Tagliabue Sides w/ Goodell, vacates penalties anyway

[Da Schwab]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/87366 ... -penalties

NEW ORLEANS -- Former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue has overturned the suspensions of four current and former New Orleans Saints players in the league's bounty investigation of the club.

Tagliabue, however, found that the players' conduct was detrimental to the league. He says they participated in a performance pool that rewarded key plays -- including hard tackles -- that could justify fines.

But the former commissioner said Tuesday that "this entire case has been contaminated by the coaches and others in the Saints' organization."

Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma initially had been suspended the whole season, while Saints defensive end Will Smith, Cleveland linebacker Scott Fujita and free agent defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove received shorter suspensions.

Commissioner Roger Goodell issued the initial suspensions, which also included a full-season ban for Saints head coach Sean Payton.

I'm not sure I understand what Tags is doing here...

[Higga]

Yeah it's kinda confusing. So they did it, but didn't do it?

[Rafael122]

They did it but the penalties were too severe. Honestly, I think only Saints fans care about this. The team stinks, Vilma is probably out of the league in a year or two anyway. A lot of fuss has been made about the Payton stuff, the distractions. The defense is terrible and Brees has lost some of his mojo. I think more than anything, it's good for them that this was still going on because it made people focus on the bounty scandal rather than the team play.

[Icness]

My interpretation is that Tags wanted it to end, period. He laid the bulk of the blame on Gregg Williams and Sean Payton without absolving the players, notably Vilma, of guilt. He also didn't want to show up Goodell by saying they were not guilty, and he didn't. Sort of like time served already as far as punishments go.

Drew Brees and his overreacting celebration to this speak volumes about how the Saints still view themselves as righteous victims. Just like OJ Simpson and the ill-fitting bloody glove.

[NO-KG-AI]

Come on, Goodell has said repeatedly that there was INDISPUTABLE evidence to dock draft picks, suspend players and remove our coach for a full season. This isn't just a "get it over with" thing, they are still trying to saw Goodell's ass, when he clearly has weak evidence, and lots of hearsay from terribly biased parties.

The saints were doing what every team does, and most players admit that. Roger Goodell **** up bad, and the Saints suffered serious damage because of it.

[NO-KG-AI]

Tagliabue said in his report that the Packers and Patriots got popped for the same thing and got a 25k fine. Fair. I'm sure we won't get our draft picks recouped though right

[ohara]

My interpretation is that Tags wanted it to end, period. He laid the bulk of the blame on Gregg Williams and Sean Payton without absolving the players, notably Vilma, of guilt. He also didn't want to show up Goodell by saying they were not guilty, and he didn't. Sort of like time served already as far as punishments go.

Drew Brees and his overreacting celebration to this speak volumes about how the Saints still view themselves as righteous victims. Just like OJ Simpson and the ill-fitting bloody glove.

I think this is spot on. Tags knows this fight is not good for the NFL or for the players, so he did what he thought would end it all fairly for both sides and save some face for both sides. I think the decision was just. Vilma has no chance at his defamation suit. Cannot legitimately argue malice when an impartial factfinder who threw out your penalty sitll said the evidence shows you did it. He needs to just walk away. All he will do is incur more attorney fees and will likely end up paying the NFL attorney fees if the Court finds he brought this case without merit. A smart attorney would tell Vilma to just walk away as he has zero chance of winning his defamation suit.

[NO-KG-AI]

Uh, Vilma has more than 0%, even Tagliabue admitted the case against Vilma was very weak and based on some hearsay.

[ohara]

Uh, Vilma has more than 0%, even Tagliabue admitted the case against Vilma was very weak and based on some hearsay.

Not really. Vilma is a public figure. He has to show malice on the part of Tags, not merely that Tags was wrong. He would basically have to show Tags knew the allegations against Vilma were erroneous and went about this whole process anyway. Vilma will not be able to meet that legal hurdle.

[gswhoops]

Uh, Vilma has more than 0%, even Tagliabue admitted the case against Vilma was very weak and based on some hearsay.

Not really. Vilma is a public figure. He has to show malice on the part of Tags, not merely that Tags was wrong. He would basically have to show Tags knew the allegations against Vilma were erroneous and went about this whole process anyway. Vilma will not be able to meet that legal hurdle.

I think all he has to show is that Goodell said something that was injurious to his business practice and that what he said was untrue...which will be difficult since Tags found (basically) that he did what he was accused of.

Also keep in mind that the burden of prooi for civil suits is much, much lower than criminal cases.

[ohara]

GSW, Vilma is a public figure. For a defamation suit, a public figure must meet a higher burden of proof than a regular citizen. You darn near have to prove the person who declared the injurous statement did so knowing the allegations were false. And as you said, Tag's ruling basically said the allegations were true, but that the punishment was too harsh since the entire organization, mgmnt, and coaches all corrupted the system in New Orleans. I dont see any way in which, given the facts, Vilma can prove that the Commish brought all this down on Vilma and the other players knowing that what he was alleging was false. If anything, it is the opposite.

[gswhoops]

GSW, Vilma is a public figure. For a defamation suit, a public figure must meet a higher burden of proof than a regular citizen. You darn near have to prove the person who declared the injurous statement did so knowing the allegations were false. And as you said, Tag's ruling basically said the allegations were true, but that the punishment was too harsh since the entire organization, mgmnt, and coaches all corrupted the system in New Orleans. I dont see any way in which, given the facts, Vilma can prove that the Commish brought all this down on Vilma and the other players knowing that what he was alleging was false. If anything, it is the opposite.

Ahh, fair enough. Didn't consider that angle of it.