TheOak

The NFL and Jonathan Vilma each submitted filings to federal court Tuesday, further setting the stage for a Friday-morning hearing in front of U.S. District Judge Ginger Berrigan, who will decide either to dismiss a request by Vilma and the NFL Players Association for an injunction against the league's suspensions of four current and former Saints players or let the case continue to the discovery stage.


Vilma's legal team filed in opposition to the NFL's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, putting forth a complete set of the arguments that they have made throughout legal proceedings between the three parties. The memorandum said the NFL deliberately mishandled the players' arbitration process and that NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell exceeded his authority in his handling of a June 18 appeals hearing for the players' penalties.
"Quite simply, Vilma's punishment, and the process used to impose that punishment, conflicts with the very essence of the NFL-NFLPA (collective bargaining agreement), and encompasses precisely the type of abuse that federal law does not permit," his lawyers said.
In the memo, Vilma asks for a permanent injunction to set aside Goodell's suspension and that the decision be remanded to a neutral arbitrator.
Vilma also submitted an amended post-hearing memorandum for approval which took several swipes at members of the media that his lawyers purported to have served as mouthpieces for the NFL in a public relations campaign against the players.
It referred to ESPN as "Goodell's funnel to the public airways" and called Sports Illustrated senior NFL writer Peter King, who wrote a feature called "Bounty Culture: The Saints' Pay-to-Injure Program Rattles the NFL," someone "commonly known as a go-to source for NFL leaks."
The memo also said that on March 14, Vilma's counsel offered to meet with Goodell if he was considering disciplining Vilma, but that the commissioner did not respond.
In another filing in support of its motion, the NFL's counsel responded to Vilma and the NFLPA's argument that Goodell could not be an impartial arbitrator because he had made public comments which showed he already had come to a decision about the players' guilt.
"But any such 'pre-judgment' is inherent in the process to which the parties agreed in the CBA," the NFL's lawyers said in the filing. "Under that process, the Commissioner reaches an initial judgment before the appeal hearing, which in turn is intended to afford the player an opportunity to change the Commissioner's mind. The players chose not to avail themselves of that opportunity."
The NFL also had strong words in response to interim coach Joe Vitt's definition of what constitutes a "cart-off" hit. At the July 26 hearing, Vitt testified that a "cart-off" occurred after a clean hit on the running back.
"The trainers are giving him smelling salts, ... we would call that a cart-off," Vitt said. "He is out of the game. He is not playing."
"Perhaps the union genuinely believes that it 'shocks the conscience' for the Commissioner to discipline players for incentivizing their teammates to knock opposing players out of a game," the NFL's lawyers said. "But the Commissioner came to a different conclusion, determining that 'whether a hit was ultimately subject to a penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct or unnecessary roughness is irrelevant (because) incentivizing players for hits that injure or increase the risk of injury to opposing players undermines the integrity of, and public confidence in, the game of football."


Jonathan Vilma, NFL submit filings in advance of Friday hearing - New Orleans Saints Football NFL News - NOLA.com

Attached Thumbnails