Comments on: Vilma’s lawyer says possibility of fair hearing is “pure fantasy”

By: dretwann

dretwann — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:51:44 +0000

I think we can all agree that Goodell has a paternalistic approach to being the commissioner of the NFL. It is evident in the way punishment is levied: inconsistently. So, his handling of this situation is no different. If NFL has evidence why not share? As a dad, if I caught or were supplied evidence of my sons’ wrongdoing, I’m not gonna hide it in the midst of applying punishment. I want them to know what I know so that they know that this punishment isn’t unwarranted. However these actions (or lack thereof) makes Goodell look suspect and his actions disingenuous and those of a megalomaniac.

By: cwwgk

cwwgk — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 04:38:30 +0000

@Keith: I went back and read the statement of Sean Payton and Mickey Loomis. The NFL disclosed on March 2, 2012, the results of its investigation of the Saints. They included:

“PAYMENTS also were made for plays on which opposing players were INJURED. In addition, specific players were sometimes targeted. The investigation showed BOUNTIES being placed on four quarterbacks of opposing teams.”

Four days later, Mickey Loomis and Sean Payton responded:

“We acknowledge that the violations disclosed by the NFL during their investigation of our club HAPPENED under our watch. We take FULL RESPONSIBILITY.”

No qualification or denial that payments were made for opposing players who were injured. No qualification or denial that specific opposing players were targeted in the bounty program.

No evidence? A confession/admission is the strongest form of evidence that exists.

By: whodatgirl1

whodatgirl1 — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 03:40:06 +0000

I don’t understand how the NFL can consider what the ygave the players as credible evidence. They gave them less than 200 pages in a total of 16 documents, 2 of which were the 10,000+ word ramblings of the Bottom-feeder’s essay and an article that was written last week in the T-P about the team’s pay-for-performance program. According to the CBA, the evidence that is to shared is the evidence that lead to the decision to punish. How, can evidence that came out AFTER punishments were dealt?

By: dogbart

dogbart — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 02:55:55 +0000

Ok here are some facts that some might not know.
Anthony Hargrove did give a signed statement to the NFL. He did not admit to being a part of a pay to injure program. NFL said he did admit to pay for injury then the signed statement came out. Guess what I read the statement and Roger Goodell’s statement was false. Greg Williams wrote a statement. Roger G didn’t like it. So he wrote a statement for Williams to sign and hung the fact that Williams suspension was indefinite and he had better sign. Sean Payton, Loomis and Vitt did not admit to a pay for injury program. There was a pool of money that came mostly from players some from Greg Williams. It was paid out for sacks, interceptions and other big plays. You put money in for a penalty. Lots of players from other teams have admitted to the same thing. Friday NFL was supposed to present its evidence to the NFLPA and the 4 players. It was a power point presentation of quotes from Greg Williams. Mostly from the recorded pre game speach ftom the playoff game against SF last year. Saints didn’t commit any penalties in that game. Bottom line is there is no on the field evidence to back up Roger Goodell’s claims.

By: Keith

Keith — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 02:44:02 +0000

Ok, to all you intellectual ironmen bringing up the fact that the coaches “admitted it”, please go back and actually READ what the coaches admitted to. Not ONE of them ever said “yes, we had a _BOUNTY_ program”…they all said “we had a _PAY-FOR-PERFORMANCE_ program”. That’s an important distinction…show me A SINGLE team in the league that doesn’t do this (whether they cop to it or not)…NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Is it against the rules? Yes, no argument. Is it what the NFL is saying it is? NO FLIPPIN’ WAY.

And if Goodell thinks that lowering the boom on the Saints like he has is going to do anything to change that, well, I have a prime piece of oceanfront property in downtown Phoenix I’ll sell him for a song…

By: cwwgk

cwwgk — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:17:38 +0000

Can’t wait to read how Goodell’s influence has brainwashed the mind of a federal judge, appointed by a U.S. President to a life term on the bench, if she dismisses Vilma’s suit for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

By: covercorner

covercorner — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:31:02 +0000

Roger Goodell is running a Kangaroo Court.

By: franktherat96

franktherat96 — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:58:17 +0000

Wow, it amazes me how many people have taken would Goodell has said and run with it and still believe it despite time and time again things being leaked that supposedly proved his case and in turned strengthed the Saints case.

1. The ledger was leaked saying first we injued players in a game against washington, when people looked into it and saw that no injuries occured then it was Oh, my mistake, Carolina…still the injuries were on defense, not offense.

2. The league releases only about 200 pages of the so called 50,000 they have to show what they are going to use to prove that the suspended players were part of a bounty system…problem is none of the 200 pages shows that there was any bounty program, only pay for performance. Doesn’t even have the supposed proof that Vilma put up 10,000 bounty on Favre. Then they add 2 items that came out after the suspensions as reasons for the suspension.

some of you have to use your brain for a change. Really. Nothing has come out yet other then Goodell’s work that there was a bounty system. No Proof whatsoever, yet some of your hatred for the Saints(whether it be Falcons fans, etc) has you blinded and you will just not see the big picture.

By: silentcount

silentcount — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 20:16:40 +0000

It’s amazing that there are many people who still insist the Saints have to be guilty, with nothing more than Goodell saying so. For some reason, they so badly wanted it to be true, and stick to that belief even when it’s clear that there is no credible evidence. “The coaches already admitted to it,” they say, but in fact, they never did. They apologized, per Goodell’s demand, and then he added his words to what they apologized for. If Goodell doesn’t lift Vilma’s suspension, then a court eventually will. He might want to lift Sean Payton’s suspension too, as the only thing to save his job.

By: palinforpresidentofnorthkorea

palinforpresidentofnorthkorea — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 16:16:11 +0000

Wait until the Vilma case is heard – players will be suing other players. The NFLPA will be in a $h!t storm.

By: montsta

montsta — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:05:35 +0000

Goodell is not going to risk damaging the defense he has against Vilma’s defamation suit in an actual court of law by providing evidence to Ginsberg during this BS appeals process. Roger’s lawyers know that the smoking gun evidence he has right now doesn’t need to be shown at this time, and are not going to give Ginsberg and his boys 5 months to dissect and discredit what he has with their lawyering until he needs to during the discovery phase of the defamation suit. So no, Roger isn’t the devil and doesn’t need to show anything right now.

Want a fair appeal? Don’t sue the man hearing your appeal. I mean that’s just basic common sense Vilma.

By: robf2010

robf2010 — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:56:49 +0000

ALL suspensions should be reduced or rescinded, ALL fines reduced, the 2nd round pick next year reinstated, and a 1st round supplemental pick should be awarded next year for the 2nd rounder the Saints lost this year. Yes, they broke a rule. BFD. It wasn’t nothing but it was about as close to nothing as you can get. It’s football.

By: mitchdms

mitchdms — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:51:05 +0000

By the way, can anyone criticizing Ginsberg here explain why he’s wrong? He is not. Under these circumstances, there is no fair hearing. Even if it is by the letter of the CBA, that doesn’t lend any fairness to this process.

Oh, and if the NFL was worried about protecting whistleblowers, they would guarantee potential NFLPA witnesses (ie, coaches) no retribution from the league. It is telling that people are afraid to testify against the league’s case.

By: philyeagles5

philyeagles5 — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:45:14 +0000

unfortunately the headline is completely true. as long as the nfl continues has anti trust exemption, then thats how it will continue to be. the nfl is its own pure fantasy world, and for some reason doesnt have to operate like the rest of america

By: thejuddstir

thejuddstir — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:34:47 +0000

Hey Rubes…..ask yourself one question. Why would you provide all the documentation/evidence for an appeals hearing that you are judge,jury and executioner? If you weren’t such rubes, don’t you think you would save it for the bigger fish…….like Vilma’s crazy lawsuit against Goodell and the NFL??? Ginsburg is using the jury of public opinion to try and force Goodell to provide the “evidence” that he could then use at the trial against Goodell. Wake up and smell the coffee rubes.

By: letmesetyoustraight

letmesetyoustraight — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:26:10 +0000

This is getting more interesting with every passing day. Let’s go pop some corn boys and girls.

I would not be surprised if Vilma walks out or skips the appeal hearing as he already knows that nothing will change and the commish will uphold the suspensions. Vilma has nothing to lose as he views a 1 year suspension as a “death penalty” to his career.

By: goodellsadouche

goodellsadouche — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:18:33 +0000

Looks like The Hulkster took one too many falls on his head!

By: propertyofthebroncos

propertyofthebroncos — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:12:31 +0000

wow…hulkhogansays is completely delusional…

By: bluepike

bluepike — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 12:03:25 +0000

….”there was no bounty system”. That’s right Mr. Ginsberg – that’s why the Saints defensive coordinator admitted to it and was very contrite in an attempt not to be barred from the NFL forever. That’s right Mr. Ginsberg – you’re smart and the rest of us are all stupid. Such hubris.

By: barneyfifeactionfigure

barneyfifeactionfigure — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:45:55 +0000

Wow, a lawyer claiming the evidence against his client is bogus!! Someone ready the fainting couch I think I am getting light headed.

It seems pretty clear to me Goodell is trying to protect the whistle-blowers by not offering evidence that would reveal their identities. IMO, this is the right thing to do. All you need to do is look at what happened to Jeremy Shockey to understand this.

Maybe Florio & Co. should think of that the next time they tell us how unfair this process is.

By: chatham10

chatham10 — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:23:57 +0000

What a shock, a lawyer speaking out for his client, but he should have no problems because as a lawyer he should be well schooled in “fantasy”

By: docschoolie

docschoolie — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:02:37 +0000

The lawyer rhetoric is nauseating! You go back and watch his and other Saints “hits” and clearly they were monetarily orchestrated. He needs to go and play in the Siberian “Dig Ice” league and get out of true American football.

By: cliffordc05

cliffordc05 — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:36:27 +0000

This is obviously where the league should use its leverage with Gregg Williams. I don’t believe that Gregg Williams used the Vilma defense……deny that any of this happened. It is not a bad move for Vilma because any player who testifies would have a tough time ever playing again. The league is in a tough spot as it tries to provide evidence.

By: cwwgk

cwwgk — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:22:09 +0000

Peter Ginsburg is notorious for claiming his client can’t get a fair and impartial hearing. He sought to have a federal judge removed from presiding over one of Ginsburg’s cases in Florida. He argued the judge was so biased his client wouldn’t receive due process. The trial court ruled, and a federal court of appeals affirmed, that Ginsburg’s allegations were so outlandish it warranted Ginsburg paying a $370,000.00 fine and his law license in that court be suspended for five years.

By: namelessfacelessfan

namelessfacelessfan — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:21:11 +0000

That the NFL includes in this ‘evidence’ the very odd 10,000 word internet rant of Sean Pamphilon speaks volumes for what the NFL doesn’t have: actual proof.

By: santolonius

santolonius — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:17:06 +0000

i started off last winter believing goodell about the bounties. now i have my doubts. there was smoke. i’m not sure there was fire. you gotta have rock solid evidence to take away millions of dollars from a dude.

By: illwillthemick

illwillthemick — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 10:01:21 +0000

“there was no bounty system” i guess they are forgetting the coaches and players that admitted there was a bounty system hahahahaha wow…. idiots

By: ravissevens

ravissevens — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:49:20 +0000

Whether the bounties happened or not, the league has handled this terribly.
No hard evidence and still suspending players. Heresay is what they are running on. Not credible in the least.

By: drgreenstreak

drgreenstreak — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:48:11 +0000

The players need to give up this fantasy crap and move on. They are annoying me the closer we get to training camp.
Vilma has a bigmouth lawyer and the others are ashamed of their own behavior both in their actions at the time of their rule violations and now that they have to cry and whine, spouting their innocence to no one who believes them.
I don’t.
Play football and act like a man. An accountable human, albeit a well-paid one.

By: larryjames836

larryjames836 — Sat, 16 Jun 2012 09:44:21 +0000

Robert Griffin III; Is not ready for the NFL this is not college football, the way Roger Goodell got it going he might be able to do a little something with the other teams. But when it comes to the New Orleans Saints we going to let the dogs out on every team we face. Because we is on the move to victory for all of the hardship we face here we come.