- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 26,121
- Reaction score
- 52,121
I'm not sure if there were brought up in the brief; I don't think they were. But, two major points stand out to me as particularly egregious. Now, whether there is a legal right for this is what I'm asking about, since often times things that are really shady are also legal. Anyway, my point here is this: can Kessler argue that while Goodell appointed himself as an arbitrator, even beyond his clear , conflict-of-interest stained bias in determining the facts and outcome of the case, did he also act in ways that are unethical and inconsistent with normal arbitration protocols?
1. Can an arbitrator be a settlement negotiator at the same time?
One thing that stands out to me is that Greg Hardy's suspension was reduced from ten to four games, and you know what else? He is still deciding whether or not he wants to take the NFL to federal court. In other words, Hardy was given a favorable arbitrator's ruling without needing to cut a deal or agree in any to forego future legal action. That is because his arbitrator, Harold Henderson, judged the case on its own merits independent of Hardy's contrition, willingness to admit guilt, or agreement to "play ball."
It seems blatantly unfair that Goodell has seemingly used his arbitrator status as a bargaining chip. That is, Goodell the Arbitrator was certainly, somehow, very tuned in to the thinking of Goodell the Negotiator. It sure seemed that any idea of a "settlement" between Brady and the league was essentially the same thing as the ultimate arbitration ruling. Whereas almost every player has received at least a reduction in penalty, Goodell the Arbitrator held firm with a four game suspension, when Goodell the Negotiator, according to reports, was unable to come to an agreement with Brady. He was willing to reduce the suspension if Brady were to admit guilt, apologize, and agree not to pursue further legal action, but since Brady did not agree to those terms, Goodell the Negotiator and Goodell the Arbitrator suddenly came together with the same idea to hold firm. How exactly can you be an independent arbitrator, weighing only the merits of the case with one hand, when you are actively negotiating a settlement and considering factors outside of guilt/innocence (public relations, costs, etc.) and using the arbitration result as a bargaining chip with your other hand?
2. Is an arbitrator legally allowed to act in a way that is self-serving, including behavior that is contrived to injure one of the parties after the ruling?
There are two ways that "Arbitrator" Goodell blatantly abused his independent status and violated any type of good faith agreement:
A. He purposely released his decision moments before Goodell the Upholder of Integrity's legal team filed a legal motion in Manhattan. In doing so, Goodell brazenly proved that he was using his powers as an arbitrator to give a legal advantage to the NFL and a disadvantage to the NFLPA, while still acting in official capacity as arbitrator. Goodell notified only one side about the timing of his decision and purposely delayed it until the NFL had a tactical advantage, proving that he was partial towards one side.
B. Goodell further abused his position of arbitrator as a way to preview the NFLPA's legal arguments and then change the NFL's case preemptively. Because one of the main arguments from the NFLPA was that Brady could not be suspended for "general awareness", Goodell the Arbitrator was able to correct the mistake of Goodell the Upholder of Integrity, building a stronger case against Brady in the process. Goodell the Arbitrator conveniently was able to come to a new conclusion, despite having no new evidence (besides the fake outrage about a sim card being thrown away), which is that Brady was now actively involved in planning, inducing, and orchestrating a massive cheating scheme. Can an arbitrator's ruling really be designed to strengthen the legal case for one side?
3. Although the courts are hesitant to override arbitrators decisions, I do wonder the type of precedent would be set if appealing parties are better off avoiding the arbitrator altogether.
In Brady's case, he went in good faith to present his case to Goodell, whose role in the appeals hearing was to decide on the merits of the case. Goodell instead abused his power and used his position to gain strategic advantages for himself, including using his "unbiased decision" as a bargaining chip, timing the verdict to align with his self-serving interests that injure the other party, and strengthening his legal case by getting a free look of the obstacles he will need to overcome in court.
Something tells me this is much more toxic to the court systems and that something needs to be done to prevent abuse. There is no way this is what the CBA agreed to when they allowed Goodell to declare himself as an independent arbitrator. There must be some standards of objectivity and fairness that should be upheld should one appoint him or herself to serve as an arbitrator.
1. Can an arbitrator be a settlement negotiator at the same time?
One thing that stands out to me is that Greg Hardy's suspension was reduced from ten to four games, and you know what else? He is still deciding whether or not he wants to take the NFL to federal court. In other words, Hardy was given a favorable arbitrator's ruling without needing to cut a deal or agree in any to forego future legal action. That is because his arbitrator, Harold Henderson, judged the case on its own merits independent of Hardy's contrition, willingness to admit guilt, or agreement to "play ball."
It seems blatantly unfair that Goodell has seemingly used his arbitrator status as a bargaining chip. That is, Goodell the Arbitrator was certainly, somehow, very tuned in to the thinking of Goodell the Negotiator. It sure seemed that any idea of a "settlement" between Brady and the league was essentially the same thing as the ultimate arbitration ruling. Whereas almost every player has received at least a reduction in penalty, Goodell the Arbitrator held firm with a four game suspension, when Goodell the Negotiator, according to reports, was unable to come to an agreement with Brady. He was willing to reduce the suspension if Brady were to admit guilt, apologize, and agree not to pursue further legal action, but since Brady did not agree to those terms, Goodell the Negotiator and Goodell the Arbitrator suddenly came together with the same idea to hold firm. How exactly can you be an independent arbitrator, weighing only the merits of the case with one hand, when you are actively negotiating a settlement and considering factors outside of guilt/innocence (public relations, costs, etc.) and using the arbitration result as a bargaining chip with your other hand?
2. Is an arbitrator legally allowed to act in a way that is self-serving, including behavior that is contrived to injure one of the parties after the ruling?
There are two ways that "Arbitrator" Goodell blatantly abused his independent status and violated any type of good faith agreement:
A. He purposely released his decision moments before Goodell the Upholder of Integrity's legal team filed a legal motion in Manhattan. In doing so, Goodell brazenly proved that he was using his powers as an arbitrator to give a legal advantage to the NFL and a disadvantage to the NFLPA, while still acting in official capacity as arbitrator. Goodell notified only one side about the timing of his decision and purposely delayed it until the NFL had a tactical advantage, proving that he was partial towards one side.
B. Goodell further abused his position of arbitrator as a way to preview the NFLPA's legal arguments and then change the NFL's case preemptively. Because one of the main arguments from the NFLPA was that Brady could not be suspended for "general awareness", Goodell the Arbitrator was able to correct the mistake of Goodell the Upholder of Integrity, building a stronger case against Brady in the process. Goodell the Arbitrator conveniently was able to come to a new conclusion, despite having no new evidence (besides the fake outrage about a sim card being thrown away), which is that Brady was now actively involved in planning, inducing, and orchestrating a massive cheating scheme. Can an arbitrator's ruling really be designed to strengthen the legal case for one side?
3. Although the courts are hesitant to override arbitrators decisions, I do wonder the type of precedent would be set if appealing parties are better off avoiding the arbitrator altogether.
In Brady's case, he went in good faith to present his case to Goodell, whose role in the appeals hearing was to decide on the merits of the case. Goodell instead abused his power and used his position to gain strategic advantages for himself, including using his "unbiased decision" as a bargaining chip, timing the verdict to align with his self-serving interests that injure the other party, and strengthening his legal case by getting a free look of the obstacles he will need to overcome in court.
Something tells me this is much more toxic to the court systems and that something needs to be done to prevent abuse. There is no way this is what the CBA agreed to when they allowed Goodell to declare himself as an independent arbitrator. There must be some standards of objectivity and fairness that should be upheld should one appoint him or herself to serve as an arbitrator.