The NFLPA is charged with protecting the interests of all players, not just Greg Hardy. If they feel that not filing an appeal would be detrimental the players as a whole (e.g., by allowing bad precedent to be set), they certainly should feel obligated to appeal.
In a case like this, they are obligated to act in Hardy's best interest. They cannot sacrifice one guy against his will.
It's almost like all the people going on and on about Tom Brady's phone, in spite of the fact that the laws of physics prove there was no tampering with the balls that night.
Aaaaaand you just made that up out of thin air.
Outside of a lot of Cowboys fans, his reputation can't get much worse.
Plus, couldn't they file the appeal without seeking an injunction?
The two appeals are actually very closely related (if Hardy files, that is). Neither is about guilt or innocence, it is about process and fairness. Brady relies heavily on the Adrian Peterson judgment and it is assumed Hardy (if he files) will do the same.
I actually heard an interesting opinion that that could happen. Now before you jump to conclusions, I don't mean the Supreme Court is going to listen to the idea of whether or not Brady is guilty.
The cases are wildly different. One guy was found to be "generally aware" that "it is more probable than not" that an equipment violation was taking place. The other guy beat the crap out of a woman and threatened to kill her (it's terrifying how many people in this forum are comfortable with that behavior because he is now a Cowboy).
You're absolutely correct, but the federal appeals courts will not be looking at the merits of the cases. They will be looking at the overall process. Ray Rice got his 2nd-suspension overturned, not because he was innocent but because the whole process was not fair. Same thing for Peterson.
