Your understanding is exactly the opposite of the reality of the situation.
So Vilma didn't file his legal brief under seal? The transcript is readily available to those who wish to view it?
Great. Post the transcript for our review, and show us where Cerullo states he fabricated anything. Because from what little is presumed to be known of Cerullo's testimony currently, he only admitted that one particular document was inaccurate as to the amounts pledged.
From what I posted earlier today:
If discovery has been halted and Vilma has nothing with which to back up the claims in his legal brief, then that even further goes to show that these are claims by Vilma with no evidence.
If, on the other hand, my understanding was correct, and Vilma's claims are based on the transcripts, and if the language of the transcript regarding Cerullo states what I posted, then there's not evidence of any fabrication. There is questioning of the credibility of one aspect of one document (the amounts listed on one spreadsheet), but there is no direct evidence of this. All you have is a statement that amounts purported to be paid are "inaccurate."
Even if direct evidence of this one claim of fabrication were to be shown, there are still other documents and statements that need to be addressed. The accuracy of this one spreadsheet is not, by itself, going to prove that no bounty system existed; there's too much other evidence that has yet to be challenged, other than to lamely claim that the public just doesn't understand what they meant by players being "carted off" and "knocked out."
So take your exact argument, and reverse it. What is Goodell and the NFL trying to hide?
Rumor on the interwebz is that the leaks of the transcript have come from the NFL. That rumor appears to hold true if Vilma filed his brief under seal, as a leak wouldn't come from a party that is actively trying to seal records.
Again, I'm not stating that this rumor is a fact; just pointing out that A.) Vilma's legal brief is a creation of his attorney, and B.) the statements in Vilma's brief haven't been verified by any evidence that we know of. Meanwhile, there are other documents and statements out there that, from what we've seen so far of Vilma's brief, haven't been addressed.
Show me those documents, and we can talk. Again, you seem to want to put the burden of proof on the accused, and have no problems jumping to conclusions about the validity of this supposed evidence that Goodell obviously doesn't have.
In civil matters, the burden of proof is a preponderance of the evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. "Preponderance of the evidence" simply means that the evidence shows that it is more likely than not that X occurred. The NFL has released enough documentation to the public that, in my mind, it is more likely than not that a bounty system existed.
You don't have express mentioning of injuring players in multiple pieces of documentation, including PowerPoint slides that have yet to be contested by anyone, unless there was something improper occurring. You don't have players yelling about money during games and during pre-game meetings for no reason. You don't put up slides about your success at injuring QBs previously and your intent to injure QBs in upcoming games for no reason. You don't have coaches admitting that evidence was destroyed if nothing was going on.
Then why overturn the ruling? You can't rationalize Tagliabue overturn the ruling and protecting Goodell's case in the defamation suit by saying the punishment did in fact fit the crime...unless it didn't.
Tagliabue didn't overturn the ruling as a whole. He affirmed the factual findings of Goodell. He affirmed that the players could have been punished due to their involvement in improper conduct. He railed on the coaches' conduct and specifically referenced to a "bounty system" in regard to the coaches' actions. Nothing that Tagliabue said or ruled has refuted what Goodell determined to have happened.
What he disagreed with is the type of punishment that was passed down. Tagliabue had no issues with lambasting the coaches as being the responsible party for the wrongdoing that he found to exist. However, he thought that the players should undergo a "discipline-free transition year" to make them aware that what they did was improper and that it would not be tolerated in the future. Essentially, Tagliabue preferred that Goodell fire a warning shot before shooting players in the face.
580 Replies
68138 Views