The writer publishes Goodall's remarks but his stance is skewed. From the article:
Goodell: "Well, I think we were very clear in the letter, in Troy’s letter, that noncooperation was a factor in the discipline, absolutely. You point out in Director Muller’s investigation there was full cooperation, he had access to every text, every email, every bit of communication that I had and that everyone in our office had and there were no restrictions on that whatsoever. So, we do expect to have that in investigations. That’s an important part of it and when there isn’t full cooperation, that is certainly part of the discipline."
So the commissioner is arguing that the same level of access the league granted, related to the issue under scrutiny, should be expected from players. And absent a pleading the 5th sort of scenario, he's absolutely right.
The writer asks why the NFL thinks this is okay. Instead he should be asking himself why it isn't. This isn't a court of law or a criminal prosecution. This is a contractually negotiated position relating to job performance and standards.
The bias of the writer of this article is hard to miss. He calls Roger disingenuous in the remarks because the Muller investigation called for league issued devices to be turned over and not personal ones. Well, we don't know that personal devices weren't turned over, but then Brady wasn't at any point asked for his personal device to be turned over to anyone other than his lawyer, who was given an almost naive latitude to decide, without someone else checking, what would be turned over for consideration.
The writer likens that to a mandate that Brady jump through hoops. And he says the NFL is playing FBI and drunk on its own power...because it said to Brady's lawyer, "Look over his emails and texts and give us what directly relates to the issue...and we'll take your word that you've done that."
Yeah, that's pretty Draconian stuff.
