The only person involved in this whole mess that still says there was a bounty is Goodell, and as we can all see at this point, his credibility is hovering right around zero.
___________________________________
Where did you get this information? Taglibue came to the same conclusion as Goodell in that Vilma did in fact offer $10,000 for injury to Favre. He stated that both Cerullo and Williams testified to that fact. He also stated that Cerullo and Williams were more credible than Vilma. Maybe you should actually read Taglibue’s report. The reasons Taglibue let Vilma off was because there is no evidence that Vilma actually paid the $10,000 (which is pointless since Favre remained in the game til the end, therefore no payout was expected) and because he holds the coaches as responsible for allowing and encouraging the behavior. The only difference in Taglibue’s and Goodell’s decisons is that Taglibue feels the coaches and management are the ones that deserve the punishments and not the players. Taglibue also felt that Goodell should have basically warned players that this type of behavior is not acceptable and severe penalties will result in any future cases and not been so harsh in this case to make his point. Those are the only differences. Taglibue didn’t clear the Saints of any wrong doing. He confirmed everything Goodell accused the Saints of, he just didn’t agree with the way Goodell went about imposing penalties and the penalties he imposed on the players.

————————————————-

Actually, at this point, nobody insists he did. Gregg Williams and Mike Cerullo both retracted their statements that Vilma or anybody offered any money. Jimmy Kennedy says any talks of a bounty is a lie on the part of Goodell. 28 different Saints players and coaches have also testified in federal court under penalty of perjury that there was no bounty.

The only person involved in this whole mess that still says there was a bounty is Goodell, and as we can all see at this point, his credibility is hovering right around zero.

It would be useful for non-lawyers to expand on the standard for defamation that applies to public figures.

Because Vilma would very likely be considered a “public figure,” he would have to show that Goodell acted with “actual malice.” That means he knew the statements (saying Vilma made these offers) were false, or was incredibly reckless in ascertaining the truth of those statements.

It wouldn’t even be enough if Vilma proved that he did not, in fact, actually offer money for injuries. He’d have to prove that Goodell knew that he didn’t make those statements, or reckless in ascertaining their truth. It’ll be hard to do that after Tagliabue steps in and says there was certainly enough evidence to uphold it.