TB Suspension: Cheater free to play again
- Thread starter IdiotKicker
- Start date
Interesting that Barrington D. Parker was first appointed by George Bush but elevated to his present position by Clinton. His father was also a judge appointed by the Republican Richard Nixon.
Interesting in what sense?
I don't think the red state/blue state, liberal/conservative filter is at all helpful here. If it were, we would be home free with an AA and an Asian.
When the destroyed cell phone thing became public, I was among those here who instantly posted, oh fuck. Because it was potentially lethal with people of a certain generation (Parker) and law enforcement mindset (Chin). Which is why I was giddy when the NFL rescued us from Judge Kyle's courtroom in Minnesota.
I won't claim that I thought these two were bad news; when the panel was announced, I said it was on its face reasonable.
Nor will I claim that the cell phone was outcome determinative rather than a bad fact these judges hung their hats on to reach a preordained result.
But it clearly did not help -- just as I suspect Kessler's sometimes arrogant manner did not help.
And I don't ever expect Millenials to understand why the phone business was so dangerous.
I don't think the red state/blue state, liberal/conservative filter is at all helpful here. If it were, we would be home free with an AA and an Asian.
When the destroyed cell phone thing became public, I was among those here who instantly posted, oh fuck. Because it was potentially lethal with people of a certain generation (Parker) and law enforcement mindset (Chin). Which is why I was giddy when the NFL rescued us from Judge Kyle's courtroom in Minnesota.
I won't claim that I thought these two were bad news; when the panel was announced, I said it was on its face reasonable.
Nor will I claim that the cell phone was outcome determinative rather than a bad fact these judges hung their hats on to reach a preordained result.
But it clearly did not help -- just as I suspect Kessler's sometimes arrogant manner did not help.
And I don't ever expect Millenials to understand why the phone business was so dangerous.
No, I got it (I was editing). My point is that when you're talking about the arbitrator, all points are about the arbitrator. Phones, science, communications. All about the arbitrator.
To the extent that this was an overreaction due to a perceived pass on Spygate, you're absolutely right. If anything, their purported "relationship" and the "Kraft-as-vice-commissioner" illusion cut against them as Roger flexed.
That still doesn't relate to my point. I don't think I can get you there, unfortunately.
Pretty sure this is the wrong authority to rely upon.Judge Parker saying that Brady destroying his phone "compromised the integrity of the proceeding"???
Yes, it does. Nothing requires every single corner of an arbitral process to be explicitly stated in the CBA. And even departing from arbitral processes by the arbitrator does not necessarily warrant reversal, given the deference owed the arbitrator. So, the point that you're complaining about (i.e. if the NFL wanted access to the phone, it should have bargained for it, therefore, it could not have reasonably formed the basis for any discipline) does not follow the same logic of the majority opinion (i.e. that if the NFLPA wanted an impartial arbitrator, they should have bargained for one). One isn't even a battle. The other is the whole war.
Key event: if CA2 orders NFL to respond to Brady's rehearing petition, that's a strong signal that rehearing is likely.
--Daniel Wallach
--Daniel Wallach
Boycott what? People are giving up their season tix to a perennial winner? Turning the game off doesn't affect anything.
A boycott probably moves us closer to reopening the possibility of a move to St. Louis than it does any kind of desirable Deflategate outcome.
A boycott probably moves us closer to reopening the possibility of a move to St. Louis than it does any kind of desirable Deflategate outcome.
If you follow that particular thread back, the poster was referring to boycotting NFL sponsors. Also not going to happen. Those who believe otherwise are underestimating the degree of organization required and overestimating the will of the people on this issue.
Yes, if you loved the 2011 lockout, because we're damn well headed for another one.
In a game of chess, $1.6m is a measly pawn. However, Brady is the kind of dude that just winning the chess match isn't enough. He's furious over each lost piece. So, he did what he could to save a pawn.
Yes, they were consistently told not to do specifically what they did. They were told that by the other owners, who were committing illegal collusion by saying that. The players had bargained for the uncapped year, expecting it to be truly uncapped. But the owners colluded to enforce an effective cap even in the uncapped year. Just because the owners were able to strongarm the players to avoid the players from bringing any actions on collusion doesn't mean that the Cowboys and Redskins were doing something wrong.
Right. I wish Kessler had been able to argue
"Your honor, the players gave these discipline rights to the Commissioner, for the good of the game, decades ago. When Pete Rozelle and Paul Tagliabue were commissioners, that worked out fine. And then in the last negotiation, Tagliabue was deposed by Goodell after it was perceived that Tagliabue didn't squeeze every last red nickel out of the players. Goodell was elected to Commissioner with a mandate to play hardball in every way and squeeze the players dry. That's why we are here today."
Goodell is fattening up the disciplinary power card as much as he can, so he can dangle it to bargain for owners' interests in the upcoming CBA. Knowing the NFLPA, they'd fight hell and water over this and get raked over something else.
Sure, all 31 owners are happy at what's happening. But not because they "hate" the Pats (they may, but that only goes so far), but they look at this as the first shots fired in the upcoming CBA war. I think that's why Kraft has been mushy over this too. When they say "interest of the league", they really mean "interest of the owners", aka building up ammunition for 2017.
Appeal the supreme!
Court the defamation case!
(Brady) Won't succeed?
Oh wait... I think I'm in the wrong thread.
Court the defamation case!
(Brady) Won't succeed?
Oh wait... I think I'm in the wrong thread.
I just love the thought and mention of boycotting sponsors, as if any fan of any other team but the Patriots could care give even a single eff about this suspension.
Maybe it's a bad idea, but no one is saying the whole country would get involved. Boston/New England market is pretty substantial.
With the rumors that the NFL was looking to change this a few months ago, I bet this gets resolved well before the CBA expires. The NFL ownership will leverage this to get something substantial they want like and 18 game schedule.
Fan boycotts don't work because all of this shit is just entertainment. A diversion from real life/work. Most people don't want to have to work at their leisure time. The best you can you do is individually just stop consuming the NFL product. I suppose if that happened with enough people in an organic, unplanned way, it could make an impact. But that seems unlikely to be the case. I'm completely disgusted with the league, and think it has become a farce on a few levels. But I'll be watching next fall, because I'm pathetically still addicted, to some degree, to what they're selling. I can feel my interest narrowing to just the Patriots, and a handful of other marquee/playoff games. And can envision a time after TB and BB when my interest will be diminished even further. Until then, I hope TB pursues every possible avenue of appeal/litigation, BB coaches Jimmy G up well enough to split the first 4, and TB returns to go on an epic rampage starting in week 5, and ending with another post-game Lombardi ceremony in Houston.
The boycott won't work for so many reasons. First, outside of New England, nobody cares and most are happy. In New England, if you mobilize 7% of people do to this, it would be impressive. Which is a rounding error for these global companies, anyway. And who is going to cancel their Verizon cell service or stop using P&G soap b/c they are mad mad mad at the NFL?
It's ridiculous and one of those things you wish could happen so you could generate some agency over this situation so as not to feel powerless, but it's a useless thought.
It's ridiculous and one of those things you wish could happen so you could generate some agency over this situation so as not to feel powerless, but it's a useless thought.
No statement from Kessler anywhere (and should we expect one)?
Q for dcmissile: You noted that there have only been 10 en banc reviews in the last decade, an average of one per year. How many cases have there been before the 2nd district court in that time?
Q for dcmissile: You noted that there have only been 10 en banc reviews in the last decade, an average of one per year. How many cases have there been before the 2nd district court in that time?
Kessler was on Russillo and Kannel (sp?) yesterday for about 5 minutes. It is available online.
It's the Second Circuit court.
And thousands.
People need to stop thinking of this case as something special beyond the fact that it gets a lot of press. It's just one of hundreds of cases that the court has in front of it this year; everything from criminal cases to civil cases to bankruptcy issues.
Thanks. I was asking to try to understand what % of cases get reviewed en banc. If there are thousands of cases heard in the time dcmissile was noting, then the likelihood of en banc review is less than 1%.
Hogwash, this is the only case of significance happening in America right now.
I think a sponsorship boycott is the only thing that would actually get the attention of the owners. From a practical standpoint it could be limited to the Boston/New England market and one company (Keep it simple). My suggestion would be to target Anheuser-Busch. Is there a more fungible product than light beers? And since Anheuser-Busch was bought by InBev, a multinational company headquartered in Belgium, the boycott could appeal to patriotism and the idea that the world economy is costing middle-class workers jobs. Seems like a great opportunity for Trump to be the voice of a movement to help out his buddy Tom.
Well, this and the Oregon dudes saying that Oregon isn't part of the United States.
Actually, we concluded there were 8. And according to a reputable source, 27,856 appeals were decided by the Second Circuit on the merits during that period. So en bancs dispositions accounted for less than 3/100 of 1% of the cases decided.
EDIT. By comparison, the snowball's chance of Supreme Court review are significantly higher, approaching 5% in "paid" cases. See, for example, http://dailywrit.com/2013/01/likelihood-of-a-petition-being-granted/.
I do not believe TB would be as high as 5% at SCOTUS unless something breaks in another court to create a conflict.
There will be people like Wallach who want to "keep hope alive" -- "you're telling there is a chance?"
Yes, there is -- but bear in mind that these people are trying to generate clicks. It's their 15 minutes.
Last edited:
Andrew Perloff @andrewperloff 11m11 minutes ago
"I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't seem like it's going to end any time soon." - NFLPA's George Atallah on Brady ruling
"I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't seem like it's going to end any time soon." - NFLPA's George Atallah on Brady ruling
Andrew Perloff @andrewperloff 9m9 minutes ago
"We would need a level-headed and influential team owner to broker that deal." - NFLPA's @GeorgeAtallah on possibility of Brady settlement
"We would need a level-headed and influential team owner to broker that deal." - NFLPA's @GeorgeAtallah on possibility of Brady settlement
Andrew Perloff @andrewperloff 7m7 minutes ago
"I'm not sure we would have done anything differently." - @GeorgeAtallah on NFLPA's role in Deflategate.
"I'm not sure we would have done anything differently." - @GeorgeAtallah on NFLPA's role in Deflategate.
According to this article today by Mike Freeman, teams within the league now believe the consensus throughout the NFL is that the Patriots didn't do anything wrong and that the NFL got the investigation all wrong. Where was this 15 months ago?
Edit: for some reason whenever I try to post the link to the story it says 404 Page Not Found.
Edit: for some reason whenever I try to post the link to the story it says 404 Page Not Found.
Lost in the glee that other teams had seeing the Pats getting taken down after 15 years of kicking everyone's ass.
Never discount the fact that other teams in the league are selfish and stupid, first and foremost. The only thing they thought at first was how their path to success just got a little bit easier.
Some of us have been saying since DFG broke and even before that the bolded explains everything you need to know. The owners, executives and coaches of 31 teams are incentivized to tear the Pats down because they have won too damn much.
With owners it's bratty ego and sense of entitlement -- they have the emotional intelligence of 11 year old boys.
With the executives and coaches, it's money, security and the passions of their self entitled owners.
Precisely because they woke up and recognize an injustice has been done, this is as cynical a group as you will find this side of Russia, the CIA and organized crime.
Edit. And what purpose does this leaking serve? Now that he has nailed the Pats, Roger has just received a shot across the bow -- reel it in. Goodell is an extraordinarily well paid tool and piñata. The owners are driving the bus.
Last edited:
Yup. Made sure to wait until too little too late. And, of course, it'll just be something new when the Pats go out and win 12 games this year anyway and make it at least to the AFCCG again.
Ha, guess we have to settle in and get comfortable while the search for that unicorn goes on.
Otherwise they'd have to explain to their own fans why they're demonstrably worse at running a football team than the Pats. Far easier to imply "Oh they won because they're cheating" instead of facing the fact that they're less competent at the core competition than the Pats.
Precisely. And it's not just owners' egos and wrath -- they get key buy in from the executives and coaches who are the objects of that wrath and have careers, long term contracts and millions of dollars to protect.
This is THE racket of the 21st century.
It's not just DFG. Goodell's entire administration has seen some serious issues exposed in the relationships between the league office and the various owner factions.It's largely been mitigated by the leagues overall financial success, but the smart owners may finally be starting to realize that RG is not a wartime consigliere.
I think this is why getting to more reasonable investigation and arbitration processes in the next CBA will not be as difficult as many here seem to assume. I think many of the other 31 owners, while happy with the outcome here, are probably pretty upset at the process. It would be beneficial for both the owners and players if these disciplinary matters were handled competently.
Guys, the article says "this was the consensus sentiment among team executives, coaches and players at the time" He's quoting execs, not owners.
The only time owners are mentioned is here, where they support the Commish: "Goodell is also doing what some owners desire, say a number of team officials. There is a group of hardcore owners who for years have felt teams and players flaunted the rules, and they want Goodell to send strong messages that the league won't tolerate anything of the sort"
The owners were and still are being silent.
The only time owners are mentioned is here, where they support the Commish: "Goodell is also doing what some owners desire, say a number of team officials. There is a group of hardcore owners who for years have felt teams and players flaunted the rules, and they want Goodell to send strong messages that the league won't tolerate anything of the sort"
The owners were and still are being silent.
