That's not how it works. You don't show evidence unless absolutely necessary. There has been no point to which any evidence would need to be seen. Right or wrong is beside the point. This is how it works every day in every day legal battles.

Here's a question, why would Goodell and the NFL show evidence before any potential lawsuits? Why would they give those suspended a leg up in a legal battle? Wouldn't it make sense to have a court take down the players statements and THEN provide the proof?

seems goodel 's only card is his ex employee of saints who supposidly heard vill. offer cash and if goofball i mean dipstick i meen goodell told the rat he will never be called on. so this rat may never come forward to show his wiskers. meaning goodell has'nt got a pot to we we in.

Change of topic: What ever happened to that Loomis "eavesdropping" claim? lol

Can't wait to see this. Man its getting crazy.

Depending on the outcome of this case, it may open up the coffers for several lawsuits and settlements.

Roger Goodell = John Travolta

IF Vilma knows for a fact he did not do what Goodell has publicly claimed then he has absolutely nothing to lose. Perhaps someone with a vendetta against the Saints gave Goodell false information or evidence thinking it wouldn't go public.

if vilma gets the proof out there for all to see and it proves to be a lot crap then this could mean SP could be back on the sidelines.

lets see the cards.

Actually, they will be required to give the evidence up before any hearing.

I hope this means trouble for Ayatollah GoodHell. Perhaps the NFL will consider a more rational system of checks & balances in the future - as opposed to the present judge, jury, executioner disaster.

Maybe. Maybe not.

He is 'smart enough' if he can hide behind the CBA and do and say whatever he feels and then destroy evidence on a whim...

BUT, I'd be willing to bet Roger never thought this would go this far. I have to doubt that he considered he'd actually get sued as an individual.

Where I think he miscalculated is the over-the-top punishment to players. Management, assuming there was even a pay-for-performance program, IS ultimately responsible. Roger went way over the top with Sean and Loomie in my opinion...

But with the players, is there any evidence that anyone was directly involved? The league points to Hargrove's statement as the end all be all and it is anything but.

Roger's mistake was to effectively end Jon's career. Heck, guilty or not, had Roger simply imposed a reasonable fine, Vilma might have simply capitulated rather than deal with all the drama. Instead Roger ended his career thus forcing Vilma and the NFLPA into action.

REAL action that I doubt Roger saw coming, smart as I think he is. I think he made a critical error in judgement with the heavy-handed suspensions and fines. I think he's crapping his pants right about now, and I'm happy about it.