Yeah they're still clearly suffering from Upshaw's massive blundering... you're right there... and very unfortunately, Goodell made it clear in the new CBA he would NOT be relinquishing 100 pct of judge, jury, and executioner powers. They coulda fought him but there are more players not subject to discipline than are so any concession made by the PA woulda been somewhat insulting to the players that never have or will appear in the court of mighty Goodell... however... This does not mean Goodell's powers are limitless... here i can quote :
"....More importantly, and as explained last night, the CBA doesn’t give Goodell a blank check to do whatever he wants to do. Though he’s the judge, jury, and executioner, his power to be the judge/jury/executioner must be exercised fairly and impartially and in accordance with
the rules contained in the CBA. If he fails to do that, Goodell
is subject to external oversight, through the federal court system.
In the bounty case, it’s inevitable that Goodell will uphold the suspensions, and that the players will sue. Then, questions regarding, for example, whether the league failed to
produce its evidence on a timely basis and whether the suspensions should be dismissed based on that glitch will be resolved by someone “who is not associated with the NFL.”
A far more subtle, but perhaps far more important, point arises from the disconnect between the limited evidence that Commissioner Goodell has made available to the players and the extensive evidence of which Judge/Jury/Executioner Goodell is otherwise aware. In this relatively rare instance in which Goodell has meted out discipline based on facts that are hotly contested, the judge/jury/executioner knows much more than the persons being punished. So how can the persons being punished, who have access only to a sliver of the file, get a fair shake when they don’t know what the judge/jury/executioner already knows?
Think of it this way. You’ve been accused of a crime. Before the trial, the judge and the jury (and, technically, the executioner) are fully aware of the investigation and all evidence that was collected, in large part because the judge and the jury ultimately presided over the investigation. Then, the judge and the jury decide what the sentence should be, before the trial even starts.
Through it all, the judge and the jury never give you any evidence. Instead, they periodically share with you (and the media) summaries and characterizations of evidence, which may or may not be factually accurate. Then, three days before the trial, you get a small stack from the thousands of documents generated by the investigation.
When the trial starts, the prosecutor presents what amounts to an opening statement — and then she rests her case without calling a single witness. Then the judge and the jury, fully aware of and intending to rely on all facts and documents and evidence and testimony that won’t be introduced in support of the allegations or otherwise shared with you, turns to your lawyer and says, “Got anything to add?”
How under those circumstances could your lawyer even begin to know what to say? How could your lawyer change the minds of the judge and the jury without knowing precisely what caused them to reach their conclusion weeks before the trial began — and without having a chance to test that evidence before the judge and the jury adopted a position on what the evidence means?
That example describes a classic kangaroo court, a term that arose from the perception that justice occurs by a series of leaps, not via a deliberate and even-handed process. And while so many are quick to point out that the players accused of participating in the bounty program aren’t having their rights determined by a court of law, the truth is that those rights are being assessed by an informal court of law crafted by the NFL — as demonstrated by the fact that Monday’s hearing was fully transcribed by (you guessed it) a court reporter.
Though the CBA gives the NFL the power to craft that informal court of law, it doesn’t give the NFL the right to create a process that lacks fairness and impartiality for the people whose interests are at stake.
The NFLPA has not given up the right to challenge the NFL’s procedures, and the NFLPA appears to be intent on doing so, aggressively.
As it should."
