Vilma sues Goodell

[Oldcat]

Not much of that does Vilma any good personally.

[scharm]

[quote name='Oldcat' timestamp='1337368770' post='1131449']
Not much of that does Vilma any good personally.
[/quote]

How do you figure? He's out his 2012 salary today. If gets anything back that's a gain. It's another avenue of recourse in addition to what his CBA provides him.

[|westside bengal|]

[quote name='PutWittyNameHere' timestamp='1337361635' post='1131429']
I'm not sure that's true. I think Vilma (or his lawyer, or Demaurice Smith) chose to go the defamation route specifically to circumvent issues from the CBA. Otherwise, he would have just challenged the suspension directly. But by saying that Goodell defamed him, he takes the issue away from the football field and makes it more personal. And this is exactly why I think it's a brilliant play by Vilma's group. It's by no means an easy play, of course. But I do think it's the one that gives him the best chance.
[/quote]

I dont know for sure either. But I am fairly sure that Vilma being a contracted employee probably has limited "rights" relative what was bargained in the CBA.

I do think it is more of a PR move. Cry foul. Maybe get his sentance reduced.

[B.A.B.]

[quote name='CTBengalsFan' timestamp='1337357677' post='1131404']
It's a defamation lawsuit, he would have to prove that A: what Goodell said is untrue, and more importantly B: that he intentionally lied to hurt Jonathan Vilma, which is of course ridiculous. This lawsuit will not go anywhere.
[/quote]

Then is he filing it solely in an attempt to possibly safe some face in the public eye? Like is he hoping that fans give him the benefit of the doubt because we know he filed a suit, instead of him just taking it?

Either way, I hope he wins. Goodell is controlling the NFL like a fucking godfather

[mongo]

I think the reason to file the case is for the NFLPA to get it's hands on the information Goodell is keeping secret. I think the reason Vilma is the one filing suit is because he's already popped for the season. He doesn't have anything to lose.

[T-Dub]

[quote name='mongo' timestamp='1337384531' post='1131474']
I think the reason to file the case is for the NFLPA to get it's hands on the information Goodell is keeping secret. I think the reason Vilma is the one filing suit is because he's already popped for the season. He doesn't have anything to lose.
[/quote]

You may be right on both counts, the Ginger Banhammer rules with an iron fist

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='Abu-Zayd' timestamp='1337314273' post='1131312']
Goodell decides cases without presenting evidence and allowing the defendants to actually defend themselves procedurally.

I don't like the Saints, or Vilma for that matter, but I like that someone is challenging him.
[/quote]

i have to disagree on many points here, without presenting evidence to who? he isnt just making things up, he has evidence. he doesnt have to show it publicly, clearly there is evidence.

and im not sure how the nfl process differs from most other places, same things happens at most large companies. and he is pretty easy on dropping punishments if the player goes and meets with him and appeals.

he was pretty light on Benson with as much problems as he went through in the past and got in some nonsense again.

keeping a bagillion dollar business running smoothly without ruining it financial, competitively, and marketability wise is tough, and ruling with an "iron fist" is about the only way to keep a bunch of jackass millionaires with entitlement issues in order..

i always thought that appeals going through the man who set the punishment was a joke, but he actually changes his original punishment pretty often....

i dont feel vilma has a shot in hell, and is just flushing more money away than he has already lost..

[unleashed]

This whole ordeal just seems like a joke to me. Just about every saints game I've seen involved their defense allowing 30 plus points a game and missed tackles.

If anything, the bounties probably made their defense worse. Forgetting fundamental football and going for killshots is a great way to lose games and the respect of the other coaches in the league.

[Abu-Zayd]

[quote name='GoBengals' timestamp='1337390420' post='1131485']
[size=5][b]i have to disagree on many points here, without presenting evidence to who? he isnt just making things up, he has evidence. he doesnt have to show it publicly, clearly there is evidence.[/b][/size]

and im not sure how the nfl process differs from most other places, same things happens at most large companies. and he is pretty easy on dropping punishments if the player goes and meets with him and appeals.

he was pretty light on Benson with as much problems as he went through in the past and got in some nonsense again.

keeping a bagillion dollar business running smoothly without ruining it financial, competitively, and marketability wise is tough, and ruling with an "iron fist" is about the only way to keep a bunch of jackass millionaires with entitlement issues in order..

[/quote]


Read Vilma's statement... Goodell doesn't have to show ME or YOU anything, but he has suspended Vilma for an entire year without showing any evidence to VILMA himself. Akin to a military tribunal without having to show evidence.

Actually, this has a lot of parallels to non-football: The government has usurped the right to assassinate Americans (or anyone else) at its discretion, imprison indefinitely, and search people without a warrant, a trial, or evidence. NFL has become something that allows people to become conditioned to this sort of nonsense. Common sense is common sense. Innocent unless PROVEN guilty, then punishment can be considered. Right to face the accuser. Right to see what evidence is being presented against him.

Basics of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I actually think Vilma should get kicked out of the NFL if he was actually doing what he is accused of, as should Gregg Williams, and if Sean Payton encouraged it, perhaps the same goes for him. But tyrannical powers I am against and anything to hold people accountable is a good thing.

[|SF2|]

[quote name='Abu-Zayd' timestamp='1337402830' post='1131498']
Read Vilma's statement... Goodell doesn't have to show ME or YOU anything, but he has suspended Vilma for an entire year without showing any evidence to VILMA himself. Akin to a military tribunal without having to show evidence.

Actually, this has a lot of parallels to non-football: The government has usurped the right to assassinate Americans (or anyone else) at its discretion, imprison indefinitely, and search people without a warrant, a trial, or evidence. NFL has become something that allows people to become conditioned to this sort of nonsense. Common sense is common sense. Innocent unless PROVEN guilty, then punishment can be considered. Right to face the accuser. Right to see what evidence is being presented against him.

Basics of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I actually think Vilma should get kicked out of the NFL if he was actually doing what he is accused of, as should Gregg Williams, and if Sean Payton encouraged it, perhaps the same goes for him. But tyrannical powers I am against and anything to hold people accountable is a good thing.
[/quote]
I was under the impression that Goodell wanted to meet with Vilma and he refused. I am sure at that time Goodell would have presented his evidence. It would be like you boss wanting to meet with you and you refused. He then fires you and you cry foul.

[Phatcat]

[quote name='SF2' timestamp='1337433446' post='1131511']
I was under the impression that Goodell wanted to meet with Vilma and he refused. I am sure at that time Goodell would have presented his evidence. It would be like you boss wanting to meet with you and you refused. He then fires you and you cry foul.
[/quote]

I got that impression as well, but then reading Vilma's statements after the suspension was announced he made it sound as though he had no such opportunity. But this all comes back to one simple thing. The NFLPA had an opportunity to address Player discipline procedures in the new CBA and they did not. It was not like this wasn't an issue before the bountygate scandal..... And the owners had to approve of the new CBA as well.

I'm not endorsing Goodell's power, I think it is ridiculous.

[sparky151]

[quote name='Phatcat' timestamp='1337435915' post='1131512']
I got that impression as well, but then reading Vilma's statements after the suspension was announced he made it sound as though he had no such opportunity. But this all comes back to one simple thing. The NFLPA had an opportunity to address Player discipline procedures in the new CBA and they did not. It was not like this wasn't an issue before the bountygate scandal..... And the owners had to approve of the new CBA as well.

I'm not endorsing Goodell's power, I think it is ridiculous.
[/quote]

The union's view is that they did address this topic in the new CBA when the league agreed to no discipline for prior incidents, apart from 6 specified players (including Benson and Jones). The league seems to be taking the view that it's a new issue now that the evidence has come out. I think the union has the stronger legal position here.

[sois]

I hpe Goodell gets the death penalty

[bearcat7777]

Goodell could be trying to protect the identity of a witness or informer. Don't want a player that came forward submitted to retribution. Could cut that player or coach's career short.

A former prosecutor has reviewed the evidence and stated she thought there was an ironclad case against the individuals.

[|Bunghole|]

[quote name='bearcat7777' timestamp='1337450695' post='1131525']
Goodell could be trying to protect the identity of a witness or informer. Don't want a player that came forward submitted to retribution. Could cut that player or coach's career short.

A former prosecutor has reviewed the evidence and stated she thought there was an ironclad case against the individuals.
[/quote]

Seeing as how that informer is rumored to be Jeremy Shockey, they should out his ass. He's a douche.

[NASTYNATI]

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1337455916' post='1131531']


Seeing as how that informer is rumored to be Jeremy Shockey, they should out his ass. He's a douche.
[/quote]

Goddell himself said that Shockey was not the informant, someone else has ruled him out as well I don't remember who though.

[sparky151]

[quote name='bearcat7777' timestamp='1337450695' post='1131525']
Goodell could be trying to protect the identity of a witness or informer. Don't want a player that came forward submitted to retribution. Could cut that player or coach's career short.

A former prosecutor has reviewed the evidence and stated she thought there was an ironclad case against the individuals.
[/quote]

Mary Jo White's opinion is meaningless. She was hired by the NFL and didn't consider anything Vilma might present to a court. In other words, league lawyer agrees with comissioner, shocking.

[|SF2|]

As much as I hate Goodell, I doubt he would make this move without significant evidence. He is a douche but he isn't stupid enough to suspend a player for a year "Just Because"

[Oldcat]

[quote name='SF2' timestamp='1337479395' post='1131555']
As much as I hate Goodell, I doubt he would make this move without significant evidence. He is a douche but he isn't stupid enough to suspend a player for a year "Just Because"
[/quote]

He probably had good evidence before - you know when he told them and everyone else to cut it out and they lied to his face that they were going to stop. He's almost certainly gotten additional evidence since then.

I'm not sure Vilma's apparent defense of 'I was lying when I offered the 10 grand' is going to fly against that.

[bearcat7777]

[quote name='sparky151' timestamp='1337471798' post='1131541']
Mary Jo White's opinion is meaningless. She was hired by the NFL and didn't consider anything Vilma might present to a court. In other words, league lawyer agrees with comissioner, shocking.
[/quote]

Have you read the evidence?

I think I'll go with someone who has actually seen the evidence.

[fredtoast]

I hope the court rules against Goodell and tells him he can appeal, but Vilma will be the one that rules on it.


I am not nearly as big of a Goodell critic or hater as many people here, but in this case I am on Vilma's side. Here is why.

This whole case seems like more of a vindictive punishment for lying to the league than actual punishment for the bounty system. This is obvious becaue when the league office first discovered the bounty system they didn't go apeshit and start suspending people for entire seaons. Instead all the did was tell the saints to stop it. So Goodell is handing out these suspensions more to punish them for disrespecting his authority than actually running a bounty system.

When people with almost unlimited power, like Goodell, start taking dissciplin issues personally they often abuse the power. I am sure Goodell has some evidence against Vilma, but it is probably just lies from someone who did not like Vilma.

I just can't imagine Vilma would file this lawsuit if he knew there was any evidence that he did these things.

[sparky151]

[quote name='bearcat7777' timestamp='1337487924' post='1131565']
Have you read the evidence?

I think I'll go with someone who has actually seen the evidence.
[/quote]

Nobody outside the league office and it's employees has seen the "evidence". That's one of the union's complaints. Why should Mary Jo White's opinion mean anything to anyone? As someone hired by the league her duty is to further her employer's cause. If she fundamentally disagreed with that, they would hire some other former prosecutor and attach their name to the case.

[bearcat7777]

[quote name='sparky151' timestamp='1337539147' post='1131637']
Nobody outside the league office and it's employees has seen the "evidence". That's one of the union's complaints. Why should Mary Jo White's opinion mean anything to anyone? As someone hired by the league her duty is to further her employer's cause. If she fundamentally disagreed with that, they would hire some other former prosecutor and attach their name to the case.
[/quote]

Doubtful.

This is a negative for the league not a positive. Finding someone not guilty would benefit the league not hurt the league.

I think you have this backwards, sorry.

[fredtoast]

[quote name='bearcat7777' timestamp='1337487924' post='1131565']
Have you read the evidence?

I think I'll go with someone who has actually seen the evidence.
[/quote]

Yeah. I don't know why we even need courts and judges in this country. If the prosecutor says someone is guilty that should be enough to convict and punish, right?

[fredtoast]

[quote name='bearcat7777' timestamp='1337548231' post='1131654']
Doubtful.

This is a negative for the league not a positive. Finding someone not guilty would benefit the league not hurt the league.

I think you have this backwards, sorry.
[/quote]

But the punishment is not really for the bounty program. when the league found out about the bounty program they didn't suspend anyone. they just told the Saints to stop.

The league office only got pissy when they found out the team lied to them. That is when they started suspending everyone. The whole story makes the league office look like a bunch of petty children who don't care about the players getting hurt by the bounty. all they care about is teaching someone not to lie to them. And I think they got a little carried away just because they think they can do whatever they want without any reprecussions.

Do you really think Vilma would have filed this suit if their was solid evidence that he was involved? I am sure the league office has something on Vilma, but I also bet it is nothing but hearsay and vindictive lies.