The Legal system has over turned the ruling by the NFL...!! | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

The Legal system has over turned the ruling by the NFL...!!

In all of this discussion about bounty gate, I have yet to see anyone from the NFL or their media sycophants provide any objective empirical evidence that Saints defensive players were involved in a disproportionate amount of fines or penalties for illegal hits compared to other teams in the NFL.
If no such empirical evidence exists, then they are essentially punishing the Saints for 'thought crimes'. Very Orwellian, if you ask me.
 
In all of this discussion about bounty gate, I have yet to see anyone from the NFL or their media sycophants provide any objective empirical evidence that Saints defensive players were involved in a disproportionate amount of fines or penalties for illegal hits compared to other teams in the NFL.
If no such empirical evidence exists, then they are essentially punishing the Saints for 'thought crimes'. Very Orwellian, if you ask me.

You can not even call it a crime or compare it to a crime. This is not the Penn State Crimes. Its about play thats against the rules and conducts of the organization.
 
Any business you run, there are rules to firing someone. If you dont follow those rules then you can be sued. The NFL is no different, thats why they have to have rules and contracts that both sides agree too. If Goodell doesnt not follow the contract that he sign with the players then he is at fault. Goodell fined them for reasons which he could not because of the contract he agreed too. When parties sign contracts, it goes for both sides. I cant make up stuff along the way. Goodell did not suspend Vilma or any Saints players for hurting anyone (he really does not have any proof). He suspended Vilma and others for paying for play, meaning that the players can not pay each other nothing for any performance good or bad. This reasoning for suspension was not legal for Goodell to rule on.


How would you feel if the company you worked for suspended you with no pay because a co worker told upper management you peed in the bathroom sink. Which what almost happened at my job, but because there was no proof that someone pissed in the sink and who did it other than hersay, they can not be fired eve if they believed it. Or what if you and a co worker made a bet on who can make the most sales, the loser has to buy the winner lunch.

What most companies would do is, find something else to fire you for like attendence or raising goals and expectations that you can not meet.
I fail to see where you compare that to making MORE money if you injure someone...
 
If thats the case, that fraking sucks! I run a business, a small one but still.... If I find out some scheme is going on about injuring other employees and dont do crap about it. I WILL go to jail... Now you're telling me A freaking judge overruled this...? I mean WTF!? People need to be accountable FFS...

Does this happen at your business, if not I dont think you have anything to worry about. LMBO

[video=youtube;RzToNo7A-94]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94[/video]
 
the nfl is being taking over by the players union. Its just crazy that goodell gives the union this much power. This is not good news for the nfl, basically your sending a message that you can cheat and get caught, and yet still get away with it because the union protects the players by any means necessary. Even if there cheaters. Disgusted.

That message was sent many years ago my friend.....one word.....PATRIOTS!!!!
 
Any business you run, there are rules to firing someone. If you dont follow those rules then you can be sued. The NFL is no different, thats why they have to have rules and contracts that both sides agree too. If Goodell doesnt not follow the contract that he sign with the players then he is at fault. Goodell fined them for reasons which he could not because of the contract he agreed too. When parties sign contracts, it goes for both sides. I cant make up stuff along the way. Goodell did not suspend Vilma or any Saints players for hurting anyone (he really does not have any proof). He suspended Vilma and others for paying for play, meaning that the players can not pay each other nothing for any performance good or bad. This reasoning for suspension was not legal for Goodell to rule on.


How would you feel if the company you worked for suspended you with no pay because a co worker told upper management you peed in the bathroom sink. Which what almost happened at my job, but because there was no proof that someone pissed in the sink and who did it other than hersay, they can not be fired eve if they believed it. Or what if you and a co worker made a bet on who can make the most sales, the loser has to buy the winner lunch.

What most companies would do is, find something else to fire you for like attendence or raising goals and expectations that you can not meet.

you do not know what proof they have, you do not work for the nfl, they did not let evidence go public for a reason. He is the commissioner of football , he has all right to suspend whoever breaks the rules and hurts the integrity of the game. The only reason this was overturned is because it was done in lousiana, it will be appealed and overturned very soon in another state. The judge was clearly biased and everyone knew it the moment she said she wanted to rule in favor of the saints. Who said anything about being fired? no one got fired, they got "suspended", its in the cba that the commissioner is suppose to suspended players who break the rules, if he does not suspend them he is not doing his job. Pay to injure or whatever is they were suspended for, it does not matter what u wanna call it, they were apart of the head of the program, they helped run it, they were the key contributors. Supporting **** like this only hurts the nfl, if we even have the nfl for long after this now that we know crap like this is going on.
 
This was NOT a ruling from the COURTS... this was a decision by an appeals panel agreed to in the CBA.

ProFootballTalk ‏@ProFootballTalk Another point -- today's ruling was not a court decision but a product of the dispute resolution process that the NFL and NFLPA agreed to.

Thanks for clearing that up. I was about to blow a gasket if the courts were involved!
 
Does this happen at your business, if not I dont think you have anything to worry about. LMBO

[video=youtube;RzToNo7A-94]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzToNo7A-94[/video]
Thats funny and all, but what does it bring to the table argument wise? So because there's no football defensemen tackling my employees on the job, they can do whatever the fk they want and get away with it? All I said was where's the accountability nowadays? I mean they were part of a scheme that involved paying bounties for injuring other people, forget the law... you got caught, take the god damn suspension and learn FFs!
 
I fail to see where you compare that to making MORE money if you injure someone...


No i did not fail to make comparison. They were suspended for pay to play, not pay for injury.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats funny and all, but what does it bring to the table argument wise? So because there's no football defensemen tackling my employees on the job, they can do whatever the fk they want and get away with it? All I said was where's the accountability nowadays? I mean they were part of a scheme that involved paying bounties for injuring other people, forget the law... you got caught, take the god damn suspension and learn FFs!

Then you are totally out of touch with the situation, it does make a difference. INJURY is part of the enviroment, unlike yours. Every player is paid to participate in activities that causes injury. There is a fine line between what they are being accused for and what they are hired to do. You have to look at it in proper perspective.
 
Not i did not fail to make comparison. They were suspended for pay to play, not pay for injury.

they were suspended for being leaders of an illegal program in the nfl. If Coach gregg williams got suspended for it, than why do they get a pass? they were apart of the head.
 
Then you are totally out of touch with the situation, it does make a difference. INJURY is part of the enviroment, unlike yours. Every player is paid to participate in activities that causes injury. There is a fine line between what they are being accused for and what they are hired to do. You have to look at it in proper perspective.


lmao, so intent to injure players is ok now? theres no sugarcoating it like you are doing, they got caught period.
 
they were suspended for being leaders of an illegal program in the nfl. If Coach gregg williams got suspended for it, than why do they get a pass? they were apart of the head.

The media gave you misinformed info by saying they were suspended for injuring a player. The reason the suspension was overturned, is because Goodell wrote on paper they were suspended for pay for play.
Today's ruling by a three-person panel (retired federal Judge Fern Smith of San Francisco, retired federal Judge Richard Howell of New York, and Georgetown professor James Oldham) overrules Burbank with respect to pay-for-play, but not with respect to intent to injure. The effect of today's ruling is that the suspensions of linebacker Jonathan Vilma, Browns linebacker Scott Fujita, Saints defensive end Will Smith and free agent defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove are lifted. Goodell, however, could reissue said suspensions if he believes there was intent to injure beyond creating incentives for performance

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...spensions-overturned/index.html#ixzz25pRt42sv

Now the ball is in Goodell court, can he find proof that they were purposely injuring a player outside of normal play. Goodell tried to sneak one pass you and the players, by saying publicly one thing and behind door on paper something else.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then you are totally out of touch with the situation, it does make a difference. INJURY is part of the enviroment, unlike yours. Every player is paid to participate in activities that causes injury. There is a fine line between what they are being accused for and what they are hired to do. You have to look at it in proper perspective.
So if one of my employee decides its funny to to go ape s**t with a nailgun, and then one of his buddy bets him he cant hit another coworker with it, its fine?? I think its BS... the difference in our argument is that your arguing law-wise... Im just saying its BS on a moral standpoint...
 
Back
Top Bottom