Patriots quarterback Tom Brady continues to wonder why NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did not simply hand down a fine for Deflategate.
On Monday morning, the head of Brady's legal team, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, told ESPN Radio's Mike and Mike show that Goodell's process for doling out Brady's four-game suspension was rife with inconsistencies.
"Commissioner Goodell appointed himself as the appellate judge so to speak, an arbitrator, which is supposed to be a neutral person," said Olson. "Instead, what the commissioner did is change the decision, and decide on different grounds, different facts, on a different basis.
"(That’s) not what an appellate judge does at all, and in the process, he overlooked the provisions in the collective bargaining agreement, or ignored them, having to do with equipment issues, which is what this case was all about."
Article 46 of the NFL's collective bargaining agreement grants the commissioner broad powers to punish, but Olson argued that those powers were not broad enough to discipline Brady with a four-game suspension.
In a draft of the petition for rehearing that was filed to the Second Circuit on Monday, Olson and the rest of Brady's legal team argued that because Goodell ignored the scheduled punishments for equipment violations cited in the CBA as they pertained to Brady's case, the suspension could be vacated.
"He should have looked at and evaluated the punishment that is prescribed in the collective bargaining agreement with respect to equipment," Olson said.
He added: "If [Goodell is] going to exercise those broad powers, he has a responsibility under the collective bargaining agreement to do so in good faith. That means he would have to look at the provisions that are obviously appropriate to questions involving tampering with equipment."