Quite the opinion piece. While I agree that Goodell was too much of an authoritarian, that piece was so softly on the Saints, as if these players were poor, pitiful children caught up in a whirlwind by an abusive father. Bullshit. Tagliabue affirmed the findings, and placed the blame more on the coaches then the players, but he didn’t pretend this didn’t happen. And the piece completely ignores that the whole thing could have been resolved much like it has been now if the players had cooperated with the NFL in the first place.
And I can’t wait to see how Vilma’s defamation lawsuit against Goodell goes.
Me too. Given that Judge Berrigan appeared to be preparing to step in and make a ruling unfavorable to the NFL if Tagliabue had upheld the player suspensions, it would not surprise me in the least if the defamation suit works in Vilma’s favor.
I would be absolutely shocked if Vilma won. I think it much more likely that Vilma drop it and try to claim victory in the press. If Vilma continues the case, I think the most likely outcome is the judge laughing him out of the courtroom.
Yeah, the best thing Vilma can do is just let it drop. Two full reviews of the evidence commissioned by the league have already gone against him. That’s not a legally binding finding of fact, but it’s a hell of a defense against a defamation claim.
Vilma seems pretty determined to pursue the defamation case in court in the few clips I’ve seen of him discussing it. That’s not to say that he won’t decide to drop it, but he has seemed pretty committed to that course of action.
The internal NFL proceedings have not afforded Vilma and his legal team the ability to see all the NFL’s evidence and to fully examine and cross-examine the NFL’s witnesses. They got to do a little of that under Tagliabue, but not fully. I think they’ll keep pushing until they get that opportunity.
If I knew I was innocent of charges made against me publicly, and if I felt that the internal processes were stacked in favor of the folks who made the charges, I’d really want to try to get a day in an impartial court. I would not be deterred by the circumstances, as in this case, where the NFL accused me, suspended me, reviewed the suspension, lowered it, reviewed it again, and dismissed it as sufficient. I’d want my name back.
Vilma and his lawyers have certainly said those things. But at some point, I think his lawyers need to point out that the hurdles to prove defamation are high and Goodell had actual evidence for his statements. You don’t get to win a defamation lawsuit simply because you think the evidence shows you’re right and he’s wrong, you have to prove it WAS wrong, that Goodell knew, and/or that it was unreasonable. I just don’t see Vilma ever meeting that standard.
Employer discipline isn’t a criminal case. You aren’t required to give a guy a trial, or the right to cross examine witnesses, to suspend an employee. But I also think that Vilma, if he does push this, would be making a lot more enemies than friends in his community. Guys are much more willing to lie, shade the truth, or cover their asses in a hearing before Tagliabue than in a federal courthouse under oath. I’m not so sure Vilma wants to piss off Sean Payton, Gregg Williams, the owner of the Saints, or the numerous players who know what was done, by forcing them to come into a federal court, take an oath, and testify subject to cross examination.
Here’s the thing we we may differ. I don’t think he’s “innocent”. I think he knew about, and willingly participated, in the program. I think there’s more than enough evidence for Goodell, even if Vilma was innocent, to reasonably conclude that he wasn’t, so he’s going to lose the defamation case anyway. I think the defamation case, the constant press conference, and all the bluster were not because he thinks he’s wrongly accused, I think it was a shrewd move to avoid punishment. But even if he was completely innocent, he still must be willing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to pursue a case that he likely will lose. I’m not sure he’s that invested.
Again, the factual findings didn’t go Vilma’s way, only the level of punishment. I think Vilma’s been all about posturing and once this is resolved, he’ll claim he was vindicated and dismiss his lawsuit. But I, for one, would love to see him continue to waste his time and money fighting it.
If you buy the NFL’s case that the NFL does indeed have evidence, then this might be right. Vilma has argued all along that the things the NFL have used against him in the internal proceedings are not evidence that he offered $10,000.00 to take Warner and Favre out of the games.
I never said it was.
Numerous players have already submitted legally binding affidavits supporting Vilma’s position.
Vilma has never claimed that he did not participate in the pay-for-performance arrangement that the Saints team and coaches admitted to. He has consistently argued that he never held up $10,000.00 in cash as a bounty for whomever could knock Warner first and then Favre out of the playoff games. That’s what Goodell has repeatedly accused Vilma of doing and that is what Vilma has consistently protested and that is what a number of players have submitted affidavits to. That’s the issue at the heart of the defamation suit.
And that’s what’s been lost in the whole mess. The Saints organization has admitted that a performance pool, contrary to NFL policy, was operated and that players contributed to it. They have maintained that the pool was not set up as a bounty-for-injuries. The NFL has argued the bounty angle and they continue to take that angle, including Tagliabue.
Stats show, however, that in the 2009 season, the Saints were among the least penalized teams and that only the SD Chargers opponents suffered fewer injuries than the Saints’ opponents. (SD ranked 32, and Saints 31 in injuries to opponents that year.) That suggests strongly that the Saints’ defense did not set out to injure opponents that season. Furthermore, in the years following while the pay-for-performance system was still in place, the Saints had similar penalty/injury stats.
That’s where Goodell overreached. Pushing the pay-performance pool as bounty-to-injure system. With each passing event the Saints’ case gets stronger that Goodell overreached and Goodell’s and the NFL’s gets weaker.
As had coaches: “The NFL presented Jonathan Vilma and his attorney with a sworn statement from former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams saying the linebacker placed a $10,000 bounty on Brett Favre.” Cite. The fact that Vilma has some players who support him does not negate the fact that calling Sean Payton, Gregg Williams, and other players (who may not support him) in a federal case will likely piss them off.
Yep, and, once again, I really think it will be difficult for Vilma to prove that Goodell fabricated evidence to single out and punish Vilma. Vilma can certainly testify and argue that there was no bounty system, but that’s not all he has to prove in a defamation suit.
I think we can both agree that we really want Vilma to press his lawsuit, if for completely different reasons. And Tagliabue’s ruling, which concluded that this wasn’t just a pay for performance, but also a bounty system, supports Goodell’s view more than Vilma’s. But there will always be deniers, which is why I’m all over Vilma continuing his lawsuit, so that they will finally shut up.
Thanks for the insight and perspective.:rolleyes:
Glad to help. But are you saying that you’re one of the deniers? Do you think there wasn’t a bounty program at all, that it was just a pay for performance with no benefits for cart offs or injuries? And if you are, is there anything that would convince you otherwise?
Based on reviewing the material the NFL released, information from a variety of sports media outlets, and my admittedly tenuous grasp of human nature, I believe that the Saints engaged in a pay-for-performance system that encouraged the defense to play with some swagger. While I do believe that the system rewarded players for “cart offs” and “kill the head” plays, I think that those are more semantic issues and that the Saints’ defense did not go on the field with the intent to injure.
Semantics? Yes, semantics combined with human nature. The money offered for a “cart off” was about $250.00. I don’t care how dumb you are, you don’t risk $15,000 to $35,000 in fines for dirty hits just to get an atta-boy from your teammates. The Saints were dumb to come up with those categories, no doubt. I played enough football in high school to know that coaches and players engage in hyperbole to fire each other up. The stats, however, show that the Saints’ defense didn’t play to injure opponents in 2009, which I believe supports assertions made by many members of the Saints’ defense and coaching staff that they did not set out to injure opponents.
So yes, I deny that that Saints ran a pay-to-injure bounty program. I agree that the team ran a pay-for-peformance program.
I have yet to be convinced from what the NFL has released, what the NFL has said, and what the NFL (including Tagliabue) has declared that the pay-for-performance program crossed the line to a bounty program.
What would convince me? The NFL releasing all their evidence, the chance for those accused of accepting payment for injuries to confront their accusers (Gregg Williams and Mike Cerullo are less than credible witnesses, in my opinion) and concrete proof being given that the objective of the pay-for-performance program was to injure Saints’ opponents.
That right there is the whole ballgame. While you have the luxury of playing semantics, the law does not. (I feel dirty saying that). The mere existence of a reward system for injuries is all that matters. The practical application of it is moot. My knowledge of what is going on comes solely from this thread – based on what I’ve read, it looks like a defamation case is a no-go.
It sounds more like you believe they ran a bounty program, but that nobody actually followed it. To me, when you admit “the system rewarded players for “cart offs” and “kill the head” plays” you are admitting there was a bounty program. It sounds like your defense isn’t that the program didn’t exist, it’s that the players never actually heeded to it. That despite the conduct was financially incentivised, none of the players actually took the next step to injuring someone for money.
I suppose that distinction lets you absolve the players from putting money into, paying out of, or receiving payment out of the bounty program, but I find it … not the most convincing of arguments. And I can’t imagine that there will be any evidence that can objectively show you that a player actually hurt someone because of the program outside of that player admitting it, which I think we can agree isn’t likely to happen.
Fair enough. If you’re comfortable with that kind of “semantics”, have at it. But at least we can agree that we both want the defamation case to go forward.
The stats don’t show that - they show that the Saints didn’t injure opponents at a greater rate than any other team, but they say nothing about intent. Their actual words show the intent.
This is where I think you’re going off the rails, ignoring the clear language used in describing the programs in favor of what you wish had happened. If specific payments were defined for injuring other people (which you acknowledged above, although you wrote it off as a poor choice of words), that’s explicitly a pay to injure system. How could it be anything else?
The players and coaches weren’t punished for injuring people; they were punished for establishing a bounty for causing injury. Whether or not anybody collected is a different question than the existence of the program.
All NFL players (well, maybe excepting placekickers, holders, punters, and QBs) recieve financial incentives in the form of salary to hit their opponents as hard as they can. Sometimes those hits result in injuries. How is that substantially different from a pay-for-performance system that rewards big hits?
I do not accept that the way the Saints ran the pay-for-performance program that players were encouraged to take the field with the intent to injure their opponents. Just as the salary the NFL teams pay their employees is not operated to encourage players to take the field with the intent to injure their opponents.
If the entire defensive squad of an NFL team intends to go out and injure their opponents, then the injury rate imposed by that defense is going to be high, as will the rate at which that team is penalized since the players will be seeking to injure their opponents. Since the Saints had one of the lowest injury rates imposed, and since they were below average in penalties, then the data are inconsistent with a bounty program that was set up with injuries as the objective.
Every NFL Team: “We’ll pay you a base salary to go out and hit people.”
New Orleans Saints: “And we’ll give you a bonus if they have to be carted off the field!”
The difference is the existence of the bonus. Not the amount of money, who out it up, whether anyone collected it, or the logistics of the award. The issue boils down to the simple fact that the Saints organization said, in clear and unambiguous language, “we’ll pay you more if you injure opponents.”
You’ve acknowledged that. You spend a lot of time trying to handwave it away, but (unless I’ve missed it) that fact is undisputed.
“And we’ll give you a bonus for a “kill the head” which means you’ve tackled the guy in such a way that his head isn’t pointed towards our goal line. And we’ll give you bonus for a “whack”, which is a really good tackle. And a bonus for stripping the ball. And for an interception. And we’ll dock your pay $250.00 for every mental mistake you make such as a offsides, late hit out-of-bounds, or other play you mess up on. And the incentives are just $250.00 and you’ll run the risk of getting a giant fine from the league if you hit late or dirty, and you’ll run the risk of the ire of your peers if they find out.” It’s a package deal. Pay-for-performance. Not something set up exclusively to reward players for injuries only.
So what? Pay-to-injure is ok as long as there are other performance-based incentives as well?