Was Jon Gruden the outlier, or were his comments a reflection of the manner in which people communicate in the NFL?
The NFL believes it’s the former, and the NFL presumably would appreciate it if we take their word for it. Even if no one is willing to attach their name to it.
The Associated Press reports that the league “did not identify other areas and other individuals it has to contact at club leadership or league leadership levels” based on the emails generated by the Washington Football Team investigation.
“The NFL did not identify any problems anywhere near what you saw with Jon Gruden,” an unnamed source told the Associated Press.
If that’s the case, let’s have a name. Let’s have an on-the-record quote. Let’s have someone whose ass is on the line if/when someone else gets taken down by the weaponized trove of 650,000 emails, which already has wiped out Gruden’s career and potentially threatens the ongoing tenure of NFL general counsel Jeff Pash.
As to Pash, the NFL has shrugged at his emails to former Washington president Bruce Allen. So even if someone sent emails not nearly as toxic as Gruden’s, it’s possible that those emails were problematic, but that the league would contend they aren’t. Pash’s are, but the league was inclined to look the other way.
For who else are they looking the other way, and is there any way of knowing whether, eventually, they won’t?
These are all fair questions, which can be resolved only if all of the emails are released. Indeed, if there are no problematic emails . . . WHY NOT RELEASE ALL OF THEM?
The league justified hiding all information about the WFT investigation by claiming that it needed to protect the people who came forward with allegations and information. That’s irrelevant to the emails. And if the emails are innocuous, let’s see them. Let’s get it all on the table.
And let’s not provide self-serving, off-the-record statements to media outlets. As media outlets, let’s refuse to use these statements unless someone goes on the record.