Skip to content

Timing of exhibit disclosure could scuttle bounty suspensions

WHITE AP

Though the NFL’s in-house appeal process doesn’t amount to a full-blown legal proceeding, the players accused of participating in the Saints’ bounty program could escape responsibility on the same basis that plenty of criminal defendants do.

By relying on a technicality.

As Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement goes, there aren’t many technicalities in the appeal process.  Here’s one of them, from Article 46, Section (f)(ii):  “In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing.  Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.”

Key language:  Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.

Key word:  Shall.

As every law student learns when studying “civil procedure” (i.e., the rules for litigating cases), the word “shall” always should (or, I suppose, “shall”) be regarded as a red flag.  It conveys a mandatory requirement.  No discretion.  No exceptions.  No wiggle room.

Here, failure to deliver the exhibits on time “shall” prevent them from being used at the hearing.

Commissioner Roger Goodell previously scheduled the hearing in the bounty case for 10:00 a.m. ET on Monday, June 18.  The NFL delivered its packet of 16 exhibits to the NFLPA at roughly 1:30 p.m. ET on Friday, June 15.

Three calendar days prior to the hearing translates, in the normal sense of the term, to at least 72 hours before the hearing.  Actually, it could reasonably be argued that the exhibits were due by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, June 14, since that would have given the players “three calendar days” (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) to digest the evidence and prepare accordingly.

So by failing to deliver the materials before 10:00 a.m. ET on Friday, June 15, the plain language of the CBA (i.e., “shall”) prevents the materials from being introduced at the hearing.

Since the NFL’s entire cases consisted of the 16 exhibits plus comments from outside counsel Mary Jo White regarding their meaning, the failure to deliver the documents by 10:00 a.m. ET on June 15 could get all suspensions thrown out by a court that eventually reviews Commissioner Roger Goodell’s inevitable decision to uphold the penalties he previously crafted.

Is it a harsh outcome?  It sure is.  But it’s the outcome that the CBA mandates if the exhibits aren’t delivered on time, and it’s an outcome that easily could have been avoided by determining the earliest possible point at which the three-day window may close and making sure that the exhibits were in the hands of the NFLPA before that moment.

Thousands of lawyers throughout the country routinely apply that concept in a wide variety of proceedings and contexts.  The fact that the NFL has full control over the appeal process doesn’t mean that the NFL has the power to disregard the clear, unambiguous terms of the limited rules that apply.

Despite a report that the players asked for the hearings to be adjourned in order to have the benefit of the full 72 hours, the official transcript indicates that NFL general counsel Jeff Pash delayed the hearing to ensure compliance with the rule.  But if any delay in the commencement of the hearing time can be used to cure the failure to deliver the exhibits on a timely basis, the clear consequences of the rule can be avoided in any hearing in which the NFL delivered the exhibits late.  Regardless of when the exhibits were tendered, the Commissioner can simply press the pause button until the 72-hour window between the disclosure of the exhibits and the start of the hearing has passed.

That’s probably not what the rules envision.  And whoever failed to ensure that the exhibits were delivered at least 72 hours before the start of Monday’s hearing probably will be spending some time in the coming weeks and months gnawing on Tums while obsessing over the manner in which this one may play out.

Permalink 76 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cleveland Browns, Green Bay Packers, New Orleans Saints, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
76 Responses to “Timing of exhibit disclosure could scuttle bounty suspensions”
  1. Manbearpig says: Jun 19, 2012 10:08 PM

    2010 Super Bowl Champions – New Orleans Saints*

  2. pocketsstraight says: Jun 19, 2012 10:11 PM

    and now a 4th definition of “killing the head” — Mara, your shot first

  3. jasonvining says: Jun 19, 2012 10:12 PM

    Dude, the hearing was postponed until 1:30 ET on Monday for this exact reason. So what are you talking about?

  4. gbmickey says: Jun 19, 2012 10:14 PM

    Florio i think you are grasping at straws with this. Trying create sensationalism for this article is about as desperate as the players trying to lie their way out of it.

  5. kegowhisky says: Jun 19, 2012 10:15 PM

    The league seems to be making up the rules as they go along. I don’t know why they’d follow this one…..

  6. kylecleric says: Jun 19, 2012 10:17 PM

    Good. The arrogance Goodell has shown throughout his tenure. He deserves getting the embarrassment of his suspensions being thrown out.

  7. touchdownroddywhite says: Jun 19, 2012 10:18 PM

    Accident? Probably not. Dog amd pony show at the best. Completely fraudulent behavior by the league at the worst…

  8. infrno says: Jun 19, 2012 10:19 PM

    Well, if (and I stress “if”) that happens, not a single hater that has been touting the CBA procedures should say a friggin peep. Of course, if (again, emphasis) that should happen, one would be a monumental moron not to wonder how the NFL could be so stupid.

  9. wildbillesq says: Jun 19, 2012 10:20 PM

    Due process is due process. All the NFL had to do was play by the rules they bargained for…

  10. bjamesa says: Jun 19, 2012 10:23 PM

    I know Hargrove is a Packer but tagging the team in every article regarding bounties is driving me insane. These are not Packers stories and they are flooding the Packers designated page to the point that actual Packers stories are being pushed to the bottom. This is easily my least favorite part of the bounty scandal…

    Go Pack Go!

  11. saintij says: Jun 19, 2012 10:23 PM

    No Comment.

  12. kbballard says: Jun 19, 2012 10:24 PM

    Boom. Roasted!

  13. stopit5542 says: Jun 19, 2012 10:24 PM

    Yes, that is a technicality, Florio. The way criminal defendants get off typically is not. Tell me when the 4th or 5th Amendments became technicalities. C’mon, you’re a lawyer, you should know better; don’t make false statements to rile up the masses.

  14. jordan1177 says: Jun 19, 2012 10:25 PM

    I think Goodell just threw up in his mouth. Great insight from an objective attorney. I think this story will gain huge traction tonight / tomorrow. Let’s see how long it takes for ESPN to post a similar story…

  15. saintvilma says: Jun 19, 2012 10:26 PM

    b O O m !!!!! Timing is everything ……. See you week one Vilma ….. Suck an egg go-dell……really just go …. Seriously leave Rodger

  16. brenenostler says: Jun 19, 2012 10:29 PM

    Jonathan Vilma should not be rewarded for participating in the bounty program. I hope this doesn’t lift his suspension.

  17. qdog112 says: Jun 19, 2012 10:29 PM

    Karma?

  18. twodat says: Jun 19, 2012 10:30 PM

    You cannot call a hearing at 10 am and thus eat up a portion of the 72 hrs, then call an adjournment. Foul!!

  19. brenenostler says: Jun 19, 2012 10:31 PM

    But I don’t think the evidence was even used until the afternoon part of the hearing anyway.

  20. twodat says: Jun 19, 2012 10:31 PM

    The NFL is beginning to look like the key stone cops This is not a well-oiled deliberative investigation. It is a ship of fools

  21. bodybagx says: Jun 19, 2012 10:31 PM

    The CBA giveth, and the CBA taketh away.

  22. ksm31311 says: Jun 19, 2012 10:33 PM

    Nice insights but do you think that this is all the evidence that the NFL has?

    I don’t and I also don’t expect to see any suspensions overturned…

    You see to think that the players are somehow being wronged but if that is the case, then why have the team, GM, HC and DC all apologized for the program?

  23. catquick says: Jun 19, 2012 10:33 PM

    Why is this even an issue anymore? Their OWN coach said they did it! Was he lying? When the Romans conquered a city-state, the first thing they did was round up all the lawyers and bankers and kill them, because they knew the guys who handled the money and the laws were he real troublemakers. I’m starting to get a better understanding of the Romans.

  24. gravedigger93 says: Jun 19, 2012 10:34 PM

    They should get thrown out, these suspensions are ridiculous in the first place. There is absolutely zero concrete evidence that these 4 players (Vilma, Hargrove, Fujita, Smith) contributed or received money for purposely injuring an opponent.

    Is there evidence that a bounty program existed? I think so. Is there evidence Greg Williams encouraged his players to injure opponents? Definitely. Did Payton and Loomis continue to cover up the scheme after they were ordered to end it? Absolutely. The suspensions of Payton, Loomis, and Williams are all justified, in fact I think Loomis should have gotten an equal punishment to Payton. So don’t mistake me for a Saints fan or an apologist, I’m a diehard Packer fan. I think Vitt’s suspension is bogus also, the only thing he is guilty of is not ratting out his team concerning the existence of the program. Morally objectionable? Definitely, but not against the rules.

    Goodell is trying to make an example of these players. While I think the intent behind his decision is noble, he’s depriving 4 players of their livelihood and tarnishing their reputation forever and he can’t even prove they actually did what he accuses them of doing. It’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove Rog. You royally botched this whole situation and it should be your reputation that is tarnished and not these players.

  25. silentcount says: Jun 19, 2012 10:35 PM

    Good point, and we would not want the outcome based on a legal technicality. However, what we’re dealing with here, is making sure innocent people are not given severe financial and reputation damage that wasn’t deserved. The whole process so far doesn’t seem to give the accused a fair chance to dispute the claims before public opinion of their guilt has been manipulated. Vilma’s guilt is all based on a piece of paper that someone supposedly wrote. Vilma’s punishment is basically like sending him to prison. Would that happen anywhere else in this country without a defense verifying that the note wasn’t just made up and questioning who wrote it? Too much is at stake for these individuals to just say, that’s how the NFL does it.

  26. jealst says: Jun 19, 2012 10:41 PM

    Everyone that was saying “The Saints should abide by the ruTheoff the CBA, they agreed to them”, do y’all think the NFL should abide by the rules? They agreed to them.

  27. giveseanpaytonhisjuicyfruit says: Jun 19, 2012 10:43 PM

    The Ryan Braun Defense

  28. cwwgk says: Jun 19, 2012 10:43 PM

    This former law student also learned that the aggrieved party has to demonstrate prejudice as a result of not being provided timely exhibits. A simple technical error does not invalidate a ruling. By their own admission, the players, their union and their lawyers had already seen the exhibits that were produced by the NFL in advance of the hearing. Since they already had seen them the players certainly cannot claim prejudice. No harm, no foul works just as well in arbitration.

    Of course, the issue became moot when they refused to participate in the appeal process. Even though this isn’t a legal proceeding, most jurists before whom I practice would consider the players’ decision to walk out a waiver of all appeal rights that existed for them up until that point. Essentially the equivalent of a default judgment.

    After making such a production of calling the process a sham, it would the definition of hypocrisy if they now sought protection from it.

  29. canetic says: Jun 19, 2012 10:44 PM

    It doesn’t say “three FULL calendar days.” It says “three calendar days.” They aren’t going to win that argument. They got the exhibits on Friday and the hearing was Monday. That’s three calendar days.

  30. jealst says: Jun 19, 2012 10:49 PM

    Sorry for the typo in my comment. Watching the game and typing on an iPhone don’t mix. Lol

  31. FinFan68 says: Jun 19, 2012 10:50 PM

    The hearing was postponed. Didn’t they meet the criteria? I agree that 72 hours prior avoids argument but the 72 hours is your assumption. The language does not stipulate full calendar days either. An argument can be made either way…probably why the time was moved

  32. roughneck0221 says: Jun 19, 2012 10:51 PM

    In my best Mr. Burns voice: “Excellent.”

    The Commissioner’s office is a full-on clown car!

  33. arlingtonsynn says: Jun 19, 2012 10:52 PM

    With stories like this I got to say…

    I bet you would have been a good lawyer Mike.

  34. shian11 says: Jun 19, 2012 10:54 PM

    How much of this is media driven and created. They voted for roger goodell to have full power. Remember that day when the players reported to camps! Remember that espn was covering live as players signed to decertify! Remember that! Remember how the saints signed to re-certify the union and approve the cba! Roger goodell suspended Ben rothslisburger for 4 games for not being charged with a crime. The players knew that roger goodell had made decisions like that, yet all but “2″ (that’s right) “2″ teams voted for the cba. Florio, you keep grasping at straws and talking evidence and due process according to a courtroom, but that is not what the players agreed too.

  35. shzastl says: Jun 19, 2012 10:57 PM

    Even assuming all of the NFL’S evidence was untimely, there is still no basis for OVERTURNING the suspensions because the players declined to present any evidence of their own. Had they put on their own witnesses and evidence, it may be a different story.

  36. wunsa says: Jun 19, 2012 10:58 PM

    Oh snap!

  37. shian11 says: Jun 19, 2012 11:02 PM

    “Good point, and we would not want the outcome based on a legal technicality. However, what we’re dealing with here, is making sure innocent people are not given severe financial and reputation damage that wasn’t deserved. The whole process so far doesn’t seem to give the accused a fair chance to dispute the claims before public opinion of their guilt has been manipulated. Vilma’s guilt is all based on a piece of paper that someone supposedly wrote. Vilma’s punishment is basically like sending him to prison. Would that happen anywhere else in this country without a defense verifying that the note wasn’t just made up and questioning who wrote it? Too much is at stake for these individuals to just say, that’s how the NFL does it.”

    I would think that vilma being suspended and having to not work with millions of dollars in the bank and the ability to see his loved ones as akin to prison is something plaxico burress would disagree with while he says in prison while his son was born. Vilma has been denied the opportunity to make a paycheck for the company he works for and then continues to make remarks about the boss of said company. Dare you to try that with the company you work for! Would you be afforded the opportunity of continued employment

  38. lostsok says: Jun 19, 2012 11:03 PM

    It’s mean of Florio to give the poor Saints fans hope this will be over-turned. It will not.

    This is NOT a court of law…it’s a proceeding utterly controlled by the league. The Saints thumbed their noses at the league for years…now they are going to pay the price for that level of hubris.

    And nobody–NOBODY–has any sympathy for them except their fans.

  39. whodatgirl1 says: Jun 19, 2012 11:07 PM

    Jsut because the meeting was postponed doesn’t meet the NFL meet the criteria as some of the exhibits and comments by MJW weren’t given to the NFLPA prior to Monday.

  40. ilovefoolsball says: Jun 19, 2012 11:08 PM

    How could they be so foolish to make such a careless mistake?

    Well actually it’s not very surprising, they’ve been more interested in playing the public relations game than they have been actually stating their case with hard evidence.

    All this he said, he said, has proven nothing but the fact that the Saints operated a pay for performance system and there were some harsh words used in a pregame speech.

    Anyone who takes the NFL for their word at this point is either a Saints hater, or just reads the headlines without delving deeper into the nitty gritty.

  41. whodatgirl1 says: Jun 19, 2012 11:10 PM

    *Just. *mean the NFL meets

  42. sloppydogg says: Jun 19, 2012 11:16 PM

    We all are going to awake from this bad dream and everything will be back to normal.

  43. izzylangfan says: Jun 19, 2012 11:16 PM

    You are missing the point. The NFL was left with the options of upholding Godell’s ridiculous ruling or admitting it was wrong and over ruling its ridiculous ruling. But committing this infraction the NFL gets to find those guys innocent on a technicality with out admitting its own lack of integrity.

  44. shzastl says: Jun 19, 2012 11:17 PM

    And the rule is certainly NOT clear and unambiguous, or else you wouldn’t be choosing between 3 possibilities: 72 hours, 1159 pm on the 4th calendar day, or sometime on the 3d calendar day.

  45. saintsfan26 says: Jun 19, 2012 11:30 PM

    Shian you moron how can you say Florio is grasping at straws? Are you blind or what you idiot? What has Goodell been doing for the last 4 months? Grasping at straws! GTFO u hater!

  46. jpmelon says: Jun 19, 2012 11:30 PM

    Delivered on the 15th for the hearing on the 18th…

    that’s 3 calendar days before the date of the hearing……15th, 16th, 17th. You can’t add words to a document just because you think they should be there.

    It doesn’t say three “full” calendar days.

  47. letmesetyoustraight says: Jun 19, 2012 11:53 PM

    =====
    jordan1177 says:Jun 19, 2012 10:25 PM

    Let’s see how long it takes for ESPN to post a similar story…
    =====

    They will have to wait until Goodell gives them permission.

  48. slayer1224 says: Jun 19, 2012 11:54 PM

    Goodell needs to be fired for this!!! How much can one guy screw up.

  49. Mike Florio says: Jun 19, 2012 11:57 PM

    Under that reasoning the NFL could have delivered the exhibits at 11:59 p.m. on Friday.

  50. patsaintsbroncoscheat says: Jun 20, 2012 12:30 AM

    Won’t matter! Sorry New Orleans fans these suspensions will be upheld because the NFL holds all the cards. Everyone heard the Williams audio and we all know he and the saints are guilty.

  51. frank433 says: Jun 20, 2012 12:36 AM

    I wonder if the NFL found a way to violate the CBA to have the suspensions thrown out on a technicality to appease the players while being able to say “They didn’t prove their innocence.”

  52. marat28051988 says: Jun 20, 2012 12:56 AM

    saints are innocent and fans of panthers of falcons and bucs start up go look for proofs because play off with it now doesn’t shine so to time at them much

  53. mdd913 says: Jun 20, 2012 1:43 AM

    I don’t want them to get off on a technicality….I want everybody to finally realize that the evidence shows that they were wrongly accused, and that Goodell has been railroading them all along. I want my coaches back, I want my players back, I want Goodell fired.

    Anything less is a complete miscarriage of justice. And if you don’t like it, guess what, I don’t care.

  54. hedleykow says: Jun 20, 2012 2:25 AM

    Personally, I wish there were more bounties and I wish fans could contribute to bounties on certain players on the opposing team. When fans buy their tickets to the game, they should be asked if they would like to contribute ten thousand dollars for a bounty on the opposing qb.

    Are you ready for some Football!?!?!

  55. infrno says: Jun 20, 2012 2:42 AM

    So, in addition to arguing that “their own coaches admitted it” (which they most certainly did NOT), now you’re arguing calendar days? Let me break it down for the learning impaired – 3 days = 72 em effin hours. Look it up.

    Wow, but some of you are really showing your lack of knowledge.

    Now, if (again – IF) this is the case, why is your GODell so stupid?

  56. shian11 says: Jun 20, 2012 6:24 AM

    Saintsgan26, do you think goodell. Someone who has built his career to the level that 32 billionaire owners would hire him to run the league with almost full control and negotiate a 100 billion dollar agreement has been grasping at straws??? Don’t you think that the commisioner and nfl security are way too smart for that? Do you really think they would take millions of dollars from coaches and players if they did have concrete evidence? Do you think they would put there careers on that? If they don’t have actual evidence ( that you havn’t seen, but maybe Tom benson has seen) then why would benson hire a former federal official to help fix these issues with his team. Why aren’t the coaches complaining???? There is NOTHING to keep them from talking, NOTHING!! Maybe there not talking because they ran a program against the rules! Maybe they are not talking because in one game – players and coaches crossed the line and offered money for injury! How quickly you forget that the suspensions were much worse because the saints players lied, decided, hampered the league investigation 3 years earlier. Before you call me a idiot, do something wrong at work, when asked by your boss during an investigation – lie about it. I guarentee when they find out you lied – you won’t get suspended

  57. 49erstim says: Jun 20, 2012 6:38 AM

    It is nice to know that getting off on a technicality is good enough for Saints fans who swore up and down there was no evidence. By any means necessary right Saints fans? Pathetic!

  58. canetic says: Jun 20, 2012 7:07 AM

    From Am Jur, re Time: “Since the law usually rejects fractions of a day, when an act is required by a contract to be performed on a specified day, it’s performance is not referable to any particular portion of that day but may be performed at any time during the day.” Case closed, as we say in the business.

    Also, in order to raise that claim I’m sure the players would have had to preserve the issue by requesting a continuance and having it denied, or even seek an injunction prior to the hearing. I don’t know if those things were done.

  59. zurnvs says: Jun 20, 2012 7:10 AM

    And if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle!!!

  60. Patriot42 says: Jun 20, 2012 7:30 AM

    Why don’t we allow the inmates to run the prison. The Saints players are the bottom the the food chain and those players that participated in the bounty are worthless.

  61. denverscott says: Jun 20, 2012 7:33 AM

    Try this for a distraction. Go to NFL.com, click on a link and find the “My sisters boyfriend make $73 …..”.
    Copy and paste that whole msg and guess what? Inappropriate by the NFL. THEY are selling that SPAM. Try it. Try to post against it. Report it more than twice and your report key doesn’t work. Money hungry SOBs. Wonder if the players get a cut of these profits?

  62. worldwidebleater says: Jun 20, 2012 7:35 AM

    Just like the “technicality” that keeps the NFL from being guilty of collusion. As a lawyer you can’t possibly be suggesting that they should go by the spirit of the rule. That’s an argument for people who know they’ve broken the rules.

  63. ppdoc13 says: Jun 20, 2012 8:08 AM

    First kill all the lawyers

    Willliam shakespeare

  64. gerttownmomo says: Jun 20, 2012 8:12 AM

    This is NOT a court of law…it’s a proceeding utterly controlled by the league. The Saints thumbed their noses at the league for years…now they are going to pay the price for that level of hubris.

    =============================

    what florio said was that WHEN this ends up in a court of law, the nfl has no leg to stand on.

    don’t worry, it will!

  65. easyeddie says: Jun 20, 2012 8:24 AM

    It wouldn’t mean the accused Saints players aren’t guilty as hell.

  66. Brian Cuban says: Jun 20, 2012 9:02 AM

    Every law student may know that but every trial lawyer knows that in the real world of litigation, if the other party was not prejudiced the court may very well let the documents in regardless of the deadline.

  67. darthsaint says: Jun 20, 2012 9:33 AM

    I want to hear all the Saints haters with their “It is in the CBA so Saints players and fans just need to shut up and deal with it.”

    Yeah…Saints haters…”shut up and deal with it.

    This whole thing is such a sham, from beginning to end. I never thought the NFL I love would become a freaking soap opera…but it actually has…and honestly…could get worse before it gets better.

    I wonder if Goodell ever thinks to himself, “damn, this didn’t exactly go how we thought huh?”

  68. gravedigger93 says: Jun 20, 2012 9:34 AM

    This comment section is a perfect example of the damage Goodell has done to these players reputations. There has been zero evidence that proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that these players were involved. That’s the foundation for the American legal system, that’s justice. Are we pretty sure they were involved? Yeah I think it’s reasonable to a assume they were involved. Are they morally reprehensible for their actions? Definitely. As I said before (and to quote Denzel Washington again), it’s not what you know, it’s what you can prove. Again, it’s a safe assumption that they were trying to break Favre’s leg, but do we know for sure? Absolutely not. If you’re going to deprive a player of 4.6 million dollars, Vilma’s base salary for 2012, then you dang well better have rock solid evidence he’s guilty.

    Some notes that have player names and dollar amounts don’t prove guilt. An audio/video clip of a player that may or may not be Anthony Hargrove doesn’t prove guilt. An unnamed witness that says he heard a couple guys say they would put money on injuring so and so doesn’t prove guilt. That’s all flimsy, circumstantial evidence. If the NFL and Roger Goodell can, in good conscience, say that the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that these players are guilty then he is as morally reprehensible as Greg Williams.

  69. nypd1056 says: Jun 20, 2012 9:52 AM

    Has anyone given any thought that the NFL might just be prolonging this to keep Football in the news during a slow & boring non football June?

  70. CKL says: Jun 20, 2012 9:54 AM

    And whoever failed to ensure that the exhibits were delivered at least 72 hours before the start of Monday’s hearing probably will be spending some time in the coming weeks and months gnawing on Tums while obsessing over the manner in which this one may play out.
    _________________________________
    Man you missed an opportunity to substitute “shall” for “will here”. :)

    I hate when technicalities substitute for real justice but yes, either party who violates the CBA should have to deal with the consequences of that.

  71. panamon says: Jun 20, 2012 10:00 AM

    Since when was the NFLPA the “other party” in the appeals process? This article completely ignores even wondering if the PLAYERS who appealed received the documents before the one time you say the NFLPA did and that’s FAR too convenient for you to absolutely ignore the possibility of. But I guess it’d be a lot less sensational if you mentioned your technicality is based on assumption and there exists another “technicality” you ignored which would make this whole piece of speculation wrong.

    In fact, what would REQUIRE this evidence during a Goodell-held appeal with the players? If it’s said so often there’s “NO EVIDENCE” or that all that supposedly contained no proof why would it be necessary at all? I think the second the players gave up on arguing during the appeal process they also gave up on having a successful appeal.

  72. stew48 says: Jun 20, 2012 10:02 AM

    re: cwwgk—I sure hope you never represent anything I support. I suffered greatly due to a talen like yours.

    re: canetic and FinFan68

    surprise: from the dictionary, day: 24 hours, esp. midnight to midnight. so, in no way was the info three days. and, that has nothing to do with anything but abiding by the agreement, not the Constitution.

  73. stew48 says: Jun 20, 2012 10:02 AM

    oops, forgot a “t”

  74. onereasonableman says: Jun 20, 2012 2:51 PM

    A practicing lawyer knows that the three day filing requirement is not counted in hours but days.

    So if they filed it on the third day prior to the hearing, there is no issue.

    I would interpret the “calendar” day requirement to mean that you would count Saturdays and Sundays — which are days that are normally excluded from counting if the day requirement is less than 7 days.

    And yes, if the filing cutoff for these documents was 11:59 pm, they would be fine to file them at 11:58. It sucks, but that is what people do all the time.

  75. FinFan68 says: Jun 20, 2012 3:47 PM

    stew48 said 5 hours ago:

    re: canetic and FinFan68

    surprise: from the dictionary, day: 24 hours, esp. midnight to midnight. so, in no way was the info three days. and, that has nothing to do with anything but abiding by the agreement, not the Constitution.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    OK. You used one of several definitions for that word. So what? There are others that do not support your stance. If a business is open 5 days a week, do you honestly believe that they mean the business is open for 120 straight hours? Good luck getting that car fixed at 3 a.m.

    The language says 3 calendar days and in this case Friday, Saturday and Sunday are the 3 calendar days before the hearing on Monday. I get that some people want to squeeze out a meaning that isn’t there and that is why the league postponed the thing until after the 72 hour interpretation had been sufficed. If it meant 72 hours it would have stated “72 hours” instead of 3 calendar days.

    If you start the clock at noon on Monday and add 72 hours, those 72 hours would encompass Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and end just before noon on Thursday. Last I checked, that is four calendar days in that scenario.

  76. cornersss says: Jun 26, 2012 12:39 PM

    “Three calendar days prior to the hearing translates, in the normal sense of the term, to at least 72 hours before the hearing. Actually, it could reasonably be argued that the exhibits were due by 11:59 p.m. on Thursday, June 14, since that would have given the players “three calendar days” (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) to digest the evidence and prepare accordingly.”

    It may say calendar, but im sure it will be very easy for their lawyers to argue business days like the rest of the world goes by…

    BUT why do we want this stuff tossed out on a technicality?

    Its real easy for the players to demand 100% proof, but we all know NFL as a business cant and probably wont. Does that mean the players were innocent? I dont think so, they do though.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!