Hi. I’m going by the NFLPA and NFL’s joint letter to Judge Berman, which states on page 2 that “[n]o discovery is needed to adjudicate the parties’ motions, which will be based on the arbitration record.” I suppose it’s possible that some of the things I mentioned that indicate arbitrator bias—like the failure of the NFL to correct the Mortenson report—could have been brought up at the arbitration hearing. But I’d be surprised if the NFLPA spent much time at the hearing presenting evidence to Goodell that he was biased.
I haven’t looked at the NFLPA’s outline. I’ll do so. However, the things you cite are contract interpretation issues for which an arbitrator is given great latitude by a reviewing court. It’s not enough to show that the arbitrator was wrong; rather, you must, in effect, demonstrate that the arbitrator wasn’t even really trying to interpret the collective bargaining agreement. That’s why people like Lester Munson gave the NFLPA less than one chance in a hundred to get Brady’s suspension in court overturned. What they were ignoring was the elephant in the room of Goodell’s bias, which cuts across the whole issue of contract interpretation.
By the way, if you respond to this comment and I don’t get back to you immediately, it’s because I’m busy doing something else, not because I’m ignoring you.