Vilma walks out on hearing

[ThomasTomasz]

NEW YORK -- Suspended Saints player Jonathan Vilma left an appeals hearing with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell after about an hour Monday, denying he had a role in New Orleans' bounty program and saying the process is unfair.

The linebacker's attorney, Peter Ginsberg, said the NFL requested an adjournment to Monday afternoon, but he and Vilma refused. Ginsberg called the hearing "a sham" and said Goodell failed to present the evidence on which he based his decision to impose Vilma's season-long suspension.

"Roger Goodell has taken three months to tear down what I built over eight years. It's tough to swallow. I have been linked to a bounty and it simply is not true," Vilma said.

"I don't know how I can get a fair process when he is the judge, jury and executioner. You're assuming it will be fair, but it's not."

Three other players were scheduled to have their appeals heard Monday afternoon: Saints defensive end Will Smith, docked for four games; Green Bay defensive end Anthony Hargrove, suspended for eight games; and Cleveland linebacker Scott Fujita, set to miss three games.

Those players and Vilma all were on the Saints roster when then-defensive coordinator Gregg Williams, by his own admission, ran a pay-for-pain operation that handed out cash bonuses for big hits on targeted opponents.

Lawyers for all the players and the NFL Players Association were on hand for Monday's hearing. The union recently lost two grievances challenging Goodell's authority to hand out discipline for the bounty system.

Smith, Hargrove, and Fujita and their attorneys all arrived together. Vilma and his lawyer showed up separately.

Smith, Hargrove and Fujita issued a joint statement saying they were attending the hearing not because they were admitting to being part of the bounty program -- or because they believed Goodell had the right to punish them -- but because they felt the league "would attempt to publicly mischaracterize our refusal to attend."

"Shame on the National Football League and Commissioner Goodell for being more concerned about 'convicting' us publicly than being honorable and fair to men who have dedicated their professional lives to playing this game with honor," the three players said.

The NFL turned over evidence to the four players and the union on Friday, as required by the collective bargaining agreement. That information included some 200 pages of documents, with emails, power-point presentations, even handwritten notes, plus one video recording. But a ledger that reportedly documents payments of $1,000 for plays called "cart-offs" and $400 for "whacks," as well as $100 fines for mental errors, was not in the material.

According to two sources, Sean Payton's friend Mike Ornstein gave the NFL and the NFLPA a text he said came from Gregg Williams.
The NFL's evidence included emails that Saints coach Sean Payton's close friend and confidant, Mike Ornstein, sent from prison, offering up bounties for hits.

However, multiple sources familiar with the situation told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that Ornstein insisted his emails were jokes, and he unsuccessfully attempted to convince Goodell of this during their conversations.

Ornstein received support from Williams, who now is suspended indefinitely. According to two sources who have seen it, Ornstein gave the NFL and the NFL Players Association a text that he said came from Williams, saying, "I stood up for you & told them just that. I told them we never took that (stuff) serious. I never ever saw you ever give $ and that's just the truth."

The text was expected to be used as evidence at Monday's hearing.

Previously, Goodell suspended Payton for the season and assistant coach Joe Vitt for six games. Saints general manager Mickey Loomis got eight games, while Williams -- now with the St. Louis Rams -- was suspended indefinitely.

The NFL's investigation of the Saints found Williams ran a system for three years under which payouts were set on specific opponents, including Brett Favre and Kurt Warner. The program was in effect from 2009, when New Orleans won the Super Bowl, until last season.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/8...ns-saints-leaves-hearing-calls-process-unfair

 

[EmpireWF]

lol

He got pissed off, left in a huff and said it's unfair.

Real mature.

 

[Houston]

Doubt any appeal or resistance gets him anywhere. His efforts are entertaining though, hope he keeps it up.

 

[MrBill]

Maybe he should offer $10,000 to anybody that knocks Goodell out of the game.

 

[KNUBB]

Terrible reporting, but this is par for the course with how this entire situation has been reported. Much more to the story

 

[Senser81]

Terrible reporting, but this is par for the course with how this entire situation has been reported. Much more to the story

Such as...

 

[KNUBB]

The league gave the "evidence" on Friday, but the hearings were scheduled before the 72 hour period was over. When this was brought up to Goodell he offered the adjournment. Vilma said no we can continue now, but Goodell insisted. They then went on to question the "evidence" as having no bearing on what they have been accused for. At this point the meeting was adjourned so Goodell can say he gave a full 72 hours. All while outside of the hearing he says the CBA only mentions 3 calendar days. Secondly this is also a strategy for the defamation lawsuit. This is something left out by ESPN(should we really be surprised). The hearings are about to continue in a few minutes, but Vilma and Ginsberg aren't returning.

 

[Senser81]

The league gave the "evidence" on Friday, but the hearings were scheduled before the 72 hour period was over. When this was brought up to Goodell he offered the adjournment. Vilma said no we can continue now, but Goodell insisted. They then went on to question the "evidence" as having no bearing on what they have been accused for. At this point the meeting was adjourned so Goodell can say he gave a full 72 hours. All while outside of the hearing he says the CBA only mentions 3 calendar days. Secondly this is also a strategy for the defamation lawsuit. This is something left out by ESPN(should we really be surprised). The hearings are about to continue in a few minutes, but Vilma and Ginsberg aren't returning.

Isn't this just an appeals hearing? So the "evidence" was already presented at the initial formal hearing...the one that Vilma and his idiot lawyer refused to attend. I don't think you can bring up new "evidence" at an appeals hearing...that would make zero sense. So I don't think there is a 72 hour period for an appeals hearing.

What are you talking about?

 

[KNUBB]

Isn't this just an appeals hearing? So the "evidence" was already presented at the initial formal hearing...the one that Vilma and his idiot lawyer refused to attend. I don't think you can bring up new "evidence" at an appeals hearing...that would make zero sense. So I don't think there is a 72 hour period for an appeals hearing.

What are you talking about?

No evidence was released at the initial hearing. Just words that they have some "evidence" and here is your sentencing. The NFLPA just received the "evidence" on Friday. Which half of it was a powerpoint with nothing but Greg Williams quotes. If I can find the link of the "evidence" I'll give it to you guys.

EDIT: The CBA states that the parties must exchange exhibits they intend on using at the hearing.
The CBA Art. 46 Sec. 2(f), entitled "Discovery", states that the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits they intend to use at the hearing at least 3 days prior to the hearing.

Art. 46 Sec. (2)(a) provides for a "hearing" with a hearing officer. Section 2(b) allows the player to be represented by counsel and it allows the NFLPA or NFL to attend and even "to present, by testimony or otherwise, any evidence relevant to the hearing."

 

[Senser81]

No evidence was released at the initial hearing. Just words that they have some "evidence" and here is your sentencing. The NFLPA just received the "evidence" on Friday. Which half of it was a powerpoint with nothing but Greg Williams quotes. If I can find the link of the "evidence" I'll give it to you guys.

But don't they present the evidence at the initial hearing? I'm not following. Again, are you saying that new evidence was presented at an appeals hearing?

If you don't show up for work for 3 weeks straight, a hearing is scheduled for your dismissal and you don't show up to it, and you are eventually dismissed for job abandonment...can you show up to work and claim that you still have a job because you were never sent the "evidence" that led to your dismissal? Isn't it a little too late for that?

I guess I don't understand how Vilma can dodge every disciplinary hearing over the span of months, and then afterwards have his lawyer exclaim "Well...this is the first I am hearing about this!!"

 

[KNUBB]

https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/Public-News/NFLPA-Makes-Exhibits-Available-for-Review/

 

[KNUBB]

But don't they present the evidence at the initial hearing? I'm not following. Again, are you saying that new evidence was presented at an appeals hearing?

If you don't show up for work for 3 weeks straight, a hearing is scheduled for your dismissal and you don't show up to it, and you are eventually dismissed for job abandonment...can you show up to work and claim that you still have a job because you were never sent the "evidence" that led to your dismissal? Isn't it a little too late for that?

I guess I don't understand how Vilma can dodge every disciplinary hearing over the span of months, and then afterwards have his lawyer exclaim "Well...this is the first I am hearing about this!!"

No there was no evidence produced at the initial hearing. The not showing up part was actually recommended from his lawyer(Also not reported by national media). Showing up or not would not have changed the outcome. The NFL HAD to hand out physical evidence that they had albeit a small sampling of an apparent 50,000 pages. At the initial hearing The NFL only exclaimed that they had all of this evidence to back up their investigation and their claims and showed none of it.

 

[Senser81]

https://www.nflplayers.com/Articles/Public-News/NFLPA-Makes-Exhibits-Available-for-Review/

Link doesn't work for me. Can you paraphrase, or at least give me 72 hours to review said article before I respond?

 

[Senser81]

No there was no evidence produced at the initial hearing. The not showing up part was actually recommended from his lawyer(Also not reported by national media). Showing up or not would not have changed the outcome. The NFL HAD to hand out physical evidence that they had albeit a small sampling of an apparent 50,000 pages. At the initial hearing The NFL only exclaimed that they had all of this evidence to back up their investigation and their claims and showed none of it.

Still not following. No evidence was produced at the initial hearing because Vilma did not show up, right? Isn't this an internal procedure? Who would the NFL be presenting the evidence to?

Where are you getting all of this information?

 

[jms493]

Where are you getting all of this information?

www.nfl.com

:troll:

 

[KNUBB]

Still not following. No evidence was produced at the initial hearing because Vilma did not show up, right? Isn't this an internal procedure? Who would the NFL be presenting the evidence to?

Where are you getting all of this information?

No evidence was produced because they didn't "HAVE" to. They expected them to just take their word for it(Which most people did). Now at the appeals hearing evidence must be produced to the players to back up what they have been accused of. Also Vilma isn't the only one that got suspended he isn't the only one fighting this. The others had some unkind words for the Commish this morning on the situation.

It isn't difficult. Local media has been doing a much better job of putting the entire story out there. A couple of other national writers have taken notice and started to ask the right questions. ESPN isn't the only place that reports on sports. Most places do a better job at it.

 

[KNUBB]

Just realized the NFLPA site is being hammered so that is why the link isn't working at the moment. I'll happily give you your 72 hours though Senser :yao:

 

[Senser81]

No evidence was produced because they didn't "HAVE" to. They expected them to just take their word for it(Which most people did). Now at the appeals hearing evidence must be produced to the players to back up what they have been accused of. Also Vilma isn't the only one that got suspended he isn't the only one fighting this. The others had some unkind words for the Commish this morning on the situation.

It isn't difficult. Local media has been doing a much better job of putting the entire story out there. A couple of other national writers have taken notice and started to ask the right questions. ESPN isn't the only place that reports on sports. Most places do a better job at it.

They didn't have to because Vilma and/or his lawyer didn't show up, right? Or did you expect Goodall to make an evidence presentation to an empty room for a couple hours? I guess I don't see how Vilma and the lawyers can question the nature of the evidence in the appeals process...isn't that what the hearing is for? My understanding of the appeals process is that it is to ensure that the disciplinary process is followed correctly...its not just another chance (or, in Vilma's case, his "first" chance) to make a counter-argument. There shouldn't be new evidence presented at an appeals hearing for either side, so I don't understand Vilma's argument.

And why would the NFL be "leaking" evidence to the media before the hearing process has run its course?? Wouldn't that be construed as being worse, as if the NFL was trying to sully Vilma's name through the media? Again, isn't this an internal procedure? Why is the NFL obligated to produce evidence to the media?

 

[JeremyHight]

I don't get how senser doesn't understand the process.

1. NFL collected and reviewed evidence. (Interviews, tapes, notes, emails, etc.)
2. NFL made judgement and told players/coaches of their punishments in an initial hearing. (No evidence shown, just judgement)
3. Players appealed judgement.
4. NFL had to hand over evidence to support judgement 72 hours prior to appeal meeting.
5. Meeting adjourned due to the full 72 hours not being given.

Either way, Vilma could complain, but his union agreed to a collective bargaining agreement that said all appeals would go through Goodell on player behavior punishments. He has zero legal ground to stand on in terms of the NFL's punishments. As for defamation of character in civil court, I don't think he has much there either.

 

[Senser81]

I don't get how senser doesn't understand the process.

1. NFL collected and reviewed evidence. (Interviews, tapes, notes, emails, etc.)
2. NFL made judgement and told players/coaches of their punishments in an initial hearing. (No evidence shown, just judgement)
3. Players appealed judgement.
4. NFL had to hand over evidence to support judgement 72 hours prior to appeal meeting.
5. Meeting adjourned due to the full 72 hours not being given.

I don't get step 2. I thought that was the formal hearing, where the evidence is presented and the player can respond to the charges. I thought Vilma and his lawyer refused to attend the formal hearing, incorrectly saying that Goodall did not have the authority to punish the players in the first place.

I don't understand how the players are responding to the charges in the appeals process...makes no sense. How could you fault the judgment made by Goodall when Vilma presented no evidence to the contrary? How can Vilma fault Goodall for his judgment if Vilma did not present his counter-argument to Goodall? Does Vilma think Goodall is omniscient?

"We are appealing the decision you made based on the evidence you had at the time, because now we are ready to present you with our counter-argument."

Retarded.