NO He absolutely does NOT. There is nothing anywhere in the CBA that states anyone can be suspended for being aware of the actions of another. There is also no precedent of it ever having been done, but zillions of precedent of it NOT being done.
The CBA said:
Section 1.
League Discipline:
(a)All disputes involving a fine or suspension imposed upon a player for conduct on the playing field (other than as described in Subsection (b) below) or involving action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football, will be processed exclusively as follows: the Commissioner will promptly send written notice of his action to the player, with a copy to the NFLPA. Within three (3) business days following such written notification, the player affected thereby, or the NFLPA with the player’s approval, may appeal in writing to the Commissioner.
Section 2.
Hearings:
(a)Hearing Officers. For appeals under Section 1(a) above, the Commissioner shall, after consultation with the Executive Director of the NFLPA, appoint one or more designees to serve as hearing officers. For appeals under Section 1(b) above, the parties shall, on an annual basis, jointly select two (2) or more designees to serve as hearing officers. The salary and reasonable expenses for the designees’ services shall be shared equally by the NFL and the NFLPA. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion.
May serve as a hearing officer in ANY appeal. There's no gray area there.
But he does not have the right to denying Brady the right to put up a defense, and ruling on his own decisions without even a hearing clearly does that.
He was "sort of" allowed to put up a defense, although the cards were totally stacked against him, including that four-hour time limit.
Ruling on his own decisions is perfectly fine under Section 46. The key, again, is that he has to rule
impartially. It's very clear by the transcripts and by his final decision that he did not do that.
He also, by precedent, is not allowed to be the arbitrator in a hearing where he is a witness.
There is nothing that says this in the CBA. If anything, it says that he can be an arbitrator if he's a witness.
Regardless of any of that, the arbitrator cannot change the reason that the individual who handed the punishment used.
This is what I said to you in the previous post. Under Article 16 of the CBA:
The CBA said:
Section 2. Scope of Authority:
The powers of the Impartial Arbitrator and the rights of the parties in any proceeding before him or her shall be solely to determine disputes that are specifically referred to the Impartial Arbitrator pursuant to the express terms of this Agreement. In no event shall the Impartial Arbitrator have any authority to add to, subtract from, or alter in any way the provisions of this Agreement.
That's what Goodell did when he changed the language. Again, this is something the sports media ignores, but this is actually a huge ****ing deal, right up there with Goodell ignoring Brady's testimony
under oath
Whatever you want to call it, there is a tremendous conflict of interest, where you have an arbitrator defending the position of his own decision against appeal.
Of course it is. But it's what the NFLPA agreed to. Now, that said, this clause of the CBA would be rendered useless by a pro-Brady decision. It's inherently illegal, although not technically illegal. Again, it's all dependent on whether or not Goodell was an impartial arbitrator. That's the standard in law. That's the part where it doesn't matter what they collectively agreed to, if it's illegal, it's illegal.
That is patently unfair, and will never hold up, regardless of whether the CBA vaguely implies it could.
Again, it would totally "hold up" if Goodell wasn't so obviously partial in his decision.
In other words, in agreeing to this version of the CBA, there is no possible way to believe that the NFLPA believed that Goodell would be the arbiter in a dispute that is the NFLPA believing Goodell misused his powers.
Arbitrator, not arbiter. They're different things.
And the clause in the CBA says exactly what it says. Now, obviously the NFLPA never conceived of Goodell going completely off the reservation here, but it says what it says.
-Yes, Goodell can impose any punishment he wants under the guidelines of the CBA.
-Yes, Goodell can absolutely serve as an independent arbitrator on any appeal that he sees fit to do so, although having the ability to appoint a 3rd-party to be the arbitrator, he should at least have some tacit reason to not do it. He doesn't have that, although it's not completely required that he does, it certainly looks awful in court.
-No, Goodell cannot increase the punishment (or in this case, the ruled findings for the punishment). He can only affirm or reduce.
-No, Goodell cannot rule partially in an appeals hearing. That's against Labor Law.
Just because something's not fair, doesn't make it illegal, and DeMaurice Smith ****ing sucks.
