NFL.com: Vilma's lawyer: Evidence shows no 'bounty' link to LB / PFT: NFL makes less than 200 pages available in bounty case

[Califan007]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...nty-link-to-lb

The evidence the NFL provided to New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma on Friday in no way links the player to any "bounty" program, according to his lawyer, Peter Ginsberg.

The league, per rule, had to provide evidence for the basis of its discipline toward four suspended current and former Saints players by Friday since they have appeals hearings before NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell in New York on Monday.

Ginsberg said the majority of the evidence centers around a PowerPoint slideshow of former defensive coordinator Gregg Williams' directives and speeches to players. Ginsberg said there is other evidence besides the slide show, but none of it links Vilma, Will Smith, Scott Fujita or Anthony Hargrove -- all suspended for part or all of the 2012 season by Goodell -- to putting bounties on opposing players.

"We have followed the procedures set forth in the CBA on appeals of commissioner discipline," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told The Associated Press.

"The NFL provided a slideshow of Gregg Williams' most outrageous comments," Ginsberg said. "It is evidence that reflects an assistant coach in the NFL has a style that might rightfully be distasteful but that has been tolerated for years by several NFL teams. It in no way supports any of the accusations that Commissioner Goodell has so publicly made against Jonathan.

"There is nothing that evidences opposing players were targeted. There is nothing that evidences any of the players were involved in putting money on the heads of opposing players the way the Commissioner has suggested."

The evidence provided by the league to players Friday is the meat of what it will provide against the players in their appeal hearing in explaining why they have been suspended. The league has said for months that is has enough evidence that the players violated the "Conduct Detrimental" rules of the collective bargaining agreement by having a pay-for-performance program in place from 2009 to 2011.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...n-bounty-case/

At roughly 2:00 p.m. ET on Friday, the NFL delivered by courier to the NFLPA the information on which the league plans to rely at Monday’s appeal hearings as to suspensions imposed on Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Saints defensive end Will Smith, Packers defensive end Anthony Hargrove, and Browns linebacker Scott Fujita.

From a much-ballyhooed 50,000-page file (which by its sheer volume presumably means that there was a bounty system, right?), the NFL surrendered, we’re told, fewer than 200 pages of information, arising from 16 total documents, which includes among other things handwritten notes, the email from Mike Ornstein containing the reference to the alleged $5,000 bounty on Aaron Rodgers, and seven different Power Point presentations shown by Saints coaches to players.

The league also produced footage from the 2009 NFC title game, with emphasis on a legal hit applied to Vikings quarterback Brett Favre followed by a player being heard asking for his “money.”

Surprisingly, the “evidence” produced by the NFL includes things that clearly aren’t evidence. For example, the league’s submission includes the rambling 10,000-plus word online manifesto posted on May 31 by Sean Pamphilon, and a June 6 article by Mike Triplette of the New Orleans Times-Picayune, in which he interviews linebacker Scott Shanle.

Per a source familiar with the information produced by the NFL, the packet contains no obvious smoking gun. ”It’s a water gun,” the source said.

That said, the source cautioned that review of the materials is ongoing. Initial scrutiny of the information reveals evidence of salary cap violations, but it includes no evidence of players being paid to inflict injury, players paying others to inflict injury, or players offering money to others to inflict injury. For example, the NFLPA has yet to locate in the packet any evidence establishing that linebacker Jonathan Vilma offered $10,000 to anyone who inflicted injury on Brett Favre or Kurt Warner during the 2009 playoffs.

Perhaps most significantly, the submission doesn’t include the bounty ledger about which Jason Cole of Yahoo! Sports reported a couple of weeks ago.

[MrSilverMaC]

So I'll wait til more evidence comes out to fully form my opinion on this subject, but it seems that with every disclosure the NFL is looking less and less credible regarding this situation. It causes me to wonder why a few posters on here believe so strongly that Vilma and others are guilty. I think I've read or heard the bulk of the things released in relation to this investigation and the only person I thought seemed even remotely guilty in the things I've read was Williams himself. The ledger as a damning piece of evidence was laughable, and releasing less than 200 pages of evidence in a defamation case where goodell claimed to have overwhelming evidence in support of his claims seems to be rather underwhelming to say the least.

Like I said, I'll wait to form my final opinion, but this thing seems to be going more and more Vilma's way, and to me at least, looks like he's in very good position to win his defamation case which unfortunately for him won't translate into reinstatement this year even if he does win.

[Califan007]

So I'll wait til more evidence comes out to fully form my opinion on this subject, but it seems that with every disclosure the NFL is looking less and less credible regarding this situation. It causes me to wonder why a few posters on here believe so strongly that Vilma and others are guilty. I think I've read or heard the bulk of the things released in relation to this investigation and the only person I thought seemed even remotely guilty in the things I've read was Williams himself. The ledger as a damning piece of evidence was laughable, and releasing less than 200 pages of evidence in a defamation case where goodell claimed to have overwhelming evidence in support of his claims seems to be rather underwhelming to say the least.

Like I said, I'll wait to form my final opinion, but this thing seems to be going more and more Vilma's way, and to me at least, looks like he's in very good position to win his defamation case which unfortunately for him won't translate into reinstatement this year even if he does win.

So far, the NFL isn't looking very good in this at all, I agree...I also read somewhere that the initial number of "50,000 pages" of evidence has been reduced now down to "5,000 pages" of evidence, as if it were a typo or something lol...not sure how true that is, though.

[MrSilverMaC]

So far, the NFL isn't looking very good in this at all, I agree...I also read somewhere that the initial number of "50,000 pages" of evidence has been reduced now down to "5,000 pages" of evidence, as if it were a typo or something lol...not sure how true that is, though.

This is from ESPN.com :http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/80...bounty-program

"The league provided no evidence to us in a timely manner," said Ginsberg, who also is representing Vilma in a defamation lawsuit against Goodell. "It has provided no evidence to corroborate the accusations, and yet the NFL furthermore has told us it doesn't plan to present any witness at the hearing."

Ginsberg said requests by the players' union to have Payton, Williams and Vitt at Monday's hearing were ignored by the league.

Aiello said the league is "not commenting on the details or potential details of Monday's proceeding."

It makes me wonder what it was exactly that goodell used to make his final decision regarding the bounty program and those he has tagged as being part of it. The lawsuit, unless I am mistaken, is filed against goodell himself and not the league which makes me wonder why he's not putting up more of an effort to defend his own name going forward. I also can't help but wonder how this seemingly low threshold of evidence used against Vilma translates to our own recent run-in with goodell.

[Califan007]

It makes me wonder what it was exactly that goodell used to make his final decision regarding the bounty program and those he has tagged as being part of it. The lawsuit, unless I am mistaken, is filed against goodell himself and not the league which makes me wonder why he's not putting up more of an effort to defend his own name going forward. I also can't help but wonder how this seemingly low threshold of evidence used against Vilma translates to our own recent run-in with goodell.

Check out this pretty good ridiculing of the evidence so far lol...

Make the jump for more laughable details. You won't believe what the league is claiming as "evidence."

Really? The Pamphilon rant is evidence? How can this May 31st internet post and a June 6th Shanle interview be used as evidence to justify suspensions and punishments doled out weeks before? This is beyond being a joke! Please tell me I'm in some horrible episode of the Twilight Zone.

So, no witnesses and no bounty ledger? Florio suggests that Vilma may not proceed with the appeal for lack of evidence.

So, this is all there is? It may appear that the evidence doesn't support Goodell's suspensions and some may see a glimmer of hope that all punishments (including those for the coaches & Loomis) may be reduced. I wouldn't count on it. Goodell obviously lives in an alternate universe where his word is law. Despite the league's flimsy "evidence," I don't expect him to budge an inch. The league has made this into a huge story and can't afford to back down now.

If Goodell reduces the player suspensions by even a hair, he'll then be bombarded with questions as to the fairness of the draconian punishments imposed earlier on Sean Payton, Mickey Loomis, Joe Vitt, and Gregg Williams. It will open up a huge can of worms that Goodell would rather not deal with. Expect Goodell to say Monday after he denies the player appeals, "What? This is our evidence and we're sticking with it. Something terrible was going on here just like we say. We take player safety very seriously. How dare you question me!"

And this:

Some of what the league provided seemed nothing short of startling. The documents included an on-line screed from documentary filmmaker Sean Pamphilon, and an article from The Times-Picayune based on an interview with Saints linebacker Scott Shanle. But it would have been impossible for either of those to have been a factor in Goodell's disciplinary decision because the first was published on May 31, the second on June 6, after the suspensions were announced.

"The whole thing is a house of cards," one person familiar with the released evidence declared.

The evidence was delivered to the NFLPA around 2 p.m., hours after the union had mounted another preappeals hearing push, asking that specific evidence be made available to the suspended players pleading their case and accusing the league of creating a fearful atmosphere that has made potential witnesses clam up.

In its letter to Goodell, the NFLPA said it believes the NFL is in possession of videotapes made throughout the 2010 season by Duke Naiphon, a physical/sleep therapist who is friends with former Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams. Naiphon, who was interviewed at length by NFL investigators, went public in March when the bounty scandal first broke, with his contention the entire matter has been misconstrued by the league and his belief Saints coaches and players have been smeared.

Naiphon believes, and most players have taken the same position, that the fiery language for which Williams is well known was a motivational tactic, not some diabolical plot to hurt opposing players.

If we were a jury right now and each side was presenting their cases in the media (which is what both sides have been doing for months), I would say there is TONS of "reasonable doubt" at work here.

[pjfootballer]

Like I said, I'll wait to form my final opinion, but this thing seems to be going more and more Vilma's way, and to me at least, looks like he's in very good position to win his defamation case which unfortunately for him won't translate into reinstatement this year even if he does win.

Leverage. Vilma wins, he'll tell Goodell he'll drop the suit if he reinstates him.

[Califan007]

Part of the evidence given the NFLPA...something taken from the Saints' computers. I think this was like a screensaver or something before a game:





What do you think?...Damning? "Explosive"? Misunderstood? "Misrepresented"? Innocent?

[WALEOVECHKIN]

Deadspin has it all up, pretty damning stuff:

Here

[Redskin4ever]

I think that the players are starting to win the PR battle. That's all that really matters unless they can get a court to overturn the suspensions. I don't know why the NFL would hold on to the actual evidence while releasing just some of the peripheral stuff. I know there were report of players with written statements and maybe the NFL is protecting the whistleblowers. Maybe the NFL feels it doesn't need to lay out its case in the media. I'm not sure what is going on here, but the players seem to be gaining the leverage.

[WALEOVECHKIN]

Part of the evidence given the NFLPA...something taken from the Saints' computers. I think this was like a screensaver or something before a game:


http://cbssports.com/images/blogs/Sa...nty_Hunter.jpg


What do you think?...Damning? "Explosive"? Misunderstood? "Misrepresented"? Innocent?

This was the slide before it

[Mr. Sinister]

Funny how they say there weren't necessarily any "Bounties," when one slide has Dog the freaking bounty hunter, and they actually used the word itself.

[Califan007]

Deadspin has it all up, pretty damning stuff:

Here

It's actually not that damning...at least in terms of "bounties". Pay for Performance, yep...

The most damning things were the email, which doesn't mention any of the players who were appealing their suspensions...and the one that lists payouts to players. But that list shows Harper supposedly getting $1000 for a "cart off"...but no Giants player was carted off due to anything Harper did. Actually the play-by-play doesn't even show any Giants player being injured by Harper. That would seem to lean towards the terms "cart off" not having anything to do with injuring a player...which is the NFLPA's stance right now. I think both sides would have to explain why the "cart off" payment doesn't match up with any actual injuries in the game.

That confusing list in white looks like it mentions amounts "donated" by players, though...if that's NOT what it is I'd love to hear an explanation lol...

[ACW]

Part of the evidence given the NFLPA...something taken from the Saints' computers. I think this was like a screensaver or something before a game:

What do you think?...Damning? "Explosive"? Misunderstood? "Misrepresented"? Innocent?

Stupid at the very least.

[WALEOVECHKIN]

It's actually not that damning...at least in terms of "bounties". Pay for Performance, yep...

The most damning things were the email, which doesn't mention any of the players who were appealing their suspensions...and the one that lists payouts to players. But that list shows Harper supposedly getting $1000 for a "cart off"...but no Giants player was carted off due to anything Harper did. Actually the play-by-play doesn't even show any Giants player being injured by Harper. That would seem to lean towards the terms "cart off" not having anything to do with injuring a player...which is the NFLPA's stance right now. I think both sides would have to explain why the "cart off" payment doesn't match up with any actual injuries in the game.

That confusing list in white looks like it mentions amounts "donated" by players, though...if that's NOT what it is I'd love to hear an explanation lol...

Found this on a live blog about the game:
So the Giants seemed in good position with 55 seconds left in the half and ball at the 16. Manning, the local boy playing his first game ever in his home stadium, connected with Manningham. But on his next play, Manning was sacked hard by Roman Harper and fumbled. Manning’s head snapped back when he was hit from behind. The Saints’ Scott Shanle got the ball, ran it back and almost scored a touchdown before fumbling it. Kevin Boss recovered for the Giants, but the ball was ruled dead and the Saints got the ball on the Giants’ 16.

After the play, Giants offensive right tackle Kareem McKenzie remained on the field, and then was helped off on a motorized cart by the medical staff.

EDIT: heres the link NY TIMES: Live Blog

[Califan007]

Stupid at the very least.

Agreed...

Found this on a live blog about the game:
So the Giants seemed in good position with 55 seconds left in the half and ball at the 16. Manning, the local boy playing his first game ever in his home stadium, connected with Manningham. But on his next play, Manning was sacked hard by Roman Harper and fumbled. Manning’s head snapped back when he was hit from behind. The Saints’ Scott Shanle got the ball, ran it back and almost scored a touchdown before fumbling it. Kevin Boss recovered for the Giants, but the ball was ruled dead and the Saints got the ball on the Giants’ 16.

After the play, Giants offensive right tackle Kareem McKenzie remained on the field, and then was helped off on a motorized cart by the medical staff.

None of that, though, shows that Harper was the cause of the cart-off. That's the important part. If Harper was busy sacking Eli, I doubt he caused McKenzie to be injured.

*EDIT: he apparently strained his groin on the play...