SoFFacet, on 08 July 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:
It just doesn't make any sense that the players should have had to give up *anything* to get an impartial process into the CBA. Its disgusting that such a basic thing was used as a bargaining chip by the NFL in the first place.
It wasn't used as a bargaining chip. The players didn't address it. I think they would have had to give up something (in terms of drug testing, a higher 'moral' standard of some sort or that they would have had to agree to strict guidelines on player conduct (why I think they let it go). The players don't just want a voice, they want to have the pull to decide. The important point is that Goodell didn't magically make them leave it the way it was..
There's also the question of 'impartial'. I think the players very easily could have included a voice in the process to gain 'impartiality', but they focused on money. They were laser focused on the dollar figure. This isn't the only point that seems to have been overlooked by the NFLPA in the CBA. I think we're headed for years of litigation over various issues because Desmith got snowed.
This I agree with, but I think the lawsuits are ultimately more about forcing Goodell to actually reveal his evidence rather than trying to defeat the suspensions. I don't doubt the evidence exists, but it is concerning that Goodell feels no compulsion to actually produce it. It would set a bad precedent if he can just suspend players and when asked simply waive his hand and say "don't worry there's evidence I promise."
Goodell offered to share the evidence with the NFLPA (I believe there was certain confidentiality terms. I'm not sure, all I know is what outside what is required by the CBA). They declined.
Edited by jeremy2020, 08 July 2012 - 07:26 PM.