NFL: League rejects appeal of Saints players

[Mr Janny]

NFL rejects appeals in New Orleans Saints bounty case - ESPN

Although you claimed to have been 'wrongfully accused with insufficient evidence,' your lawyers elected not to ask a single question of the principal investigators, both of whom were present at the hearing (as your lawyers had requested); you elected not to testify or to make any substantive statement, written or oral, in support of your appeal; you elected not to call a single witness to support your appeal; and you elected not to introduce a single exhibit addressing the merits of your appeal," Goodell said of the players' appeal hearings in a statement. "Instead, your lawyers raised a series of jurisdictional and procedural objections that generally ignore the CBA, in particular its provisions governing 'conduct detrimental' determinations ...

 

[3TrueFans]

Shocking, I really thought Goodell would overturn his own decision...

 

[Mr Janny]

Shocking, I really thought Goodell would overturn his own decision...

yeah, it was pretty much a given that this would happen. I find it interesting that the players didn't do anything at the appeal except play the "you don't have the right to do this" card. Their lawyers didn't ask any questions? That seems hard to believe.

 

[Clark]

yeah, it was pretty much a given that this would happen. I find it interesting that the players didn't do anything at the appeal except play the "you don't have the right to do this" card. Their lawyers didn't ask any questions? That seems hard to believe.

I assume it's because they believed (probably correctly) that it wouldn't have made a difference. Don't want to show your cards until you have to I suppose.

 

[longtimeclone]

yeah, it was pretty much a given that this would happen. I find it interesting that the players didn't do anything at the appeal except play the "you don't have the right to do this" card. Their lawyers didn't ask any questions? That seems hard to believe.

Yeah I found this very interesting also.

So the players basically didn't try to refute any of the "evidence"? I am not a lawyer but I think it would have been better to argue the evidence first than argue who has the right to punish them because that guy was acting on faulty information.

 

[Mr Janny]

I assume it's because they believed (probably correctly) that it wouldn't have made a difference. Don't want to show your cards until you have to I suppose.

yeah, but when is that? The only guy to have pending legal action is Vilma. For the rest this is it, unless they sue.

But even then, the NFL, with it's collective bargaining agreement, is a different animal. Under its umbrella, Goodell doesn't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to punish. He doesn't have to meet the legal standard. Lot's of people are treating this case like it's in a courtroom, but it's not. The "conduct detrimental" language of the CBA can have a wide interpretation, and it's pretty much up to Goodell's discretion on how he wields it.

 

[SwirlingFloater]

What the hell has Drew Brees been doing by going on a bunch of talk shows and hammering the NFL for screwing these guys over? Maybe he thinks he is being a good teammate, but I have lost some respect for him.

 

[Clark]

yeah, but when is that? The only guy to have pending legal action is Vilma. For the rest this is it, unless they sue.

But even then, the NFL, with it's collective bargaining agreement, is a different animal. Under its umbrella, Goodell doesn't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in order to punish. He doesn't have to meet the legal standard. Lot's of people are treating this case like it's in a courtroom, but it's not. The "conduct detrimental" language of the CBA can have a wide interpretation, and it's pretty much up to Goodell's discretion on how he wields it.

I'm guessing Vilma is the test case. If he loses the other players probably won't file, he wins they do.

I agree that Vilma isn't likely to win anyway but I do think in court is his best chance.

 

[Clark]

This explains why they didn't bring any evidence in front of Goodell.

Brandt: Breaking down the NFLPA’s suit - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

 

[rholtgraves]

If the league and the ownders thought the that it was hard getting the most recent collective bargaining agreement, just wait until next time because the players are going to make sure that Goodell doesn't have this type of unbridled power when it comes to punishment. There shouldn't be a system where he hears appeals from his own rulings. I also haven't see evidence that said Vilma got paid to try and injure somebody.

 

[Clark]

If the league and the ownders thought the that it was hard getting the most recent collective bargaining agreement, just wait until next time because the players are going to make sure that Goodell doesn't have this type of unbridled power when it comes to punishment. There shouldn't be a system where he hears appeals from his own rulings. I also haven't see evidence that said Vilma got paid to try and injure somebody.

The players will have to give something up in order to get that. They had that opportunity to do this just last year and chose that this wasn't important enough.

 

[jdoggivjc]

If the league and the ownders thought the that it was hard getting the most recent collective bargaining agreement, just wait until next time because the players are going to make sure that Goodell doesn't have this type of unbridled power when it comes to punishment. There shouldn't be a system where he hears appeals from his own rulings. I also haven't see evidence that said Vilma got paid to try and injure somebody.

The fact that Payton admitted it is good enough for me. Besides, read the CBA - Gooddell doesn't HAVE to come forward with his evidence.