Peppers, others have 3 choices
And none is good as NFL continues probe into alleged PED use
The NFL’s message to players accused of wrongdoing in the post‘‘ Deflategate’’ world is ominous.
Consider the three options Adolpho Birch, the NFL’s senior vice president of labor policy and affairs, laid out in his letter to the players’ union Monday regarding the Packers’ Julius Peppers and Clay Matthews, the Steelers’ James Harrison and free agent Mike Neal.
After months of delays, the four defenders fingered in an Al- Jazeera America documentary about performance- enhancing drugs by a former intern in an anti- aging clinic — Charlie Sly subsequently recanted his statements as other athletes accused publicly pondered legal action — have exactly 10 days to:
1. Break ranks from the NFL Players Association and submit to interviews with the NFL’s investigators, setting precedent ( by the union’s thinking) that the league can interview anyone about anything without regard for evidence or the source of the allegations
2. Agree to interviews sometime after they’ve been suspended indefinitely Aug. 26 for conduct detrimental ( separate from any possible discipline under the PED policy) and putting the power in commissioner Roger Goodell’s hands to decide when — or if — they’ll be reinstated.
Or, 3. Stand on principle and refuse to submit to interviews under any circumstances, remaining suspended until — well, Birch’s letter doesn’t even address reinstatement in that scenario. Apparently, either they talk or they’re done.
If anybody involved is tempted to think that last possibility is a bluff, consider the resources the NFL spent on ‘‘ Deflategate’’ and Patriots superstar Tom Brady, who will serve a four- game suspension to start this season.
It wasn’t a coincidence the NFLPA put out a terse statement after the league declared Peyton Manning, now retired and no longer a union member, had cooperated fully by providing access interviews and records and wouldn’t be disciplined, saying he knows he ‘‘ would never do anything to hurt or undermine active players in support of those rights.’’
The NFL, buoyed by recent appeals- court decisions in its favor regarding the Brady and Adrian Peterson cases, can cling more strongly than ever to the notion Goodell — he ordered the Aug. 25 deadline for interviews, per Birch’s letter — possesses virtually boundless power under Article 46 of the collective- bargaining agreement.
The union, for all its reasonable criticisms of the NFL’s approach to adjudicating these cases, can’t even dangle the carrot of a successful legal fight in front of these four players based on what has happened recently.
Everybody agrees the players are required to cooperate with investigations. The NFLPA main- tains their sworn statements were sufficient, while the NFL said no. Now here we are, staring at the possibility multiple marquee players won’t be in uniform when the regular season begins next month.
It probably won’t happen. The union can file a grievance and/ or tell each player ( as it did retroactively — and pejoratively — in the statement on Manning) to do whatever he believes is in his best interest. My understanding long has been that some, if not all, of the players have no problem doing the interviews and only are holding out at the union’s request.
If the NFL has nothing beyond Sly’s recanted statements, Harrison, Matthews and Peppers might be off the hook before the season begins. ( Neal, who submitted a sworn statement that he never had violated the PED policy, even though he was suspended in 2012, might not be so lucky.) If there’s ‘‘ sufficient credible evidence,’’ as the policy requires for discipline, the players and union have yet to see it.
But Brady thought he would beat the rap. One of the NFL’s lawyers admitted there was no direct evidence to prove Brady ordered the deflation of footballs, but the federal court system ( at least for now) has upheld the NFL’s decision based on Goodell’s broad powers. The NFLPA still might take that case to the Supreme Court — even though Brady now has accepted his suspension — arguing it follows a pattern of abuses of those powers tracing back to the Saints’ Bountygate case in 2012.
For now, the players involved here have those three options in front of them. All have downsides. And any ripple effects aside, for these players and their careers alone, giving the NFL the cooperation it demands might be the least dangerous choice.