You keep thinking Roger Goodell’s hit absolute rock-bottom and then he sets a new low.
Thursday morning, while stumping for the NFL Draft on "CBS This Morning," Goodell was back at it again, calling the Wells Report an independent investigation.
Responding to a comment from Saints quarterback Drew Brees that Brees would not “trust any league-led investigation when it comes to anything,” Goodell answered, “There was an independent investigation on this, and an independent report that was presented to me. And that’s what we based the judgement off of. And then we had a hearing, we had a process that is articulated in our collective bargaining agreement that has been there for several decades.”
We long ago established why the Wells Report wasn’t independent, but since Goodell’s talking points included trying to sell that lie anew, let’s revisit the reasons the Wells Report was a propaganda hit piece.
First, Jeff Pash, the NFL’s lead counsel and one of the primary investigators during the proceedings, edited the report. Goodell’s right-hand man, his legal brain and advisor, the man Wells initially said was around merely to facilitate interviews, put his eyes and hands on the slanted 243-page report that has been proven to be anything but independent.
Second, Lorin Reisner, a fellow lawyer at Wells’ firm, popped up on the conference call Wells staged to bluster about his own integrity during the investigation.
Then, Reisner was questioning and cross-examining on behalf of the NFL during Tom Brady’s appeal. Ultimately, the league stated during court proceedings that it wasn’t bound to give a player an independent investigation anyway so all the holes being poked in Wells’ obvious propaganda piece didn’t even matter.
So, Goodell would be best off not mentioning the words “independent” and “investigation” as it relates to the Brady case. Of course, he’d have been better off not talking about anything except this week’s appeal decision handed down, but he can’t help himself.
On Wednesday, he offered this fabrication, saying that the 2-to-1 decision upholding Goodell’s right to suspend Brady and conduct the arbitration hearing in the manner he did, “Reaffirmed our authority and the underlying facts to the case.”
They didn’t reaffirm the underlying facts to the case. Actually, the judges were clear that they were not doing that. They were simply reviewing whether Goodell had the right to suspend for conduct detrimental in this instance and whether he was fair in the arbitration process. Two robes thought he was. The third thought he dispensed his own brand of industrial justice and moved the goalposts during the proceedings.
Spinning and selling. Laughing and lying. All in a day’s work.