Skip to content

Settlement with Vilma wouldn’t be unprecedented

ryanmcbean Getty Images

Some have been suggesting that the reported offer of an eight-game reduction to Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s one-year suspension would be unprecedented.

It wouldn’t be.  It has happened before.  This year.

Just three months ago, the league negotiated a settlement of defensive lineman Ryan McBean’s lawsuit filed in response to a six-game suspension by chopping it in half.  McBean, suspended by the NFL for the dreaded “non-human urine sample,” had exhausted the appeal process and then filed a lawsuit challenging the fairness of the arbitration process.

Just like Vilma has done.

We argued back in May that the league’s willingness to resolve the lawsuit undermines the power that the league possesses over the appeal process.  Even if the league offers (directly or hypothetically) to cut the suspension in half and Vilma refuses to accept (directly or hypothetically) to do so, the mere suggestion that the league would do something other than what the league already has deemed to be the right thing makes the league’s process seem suspect.

And that’s something that wouldn’t happen if a truly neutral and independent arbitrator were handling these appeals.

Permalink 7 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill
7 Responses to “Settlement with Vilma wouldn’t be unprecedented”
  1. PriorKnowledge says: Aug 6, 2012 10:19 AM

    How about an appeal to a NFL, NFLPA mutually agreed independent aribiter, paid for by the player. However, the Commissioner makes the final decision about whether to adjust. The commissioner on rare occassions may pick up the player’s cost of the appeal.

  2. pettytom says: Aug 6, 2012 10:21 AM

    It’s looking more and more like this whole “bounty” investigation was just a sham. It’s amazing what you would be willing to do when your wrong. I mean from a full season to 8 games is obviously a sign that the NFL was doing something wrong.

  3. mvp43 says: Aug 6, 2012 10:37 AM

    pettytom says:
    Aug 6, 2012 10:21 AM
    It’s looking more and more like this whole “bounty” investigation was just a sham. It’s amazing what you would be willing to do when your wrong. I mean from a full season to 8 games is obviously a sign that the NFL was doing something wrong.

    ———————————————–
    I don’t think the investigation was a sham, but its in the best interest of the league if the commish isn’t embroiled in law suits all year.
    On the flipside, if Vilma accepts the settlement, isn’t he bascially saying that he was knowingly involved?

  4. wryly1 says: Aug 6, 2012 10:45 AM

    The two biggest fish caught up in this, Coach Payton and Defensive Coordinator Williams, took their suspensions, aren’t fighting it, or denying the bounty program. If that doesn’t convince anyone this was very, very real – nothing ever will.

  5. robf2010 says: Aug 6, 2012 10:59 AM

    @ wryly1 – Payton DID fight it … for all the good it did him. He appealed. It was denied by the same guy who issued the ruling. He and Gregg Williams are pretty much operating under a gag order right now because they both have to apply for reinstatement to guess who? The same guy who issued the ruling and denied Payton’s appeal. Definitely the reason the players are taking a different route. That one is a dead end.

  6. redman6ft4 says: Aug 6, 2012 11:11 AM

    wryly1

    Payton and Williams are gaged order not to say anything by the dictator (Goodell). Neither of them have agreed to nothing…get you facts in order….

    If the NFL case was strong why would they offer a settlement to Vilma??? Makes me wonder????

    I hope Vilma forces the NFL to lift all suspensions on the bougas “BOUNTY” system the NFL had made up to make themselves look good…

  7. youcantquitmebaby says: Aug 6, 2012 11:58 AM

    The lesson here is that if you get suspended by the league, just sue them. Problem solved.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!