New Orleans Saints linebacker Vilma could set new standard for NFL rulings

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

July 28, 2010; Metairie, LA, USA; New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma talks with the media during a press conference prior to the start of training camp at the New Orleans Saints practice facility. Mandatory Credit: Derick E. Hingle-US PRESSWIRE

New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma and his attorney have been arguing his season long suspension is unjust.  The reason why could set new standards for rulings handed down from the NFL in the future.

In a nutshell, Vilma and his attorney have asked one simple question, “Where is the evidence?”  Or more importantly, where is the due process in the investigation?

In the criminal justice system, a defendant doesn’t have to prove their innocence.  The burden of proof rests upon the district attorney’s office who must prove their case “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

The defendant also has a right to face their accusers and also have complete access to all evidence and any witnesses that could be called to testify.  Vilma and his attorney say that they haven’t been given that.

This is where the opposite is occurring with Vilma and the other players named in the  investigation.  It seems that burden is resting upon them to prove their innocence.

At the risk of sounding biased, I’m not.  It’s just that no one should have to go this route to prove themselves.  If this works for our justice system, then why not the NFL?

Use your ← → (arrows) to browse

comments powered by Disqus