This is just semantics. He allegedly violated a policy. That policy is one of personal conduct that all players must submit to. Part of that policy is that acts of DV count as a violation of that policy which means you can be suspended from playing if you commit them. The NFL said he did the latter, and is therefore "guilty" of violating that policy. If he is innocent of DV, then he cannot be held accountable for violation of said policy under those terms. Therefore, he can be fighting for his innocence and still be fighting to play. This is deductive reasoning based on syllogisms.
The NFL has argued that the CBA allows them the right to suspend him because they went through their own "process" allegedly agreed to by the players and the NFL in the CBA (even though article 46 has been there since 1968) and effectively found him guilty of violating their own policy by saying he committed acts that fall under the category of DV, bypassing any legal standard for such a crime. In other words, as a monopoly, they can exercise a kangaroo court and label a player as a woman abuser as long as they go through that "process", which has clearly been ethically abused according to the evidence, but "legally" justified.
