League responds to Vilma suit, reiterates commitment to safety and integrity

|Mitch| · 05-17-2012, 10:02 PM

If Goodell had "conclusive" evidence implicating Vilma, he would have already shown what he had the numerous times the NFLPA asked to see it... Just to be all: "See I told you so!"

phocis850 · 05-17-2012, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by |Mitch|

If Goodell had "conclusive" evidence implicating Vilma, he would have already shown what he had the numerous times the NFLPA asked to see it... Just to be all: "See I told you so!"

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?

AsylumGuido · 05-18-2012, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by phocis850

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?

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

Halo · 05-18-2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by phocis850

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?

Why didn't Goodell just hand down punishment without making a media circus and mentioning Vilma several times specifically?

Apparently Hargrove, Fujita and others were just as culpable, why not mention their name over and over again to hurt the remained of their careers?

Doesn't the punishment itself fit the crime? Or does Vilma worthy of extra opprobrium to the extent that it destroys what's left of his career.

05-17-2012, 10:13 PM	#2
phocis850 Registered Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 31	Originally Posted by \|Mitch\| If Goodell had "conclusive" evidence implicating Vilma, he would have already shown what he had the numerous times the NFLPA asked to see it... Just to be all: "See I told you so!" 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?
phocis850 Registered Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 31

05-18-2012, 02:17 PM	#3
AsylumGuido 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Bossier City, LA Posts: 26,622	Originally Posted by phocis850 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? Actually, they will be required to give the evidence up before any hearing.

05-18-2012, 02:34 PM	#4
Halo Site Donor MONTHLY Join Date: May 2002 Location: New Orleans, LA Posts: 20,894 Blog Entries: 45	Originally Posted by phocis850 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? Why didn't Goodell just hand down punishment without making a media circus and mentioning Vilma several times specifically? Apparently Hargrove, Fujita and others were just as culpable, why not mention their name over and over again to hurt the remained of their careers? Doesn't the punishment itself fit the crime? Or does Vilma worthy of extra opprobrium to the extent that it destroys what's left of his career.

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: https://blackandgold.com/saints/43937-league-responds-vilma-suit-reiterates-commitment-safety-integrity.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date	Hits
League responds to Vilma suit, reiterates commitment to safety and integrity	This thread	Refback	05-17-2012 05:34 PM	3

05-17-2012, 10:02 PM	#1
\|Mitch\| 10000 POST CLUB Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Alexandria, La Posts: 11,303	If Goodell had "conclusive" evidence implicating Vilma, he would have already shown what he had the numerous times the NFLPA asked to see it... Just to be all: "See I told you so!"