No, it really doesn't. Does the report say that Player A was deeply offended by what happened? Unless I'm mistaken, it does not. It merely describes what happens. And what happened, regardless of how McDonald felt about it, is unacceptable behavior in the workplace. This is not a criminal case where the battered wife can refuse to press charges so the police are powerless to do anything. Workplace standards do not exist only within the perception of the behavior by the "victim", and for good reason.
Also, if you're going to call into question the integrity of the investigator, where is your incredulity when it comes to McDonald's statement? Does he not -- as a practice squad player hanging on for dear life to a job -- have an incentive to not be a pseudo plaintiff in this matter?
It's discriminatory to suggest that someone is more able to judge one of these matters because of their race because it implies others are less able to judge it because of their race. The law is clear not to allow people to go down that route, and for good reason. I don't think you meant it this way but it reminds me of the people who thought that the initial district court ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry should have been thrown out because the judge in the case was gay.
I strongly disagree that the player's union was not "necessarily" going to favor one players' interest over the other. The NFLPA represents every player in the Dolphins locker room. Yes, that means they represent Martin, but it also represents every player that he might theoretically accuse. It's a fundamental conflict of interest. They never should have launched an investigation in the first place.
Wells led the investigation, but wasn't he helped by a team of investigators?
