The NFL has "threatened discipline, including suspension, for players refusing to cooperate" with the league's investigation into Al-Jazeera America's PED allegations report, according to Jeremy Fowler of ESPN.com. A letter from the NFL to the NFLPA states that Steelers LB James Harrison, Packers LBs Clay Matthews and Julius Peppers and free agent DE Mike Neal "have until Aug. 25 to comply with the league's requests for interviews." NFL Senior VP/Labor Policy Adolpho Birch wrote that the league "has a 'good faith basis' for investigating potential violations of the NFL's drug policy, yet the league has made at least seven unsuccessful attempts to interview these players" (ESPN.com, 8/15). Birch's letter states that the potential suspensions "would be for conduct detrimental, and separate from any possible discipline the players would face under the league's drug policies." USA TODAY's Tom Pelissero notes each player "would remain suspended until he has participated in an interview with the league's investigators, after which NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell 'will determine whether and when the suspension should be lifted.'" The NFLPA has "argued that players should not be required to cooperate with the investigation because Charlie Sly, the former anti-aging clinic [employee] who implicated the players in hidden-camera footage in the documentary, later recanted his claims" (USATODAY.com, 8/15). Harrison before yesterday's news of the league's threat said, "There’s nothing going on. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a done deal.” Harrison said that he "had heard nothing from the NFL and has no idea if they planned to pursue the matter." Harrison: "That’s something you might want to talk to them about. That’s it. I did what I had to do, my part" (PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE, 8/16).
HERE WE GO AGAIN: In N.Y., Ken Belson writes if the NFL "follows through on its threat," it would "represent a dramatic expansion of the commissioner’s powers to penalize players" (N.Y. TIMES, 8/16). USA TODAY's Jarrett Bell writes, "The line is officially drawn in the sand. And it’s hardly quicksand." Given the "entrenched position" the NFLPA has taken since the allegations became public, "make no assumptions that this deadline will break the logjam." Bell: "Another round of NFL vs. NFLPA legal warfare is seemingly just around the bend" (USA TODAY, 8/16). ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert wrote this is "another maneuver in the now-ubiquitous power struggle between the league and its players." It is "difficult to imagine the limits of the league's powers" (ESPN.com, 8/15). In L.A., Sam Farmer writes the NFL's message was, "Talk to us. Or else" (L.A. TIMES, 8/16).
NEW PRECEDENT: PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio wrote yesterday's "deeper message comes from the NFL’s use of the precedent created by the Tom Brady suspension, appeal, and litigation to threaten the players with suspension for failure to cooperate with a league investigation." Before Brady, no player "had ever been suspended for failing to cooperate with or obstructing a league investigation." Now, based on the Brady precedent, the NFL "has a hammer that it never specifically obtained through bargaining." Florio: "This is precisely why the NFLPA must roll the dice on an appeal of the Brady case from the Second Circuit to the U.S. Supreme Court" (PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 8/15).
TWITTER REAX: SI's Michael McCann: "NFL's legal authority to suspend players implicated by Al Jazeera is enhanced by outcomes in Tom Brady and AP cases." ESPN's Andrew Brandt: "NFL putting deadline (of course) on cooperation such a power play. Felt stonewalled by NFLPA, decided to flex their CBA power once again." CBS Sports' Amy Trask: "Risk to NFL in Al Jazeera matter: PA gets appellate decision which conflicts with Brady/Peterson, SCOTUS grants cert to resolve conflict." CBS Sports' Jason La Canfora: "This AL jazeera-gate thing really ain't about PEDs or even football. It's about how much power NFL wants to continue to impose on players." ESPN's Jim Trotter: "How many games was Favre suspended when he refused to 'cooperate fully' in sexting investigation? #precedence #consistency"
