Hurley: Roger Goodell Continues Deceitful, Dishonest Victory Tour After Beating Tom Brady In Court
By Michael Hurley, CBS Boston
BOSTON (CBS) -- Roger Goodell, really, has spent much of the past year and a half in private. He'd make appearances at the draft, and a select few games throughout the season, and of course the Super Bowl, but overall, Goodell was missing the extra jump in his step.
But now that he's been reassured by the Second Circuit court in New York, you can't go five minutes without seeing Goodell's smiling face on TV as he continues his self-aggrandizing parade on every media outlet that will allow him.
Friday's enablers were none other than journalistic bulldogs Mike & Mike.
Now, Goodell deserves credit for stepping into a lion's den like the one that exists in Mike & Mike's general area (what makes them different makes them great, ESPN Radio), and it was on that show that Goodell somehow stated that his continued fight against Tom Brady is not about Tom Brady:
"I've said all along, this is not about Tom Brady; this is about the integrity of the game and about our rules. ... [Enforcement of the rules] affects the integrity of our game. The competitiveness is something that, that's my responsibility, as unpopular as it may be."
This is just out-and-out wrong. A ball boy in Minnesota warmed footballs in plain view on the sidelines on a cold day, and there was no punishment and there never has been any punishment. Goodell broke many rules in enforcing his punishment, and two of three Second Circuit judges said last week that such a course of action doesn't really matter.
In a sense, it's not about Tom Brady, because it's all about Roger Goodell. But for the commissioner to pretend like he didn't go big game hunting so that everyone would marvel at the perfectly coiffed head mounted above his fireplace is to be delusional.
Goodell also said this (emphasis mine):
"The district court got it wrong. The appeals court made that very clear, and it was a very strong decision. It was a strong decision about our rights in the collective bargaining agreement, and frankly those underlying facts about this case that there was a clear violation. The facts were, I think the words [from Judge Denny Chin] exactly were 'compelling if not overwhelming,' and that the destruction of the evidence (cell phone) was a factor that should be taken into account. So all of that is a clear violation. But the bottom line is we want to protect the rights in our CBA but more importantly we want to protect the integrity of the game."
The phone debate is one that was never properly settled. Some saw Brady's destruction of the phone as a clear sign of guilt, and from an opinion-forming standpoint, that's fine. Maybe Brady is guilty of something. Nobody actually knows (including Roger).
But here's the thing -- for one, there's an equal amount of evidence from the private communications of Brady and others to suggest that nothing happened (how about John Jastremski texting his fiancee in November that the balls were supposed to be inflated to 13 PSI?).
But much more importantly (because remember, we're talking about process), definitive NFL precedent exists on the matter, and it came from Paul Tagliabue when he vacated the suspensions levied by Goodell on Saints players for their alleged role in a bounty program (emphasis, again, is mine):
The context of previous NFL punishment for obstruction suggests that a seven-game suspension is unprecedented and unwarranted here. In December 2010, the NFL fined Brett Favre $50,000 -- but did not suspend him -- for obstruction of a League sexual harassment investigation. Although not entirely comparable to the present matter, this illustrates the NFL's practice of fining, not suspending players, for serious violations of this type. There is no evidence of a record of past suspensions based purely on obstructing a League investigation. In my forty years of association with the NFL, I am aware of many instances of denials in disciplinary proceedings that proved to be false, but I cannot recall any suspension for such fabrication.
By this definition, rather than being, in Ted Wells' own words, "totally cooperative," Brady could have flipped the bird to the "independent investigator" and told him to contact his publicist if he sought an interview, and Goodell would not have been able to issue a punishment for that action. Brady could have yanked the mustache hairs straight off Wells' upper lip while deflating a football right in front of him, and Goodell could not base a punishment off that behavior.
Yet to Goodell, who has created his own brand of law, not fully cooperating with an investigation is a "clear violation." History, precedence, and all reason is irrelevant in this matter, and he can say what he wants to say, because dang it, this is his victory lap and he is going to enjoy it.
But, integrity. Integrity is a simple word. Its definition, presumably in the way Goodell believes he's using it, is this:
"the quality of being honest and fair; the state of being complete or whole."
The honest and fair part of that need not be examined at this point. Goodell's deceit throughout the process has been well-documented.
But how about the presence of the words "complete or whole"? After all, if basic science couldn't explain the PSI drops last January, surely all of those tests the NFL executed this past season around the league would prove that something illegal and shady took place in Gillette Stadium that night.
Ah, but of course. Scientific laws are not just made-up nonsense on the Internet. They do, in fact, exist in reality. And so when the NFL tested those footballs, they learned what most people learned when they were juniors in high school: there is such a thing as the Ideal Gas Law.
Yet rather than admit this is something that's real, and rather than release the findings of those numbers, the NFL tried to change history by claiming the numbers were never meant to be recorded.
"When we have football operations, what we do is we do ... this is a deterrent factor. It's called spot checks. We do it in a variety of different areas of our operation. It is not a research project. We did all the research projects -- Ted Wells did it in the context of it. The union did it in another set of research. There were tons of research projects. What this was, was a simple deterrent to make sure that we monitor to see if people were trying to violate the policy. We did not see any violations throughout the entire season in this area or in any other area of our operations."
This is a bald-faced lie. When the NFL announced that it would be testing the air pressure inside footballs, the news release stated (I'm going to bold the whole thing):
"... the PSI results will be measured and recorded. ... All game ball information will be recorded on the Referee's Report, which must be submitted to the League office by noon on the day following the game."
The idea there was to create a complete or whole understanding of what goes on with the PSI of footballs during games. These numbers were recorded. But the NFL is now saying they weren't because, as science has told us all along, the numbers don't jibe with the NFL's accusations -- accusations which resulted in an unprecedented level of punishment and now have the flimsiest of bases.
And lastly, even though the NFL waved the white flag on the Wells investigation being "independent" long ago, now that they've won the case, the famous "I word" is back in action. Here's Goodell:
"It was an independent investigation. A district court judge looked at it and an appellate court -- three different judges looked at it, so that's four judges total and an independent investigation. I'm not sure how much more independent you can get. That's pretty significant."
Here is a refreshing breath of honesty from Goodell: "I'm not sure how much more independent you can get." Based on everything we've seen from him over the past couple of years, admitting what he does not know may be his best course of action. When he continually repeats lies as if they're facts, it's not the greatest look for a man who's supposed to be a fair leader.
Alas, Goodell left out the fact that two of those four federal judges saw the case very differently and laid out in great detail the extent to which Goodell exceeded his authority as commissioner. And Goodell seemingly omitted the part where the two judges who sided with the NFL never said the conclusions Goodell reached were correct and also spoke nothing of the facts presented in the Wells report.
But in Goodell's mind -- or, in his eye for being perceived as a champion -- that's all irrelevant. Now please, if you will, please continue clapping for the commissioner, lest you find yourself on the receiving end of his wrath.
As you were, NFL.
You can email Michael Hurley or find him on Twitter @michaelFhurley.
