#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[DJnVa]

The Sharks guy saying Pats fans wouldn't be happy....I don't know. I don't think there's any ruling Goodell could make now that would actually make me upset because I've accepted that Goodell is a tool. 
 
I don't think any Pats fan is really waiting for the ruling because we think Goodell will make everything go away.

 

[DJnVa]

Ryan Smith, Legal Analyst for ABC and ESPN (@ryansmithtv) said that NFLPA sources say that Brady will challenge any suspension in federal court.

 

[mwonow]

Ryan Smith, Legal Analyst for ABC and ESPN (@ryansmithtv) said that NFLPA sources say that Brady will challenge any suspension in federal court.

 
I sure hope the words "federal court" send a little chill up RG's spine. I don't think he'll change direction, but I'd feel better if he's feeling worse.
 
And Sharks of Vegas has almost as little credibility wrt this mess as RG himself.

 

[Reverend]

Ryan Smith, Legal Analyst for ABC and ESPN (@ryansmithtv) said that NFLPA sources say that Brady will challenge any suspension in federal court.

 
The NFLPA has a huge incentive to go forward against any suspension as, should a suspension stand, it would radically recalibrate the law of the shop standards for punishments for the infractions in question--and that's just bracketing any considerations Brady has (besides whether or not he's a Good Union ManTM).

 

[Van Everyman]

Notably, not saying Brady will challenge a fine.

 

[DJnVa]

Notably, not saying Brady will challenge a fine.

 
Brady hasn't been fined, outside his game checks. If suspension disappears, fine goes away.
 
Unless you're thinking that he'll take away the games and find him instead? I can't see that at all.
 

 

[Average Reds]

Notably, not saying Brady will challenge a fine.

 
Depends on what the fine is, no?
 
Law of the shop standards would seem to indicate that the precedent is $50,000.  I'd think the NFLPA would challenge anything significantly more than this, especially considering the fact that they are contending that there was no underlying violation.
 
Edit:  I think DrewDawg is right about the fine.

 

[Corsi]

Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer  14s14 seconds ago
Lawyers for Brady and the union did huddle on Monday. One development from that: If there's a lawsuit, plan is to file in Minnesota or Mass.

 

[bankshot1]

Is the leak about Brady/NFLPA willingness to fight in Fed court, an indication that RG has back-channeled a reduced (2-game?)  suspension to Team Brady, and this is the non-official rebuke?  
 
I hope anything other than perhaps a small fine for non-cooperation ($50,000) along with an unambiguous statement from RG fully exonerating Brady of any knowledge regarding ball tampering, is met with a direct and pointed public statement by team Brady (hopefully made by Brady) stating his innocence and his full commitment to take this to federal court to clear his name and reputation.
 
Chances of RG back-track: S & N. 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Is the leak about Brady/NFLPA willingness to fight in Fed court, an indication that RG has back-channeled a reduced (2-game?)  suspension to Team Brady, and this is the non-official rebuke?  
 
I hope anything other than perhaps a small fine for non-cooperation ($50,000) along with an unambiguous statement from RG fully exonerating Brady of any knowledge regarding ball tampering, is met with a direct and pointed public statement by team Brady (hopefully made by Brady) stating his innocence and his full commitment to take this to federal court to clear his name and reputation.
 
Chances of RG back-track: S & N. 

 
I and others have been saying all along that Brady's position would be zero suspension or federal court.  I wouldn't read anything at all into it---I think it has been the no-question strategy the entire time and both sides knew it would be.
 
Agree with what you say about what it would take for Brady not to sue, and the total improbability of RG doing it.

See you in court.  Interesting question whether to file in MN, where the case would presumably go to a judge who already has shown a recognition of the procedural ridiculousness of NFL disciplinary hearings, or MA.

 

[allstonite]

 
Depends on what the fine is, no?
 
Law of the shop standards would seem to indicate that the precedent is $50,000.  I'd think the NFLPA would challenge anything significantly more than this, especially considering the fact that they are contending that there was no underlying violation.
 
Edit:  I think DrewDawg is right about the fine.

 
I hope that in the very small chance he does wind up with only the $50,000 fine and accepts it that he releases a statement saying "We will accept the punishment because the balls were underinflated according to the rule but we hope that in the future this rule is enforced equally among all teams and stricter controls and more accurate testing are put into place and there is more understanding of the effects of the environment." Something that doesn't accept guilt of any wrongdoing and still makes the NFL look like the clowns they are

 

[Average Reds]

Is the leak about Brady/NFLPA willingness to fight in Fed court, an indication that RG has back-channeled a reduced (2-game?)  suspension to Team Brady, and this is the non-official rebuke?  
 
I hope anything other than perhaps a small fine for non-cooperation ($50,000) along with an unambiguous statement from RG fully exonerating Brady of any knowledge regarding ball tampering, is met with a direct and pointed public statement by team Brady (hopefully made by Brady) stating his innocence and his full commitment to take this to federal court to clear his name and reputation.
 
Chances of RG back-track: S & N. 

 
MarcSullivaFan stated explicitly that any direct communications to Brady would be a violation of federal labor laws.  It takes some real suspension of disbelief to think that RG would risk that sort of play given the stakes.
 
I would think that the report is an indication that they know a decision is coming and they are planning their next steps.  Nothing more or less.

 

[bankshot1]

 
MarcSullivaFan stated explicitly that any direct communications to Brady would be a violation of federal labor laws.  It takes some real suspension of disbelief to think that RG would risk that sort of play given the stakes.
 
I would think that the report is an indication that they know a decision is coming and they are planning their next steps.  Nothing more or less.

That's why I said 'back-channel" an unofficial water-testing to see if a negotiated reduced suspension settlement was possible. 

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Guys, just want to reiterate that a favorable decision in federal court will not mean an exoneration or that his penalty is permanently disposed of. It will not involve retrying the merits. If Goodell's decision is vacated, it will be kicked back to the CBA's "arbitration" process for a re-do. Now, it is possible that the ruling will be such that it will make a more favorable outcome almost inevitable, and it could permanently alter the process as it exits today. BUT THIS IS NOT A TRIAL. Please temper your expectations appropriately.

 

[BelichickFan]

Guys, just want to reiterate that a favorable decision in federal court will not mean an exoneration or that his penalty is permanently disposed of. It will not involve retrying the merits. If Goodell's decision is vacated, it will be kicked back to the CBA's "arbitration" process for a re-do. Now, it is possible that the ruling will be such that it will make a more favorable outcome almost inevitable, and it could permanently alter the process as it exits today. BUT THIS IS NOT A TRIAL. Please temper your expectations appropriately.

 
Could they require a different arbitrator ?
 
One problem the NFL seems to have is when the NFLPA stated that Vincent had no power to issue the punishment, Goodell claimed that he was part of that (no correct wording) but then when it comes to being the arbiter he claims to be impartial which really can't be if he were part of the initial punishment as he would have to be for it to be valid.
 
I'm no lawyer but it seems like somewhat of a Catch 22 for the NFL.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
Could they require a different arbitrator ?
 
One problem the NFL seems to have is when the NFLPA stated that Vincent had no power to issue the punishment, Goodell claimed that he was part of that (no correct wording) but then when it comes to being the arbiter he claims to be impartial which really can't be if he were part of the initial punishment as he would have to be for it to be valid.
 
I'm no lawyer but it seems like somewhat of a Catch 22 for the NFL.

I have not researched this question, and I'm not sure how much law there is on it since it is unheard of in the traditional labor arena to have a grievance/abrbitation procedure that does not include final resort to a neutral or some sort of joint union/management board.

That said, the entire concept of courts deferring to arbitrators is premised on the idea that having neutrals decide labor/managament disputes over the terms of collective bargaining agreements is more efficient than having the courts decide and allows the issues to be decided by arbitrators with special knowledge of industrial relations. But here there is no neutral to defer to. It seems conceivable that a court could find that the entire process is a sham and not entitled to deference--at which point the choice for the NFL would probably be (1) use a neutral in this case and going forward; or (2) players can directly sue in federal court for alleged violations of the CBA. I think we know which option the league would choose.

Again, I want to make it entirely clear that I HAVE NOT RESEARCHED this. I am speculating based on general legal principles in this area of the law. I will make some time to do that if it ends up in court.

 

[Average Reds]

That's why I said 'back-channel" an unofficial water-testing to see if a negotiated reduced suspension settlement was possible. 

 
This whole notion of "back-channel" negotiations being a way around the law is a bit silly.
 
Whether a back-channel negotiation is a violation or not is a technical question that I'll leave to the lawyers.  But if Brady does go to court, the case is all about labor law.  And any indication that the NFL was seeking to circumvent the law in order to incentivize Brady to defy the NFLPA about a court challenge would only make Brady's case stronger.
 
The law states that any offer be transmitted to Brady through his attorneys.  Given the downside risks, I can't see the Goodell trying to back-channel anything.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Guys, just want to reiterate that a favorable decision in federal court will not mean an exoneration or that his penalty is permanently disposed of. It will not involve retrying the merits. If Goodell's decision is vacated, it will be kicked back to the CBA's "arbitration" process for a re-do. Now, it is possible that the ruling will be such that it will make a more favorable outcome almost inevitable, and it could permanently alter the process as it exits today. BUT THIS IS NOT A TRIAL. Please temper your expectations appropriately.

 
I assume one of the arguments is going to be that the NFL proffered insufficient evidence to meet whatever standard it is that binds the commissioner in these circumstances. If they win that argument, it would basically be over, would it not?

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
This whole notion of "back-channel" negotiations being a way around the law is a bit silly.
 
Whether a back-channel negotiation is a violation or not is a technical question that I'll leave to the lawyers.  But if Brady does go to court, the case is all about labor law.  And any indication that the NFL was seeking to circumvent the law in order to incentivize Brady to defy the NFLPA about a court challenge would only make Brady's case stronger.
 
The law states that any offer be transmitted to Brady through his attorneys.  Given the downside risks, I can't see the Goodell trying to back-channel anything.

I agree with this 100%. It makes zero sense. First of all, it's an unfair labor practice. The consequences of that aren't enormous in and of themselves, but the optics are terrible and it could come back to haunt the league down the road. Second, while it's true that rules of professional responsibility do not prevent non-lawyer parties from negotiating even when represented, if this happens with the input or knowledge of counsel on one side, it still a violation attributable to counsel. You can't do indirectly what you are prohibited from doing directly. Third, it could absolutely destroy the NFL in federal court. I can't think of anything more likely to enrage a judge dealing with a petition to vacate than the purported neutral circumventing counsel and the union to negotiate directly with the employee. That is insane. Moreover, the second that Kessler heard about such shenanigans, he's going to go ballistic and in all likelihood any such "settlement" is going to be blown up immediately. By the way, the inadmissibility of settlement negotiations is not going to apply when the issue is the enforceability of the settlement itself. This would be an enormous unforced error IMHO.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
I assume one of the arguments is going to be that the NFL proffered insufficient evidence to meet whatever standard it is that binds the commissioner in these circumstances. If they win that argument, it would basically be over, would it not?

Sufficiency of the evidence alone is not a ground to vacate the decision. If it were, every arbitral decision would be subject to a review on the merits.

 

[bankshot1]

 
This whole notion of "back-channel" negotiations being a way around the law is a bit silly.
 
Whether a back-channel negotiation is a violation or not is a technical question that I'll leave to the lawyers.  But if Brady does go to court, the case is all about labor law.  And any indication that the NFL was seeking to circumvent the law in order to incentivize Brady to defy the NFLPA about a court challenge would only make Brady's case stronger.
 
The law states that any offer be transmitted to Brady through his attorneys.  Given the downside risks, I can't see the Goodell trying to back-channel anything.

Usual IANAL-I did not say to exclude lawyers from the process, but questioned whether today's leak was a signal that possible discussions/testing the waters between the parties about a reduced suspension was not going to fly and anything short of no suspension would be fought in court.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

MarcSullivaFan, if we assume a ruling like the Peterson ruling (vacating the suspension and remanding to NFL for further process consistent with the CBA), curious how much you feel the judge could (if they choose to) describe the conditions which must be met for the NFL's subsequent process to comply with relevant labor law.   For example, as this is not a hearing on the merits the judge will NOT say "Exponent report is not credible".   However, I think it is not inconceivable that a judge might say "under relevant labor law, where there are technical issues relevant to the arbitration award, any technical experts retained must provide sufficient clarity on their methods to satisfy accepted evidentiary standards, enabling the employee to evaluate the technical analysis and provide an informed response"   which would likely be a fatal blow to the Exponent report (as a practical matter, at least...though they could in theory actually be able to replicate it and defend it)
 
Do I have that about right?   Been many years since my labor law class!

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

Usual IANAL-I did not say to exclude lawyers from the process, but questioned whether today's leak was a signal that possible discussions/testing the waters between the parties about a reduced suspension was not going to fly and anything short of no suspension would be fought in court.

Now this is certainly possible. The NFLPA may be making a last ditch effort to change Goodell's mind before he issued the ruling. It may be sending a signal that it would consider some penalty short of a suspension--a fine most likely. Or it simply may be tying to get ahead of bad news. I'd guess they'd rather frame Goodell's ruling as a mere formality before heading to federal court rather than as another meaningful condemnation of Brady.

 

[Average Reds]

Usual IANAL-I did not say to exclude lawyers from the process, but questioned whether today's leak was a signal that possible discussions/testing the waters between the parties about a reduced suspension was not going to fly and anything short of no suspension would be fought in court.

 
IANAL either, and I apologize if my tone was off.
 
The question is a fair one and there's a lot of confusion surrounding the issue.  I don't think that the Brady meeting was a signal of anything Goodell and his team don't already know, which is that the NFLPA stands ready to challenge any punishment that is outside of the realm of the law of the shop in court.  
 
As MSF indicated earlier, the process dictated by the CBA (not having a neutral party hear appeals) is outside the norms of labor law.  If media reports are to be believed, the NFLPA intends to use the Brady appeal to argue that the process dictated by the CBA violates labor law and ask the court to strip Goodell of his power to be the sole arbiter of player discipline.

 

[ifmanis5]

I'm in the fetal position bracing myself for Full Roger Crazy.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

MarcSullivaFan, if we assume a ruling like the Peterson ruling (vacating the suspension and remanding to NFL for further process consistent with the CBA), curious how much you feel the judge could (if they choose to) describe the conditions which must be met for the NFL's subsequent process to comply with relevant labor law.   For example, as this is not a hearing on the merits the judge will NOT say "Exponent report is not credible".   However, I think it is not inconceivable that a judge might say "under relevant labor law, where there are technical issues relevant to the arbitration award, any technical experts retained must provide sufficient clarity on their methods to satisfy accepted evidentiary standards, enabling the employee to evaluate the technical analysis and provide an informed response"   which would likely be a fatal blow to the Exponent report (as a practical matter, at least...though they could in theory actually be able to replicate it and defend it)
 
Do I have that about right?   Been many years since my labor law class!

Honestly, I have no idea. Generally speaking labor arbitrations are the Wild West when it comes to evidence. I really haven't had any significant issues with expert evidence come up in my arbitrations. It seems unlikely to me given the level of deference usually accorded to arbitrators, but this is not a typical case. The rare cases I'm aware of in which one of my colleagues has gotten an award vacated involved the arbitrator blatantly ignoring plain language in the CBA or previous awards that should have been outcome determinative.

 

[Leather]

Usual IANAL-I did not say to exclude lawyers from the process, but questioned whether today's leak was a signal that possible discussions/testing the waters between the parties about a reduced suspension was not going to fly and anything short of no suspension would be fought in court.

 
There is no need to dispel the idea that "back channel" discussions won't fly, because there's no point in the back channel discussions in the first place.  There was a hearing, not too long ago, where lawyers on Team Brady made their case and said whatever it is they had to say.  Not covertly, but directly.  To Goodell.  In a closed environment.    
 
Any "negotiating" beyond that point would only weaken their position, whatever it may be internally.
 
The only options, as far as Team Brady is concerned this whole time vis a vis what they say to Goodell and the public is:  "0 games or court.  Pick."    Any "back channel" negotiating would only serve to negotiate against themselves for no reason at all.   If Goodell is concerned about going to court, he drops the suspension.  If he wants to play chicken, he lowers it to one game.   Asking Brady if one game is "ok" or whatever is ridiculous.  
 
When you're buying a house, you don't ask the seller if your offer is going to be "ok",  you just make the fucking offer.   And yes, I understand the analogy is imperfect, but it's negotiating 101 to act like every offer is your final offer, even if it really isn't.  Guessing where the truth lies is entire point. You don't ask the other party what their 'real' bottom line is, because you're making yourself vulnerable and there's no telling if they are being honest, anyway.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Does that mean nobody else? I really just want Belichick flashing his rings.

Flashing his rings by holding up a 3' by 5' picture of his boat updated to say VI Rings on the side. 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Honestly, I have no idea. Generally speaking labor arbitrations are the Wild West when it comes to evidence. I really haven't had any significant issues with expert evidence come up in my arbitrations. It seems unlikely to me given the level of deference usually accorded to arbitrators, but this is not a typical case. The rare cases I'm aware of in which one of my colleagues has gotten an award vacated involved the arbitrator blatantly ignoring plain language in the CBA or previous awards that should have been outcome determinative.

 
Right--my question was intended to be more general about level of directiveness from the district court in such a situation, but who knows, really.  I think at some level any ruling that the NFL 'likes' from district court will have a 'deference to the process' feel, and any ruling Pats fins 'like' will need to have a 'fundamental fairness' feel to it.

 

[bankshot1]

 
There is no need to dispel the idea that "back channel" discussions won't fly, because there's no point in the back channel discussions in the first place.  There was a hearing, not too long ago, where lawyers on Team Brady made their case and said whatever it is they had to say.  Not covertly, but directly.  To Goodell.  In a closed environment.    
 
Any "negotiating" beyond that point would only weaken their position, whatever it may be internally.
 
The only options, as far as Team Brady is concerned this whole time vis a vis what they say to Goodell and the public is:  "0 games or court.  Pick."    Any "back channel" negotiating would only serve to negotiate against themselves for no reason at all.   If Goodell is concerned about going to court, he drops the suspension.  If he wants to play chicken, he lowers it to one game.   Asking Brady if one game is "ok" or whatever is ridiculous.  
 
When you're buying a house, you don't ask the seller if your offer is going to be "ok",  you just make the fucking offer.   And yes, I understand the analogy is imperfect, but it's negotiating 101 to act like every offer is your final offer, even if it really isn't.  Guessing where the truth lies is entire point. You don't ask the other party what their 'real' bottom line is, because you're making yourself vulnerable and there's no telling if they are being honest, anyway.

Team Goodell is incented to test the waters, not Team Brady.
Team Goodell will look bad no matter what.
if they stay at 4 they look bad (the Wells report, Hardy got 4 for almost killing someone, and Brady get 4 too?)
if they cut to 2 they look indecisive
if they go to 0 they look weak.
 
So their best scenario is a negotiated agreement
 
So find out if one can be had.
 
Team Brady has no real incentive to budge from 0 or court.
 
and they reiterated that today.

 

[Reverend]

It just occurred to me: Is there a greater testament to how dysfunctional the NFL is than how often we talk law in this sub-forum as compared to the others?

 

[Reverend]

I agree with this 100%. It makes zero sense. First of all, it's an unfair labor practice. The consequences of that aren't enormous in and of themselves, but the optics are terrible and it could come back to haunt the league down the road. Second, while it's true that rules of professional responsibility do not prevent non-lawyer parties from negotiating even when represented, if this happens with the input or knowledge of counsel on one side, it still a violation attributable to counsel. You can't do indirectly what you are prohibited from doing directly. Third, it could absolutely destroy the NFL in federal court. I can't think of anything more likely to enrage a judge dealing with a petition to vacate than the purported neutral circumventing counsel and the union to negotiate directly with the employee. That is insane. Moreover, the second that Kessler heard about such shenanigans, he's going to go ballistic and in all likelihood any such "settlement" is going to be blown up immediately. By the way, the inadmissibility of settlement negotiations is not going to apply when the issue is the enforceability of the settlement itself. This would be an enormous unforced error IMHO.

 
That Goodell represents the principal and the purported neutral is insane in any number of facets of this case. I'm not even sure why the league wants to retain this system as it keeps getting them in trouble.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
That Goodell represents the principal and the purported neutral is insane in any number of facets of this case. I'm not even sure why the league wants to retain this system as it keeps getting them in trouble.

Agreed. If they had a neutral, Goodell could still play the tough guy and if his discipline was reduced, it would be somebody else's fault. Given that the entire existence of the league as we know it depends on the the exemption from anti-trust law provided by their collective bargaining relationship with the union, it seems mighty short-sighted that the league would make a mockery of one of the pillars of labor law.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
That Goodell represents the principal and the purported neutral is insane in any number of facets of this case. I'm not even sure why the league wants to retain this system as it keeps getting them in trouble.

 
I think, sadly, the answer is pretty simple: they want control over the outcome and do not trust a neutral to reliably agree with what they want the outcome to be of these proceedings.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
Right--my question was intended to be more general about level of directiveness from the district court in such a situation, but who knows, really.  I think at some level any ruling that the NFL 'likes' from district court will have a 'deference to the process' feel, and any ruling Pats fins 'like' will need to have a 'fundamental fairness' feel to it.

Sorry for missing the point. I'm not sure I have much to offer as to your particular hypothetical. As I alluded to above, I do think a harsh rebuke of the process (and perhaps some swipes at underlying ruling on the merits) is a possibility.

 

[Reverend]

 
I think, sadly, the answer is pretty simple: they want control over the outcome and do not trust a neutral to reliably agree with what they want the outcome to be of these proceedings.

 
Well, yeah, but it's clearly only nominal control because, since they do such a bad job, they keep getting overturned in court, so in practice they don't actually have that control.
 
Which is sorta hilarious. 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
Well, yeah, but it's clearly only nominal control because, since they do such a bad job, they keep getting overturned in court, so in practice they don't actually have that control.
 
Which is sorta hilarious. 

 
"Control of what" is the question, though.   Goodell is, to me, first and foremost a PR guy and he has controlled the day-of and month-of PR question by issuing these ridiculous aggressive suspensions.  I think that is their top priority, and this process allows them to manage it the way they want.
 
Personally, I think they'd actually manage the PR better by having a credible process that generated reasonable, defensible results the first time.  I do agree that they do not actually control the suspensions in the long run with the current approach, but they do still have a ton of control---by the time guys get a federal court ruling the issue has gone on for a long time, and in Rice/Peterson situation games were already missed.  

 

[amarshal2]

Out of nowhere there is a new article on ESPN rehashing the "deflator means weight loss" argument from the Wellsreportcontext website
 
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13259825/new-england-patriots-adjust-weight-loss-deflator-reference-website
 
They didn't go with AEI or literally anything else in the Wellsreportcontext website.  They went with this...the one thing that really makes the Patriots look dumb.
 
ESPN is helping set up the Pats are guilty narrative for the NFL.  We already know that the suspension isn't being vacated but this is just further proof.

 

[jsinger121]

Mazz telling Brady to take it up the ass and take a deal.
 
http://sports.cbslocal.com/2015/07/15/brady-federal-court-deflategate-suspension/

 

[The Big Red Kahuna]

Out of nowhere there is a new article on ESPN rehashing the "deflator means weight loss" argument from the Wellsreportcontext website
 
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13259825/new-england-patriots-adjust-weight-loss-deflator-reference-website
 
They didn't go with AEI or literally anything else in the Wellsreportcontext website.  They went with this...the one thing that really makes the Patriots look dumb.
 
ESPN is helping set up the Pats are guilty narrative for the NFL.  We already know that the suspension isn't being vacated but this is just further proof.

Well, in fairness, the article is merely discussing the fact that Wells Report In Context edited that section in last few days... boston.com had same article last night

 

[rodderick]

Mazz telling Brady to take it up the ass and take a deal.
 
http://sports.cbslocal.com/2015/07/15/brady-federal-court-deflategate-suspension/

Well, when you come at it from the point of view that Brady is guilty and lying through his teeth throughout this whole process, of course him taking a 2 game suspension without a fight seems like a reasonable approach.

 

[amarshal2]

Well, in fairness, the article is merely discussing the fact that Wells Report In Context edited that section in last few days... boston.com had same article last night

June 18th is not the last few days.

 

[DJnVa]

Anyone besides Shark and Thornton saying they heard the ruling was coming today?
 
FWIW, Shark tweeted earlier that the league may delay after that NFLPA statement.

 

[Reverend]

"Control of what" is the question, though.   Goodell is, to me, first and foremost a PR guy and he has controlled the day-of and month-of PR question by issuing these ridiculous aggressive suspensions.  I think that is their top priority, and this process allows them to manage it the way they want.
 
Personally, I think they'd actually manage the PR better by having a credible process that generated reasonable, defensible results the first time.  I do agree that they do not actually control the suspensions in the long run with the current approach, but they do still have a ton of control---by the time guys get a federal court ruling the issue has gone on for a long time, and in Rice/Peterson situation games were already missed.

I agree with most of that. By control, though, I was referring to your mention of control of outcomes and pointing out how,mparadoxically, by trying to maintain more control but doing it so badly, they end up with less control of actual outcomes.

I agree they have all kinds of input on the bs stuff.

 

[Reverend]

Well, when you come at it from the point of view that Brady is guilty and lying through his teeth throughout this whole process, of course him taking a 2 game suspension without a fight seems like a reasonable approach.

I get that you're kidding but that gets to the heart of how they're missing the point: it's still not true, because if that punishment stands, it radically alters the precedent for punishment for infractions such as these which would affect future incidents, even ones that go to court.

 

[ifmanis5]

Mazz telling Brady to take it up the ass and take a deal.
 
http://sports.cbslocal.com/2015/07/15/brady-federal-court-deflategate-suspension/

Hey Mazz, let's see you take a plea deal to something you didn't do that ruins your reputation.

 

[Reverend]

Hey Mazz, let's see you take a plea deal to something you didn't do that ruins your reputation.

And fucks over everyone else in your Union who ever gets railroaded in the future.

There was a time when you could get really roughed up for that.

 

[ifmanis5]

And fucks over everyone else in your Union who ever gets railroaded in the future.

There was a time when you could get really roughed up for that.

Excellent points.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

And fucks over everyone else in your Union who ever gets railroaded in the future.

There was a time when you could get really roughed up for that.

If he actually took a "deal" it would probably have no precedential effect on future cases. Usually settlements at this stage are on a no precedent basis. But accepting the discipline would have precisely the effect you describe.

Edit: Technically the Union owns the grievance so I believe it would have standing to challenge the decision in court even if Brady did not want to. But for obvious practical reasons it would probably not do so.

 

[AB in DC]

June 18th is not the last few days.

 
Doesn't matter.  If the Patriots want to amend the website (and therefore their argument), you can't complain that the media picks up on the change.
 
And I don't think anyone else noticed and published the change before now, so you can't exactly say it's old news.