Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

AsylumGuido · 05-21-2012, 05:00 PM

(05-21-2012 04:35 PM)Falconidae Wrote: Do you really think they spent 3 years and only came up with one email? Or they're relying on one single report?

Once again, you are basing your belief on a huge misconception. There never was any three year investigation. The total time spent on the investigations was a fraction of that.

Facts

Some time after the Saints' playoff win over the Vikings someone with the Vikings went to the league with a claim that the Saints had a bounty on Favre. The league opened an investigation in February of 2010 and found no evidence of any bounty and the Viking person retracted his claim. The NFL closed the case.

Two years later, right before the Detroit playoff game in January of 2012, another person claimed the Saints had bounties in place. The league warned the Saints and opened the case. After the season was over the league requested all of the Saints email correspondence for the past three years off the NFL server.

It was in the 18,000 emails covering 50,00 printed pages that they found the email to Saints head of communications from Ornstein containing the now famous postscript.

You see, there was no long term investigation.

AsylumGuido · 05-21-2012, 05:04 PM

(05-21-2012 04:35 PM)Falconidae Wrote: Do you really think they spent 3 years and only came up with one email? Or they're relying on one single report?

Oh, and I don't think they have much more evidence than they have already shared. I also take it that Vilma is positive they don't have anything to prove the claims against him because he knows he didn't do it.

What are your reactions going to be IF Vilma is right? What IF Goodell was lied to and/or intentionally misled?

Drathdon · 05-21-2012, 05:04 PM

(05-21-2012 03:58 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: The overall message is that the NFL really doesn't have proof of a bounty system, and if it did, it would release that proof.

You realize that NO ONE would say that if no proof existed? They would just say "the NFL has no proof!" Or, "There is no proof!" PERIOD. Why quantify? This makes no sense to anyone actually looking at this without bias. The Aints are all counting on the fact that they covered their tracks well enough to cast doubt. This is all about how good their cover-up is. No wonder they are all huddled with their lawyers, making sure to plug any leaks.

As for your SportsNation poll, with less than 4000 votes, you can hardly use that as proof of anything. For all you know, 1500 of those votes are from Louisiana alone. Most poll like this skew towards people concerned with the subject... Aints fans in this case.

**Radical** · 05-21-2012, 05:07 PM

(05-21-2012 04:46 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Yes they do, but they don't file individual lawsuits which would bring out all kinds of bad stuff including the chance for criminal charges if they were guilty. There is a huge difference between getting your day in court and filing a defamation suit.

So no one has ever been shot down in a defamation suit?

AsylumGuido · 05-21-2012, 05:10 PM

(05-21-2012 05:04 PM)Drathdon Wrote: You realize that NO ONE would say that if no proof existed? They would just say "the NFL has no proof!" Or, "There is no proof!" PERIOD. Why quantify? This makes no sense to anyone actually looking at this without bias. The Aints are all counting on the fact that they covered their tracks well enough to cast doubt. This is all about how good their cover-up is. No wonder they are all huddled with their lawyers, making sure to plug any leaks.

As for your SportsNation poll, with less than 4000 votes, you can hardly use that as proof of anything. For all you know, 1500 of those votes are from Louisiana alone. Most poll like this skew towards people concerned with the subject... Aints fans in this case.

You are looking at this with absolute bias. No fan base wants the Saints to be guilty any more than the Falcons. That is understandable.

But, the writer simply said that if there actually was proof the league would have shared it. Don't try toi twist the words. It is simple English.

(05-21-2012 05:07 PM)Radical Wrote: So no one has ever been shot down in a defamation suit?

I already said he has almost no chance whatsoever of winning the defamation suit. All Ginsberg, Vilma's lawyer, is trying to do is get whatever "evidence" Goodell used to determine in his mind that Vilma was guilty of all of the claims he published to the 32 teams made available. IF Vilma is innocent it would give them the opportunity to challenge that evidence. What IF it was an individual that told this to Goodell? What IF that individual told a different story under oath before a judge and jury?

In that case Vilma would lose the suit because it wouldn't have been malice on behalf of Goodell, but it would still clear Vilma.

That is the ONLY logical reason to take this to court.

Right now we are in a wait and see mode. Most of you think they are fully guilty of all claimed. I believe they are guilty of running a pay for performance program and didn't stop when warned. I also believe that Goodell really wanted to find something more sinister and made a few reaches in logic, yet not reaching far enough to prevent it from being believable in his mind. There is no way he would have ever thought he might need to make anything public since his word was final.

But, perhaps he didn't consider that he may have made some erroneous conclusions based upon faulty and/or incomplete information.

Yup, now it is time to wait and see.

For those of you that believe that Goodell is sitting on loads of highly explosive evidence, please listen to Goodell himself in this interview with Rich Eisen on NFL Network back on March 21 when he announced the first round of punishments. Listen around the 3:20 mark. He states that "we put together all of our information and released all of our information on March 2nd and again today". Either this was a lie or there isn't any more to share.

http://youtu.be/epuoFirJQyk

ATLBound · 05-21-2012, 05:39 PM

(05-21-2012 04:06 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: You would be surprised at what people are thinking around the league. Right now on all boards I have visited that have been discussing this lately virtually all but the Falcons boards think something fishy is going on and want to know the truth.

The focus is the people dealing with the charities. It's not about the people on the forums. The people involved with a charity won't see anything productive if it is run by someone that some people believe is involved in a scandal of some sort.

Charity organizations won't involve themselves by someone who isn't accepted by most in the oublic eye bc it sends the wrong message about the charity regardless of innocence or guilt.

AsylumGuido · 05-21-2012, 05:42 PM

(05-21-2012 05:39 PM)ATLBound Wrote: The focus is the people dealing with the charities. It's not about the people on the forums. The people involved with a charity won't see anything productive if it is run by someone that some people believe is involved in a scandal of some sort.

Charity organizations won't involve themselves by someone who isn't accepted by most in the oublic eye bc it sends the wrong message about the charity regardless of innocence or guilt.

Exactly! And that why Vilma is out to clear his name. The Vilma Foundation is hugely important to him. I have heard him speak/tweet about it quite often.

ATLBound · 05-21-2012, 05:47 PM

(05-21-2012 04:28 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: You, sir, are the one that is in fantasy world. Go around and visit other teams forums. Almost to a team they think the Saints are getting screwed over in this deal. Do it. Check them out.

Look, here is a sports Nation Poll on ESPN:

Whose side are you on in Jonathan Vilma's suspension for his alleged role in the Saints' bounty scandal?

41% Vilma and other players

59% The NFL

(Total votes: 3,585)

That's a pretty solid percentage for EVERYONE thinking that Vilma is guilty.

You do still realize that is 60% to 40%. Of course we can't speak for everybody. Who knew an exaggeration would be taken so strongly. I'm not sure about others but I did say Most people and if we take into account how many people voted, then the difference in 60% and 40% is a tremendous amount.

ATLBound · 05-21-2012, 05:52 PM

(05-21-2012 04:46 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Yes they do, but they don't file individual lawsuits which would bring out all kinds of bad stuff including the chance for criminal charges if they were guilty. There is a huge difference between getting your day in court and filing a defamation suit.

He wouldn't be brought up on criminal charges if the defamation lawsuit didn't go his way.

ATLBound · 05-21-2012, 05:58 PM

(05-21-2012 05:42 PM)AsylumGuido Wrote: Exactly! And that why Vilma is out to clear his name. The Vilma Foundation is hugely important to him. I have heard him speak/tweet about it quite often.

I said this in response to you thinking that people around the forums opinions actually matter. They don't. My point is Vilma has NOTHING to lose by filing this defamation lawsuit. You make it seem as if the defamation lawsuit is a 100% claim to innocence when it is not by any means.