Adrian Peterson News & Football related discussion

[WayBackVazquez]

The thing is that the Brady case and Peterson case arise at the same time, so they provide the Court a vehicle to address the entire issue. They do not have to choose just one case, and if they are to address the fundamental fairness point, they would take Both cases. Brady's cert is due in a week, so Olson has a bit of time to recast the cert in the "fundamental fairness" realm (that Feinberg's amicus addressed), bundle it with the Peterson cert that will be filed in a month. Because the Second Circuit decided fundamental fairness even without Berman addressing it, it allows the Supreme Court to write, if they are so inclined, and address a couple of applications of the concept.

Brady's cert petition is not due in a week, it's due more than two months from now. And the Supreme Court is not in the error correction business; it's unlikely to hold that, yes, there is right to procedural fairness (as the Second Circuit assumed), but the Second Circuit incorrectly applied the standard. If anything, if it wants to require procedural fairness AND describe the standard in Peterson, it might hold the Brady case until its decision, and then if it reverses Peterson GVR (Grant, Vacate, Remand) Brady. If it affirms Peterson, it would then just deny Brady's petition.

And that's assuming the NFLPA even petitions in Brady.

 

[AB in DC]

Best decision for Brady getting the Sup. Ct. to hear the appeal. Olson must be giddy, as I don't think the "circuit split" on an issue was ever going to be presented. If you are going to lose, you might as well get the starkest of decisions against you.

Not sure where you get that. The Olson petition specifically cited a split with the Eighth Circuit on the deference question. Was that a bogus issue?

 

[djbayko]

It's time for the NFL to dig up the Ray Rice case and take it to appellate court so they can get their right to double jeopardy back. I mean, why not?

 

[pappymojo]

It's time for the NFL to dig up the Ray Rice case and take it to appellate court so they can get their right to double jeopardy back. I mean, why not?

The NFL wants Ray Rice out of the news as much as possible.

 

[Steve Dillard]

Not sure where you get that. The Olson petition specifically cited a split with the Eighth Circuit on the deference question. Was that a bogus issue?

The split that Olson referenced was not the Peterson decision, but a separate case on a different arbitration point. Substantively, Peterson was not a compelling side by side comparison to Brady. Peterson turned at the District Court level on a concept similar to double jeopardy and law of the shop, and the August 2014 memorandum.

“the rare Arbitration Award that must be set aside” and sought to vacate the award on four grounds, alleging: (1) the Commissioner retroactively punished Peterson, in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement; (2) the arbitrator exceeded his authority by hypothesizing whether the Commissioner could have disciplined Peterson in the same manner prior to the August 2014 memorandum; (3) the arbitrator was evidently partial; and (4) the award violated the principle of fundamental fairness...the August 2014 communications effected a “New Policy” that “cannot be applied retroactively, notwithstanding theCommissioner’s broad discretion in meting out punishment under the CBA.” The district court found “no valid basis” for the arbitrator’s distinction of the award in Rice and faulted the arbitrator for failing to “explain why the wellrecognized bar against retroactivity did not apply to Peterson.”

The only comparable reasoning in Brady was the argument that the schedule of fines encompassed the entire punishment available. That is distinguishable, but also I have always felt that the argument was one of Brady's weakest. My thought now is that Peterson's statement that there is no fundamental fairness issue really frames the most basic argument that we all grappled with from the outset, namely, how do you allow the same entity that punished Brady then consider the appeal? Olson took that point further in the amicus briefs, and in Feinberg's brief put the fine point on the point at which unfair structure is still constrained. Feinberg talks about procedural fairness. Olson's Stoltz argument frames this as a bargaining point -- that bargaining for a right to appeal requires a substantive fair appeal. The 8th Circuit Peterson's rejection of any additional "fairness" required pushes that to the outmost border. I think Olson can take those three concepts: 1) the procedural right to appeal denied in Brady, 2) the substantive unfair process used by the Commish in Brady, and 3) the Peterson's stark statement that the power is essentially boundless, and draft a compelling policy issue for the Supreme Court to consider. That may be limited to the specific process in the NFL, so the Supreme Court may decline to grant cert. However, Olson and Feinberg did a decent job in dressing this into a broader labor collective bargaining issue. If the Supreme Court wishes to indicate that there are limits to arbitration, Brady would be a vehicle for that. IMO that is more compelling than trying to shoehorn a "conflict" between Brady and Peterson.

 

[nighthob]

I'd be shocked. Once the threat of missing a game check kicks in the NFLPA will come to the table and bend over for the owners all over again. When the average NFL career is 3.5 years, and contracts aren't guaranteed, you're going to see the non-elite wage earners want to make whatever money they can.

Or the union could start quietly talking to the guys that aren't part of the billionaire boy's club about a new one. And when the owners lock them out decertify and migrate to a new league.

 

[Bongorific]

Or the union could start quietly talking to the guys that aren't part of the billionaire boy's club about a new one. And when the owners lock them out decertify and migrate to a new league.

In what stadiums?

 

[djbayko]

The NFL wants Ray Rice out of the news as much as possible.

It was tongue in cheek, but you're right.

 

[koufax32]

IANAL
It would be interesting to see the nflpa try to frame any SCOTUS appeal as an ex post facto question. Can a private enterprise create these for employees?

These NFL lawyers are very bad people with very bad people working for them. I'm almost to the point of hoping that CTE and everything associated with it ends up destroying tackle football and the NFL.

 

[doc]

In what stadiums?

The one built and owned by the municipalitys


(I know this is a total bullshit reply, but one that should so totally true)

 

[Gorton Fisherman]

wrong thread.