No the evidence was given months ago, they just had Williams create a formal affidavit the other day. You only need the affidavit if you do not plan on appearing in person. We have enough lawyers on this site, somebody will chime in.
I wonder how that conversation went....
"Hello Greg this is Roger"
"Oh. Hello Roger. This is a bit of a surprise".
"Listen Greg it would be very helpful if you would come in and sign some legal paperwork that our lawyers are drawing up".
"Well Roger that is fine of course but, erm, what exactly is my motivation here?..."
Mike and Mike said this is a big deal having the affidavit. Why? If Vilma has his own affidavits, who do you believe?
Secondly, they said he signed it 3 days ago. If that is the case, what evidence did Kraft brown nose Goodell have to give Vilma a one year ban? Sounds like he had nothing because the affidavit was only signed 3 days ago.
This isn't a real trial, so the rules of evidence don't really apply. Generally, Affidavits are prepared for motions and are not presented at trials. They probably had this information all along and didn't need an affidavit from Williams because they are a private company doing things "their way."
Now that the courts overturned the ruling and basically told them to have more open hearings they were forced to collect the evidence in a more formal way (ie affidavits).
Basically, the date on the affidavit is completely irrelevant. I also don't see why people would call Williams into question. Yeah he was involved in a bounty program but there is no indication that he got a lighter sentence for squealing on Vilma.
We have seen athletes deny, deny, deny when they knew they were guilty (See steroid era baseball players that still deny despite the evidence or Lance Armstrong)
Still, Vilma's name is dragged through the mud, he is suspended without pay for a year and all they had was one guy saying he did it? Sounds kind of weak to me.
A statement against self-interest is given more weight in administrative disciplinary processes than others. Vilma & Co. have a vested interest in lying and sticking to their story. At this point, Williams was likely finished in the NFL prior to this and definitely is after this revelation.
People forgot, the burden of proof in these civil administrative processes is "preponderance of the evidence." That amounts, in a quantitative manner that an allegation is more likely true than not - essentially tipping the scale at the 50.00_1% mark. This is significantly different than the burden of proof in a criminal case of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Williams' affidavit is likely not the only one that exists. My guess is that Payton and Vitt have also provided affidavits to the NFL substantiating the allegations as well and is a condition of their return. That is usually the case in all these types of investigations.
Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member
Originally Posted by Buzzsaw
I could be wrong but I don't think the punishment is in the judge's hands. If Goodell decides Vilma offered the bounty, then he has the power to hand out the punishment. Maybe someone else can confirm?
I read something to this effect. The courts do not decide the punishment. They simply overturned Goodell's ruling and sent it back to him to re-evaluate. They found that it is not in Goodell's jurisdiction to rule on monetary issues - the bounty $ offered. That is supposed to ruled on by a special arbitrator. However conduct detrimental to the league is completely in Rog's jurisdiction. So he can still hand out a harsh punishment based on conduct and his next ruling is binding.