Vilma appeals suspension

[jonathanlambert33]

Claiming that the “NFL has refused to provide a single piece of evidence” proving that linebacker Jonathan Vilma allegedly participated in a bounty program, Vilma’s lawyer has submitted with the appeal of Vilma’s one-year suspension a sweeping request for documents and other evidence regarding the claim.

Peter Ginsberg’s letter to Commissioner Roger Goodell, a copy of which Ginsberg has provided to PFT, seeks 17 categories of information.

The request encompasses, among other things, documents proving the existence of a bounty program (such as notebooks, ledgers, etc.), documents showing that Vilma assisted in the establishment of the program, documents showing that Vilma “pledged” to make payments for “cart-offs” and/or “knockouts” and/or injuries inflicted on opponents, documents proving that Vilma “targeted” opponents in a way that violates NFL rules, all* witness statements, interview notes, recordings of interviews, and a full list of all witnesses who will present evidence at the appeal hearing.

Here's what the counsel of #Saints LB Jonathan Vilma sent to the #NFL for the appeal (it's LONG):

"We request the NFL to provide immediately the following in order to assure that resolution of this dispute not be delayed and that Mr. Vilma has a fair opportunity as quickly as possible to remedy the harm that is being done to his reputation and to his career:

1. All documents and communications evidencing a “pay-for-performance/bounty” program, including, but not limited to, any ledger, notebook, record or record book, payment slip, note or entry of any sort, or evidencing that no such “pay-for- performance/bounty” program existed and/or involved Mr. Vilma;

2. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma established, or assisted in establishing, a “pay-for-performance/bounty” program or any other program in violation of NFL rules, or evidencing that Mr. Vilma did not have a role in establishing, or assisting in the establishment of, such “pay-for-performance/bounty” program;

3. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma “pledged,” made or received payments of any kind resulting from an opposing player being carried off the field, i.e., “cart-offs,” including but not limited to any ledger, notebook, record or record book, payment slip, note or entry of any sort, or evidencing that Mr. Vilma did not “pledge,” make or receive payments resulting from an opposing player being carried off the field, i.e., “cart-offs”

4. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma “pledged,” made or received payments of any kind resulting from an opposing player being unable to return to the game, i.e., “knockouts,” including but not limited to any ledger, notebook, record or record book, payment slip, note or entry of any sort, or evidencing that Mr. Vilma did not “pledge,” make or receive payments resulting from an opposing player being unable to return to the game, i.e., “knockouts”;

5. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma “pledged,” made or received payment of any kind resulting from an opposing player being injured, including but not limited to any ledger, notebook, record or record book, payment slip, note or entry of any sort, or evidencing that Mr. Vilma did not “pledge,” make or receive payments resulting from an opposing player being injured;

6. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma “targeted” an opposing player in any manner that would violate NFL rules, or evidencing that Mr. Vilma did not “target” an opposing player in any manner;

7. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma engaged “in unsafe and prohibited conduct intended to injure players” or did not engage “in unsafe and prohibited conduct intended to injure players”;

8. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma “participate[d] in a program that potentially injured opposing players,” or evidencing that Mr. Vilma did not “participate[d] in a program that potentially injured opposing players”;

9. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma “embraced” a “pay-for- performance/bounty” program or any other program in violation of NFL rules, or evidencing that Mr. Vilma did not “embrace” a “pay-for-performance/bounty” program or any other program in violation of NFL rules;

10. All documents and communications evidencing that Mr. Vilma offered, paid or intended to pay $10,000, or any amount of money, to any player for knocking Kurt Warner, Brett Favre, and/or any other player, out of the 2009 Divisional Playoff Game, 2010 NFC Championship Game, or any other game, or evidencing that Mr. Vilma did not engage in such activity;

11. All statistics of any nature gathered in the course of the ‘bounty program’ investigation relating to penalties assessed against Mr. Vilma and all other New Orleans Saints players during the years 2009 – 2011;

12. All game film of New Orleans Saints games and players gathered in the course of the `bounty program’ investigation of exhibition games, regular season games and playoff and championship games during the years 2009 – 2011;

13. All tape recordings of any sort gathered in the course of the ‘bounty program’ investigation relating to meetings of any sort that occurred during the years 2009 – 2011;

14. All witness statements, notes of interviews and declarations gathered during the course of the ‘bounty program’ investigation;

15. The names and identification of all persons interviewed by the NFL and all persons acting on behalf of the NFL during the course of the ‘bounty program’ investigation;

16. The names and identification of all witnesses the NFL plans to present at Mr. Vilma’s Appeal Hearing; and

17. All evidence the NFL plans to offer or use in any manner at Mr. Vilma’s Appeal Hearing."

11, 12, and 13 basically say, "prove the bounty program existed" by showing that the Saints caused an inordinate amount of injuries and/or were penalized at an inordinate rate.

 

[Elite]

What I keep hearing from these guys and guys like Mike Golic are that there wasn't any problems with what happened because it didn't result in an unusual amount of penalties or injuries or anything like that, completely ignoring the fact that they're not being penalized because of that, they're being suspended because having a bounty system in place is against the rules. For some reason they all fail to understand that.

 

[jonathanlambert33]

They're being suspended for lieing about having a pay for performance system in place, but the players say the coaches never told them the NFL was investigating it.

 

[Elite]

They were suspended for participating in a bounty, which is illegal.

 

[jonathanlambert33]

You don't say?

 

[Elite]

They're being suspended for lieing about having a pay for performance system in place, but the players say the coaches never told them the NFL was investigating it.

Nowhere in that post do you say that they're being suspended for participating.

You said lying about participating.

Two different animals.

 

[jonathanlambert33]

Roger Goodell said himself in one of his interviews that the Saints punishments are a resulting of lieing to the NFL and Goodell's face back in 2009 during the initial investigation. Now whether they actually lied about it's existence, that's a different story. But these suspensions have just as much to do with the Saints lying to the commish as they do with actually participating in said program, if not more.

And if you REALLY want to get technical, the players are suspended, and the organization was fined and docked picks for circumventing the salary cap, which was a result of the pay for performance program. But according to the NFLPA and the players lawyers, the NFL has no evidence that money ever changed hands, and that is why we are where we are today. Hell, the NFLPA and the players lawyers are yet to even see evidence that a bounty program ever existed, aside from the fact that Gregg Williams handed Jonathan Vilma $10K before the Arizona and Minnesota games in 09 as a "motivation tactic" to the team to knock Warner and Favre out of the game, but that money reportedly was returned to Williams after both weeks.

 

[jonathanlambert33]

Oh, and I would also like to take the time to laugh at NFL.com's headline:

New Orleans Saints sign DT Ayodele, who injured Favre's ankle

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828ed923/article/new-orleans-saints-sign-dt-ayodele-who-injured-favres-ankle?module=HP11_headline_stack

NFL is grasping at straws...

:spideypalm:

 

[jonathanlambert33]

When it comes to the question of whether the NFL should release all evidence related to the Saints alleged bounty program, the evidence in favor of putting all cards on the table continues to grow.

The latest chunk of it comes from Mike Triplett of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, who buries a bombshell in an article regarding the fallout of the Anthony Hargrove declaration.

Writes Triplett: “[A]ccording to a source close to [former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg] Williams, the NFL has also misrepresented what Williams said in interviews with the league. According to the source, Williams never admitted a ‘bounty program’ was in place and that the league ‘rephrased his statements to satisfy its needs.’ The source also said Williams never identified any players for their involvement in a pay-for-performance or bounty program.”

Those are strong, stunning allegations. Given the mounting attacks on the quality of the league’s evidence, the time has come for the NFL to disclose it. All. Publicly. Every piece and shred of it.

It’s far too late for the NFL to hide behind “personnel matters” and “privacy rights.” Through a series of detailed statements that the NFL has released containing summaries and characterizations of evidence, the reputations of Gregg Williams, Sean Payton, Joe Vitt, Mickey Loomis, Anthony Hargrove, Scott Fujita, Will Smith, and Jonathan Vilma forever have been sullied. The least the league can do at this point is share with all of us the evidence that justified publicly branding these eight men as cheaters, liars, and worse.

This isn’t about exonerating Williams, who delivered a fatal blow to his own reputation the night before the Saints faced the 49ers in the 2011 NFC playoffs. But the league has painted all of eight men with the same broad brush. The time has come to take a scalpel to the evidence and figured out exactly who did what.

wtf man

 

[Rice18]

Oh, and I would also like to take the time to laugh at NFL.com's headline:

New Orleans Saints sign DT Ayodele, who injured Favre's ankle

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828ed923/article/new-orleans-saints-sign-dt-ayodele-who-injured-favres-ankle?module=HP11_headline_stack

NFL is grasping at straws...

:spideypalm:

Ayodele played with Minnesota in 2011, starting 13 games.

Guy was worthless and we played him so much. Shows how much we sucked.

 

[jonathanlambert33]

He only played 258 snaps for you guys.

 

[Rice18]

He only played 258 snaps for you guys.

He played the Pat role, in for run plays and that is it.

 

[jonathanlambert33]

I'm not even sure if he will make our final roster to be honest.

 

[Rice18]

I'm not even sure if he will make our final roster to be honest.

Wouldn't surprise me, he is lazy.

 

[jonathanlambert33]

That he is. I've met him before though, biggest man I've ever met.

And I've met a bunch of NBA players.

 

[jonathanlambert33]

I have been thinking about the players' denials that bountygate ever took place, and also their insinuation that the league embellished its findings to draw attention to its supposed concern for player safety/integrity of the game. I think it is clear that NFL does not have the evidence other than hearsay from a few former disgruntled employees. To corroborate their testimony, the leagued mischaracterized the coaches' admission that there was a pay-for-performance program in place as an admission that bounties existed when they did not. And outside of Gregg Williams having to sign a statement that was authored by the league, Hargrove's statement, and the lone email where Ornstein mentions putting money up against Rodgers, the league only had the accusations of these "sources."

So why ask the NFLPA for input? Well, it's simple. When Roger Goodell decided to make an example of the Saints, and to put up this facade that the league is working to improve player safety, he knew that the coaches would not have any "real" opportunity to fend off the accusations against them. Without a union in place, Goodell held all the cards and could enforce his decision without any oversight from another intervening judicial body. With the players, however, he could not do so. Now, if he had real evidence, IT would not matter one bit to him and the league. But because he knew that his evidence was flimsy, at best, then he had to have some support from the NFLPA so as to avoid having the league undergo what it is currently undergoing, which is backlash from the players, their lawyers and the NFLPA.

Think about it this way. If the NFLPA had recommended suspensions, Goodell could have concluded that the group who represents the players agreed that bounties took place. And even if the NFLPA chose to represent the suspended players, any outside board might conclude that they were only following standard procedure rather than supporting players they felt were actually innocent. But in this case, the NFLPA did not accept the flimsy evidence Goodell presented to them. And the players, led by their lawyers, have been on the offensive. And so it puts Goodell in the corner that he had hoped to avoid by trying to cajole the NFLPA into supporting the need to suspend the players. Goodell is no dummy; he knew that the league did not have enough evidence beyond accusations. Nevertheless, he tried to gain the support of the NFLPA so that the players would not have any way of challenging this ruling. Vilma would be hardpressed to make a case that Goodell is defaming him if the NFLPA had agreed that the evidence they saw necessitated them making a recommendation to Goodell on how to proceed with punishment.

This was going to be a very simple process for Roger:

Suspend coaches? Check. And they cannot stop me even in the midst of me not having any real evidence because they lack a union. Besides, I very cleverly suspended them based on "conduct detrimental to the league."

Suspend the players? Check.

Get the NFLPA to support decision and even participate in it such that I look like my case against the Saints is strong despite my lack of evidence?

Problem, the NFLPA did not buy it, and a growing number of folks in the media are also questioning it now too after initially take Roger's word for it. And this is all about to blow up in Goodell's face big-time starting with Vilma's lawsuit. And, at this point, he better hope that he has real evidence because if he does not, the NFL might very well be in search of a new commissioner. Because the reality is, if the NFL has embellished their findings, well, the suspensions for the coaches could "possibly" be reversed. But how do you reverse the loss of draft picks and the tarnished reputations you caused?!