So, the arbitrator, he was someone the NFL hires routinely for this sort of thing right? And the league hired him, not Josh Gordon? And he was paid a sum of money by the NFL and routinely cashes checks for these matters, from the NFL?
The arbitrator was appointed to hear the case by Goodell, not by Gordon. Gordon agreed (through the CBA) to allow Goodell to appoint the arbitrator. I believe the arbitrator's fees are paid for by Gordon and the League, 50/50, but I'm not sure.
Doesn't sound like it would be hard to create doubts about the arbitrators impartiality.
Yes. The arbitrator in this case is well respected, but he's obviously closely aligned with the NFL. He used to be an employee of the NFL; I'm not sure if he still is.
What's the standard of doubt for a TRO? It's pretty low right, in favor of the person requesting it?
I don't know what you mean by standard of doubt. But to get a TRO, you have to show, among other things, that you'd be likely to prevail on the merits. And in order to show that -- you pretty much have to show that the arbitrator committed fraud or something similar. Just showing that he's impartial, as long as Gordon agreed to the procedure by which he was appointed, is probably not enough. And similarly, just showing that he got the decision wrong is also not enough, because just getting the decision wrong is not fraud or something similar.
Seems to me if his lawyers are competent, getting a TRO should be easy.
If easy is like a 1% chance, then sure.
Gordon's problem is that he agreed to let Goodell pick the arbitrator, and he agreed that the arbitrator's decision would be final -- not appealable. That's enough that a court won't even double-check the arbitrator's ruling for correctness except in very unusual circumstances (e.g., fraud).
Judges are all really overworked; they have way too many cases. Having people use private arbitration instead of going to court is something that judges
love. So they make rules saying that if something is arbitrated, the parties have waived their day in court. Judges don't even have to bother with it.
If Gordon sues, a judge will have to bother with it -- but only slightly. He'll just check to see if there was fraud or something similar involved, conclude that there wasn't, and that will be that.