WayBackVazquez said:
Yes, mostly. I would strike your last sentence. I think the independence or not of the investigation is a bit of a red herring. What the union attacks on an evident partiality basis is Goodell's public "touting" of its independence and conclusions, not whether it was the sole basis for punishment, or that it was influenced by the NFL. I think this is the weakest of the union's arguments, because IMO, Goodell could have conducted the investigation himself, given a press conference about how thorough it was, and still heard the appeal under the CBA. The stronger argument (on evident partiality, which itself, is one of the union's weaker arguments) is that the union specifically identified delegation as a violation of the CBA and wanted it to be heard, and Goodell could not have been impartial in deciding whether his own conduct was appropriate.
I think the NFLPA's argument goes a bit farther. They are arguing that Goodell had not just evident partiality, but actual bias, and part of his motive was to protect the very expensive Wells report. The public declaration of the report as "independent" compromised Goodell's ability to be neutral at the subsequent hearing, because he was tied to that premise.
In order for this argument to work, I think you have to show either that (1) "independence" (like the propriety of delegation) was a live issue at the hearing such that Goodell's prejudgment on it mattered, or (2) that declaration of the report as "independent" is enough of a synonym for "correct" or "well reasoned" or something like that to be prejudgment of the merits.
I actually think these are pretty good arguments. Why did Goodell tout Wells' independence? It's clearly to suggest that he did a good job, or took the job seriously, or was not influenced, meaning we can trust his conclusions. It came out in the hearing that Wells indeed may not have been entirely independent, which I think is absolutely something a truly neutral arbitrator would and could take into account in judging a suspension based on the Wells' report's findings. Goodell's prejudgment of "independence" compromised his ability to consider the NFLPA's argument, at least so the argument goes.
I think what Goodell did goes beyond merely suggesting the report was thorough, or at least arguably does. And I don't necessarily agree that Goodell could, after making findings and imposing discipline, say anything he wanted in a press conference and that it wouldn't be a basis for a partiality argument. Remember, this is a he-said-she-said, not a case where the Commissioner has imposed a penalty based on admitted conduct. If the Commissioner did fact finding, and resolved disputed facts, and imposed a suspension, and then held a press conference where he said, "I just want to assure America that my conclusions are correct and my judgment was sound," I think doing so would definitely be a basis for arguing that he could not thereafter be a non partial hearing officer. He has voluntarily imposed pressure on himself to be non-neutral. I think the NFLPA is arguing that his declaration of independence (ha!) is effectively the same.