I agree with that, with one proviso. "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear" is not foolproof.
Perhaps this requires some elaboration with a hypothetical example to illustrate the problem.
Sly said about half the Packers expressed interest, including at gatherings at Mike Neal's home, while stating that around 10 Packers were using.
Lets say half the Packers did express interest under the belief that Sly had some legal magic formula, then found he didn't, while Sly's claim that 10 enlisted was a gross exaggeration. But lets say only one player signed up who is not under investigation.
So, despite Matthews and Peppers both being innocent, they might still be posed with the following questions:
"Were you ever present at Mike Neal's home when Charlie Sly was also present?"
"If so, who else was present?"
"Have you ever met Charlie Sly or Chad Robertson, and if so who else was present?"
"Do you have any knowledge of an NLF player using a banned substance provided by Sly or Robertson?"
"[fill in the blank with any other leading or pointed questions developed through the investigation]"
Even if innocent, the interviewee might have such knowledge and be placed in a position where he has to make a choice:
1) He can roll over on an infracting player, or just mentioning players in Sly's presence would cast suspicion on others who may undergo new investigations. Even if the player is inclined to answer honestly, the NFLPA will pressure him not to answer, since their interest is in protecting all players in not wanting to open up a Padonra's box by acknowledging the NFL's broad investigative and interrogatory authority in these cases. On the other hand, refusing to answer a question is grounds for suspension in the broad-ranging powers of the Personal Conduct Policy.
Under this scenario, if the NFLPA persuades a player to refuse to answer, and the player is suspended for that reason, they are likely seeking to go back to court to challenge the Personal Conduct Policy on new grounds pertaining to the NFL's interrogatory authority .
2) Or the interviewee could lie, saying he has no knowledge of anybody doing anything. That's risky, not knowing what the investigator has turned up. If he is caught in a lie, he is subject to suspension under the Personal Conduct Policy, and that would be harder to challenge.
So, while a player has nothing to hide about his own conduct, I think it is fair to say he has nothing to fear only if he in truth knows nothin' about nothin'.
Goodell does seem to be striking the pose of a Kenesaw Mountain Landis after a fashion in stridently seeking to "clean up the game". Of course, Landis did not have a union to deal with and could act in dictatorial fashion. He did however restore confidence in the game of baseball.
