Bounty Gate Players Suspended

[dogma+]

And as I pointed out, you apparently don't understand what a research study is. It's also a fact that less than 1% of all the people with cancer were actually included in a research study on cancer. So I guess that means cancer isn't a big deal and we should be promoting more smoking.

 

What's relevant is the % of players affected by brain trauma from playing football and the research strongly suggests that the problem is far more widespread that you are willing to acknowledge.

 

Fallacy. Confusion of correlation and causation.

[Mr. WEO]

its an interesting situation. with all the talk of court, id be curious to hear what the players can do - perhaps under the cba, they dont have as much recourse as some of the talking heads are implying in this situation, and goodell is banking on that?

its just not a situation that really has many shades of gray at this point - either he laid down the cash or he didnt. the levels of proof may in fact vary, but its amazing to me that both sides would be making such strong statements.

 

Not really. Roger Clemens is in Federal court today STILL swearing he didn't take HGH.

 

I'm guessing there is a mountain of corroborating evidence against Vilma, et al. Goodell took weeks longer to suspend these guys than he did for the coaches. Its becuase he anticipated this "indignant" nonsense from the players and the totally impotent NFLPA. All evidence would be made public at any civil action brought by the players. Goodell would quickly call their bluff. They won't sue.

[RyanC883]

Not really. Roger Clemens is in Federal court today STILL swearing he didn't take HGH.

 

I'm guessing there is a mountain of corroborating evidence against Vilma, et al. Goodell took weeks longer to suspend these guys than he did for the coaches. Its becuase he anticipated this "indignant" nonsense from the players and the totally impotent NFLPA. All evidence would be made public at any civil action brought by the players. Goodell would quickly call their bluff. They won't sue.

 

 

Goodell hired a very high profile prosecuter to go over all the evidence before he made a determination regarding the probative value of the evidence he has against these players. He has the evidence. If these players are dumb enough to challange their well-deserved suspensions they will look like even bigger idiots.

Edited May 3, 2012 by RyanC883

[K-9]

Goodell hired a very high profile prosecuter to go over all the evidence before he made a determination regarding the probative value of the evidence he has against these players. He has the evidence. If these players are dumb enough to challange their well-deserved suspensions they will look like even bigger idiots.

 

Am I imagining it or did I read somewhere that the NFL has something like 18,000 documents relating to Bountygate?

 

That's a lot of there, there.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Mr. WEO]

Obviously other players and likely coaches have ID'd these guys as the ringleaders. They would never win a suit. They know what they did. They are trying (lamely) to convince everyone else of something other than what they know happened.

[Kelly the Dog]

Obviously other players and likely coaches have ID'd these guys as the ringleaders. They would never win a suit. They know what they did. They are trying (lamely) to convince everyone else of something other than what they know happened.

That is how I see it. Just an opinion. I don't know the evidence.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Kelly the Dog

[nobody]

suspensions overturned

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/nfl/09/07/saints-nfl-suspensions-appeal.ap/

[TheMadCap]

suspensions overturned

 

http://sportsillustr...ions-appeal.ap/

 

wow. I guess the Commish is not going to be happy. How can this be overturned if the NFLPA collectively bargined the rules?

[Mr. WEO]

"the commissioner can reconsider discipline if -- and only if -- there is evidence of intent to injure beyond just a performance pool."

 

Wasn't that his contention?? If so, how can thye say he was outside his authority to suspend for this yet he is free to "reconsider" (punish) for the same thing?

[NoSaint]

"the commissioner can reconsider discipline if -- and only if -- there is evidence of intent to injure beyond just a performance pool."

 

Wasn't that his contention?? If so, how can thye say he was outside his authority to suspend for this yet he is free to "reconsider" (punish) for the same thing?

 

they are saying if they can prove that it was targeted, and not just for big clean hits that should be occurring anyway - i would assume.

 

i havent been through all the info on it yet, but thats the guess

 

 

 

wow. I guess the Commish is not going to be happy. How can this be overturned if the NFLPA collectively bargined the rules?

 

it was overturned by a panel negotiated in the CBA. this isnt the court case or judge ruling, this is the appeals process continuing to play out within the cba.

 

reading through some of the early opinions, this could still have a bit to go....

 

its not totally clear what if any punishments may still be floating out there. im not sure how many loose ends still need to get tied up.

 

even without the suspension, vilma still has a defamation suit. curious to see if he drops that, or goes ahead.

 

and of course, the nfl could sue saying this ruling was improperly handled, mirroring what the players just did.

Edited September 7, 2012 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

they are saying if they can prove that it was targeted, and not just for big clean hits that should be occurring anyway - i would assume.

 

i havent been through all the info on it yet, but thats the guess

 

 

 

it was overturned by a panel negotiated in the CBA. this isnt the court case or judge ruling, this is the appeals process continuing to play out within the cba.

 

reading through some of the early opinions, this could still have a bit to go....

 

and its not totally clear what if any punishments may still be floating out there. im not sure how many loose ends still need to get tied up.

 

even without the suspension, vilma still has a defamation suit. curious to see if he drops that, or goes ahead.

 

and of course, the nfl could sue saying this ruling was improperly handled, mirroring what the players just did.

 

Prove it to whom? Didn't he already present this evidence to the panel? If not, what was the basis for their overturning the suspensions if they don;t know why he suspended them?

[NoSaint]

 

 

Prove it to whom? Didn't he already present this evidence to the panel? If not, what was the basis for their overturning the suspensions if they don;t know why he suspended them?

 

what im reading from that statement is that they didnt accept the evidence for a 10k bounty on favre, for example. that they think it was just a standard pay for play pool and big hits were a part of that.

 

i havent dug into the meat and potatoes of this yet, so thats a lot of conjecture on my part.

 

 

edit: this guy has been pretty good for info - http://twitter.com/SportsLawGuy

hes local and has been at all the court hearings, but remains pretty non-biased. discussing a lot of the stuff your talking about WEO - essentially that the suspensions were overturned but its kicked right back to goodell to decide punishment again... which is an odd spot.

Edited September 7, 2012 by NoSaint

[djp14150]

The issue are.......

 

1. questionable evidence....couldnt you suspend many more players not on the saints for having some sort of pool/kitty for hitting the QB or a big hit?? Lynching the Saints over this

 

2. Legality of the evidence collected

 

3. The commissioner was not objective

 

4. They didnt reveal all of their evidence which a practice by a District Attorney could make them disbarred.

 

5. The intent to injure was not proven.

Edited September 7, 2012 by djp14150

[peterpan]

Vilma tweeted: "Victory is mine!!!! -stewie griffin"

 

Wasn't Vilma's stance all along that he didn't offer money to other players and that the evidence was fabricated? I thought thats why he sued in civil court. This ruling sure makes it appear that he may be right.

Either way, Goodell is still a d*ck.

 

In other news - IF it comes to light that Goodell had no real evidence - does that in anyway make people further question the Spygate incident in NE? I still think that situation stinks with corruption. 'there was nothing incriminating on those tapes - so we destroyed them' - Goodell.

 

And I'm sure there was nothing incriminating on the 14 minutes of the Watergate tapes either.

Edited September 7, 2012 by peterpan

[papazoid]

the lifting of the suspension is TEMPORARY.......they will be suspended again at some point in the near future. the imporatant issue for the players is that most will be on the week 1 roster.....which guarantees their salary for the year.

 

 

Actually, this gives Goodell and company an opportunity for a Mulligan. They can go back to square one and re-do the process in a way that will make it more likely to withstand any and all challenges, in court or otherwise.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/07/reinstated-players-could-end-up-suspended-again-eventually/

[vincec]

edit: this guy has been pretty good for info - http://twitter.com/SportsLawGuy

hes local and has been at all the court hearings, but remains pretty non-biased. discussing a lot of the stuff your talking about WEO - essentially that the suspensions were overturned but its kicked right back to goodell to decide punishment again... which is an odd spot.

Everyone should read through this link because what was ruled is nothing like what many posters are writing about or that the players are tweeting.

 

Apparently, the panel simply ruled that this case involved both a "pay for performance" scheme and an "intent to injure" by players, and Goodell made his ruling considering both of these factors. However, under the CBA Goodell can only suspend players for the "intent to injure". "Pay for performance" schemes, while in violation of the CBA, are not within his purview to punish. Therefore, the panel vacated the suspensions and sent the case back to Goodell to re-evaluate it without considering the "pay for performance" aspects- only the "intent to injure".

 

Ideally, I'm sure that they're hoping for a settlement but if not then Goodell can simply say that he believes that there was enough proof that Saints players were intentionally trying to injure opposing players and therefore they should be suspended, and suspend them again (although presumably for less time).

Edited September 7, 2012 by vincec

[NoSaint]

the lifting of the suspension is TEMPORARY.......they will be suspended again at some point in the near future. the imporatant issue for the players is that most will be on the week 1 roster.....which guarantees their salary for the year.

 

 

Actually, this gives Goodell and company an opportunity for a Mulligan. They can go back to square one and re-do the process in a way that will make it more likely to withstand any and all challenges, in court or otherwise.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/07/reinstated-players-could-end-up-suspended-again-eventually/

 

There's still a lot to go. The court case still stands if the nfl just says psssh were keeping the punishment. It's still possible that no suspensions end up served. I'd say it's highly unlikely we see identical punishments come down. I think we end up with a much more fair situation when all is said and done.