Man, Goodell and the NFL really botched this Bounty Scandal...

[wickedsolo]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...e-suspensions/


They didn't submit their evidence on time apparently and as a result, that evidence (which the entire case is based on) cannot be included as per the CBA.


Vilma & the gang may get their suspensions lifted after all.

As Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement goes, there aren’t many technicalities in the appeal process. Here’s one of them, from Article 46, Section (f)(ii): “In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing. Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.”

Key language: Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.


Commissioner Roger Goodell previously scheduled the hearing in the bounty case for 10:00 a.m. ET on Monday, June 18. The NFL delivered its packet of 16 exhibits to the NFLPA at roughly 1:30 p.m. ET on Friday, June 15.


So by failing to deliver the materials before 10:00 a.m. ET on Friday, June 15, the plain language of the CBA (i.e., “shall”) prevents the materials from being introduced at the hearing.

If this technicality gets those guys off the hook then Roger Goodell will be the laughing stock for quite some time.

[Terpsfan82]

Good. This amounted to nothing more than a witch hunt.

[Sirdowski]

Good. This amounted to nothing more than a witch hunt.

LOL.

Care to elaborate?

[darb72]

The hearing was moved to 1:45 for that very reason.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/fo...icle-1.1097754

"Scheduled for 10 a.m., it was moved to 1:45 p.m. after players took issue with the fact that they’d received the league’s evidence for review in the afternoon on June 15, instead of that morning."

I'd love to take credit for knowing this, but someone mentioned it in the comments on the link Wicked provided. I just looked it up.

[wickedsolo]

The hearing was moved to 1:45 for that very reason.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/fo...icle-1.1097754

"Scheduled for 10 a.m., it was moved to 1:45 p.m. after players took issue with the fact that they’d received the league’s evidence for review in the afternoon on June 15, instead of that morning."

I'd love to take credit for knowing this, but someone mentioned it in the comments on the link Wicked provided. I just looked it up.

Interesting.

[HoustonRaven]

So the had to submit the evidence no later than 3 days before the hearing.

They submitted the evidence on the 15th for a hearing on the 18th.

Had to take my shoes off for this one but that's exactly 3 days, hence it's not later than 3 days.

And this is a story why?

[wickedsolo]

So the had to submit the evidence no later than 3 days before the hearing.

They submitted the evidence on the 15th for a hearing on the 18th.

Had to take my shoes off for this one but that's exactly 3 days, hence it's not later than 3 days.

And this is a story why?

The lawyers were apparently looking at it from the stance that the trial was supposed to start (originally) at like 10AM on Monday and they didn't receive the evidence until 1:30pm on Friday or something...so "technically" that's not 3 full calendar days.

[Raveninwoodlawn]

The lawyers were apparently looking at it from the stance that the trial was supposed to start (originally) at like 10AM on Monday and they didn't receive the evidence until 1:30pm on Friday or something...so "technically" that's not 3 full calendar days.

Really, this is all being pushed by Florio.

I don't dislike him like so many here seem to, but throughout this case, he has taken this as a sort of courtroom type case since he is/was a lawyer. I don't think he can help himself from throwing himself into this...looking at legalities and not understanding why certain things are done certain ways...he is having a hard time separating the reality that when you deal with an agreed CBA, the same "proof" and "procedures' that you'd see in a court room do not apply.

[wickedsolo]

Really, this is all being pushed by Florio.

I don't dislike him like so many here seem to, but throughout this case, he has taken this as a sort of courtroom type case since he is/was a lawyer. I don't think he can help himself from throwing himself into this...looking at legalities and not understanding why certain things are done certain ways...he is having a hard time separating the reality that when you deal with an agreed CBA, the same "proof" and "procedures' that you'd see in a court room do not apply.

No doubt.

It was just an interesting perspective that I never thought of before and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of a technicality was being pursued to have the "charges" dropped.

[JAB1985]

well my thoughts are they never had strong evidence to begin with which is the whole reason they didnt share it (which i believe they have to share any known evidence with the defense), and missing a deadline for it to be admissible in court kind of proves that in my opinion. No case that is solely dependent upon this information would then allow it to not be admissible. If anything this may look better for Goodell than going to court with nothing and being outright destroyed by the defense and clearly over stepping his boundaries with his power. this way its a blunder but he gets to keep absolute power. these guys are being deemed guilty until proven innocent and kind of against everything we stand for here in america. just because we heard the coaches say they asked players to do things we dont like doesnt mean the players exchanged money and even if they did, it doesnt mean theres enough evidence to prove it. "Its not what you know, its what you can prove."

quite frankly i think this whole thing has been blown so far out of proportion its ridiculous. Youre talking about a violent game where men go out and slam into each other, but doing so with one intent is ok while another isnt even if it ends in the same result, which to this point im still waiting to see a dirty play that intentionally injured another player.

[RavensNTerps]

Badell has botched just about everything since he's been commissioner so this is no surprise.

[HoustonRaven]

To claim there is no evidence means you've simply not been paying close attention or you're willfully ignoring what's out there.

You have admissions / apologies from Loomis, Peyton and Williams. There is also the leaked ledgers and other documents. Then you have Hargrove on tape, after hearing Favre was out of the game, telling his teammates to "pay me my money".

That alone would convict in a court of law (not that this is the standard in this case). Yet, there are still numerous other items of evidence we have not see yet, including testimony from players who cooperated with the investigation.

What did or did not happen during any one particular game is not the least bit relevant. You don't need the intended outcome to prove a conspiracy and that's what this case is all about.

[JAB1985]

If there was no evidence why did the coaches take their punishment and apologize? Why did the Saints pay a hefty find and apologize? Several of the reporters said that the evidence against the players was compelling. They interviewed all of the coaches. There were corroborating reports on which players were involved. My guess on why the NFL did not want to release all of the evidence in public was to prevent the backlash from players and fans against the coaches and other people who provided the information.

This is not a court of law and can't be compared to a court of law. This is an ethics violation in an employment situation. There is a code of conduct in which they agreed to in their contract. People in a work environment are put on administrative leave or suspended without pay for behavior that is inappropriate or unethical. It does not mean that they broke any laws or that it needs to be proven in such a manner. It could be as simple as multiple people confirming with HR or legal.

Though the NFL’s in-house appeal process doesn’t amount to a full-blown legal proceeding, the players accused of participating in the Saints’ bounty program could escape responsibility on the same basis that plenty of criminal defendants do.

well thats the issue, im comparing it to a court of law, because the article is. If my work wanted to suspend my pay for a year, id like to have the evidence given to me. If this article is right and they cant submit the evidence now than i dont feel its right to suspend them, even if it is unjust. If there is no evidence of funds being transferred, no "crime" was commited, even if the coaches and owners say there was one.

To claim there is no evidence means you've simply not been paying close attention or you're willfully ignoring what's out there.

You have admissions / apologies from Loomis, Peyton and Williams. There is also the leaked ledgers and other documents. Then you have Hargrove on tape, after hearing Favre was out of the game, telling his teammates to "pay me my money".

That alone would convict in a court of law (not that this is the standard in this case). Yet, there are still numerous other items of evidence we have not see yet, including testimony from players who cooperated with the investigation.

What did or did not happen during any one particular game is not the least bit relevant. You don't need the intended outcome to prove a conspiracy and that's what this case is all about.

Im not ignoring, im going by this article saying its no longer admissible. it doesnt matter if we KNOW it or not, its not or could not be part of this process now. so eventhough they did admit it, and they may have more information than weve even seen, damning evidence, if its not admissable, its not existent. If they had audio, video, money exchanges from bank accounts, signatures, and eye witnesses, thats great, good for them, but they just blew it and its not admissable its as if they never did in the first place.

Ill admit im not 100% sure where this appeal lies within the rules of CBAs, but going by the article if you can get out of it possibly by the same way as a criminal trial mistrial, than it seems comparing it to a criminal trial would be alright at this point.

If the Saints had roughed Flacco three times (instead of just the one time when they kneed him on the ground) and damaged his ankle, and we later found out that Vilma had put up $10k for a bounty, all the hypocrites on this board would want to know why Vilma and the others weren't being summarily executed.

The Saints were, without question, the dirtiest team in the NFL for several years, and the bounties contributed to that behavior. I have no sympathy for any of them.

the hit on Flacco was nothing. seriously? smith laid off and patted him on the back and people act like he was out there trying to rip his head off. Its pretty obvious to me he could have hit him late and full on but tried to lay off. If our OL played as poorly as the did in Minnesota, wed be screaming about Oher and McKinnie, not bounties. Flacco has been hit with worse that wasnt called by team that apparently didnt have bounties. calling that a dirty play and evidence of the saints wrong doing is ignoring any other game as evidence to the contrary.

I dont get how you can have two 200+lb men running into each other at full speed the exact same way, one is dirty and malicious because he got paid by players but the other isnt because he got paid by the owners. Its a violent game that we all are entertained by. this had very little to no effect on what we saw on the field. the issue is that the exchange of money by players is illegal, which nothing in the media has proved "without a doubt". if they have a smoking gun, i hope it was submitted before the deadline and justice is served.

[srobert96]

well thats the issue, im comparing it to a court of law, because the article is. If my work wanted to suspend my pay for a year, id like to have the evidence given to me. If this article is right and they cant submit the evidence now than i dont feel its right to suspend them, even if it is unjust. If there is no evidence of funds being transferred, no "crime" was commited, even if the coaches and owners say there was one.

I am tired of the media comparing this to a court of law. If you fired or put on administrative leave and you asked for evidence that you violated ethics or code of conduct rules and they said that 3 people confirmed your behavior would you fight it? I read quotes from the press that saw the evidence has saying it was compelling. It is basically going to be multiple sources corroborating the story. That is all you need in a situation like this. You are not going to get bank transfer or a video tape. They are not being suspended for doing something illegal they are being suspended for conduct detrimental to the league. The reason vilma is only suing for defamation is because the players have no case under the CBA to sue for anything else. Its the same reason Ben was suspended because of his behavior in GA. He was not convicted of anything. His behavior was a black eye for the league as is the bounty situation. There was no hard evidence against Ben but rather eye witness accounts of people at a bar. I would say that the evidence the league collected in bounty gate is far superior than that collected from a bunch of drunk bar patrons. I would also say the conduct of the whole organization is far more detrimental to the league which is the reason for the stiff penalties. If a Cam Newton received a career ending injury in a game this year for it to later be revealed the team had a bounty on him the NFL would be in a much bigger mess.

[JAB1985]

I am tired of the media comparing this to a court of law. If you fired or put on administrative leave and you asked for evidence that you violated ethics or code of conduct rules and they said that 3 people confirmed your behavior would you fight it? I read quotes from the press that saw the evidence has saying it was compelling. It is basically going to be multiple sources corroborating the story. That is all you need in a situation like this. You are not going to get bank transfer or a video tape. They are not being suspended for doing something illegal they are being suspended for conduct detrimental to the league. The reason vilma is only suing for defamation is because the players have no case under the CBA to sue for anything else. Its the same reason Ben was suspended because of his behavior in GA. He was not convicted of anything. His behavior was a black eye for the league as is the bounty situation. There was no hard evidence against Ben but rather eye witness accounts of people at a bar. I would say that the evidence the league collected in bounty gate is far superior than that collected from a bunch of drunk bar patrons. I would also say the conduct of the whole organization is far more detrimental to the league which is the reason for the stiff penalties. If a Cam Newton received a career ending injury in a game this year for it to later be revealed the team had a bounty on him the NFL would be in a much bigger mess.

i have a friend whos wife was fired for doing things against policy at work. There was no evidence but they said they had 3 witnesses. It never happened complete fabrication and the 3 people were not only co-workers but close friends of the boss and didnt get along well with the wife and did so to protect their own jobs. Basically where she worked needed to downsize and instead of laying off they needed to find "just cause". If those same 3 people also went public and told the local media that this and that went down and everyone took it for fact, youd think you had evidence of it even though it never happened. Thats a real life scenario of the same situation. Is that justice? for somebody to lose their job and pay because somebody else decided to protect themselves?

so to answer your question with that example, if i dont feel i did anything wrong and they had 3 people saying i did something i didnt, I would most definitely sue. We dont know that Vilma did anything wrong here honestly. We only know what the media has told us that he "offered 10k to take out favre", which could be heresay made up by collaborators trying to get a deal to save themselves but people are using it as proof that he did without a doubt. Its obvious hes guilty in the court of public opinion, which is what Goodell, is really going by here, but that doesnt necessarily mean he actually did it. I said myself, going off what ive seen & heard, i feel he did do it, but its not been proven to me without a doubt, and bank statements or audio would certainly do that. How many murders have been convicted without a doubt just to get DNA testing and find out they werent? a little different situation and maybe in this scenario there is no "dna testing" so to speak that proves without a doubt. imo, that makes it a little harsh to penalize them as much as he has, even though i feel if it was proven it was just.

[arnie_uk]

its not "without a doubt" its "beyond reasonable doubt"... well it is here anyway, and theres a huge difference between the two

i have a friend whos wife was fired for doing things against policy at work. There was no evidence but they said they had 3 witnesses. It never happened complete fabrication and the 3 people were not only co-workers but close friends of the boss and didnt get along well with the wife and did so to protect their own jobs. Basically where she worked needed to downsize and instead of laying off they needed to find "just cause". If those same 3 people also went public and told the local media that this and that went down and everyone took it for fact, youd think you had evidence of it even though it never happened. Thats a real life scenario of the same situation. Is that justice? for somebody to lose their job and pay because somebody else decided to protect themselves?

so to answer your question with that example, if i dont feel i did anything wrong and they had 3 people saying i did something i didnt, I would most definitely sue. We dont know that Vilma did anything wrong here honestly. We only know what the media has told us that he "offered 10k to take out favre", which could be heresay made up by collaborators trying to get a deal to save themselves but people are using it as proof that he did without a doubt. Its obvious hes guilty in the court of public opinion, which is what Goodell, is really going by here, but that doesnt necessarily mean he actually did it. I said myself, going off what ive seen & heard, i feel he did do it, but its not been proven to me without a doubt, and bank statements or audio would certainly do that. How many murders have been convicted without a doubt just to get DNA testing and find out they werent? a little different situation and maybe in this scenario there is no "dna testing" so to speak that proves without a doubt. imo, that makes it a little harsh to penalize them as much as he has, even though i feel if it was proven it was just.

[GOTA]

To claim there is no evidence means you've simply not been paying close attention or you're willfully ignoring what's out there.

You have admissions / apologies from Loomis, Peyton and Williams. There is also the leaked ledgers and other documents. Then you have Hargrove on tape, after hearing Favre was out of the game, telling his teammates to "pay me my money".

That alone would convict in a court of law (not that this is the standard in this case). Yet, there are still numerous other items of evidence we have not see yet, including testimony from players who cooperated with the investigation.

What did or did not happen during any one particular game is not the least bit relevant. You don't need the intended outcome to prove a conspiracy and that's what this case is all about.

Unless they have it on video there are people who just won't, or choose not to, believe it.

[Haloti92]

Just to stir the pot:

How would you rank from 0-10 the following situations in terms of punishments warranted, where 0 is no punishment and 10 is max:

A) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for TDs

B) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for hard hits

C) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for non-flagged hits that resulted in opponent leaving field for 1+ plays

D) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for any action that resulted in opponent leaving field for 1+ plays

E) Pre-game team presentations that included the words: bounty, target, hunt, trophy, all corresponding to specific opponents (i.e. opponent headshots with targets on them, etc) without any monetary rewards being offered

F) Pre-game team presentations that included lessons on how to get away with cheap shots or illegal conduct (how to eye gouge, step on hands or feet, punch under the pile or on line, etc)

G) Pre-game speeches that include language such as "kill", "destroy", "knock out", "hurt", "pain", "punish" the opponent

[JAB1985]

"in court, its not what you know, its what you can prove."

i do believe there was a bounty by what the media has told us and that the punishment is proper, if they can prove it. i dont think what we saw on the field was anything more or less than we see any other week.

Just to stir the pot:

How would you rank from 0-10 the following situations in terms of punishments warranted, where 0 is no punishment and 10 is max:

A) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for TDs 0

B) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for hard hits 3, but this is how things start that get out of hand

C) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for non-flagged hits that resulted in opponent leaving field for 1+ plays 5, the escalation

D) System (outside of cap) that provided money rewards for any action that resulted in opponent leaving field for 1+ plays 10, the end result

E) Pre-game team presentations that included the words: bounty, target, hunt, trophy, all corresponding to specific opponents (i.e. headshots with targets on them etc, and/or Boba Fett, lol) without any monetary rewards being offered 10

F) Pre-game team presentations that included lessons on how to get away with cheap shots or illegal conduct (how to eye gouge, step on hands, feet, punch under the pile or on line, etc) 10

G) Pre-game speeches that include language such as "kill", "destroy", "knock out", "hurt", "pain", "punish" the opponent 2, pregame speaches are intended to fire you up, not to be taken literally, probably frowned upon though

I see what you intended with this and agree. the coaches and/or ownership had just as much or more to do with this, imo. some ask why did they agree and admit to it so eagerly... because maybe their punishment (outside Williams) was less than they deserved or what they felt theyd receive.

The thing thats not really being reported, is the league told the owner and the owner told the coaches that if theres a bounty program going on to stop it, but was it ever relayed to the players? I believe williams and peyton both admitted they didnt stop it. To me that means they continued the bounty program and the players, who were violating by being involved, werent given the same notice to stop without penalty as the owners and coaches of the rest of the league were, in which case they would have more reason to be upset.

[Ravenswintitle]

I think what these players are trying to say (I may be wrong here) is that they want to see evidence that specifically shows them doing something over and beyond what the other defensive players were doing. Why were they singled out? that's what they're asking. I suspect they know the answer but this is how I read it.