Well if the judge rules that in under any circumstance that Hardy shall NOT be suspended for more than two games than the NFL will have to comply regardless of this so called trump card you called the exempt list. If the Commish does decide to use it against Hardy and enforce a 4 game suspension and not doing anything regarding Brady's case, I'm pretty sure that he will receive some sort of backlash from the media about it. Right now the Commish is having PR issues with the Brady ruling. I'm willing to bet he will not want the PR nightmare that will ensue if he went along suspend Hardy 4 games using the exempt list just for the hell of it.
1. You're equating the exempt list to a suspension, again. They are not the same, which is why both Peterson and Hardy were paid as they sat out all of last year in spite of the fact that the new, harsher policy outlines 6 games without pay. They are two separate things.
2. Goodell cannot do anything about Brady at this point because Brady is not on the exempt list. What you're saying is that Goodell
won't do "x" because he
can't do "y", which makes absolutely no sense at all because there's nothing that says that he wouldn't do "y" (and it's pretty damn clear he would) if he actually could. If he wanted both of them to miss games but is only able to force one of them to miss games, why would he opt for neither missing games?
FWIW, I didn't just call it, "the exempt list". That's pretty much what it's named. It is an actual thing.
Like I mentioned it depends on what the judge rules. If it states that in under NO CIRCUMSTANCES that Hardy gets suspended for more than 2 games and that there is no room for discussion about it, the NFL MUST comply. It won't matter if the Commish wants to use the exempt list. The court will still construe that as contempt of court and not willing to comply by the judges order.
I feel like I have to keep repeating myself by saying that the exempt list is not a suspension as far as the CBA is concerned. Is this not clear? Players must agree to being placed on the exempt list and the NFLPA calls it a, "voluntary leave with pay". Quit equating the two. The NFL can both comply the any such court order and retain Hardy on the exempt list because The Commissioner is the only person who decides when a player comes off the list as outlined by the CBA.
Although I doubt it, maybe the courts would take that extra step and block the move, but it seems more likely that they would acknowledge that the exempt list was collectively bargained years and years ago and that they have no interest in nullifying that agreement. Hardy's case hinges on the fact that the new policy was enacted after his incident. Had it been in place prior to his incident, he doesn't have a case at all. In that regard, it's hard to imagine he has much of a case in challenging something that has been a part of the CBA since before the last round of negotiations. It would be like someone challenging the new policy for an incident that occurred last week. Good luck.
Both Hardy and Brady's case was ruled as "actions detrimental to the integrity of the league." It didn't specify anything about DV or that Brady cheated. Thus both were given a 4 game suspension. Therefore, Hardy does have a case just like Brady - if he so wishes to pursue it.
Sure, he has a case to challenge the suspension. Nobody has said otherwise. My position has been that whether he wins or loses could make not one bit of difference in the eventual outcome as it pertains to his availability on Sunday.
You keep comparing Hardy to Brady like they had similar situations. I'll try to make this as simple as possible. Brady had 1 road block on his path to playing in the opener, and Hardy (potentially) has 2.
OMG many forms of cheating in sports is STILL CHEATING. I think your off your rockers on this and I totally disagree with what you say here. As for Hardy he was found NOT GUILTY. Therefore, you are assuming that he is a criminal. HE IS NOT. Once again, he is not a criminal and thus the suspension against him is unwarranted. As for Brady - there is evidence against him, he failed to cooperate and he was found destroying and covering up evidence. Yet he is walking away from any kind of punishment. One is really guilty but walking away scott clean. Thats Brady. While the other was NOT GUILTY - thats Hardy. But is still being punished.
What anyone assumes about Hardy's guilt or innocence is irrelevant. The NFL has concluded that his involvement in the incident warranted reprimand and that is all that matters. The NFL, like any other business, has never needed a criminal conviction to hand down a punishment for actions they deem to be harmful to the company. See Ben Roethlisberger. Guilt or innocence, it doesn't matter.
As for Brady, it's not up to Goodell. The decision that puts him on the field week 1 was not made by the NFL. The NFL is appealing the ruling and there is nothing more than can do. You can quit leaning on Brady's lack of punishment because clearly if the NFL had it's way he wouldn't be playing.
Like I mentioned before the exempt list is only a fabricated trump card. I highly doubt that the Commish would use it just because he can. Thats acting like a dictator. If the courts rule that he can't suspend Hardy for more than 2 games under any circumstances the commish will have to comply.
See multiple comments above regarding the distinction between a suspension and being on the exempt list, and I have no idea what you mean by calling the exempt list "fabricated".
Also, even if using the exempt list would be characteristic of a dictator that's exactly what Goodell has been called so you should let go of some of your doubt as to whether or not he would use it.
And the league would be in a PR mess once again if they treated Hardy just like they treated Peterson. There is already talk with the owners wanting to remove the power of disciplinary powers from the commish. I'm sure that he will want to stay away from the PR mess that might ensue if he decides to further punish Hardy.
PR mess over Peterson? They've already treated Hardy like they treated Peterson and there's currently no PR mess. Suspended and on the exempt list, same as Peterson prior to his successful appeal back in February. I'm not sure what you're referring to. The real PR mess that could occur is the same one that started all of this when just about everyone felt that the NFL wasn't doing enough to reprimand players with DV issues.
Which of these outcomes would foreseeably result in a bigger PR mess? Ray Rice Part 2 where another player is not held accountable, or whatever it is you're talking about with Adrian Peterson?
