This is a really important point (IMO...I have no idea how the court will see it). Goodall was the one who dished out the punishment. It appeared to be Vincent, but that would be a violation of the CBA, so Goodell made it clear that Goodell handed down the punishment, and Vincent just "communicated" it to Brady.
The punishment was based on the evidence available at the time the penalty was handed down. Kessler makes the point that normally when a person appeals, the appeal is heard by a third party, not the guy giving out the penalty, nor the guy who got penalized. And the only purpose of the appeal - it's only function - is to determine whether the penalty handed down - AS IT WAS HANDED DOWN - was correct.
It is NOT the arbiter's job to sift through "new" evidence, or to make a new case against the player. It is simply to make a judgment on the validity of the penalty *as it was handed down*.
But in this case, Goodell was both the one handing down the penalty AND the one hearing the appeal. So when "new" evidence was introduced, Goodell used THAT to uphold the suspension. And thus, he violated his job description as arbiter.
It's one more piece of evidence that this entire thing was stacked against Brady from the beginning.