Vilma suing Goodell for defamation of character.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by Ruhskins

I swear, sometimes NFL fans baffle me.

You get situations where a player (who was being modestly paid by their team) overachieves on the field and demands to get paid more...the fan reaction is to berate the player, tell him to suck it up and that he should play his contract.

Then you get some moron (yes, he is a moron) who gets identified by a lengthy and probably thorough investigation on bounties. Basically says that he doesn't care about the accusations....the fan reaction is treat him like he's some type of victim.

...or worse , a hero.

[hooskins]

Vilma claims he wasn't given enough evidence. We will see what comes out.

Also, Vilma is being made a huge scapegoat in this whole mess. His name is completely tarnished, despite numerous other current players who have done this.

I'm against bounties and all about player safety but I don't like the way the league has gone about this. It's very reactive, not proactive, to cover their rears. They don't give a crap about player safety. If they did they would do more impactful things, like shorten the season. Burning Vilma at the stake, for something a lot have done, is just negative reinforcement.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Vilma claims he wasn't given enough evidence. We will see what comes out.

Also, Vilma is being made a huge scapegoat in this whole mess. His name is completely tarnished, despite numerous other current players who have done this.

I'm against bounties and all about player safety but I don't like the way the league has gone about this. It's very reactive, not proactive, to cover their rears. They don't give a crap about player safety. If they did they would do more impactful things, like shorten the season. Burning Vilma at the stake, for something a lot have done, is just negative reinforcement.

I completely disagree with with this statement. I think the league has been increasing emphasis on player safety for years. besides countless changes to rules, the NFL tried to put an end to bounties when they first heard of it. unfortunately, the team and PLAYERS lied to the league and continue the practice.

your suggestion to shorten the season is ridiculous and would never work. a shortened season means less revenue, which means less money, not just for the league, but also the players. do you think the players would go for a shortened season if it meant they made less money than they did currently?

also, your argument about them singling out vilma is silly. alot of teams may have been doing it, but the saints got caught. twice. they lied about it the first time and continued the practice. when they got caught again, they deseredly got the hammer down on them. if the leage didnt make an example out of those they caught, all the other teams and players would have no deterrent against using bounty systems themselves.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Vilma claims he wasn't given enough evidence. We will see what comes out.

Also, Vilma is being made a huge scapegoat in this whole mess. His name is completely tarnished, despite numerous other current players who have done this.

I'm against bounties and all about player safety but I don't like the way the league has gone about this. It's very reactive, not proactive, to cover their rears. They don't give a crap about player safety. If they did they would do more impactful things, like shorten the season. Burning Vilma at the stake, for something a lot have done, is just negative reinforcement.

I couldn't disagree more. It can be argued their intentions aren't purely for the safety of their players but they certainly have made significant changes to the game in an attempt to increase player safety.

The logical extension of your argument about shortening the season is that they should just fold shop and football should never be played ever again. At what point is the season short "enough" to satisfactorily address the real concerns regarding player safety?

No, the debate as to season length is a silly one, both in regards to shortening and lengthening it. The way you make football safer is to eliminate the situations, in game, that cause injury.

[HoopheadVII]

I think there is zero chance that Vilma can win this lawsuit. He knows it, Goodell knows it, everybody knows it.

This is about forcing Goodell to release the evidence upon which he punished Vilma. He doesn't want to release it because he wants to protect the whistleblowers. The players want it released so they know what they're actually fighting against.

No idea who gets what they want here. Probably comes down to what it takes to prove defamation of character.

Question for the lawyers - the statements below are included in Vilma's complaint. Is he at any legal risk if Goodell produces evidence that show any of them to be obviously false?

38. Vilma never “pledged,” made or received payments of any kind encouraging or resulting from an opposing player being injured.

39. Vilma never “targeted” an opposing player in any manner that would violate NFL rules.

40. Vilma never engaged “in unsafe and prohibited conduct intended to injure players."

41.Vilma never “participate[d] in a program that potentially injured opposing players.”

42. Vilma never “embraced” a Bounty Program or any similar program in violation of NFL rules.

[mlmpetert]

Im not a fan of Vilma by anymeans but i dont like Goodell at all so i think this is great.


from pft:

The argument likely will be that Goodell should have merely suspended Vilma without public commentary or accusation, saying nothing about what Vilma allegedly did to merit the suspension.

This is what i think might give the suit merrit. I know my company has a policy of only confirming basic info for past employees like start and end dates, when someone's new employer calls to verify past experience. I dont even think well say if the person was fired, quite or got laid off because fear of lawsuit. I think this is the way most companies act.

At a minimum i think this will be a wake up call to Goodell to make sure he never again mentions acts that could affect the reputations of players. And Vilma is clearly affected by this. He will probably never be able to get a post career job at places like ESPN, Fox, NFL Network.

[HoopheadVII]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Im not a fan of Vilma by anymeans but i dont like Goodell at all so i think this is great.


from pft:




This is what i think might give the suit merrit. I know my company has a policy of only confirming basic info for past employees like start and end dates, when someone's new employer calls to verify past experience. I dont even think well say if the person was fired, quite or got laid off because fear of lawsuit. I think this is the way most companies act.

At a minimum i think this will be a wake up call to Goodell to make sure he never again mentions acts that could affect the reputations of players. And Vilma is clearly affected by this. He will probably never be able to get a post career job at places like ESPN, Fox, NFL Network.

According to wikipedia, the standard for libel is:

For example, in the United States, the person first must prove that the statement was false. Second, that person must prove that the statement caused harm. And, third, they must prove that the statement was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. In the case of a celebrity or public official trying to prove libel, they must prove the first three steps, and must (in the United States) prove the statement was made with the intent to do harm, or with reckless disregard for the truth.

If that's the correct standard, good luck proving #3 and #4. I think the only thing he's hoping to get out of this is to force Goodell to release the evidence.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Im not a fan of Vilma by anymeans but i dont like Goodell at all so i think this is great.


from pft:




This is what i think might give the suit merrit. I know my company has a policy of only confirming basic info for past employees like start and end dates, when someone's new employer calls to verify past experience. I dont even think well say if the person was fired, quite or got laid off because fear of lawsuit. I think this is the way most companies act.

At a minimum i think this will be a wake up call to Goodell to make sure he never again mentions acts that could affect the reputations of players. And Vilma is clearly affected by this. He will probably never be able to get a post career job at places like ESPN, Fox, NFL Network.

Well I'm guessing that when a player signs an NFL comtract it has wording that gives the NFL rights to do certain thing in public unlike other employment. If you guys don't think Goodell does nto consult lawyers before making these moves your dreaming. The case goes no where.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by HoopheadVII

I think there is zero chance that Vilma can win this lawsuit. He knows it, Goodell knows it, everybody knows it.

This is about forcing Goodell to release the evidence upon which he punished Vilma. He doesn't want to release it because he wants to protect the whistleblowers. The players want it released so they know what they're actually fighting against.

No idea who gets what they want here. Probably comes down to what it takes to prove defamation of character.

Question for the lawyers - the statements below are included in Vilma's complaint. Is he at any legal risk if Goodell produces evidence that show any of them to be obviously false?

38. Vilma never “pledged,” made or received payments of any kind encouraging or resulting from an opposing player being injured.

39. Vilma never “targeted” an opposing player in any manner that would violate NFL rules.

40. Vilma never engaged “in unsafe and prohibited conduct intended to injure players."

41.Vilma never “participate[d] in a program that potentially injured opposing players.”

42. Vilma never “embraced” a Bounty Program or any similar program in violation of NFL rules.

I don't think you can perjure in a complant only on sworn testimony.

[Chief X_Phackter]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I couldn't disagree more. It can be argued their intentions aren't purely for the safety of their players but they certainly have made significant changes to the game in an attempt to increase player safety.

The logical extension of your argument about shortening the season is that they should just fold shop and football should never be played ever again. At what point is the season short "enough" to satisfactorily address the real concerns regarding player safety?

No, the debate as to season length is a silly one, both in regards to shortening and lengthening it. The way you make football safer is to eliminate the situations, in game, that cause injury.

Not a logical extension of the argument...that is just taking it to a ridiculous extreme.

I don't think the debate is silly. These guys putting their bodies on the line week in week out are definitely at more risk with a longer season. The human body can only take so much, even athlete's in top shape. My vote is to keep it as is. No longer, no shorter.

[MTK]

First fight in Vilma suit likely will arise under CBA | ProFootballTalk

[CrustyRedskin]

Go get him Vilma!! I heard Vilma's even got Jackie Chiles representing him!! Godell your azz is grass!!

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CrustyRedskin

Go get him Vilma!! I heard Vilma's even got Jackie Chiles representing him!! Godell your azz is grass!!

LOL....Vilma is dead in the water,he should have acted before this when all they wanted was to talk to him.He's toast!

[Evilgrin]

I think he does have a case outside of the CBA, because it's about defamation. I'm not saying anything about whether he will win or not. A big part of the suit has nothing to do with being allowed to play in the NFL.

[Hog1]

I don't think Roger is afraid......