I read an interesting article that was mostly about Drew Brees saying the punishment system is a mess, which it is.
What I found interesting was that the article claimed that the decision was that the NFL hadn't proven anything, but that since the CBA specifies that the commissioner has the authority to apply the fines and suspensions as punishments the suspension couldn't be overturned.
I'm figuring it was legally a bit more complex than that, but that was a simple way to frame it for the non-Lawyers.
While it seems strange to a layman, "you're essentially not guilty but still have to take the punishment" It does make a tiny bit of sense because of the CBA which seems like a contract of sorts?
I wouldn't mind hearing a better explanation from someone who knows the law end.
Steve B
|