why? Because their stories have already been corroborated by Hargrove (in writing, given to the NFL by the NFLPA), and if Williams ever wants to work in the NFL again, it’s likely that he too, will add further first-hand testimony to this case.

Lastly, in the case of a company being told of misconduct by it’s employees, from another employee internally, that persons identity is typically kept private. It’s why they have independent HR departments, for taking anonymous complaints/tips etc…

No, but the person being fired is, which the NFL has categorically refused to do. Jon Vilma found out about his suspension from Sportscenter for crying out loud. There is a boatload of fishiness about this whole thing and the only way the NFL can dispel it is to allow the participants to view the evidence (or lack thereof) in person.

That’s the point, neither Spygate, or Bountygate are subject to disclosure laws, because they were handled internally by the business itself.

There is almost certainly very sensitive material in the league’s reports detailing who exposed the bounty system, and which individuals cooperated with the NFL’s investigation. These persons could be at risk for injury or other types of retribution if they were exposed for trying to end the Saints’ bounty program.

Florio also knows that the NFL (and especially the players who were paid bounties) do not want law enforcement involved in their affairs. Can you imagine what anarchy it would be if there were a criminal investigation after every injury or fight on the field?

Complain all you want about Roger Goodell being the “judge, jury and executioner,” but the NFL and the NFLPA both agreed on the system.

When people are fired, or suspended from work, is the public always made aware of the reasons, or evidence behind that matter? No, not unless it goes to the courts. And this incident has yet to be seen or heard by ANY judge.

This situation does not fall under any disclosure laws. Therefore, the bellyaching about giving the public all the evidence, is merely people not quite understanding reality.

I’m sure Mike felt the same way about Spygate, and I’m pretty sure he got nothing out of that deal either.