Saints' Jonathan Vilma files defamation suit against Roger Goodell over bounty accusations

This Oct. 30, 2011 file photo shows New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma on the sideline during the fourth quarter of an NFL football game against the St. Louis Rams, in St. Louis. Vilma was suspended by the NFL for the 2012 season. / File,AP Photo/Seth Perlman

(CBS/AP) NEW ORLEANS - Suspended Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma filed a defamation lawsuit Thursday against NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell.

The suit in U.S. District Court in New Orleans claims Goodell has made false statements about Vilma while discussing the NFL's bounty investigation of the New Orleans Saints.

Goodell has said Vilma was a leader of the team's bounty program that put up thousands of dollars for big hits on opposing teams' star players from 2009-11, including on then-Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner and then-Minnesota quarterback Brett Favre during the playoffs in 2010.

"Commissioner Goodell opted to make very public and unfortunately erroneous allegations against Jonathan," said Vilma's attorney, Peter Ginsberg. "By making these false and public statements, he has significantly harmed Jonathan's reputation and ability to make a living.

CBSSports.com: Read Jonathan Vilma's full complaint here (PDF)

"By suing Commissioner Goodell in court, Jonathan opted to use a fair playing field where he has procedural rights and protections to remedy the harm Commissioner Goodell has done to him," Ginsberg added.

On Thursday, Vilma wrote on his Twitter account:

As I've said before..I NEVER PAID, NOR INTENDED TO PAY ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY,TO ANY PLAYER FOR INTENTIONALLY HURTING AN OPPONENT.

— Jonathan Vilma (@JonVilma51) May 17, 2012

Goodell has suspended Vilma for the entire season. Vilma and three other players who received shorter suspensions — defensive end Will Smith, defensive lineman Anthony Hargrove and linebacker Scott Fujita — all have appealed their punishments. Hargrove now plays for Green Bay while Fujita is with Cleveland.

NFL bans 4 players over bounties; Saints LB Vilma suspended for season

"We have not yet reviewed the filing," NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said. "However, our commitment to player safety and the integrity of the game is our main consideration. We recognize that not everyone will agree with decisions that need to be made."

Vilma appeals suspension in Saints bounty case
Union appeals Saints bounty suspensions
Jonathan Vilma vows to "fight" bounty suspension

Vilma's lawsuit, which is expected to be heard by Judge Ginger Berrigan, asks for unspecified monetary damages.

CBSSports.com's Mike Freeman says the lawsuit makes Vilma come off as a "crybaby."

"This is another example of why the Saints are in the position they're in. They did it. They did the bounties. But they don't want to admit they did it and they don't want to serve their punishment for the crime," Freeman writes.

The players' association has said that the league has refused to turn over what the union would view as hard evidence that Vilma or the other sanctioned players tried to intentionally injure targeted opponents or sponsored such behavior on the field.

Ginsberg has echoed those complaints and said the federal lawsuit could force the NFL's hand.

"It is certainly the case that in court, Jonathan will have a right to see whatever it is that Commissioner Goodell has been hiding from us and what Commissioner Goodell contends gave him a basis to make these false allegations," Ginsberg said. "We will have a fair and neutral judge to preside over the dispute rather than contending with the executioner also being the person making the final decision."

[2happy2ride]

Don't know the facts, but this is very reminiscent of Michael Vick's 'I'm an innocent victim' pleas.
If I had to bet, my money is on Goodell.

[krj9]

What we have here is a bunch of crybabies whose teams got beat up by the Saints. We'll see what happens in court

[Rafterman11]

Vilma, you got balls. You got caught trying to take the livelihood away from other guys (something you wouldn't take kindly to if they tried it to you) and now you are suing the commish?

[rainbowroosie]

He's from the "U" no one from the "U" is ever guilty of a crime. Indeed, according to "U" players, the "U" never had a player guilty of any of the allegations against them. "U" players are misunderstood angelic figures and role models for Miami's youth.

By the way, they had to change the way they score the FCAT in Miami because no one could pass.

[canislupus16]

stevedobkowski - "CRIME"? That's exactly what it is when it is not part of the game, and the INTENT is to physically harm/injure someone. Football is football, and hits are hits, but when you set out to intentionally injure or harm someone, that's assault, irrespective of the rough and tumble of football. I would suggest it's a crime under those circumstances.

A problem arises - an irrelevant one in my opinion - because football entails hard hitting. Do that on the street and you will be charged with assault. Do it on the field and it's part of the game, one where all participants agree to bang each other around. The problem surrounds the question, "where does one draw the line between what is deemed "play" and intentional assault?" I think a reasonable view of that is INTENT to do something, and in this case the intent is to purposely injure someone.

Vilma, and others, are just hoodlums hiding beneath the shroud of a "game." (IMHO, the NFL and NBA are little more than half-way houses anyway for a lot of guys who would otherwise find themselves on the economic margins and/or imprisoned).

There's an irony here: Vilma, and the Players Union, are pretty stupid for promoting any lawsuit or anything else that ends up in a courtroom. In doing so, they potentially open up their "game" - protected from the outside interference of law enforcement and the judicial system until now by tacit agreement of all who participate - to inspection and review by the very institutions kept out of the game, i.e., law enforcement and the courts and everything that implies.

A further irony here is the shallowness of the REAL basis for Vilma's suit (I don't believe for a second he cares about his reputation): "...he has significantly harmed Jonathan's ... ability to make a living." But it sure didn't stop Vilma and his cohorts from trying to harm other players' ability to make a living, did it?

Vilma is a crybaby, and a phony at that.

[canislupus16]

stevedobkowski - "CRIME"? That's exactly what it is when it is not part of the game, and the INTENT is to physically harm/injure someone. Football is football, and hits are hits, but when you set out to intentionally injure or harm someone, that's assault, irrespective of the rough and tumble of football. I would suggest it's a crime under those circumstances.

A problem arises - an irrelevant one in my opinion - because football entails hard hitting. Do that on the street and you will be charged with assault. Do it on the field and it's part of the game, one where all participants agree to bang each other around. The problem surrounds the question, "where does one draw the line between what is deemed "play" and intentional assault?" I think a reasonable view of that is INTENT to do something, and in this case the intent is to purposely injure someone.

Vilma, and others, are just hoodlums hiding beneath the shroud of a "game." (IMHO, the NFL and NBA are little more than half-way houses anyway for a lot of guys who would otherwise find themselves on the economic margins and/or imprisoned).

There's an irony here: Vilma, and the Players Union, are pretty stupid for promoting any lawsuit or anything else that ends up in a courtroom. In doing so, they potentially open up their "game" - protected from the outside interference of law enforcement and the judicial system until now by tacit agreement of all who participate - to inspection and review by the very institutions kept out of the game, i.e., law enforcement and the courts and everything that implies.

A further irony here is the shallowness of the REAL basis for Vilma's suit (I don't believe for a second he cares about his reputation): "...he has significantly harmed Jonathan's ... ability to make a living." But it sure didn't stop Vilma and his cohorts from trying to harm other players' ability to make a living, did it?

Vilma is a crybaby, and a phony at that.

[talkin2u924]

What a fool. Just take your punishment. Mr. Vilma is a thug and a cheat...and he knows it. His boss's caught him and he's been suspended. The End.

[stevedobkowski]

Before any reporter or commentator says publically that "they don't want to pay for the CRIME," when speaking about these football players, they better understand they themselves can be sued for libel. I'm a Detroit Lion fan, but the question for me now is treating these players fairly in the Media. Whatever the truth is, it is, and the trial will bring out the facts. Mike Freeman better pray that the truth is that these players are guilty. However, Mr. Freeman accused them of a "CRIME" which nobody ever has suggested.

[talkin2u924]

Two items here. a. We don't know all the facts. We will never know what all the evidence is against Vilma. That being said Goodell is a very careful person and took a lot of time to come up with this punishment. I think if it goes to court it will be very hard for Vilma to prove his case. B. Vilma is a public figure. He is in the national spot light as a pro athlete. He's a public figure. I am sure his lawyer told him this would be tough but Vilma is probably being insistent and the lawyer is all to glad to take the cash.

[Twaker]

I agree, Mr. Freeman is convicting players in the media. Convictions happen in court......sounds like he'll be lucky if he isn't sued for libel.