He has an in-person hearing via videoconference this afternoon. In-person hearing means they can (but don't have to) suspend him for six or more games.
Really came out of nowhere—he hadn't done anything to warrant league discipline for several years now. While he's not a "repeat offender" as defined in the CBA, that status has to do with how they calculate the financial aspect of suspending a player. Someone who isn't a repeat offender has the withheld pay calculated based on the number of calendar days from the beginning of the season to the end of the season. Someone who is a repeat offender has it calculated based on the number of games in a season. So suppose a player is suspended for six games, and suppose there are 190 calendar days in the season. The non–repeat offender sees 6/190 of his salary withheld. The repeat offender has 6/82 withheld (82 games in a season). "Repeat offender" status doesn't affect the process of determining whether, and for how long, to suspend a player—the league considers all prior discipline in that decision, and one reason for it is that the players' union always cites a player's entire prior record in arguing for less discipline if a player is one who hasn't been suspended before. The league's position is that if the union wants a player's whole career record considered for purposes of arguing against suspension, then you have to consider his whole record for all aspects of the decision. (It's the goose-gander principle, in other words.)
