Thread: Ex-Bears, Ex-Saint Brown on Player Punishments: "Dead wrong"

Originally Posted by Dagan81

[/B][/I]
You know how the language of "Legalese" is. It's really hard ot understand. I hear that it's more difficult to learn and comprehend than Mandarin Chinese! lol

That's because there are no translations for words or phrases like, whereas, therefore, party of the first part, and hereafter referred to, from English into Mandarin. Although if they're dead set on becoming capitalists they'll need to invent some of their own. LOL

Originally Posted by Henry Burris

There was some football player on at a crazy hour on espn radio yesterday, and he made himself look foolish when he said there was no proof of the players being involved, and the host had to have him repeat that twice. Why i brought that up was that it seems there's not much being said against these players or coaches by that many around the league, makes ya wonder how much dirt is under the rug...

Hey Henry, yeah the players around the league, at least the active ones, are strangely silent on all this even though they were the victims. That's interesting but I still don't believe it's a widespread problem.

There have always been "kangaroo courts: and fines for messing up in some way dating back for decades but this is truly the first time I've ever heard of a "bounty system" that paid of for injuries. I guess it's pretty safe to say that if anyone was even considering it that it's a dead issue now.

Originally Posted by soulman

Hey Henry, yeah the players around the league, at least the active ones, are strangely silent on all this even though they were the victims. That's interesting but I still don't believe it's a widespread problem.

There have always been "kangaroo courts: and fines for messing up in some way dating back for decades but this is truly the first time I've ever heard of a "bounty system" that paid of for injuries. I guess it's pretty safe to say that if anyone was even considering it that it's a dead issue now.

If he's the judge, then I will take you up on a kangaroo court. lol

Is that Mr Greenjeans replacement there with ole Cap?

Lord, I don't know. I don't think I was even born when that show was on, of if I was alive while it was still on, I was very young.

Originally Posted by nelliewilson

I was thinking the same thing. But if Vilma is claiming that he was wrongfully suspended then it would be up to him to prove his innocence. Therefore, he would have to provide his bank statements. The burden of proof rests on him.

But if the league were suing him then they could request his bank statements and if he doesn't want to provide them they could also subpoena to get them. It's a process.

I haven't any idea how Vilma and the others plan on defending themselves either. I can only assume they will claim the rule isn't clearly stated.

I just read this article nellie and herein may lie the NFL's loaded gun for dealing with this.



Friday May 04, 2012 - 5:49 PM

Legal expert: Union may be fighting losing battle in bounty grievances

By Clark Judge | CBSSports.com Senior NFL Columnist

• 26 Comments
  
  

According to the union, acts from before the new CBA are not subject to league discipline. (Getty Images)

The NFL strongly believes arbitrators will uphold its position regarding commissioner Roger Goodell's suspensions of four players involved in the New Orleans Saints' bounty scandal -- and I know a legal expert who believes they will, too.


Meet Geoffrey Rapp, professor at the University of Toledo's College of Law and one of two sources I consulted a year ago during the NFL lockout. Along with Stanford Law School professor William Gould, Rapp accurately predicted that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals would uphold the NFL and, in effect, bring an end to the lockout.


So I sought him out again Friday after the NFL Players Association filed two grievances that challenge Goodell's authority to penalize the players and that seek to grant them immunity for acts committed before Aug. 4, 2011, when the new CBA took effect.(So in addition to whatever other relief Vilma or the others may be seeking in court the NFLPA is picking up the torch too)


In the first grievance, the Players Association cites Article III of the CBA, where the league and its teams agree not to sue the union and its members "with respect to conduct occurring prior to execution of this Agreement." In the second, the NFLPA argues that only arbitrator Stephen Burbank, who serves as the "system arbitrator" for the league and its union, should be able to punish players. Not Goodell. (So the union believes the CBA denies Goodell the authority to be sole judge and executioner as far as "player conduct" matter are concerned)

Furthermore, the union believes all appeals should be heard by Art Shell and Ted Cottrell -- not Goodell -- because they were appointed by the league and its union to judge appeals of punishments for "conduct on the playing field with respect to an opposing player or players." (OK so here's at least part of their case in court if it ever gets that far and the union is supporting them on this)


Maybe, but an NFL source told me Friday that the league never would have signed off on the CBA without Goodell having final authority over issues that involve conduct that strikes at the integrity of the game -- which is what the league argues the Saints case is all about. An agent I trust thinks the union has a shot to win because, as he put it, there are "lots of shades of gray" to this case, but that's where Rapp comes in. (Here's the battleground. How is this part of the agreement interpreted? "shades or gray". Isn't that the offical color of most legal documents? Does it strike anyone else as being very crafty to get yourself into the position of being paid huge sums of money to draw up an agreement you will later be paid huge sums of money to defend? It's kind of like autos being designed by mechanics so they know exactly which parts will fail......and when.)


He disagrees, and here's why:


"What we're dealing with here," he said in an e-mail, "is the legacy of the Chicago 'Black Sox' from nearly a century ago. In the aftermath of that scandal, Major League Baseball -- followed later by each of the prominent American professional leagues -- sought to restore the public's view of the sport by granting the Commissioner the power to make certain decisions in the 'best interests' of the sport, without being subject to any kind of review. The courts have tended to be deferential to this 'best interests' power, taking the view that the league formed voluntarily and that the teams were fully aware of the consequences of handing over this kind of authority ... but chose to do so anyway.


"In the modern era, the commissioners of the various leagues have invoked this power somewhat sparingly, typically in regard to major gambling issues. Now that most aspects of the league are subject to bargaining with a union, if the commissioners were too trigger-happy in claiming an action was covered by a 'best-interest' clause, players might dig in their heels and try to take away that power. In the NBA and MLB, for instance, players have successfully negotiated for some right to appeal 'best-interests' sanctions.


"In the new NFL CBA, the Commissioner has the power (as he had in previous CBAs) to impose discipline on a player for 'conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football.' While an ordinary suspension could be challenged through arbitration, if the Commissioner invoked the 'integrity' clause he has the final say. (Here's the gun)


"The language of the CBA is broad in this grant of authority -- it would apparently allow the Commissioner to impose 'integrity' sanctions whether the conduct is on or off the field and whether or not the conduct occurred before the CBA became effective or even before the player became a professional. (And here's the bullets)


"I see some stuff in the CBA talking about players waiving claims against the teams/league for conduct prior to the agreement taking effect but didn't find anything in a quick look that would involve the league waiving the right to impose discipline for conduct before the agreement took effect. Even if there is such an agreement it would seem to me the 'integrity' clause would trump that and allow the Commissioner to take virtually any action to protect the game." (And possibly the body bag)


Of course, that decision is left to arbitrators, and, as one agent warned, be careful. As he put it, "With any action related to the NFL these days it can be almost career-defining." I understand what he's saying. But I also understand what Rapp is saying, and not only does he make a convincing argument; he has been perfect with predictions before.


"Given the seriousness of allegations of on-field play," he said, "this story is one where the Commissioner's power will likely be upheld." (So to clarify he's believes the union will lose in arbitration which is where the initial decision will be made which would then set the stage for a potential battle in court over that decision. Looks like this may be a long way from being a done deal)

And this says the league had the goods on him at the very least by using Hargrove's admission of his involvement. Vilma cancels a suppose meeting with Goodell probably on the advice of his attorney.

You don't meet with the prosecution and give them any insight into your defense when you know you're probably going to battle over it in court. Glad I read these. It's beginning to make more sense to me now.

Posted: 11:41 am May 04, 2012
Report: Jonathan Vilma originally requested to meet with NFL, then changed his mind

By Josh Katzowitz | NFL Blogger

Vilma apparently requested to meet with the NFL but then changed his mind. (US Presswire)

As CBSSports.com's Mike Freeman told you earlier, the NFLPA has filed its grievance against the NFL about the decision to suspend four Saints players for the bounty program.

Freeman writes that the NFLPA believes “that Goodell doesn't have the authority to suspend the players, that his actions violated the collective bargaining agreement and that the NFL hasn't presented sufficient evidence to suspend the Saints players.”

But as Pro Football Talk points out, the letters from Roger Goodell announcing the player suspensions -- which were attached to the grievance -- provide an interesting twist.

In his letter to Jonathan Vilma, who was most heavily punished with his year-long suspension, Goodell wrote that Vilma's counsel contacted the NFL in March “to request an opportunity to be heard before the one-year suspension was imposed.” Then, Goodell writes, Vilma's lawyers changed their mind and declined to speak to the league.

Goodell also claims the league asked the union to help set up a meeting with Vilma, but the NFLPA declined.

In some ways, Vilma's decision not to meet with the NFL makes sense, especially if Vilma thought the NFL had him nailed. But on the other hand, Vilma, by admitting guilt and/or regret for participating in the bounty, could have had his suspension reduced, especially since Goodell has shown a penchant for being lenient on players who are cooperative.

And it's somewhat disingenuous for the NFLPA to claim how unfair the process is. When Goodell is the one who makes the decision and then hears the appeal, yes, that is rather unfair (remember, the NFLPA also signed off on exactly that in the latest CBA). But if Vilma had the chance to make his case and/or express his sorrow and decided to blow off that opportunity, he couldn't have been surprised at how harsh the penalty was.

PFT also reports that the declaration made by Anthony Hargrove that the bounty program existed and that he participated was submitted through the NFLPA and not through the league itself.

As Mike Florio writes, “This makes the contents of the declaration far more persuasive, since there can now be no argument that Hargrove was in any way coerced into signing it by the league. It also could create a conflict for the NFLPA regarding the competing interests of Hargrove and the other three players, if Hargrove admits to things that Jonathan Vilma and Will Smith publicly have denied.”

And it adds another twist in a Bounty-gate storyline that doesn't appear to be anywhere close to ending.

Originally Posted by soulman

And this says the league had the goods on him at the very least by using Hargrove's admission of his involvement. Vilma cancels a suppose meeting with Goodell probably on the advice of his attorney.

You don't meet with the prosecution and give them any insight into your defense when you know you're probably going to battle over it in court. Glad I read these. It's beginning to make more sense to me now.

Posted: 11:41 am May 04, 2012
Report: Jonathan Vilma originally requested to meet with NFL, then changed his mind

By Josh Katzowitz | NFL Blogger

Vilma apparently requested to meet with the NFL but then changed his mind. (US Presswire)

As CBSSports.com's Mike Freeman told you earlier, the NFLPA has filed its grievance against the NFL about the decision to suspend four Saints players for the bounty program.

Freeman writes that the NFLPA believes “that Goodell doesn't have the authority to suspend the players, that his actions violated the collective bargaining agreement and that the NFL hasn't presented sufficient evidence to suspend the Saints players.”

But as Pro Football Talk points out, the letters from Roger Goodell announcing the player suspensions -- which were attached to the grievance -- provide an interesting twist.

In his letter to Jonathan Vilma, who was most heavily punished with his year-long suspension, Goodell wrote that Vilma's counsel contacted the NFL in March “to request an opportunity to be heard before the one-year suspension was imposed.” Then, Goodell writes, Vilma's lawyers changed their mind and declined to speak to the league.

Goodell also claims the league asked the union to help set up a meeting with Vilma, but the NFLPA declined.

In some ways, Vilma's decision not to meet with the NFL makes sense, especially if Vilma thought the NFL had him nailed. But on the other hand, Vilma, by admitting guilt and/or regret for participating in the bounty, could have had his suspension reduced, especially since Goodell has shown a penchant for being lenient on players who are cooperative.

And it's somewhat disingenuous for the NFLPA to claim how unfair the process is. When Goodell is the one who makes the decision and then hears the appeal, yes, that is rather unfair (remember, the NFLPA also signed off on exactly that in the latest CBA). But if Vilma had the chance to make his case and/or express his sorrow and decided to blow off that opportunity, he couldn't have been surprised at how harsh the penalty was.

PFT also reports that the declaration made by Anthony Hargrove that the bounty program existed and that he participated was submitted through the NFLPA and not through the league itself.

As Mike Florio writes, “This makes the contents of the declaration far more persuasive, since there can now be no argument that Hargrove was in any way coerced into signing it by the league. It also could create a conflict for the NFLPA regarding the competing interests of Hargrove and the other three players, if Hargrove admits to things that Jonathan Vilma and Will Smith publicly have denied.”

And it adds another twist in a Bounty-gate storyline that doesn't appear to be anywhere close to ending.

Wow. Un-fucking-believeable. Vilma is either pragmatic and wants to save his bacon (a big maybe on that one), or he's dumber than a box of rocks. If he actually did do this, with Hargrove's admission and with what apparently was a big fat lie told by both Vilma and Will Smith, he (Vilma) deserves to be thrown into the slammer for that, or in my opinion, kicked out of the league. This is an interesting twist, indeed.

Vilma's ego is bigger than the state of Texas.

Wow. Am I the only one who thinks it was a really bad move for Vilma to cry foul instead of roll with the punches? Now he's going to drag this out longer. He's the suspect but wants to be the victim. Talk about career-defining. I'm a little surprised that he wouldn't want to put this behind him and forget about it as soon as possible. Almost every article I've read seems to favor Vilma though. Some say that a two-game suspension is enough and I have to laugh at that. In my eyes what he did was criminal. Not only should he be suspended for a year there should also be some jail time as well. I think he was lucky not to be expelled from the league.

Public opinion of Vilma is taking a dive. I really hope Hargrove saves his own @ss and hangs Vilma out to dry.