NFLPA to Goodell: You’re ‘inherently biased’ to determine Brady punishment
The NFLPA’s appeal letter to the NFL in Tom Brady’s appeal is a good look at how little the union thinks of the NFL’s case against Brady and of commissioner Roger Goodell’s ability to be neutral.
The most interesting part might be that the NFLPA said it plans to call Goodell and NFL executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent, whose name was on the punishment to the New England Patriots and Brady, to testify in the appeal hearing. That’s in a clear effort to force Goodell from overseeing the appeal. The same happened in the Ray Rice case, which the NFLPA discusses in its letter. It’s probably the best shot the NFLPA has at forcing Goodell’s hand. The NFLPA also threatens to go beyond the NFL’s appeal process if a neutral party doesn’t oversee the appeal.
“If the Commissioner does not appoint such a neutral arbitrator, the NFLPA and Mr. Brady will seek recusal and pursue all available relief to obtain an arbitrator who is not evidently partial,” the letter says.
There are other interesting parts of their appeal letter, and you can boil it down into three main parts:
1. The NFLPA doesn’t think Goodell should determine the punishment
It likely won’t matter. Goodell has said he will rule over the appeal. It’s very clear the NFL would rather take the criticism for not having someone independent rule over the case than to let the flimsy evidence against Brady be heard by someone impartial. A loss in this case would be a real possibility if the appeal was fair, and that would be a huge embarrassment to the league.
But the NFLPA said it expects Goodell to testify, mostly about when he heard about the Indianapolis Colts’ complaints that were made before the AFC championship game and why no action was taken until halftime of the game.
“(Y)our personal involvement in the game-day events surrounding this matter render you inherently biased in any disciplinary determination,” the NFLPA said, regarding Goodell.
The union asks that Goodell use someone independent as the hearing officer. It’s hard to imagine that happening. The NFL can’t afford to lose, so it has made sure it won’t by having Goodell rule on what amounts to his own punishment. Although, the NFLPA had a problem with how the punishment was presented.
2. The NFLPA has a problem with Vincent handing down the punishment
The letter is addressed to Vincent. His name was on the punishment to the Patriots and Brady. It’s nearly impossible to believe that Goodell wasn’t the one making the ultimate determination on such a high-profile case that generated arguably the largest punishment in league history. But that’s what the NFL said, and the NFLPA attacked it. The union calls Vincent’s involvement “a plain violation of the CBA.”
“The CBA grants the Commissioner—and only the Commissioner—the authority to impose conduct detrimental discipline on players … [the CBA] contains no corresponding provision authorizing the Commissioner to delegate his exclusive role to impose conduct detrimental discipline to you or anyone else. You have no authority to impose discipline on Mr. Brady under the CBA, and such discipline must therefore be set aside.”
Good luck with that. But it points out another NFL error. It’s reasonable to think (perhaps even more probable than not) that Goodell wanted anyone else’s name to be on the punishment because he planned all along to rule on an appeal that he absolutely could not afford to lose. The NFLPA said that shell game was a violation of the CBA.
3. The evidence against Brady is weak and doesn’t justify the punishment
This much is clear to most objective people who have actually read the entire Wells Report. The Wells Report itself uses vague terms about Brady. The letter points them out, saying it says it was “more probable than not” that Mr. Brady was “generally aware of” “inappropriate activities.” They didn’t have much else.
Based on the evidence of the alleged crimes (it’s still hard to express what the crime is, because Brady is never really accused of anything specific in the 243-page report), the NFLPA says it’s an unprecedented punishment.
“Your decision to suspend Mr. Brady for four games—i.e., one-quarter of the NFL season—for his alleged ‘general[] aware[ness] of the actions of the Patriots’ employees involved in the deflation of the footballs’ and ‘failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the [Wells] investigation’ is grossly inconsistent with the League’s prior disciplinary treatment of similar alleged conduct, including lack of cooperation and not complying with League rules regarding game balls or other equipment.”
The letter goes on to say that “no player in the history of the NFL has ever received anything approaching this level of discipline for similar behavior,” which is a change that is “forbidden by the CBA and the law of the shop.” And it is very clear that this punishment is excessive when compared to other similar cases.
Unless the NFLPA can somehow get Goodell to give up his role overseeing the appeal, perhaps by expressing that it wants him to testify, none of this will matter. Goodell can’t lose this appeal, and he obviously won’t if he rules on the case. It’s unfortunate. A real appeal instead of the farce it will be would have been interesting to watch unfold.
– – – – – – –
Frank Schwab is the editor of Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter! Follow @YahooSchwab
