He wrote that the actual standard required for NFL discipline is in fact lower than what would be required for a civil case. Are you disagreeing on the facts of the matter?
Maybe you were trying to say that the standard for discipline should be higher, not lower. You seem to think that we should require the highest legal standard - beyond reasonable doubt - as we do for actual criminal cases. But the argument that NFL discipline should be more similar to criminal cases than civil ones is laughable. His suspension is costing him money. Why should his reputation have anything to do with it?
Right, and I obviously would disagree with their using an even lower standard for NFL discipline.
And I don't think you need to jump from 51% probability to "beyond reasonable doubt." You could also use 60% probability, or 70%, or 80%, or 90%, etc.
And I also disagree that the suspension is costing him only money, but that isn't the point anyway. I would not be ok with imposing a fine on somebody in a criminal case based on more likely than not, since I don't think it is ok to fine people and be wrong 49% of the time. The only reason it is ok in a civil case is because it is a zero sum game and one party has to win and the other has to lose so there is nothing you could base it on except the higher probability.