"How can everybody think that when there's been no proof that's been put forth thus far?" he said. "There's been an investigation; there's been a lot of stuff put in the media as to what was going on. But is there any proof to back that up? No, there's not. Not yet."
Is honesty truly paramount to you? If so, why did you take Anthony Hargrove's declaration and state that it said things that it did not say? Is that honest? Why did you state that Anthony "admitted to lying" when he has done no such thing? Do you hold yourself to the same standard as you hold others? Have you "admitted to lying"? To clarify, would you consider it lying to say someone "admitted to lying" when they did not do so? And why did you not consider the remarkably difficult situation that Anthony was put in by his coaches, who to him were the NFL"? What would you have done if you had been back in the NFL for less than a year, having served a year-long suspension, with the threat of your career ending (again) hanging over your head? Would you have disobeyed your employer? Would you now? And is it possible that the interview was about semantics, anyway?
Though a truncated appeal hearing makes plenty of sense when there’s no dispute about what a player did and the only issue is the extent of his punishment, something far more detailed is necessary where, as in this case, the suspended players sharply disagree with the serious allegations made against them. For a league that is so concerned about public confidence in the integrity of the game, the NFL should at least be a little concerned about public confidence in the integrity of the league.