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

**JAB1985** · 06-21-2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by srobert96

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** · 06-21-2012, 01:13 PM

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

Originally Posted by JAB1985

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.

**JAB1985** · 06-21-2012, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by arnie_uk

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

Youre right but in this case i think it is reasonable. The only reason we know vilma is in this is because of one collaborating witness said so. The coaches have admitted it toom place but not who was involved to my recollection. I dont trust a guy facing similar charges to be honest when lying gets him a better deal. Its the same way with rico cases. They dont just take the mobsters word for it because his character would be questioned and his credability disreguarded immediately. They use them for info on who to wire tap, where to raid, or to get audio or other hard evidence themselves. Its just my opinion that id want mor concrete evidence besides somebody saying so. People lie, thats one of the first universal truths we learn.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-21-2012, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by GOTA

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

Oh how right you are.

**festivus** · 06-22-2012, 09:02 AM

Thanks for the link, wickedsolo.

I really like Florio, as I've said several times recently. The things that interest him are often the same things that interest me.

I think this is a newsworthy development. He may make it seem a *little* more credible than it is, but he isn't predicting what will happen or saying the commissioner's office will lose. He's pointing out an issue and why it's important, that's all.

Without wasting my time getting knee deep in some of the foolishness of this thread, (a) this is not a court of law, nor is it your brother's friend's wife's dad's job, no offense, and (b) you're not *entitled* to see all the evidence, and if you want to know why not, see (a), above. Considering investigators plundered the Saints' computer networks as part of their investigation, I am completely confident in telling you guys there is a mountain of stuff recovered by investigators that none of us has seen.

I disagree with those posters who said, in one way or another, this was a witch hunt or there is a double standard among the fans.

**JAB1985** · 06-22-2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by festivus

Without wasting my time getting knee deep in some of the foolishness of this thread, (a) this is not a court of law, nor is it your brother's friend's wife's dad's job, no offense, and (b) you're not *entitled* to see all the evidence, and if you want to know why not, see (a), above. Considering investigators plundered the Saints' computer networks as part of their investigation, I am completely confident in telling you guys there is a mountain of stuff recovered by investigators that none of us has seen.

everyone is entitled to their opinion. I never said anybody was wrong for looking at the evidence and deeming it enough to condemn the guy. Just that I personally would like more before making a final opinion, thats all. If people want to take circumstantial evidence as hard evidence thats within their right. There very well may be a ledger, although whats been leaked has been revised already link and doesnt add up to the payouts, and Peyton and williams certainly admitted it happen, and Hargrove definitely screamed to pay him, but none of it is hard evidence that Vilma in particular did anything, which people here seem to act like it is, and thats the only thing i was trying to point out. Obviously theres enough evidence with the confession alone to say a bounty existed, that isnt in question, its who was a part of it. Whether they have a mountain of hard evidence or not is something we dont know and may never know, nor like you say have the right to know necessarily, which is why hes suing Goodell for defamation, as hes clearly guilty in public opinion.

Vilmas case is in the court of law. Filed with U.S. District Court in New Orleans.
vilma sues commissioner roger goodell defamation

the same evidence in the appeals case with the players, should be required in that suit against the commissioner. hopefully it does come to light and we get to see it. Although if he wins that case but the players lose the appeal youll see a lot bigger problems for the NFL.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-22-2012, 10:06 AM

Confessions are no longer "hard evidence" and are "circumstantial"?!

Ponderous.

**JAB1985** · 06-22-2012, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Confessions are no longer "hard evidence" and are "circumstantial"?!

Ponderous.

confessions of ones own guilt, yes. using confessions of ones guilt to simply imply anothers by association certainly isnt. just because loomis and peyton said they allowed a bounty does not mean Vilma was a part of it.

is the problem that you feel the entire team is guilty if there was a bounty, that they all were acting participants simply by being on the defense? That they all should have been punished not just the 4? Id sooner understand your point of view if that were the case than using one mans confession as proof of anothers simply by association.

**Mista T** · 06-22-2012, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

the same evidence in the appeals case with the players, should be required in that suit against the commissioner. hopefully it does come to light and we get to see it. Although if he wins that case but the players lose the appeal youll see a lot bigger problems for the NFL.

Huh?

In the unlikley event that a district judge in New Orleans sides with Vilma, and if the NFL decides to not appeal, the league will just pay to make it go away. If you are implying that a Vilma win would erode the Commissioner's power: the NFLPA conceded that just a year ago.