Want to know why the judge didn't rule? Because in the end, she doesn't have the jurisdiction to do so. All this amounts to is an employee doesn't agree with his boss suspending him. I doubt Goodell backs down, because he knows this.
Goodell already offered to cut the suspension down to half a season, but Vilma refused because he knows Goodell had ZERO credible reason to suspend him and he wants it reduced to zero games.
I wasn't aware that Goodell had made that offer, but Vilma should have taken it. The courts aren't going to be able to do shit about it. Vilma took a risk and he's going to lose.
Judge issues strong opinions in Vilma suspension process, but waits to ruleBy Doug Farrar | Shutdown Corner – Fri, Aug 10, 2012 1:32 PM EDTJonathan Vilma has not wavered, and that might start to pay off. (AP)When the NFL put either a settlement offer or a settlement discussion (depending on who you believe) across the table to Jonathan Vilma earlier this week, it was the first sign of real weakness in the league's case against Vilma and the three other suspended players in the New Orleans Saints bounty scandal. The timing of those settlement discussions was not an accident. The NFL seemed to want to get something hammered out to avoid what happened on Friday morning in New Orleans.That's when U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan heard arguments from Vilma's side and the NFL's in the league's motion to have Vilma's defamation lawsuit against NFL commissioner dismissed. Any appeal of the lawsuit, which also seeks to have Vilma's season-long suspension overturned, would open several cans of legal worms for the NFL, and put the suspension process on trial in front of an outside authority for the first time.From the start, Judge Berrigan sided with Vilma and noted that the steps taken by the NFL when gathering, processing and using its information to mete out justice were specious at best. When Peter Ginsberg, Vilma's attorney, said that Vilma was suspended for cart-off hits, and there was no specific proof of Vilma's involvement, Judge Berrigan responded thusly: "I would like to rule in Vilma's favor. I do think you (Vilma) exhausted your remedies."Ginsberg and NFLPA lawyer Jeffrey Kessler (who represented suspended players Will Smith, Scott Fujita and Anthony Hargrove) argued against the NFL's claim that Goodell was eager to hear from the players in an appeal process that had them going straight back to the commissioner. In effect, they said, the players could have lost any jurisdictional rights to further appeals processes. Eventually, the players took their case to longtime league arbiter Stephen Burbank, who is still weighing testimony from the hearing that was the step after the Goodell appeal process.However, from all accounts, Berrigan made it clear that she thought Goodell acted beyond his authority. At one point, according to legal expert Gabe Feldman (whose Twitter timeline was particularly informative during the hearing), she said that she believed the process was unfair, the punishment excessive and that Goodell did not have power to discipline in these cases.Judge Berrigan then dropped the hammer: "If I can find a way to legally do it, I will rule in Vilma's favor."To the matter of the injunctive relief Vilma seeks in the suit, Judge Berrigan said that she believed Vilma had suffered the irreparable harm needed for such relief to be given. That was a major blow to the NFL's case. The concept of "irreparable harm" goes a long way in a court of law, and it's very tough to put that genie back in the bottle.However, Judge Berrigan also said that she will weigh whether she has the jurisdiction to rule on anything before the Burbank ruling is made. Kessler argued strenuously that she did have that authority, at one point suggesting that the judge "was not a potted plant," which I'm sure she appreciated.When the NFL had its time before Judge Berrigan, attorney Gregg Levy argued that Goodell was well within his rights per the collective bargaining agreement, and that she would have to defer to Burbank and Goodell before making a ruling of her own. Levy also said that the CBA required Goodell to declare the guilt of a player before the appeal process begins. Judge Berrigan stuck a fork in that argument, saying that she believed the players exhausted their appeal options before Goodell . She also brought up the potential loss of jurisdictional power.Levy then went to Goodell's old line -- that the CBA pre-empted any judge's ruling, and that the whole point of the CBA was to keep the NFL out of court. Judge Berrigan asked Levy if the "conduct detrimental" ruling made in the suspensions overrode any other CBA provisions. When Levy told her that it wasn't her decision to make, Judge Berrigan responded by saying, "You're making me feel powerless."Again, not a very good idea. Kessler and Ginsberg closed by bringing up the fact that no specific evidence against the players has ever been made public, and Ginsberg pleaded for a quick decision in the name of fairness to his client.While Judge Berrigan did say that she came to some preliminary conclusions, she also said that she would not rule at this time, brought the timing of the Burbank ruling up, and urged both parties to settle. Whether Vilma's side heard enough to tell the NFL what it could do with any settlement offer, and whether the NFL saw enough dings in its case to put a better offer on the table, is the next big thing in a case that could drag on into the NFL's regular season."The only thing better would have been a decision," Vilma said outside the courthouse. "I came here with no expectations. I'm glad she could see through some of the B.S. I'm cool with that until we get a decision. Patience is my best friend."
Report: League offers to cut Vilma’s suspension in halfPosted by Mike Florio on August 6, 2012, 7:36 AM EDTJonathan Vilma APThere’s nothing like a looming court date to make parties serious about working out their differences on their own.With Judge Helen G. Berrigan posing questions during a July 26 hearing that suggested she may be leaning toward lifting linebacker Jonathan Vilma’s suspension — and possibly overturning all of the suspensions later — the league reportedly has offered a middle ground. According to Ed Werder, Adam Schefter, and Chris Mortensen of ESPN.com (what, did they take turn typing the letters?), the NFL has offered to reduce Vilma’s suspension to eight games.Though Steve Wyche of NFL Network said on NFLAM said that no specific offer has been made, the report comes at a time when it makes sense to be talking about possible alternatives to a court-ordered outcome.The report also comes in the wake of a report by Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports that, if the NFLPA had cooperated with the league’s process, Vilma may have ultimately been suspended only four games. Setting aside for now the serious disconnect between legal gamesmanship and the notion of doing the right thing, the leak to Cole may have laid the foundation for the news of what could be characterized as backpedaling by the league office.Indeed, that’s the obvious initial reaction to the report from Werdscheftenson. The league by all appearances has blinked. Coupled with Cole’s report, the spin could be that the NFL is simply trying to finish this thing where it would have ended if Vilma hadn’t refused to participate in the process.When Commissioner Roger Goodell hammered Vilma et al., we suggested at some point the possibility that Goodell deliberately overshot with the penalties so that he could prove the appeal process works — even if it makes him look wishy-washy for second-guessing his initial decision. Vilma prevented that from happening by refusing to throw himself on the mercy of what the players regard as a kangaroo court.Of course, no offer to reduce the penalties may matter. Vilma and the other players continue to believe that they did nothing wrong. More specifically, they believe there were no bounties. They concede there was a pay-for-performance system, and the league still hasn’t made it clear that the penalties flow primarily from offering cash for applying clean, legal hits in a way that prevents an opponent from continuing. (For example, the Sunday night hit by defensive tackle Sedrick Ellis on Cardinals quarterback Kevin Kolb would have been regarded as a “knockout†in a regular-season game, even though Ellis broke no rules in dragging Kolb down.)Once the two sides start speaking the same language, maybe they can find a middle ground. For now, our guess is that Vilma and the players will regard the offer as a sign of weakness, and that they’ll keep pushing for a court order scuttling all of the suspensions — or at a minimum requiring the parties to appoint a neutral arbitrator.
"Judge Ginger"
For Bama fans, this is a preview of the hammer that's coming their way soon enough. http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7846290/new-orleans-saints-mickey-loomis-eavesdrop-opposing-coaches-home-gamesSaints busted for bugging opponents. Cheating bunch of thugs. The Bama of the NFL. No question.
Mickey Loomis cleared in wiretapping probe, spotlight turns to ESPN and John BarrWritten by Matt Yoder on Tuesday, 14 August 2012 12:25.Way back when columnists were suggesting Gregg Williams be thrown in jail and the media was slurping up the BountyGate shock and horror fed to them by the NFL, ESPN went all-in with an explosive report further condemning the New Orleans Saints organization. An Outside the Lines expose by John Barr alleged Saints GM Mickey Loomis could secretly listen to opposing coaches. The report was of the utmost seriousness. Not only could listening in on opposing coaches lead to an NFL version of the death penalty for Mickey Loomis, but these were possible federal crimes alleged as well.At the time, ESPN gave the OTL report top billing. It was put into the ESPN echo chamber on TV, radio, and especially online where additional columns and blog entries appeared reflecting on the significance of the report. However, the OTL report was immediately met with pushback due to lack of tangible proof. There were even reports out of New Orleans that Barr was looking for skeletons in the Saints' closet and wasn't leaving town until he found them. The truth is that ESPN walked a tightrope with the Barr report given the seriousness of the allegations and lack of physical evidence... and ESPN just fell off.Now, the spotlight needs to turn to ESPN and John Barr as the Louisiana State Police released the findings of their own investigation and revealed no evidence against Loomis. Loomis was cleared of any wrongdoing by the police. Mike Triplett of the New Orleans Times-Picayune puts the latest developments, and ESPN's role in the story in perspective:It wouldn't be fair to completely discredit ESPN's reporting, which cited unnamed sources, because only ESPN knows for certain how well it vetted those sources. And the network, especially its investigative arm at "Outside the Lines," has a strong reputation for journalism.However, there are strong indications that ESPN lowered it [sic] journalistic standards on that report. For one thing, there were numerous reports that ESPN reporter John Barr was in New Orleans for weeks asking several sources for any negative information about the team before it found the wiretapping whistleblower. For another, the timing seemed awfully fishy when ESPN then reported that the local U.S. Attorney's Office had just learned from an informant about wiretapping allegations from seven years earlier.Furthermore, ESPN's report never even actually accused Loomis of using the wiretapping device.Buried in the original story was the line, "Outside the Lines could not determine for certain whether Loomis ever made use of the electronic setup."As Loomis and the Saints initially denied the report and even floated the idea of legal action, ESPN slowly backpedaled away from the story. Over the last few months, there's been radio silence from ESPN regarding the matter. An ESPN.com search of "Mickey Loomis eavesdrop" shows 5 results from April 23-24 and 1 result since. Search results about wiretapping show a similar pattern. John Clayton had to go on air last night and call the original report from his own network "unplausible." Unplausible. Where was that language in April from Bristol when ESPN.com's Mark Kreidler was writing this?John Barr was conspicuously quiet regarding the latest developments according to Larry Holder of the TP: ESPN reporter John Barr said he had no comment on anything at this point. Wasn't aware of La. State Police presser on #Saints eavesdropping. — Larry Holder (@Larry_Holder) August 13, 2012Luckily for ESPN, they can't necessarily be proven wrong here, but the network put its journalistic integrity on the line once again and it has to answer some serious, serious questions once again.What was John Barr's motivation? What was ESPN's motivation? Were they going to find something negative to report on the Saints to pour gasoline on the BountyGate fire regardless of facts? Were these sources properly vetted? Why has ESPN not followed up on the initial OTL report? Why did ESPN feel comfortable publishing these significant allegations without evidence? What is ESPN's response now that no evidence has turned up against Loomis? Will there be an apology, a retraction, or even a lawsuit from Loomis? Is Poynter following this at all?Make no mistake, this Saints wiretapping report is quickly turning into as big of a journalistic black eye for ESPN as Bruce Feldman and Syracuse were. It used to be that an Outside the Lines report was the best in sports journalism. Not anymore. Not after the last year. How ESPN could run with a report so heavy on accusations and light on facts is still utterly baffling. How ESPN could heavily promote a report with unprovable accusations from unnamed sources on behavior from almost a decade ago is, as John Clayton said, unplausible. These were serious, serious allegations against Mickey Loomis and the Saints franchise, and they were built on paper thin evidence.You expect that kind of risky, cavalier, shaky journalism from the National Enquirer. You'd hate to have to expect it from ESPN, too.
The should just shut down the New Orleans Saints for molesting all those young boys.
So the Saints are changing the grade transcripts of young boys before they switch schools? Dastardly!!!
http://www.awfulannouncing.com/2012-articles/august/mickey-loomis-cleared-in-wiretapping-probe-spotlight-turns-to-espn-and-john-barr.html
Pfffttttt. Here's what I got out of that. Louisiana State Police released the findings of their own investigation = New Orleans Times-Picayune =
But Pawllll thayut therrr Vilmer said he dont know nuthin and he aint dun nuthin wrong. Thatz all I needs ta know!
580 Replies
68101 Views