In a court of law, the onus of proof is on the accuser. So if Goddell was accusing the Saints of having a bounty system and this was tried through a mainstream judicial system, then the onus would be on him to prove they did it, and in absence of any proof either way they would be found not guilty. However, this is bypassed by using the grievance procedure outlined in the CBA, so Goddell doesn’t *need* to prove beyond reasonable doubt, he is more or less judge, jury and executioner.

But if Vilma files a defamation claim through the courts, then surely that will be subject to the usual rules of innocent until proven guilty. In other words Vilma (as the accuser) will need to demonstrate that Goddell ‘s accusations were untrue/unfounded, which would place the onus of proof on him. I’m not sure Goddell can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Saints had a bounty system in place, but I’m pretty sure Vilma can’t prove they didn’t. In fact, this law suit may end up causing the players n question a lot more harm than good, because when they lose it could be seen as a vindication of the bounty accusations.

Before the appeal, Vilma asked Goodell for any evidence that would also support his innocence. The fact that the main “witness” recanted his claims was what he was referring to. That would have been a big part of providing a defense, which Goodell intentionally wouldn’t allow. No matter which lawsuit makes it to court, this will most certainly cause Goodell to automatically lose. Don’t blame Vilma for all of this law suit mess. Goodell brought this on himself.

________________

You are so bent on the evidence being presented. Do you realize that all these claims like the main witness recanted his claims, etc, etc. are unproven. There is no evidence. Just some unnamed mystery source has made all these allegations. Yet most people that are against the NFL on this issue, accept all these rumors without one shred of evidence. Wake up! No key witness recanted their testimony or we would have seen some kind of proof of that.

The fans of the NFL deserve to know exactly what, if anything, sets Vilma apart from every other player in deserving such a harsh punishment.

Roger, show us the evidence. Show us why Vilma needs to lose an entire year. Why is this too much to ask?
———————————

You might want that, but he’s not required to give it to you. The defamation lawsuit has zero chance of going anywhere, and Vilma likely knows it. You’d have to prove that Goodell knowingly disseminated material he knew to be false, as well as intent to inure Vilma. Not bloodily likely.

While I don’t think Goodell is acting inappropriately I see how it looks that way. I think he messed up when he targeted a few “ringleaders” rather than disciplining all that were involved. It was probably easier to get witness statements with promises of anonymity and or immunity but now he needs to defend why a specific player was punished differently than others. All involved serving a 2 game suspension would have been much easier to defend but the damage to the team would have been much more substantial.

But now it’s time to back that explanation up with evidence.

The fans of the NFL deserve to know exactly what, if anything, sets Vilma apart from every other player in deserving such a harsh punishment.

Roger, show us the evidence. Show us why Vilma needs to lose an entire year. Why is this too much to ask?

Right. Because nobody would have second-guessed a full-season suspension with no explanation.

Ginsberg is just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. At best, all we’re getting is stickier crap.