05-17-2012, 10:13 PM
|
#22
|
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?
|
|
|
|