I think I understand the NFL's position on these things, generally; I also generally understand the courts and how they look at evidence. It's not their (courts) job to look at evidence and try to make it 'fit' a crime, which they have not proven beyond reasonable doubt. In the courts, it's supposed to be black or white; innocent or guilty based in pure facts, with no fragmented suppositions or inuendos to question the voracity of the 'find'. The NFL, on the other hand, is all about the gray area, with little concern for the fringe 'black or white facts' of the issue. Politics play a much greater role with the NFL and their "perceived reputation"....makes it impossible to just look at pure facts. Said that, if he is determined to be 'not gulty' in the courts, and the NFL STILL suspends him for their unclear reasoning, he is being punished for being innocent in a court much higher than the NFL's song and dance approach to these things. Not sure how they (NFL) squares this up.