BigSoxFan said:
Wasn't it Mazz who took info from here on a private subforum and printed it, arguing that it was public info or something like that?
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Wasn't it Mazz who took info from here on a private subforum and printed it, arguing that it was public info or something like that?
Also an excellent point.BigSoxFan said:
I still wonder if Brady and co would be amenable to the idea of a fine and vacated suspension. I hear those who say that would be "increasing the penalty" and, hence, not consistent with the CBA, but find that logic hard to understand. A fine in place of a suspension is clearly a reduced penalty, both in terms of optical "severity" and the fact that lost game checks are, in effect, a fine (and a substantially larger fine at that).
If Goodell vacated the suspension (for whatever reason: on the grounds of faulty science, no real evidence, etc.) and imposed, say a $250K fine on Brady for not cooperating but with no stipulation that Brady admit guilt upon accepting the fine, would people here urge him to take that deal? I would strongly consider it.
Absolutely. That's a good result for Brady and one the Union should be able to live with as well.Van Everyman said:
On your second point, couldn't it be just the opposite on the surface)?MarcSullivaFan said:
Suspension is upheld (at 4 or 2 whatever), and Brady says, publically that he vehemently disagrees, protests his innocence etc, but in the interest of 'getting back to work' says he personally won't fight it.
However, he knows the Union will pursue it, and he's on board for that. This way he avoids the 'Brady is selfish!' bs, while to Union fights the arbitration and precedent issue, and possibly the exoneration issue as well.
I honestly think he'll publically fight tooth and nail, or at lest tooth. But it wouldn't 'shock' me if they (Brady and Union) chose to handle it differently.
Edit: it would surprise me, but it wouldn't be shocking.
I'll be shocked if both Brady and the Union roll over and accept any suspension.
That NFLPA statement shouldn't have come as a surprise to the NFL.DrewDawg said:
If the league office was locked in with a ruling and planned to issue it today, but now are deciding to delay because they hadn't properly accounted for this possibility, they're even more inept than I'd imagined.
If they think that this could end up in court and they find that option unpalatable, shouldn't they be considering that likelihood? Of course they should.
If they think the NFLPA is bluffing and they were planning to call that bluff, does this really constitute upping the ante to a degree that they need to reconsider? It's hardly a revelation.
Of course, Sharks has been a super-credible source throughout...
OK, true, but really I sorta glossed over the plea bargain part and was thinking in terms of Brady accepting the decision no matter what because I don't see a deal as possible or, perhaps, even legal as per some of your posts. And in that vein I'd like to thank you and dcmissile and some of the others here for reigning the thread in away from wish-casting and towards looking at the actual legal processes involved.MarcSullivaFan said:
I mean, the problem with even thinking about a "plea bargain" here, using the imprecise language, is that this is an appeal, right? The alleged valuemof settlements is a mutually agreed upon bargain under the threat of uncertain adjudication. Here, adjudication has already been made, and the appeal is a judgment on its appropriateness. For such to be subject to bargaining would seem noxious to the jurisprudential considerations that justify the system.
Also, it would leave in question the pre-existing ruling of a four game suspension that would have been technically left unchallenged. That is to say, the reasons why settlements don't have precential value are clear and justifiable, but a settlement on an appeal after an existing ruling would be a clusterfuck. Which in turn is why a back door deal is illegal, while a straightforward deal could be imagined to be used as evidence in court of the illegitimacy of the appeals process.
From a legal nerd perspective, I frickin' love this case.
The short version, of course,mad I think we agree, is that Mazz is basically arguing that Brady should fuck over, at least potentially, all the other guys in the union. I sorta wonder why nobody has called in and pointed that out.
Just had a strange thought the other day. If Goodell wanted to find some kind of middle ground, couldn't he get himself out of this pickle by saying:
1. The text messages show JJ and JM were deflating
2. Brady wanted the ball at the lower limit
3. We know that the officials sometimes inflate footballs after the QB approves them
4. Therefore, it's most likely that Brady told JJ and JM that deflate the balls _to_ the legal limit
5. That violates the rules and merits a suspension
6. But it's not a competitive advantage so the suspension is only two games.
- Media could portray this as largely a vinidication of Brady (i.e. he's not a cheater) and a reasonable compromise given everything we know.
- Pats haters would still be happy that he's being punished for breaking the rules and would gloss over the "not a competitive advantage" part
- But there would be all sorts of pressure on Brady to take this as a victory and move on.
- And the NFL doesn't have to defend the flawed science in the Wells/Exponent reports -- they could dismiss it as being irrelevant to whether Brady/JJ/JM broke the rules or not.
To me this feels like a worst-case scenario -- Brady is sort of exonerated, and he may decide not to fight so hard once the "cheater" tag falls off, but the NFL gets to move on without admitting any sort of screwup on their part. And since Kraft accepted the team penalty, the Pats will never lose their reputation of being rule-breakers.
1. The text messages show JJ and JM were deflating
2. Brady wanted the ball at the lower limit
3. We know that the officials sometimes inflate footballs after the QB approves them
4. Therefore, it's most likely that Brady told JJ and JM that deflate the balls _to_ the legal limit
5. That violates the rules and merits a suspension
6. But it's not a competitive advantage so the suspension is only two games.
- Media could portray this as largely a vinidication of Brady (i.e. he's not a cheater) and a reasonable compromise given everything we know.
- Pats haters would still be happy that he's being punished for breaking the rules and would gloss over the "not a competitive advantage" part
- But there would be all sorts of pressure on Brady to take this as a victory and move on.
- And the NFL doesn't have to defend the flawed science in the Wells/Exponent reports -- they could dismiss it as being irrelevant to whether Brady/JJ/JM broke the rules or not.
To me this feels like a worst-case scenario -- Brady is sort of exonerated, and he may decide not to fight so hard once the "cheater" tag falls off, but the NFL gets to move on without admitting any sort of screwup on their part. And since Kraft accepted the team penalty, the Pats will never lose their reputation of being rule-breakers.
Everybody is making the expected preparations.
1. Union chest thumping natural -- though its juvenile to think, as Vegas Sharks suggests, that this is at all surprising to the NFL or would move the needle one iota on the timing of a decision. Every day, this site continues to embarrass itself.
2. ESPN serving as the propaganda arm of the NFL also to be expected. You'll probably get something decent from Schefter, but that's it.
3. Mazz is setting the table for "Brady is selfish" weeks of broadcasting with Felger. I would be surprised if these two were not doing this. It's yawn inducing -- until it is parroted here, in which case some of us will go after the parrots with hunting rifles.
Not sure what you are getting at here. 1-4 is basically the Wells report. 5 is the Vincent letter. How would the media portray that as a vindication? It's status quo with a reduction in suspension.AB in DC said:
NortheasternPJ said:
If he said it on a station outside the Boston area, it would have slightly more going for it.
Not really, the issue is tampering with balls post ref inspection. The media would report that the findings of the Wells report were upheld after appeal. The nuance of what amount of level of "deflation" occurred will continue to be missed / ignored by the media as a whole.AB in DC said:
That's an interesting definition of "soon" that Goodell uses. Seems pretty lame; they issued a punishment within a few days of the publication of the Wells report, but it takes them 6 weeks to make up their mind on the appeal? I refuse to consider the argument that they are working diligently to ensure the proper and most impartial decision is handed down.Ed Hillel said:
Maybe, but I don't think so. The whole brouhaha exploded based on the notation that Brady / the Pats were getting some unfair advantage by having underinflated footballs. That's what everyone focused on. Without some illicit (perceived) competitive benefit then no one cares.RIFan said:
This is not about what people care about, but rather formal violations which are all about specific definitions and such.AB in DC said:
There was tampering at a time when it was not allowed or there wasn't. The approach you are looking towards is often accepted in, say, small claims court where the judge is more interested in holistic justice and often gets annoyed when technical formalism obscures reality, but if Goodell went that route they would get steamrolled in court by opening the door to the idea that the rules are sorta bs.
No way Goodell can say this didn't matter and nobody should care and then issue a suspension. He'd be opening a wedge between the rules and the justification for discipline which is tantamount to admitting that their system of justice is illegitimate.
It's a tweet. And I'd imagine Schefter has a rather sizeable national following.Harry Hooper said:
So Sharks of Vegas and Glenn Ordway both said that the ruling would come today?
Is the Big O the "brilliant" mind behind SoV?
Is the Big O the "brilliant" mind behind SoV?
The ever popular Ben Volin tweeted that he's heard a decision would come down today or tomorrow.
It was tweeted at him correct? Or do you need a rundown on how this all works?tims4wins said:
If Rog and the NFL really are in bed with ESPN they won't announce anything today with all the ESPN focus on the V Foundation and raising money for cancer research. It's the total focus on ESPN radio today.
From a Reiss retweet, the NFLPA's case in federal court would be as follows:
Based on my limited understanding it seems like the science would not be a factor in the appeal.
Can any of the lawyers speak to why only procedural stuff is being brought into the lawsuit and the actual evidence used to reach a conclusion is treated as secondary or irrelevant?
Also, why are they revealing their hand now?
As a fan, it's disappointing that there will potentially never be an independent review of the evidence that could be used to exonerate Tom and the team.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2015/07/15/details-of-tom-bradys-potential-lawsuit-against-nfl-patriots-qb-could-possibly-start-week-1/?postshare=7971436995536489
Based on my limited understanding it seems like the science would not be a factor in the appeal.
Can any of the lawyers speak to why only procedural stuff is being brought into the lawsuit and the actual evidence used to reach a conclusion is treated as secondary or irrelevant?
Also, why are they revealing their hand now?
As a fan, it's disappointing that there will potentially never be an independent review of the evidence that could be used to exonerate Tom and the team.
It is in the nature of these sorts of reviews. There was never going to be a de novo trial.
That does not mean that the science does not matter and cannot be some grist for a blistering opinion overturning the decision. It can provide important color. It just cannot be the basis of a favorable ruling.
All of these points, IMO, are strong. They will have to deal with the obstruction finding as well. TB is very well represented, and I am cautiously optimistic.
These points are well known to the NFL and anyone with legal training who has thought about this case. No reason to hide them. Union is chesty today, trying to shape coverage.
That does not mean that the science does not matter and cannot be some grist for a blistering opinion overturning the decision. It can provide important color. It just cannot be the basis of a favorable ruling.
All of these points, IMO, are strong. They will have to deal with the obstruction finding as well. TB is very well represented, and I am cautiously optimistic.
These points are well known to the NFL and anyone with legal training who has thought about this case. No reason to hide them. Union is chesty today, trying to shape coverage.
amarshal2 said:
Long story short and simple, and from someone who never practiced labor law, the appeal to federal court is made via two federal acts: labor management act and federal arbitration act (which enables private-party arbitration to be binding). These each provide procedural protections for the parties, and also each set a very high bar on overturning the factual findings (the Adrian Peterson court characterized this as 'substantial deference'). Thus, in this situation, the appeal is primarily about procedural matters (which include things like 'notice to the player of what is a violation' and 'the penalty for an infraction') not about substantive ones.
In terms of the science, with a couple possible (but unlikely) exceptions I think those are factual issues where NFL gets a lot of deference. If the expert doesn't qualify as an 'expert' or if the approach used is not standard, can imagine that getting looked at---but likely not closely enough to matter here given the context, I'd guess
If the media is going to continue to apply the -gate suffix to this ludicrous clown show, they should start calling it CBA-gate, because those are the only potential violations that are relevant anymore. Goodell stopped caring months ago whether Brady was responsible for the deflated balls, or whether the balls were even deflated at all. Whether Goodell believes Brady is 100% innocent or 100% guilty has essentially no bearing on his actions at this point, and likely has not for some time.
And barring some earth-shattering new revelation, what actually happened is probably pretty irrelevant at this point too.
And barring some earth-shattering new revelation, what actually happened is probably pretty irrelevant at this point too.
.jpg)
To expound a bit on the answers above, the reason the arbitration statutes are written/interpretedthis way is because facts are the messy/complicated/expensive part of most litigations, and arbitration is largely a way to minimize those costs (financial and otherwise). Having courts relitigate the entire case whenever someone didn't like the result would defeat the purpose of most arbitration clauses.amarshal2 said:
This is the only shark I follow:
The Average Shark @TheAverageShark Jul 14
Swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim
The Average Shark @TheAverageShark Jul 14
Swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim swim
OnWisc said:
Doesn't this blow anyone's mind? I get it, I do. This is completely correct. But doesn't it blow everyone's mind that this has actually reached a point where it isn't even RELEVANT whether or not the crime was even committed? I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
Sadly, drbretto, once things reach court -- which seems pretty inevitable here -- it comes down to legal standards and issues that can win within a certain framework. Not what actually happened.
That really isn't new. It doesn't show itself in the sports context all that often, but we are not talking about a new reality here.
In litigation, the question is often not getting to reality, it's choosing the issues and modes of attack you can win on. That's what the best litigators excel at.
Unrelated: Does anyone find it curious that the NFLPA is leaking what their legal arguments will be and that Brady will not accept any games? It's as if they are publicly trying to intimidate Goodell. I find that to be kind of bizarre in that my instinct is that, if anything, it will cause him to get his back up further and strengthen his resolve not to reduce the penalty for fear of looking like he caved to the pressure. I could see messaging this stuff between lawyers privately if they were trying to get the Sheriff to move. But doing it in this fashion makes it seem like there is zero chance that Goodell will buckle, which may in fact be the case and this might just be PR in advance of the inevitable court battle.
That really isn't new. It doesn't show itself in the sports context all that often, but we are not talking about a new reality here.
In litigation, the question is often not getting to reality, it's choosing the issues and modes of attack you can win on. That's what the best litigators excel at.
Unrelated: Does anyone find it curious that the NFLPA is leaking what their legal arguments will be and that Brady will not accept any games? It's as if they are publicly trying to intimidate Goodell. I find that to be kind of bizarre in that my instinct is that, if anything, it will cause him to get his back up further and strengthen his resolve not to reduce the penalty for fear of looking like he caved to the pressure. I could see messaging this stuff between lawyers privately if they were trying to get the Sheriff to move. But doing it in this fashion makes it seem like there is zero chance that Goodell will buckle, which may in fact be the case and this might just be PR in advance of the inevitable court battle.
Since people were asking, unless I'm mistaken, that first argument from the WaPo piece:
would be an example of a basis for a ruling that vacates the punishment and remands it back to the NFL for adjudication whereby the NFL would basically be required to issue no punishment.
It also would have two other interesting elements:
would be an example of a basis for a ruling that vacates the punishment and remands it back to the NFL for adjudication whereby the NFL would basically be required to issue no punishment.
It also would have two other interesting elements:
- It would make concrete OnWisc's contention that what actually happened didn't end up mattering at all.
- It would allow Brady to get off on what would be seen as a mere technicality, which would cause football fans across America to go utterly bonkers.
TheoShmeo said:
The larger the penalty when it gets to court, the more out of line it is with the law of the shop though, right? It seems to me that that would strengthen their case for having the issue vacated and remanded back to the NFL which, while there still may be another penalty issued, makes for another loss in the NFL in court.
If they think Goodell really is that weak and foolish as to pursue that gambit... wow.
I don't consider the arguments that the NFLPA is using to be the equivalent of state secrets. As noted above, the listed arguments would be obvious to the opposing side. And it was common knowledge that the chances of Brady's accepting any suspension was essentially zero.TheoShmeo said:
Also, the tweet doesn't limit the NFLPA in any way if/when this silliness goes to court. The NFLPA can use additional arguments if warranted.
I agree that they are not state secrets, Lex. My point is that IF the purpose of leaking the arguments or the point that the NFLPA will not accept any games without going to court is to make RG come to his senses, I don't think leaking that information will have that affect. Then again, it probably isn't the point and the point is probably PR related or something else. And I agree, they are not remotely limited by what they are leaking.
Rev, I agree, the higher the penalty, the easier it will be for a Court to undo it or send it back or whatever it is the Court is empowered to do. But I could still see RG reasoning that he wants to go into court with a strong resolve. "We were right, we were always right, and here's why." Reducing the penalty could be seen as an admission of weakness or that they rushed to judgment.
Ascribing rationality to Goodell is weird science.
Rev, I agree, the higher the penalty, the easier it will be for a Court to undo it or send it back or whatever it is the Court is empowered to do. But I could still see RG reasoning that he wants to go into court with a strong resolve. "We were right, we were always right, and here's why." Reducing the penalty could be seen as an admission of weakness or that they rushed to judgment.
Ascribing rationality to Goodell is weird science.
TheoShmeo said:
It's indicative that the NFLPA feels that the punishment handed out here (and the conduct of the NFL) is so out step with the procedures outlined in the CBA and/or the established labor law that they are extremely confident of victory in court.
If Goodell believes that this is merely an attempt to intimidate him, then yes, he's unlikely to yield. My conclusion then is this is what the NFLPA wants.
At the end of the day, the NFLPA either believes they have a slam-dunk legal case that will compel the court to roll back Goodell's disciplinary power or they are running the most brazen, irresponsible bluff this side of the Greek government.