Brady Wins, Deflategate Suspension Nullified

[Cynjin]

No where did I see any such posts, using the words "wishing".

I did see a post saying something to the effect of "don't feel bad if he gets a broken leg", still that didn't say he wished it, and btw, that post was from a Packer Backer.

Credit where credit is due.

 

I saw the word "hope" in one post and "fitting" in another.  That's not exactly saying they don't want to see Brady injured now is it?  I would say it is much closer to the posters wishing for an injury.

[Gramz]

No...you all know what you think you know. 

 

The actual fact is,somebody knows what the truth is and as a result, he won't be punished.

fixed it for you  ;)  

[Gramz]

I saw the word "hope" in one post and "fitting" in another.  That's not exactly saying they don't want to see Brady injured now is it?  I would say it is much closer to the posters wishing for an injury.

You're correct.  I just went back and saw Ruk's post.  I had missed that one.

 

Once again,  one or two posts is not an entire fan base.   

[dynasty13]

fixed it for you  ;)  

 

Touche ;)

[Cynjin]

You're correct.  I just went back and saw Ruk's post.  I had missed that one.

 

Once again,  one or two posts is not an entire fan base.   

 

Completely agree, that is the issue I had with V's post.  He likes to call other posters out, but is seemingly unwilling to notice the absolute misrepresentations in his own.

[12dalegend]

Revenge is a word used from fans and the media. The players play their game to their best of their ability and once the coin is flipped it makes no difference.

"Aloha oi" which means "a fond farewell" GO COLTS!

[12dalegend]

Yes, I agree. I think as I said to Superman, the judge in the first hearing was trying to understand the merits of the case before then getting into the process and just based on the first hearing, he had serious concerns about what the NFL was alleging Brady to have done with no evidence. This IMO is when the NFL really needed to think about settling because by the time the second hearing came and he tore into the process of both the appeal and how the league came up with Brady's punishment, it became apparent which way he was going to rule despite all the talking heads and TV lawyers saying he was going to rule for the NFL because they had the stronger case. The opposite was true in reality. He was trying to show them just weak their case was and just how blistering his ruling was going to be and they still wanted that instead of potentially having Brady take a game and walk away without being humiliated. Honestly, that is the part that makes no sense to me at all.

Yes, Goodell should have took the 1 game instead of being a hard@$$, now wants to appeal which is a total waste of time and money, but am happy Brady is playing and canʻt wait for the season to start.....Aloha oi

[12dalegend]

Why would they need the revenge/hate card if they are innocent........

 

They donʻt realize that other teams will be motivated by the outcome of this too, not wishing someone to get hurt but theyʻre opponents will probably be overly aggressive #revenge/hate

[DougDew]

Just wanted to jump in here for a moment and make a point.

A sports league commissioner has unyielding power to take disciplinary action. The areas in which he doesn't are the areas that are specifically negotiated by the NFLPA.....personal conduct, PED's, substances etc...

In the absence of written protocol, the Commissioner has the power to do what he wants.

The judge read it the opposite. And wrongly so, which is why the NFL is appealing. He is basically saying that since there is no protocol or basis by which to inflict punishment for the offense, the commish can't do anything, and must abide by labor laws.

That logic would be relevant if we were talking about an employee that has a job that transcends the NFL, meaning, a janitor or admin assistant, etc....where the duties apply to a multitude of civilian corporations. In the absence of specific corporate policy regarding discipline, federal labor laws apply, and a CEO cannot violate them. In fact, a Union can't even negotiate them away. Goodell does not have the right to punish the janitor of Gillette stadium any way he wants, or likely even an equipment manager who's skills can get him employed by a University football program. Those jobs are governed by common labor law.

But an NFL football player is not a typical employee. He can't get a job using his skills in any other venue. Its a close-knit organization that establishes and sets rules of conduct how they see fit. Even though he is technically represented by a Union, a QB isn't common labor. The rulebook and the CBA solely define what constitutes an offense for these types of employees...not the same thing as a law passed by government. That's why the CBA gives Goodell the power to impose discipline in the areas not explicitly covered and negotiated by the CBA.

The judge's logic in applying common labor law is simply wrong. As well as applying the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". That concept simply doesn't apply to a private organization disciplining one of its own unique employees according to the rules they agree to abide by, and where they agree to give the commish power to impose discipline in those areas not explicitly negotiated.....like something as obscure as the deflation of football's

The judge's statements are just so badly flawed on so many levels. Obviously a pure ideologue.

[12dalegend]

Berman's charter was to rule on the process of the CBA and the appeal. I am not sure what to tell you but if you listen or read the transcripts of the two hearings, it was clear that Berman felt Brady was innocent as the NFL had no evidence that he did anything in the AFCCG and Daniel Nash of the NFL agreed. Berman also said over and over that the NFL failed to prove that the Brady was directing any type of scheme to deflate footballs.

 

That being said, in terms of precedent, this is a big case for the players. I was listening last night on the radio and they were saying how Brady's legacy will indeed be impacted by this ruling as current and future players can use his case as precedent and future federal judges can and will follow Berman's lead in terms of making everything the NFL does public.

 

Also, in terms of the second circuit court of appeals. The turnover rate of these civil decisions is 7.5%. A higher bar for the NFL to attain than was Brady's to win his case at the fed level. Also, they are taking a big risk with the appeal for this reason:

Daniel Wallach ‏@WALLACHLEGAL 15h15 hours ago

Big risk to NFL by appealing: Second Circuit affirmance would have greater weight nationally than one SDNY opinion. Law of the shop indeed.

Goodell bungled this from the start by not notifying the NFLPA and including them in the investigation of 1 of theyʻre players....heck they should even have included them in the sting they set up for the Pats...this will totally change the landscape of the NFL and itʻs policies

[12dalegend]

As I said before - the fact that it the judge clearly told both sides to come to a compromise is the likely tipping point.

 

Brady was willing to budge a little with a one game suspension.

The NFL was not budging AT ALL.

 

So, the outcome is not at all surprising. If the NFL had half a brain cell between their entirety to put a case together,this should have been over and done with a long time ago.If they at least TRIED to compromise they probably could have got two games. Brady got off on a technicality, (in this case, inept/biased investigation process) but it's still obvious he knew of it.

 

In punishment, not guilty. In reality, guilty as sin and that's really all that matters. His rep has been permanently damaged either way. Then again, so has the NFL's for their utter incompetence.

 

I look forward to no more touching the Brady penalties.

Exactly...Goodell #@$% up...should have swallowed some pride and took the 1 game and end this on an even basis instead Brady walks away exonerated and Goodell walks away looking foolish

[ColtsBlueFL]

Just wanted to jump in here for a moment and make a point.

A sports league commissioner has unyielding power to take disciplinary action. The areas in which he doesn't are the areas that are specifically negotiated by the NFLPA.....personal conduct, PED's, substances etc...

In the absence of written protocol, the Commissioner has the power to do what he wants.

The judge read it the opposite. And wrongly so, which is why the NFL is appealing. He is basically saying that since there is no protocol or basis by which to inflict punishment for the offense, the commish can't do anything, and must abide by labor laws.

That logic would be relevant if we were talking about an employee that has a job that transcends the NFL, meaning, a janitor or admin assistant, etc....where the duties apply to a multitude of civilian corporations. In the absence of specific corporate policy regarding discipline, federal labor laws apply, and a CEO cannot violate them. In fact, a Union can't even negotiate them away. Goodell does not have the right to punish the janitor of Gillette stadium any way he wants, or likely even an equipment manager who's skills can get him employed by a University football program. Those jobs are governed by common labor law.

But an NFL football player is not a typical employee. He can't get a job using his skills in any other venue. Its a close-knit organization that establishes and sets rules of conduct how they see fit. Even though he is technically represented by a Union, a QB isn't common labor. The rulebook and the CBA solely define what constitutes an offense for these types of employees...not the same thing as a law passed by government. That's why the CBA gives Goodell the power to impose discipline in the areas not explicitly covered and negotiated by the CBA.

The judge's logic in applying common labor law is simply wrong.

 

Agreed with much here, and some of us realize there is no way an employer can conceive of every infraction and write rules and specific punishment for it.

 

By the same token, the NFL took some eye opening tactics.  Like having Mr. Pash edit the Wells report, but not be available for cross examination in Brady's appeal hearing.  Or keeping requested documents for discovery away from Brady's legal team terming the information 'privileged', or publicly praising Wells for a thorough, "independent" report and later admitting it wasn't independent and didn't have to be while also making himself look locked in to being in support of it and unable to reach a contrary decision in Brady's appeal; if it was shown,  etc...

 

In my eyes, the NFL snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.  They should drop back 10 and punt now...

[ViriLudant]

They donʻt realize that other teams will be motivated by the outcome of this too, not wishing someone to get hurt but theyʻre opponents will probably be overly aggressive #revenge/hate

...

Except other teams' defensive players have spoken up in favor of Brady.

[12dalegend]

Then go to a Pats forum if you dislike it

Yes stick to your own forum...the only other football site I go to is NFL. com and Nebraska "my old alumni" but you will never see me trollin on another NFL team site #COLT4LIFE

[ViriLudant]

Just wanted to jump in here for a moment and make a point.

A sports league commissioner has unyielding power to take disciplinary action. The areas in which he doesn't are the areas that are specifically negotiated by the NFLPA.....personal conduct, PED's, substances etc...

In the absence of written protocol, the Commissioner has the power to do what he wants.

The judge read it the opposite. And wrongly so, which is why the NFL is appealing. He is basically saying that since there is no protocol or basis by which to inflict punishment for the offense, the commish can't do anything, and must abide by labor laws.

That logic would be relevant if we were talking about an employee that has a job that transcends the NFL, meaning, a janitor or admin assistant, etc....where the duties apply to a multitude of civilian corporations. In the absence of specific corporate policy regarding discipline, federal labor laws apply, and a CEO cannot violate them. In fact, a Union can't even negotiate them away. Goodell does not have the right to punish the janitor of Gillette stadium any way he wants, or likely even an equipment manager who's skills can get him employed by a University football program. Those jobs are governed by common labor law.

But an NFL football player is not a typical employee. He can't get a job using his skills in any other venue. Its a close-knit organization that establishes and sets rules of conduct how they see fit. Even though he is technically represented by a Union, a QB isn't common labor. The rulebook and the CBA solely define what constitutes an offense for these types of employees...not the same thing as a law passed by government. That's why the CBA gives Goodell the power to impose discipline in the areas not explicitly covered and negotiated by the CBA.

The judge's logic in applying common labor law is simply wrong. As well as applying the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". That concept simply doesn't apply to a private organization disciplining one of its own unique employees according to the rules they agree to abide by, and where they agree to give the commish power to impose discipline in those areas not explicitly negotiated.....like something as obscure as the deflation of football's

The judge's statements are just so badly flawed on so many levels. Obviously a pure ideologue.

This post is so wrong that it's clear that you do not understand the law of the shop or any of the other various laws that were cited throughout this case.

It's only in this website do we find people misinterpreting what happened yesterday. Read the SI article by the legal professor (McCann?). He explains it well.

[12dalegend]

...

Except other teams' defensive players have spoken up in favor of Brady.

Of course they will, nobody really tells the truth nowadays  

[Nadine]

I think this is the topic that some people love to hate.

 

I've removed a few posts.  Moving forward, lets not

• sterotype fan bases
• wish harm on anyone
• take personal shots at the reading skills of others

Not sure what else there is to do here other than those things but, see if you can avoid them.

 

Thank you

[DougDew]

This post is so wrong that it's clear that you do not understand the law of the shop or any of the other various laws that were cited throughout this case.

It's only in this website do we find people misinterpreting what happened yesterday. Read the SI article by the legal professor (McCann?). He explains it well.

You people are in a feedback loop and keeping citing the same kinds of sources. A lot of people who make a lot of money to give opinions to a lot of people apparently can't think out of the box. Its the same sources, same texbooks, same kool aid.

If real logic was applied consistently throughout the process and not truncated at a point of convenience, you folks would realize that those laws are moot when it comes to how a professional football league polices one of its professional football players. If the CBA is silent, the Commish can do what he wants to and IN THE MANNER HE WANTS TO as long as it is deemed to be without malice. Then it would become criminal.

He can't violate criminal laws...but the situation involves suspending a professional football player for his role in the deflation of footballs and sincere judgment about what the penalty should be to foster the integrity of the profession...nothing criminal is even remotely suggested. The entire wrongdoing and discipline thereof doesn't even exist in the common world...it exists in the unique world of professional football. A world that is uniquely created by those responsible for policing it.

The entire universe of common laws doesn't even apply.

How can so many highly educated people be so dense, evidenced by continually citing the same laws from the same irrelevant books and precedent's?

[amfootball]

They donʻt realize that other teams will be motivated by the outcome of this too, not wishing someone to get hurt but theyʻre opponents will probably be overly aggressive #revenge/hate

The players are happy Brady won. This was a huge win for them and the PA.

[ColtsBlueFL]

I think this is the topic that some people love to hate.

 

I've removed a few posts.  Moving forward, lets not

• sterotype fan bases
• wish harm on anyone
• take personal shots at the reading skills of others

Not sure what else there is to do here other than those things but, see if you can avoid them.

 

Thank you

 

Yup!  Looks like the thread is pretty much... done!  ;   LOL.

[pgt_rob]

The players are happy Brady won. This was a huge win for them and the PA.

 

There were a number of players who don't agree with it (I remember reading some Twitter comments a while back). However, any players who do say something now will probably get a huge back lash against them.

 

I'm ready for some football already!

[amfootball]

There were a number of players who don't agree with it (I remember reading some Twitter comments a while back). However, any players who do say something now will probably get a huge back lash against them.

 

I'm ready for some football already!

Twitter literally exploded yesterday with players voicing their support. This was a precedent setting case and one that every player will benefit from going forward. If anyone is steaming, it is the owners and not at Brady but at the league's bugling of the whole thing to where they got lambasted again in court.

[12dalegend]

The players are happy Brady won. This was a huge win for them and the PA.

Yes congratulations Iʻm glad the fans have Brady back it wouldʻnt be right without him in the backfield....and this will totally change the landscape of the NFL, Goodell and the way they handle cheating and suspensions because the NFLPA should have been included in everything 

[BullsColtsFan1]

TJ Wards response on being suspended.

 

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/broncos-ward-laments-my-last-names-not-brady?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo

[pgt_rob]

Twitter literally exploded yesterday with players voicing their support. This was a precedent setting case and one that every player will benefit from going forward. If anyone is steaming, it is the owners and not at Brady but at the league's bugling of the whole thing to where they got lambasted again in court.

 

I'm sure there was. I'm talking about the players that aren't voicing their support a few months back. lol They were posted in the original deflategate thread somewhere. ::

 

I found this article to be interesting and it coming from a criminal defense attorney:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-sali/tom-bradys-legal-victory-_b_8085134.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[amfootball]

I'm sure there was. I'm talking about the players that aren't voicing their support a few months back. lol They were posted in the original deflategate thread somewhere. : :

 

I found this article to be interesting and it coming from a criminal defense attorney:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-sali/tom-bradys-legal-victory-_b_8085134.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Federal court judge's decisions are reversed 7.5% of the time by the second circuit and Bermans are reversed even less than that. Most understand this filing by the NFL is just to save face.

[pgt_rob]

Federal court judge's decisions are reversed 7.5% of the time by the second circuit and Bermans are reversed even less than that. Most understand this filing by the NFL is just to save face.

 

It's ok. I just found it interesting is all. I'm looking forward to watching football and seeing the Colts beat the Patriots this year.

[DougDew]

By the same token, the NFL took some eye opening tactics.  Like having Mr. Pash edit the Wells report, but not be available for cross examination in Brady's appeal hearing.  Or keeping requested documents for discovery away from Brady's legal team terming the information 'privileged', or publicly praising Wells for a thorough, "independent" report and later admitting it wasn't independent and didn't have to be while also making himself look locked in to being in support of it and unable to reach a contrary decision in Brady's appeal; if it was shown,  etc...

I hear what you are saying, but, I would put the entire situation of events you describe above into one box and describe it as "The NFL trying to prove guilt". That's the issue. They don't have too. That's what a lot of people just refuse to accept. If he bungled it...it doesn't matter. Its moot.

None of it matters. Its a sports league. They don't have to prove anything in order to discipline. They only need investigations and appeals as a way to comply with the CBA and as a way to provide the paying public with comfort that the decision was fair. They don't need to follow that process for other legal reasons.

[ColtRider]

No...you all know what you think you know. 

 

The actual fact is, nobody knows what the truth is and as a result, he won't be punished.

No...you all know what you think you know...yet you think you know what we think we know...

[ColtRider]

You people are in a feedback loop and keeping citing the same kinds of sources. A lot of people who make a lot of money to give opinions to a lot of people apparently can't think out of the box. Its the same sources, same texbooks, same kool aid.If real logic was applied consistently throughout the process and not truncated at a point of convenience, you folks would realize that those laws are moot when it comes to how a professional football league polices one of its professional football players. If the CBA is silent, the Commish can do what he wants to and IN THE MANNER HE WANTS TO as long as it is deemed to be without malice. Then it would become criminal.He can't violate criminal laws...but the situation involves suspending a professional football player for his role in the deflation of footballs and sincere judgment about what the penalty should be to foster the integrity of the profession...nothing criminal is even remotely suggested. The entire wrongdoing and discipline thereof doesn't even exist in the common world...it exists in the unique world of professional football. A world that is uniquely created by those responsible for policing it.The entire universe of common laws doesn't even apply.How can so many highly educated people be so dense, evidenced by continually citing the same laws from the same irrelevant books and precedent's?

Thanks for the "common sense" post, DD! I'm afraid that "common sense" was tossed out the window many years back and no safety net to catch it. It's the world we live in. Screwed up to the maximoso.

[Yehoodi]

Your argument is so intellectually dishonest that I don't know where to begin. But I'm spinning things? 

 

1) It's stupid. The Brady situation has no relation or similarity to the Favre case. Just because a phone was involved doesn't mean the cases are similar.

 

2a) The NFL determined that Brady was involved in this plan to tamper with the footballs. Are you new?

 

2b) Did you miss the word "only" in my previous comment? As in "Brady wasn't suspended only for non cooperation"?

 

3) No they don't have to determine guilt in line with how other cases have been handled. They have to determine punishment in line with precedent, to a certain extent. It was up to the NFL to determine whether they thought Brady was guilty or not. How they ruled makes it clear what they thought.

 

Jay Feely was never accused of tampering with footballs. Brady was accused, investigated, and found to be involved in tampering with footballs, by the NFL. The merits of that accusation, investigation and conclusion are another story; the accusation, investigation and conclusion are what they are, and they alone make the Brady case far different from the non-case that somewhat involved Jay Feely. Long and short, it was NOT the same thing.

 

I am not trying to add a label. There is a difference between detrimental conduct and obstructing the investigation pertaining to detrimental conduct. I am not trying to lump them together; you are the one doing that. There is no spin. The NFL said 'we believe Brady was involved in this ball tampering, and he refused to cooperate. On those grounds, he's suspended four games.' If you can't understand the nuances of that fairly simple conclusion, I don't know what else to say.

 

So my argument is intellectually dishonest, really? 

 

First off, not so sure why you question my reading comprehension as I discussed both grounds for the violation (non coop and ball tampering).  So you may want to read my posts before you start to takes shots at me, thank you.

 

I asked you to read Goodell and Vincent findings and they both found that Brady was suspended for both non coop and being involved with the alleged ball tampering with Goodell claiming that Brady was involved with a scheme and Vincent finding that Brady was generally aware of the action.  I discussed both of these in turn in a post to you (#342), talking about the non coop and that the ball tampering was equivalent to an equipment violation with the closest analogy being stickem on a glove which only carries like a $8600.  So I have discussed the two. 

 

I furthermore addressed the issue of conduct detrimental and that you just can not put a label on something and call it conduct detrimental, regardless of what Goodell thinks or says.  That was the duck point and fancy labels (you can not stick a goose label on a duck and call it a goose anymore than you stick a conduct detrimental on an action which has not been deemed the same in the past)

 

In another words, if week one TY Hilton is caught with stickem that act can not all of sudden be deemed conduct detrimental just because you and I think so.  The history behind the use of stickem is essentially silent on this matter and you can not just come out of nowhere and claim it is on 9/13/15.   That is my and the judge's point.   You can say whatever you want to say, but it must still pass legal muster, whether you like it or not.  And I see that you do not, well then you are no worse than Goodell and have not learned your lesson from the prior cases.

 

And just because you say it something and thereafter try to bootstrap a penalty in that other category does not mean you can make it stick.  In another words you and I can not sit at a table, look at TY Hilton and say "gees straight up stickem is only $8600 fine, hey lets say that we find that it is conduct detrimental to the league as he gained an unfair advantage with catching balls, as is it what stickem does, and we labeled it conduct detrimental and we can then suspend him four games as opposed to only giving the enumerated $8,600 fine."   See you can not do that, TY Hilton and the rest of the league needs to be on notice prior to his actions such that the stickem act will either carry a suspension on its own or be deemed conduct detrimental.  It is a very simple concept to understand, for those would want to understand.  Simply put stickem does not carry a suspension as a penalty nor has it been deemed to be conduct detrimental, so you can not now invoke or claim either. 

 

The problem for the NFL is all we have is some circumstantial evidence of ball tampering and no direct evidence of Brady being involved with the same, but we have direct evidence of non cooperation by Brady, the latter of which is easier to make stick and any associated penalty attached as there is direct evidence of the act. 

 

Trouble is that the strongest case, the non coop, has only ever carried a fine at worst; and as such, no player would be on notice that non coop would result in a suspension, so you can not suspend.  Period.  Now if you want to find me an analogy of a prior non coop case with a penalty I am all ears and we can discuss which particular prior non coop you think is most analogous to the instant case and then compare the penalties.  You want to find me one Supes?   

 

I only mentioned Farve because it involves the refusal of handing over a phone which contained, in the NFL's opinion, alleged evidence pertinent to their investigation.  Hmm . . . lets go over that again: 1) NFL investigation, 2) NFL player, 3) a phone, 4) NFL's opinion that said phone contains pertinent evidence, 5) Player's refusal to hand over the phone.  Do those 5 points remind you of anything?  When you find me an analogous case to the Brady case for non coop, I am willing to listen. (oh and just a note, regardless of whatever you find I know one thing, you will not find one with an associated suspension, just a little tip).  Now if you want to fine him more than Favre as you think the underlying crime seems more serious, go ahead.  And btw I have already discussed this point when I mentioned fine Brady 50-150k (where Favre only got 50k).

 

That now brings us to the underlying act.  First off, it is more akin to a equipment violation and not PED usage, I will defer to the judge's ruling on that for your reading.  Second, even if one were to determine that Brady was indeed involved with a scheme to deflate balls, you still can not suspend as no one has ever been suspended before for such an act.  And again, the player needs to be on notice that such actions will result in a suspension.  I will also defer for your reading to the judge's ruling on this matter.  

 

But in short, in all of the cases we discussed over the past 8 months regarding this subject, including but not limited to the Jets game, SD game, Car/ Vik game, Aaron Rodgers, and so on, never once did the NFL ever state that the actions by the team or player were deemed conduct detrimental or would carry a suspension.  Indeed, to the contrary the NFL has acted the opposite taking a lax "move along boys" attitude towards such actions.  And as such, you can not all of a sudden change your tune just because of the color of the jersey or the yells of the peanut gallery.  That is where the lady justice is blind comes in.

 

Bottom line, you can stick your head in the sand, claim folks arguments are "intellectually dishonest", but in the end of the day you can not deny the legal fact that our country is based on the principle that one needs to be on notice that his actions carry a specific enumerated penalty, and that has carried over to labor laws whether you like it or not.  And given the laws and actions of the NFL do not direct a suspension is warranted or has been sought for the actions Brady is accused of prevents one from handing down a suspension.  Period.   

[Johnhenry]

I hear what you are saying, but, I would put the entire situation of events you describe above into one box and describe it as "The NFL trying to prove guilt". That's the issue. They don't have too. That's what a lot of people just refuse to accept. If he bungled it...it doesn't matter. Its moot.

None of it matters. Its a sports league. They don't have to prove anything in order to discipline. They only need investigations and appeals as a way to comply with the CBA and as a way to provide the paying public with comfort that the decision was fair. They don't need to follow that process for other legal reasons.

Apparently the judge doesn't agree with you about any of this.

[Yehoodi]

Federal court judge's decisions are reversed 7.5% of the time by the second circuit and Bermans are reversed even less than that. Most understand this filing by the NFL is just to save face.

 

Yes 7.5% are reversed but that is kind of skewed as likely a lot of appeals should not even be taken up on appeal, so the number might be higher for cases that have a meritorious appeal. Time will tell if the NFL decides to drop it or continue, they may want to do the latter. 

 

As for the merits of the appeal, I do not see it, but time will tell. 

[Yehoodi]

It's ok. I just found it interesting is all. I'm looking forward to watching football and seeing the Colts beat the Patriots this year.

 

Yes after all of this, it is fun to look forward to some football.

 

Any appeals on this case will not occur till next off season at the earliest.

 

Thanks for posting the article from the Oregon attorney, it was a nice read.  I do not agree with him but found the read interesting, thanks for posting.

[IndySouthsider]

Yes, that is the best part. THREE federal judges now have ruled against them on PROCESS. It is the clown show on Park Avenue and every single player should be doing the dance of joy as now maybe the league will have to address its silliness. I am not hopeful though but this is big.

Or a long labor dispute?

[Yehoodi]

You people are in a feedback loop and keeping citing the same kinds of sources. A lot of people who make a lot of money to give opinions to a lot of people apparently can't think out of the box. Its the same sources, same texbooks, same kool aid.

If real logic was applied consistently throughout the process and not truncated at a point of convenience, you folks would realize that those laws are moot when it comes to how a professional football league polices one of its professional football players. If the CBA is silent, the Commish can do what he wants to and IN THE MANNER HE WANTS TO as long as it is deemed to be without malice. Then it would become criminal.

He can't violate criminal laws...but the situation involves suspending a professional football player for his role in the deflation of footballs and sincere judgment about what the penalty should be to foster the integrity of the profession...nothing criminal is even remotely suggested. The entire wrongdoing and discipline thereof doesn't even exist in the common world...it exists in the unique world of professional football. A world that is uniquely created by those responsible for policing it.

The entire universe of common laws doesn't even apply.

How can so many highly educated people be so dense, evidenced by continually citing the same laws from the same irrelevant books and precedent's?

 

 

You apparently have missed the following:

 

The CBA is a contract between a labor union and a management group. 

 

It is therefore a contract and a contract involving labor relations.

 

As such, it is subordinate to both contract law and labor laws.  When there is a conflict between the labor laws and the face of a CBA or how it is applied the former controls.

 

Labor laws require that the union member be put on notice that a specific act carry an enumerated penalty prior to the latter being imposed. 

 

In the instant case Brady was not on notice that any of his actions would carry a penalty of a suspension.

 

Accordingly, he can not be suspended.  Period.

 

What surprises me DougDew is the list of folks on this board can not follow the above simple logical progression.

[jjcolts]

No...you all know what you think you know. 

 

The actual fact is, nobody knows what the truth is and as a result, he won't be punished.

And you can believe what you want to believe too.

 

Barry Bonds was never convicted but we all know he did steroids.   (this is coming from a SF Giants Fan - and still think Barry is one of the greatest)

[DougDew]

Apparently the judge doesn't agree with you about any of this.

Correct. However, his initial action was to toss it back to the parties to try to work it out. It tells me that he thought the whole thing was a bunch of hooey anyway. But I guess he's obligated to have some sort of ruling once the court accepted the case in the first place.

I don't know the legal procedures, but the correct decision by the court was probably to not ever take the case in the first place, since it really doesn't involve an interpretation of labor laws that impact 99.99999999% of society.

[Gramz]

I'll admit I don't understand all of the legal jargon, and at this point, I don't even want to try.   My brain hurts

 

I do understand "common sense"  and that seems to be becoming extinct.

 

 

I think we all should go back and read

 

"All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten"

 

by Robert Fulghum

Most of what I really need
To know about how to live
And what to do and how to be
I learned in kindergarten.
Wisdom was not at the top
Of the graduate school mountain,
But there in the sandpile at Sunday school.

These are the things I learned:

Share everything.
Play fair.
Don't hit people.
Put things back where you found them.
Clean up your own mess.
Don't take things that aren't yours.
Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody.
Wash your hands before you eat.
Flush.
Warm cookies and cold milk are good for you.
Live a balanced life -
Learn some and think some
And draw and paint and sing and dance
And play and work everyday some.
Take a nap every afternoon.
When you go out into the world,
Watch out for traffic,
Hold hands and stick together.
Be aware of wonder.

[DougDew]

You apparently have missed the following:

 

 

Labor laws require that the union member be put on notice that a specific act carry an enumerated penalty prior to the latter being imposed.

Correct. And in the business world, if that agreement is silent as to the specific act and penalty, the company can't impose one. Its not implied that the CEO can do what he wants.

In the NFL, if the agreement is silent as to the penalty, the CBA gives the commish the ability to impose what he wants, as long as it imposed with the integrity of the league in mind and without malice towards the employee. They agreed to that power because both sides have a vested interest in fostering the integrity of the NFL.

Agreeing to that power renders common labor laws moot.

OTOH, Goodell doesn't have that power over custodians and other employees not covered by the CBA.

Its also why Goodell is called a Commissioner, and not a CEO. Different power, both agreed to and implied.

A child can understand the difference. Apparently the judge can't.

The judge reverted back to common labor law interpretation and said that if the CBA is silent, then no penalty can be imposed. Like is the case in the normal business world. That's the wrong interpretation.