Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Breaking News - Saints players have won their appeal


Grits and Shins
 Share

Recommended Posts

Because the CBA allows him to?

 

 

At the very least it is clear that the CBA allows him to do so on some matters. The Appeals Court found he should not have used that process with the manner in which this matter was postured. They have left open an invitation to reposture the matter.

 

It will be interesting to find out if the NFL promised anonymity to so many witnesses that it cannot produce proof without violating that confidentiality. They could find themselves subject to suit if they produce evidence obtained under agreements unless they can negotiate away confidentiality agreements. I can also foresee a situation here where producing evidence, if they are ever called on to do so could lead to some awkward confrontations involving players and employees who may have given evidence. Whistleblowers often have a difficult existence as there are often norms they have violated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seriously think that's why she was hired to review the evidence? To rubber stamp it? That's why attorneys review others' cases? Then why waste the money she was paid? They thought they had a case already. That seriously makes no sense whatsoever.

 

I'd love to hear from an attorney here who thinks in line with you. When I'm hired as an expert to review evidence in a case - which I have done several times - it's my job to find the weaknesses and unsupportable positions in the side of the case of the attorney who hires me, as well as determine where they are strongly supported. In fact, I'm ethically obligated to do so.

 

 

BB, I agree with you to a point. Yes, judges and abitrators are supposed to be impartial and base their decisions on admissable evidence. However, nearly every judge/abitrator I ever been in front of has a "reputation" as pro-defense/plaintiff etc. Do you honestly think the NFL arbitrator does not have a slight bias towards the NFL? She has a dream position as one of/the lead arbitrators for the NFL, she is hired by Goodell and ultimately reports to him, and she realizes he's arguably the most powerful executive in sports who will hold this position for the next 10-15 years. If you don't think that arbitrators are influenced by their employer just look at the guy MLB ffired over the Ryan Braun suspension. The guy was the lead MLB arbitrator for 13 years, had an impeccable reputation, and was FIRED weeks after he reversed the Braun suspension.

 

PS: I retained and cross examined approximately 60-70 "expert" witnesses and they are some of the most biased people in our profession.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: You really think Goodell suspends players arbitrarily and capriciously? This isn't over, I'd guess Goodell didn't expose his evidence because it would make the players/coeches look so bad, and hence reflect on the league so badly as a whole.

 

May 2, 2012 story

 

Albert Breer of NFL Network reports that the league explained in a Wednesday memo to all teams that a former prosecutor was hired to conduct an independent review of the evidence.

 

“We also took the step of engaging Mary Jo White, the former United States Attorney for New York, at an early stage of the investigation in order to ensure both the fairness of the process and the reliability of the information on which our decisions were made in the Saints matter,” Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote to all teams. “Following a process that she has frequently undertaken on a wide range of matters in recent years, Mrs. White provided an independent view of the investigation from the perspective of an experienced and highly respected law enforcement officer.”

 

White currently practices white collar criminal defense at the firm of Debevoise & Plimpton.

 

“After her review, she expressed a high degree of confidence in the fairness of the investigation, the reliability of the findings, and the quality of evidence that supported those findings,” Goodell wrote.

 

 

 

I think it's especially relevant to note that Goodell picked as his independent review a former US attorney who now practices criminal defense. He wasn't looking for a feel-good review, he was looking for an adversarial review and got affirmation of his case against the players. Of course, there's always the chance that you & rajn know better after your thorough review of all the evidence...

 

Grab those headlines and run with them BB. Take the post with my admitted sarcasm in it and use it for your argument. Skip past some in depth explanation I provided with a noted lack of sarcasm and ignore it.

I think there is always a chance that you will argue a point right up until you lose the argument and then crap all over the board. Not even saying you have lost this argument, just that it is fairly well known that you will argue about anything and when your side holds no further merit you just act like you won the debate by hand selecting the words you want to argue about. Are you a politician in real life? If not you should consider running for some type of office.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BB, I agree with you to a point. Yes, judges and abitrators are supposed to be impartial and base their decisions on admissable evidence. However, nearly every judge/abitrator I ever been in front of has a "reputation" as pro-defense/plaintiff etc. Do you honestly think the NFL arbitrator does not have a slight bias towards the NFL? She has a dream position as one of/the lead arbitrators for the NFL, she is hired by Goodell and ultimately reports to him, and she realizes he's arguably the most powerful executive in sports who will hold this position for the next 10-15 years. If you don't think that arbitrators are influenced by their employer just look at the guy MLB ffired over the Ryan Braun suspension. The guy was the lead MLB arbitrator for 13 years, had an impeccable reputation, and was FIRED weeks after he reversed the Braun suspension.

 

PS: I retained and cross examined approximately 60-70 "expert" witnesses and they are some of the most biased people in our profession.

 

Well here is a bit of info that comes from someone that I suspect may know a bit more than you on this subject BB. I admit he surely knows more than me on this subject. It is nothing I haven't heard before but it is coming from someone with actual knowledge on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BB, I agree with you to a point. Yes, judges and abitrators are supposed to be impartial and base their decisions on admissable evidence. However, nearly every judge/abitrator I ever been in front of has a "reputation" as pro-defense/plaintiff etc. Do you honestly think the NFL arbitrator does not have a slight bias towards the NFL? She has a dream position as one of/the lead arbitrators for the NFL, she is hired by Goodell and ultimately reports to him, and she realizes he's arguably the most powerful executive in sports who will hold this position for the next 10-15 years. If you don't think that arbitrators are influenced by their employer just look at the guy MLB ffired over the Ryan Braun suspension. The guy was the lead MLB arbitrator for 13 years, had an impeccable reputation, and was FIRED weeks after he reversed the Braun suspension.

 

PS: I retained and cross examined approximately 60-70 "expert" witnesses and they are some of the most biased people in our profession.

 

 

I respect your opinion on this. You obviously have expertise in this arena. However, I would add - and I suspect that I certainly don't need to tell you this - that cross-examining in an adversarial venue is completely different than an expert reveiwing the evidence and positions, and then counseling for the side that hired you prior to involvement in an action. I would also add that there is a very strong difference between bias and advocacy.

 

When I am hired as an expert witness, my first responsibility is to review my employer's side and to attempt to punch holes in it so that they know and can prepare for any weaknesses or pitfalls in their case. Then after doing so, I can provide testimony to my employer's position, with my employer knowing full well that I will have to answer questions from the other side truthfully if the opposition happens to recognize those weaknesses and pitfalls through their own investigation.

 

I'm not saying that some expert witnesses don't act as advocates. Some do and I have had to testify in rebuttal against some of them. I find them reprehensible, as they are trying to intentionally circumvent the system from functioning properly. I have also found that these kinds of witnesses can often be the biggest downfall of the side hiring them, as their "expertise" can often be impeached.

 

But I would guess, and it is just a guess, that this wasn't what White was hired for. Goodell as far as he knew would not have a challenge to his decision be successful, so the posturing would seem unnecessary. Instead, I would guess that White acted in a capacity as I stated earlier - that her job was to attempt to find weaknesses in the NFL's case.

 

Just my thoughts. None of us know for sure and are only speculating based upon what little we know and our own experiences. I would say it is far too early in this matter for one side to suddenly cry victory based upon the suspensions being overturned. I get the impression from Goodell that he acts from positions of strength and not from reaching in hopes of gaining a coin-flip victory.

Edited by Bronco Billy
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the very least it is clear that the CBA allows him to do so on some matters. The Appeals Court found he should not have used that process with the manner in which this matter was postured. They have left open an invitation to reposture the matter.

 

 

Agreed completely. But that does not imply the victory for the players that some here seem to think. I know I don't need to tell you that, but it seems to need saying for others. I don't think the last act of this play has been staged yet, and I'd guess we are far from it.

 

It will be interesting to find out if the NFL promised anonymity to so many witnesses that it cannot produce proof without violating that confidentiality. They could find themselves subject to suit if they produce evidence obtained under agreements unless they can negotiate away confidentiality agreements. I can also foresee a situation here where producing evidence, if they are ever called on to do so could lead to some awkward confrontations involving players and employees who may have given evidence. Whistleblowers often have a difficult existence as there are often norms they have violated.

 

 

That certainly adds some spice for the subject and some potential for unforeseeable future events. However, I find it interesting that the awkwardness wouldn't land much more severely on those who, if true, were wagering on trying to intentionally injure union brethren.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed completely. But that does not imply the victory for the players that some here seem to think. I know I don't need to tell you that, but it seems to need saying for others. I don't think the last act of this play has been staged yet, and I'd guess we are far from it.

 

 

 

 

 

I posed legit questions several posts ago. Why would Godell choose to let this ride into the regular season if he has the slam dunk evidence that you seem to think he has? Your answer so far? Because the CBA says he doesn't have to show evidence. Really? That is your only answer?

No you also offered up this gem. Because he is protecting the image of the NFL against something so awful that it would tarnish the game even further.

If that were the case don't you even entertain the thought that he could have just banned these offenders for life with the evidence supporting such a punishment?

You are correct, this is not the final chapter. That said, the way the CBA reads, along with the direction this whole debacle was taking, this is a hugh swing in the Saints direction as a whole and even more so the NFLPA. This set back for Godell will open the door to a system which comes closer to innocent until proven guilty rather than what was looking like guilty without even a view of the evidence supporting suspicion.

 

It seems to me that with the same set of information that we all have, you are more convinced that this was akin to murder than we are that this never happened. I say that in jest as I am quite sure you don't view this as murder any more than I think nothing at all happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I respect your opinion on this. You obviously have expertise in this arena. However, I would add - and I suspect that I certainly don't need to tell you this - that cross-examining in an adversarial venue is completely different than an expert reveiwing the evidence and positions, and then counseling for the side that hired you prior to involvement in an action. I would also add that there is a very strong difference between bias and advocacy.

 

When I am hired as an expert witness, my first responsibility is to review my employer's side and to attempt to punch holes in it so that they know and can prepare for any weaknesses or pitfalls in their case. Then after doing so, I can provide testimony to my employer's position, with my employer knowing full well that I will have to answer questions from the other side truthfully if the opposition happens to recognize those weaknesses and pitfalls through their own investigation.

 

I'm not saying that some expert witnesses don't act as advocates. Some do and I have had to testify in rebuttal against some of them. I find them reprehensible, as they are trying to intentionally circumvent the system from functioning properly. I have also found that these kinds of witnesses can often be the biggest downfall of the side hiring them, as their "expertise" can often be impeached.

 

But I would guess, and it is just a guess, that this wasn't what White was hired for. Goodell as far as he knew would not have a challenge to his decision be successful, so the posturing would seem unnecessary. Instead, I would guess that White acted in a capacity as I stated earlier - that her job was to attempt to find weaknesses in the NFL's case.

 

Just my thoughts. None of us know for sure and are only speculating based upon what little we know and our own experiences. I would say it is far too early in this matter for one side to suddenly cry victory based upon the suspensions being overturned. I get the impression from Goodell that he acts from positions of strength and not from reaching in hopes of gaining a coin-flip victory.

 

 

I agree with 98% of what you said (I don't think I can bring myself to agree with you 100% on anything lol). And I didn't mean to apply that you're a hired gun because you don't seem that way at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with 98% of what you said (I don't think I can bring myself to agree with you 100% on anything lol). And I didn't mean to apply that you're a hired gun because you don't seem that way at all.

 

 

:lol:

 

Good discussion. Fun, isn't it? I certainly appreciate your assessment given your obvious background. Learning, I'm always learning.

 

ETA - I didn't sense a "hired gun" implication from you at all.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posed legit questions several posts ago. Why would Godell choose to let this ride into the regular season if he has the slam dunk evidence that you seem to think he has? Your answer so far? Because the CBA says he doesn't have to show evidence. Really? That is your only answer?

No you also offered up this gem. Because he is protecting the image of the NFL against something so awful that it would tarnish the game even further.

If that were the case don't you even entertain the thought that he could have just banned these offenders for life with the evidence supporting such a punishment?

You are correct, this is not the final chapter. That said, the way the CBA reads, along with the direction this whole debacle was taking, this is a hugh swing in the Saints direction as a whole and even more so the NFLPA. This set back for Godell will open the door to a system which comes closer to innocent until proven guilty rather than what was looking like guilty without even a view of the evidence supporting suspicion.

 

It seems to me that with the same set of information that we all have, you are more convinced that this was akin to murder than we are that this never happened. I say that in jest as I am quite sure you don't view this as murder any more than I think nothing at all happened.

 

 

Me, I work in the criminal law primarily, though in my career I did have a brief foray into land use and tax. Often what I know, and what I can prove due to constitutional rights, rules of evidence, and confidentiality concerns are different matters. Often truth in an indiviual matter is subordinated to greater process concerns in the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8365348/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-agrees-meet-jonathan-vilma-smith-scott-fujita-anthony-hargrove

 

ESPN is reporting that Goodell is willing to meet with the suspended players. The players recieved word that "the commissioner's deadline for the formerly suspended players to tell Goodell they are willing to present more information."

 

I've got a couple of questions. Didn't the appellate court ruling state the players' suspensions were lifted until Goodell presented his evidence agaisnt them? If so, then shouldn't it be Goodell "present[ing] more information" and not the players? If I was the players, I would reject meeting with Goodell until he presented me his evidence. Upon reciept, I would review the evidence, prepare my defense, AND THEN meet with Goodell to provide my side of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who knows, the whole thing has turned into some giant legal battle with cloak & danger undertones.

 

All I know is that Fujita is now on the Browns active roster, and is expected to play this Sunday. The news story also mentioned him meeting with Goodell.

 

I think there is still a chance that some suspensions are handed down, followed by more legal actions, etc. At this rate the whole thing should be cleared up sometime by the year 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://espn.go.com/n...nthony-hargrove

 

ESPN is reporting that Goodell is willing to meet with the suspended players. The players recieved word that "the commissioner's deadline for the formerly suspended players to tell Goodell they are willing to present more information."

 

I've got a couple of questions. Didn't the appellate court ruling state the players' suspensions were lifted until Goodell presented his evidence agaisnt them? If so, then shouldn't it be Goodell "present[ing] more information" and not the players? If I was the players, I would reject meeting with Goodell until he presented me his evidence. Upon reciept, I would review the evidence, prepare my defense, AND THEN meet with Goodell to provide my side of the story.

 

That's been the players argument all along. The same thing happened to the coaches, they told the NFL they would cooperate fully with the investigation then brought in for "discussions." When brought in and presented with some of the evidence, Goodell accused them of denying what he considered the factual evidence & came down on them even harder than expected. Unfortunately the coaches don't have a union to back them or speak for them. it's pretty much "accept our terms or find another line of work." The players knew this from the start and knew they would not get a fair chance to tell their side. Why anyone thinks they will now is beyond me, but maybe there is info that is not being made public.

Edited by rajncajn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information