#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

 
It has been said multiple times in this thread, it is not about how much the punishment can be reduced, it is the admission of guilt that comes with taking a deal that is the issue.
 
Take a more extreme example.  The government accuses you of molesting kids and threatens you with 20 years in jail, but offers you $1,000 fine to make it go away. Would you accept the fine if you were innocent?  The long term impact of accepting the accusation as true is the issue at hand.  It is not about how much of a plea bargain can be had to reduce the punishment. It is about accepting as true an unjust accusation.

You cannot, under any circumstances, logically equate being accused of child molestation with being accused of using footballs that are deflated below regulation.

 

[Jimbodandy]

1.  Play all 16 regular season games
2.  Overturn unfounded suspension on principle alone
 
Everything else is noise.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Responding to Payrod's:
 
It depends on the conditions to the deal.  If Brady was forced to admit to something that is not true in order to get Goodell to reduce the suspension to one or two games, that's one thing.
 
But it's possible that Brady would be allowed to maintain his innocence as part of a reduced suspension. 
 
Some will say that accepting any penalty is tantamount to an admission of guilt, but I don't think the world is as black and white as all that.  A heartfelt statement by Tom that he is accepting 1-2 games in order to end the appeal process, eliminate the distraction and reduce the risk of being forced to miss more games, coupled with an impassioned reaffirmation of his innocence, could make some view Tom's entry into the deal as something other than an admission.

 

[DJnVa]

You cannot, under any circumstances, logically equate being accused of child molestation with being accused of using footballs that are deflated below regulation.

 
Sure. Fine.
 
The fact is he's being called a cheater. What about if the IRS accuses you of cheating on your taxes, but for a fine will make it all go away?
 
Sure, *some* people might pay that and move along, but you really can't see how some people wouldn't?
 

 

[Average Reds]

Really? You'd walk away from your lifelong passion, the thing you love doing the most, because you may have to serve, likely a shortened, unjust suspension. I'm honestly not trying to be snarky or pick a fight, and I read and like a lot of your posts, but this seems like grandstanding hyperbole to me. We're all disgusted at the draconian way Goodell has handled this, but he's not going to the gallows. He's maybe missing a couple of football games.

 
The tl;dr version is "Yes."  And it's not close.
 
The longer version has more nuance, but ultimately comes to the same conclusion.
 
After reading the Wells report I have come to the conclusion that Brady is being made into a scapegoat by the NFL for a number of reasons:

• They need a finding that something occurred or else they look like monkeys for their ill-advised "sting operation."
• They need to hold a player responsible because they can't spend millions of dollars having Wells investigate the "integrity of the game" and then come down with a finding that directs the Pats to fire the people responsible for handling the game balls.
• Goodell has a track record of punishing players who are factually innocent for his own purposes.  (Think Scott Fujita, not Jonathan Vilma or any of the others.)
• Brady fits the bill for all of these categories, including the fact that he's a prominent member of the NFLPA who has sued the league. 

 
Brady's suspension allows Goodell/the league to deflect attention away from the misdeeds of the commissioner's office while sending a message to the players that if Goodell can take down Brady, he can take down any of them. 
 
With all of this said, I think the odds of Brady serving even a game are very low.  Whenever the NFL strays from the CBA to issue punishments, they lose once they get in front of an independent arbitrator.  Every time.  I don't think this will be the exception.
 
Even if the worst case scenario comes to pass, the chances of Brady having to serve a suspension at the end of the season or the playoffs are almost nil, for the reasons that dcmissle articulated above.
 
To summarize, I think the odds that the suspension is ever enforced are low.  But I also think that the process has been so badly rigged and the NFL's conduct is so outrageous that yes, if I were innocent but had my name dragged through the mud like Brady has, I'd take a look at what I've already accomplished in my career and decide to retire before I served even a game. 
 
I'm pretty confident that this hypothetical would never come to pass here, and (importantly) I'm not saying that Brady would do the same.  But yes, that's how I'm wired.
 
And no, it's not grandstanding hyperbole.  I've quit jobs over less.

 

[Awesome Fossum]

You cannot, under any circumstances, logically equate being accused of child molestation with being accused of using footballs that are deflated below regulation.

Christ, I hate this. He's very, very clearly not equating.

 

[simplyeric]

There are analogies that work.
Let's say you're a pastor of a church, and on your way to the back to deposit the offerings from Sunday mass (during which you have yet another amazing sermon that inspired your followers) a church intern stopped to buy you a cup of coffee.
And then someone accuses you of embezzlement because that intern /might/ have taken $1.50 from the offerings money to buy the coffee, and you /might/ have known about it, so the church leaders suspend you from preaching for several weeks.
Part of your legacy is of course your honest service to the church, so would you accept a lesser suspension of only two Sundays, given that many in your congregation would take that as an admission of guilt, particularly when a. You didn't do it. b. It's a damned cup of coffee and no one is even implying that you ever took more than that (although they imply that you've known about cups of coffee being bought for you in the past). And c. that it's common knowledge that at least several other popular preachers in the parish have openly talked about buying coffee with church offerings?

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Christ, I hate this. He's very, very clearly not equating.

Fair enough. I still don't think its apt to compare a situation where someone is accused of one of the most heinous crimes imaginable with a minor NFL rules violation (even if the punishment for said infraction is outsized).

I am sorry you hate this but under no circumstances should these two things be mentioned in the same breath if you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Bleedred]

 
To be clear, I was not - and I do not believe anyone else is - suggesting that Brady "throw in the towel".  He should appeal his penalties with the objective of reducing his suspension.  The only issue being debated here is whether how far he should go in the pursuit of trying exonerate himself, or to restore his standing in the public's eye.   

You're missing the point entirely, or at least, my point.   When I talk about Brady's legacy, I'm not talking about perception or what the public thinks and exonerating himself or restornig his standing in the public eye.  A disturbing number of people idolize Kim Kardasian and Paris Hilton.  Who gives a shit?  Maybe it's more accurate to say "when the history of his career is written."   Do you agree that if Brady gets the suspension completely tossed (which I don't think he will), then his legacy, as I've now defined it, is preserved?   Why should anyone care about the opinions of people who don't bother to offer them based on the known facts of a case?   I would venture to say that there are still a plurality if not a majority of people who think that Richard Jewell was a villainous fuck for setting off the bomb in the olympic centry park in Atlanta, rather than the hero he actually was for putting himself in harms way to assist the injured.   Jewell's legacy is not as a criminal, but as a hero, in my view, notwithstanding the ignorant who don't know the facts.   

 

[nighthob]

Really? You'd walk away from your lifelong passion, the thing you love doing the most, because you may have to serve, likely a shortened, unjust suspension.

There is no shortened suspension coming. The Artless Roger is going to "hear the appeal" and affirm his original judgement. The Federal courts will be asked for injunctive relief, which they will probably grant (if the NFLPA's recent track record is any guide) and the suspension will be set aside pending a full hearing, which will like as not happen after the 2015 season.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Nothing here on #DroneGate yet?

http://www.behindthesteelcurtain.com/nfl-pittsburgh-steelers-news/2015/6/1/8700025/new-england-patriots-drone-program-a-source-of-mystery-and-concern

 

[Leather]

OMG the Patriots filmed their own practices and told everyone about it! 
 
What are they really hiding!

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Brady's suspension allows Goodell/the league to deflect attention away from the misdeeds of the commissioner's office while sending a message to the players that if Goodell can take down Brady, he can take down any of them. 
 

 
Until the Sally Jenkins piece a while ago, I hadn't really thought much about this, but since I've sort come around to thinking it's motivation number 1 for the league.  They've found a shiny object that the masses are eating up, and it may just get them all the way to the start of next season without anyone asking any more hard questions about concussions, serial rapists, domestic violence, and why the league keeps getting hammered every time they submit their disputes to neutral people.

 

[dcmissle]

We are getting perilously close to shitshow territory; the suggestion that, innocent or guilty, TB owes it to us as fans to take half a loaf -- 2 games -- to avoid any chance of a playoff suspension, or maybe to enhance the record overall.

And if a shouting match erupts over that, it would be a good occasion to just lock this thread.

 

[ifmanis5]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=21&v=tJopEwfuoiI

 

[Corsi]

Mike Garafolo ‏@MikeGarafolo  3m3 minutes ago
Roger Goodell has informed the NFLPA he will not honor their request for recusal and will hear Tom Brady's appeal.
 
Mike Garafolo ‏@MikeGarafolo  2m2 minutes ago
Goodell tells the NFLPA he has not prejudged the matter on appeal: “My mind is open."

 

[Corsi]

More Roger Goodell to NFLPA on denying recusal in Tom Brady appeal: "Because protecting the integrity of the game is the commissioner’s most important responsibility, I decline to rewrite our Collective Bargaining Agreement to abrogate my authority and discretion to hear any appeal in a conduct detrimental proceeding."
 

http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1smg9ld

 

[Mooch]

See you in court, Commish.

 

[DJnVa]

Oh sure, NOW you don't want to rewrite the CBA.

 

[Corsi]

Ben Volin ‏@BenVolin  1m1 minute ago
In a letter to Brady and NFLPA, Goodell says "I am not a necessary or even an appropriate witness, much less a “central witness”"

 

[DJnVa]

 
Ben Volin ‏@BenVolin  1m1 minute ago
In a letter to Brady and NFLPA, Goodell says "I am not a necessary or even an appropriate witness, much less a “central witness”"
 

 
So, you know exactly what claims Brady and the NFLPA will make? It's their case to make.
 

 

[Corsi]

Goodell letter to Brady:
 
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/605806535235674113

 

[Corsi]

Full letter, in non-tiny font, but no paragraph breaks:
 

"Our Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that “at his discretion,” the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in “any appeal” involving conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football. I will exercise that discretion to hear Mr. Brady’s appeal. I have carefully reviewed the NFLPA’s recusal motion of May 19 as well as Mr. Nash’s response of May 22. (Neither party requested to be heard on the matter.) Based on the unambiguous language and structure of the CBA, as well as common sense, I conclude that none of the arguments advanced by the NFLPA has merit. First, the NFLPA argues that I may not serve as hearing officer because Mr. Brady’s discipline letter was signed by NFL executive vice president Troy Vincent rather than by me. I disagree. The identity of the person who signed the disciplinary letter is irrelevant. The signatory’s identity does not influence in any way my evaluation of the issues; any suggestion to the contrary defies common sense. (I note that NFL executives other than the Commissioner have signed disciplinary letters in numerous proceedings in which the Commissioner or his designee later served as hearing officer. I am not aware of any objections by the Union to that practice. To the contrary, as Mr. Nash’s letter points out, the Union has confirmed its acceptance of this procedure.) There can be no dispute that this is an appeal of Commissioner discipline: As the letter signed by Mr. Vincent explains in its first sentence, “The Commissioner has authorized me to inform you of the discipline that, pursuant to his authority under Article 46 of the CBA, has been imposed upon you ….” I did not delegate my disciplinary authority to Mr. Vincent; I concurred in his recommendation and authorized him to communicate to Mr. Brady the discipline imposed under my authority as Commissioner. Even if there were a procedural issue raised by the identity of the signatory to a discipline letter that I authorized, no reason or logic -- and certainly nothing in the CBA -- would support recusal as the remedy. After all, the CBA provides that “the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in “any appeal” involving conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game. Second, the NFLPA argues that recusal is required because it believes that I may be a “necessary” and/or “central” witness in the appeal proceeding. I have carefully considered this argument and reject its premise. I am not a necessary or even an appropriate witness, much less a “central witness” as the NFLPA contends. I do not have any first-hand knowledge of any of the events at issue. (That fact makes this matter very different from the Rice appeal, in which there was a fundamental dispute over what Mr. Rice told me in a meeting at the league office.) Nor did I play a role in the investigation that led to Mr. Brady’s discipline. Furthermore, there is no reasonable basis for dispute -- or for any testimony -- about authority for the discipline reflected in the letter signed by Mr. Vincent. The letter itself is clear on this point. And there is no basis for my testifying about prior instances in which discipline was considered or imposed for similar conduct; if that were the case, the NFLPA could seek my recusal in every conduct detrimental proceeding, directly contrary to our agreement that I have the “discretion” to hear “any” appeal. Regardless, my knowledge of any underlying facts in this matter would not provide a basis for recusal. The CBA contemplates such knowledge and expressly provides that the Commissioner may hear and decide “any” appeal of conduct detrimental discipline. Accordingly, there is no basis upon which I could properly be asked to testify in the appeal proceeding, which under Article 46 of the CBA is designed to afford Mr. Brady an opportunity to bring new or additional facts or circumstances to my attention for consideration. Third, the NFLPA argues that recusal is required because I have “prejudged” the matter and cannot fairly evaluate the potential testimony of league staff members. After carefully considering this argument, I reject it. The process by which discipline is imposed for conduct detrimental, and by which appeals of disciplinary decisions are heard, has been in place for many years and is well known to the parties. That includes the role of league staff in the proceedings and the likelihood that the Commissioner will have some knowledge of the underlying facts. When the parties agreed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement to continue the provisions confirming the Commissioner’s “discretion” to hear “any” appeal of a player facing discipline for conduct detrimental, they clearly understood (a) that such appeals regularly involve testimony by league staff about the issues and events in dispute and (b) that if the Commissioner has taken some action against the player for conduct detrimental and given him notice of impending discipline, he necessarily would have reached an initial conclusion about the player’s actions. Nonetheless, the parties’ agreement that the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in “any appeal” could not be more clear. Thus, neither of those two factors can serve as a basis for recusal. Nor have I “prejudged” this appeal. I have publicly expressed my appreciation to Mr. Wells and his colleagues for their thorough and independent work. But that does not mean that I am wedded to their conclusions or to their assessment of the facts. Nor does it mean that, after considering the evidence and argument presented during the appeal, I may not reach a different conclusion about Mr. Brady’s conduct or the discipline imposed. That is true even though the initial discipline decision was reached after extensive discussion and in reliance on the critical importance of protecting the integrity of the game. As I have said publicly, I very much look forward to hearing from Mr. Brady and to considering any new information or evidence that he may bring to my attention. My mind is open; there has been no “prejudgment” and no bias that warrants recusal. I have considered the cases cited by the NFLPA, Morris, Erving, and Hewitt. I agree with Commissioner Tagliabue’s reasoning in the Bounty proceeding, in which he denied the NFLPA’s motion that he recuse himself. Those cases are not applicable in an appeal governed by a collective bargaining agreement, especially one that so clearly reflects the parties’ intentions about the Commissioner’s authority, discretion, and role. As Commissioner Tagliabue stated: “No change in the Collective Bargaining Agreements between 1977 and the present day has ever abrogated the sole authority of the Commissioner to preside” in appeals involving discipline for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game. This recusal motion, and others like it, represent nothing more than an effort by the NFLPA to renegotiate Article 46 of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, signed in August 2011. Because protecting the integrity of the game is the Commissioner’s most important responsibility, I decline to rewrite our Collective Bargaining Agreement to abrogate my authority and “discretion” to hear “any appeal” in a conduct detrimental proceeding. The motion for recusal is denied. We will proceed with the hearing on June 23, as previously scheduled."
 

http://tmi.me/1f570Y

 

[hoothehoo]

 
Mike Garafolo ‏@MikeGarafolo  3m3 minutes ago
Roger Goodell has informed the NFLPA he will not honor their request for recusal and will hear Tom Brady's appeal.
 
Mike Garafolo ‏@MikeGarafolo  2m2 minutes ago
Goodell tells the NFLPA he has not prejudged the matter on appeal: “My mind is open."
 

 
His mind is so open his brains fell out. 

 

[soxhop411]

@McCannSportsLaw: Roger Goodell letter confirms Troy Vincent didnt punish Brady. Goodell did: I did not delegate my disciplinary authority to Mr. Vincent.

 

[Corsi]

@McCannSportsLaw: Roger Goodell letter confirms Troy Vincent didnt punish Brady. Goodell did: I did not delegate my disciplinary authority to Mr. Vincent.

 
Except only Vincent signed the letter.

 

[ifmanis5]

Good. I want him to hear it, make an idiotic ruling and then destroy him in court. Full speed ahead.

 

[soxhop411]

@McCannSportsLaw: Roger Goodell letter: The identity of the person [Troy Vincent] who signed the disciplinary letter is irrelevant. So why involve Vincent?

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Oh sure, NOW you don't want to rewrite the CBA.

Sounds like he finished his rewrite when he delegated the conduct detrimental to back stabbing Troy.

He's reaching PK levels of (lack of) self awareness with each presser/release.

 

[allstonite]

I'm confused about that. So Goodell handed down the punishment but for some reason had Vincent sign the letter? Vincent isn't allowed to punish integrity of the game right (per the Holy CBA)? But isn't Goodell not supposed to hear the appeal if he was the one who passed down the punishment? Doesn't that destroy the entire purpose of the appeal? Basically he's just getting a second chance to rule on it himself? All because "common sense?"
 
Any way Brady can skip over this part and head to court now? It's clearly a waste of time. Might as well get the next step started as soon as possible.

 

[Average Reds]

I get that it's a labor relations issue and he has to use strong language.  But that letter from Goodell is so arrogant and logically incoherent that it could have been written by Sepp Blatter a week ago.

 

[Super Nomario]

I'm confused about that. So Goodell handed down the punishment but for some reason had Vincent sign the letter? Vincent isn't allowed to punish integrity of the game right (per the Holy CBA)? But isn't Goodell not supposed to hear the appeal if he was the one who passed down the punishment? Doesn't that destroy the entire purpose of the appeal? Basically he's just getting a second chance to rule on it himself? All because "common sense?"
 
Any way Brady can skip over this part and head to court now? It's clearly a waste of time. Might as well get the next step started as soon as possible.

For sure. Also having trouble squaring that Goodell "concurred in his [Vincent's] recommendation" but "there has been no 'prejudgement.'"

 

[Mooch]

I'm confused about that. So Goodell handed down the punishment but for some reason had Vincent sign the letter? Vincent isn't allowed to punish integrity of the game right (per the Holy CBA)? But isn't Goodell not supposed to hear the appeal if he was the one who passed down the punishment? Doesn't that destroy the entire purpose of the appeal? Basically he's just getting a second chance to rule on it himself? All because "common sense?"
 
Any way Brady can skip over this part and head to court now? It's clearly a waste of time. Might as well get the next step started as soon as possible.

I think you need to have the hearing to eviscerate the Wells report with a truckload of scientists and attempt to have Kensil testify before Goodell, in order to prove bias/lack of due process in court.

 

[epraz]

The NFL really screwed this up with the Goodell/Vincent two-step.  They clearly agree that Goodell didn't have the authority to delegate and are afraid of losing on that point, to the point that they're saying that the guy who laid down the punishment will hear the appeal.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

The NFL really screwed this up with the Goodell/Vincent two-step.  They clearly agree that Goodell didn't have the authority to delegate and are afraid of losing on that point, to the point that they're saying that the guy who laid down the punishment will hear the appeal.

Imagine if they read the CBA before they made this a clusterfuck. I 100% agree with your post. They realized they fucked up on a main issue and are trying to avoid that pothole first and worry about the rest later.

 

[jimbobim]

The NFL really screwed this up with the Goodell/Vincent two-step.  They clearly agree that Goodell didn't have the authority to delegate and are afraid of losing on that point, to the point that they're saying that the guy who laid down the punishment will hear the appeal.

Yeah I struggle to see how they can have it both ways. Except for NFLPA not getting neutral arbitration in the CBA which has allowed Goodell this potentially narrow " integrity of the game" path where he is the sole decider as Commish. 
 
Question now is where does Brady turn. He can show up to the appeal and answer more questions and such and then do we just end up at the cell phone question again? Interesting to see what path the lawyers take now. 

 

[Harry Hooper]

Oh sure, NOW you don't want to rewrite the CBA.

. Yeah, the Commish has never felt bound by agreements, such as with refs.

 

[tims4wins]

The NFL really screwed this up with the Goodell/Vincent two-step.  They clearly agree that Goodell didn't have the authority to delegate and are afraid of losing on that point, to the point that they're saying that the guy who laid down the punishment will hear the appeal.

 
Right, and then he goes on to write "if the Commissioner has taken some action against the player for conduct detrimental and given him notice of impending discipline, he necessarily would have reached an initial conclusion about the player’s actions...Nor have I “prejudged” this appeal".
 
So he says that by definition he pre-judged, then immediately states he did not pre-judge.
 
Edit: so basically, "initial conclusion" does not equal "prejudged", at least in Goodell's brain. Ok then.

 

[Mooch]

OK, Rog. If you didn't "pre judge" this case, let's see the communications between the league office and Ted Wells regarding the investigation.

 

[Harry Hooper]

OK, Rog. If you didn't "pre judge" this case, let's see the communications between the league office and Ted Wells regarding the investigation.

. I am having trouble following Glampers' musings. Is he claiming that he used any evidence or info to set the punishment beyond the Wells Report itself?

 

[BlackJack]

Is this statement supported by the text of the CBA?
 

Accordingly, there is no basis upon which I could properly be asked to testify in the appeal proceeding, which under Article 46 of the CBA is designed to afford Mr. Brady an opportunity to bring new or additional facts or circumstances to my attention for consideration.

From reading what people have written here, I thought the appeal isn't supposed to be about new evidence. Regardless, it seems likely to me that Goodell plans on asking Brady for the cell phone records in the appeal.

edit: added bolding

 

[Marceline]

Is this statement supported by the text of the CBA?
 

From reading what people have written here, I thought the appeal isn't supposed to be about new evidence. Regardless, it seems likely to me that Goodell plans on asking Brady for the cell phone records in the appeal.

edit: added bolding

 
I just read article 46 and the relevant portion concerning evidence would seem to be this:
 

(ii) Discovery. In appeals under Section 1(a), the parties shall exchange copies of any exhibits upon which they intend to rely no later than three (3) calendar days prior to the hearing. Failure to timely provide any intended exhibit shall preclude its introduction at the hearing.

 
Also of note - the text of the CBA is pretty clear that Goodell can hear the appeal:
 

 
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in any appeal under Section 1(a) of this Article at his discretion.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I enjoyed him letting us know once again that the Wells report was independent. That never gets old.

 

[tims4wins]

I enjoyed him letting us know once again that the Wells report was independent. That never gets old.

 
Don't forget that it was thorough... aside from the NFL telling him not to look into how the league handled the entire situation.

 

[Rusty13]

This letter response by Goodell is so convoluted and flimsy, I can already foresee a federal judge laughing his ass off from the bench.

 

[Bleedred]

Are there any attorneys on this board whose expertise is in labor law and laws of CBAs generally, that can give a sober view on what just happened?  I appreciate all of the hand-wringing about Goodell's letter, but the NFL is not stupid, and has good lawyers too, I wouldn't think they just stepped in it notwithstanding Goodell's personal idiocy.

 

[DJnVa]

Are there any attorneys on this board whose expertise is in labor law and laws of CBAs generally, that can give a sober view on what just happened?  I appreciate all of the hand-wringing about Goodell's letter, but the NFL is not stupid, and has good lawyers too, I wouldn't think they just stepped in it notwithstanding Goodell's personal idiocy.

 
Doesn't recent evidence show they are quote capable of stepping in it?
 

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Are there any attorneys on this board whose expertise is in labor law and laws of CBAs generally, that can give a sober view on what just happened?  I appreciate all of the hand-wringing about Goodell's letter, but the NFL is not stupid, and has good lawyers too, I wouldn't think they just stepped in it notwithstanding Goodell's personal idiocy.

 
I have no labor law experience -- well, very little.  The NFL's argument makes sense to me.  The CBA is set up so that I impose conduct detrimental discipline, and it also allows me to sit on "any appeal."  That's what I'm doing.  There is no inherent conflict of interest.  If the PA wanted to collectively bargain for a different arrangement, it should have.  It didn't.
 
The NFLPA is free to argue in any case that I'm biased, but I don't think I am.  And you don't have evidence that I am.  [Good luck trying to win that one in court.]
 
The Vincent issue is a red herring to me.  A big nothing.  Even if one might argue that the discipline was, initially, Vincent's, Goodell has now owned it.  Whatever confusion there might have been in the past, Goodell is now saying it's his discipline.  Maybe one can make a procedural argument that he should have done that earlier, but he's done it now, and so if there ever was a problem I think he's fixed it. Brady has three weeks to prepare, so even any argument he might have made that he would prepare different if he knew it was Goodell's discipline not Vincent's is out the window.
 
It's fucked up that Goodell gets to impose discipline and then hear an appeal from the discipline he imposed.  Maybe there's grounds to say it's inherently problematic, since there is a general principle in anglo-saxon law against it.  When there's a Latin phrase for it, you know it's serious.  (Nemo iudex in causa sua -- no man should be a judge in his own cause.)  Unfortunately, that's what the CBA provides.  It's hard to imagine a judge saying that a collectively bargained alternative dispute procedure is inherently void.
 
If I were the NFL I would argue that there is no requirement for any appeal.  If the parties had wanted to, they could have agreed that commissioner discipline is final.  They didn't, but since they could have, there is nothing wrong with bargaining that the commissioner decides an appeal.
 
I think the fact that Goodell is reviewing his own discipline will be helpful to the NFLPA/Brady -- it will probably give any other errors they raise more traction since there will likely be some judicial skepticism, but I really don't see how it, standing alone, is a silver bullet. 

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Don't forget that it was thorough... aside from the NFL telling him not to look into how the league handled the entire situation.

Yes! Which quite beautifully shows that it was neither thorough nor independent.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I agree with DDB.  I don't think we can pin our hopes on appeal in court on Goodell having heard the appeal -- he has ample room do that given the discretion language -- or the fact that a deputy signed the letter.  If Brady wins, it will be because the Wells Report and Brady's non-cooperation didn't provide enough basis for the 4-games and the penalty is way out of whack with prior penalties handed down by the League.  I think, however, that Goodell hearing the appeal will help with the atmospherics as Kessler will be able to derisively refer to the ridiculous penalties imposed by Goodell and his resulting rubber stamp.  Early and often.  So while it wont be a ground for appeal in my view, it will be part of the landscape as Kessler paints the theater of the absurd around this whole mess.