Average Reds said:
I assume he knows it's smart to lay out his case in a truthful manner, but this notion of "under oath" in an NFL disciplinary hearing is simply hilarious.
As much as the NFL fancies itself to be an all-powerful entity, any oath sworn at this hearing is meaningless from a legal standpoint.
I suppose it might have some substantive meaning baecuase the fact that its both under oath and subject to cross examination might make it admissible in federal court under some limited circumstances. But mostly, its an optics thing.