CBA doesn’t specifically prohibit an indefinite suspension

Getty Images

One of the primary arguments made on behalf of Browns defensive end Myles Garrett in opposition to his indefinite suspension flowed from the idea that the labor deal doesn’t permit an indefinite suspension for on-field misconduct. While that argument didn’t work before hearing officer James Thrash, it has hit the bull’s-eye as to plenty of Browns fans looking for something/anything when defending him.

The only problem is that there’s no basis in the CBA for the notion that an indefinite suspension is prohibited.

Article 46 sets forth the terms and conditions of discipline imposed by the league. It contains no language that would limit the ability of the league to fashion the punishment that was imposed on Garrett.

This likely won’t stop those who are determined to defend the indefensible. To the extent anyone is wondering, however, whether the CBA supports the argument that an indefinite suspension isn’t allowed, it is.

Garrett will miss the rest of the 2019 season. In the offseason, he’ll be required to meet with the Commissioner before a decision is made regarding further discipline or a Week One reinstatement for 2020.

4 responses to “CBA doesn’t specifically prohibit an indefinite suspension

  1. He doesn’t seem very smart so it’s going to be interesting to see how he plays things now that the suspension wasn’t reduced. The smart play would be contrition and letting his crazy racial accusations die away. But if he goes the opposite route and doubles down, accusing the NFL of hiding evidence of the supposed slur, he’ll never see the field again.

  2. Indefinite suspension just means the guy that gets paid the big bucks to make decisions is indecisive.

    But he’s insulated by “yes men” that will never question the indecisiveness of the decision maker.

  3. All of this is just going to make the Browns more determined to come to Rustburg and embarrass “One-TD-Rudolph” and his old, slow O-line.

  4. Interesting that a lawyer would not reference the legal interpretation concept,”Expressio unius est exclusio alterius” – the expression of one thing excludes all others. The CBA schedule of penalties should exclude the imposition of uncapped penalties such as those levied by the NFL. Does the governing law of he CBA allow disregard of such long standing legal interpretation principles? This is not about Garrett’s act but about the conduct of the NFL. The NFLPA should file a grievance to stop the NFL from unilaterally rewriting the CBA (and contract law principles).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!