Thoughts on June 18, 2012, players’ hearing before Roger Goodell

Prev2 of 11Next
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Ginsberg addresses the Goodell and states the Commissioner does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding nor should this be considered a proper proceeding.

Additionally, he objects to the presentation of evidence under Article 46 of the CBA, which states the evidence must be produced within 72 hours of the hearing.  (The evidence was produced at 1:33pm on Friday, June 15, 2012, and the hearing began at 10am on Monday, June 18, 2012).

Pursuant to New York law and the CBA, Ginsberg makes the legal argument the evidence should be excluded.  I believe this is a valid legal point and will be the source of much parsing of legal precedent regarding the 72-hour rule.  The matter should at least merit judicial review.

Ginsberg also addresses Vilma’s willingness to participate in an exchange of information to facilitate an complete understanding of the events that transpired.  However, Ginsberg opines the league’s unwillingness to entertain such an thorough exchange precluded Vilma’s cooperation.

He states an objection to the league’s lack of a “modicum of due process” which culminated in a deprivation of fundamental rights.   He then describes the league’s serious allegations without complete evidence as “shocking and shameful.”

Prev2 of 11Next
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse

Topics: Anthony Hargrove, Appeal Hearing, Bounty, Jonathan Vilma, Roger Goodell, Scott Fujita

Want more from Who Dat Dish?  
Subscribe to FanSided Daily for your morning fix. Enter your email and stay in the know.

TEAMFeed More Saints news from the Fansided Network

Hot on the Web From