Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

AsylumGuido · 10-24-2012, 05:10 PM

(10-24-2012 05:03 PM)mdrake34 Wrote: Gooddell absolutely handed it to Tagliabue to end it once and for all. Gooddell had the authority to refuse to recuse himself and all the pundits thought he would do just that. I for one was shocked that he recused himself.

Of course he wants it to end once and for all because he does not want it to go to court. He has most likely figured out that Cerullo has lied about all of this and wants to keep him from being examined.

AsylumGuido · 10-24-2012, 07:24 PM

I was just spending a bit of time this evening while working on dinner skimming through the new feeds and a thought came to mind ...

... have any of you ever used the verb "recuse" this often in your entire life? I'll bet I have typed it over 100 times in the past week on various forums and I can't ever remember using it before.

Dave, you are the most like to have used it, but is not this past week a bit more intensive?

AUTiger7222 · 10-24-2012, 09:01 PM

(10-24-2012 07:24 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I was just spending a bit of time this evening while working on dinner skimming through the new feeds and a thought came to mind ...

... have any of you ever used the verb "recuse" this often in your entire life? I'll bet I have typed it over 100 times in the past week on various forums and I can't ever remember using it before.

Dave, you are the most like to have used it, but is not this past week a bit more intensive?

I have never even heard of the word "recuse" before let alone use it in a sentence.

AsylumGuido · 10-24-2012, 10:26 PM

(10-24-2012 09:01 PM)AUTiger7222 Wrote: I have never even heard of the word "recuse" before let alone use it in a sentence.

The last time I actually heard it was back in one of my business law classes about 25 years ago. One of my professors (Dean of the department) who taught out of his own textbook spent a class talking about different cases and one involved a judge that turned out having a connection to the business involved. He was forced to recuse himself. I really don't think I have heard the term since then.

Drathdon · 10-24-2012, 11:16 PM

I think Tags should step aside as well, but what bothers me is that Tags was given the go ahead after the NFL and NFLPA discussed it and named him as a candidate.

Basically NFLPA said, choose Tags, and then after Tags was chosen, cried foul, and complained. Seems like nothing will satisfy them, and this is all a play to get the labor deal changed, after realizing they only cared about money, and gave up everything else.

From ESPN:
"Last week, the NFL and the union discussed the possibility that Tagliabue would step in if Goodell recused himself from hearing the appeals, and the union also suggested "several outsiders" who could be used in place of Goodell.

After Tagliabue was chosen by Goodell, Vilma said: "I think it's a good first step for Paul to be the neutral arbitrator. We expect that he is going to do things in a neutral capacity, which would be to allow us to cross-examine some of the witnesses, allow us to see more of the evidence -- if there is more evidence -- and be able to have a fair hearing."

Again, me - What makes me laugh is how Vilma says "allow us to see more of the evidence," which is not something you say when you know no evidence exists. It's like they know there is a smoking gun out there, and they will keep pushing until the NFL produces it, claiming innocence until they see it. I wonder if the NFL does, in fact, have it, and what will happen when it is revealed? We all know it exists, and this is just a game of cat and mouse to see who flinches first.

Aftermath · 10-24-2012, 11:24 PM

Damn I hate the NFLPA

JDaveG · 10-25-2012, 07:14 AM

(10-24-2012 07:24 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: I was just spending a bit of time this evening while working on dinner skimming through the new feeds and a thought came to mind ...

... have any of you ever used the verb "recuse" this often in your entire life? I'll bet I have typed it over 100 times in the past week on various forums and I can't ever remember using it before.

Dave, you are the most like to have used it, but is not this past week a bit more intensive?

Nah, we use it all the time. It's just standard legal terminology when someone is conflicted out of adjudicating a legal matter.

AsylumGuido · 10-25-2012, 09:15 AM

(10-24-2012 11:16 PM)Drathdon Wrote: I think Tags should step aside as well, but what bothers me is that Tags was given the go ahead after the NFL and NFLPA discussed it and named him as a candidate.

Basically NFLPA said, choose Tags, and then after Tags was chosen, cried foul, and complained. Seems like nothing will satisfy them, and this is all a play to get the labor deal changed, after realizing they only cared about money, and gave up everything else.

From ESPN:
"Last week, the NFL and the union discussed the possibility that Tagliabue would step in if Goodell recused himself from hearing the appeals, and the union also suggested "several outsiders" who could be used in place of Goodell.

After Tagliabue was chosen by Goodell, Vilma said: "I think it's a good first step for Paul to be the neutral arbitrator. We expect that he is going to do things in a neutral capacity, which would be to allow us to cross-examine some of the witnesses, allow us to see more of the evidence -- if there is more evidence -- and be able to have a fair hearing."

Again, me - What makes me laugh is how Vilma says "allow us to see more of the evidence," which is not something you say when you know no evidence exists. It's like they know there is a smoking gun out there, and they will keep pushing until the NFL produces it, claiming innocence until they see it. I wonder if the NFL does, in fact, have it, and what will happen when it is revealed? We all know it exists, and this is just a game of cat and mouse to see who flinches first.

Why do you think there is anymore evidence? What other evidence could there be? Everything of any substance is based entirely upon the word of Mike Cerullo and the handwritten notes that he produced. IF Vilma and his lawyer knows that what Cerullo supposedly said and produced is false why not ask for more evidence, especially when they know nothing more can be produced? It makes no sense whatsoever for Vilma to be trying so hard to get this thing into court where there would be full disclosure unless he was positive that Cerullo was lying and certain parts of Gregg Williams' story was not quite kosher.

Drathdon · 10-25-2012, 09:33 AM

Guido, you know as well as I something happened. You can play it off as a joke gone too far, an off-handed comment not meant seriously, whatever. I'm sure it was not as severe or organized as the NFL wanted to present it to be (and had reason to think it was). But the fact remains, the players are going to claim innocence, regardless, until they can't. Vilma seems to think there is no way to prove it happened in a way that makes him look bad, if at all. Odds are, unless there were hidden cameras, he's probably right, which is why he is so vehement about being innocent. However, if you read every statement made, there is the clear underlying current of doubt that they have. It's always "why don't they show us the evidence they have," which may seem to you to be their attempts to clear their name. But again, every defense attorney knows you get what they have, and then build your case to shoot what they have down in order to prove your innocence... because you cannot prove innocence until you know what they have on you. That, my friend, is the actions of getting a guilty man off. Evidence never matters unless something exists (or might exist) that threatens your case.

It's a slight subtlety that most ignore, but it is clearly on display here. No one innocent needs to see what evidence there is, because nothing can harm them. All these months, the whole conversation has only been about what evidence the NFL has, and why they won't turn it over. Defense attorneys get paid well to know how to do what they do well, and it is not the art of getting the innocent off... they can defend themselves. The more lawyers, motions filed, and legal activity usually belongs to the guilty.

But, hey. Enjoy spinning it however you want. I remember how in denial I was about Vick and fake bottles, Ron Mexico, and dogs too. It's hard to take off the blinders of a fan, and even harder to not believe the work of a good Defense Attorney you want to believe.

Drathdon · 10-25-2012, 09:45 AM

Also, because I meant to say it pages back... Vilma's direct deposit of his paycheck means nothing. It's another defense attorney attempt at misdirection. Vilma got paid, just like other NFL Players, for card/game licensing and card show appearances, as well as memorabilia sales and shows in completely different ways. What he needs to really be careful about is that most athletes have an "understood" rule that those funds (especially the card show cash) is pretty hush/hush. Should the investigation turn really ugly, and the NFL need to comb his financials to prove access to cash, he better hope every dime got IRS attention, less his attorneys need to defend him for tax evasion and false reporting as well.

I have no doubt the NFL Lawyers would be happy to play that kind of "dirty pool" should they be pushed into a corner and have to defend Roger in court. Vilma can play chicken with this all day long hoping the NFL will blink first, but trust me when I say there is a line that Vilma and his defense team have already drawn out where should this thing get that far, Vilma will cash out his chips and blink first. The NFL has their line, too, of course, so the game here is who has pushed their line back the furthest and who can push the other guy to his first.

This is sumo wrestling now, and has NOTHING to do with the actual truth coming out. Enjoy the theater, but do not think that there will be actual vindication when this is done for either side. It will be a determination of who played the game the best, of strategy, and not of guilt.

You seem confused to think that actual truth is possible from either at this point. It's politics without democracy now, and in the hands of who can push the other to their line.