#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[drbretto]

So, from a page or two back, people were posting quotes sugesting this may not get resolved in time for the deadline. If Brady never filed for an injunction, if this is still ongoing past the opener, would Brady have to start serving the suspension anyway?

 

[glennhoffmania]

Glen, that's an awfully strong statement.  Your position is that there is no set of facts upon which Berman could vacate the award under the CBA?  As Berman seems to have said today, Judges have vacated arbitration awards before (under the CBA and otherwise).  I don't think I have read anyone as strongly and clearly argued that Brady had no chance in hell in front of Berman.  If that's what you think, I would appreciate reading why you believe that and whether it is as strong as I am inferring.      

 
No, that's not what I said.  What I said was that in this case I think he'd struggle to come up with a justification for vacating, and his comments seems to suggest that.  I very well could be wrong, and even though I can't stand the Pats I hope I am, because the NFL has really pissed me off with this fiasco.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Edmunddantes, violent agreement. 
 
Like DCM, I was heartened by today.  But if I was advising Tom, I would be reminding him that the Judge could still be a "true CBA deference believer" and might just be trying to soften the NFL up with these questions and comments for the purposes of settlement negotiations 
 
Let's assume the number of games is NOT the sticking point.  Let's assume both sides could live with one game.  That might be wrong but let's further assume it's all about the Wells Report and admissions.
 
Tom wants no admission to the crap in the Wells Report or anything else.  The NFL wants just that.
 
I wonder if there's a somewhat middle ground in that Tom does not admit to anything but, at the same time, is not allowed to explain his rationale for settling.  Both sides would be limited to saying they are happy to move on and they would issue a joint press release to that effect.
 
That would give the NFL something, in that Tom could not do exactly what he would want him to do -- issue a press release or make a statement that he settled for practical reasons (de-risk, move on) and that he does not admit any guilt -- and it would relieve Tom from having to admit guilt expressly.
 
I doubt that would work in that I think Tom almost certainly needs to be able to explain himself if he takes a deal.  But I was trying to think about any possible middle ground between two seemingly intractable positions. 

 

[bsj]

So, from a page or two back, people were posting quotes sugesting this may not get resolved in time for the deadline. If Brady never filed for an injunction, if this is still ongoing past the opener, would Brady have to start serving the suspension anyway?

 
I'm not sure exactly the process, but if the judge is leaning towards Brady's side (IF) wouldnt it be a no brainer that he would grant an injunction?

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Pretty sure Kessler said that.

Damn. Missed that, was hoping it was Berman.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

Bullshit.
 
Nobody takes chemistry in the 9th grade. It's like the 10th or the 11th grade, I think, depending on the curriculum.

I did, but that's because I was something of a wunderkind. Sadly, I peaked young.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
Stephen Brown ‏@PPVSRB  5m5 minutes ago
He called Brady and the NFLPA simply a "disappointed grievant."
 

 
 
Nash also referred to the Khmer Rouge as "simply misunderstood."

 

[TheoShmeo]

drbretto, in absence of an injunction against the suspension taking effect, yes, he would have to start missing games when the season starts.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

So, from a page or two back, people were posting quotes sugesting this may not get resolved in time for the deadline. If Brady never filed for an injunction, if this is still ongoing past the opener, would Brady have to start serving the suspension anyway?

Judge is going to rule prior to the season. If it is against Brady, he can file an appeal and ask the appeals court for an injunction to play. They could have filed for an injunction with Berman, but that strategy got put on the back burner when he agreed to the accelerated schedule. So Berman won't be granting an injunction even if he rules against Brady. That would be the something they request when they file an appeal. If he rules for Brady and the NFL appeals, there is no suspension and Brady can play while the NFL appeals. 

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Edmunddantes, violent agreement. 
 
Like DCM, I was heartened by today.  But if I was advising Tom, I would be reminding him that the Judge could still be a "true CBA deference believer" and might just be trying to soften the NFL up with these questions and comments for the purposes of settlement negotiations 
 
Let's assume the number of games is NOT the sticking point.  Let's assume both sides could live with one game.  That might be wrong but let's further assume it's all about the Wells Report and admissions.
 
Tom wants no admission to the crap in the Wells Report or anything else.  The NFL wants just that.
 
I wonder if there's a somewhat middle ground in that Tom does not admit to anything but, at the same time, is not allowed to explain his rationale for settling.  Both sides would be limited to saying they are happy to move on and they would issue a joint press release to that effect.
 
That would give the NFL something, in that Tom could not do exactly what he would want him to do -- issue a press release or make a statement that he settled for practical reasons (de-risk, move on) and that he does not admit any guilt -- and it would relieve Tom from having to admit guilt expressly.
 
I doubt that would work in that I think Tom almost certainly needs to be able to explain himself if he takes a deal.  But I was trying to think about any possible middle ground between two seemingly intractable positions. 

Would such an agreement limit what the NFL is allowed to say (or leak)?

 

[drbretto]

The articles quoted suggested the decision may not be in time (though if we're taking these tweets at face value, it sure looks like his mind is half made up so I don't see why it'd take that long), that's why I asked. But it sounds like he can still file for one if he needs to, so nothing to it anyway.

 

[ivanvamp]

Edmunddantes, violent agreement. 
 
Like DCM, I was heartened by today.  But if I was advising Tom, I would be reminding him that the Judge could still be a "true CBA deference believer" and might just be trying to soften the NFL up with these questions and comments for the purposes of settlement negotiations 
 
Let's assume the number of games is NOT the sticking point.  Let's assume both sides could live with one game.  That might be wrong but let's further assume it's all about the Wells Report and admissions.
 
Tom wants no admission to the crap in the Wells Report or anything else.  The NFL wants just that.
 
I wonder if there's a somewhat middle ground in that Tom does not admit to anything but, at the same time, is not allowed to explain his rationale for settling.  Both sides would be limited to saying they are happy to move on and they would issue a joint press release to that effect.
 
That would give the NFL something, in that Tom could not do exactly what he would want him to do -- issue a press release or make a statement that he settled for practical reasons (de-risk, move on) and that he does not admit any guilt -- and it would relieve Tom from having to admit guilt expressly.
 
I doubt that would work in that I think Tom almost certainly needs to be able to explain himself if he takes a deal.  But I was trying to think about any possible middle ground between two seemingly intractable positions. 

 
What would be the penalty for Brady, in this case, to explain himself?  He would be violating and defying the federal court, so would he be held in contempt?  

 

[troparra]

 
 
Another key point from this article. I have been beating this drum, so glad it was brought up:

[SIZE=11.9999990463257px]Kessler went as far Wednesday as delving into the Wells report and the PSI findings turned in by the firm Exponent. Passing out a hand-out, Kessler said, "I call this hand-out 'Angels Dancing on the Head of a Pin.' " [/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.9999990463257px]He went on to say that Exponent's testimony in the Wells report showed that the NFL is alleging, "Mr. McNally went into the bathroom to lower PSI one or two tenths."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.9999990463257px]Kessler said, "That's like being pulled over for going one or two miles over the speed limit and the officer saying he concluded that by counting, 'One-Mississippi, two Mississippi . . .' "[/SIZE]
 

 
 

 
They also said that the variability of the Patriots' balls at halftime (standard deviation of 0.40 or 0.41 psi) was higher than that of the Colts balls (SD = 0.14 or 0.16 psi), and this difference is thought to be caused by McNally rapidly deflating balls in the bathroom with a ball needle and no gauge to guide him.
 
But in Appendix 2, Exponent reenacts this alleged McNally scenario using 3 different people measuring 13 balls as quickly as possible.  Each of the three subjects is able to release air from all balls in 71 seconds or less (Appendix 2, Table 1), but they produce very little variability, not only in the data within one person's set of readings, but when comparing the subjects' readings to each other (Appx 2, Tables 1-4).
This experiment contradicts the theory that McNally introduced variability by deflating the footballs.  
 
For what it's worth, Appendix 2, Tables 1-4 are completely fabricated. 
Red flags for fabricated data include lack of variability and closeness of experimental results to hypothesized results.
Note that the amount of air released from the footballs in the three experimental repeats was 0.762, 0.772 and 0.747 psi,  respectively.  Recall that earlier in the document Exponent went to great lengths to show that the Patriots' balls dropped more than the Colts' balls at halftime, and this drop was 0.73-0.75 psi (Table 6).  
 
In other words, this experiment of releasing a random amount of air from 13 footballs as fast as humanly possible resulted in no variability and a psi drop that was almost exactly the same as the difference between the Pats' and Colts' balls at halftime.  These data are simply too good to be true. 

 

[bowiac]

I've said it a couple times before, but I don't buy the narrative that Berman feels constrained here, and is bashing the NFL as result. There's more than enough here to write an (effectively) appeal-proof decision for either side.
 
He may be bashing the NFL to force a settlement, but the NFLPA has brought one of the stronger vacatur cases I've seen. It's a high bar to clear, so it can still go either way, but it doesn't make sense to conclude Berman feels like he's can't rule for Brady. That just doesn't seem consistent with any understanding of the caselaw I can find.

 

[Myt1]

 

 
What would be the penalty for Brady, in this case, to explain himself?  He would be violating and defying the federal court, so would he be held in contempt?  
 

 
Plus breach of the settlement agreement, so possible recission if the judge were to allow it, along with the suspension kicking back in, perhaps with the appeal to be heard by an apoplectic judiciary.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Eddie, yes.  Both sides would agree on a statement and that would be that. 
 
Ivanvamp, Brady would be violating the agreed settlement order.  I'm not sure what the specific penalty would be.
 
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting my middle ground approach is likely.  I was just searching for something between the two sides that might give both a bit of what they want and need.
 
But that presumes that either or both sides want to make a deal, and I don't actually presume that. 

 

[Shelterdog]

I've said it a couple times before, but I don't buy the narrative that Berman feels constrained here, and is bashing the NFL as result. There's more than enough here to write an (effectively) appeal-proof decision for either side.
 
He may be bashing the NFL to force a settlement, but the NFLPA has brought one of the stronger vacatur cases I've seen. It's a high bar to clear, so it can still go either way, but it doesn't make sense to conclude Berman feels like he's can't rule for Brady. That just doesn't seem consistent with any understanding of the caselaw I can find.

 
I suspect Berman's eagerness to have this settle is that he doesn't want to have to issue an opinion about arbitration awards or labor law--two extremely important areas--based on the weird facts here where a tiny highly compensated union gave up the right to an independent arbitrator and then management went berserk. 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

 
They also said that the variability of the Patriots' balls at halftime (standard deviation of 0.40 or 0.41 psi) was higher than that of the Colts balls (SD = 0.14 or 0.16 psi), and this difference is thought to be caused by McNally rapidly deflating balls in the bathroom with a ball needle and no gauge to guide him.
 
But in Appendix 2, Exponent reenacts this alleged McNally scenario using 3 different people measuring 13 balls as quickly as possible.  Each of the three subjects is able to release air from all balls in 71 seconds or less (Appendix 2, Table 1), but they produce very little variability, not only in the data within one person's set of readings, but when comparing the subjects' readings to each other (Appx 2, Tables 1-4).
This experiment contradicts the theory that McNally introduced variability by deflating the footballs.  
 
For what it's worth, Appendix 2, Tables 1-4 are completely fabricated. 
Red flags for fabricated data include lack of variability and closeness of experimental results to hypothesized results.
Note that the amount of air released from the footballs in the three experimental repeats was 0.762, 0.772 and 0.747 psi,  respectively.  Recall that earlier in the document Exponent went to great lengths to show that the Patriots' balls dropped more than the Colts' balls at halftime, and this drop was 0.73-0.75 psi (Table 6).  
 
In other words, this experiment of releasing a random amount of air from 13 footballs as fast as humanly possible resulted in no variability and a psi drop that was almost exactly the same as the difference between the Pats' and Colts' balls at halftime.  These data are simply too good to be true. 

 
I believe the NFL (Wells) has already stated that his conclusion was based almost exclusively on "other factors" and not the scientific evidence...which was pretty troubling when I read that because it implied they've given up on the science (oh...those scientists) and are instead pressing the circumstantial evidence of the case. 
 
Maybe I shouldn't be troubled since it's an obvious ploy, to anyone breathing.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw  19m19 minutes ago
Remember that the winner in Brady v. NFL must win twice: before Judge Berman and before US Court of Appeals for 2nd Circuit. Long way to go.

 

[Otis Foster]

Myt1 is correct. A settlement agreement embodied in a court order would likely include a clawback like provision restoring the Report and the RG order and suspension if T B violated the gag provisions. It's also likely that the parties would agree to a mutual statement amounting to basically nothing.

A little harder to determine what would happen if the NFL violated it. In fact, that might be yet another stumbling block in settlement.

 

[ivanvamp]

So...
 
Berman then asked, "So the next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what would he get?"
Nash, after a roundabout explanation, finally settled on: "The amount of discipline would be based on the sound judgment of the commissioner."
 
This strikes to me at the core of the problem here.  What good is the CBA and the NFL rule book if the punishments in place....are irrelevant?  
 
From the rulebook:  “Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers, ball boys, and coaches, is allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”
 
I know we've been over this before.  But the punishment for altering footballs is $25,000, but it's not limited to that.  So what does that mean, really?  If the fine for littering includes, but is not limited to, $100, is it really ok for a judge to punish a guy who tosses a Snicker's wrapper on the ground by fining him $1 million and throwing him in jail for five years?  I mean, technically, he's following the letter of the law, right?  The penalty was "not limited" to $100, after all.
 
Those penalties in the rulebook are there to tell us the degree of seriousness of various infractions.  The penalty for excessive swearing is $20,000.  Just $5,000 less than altering footballs.
 
Could you imagine a guy dropping a series of F-bombs, and Goodell suspends him 4 games?  
 
Nash's response above simply means, Goodell can issue whatever penalty he wants.  Period.  
 
If the NFL wins this case, that will be the big takeaway.  That the judge will have concluded that the CBA allows Goodell to issue any penalty he wants for any infraction - real or imagined - he thinks took place.  And it matters not whether (1) any infraction actually occurred, (2) that there is any historical precedent for such a penalty, or (3) what the rule book actually says.
 
In other words, if Berman rules in favor of the NFL, it means Goodell is truly able to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, to anyone in the league he wants.  I mean, cripes, he's literally made stuff up here, lied all the way through, provided NO actual evidence, been completely one-sided and biased, and he just might win.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Plus breach of the settlement agreement, so possible recission if the judge were to allow it, along with the suspension kicking back in, perhaps with the appeal to be heard by an apoplectic judiciary.
 

 

Eddie, yes.  Both sides would agree on a statement and that would be that. 
 
Ivanvamp, Brady would be violating the agreed settlement order.  I'm not sure what the specific penalty would be.
 
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting my middle ground approach is likely.  I was just searching for something between the two sides that might give both a bit of what they want and need.
 
But that presumes that either or both sides want to make a deal, and I don't actually presume that. 

 
So what if Brady waits until his playing career is over, and then spills the beans?  

 

[Myt1]

That would probably be a technical breach but would likely be the sort of thing that isn't worth pursuing legally unless there was some more specific damage, such as to the reputation of the league, attributable to the breach.

Contempt still likely, though.

 

[OnWisc]

Should the NFLPA end up losing here, I wonder how vociferously the ESPNFL PR machine will emphasize that the decision was about process and not facts. Likely the very argument the league is making in court will be promptly abandoned as the NFL and their media partners ramp up the implication that the judge found Brady guilty.

 

[Reverend]

I know we've been over this before.  But 

 
Final warning.
 
You've been given an unbelievable amount of rope.

 

[bowiac]

I suspect Berman's eagerness to have this settle is that he doesn't want to have to issue an opinion about arbitration awards or labor law--two extremely important areas--based on the weird facts here where a tiny highly compensated union gave up the right to an independent arbitrator and then management went berserk. 

This makes a lot of sense to me. At least some part of the point of having this giant publicly funded judicial system is to give some guidance to the disputes which don't end up in court. This case has absolutely zero value outside one-off freakshow situations can only really come up in some very limited contexts. If an opinion comes out of this, it's not going to have much meaning besides for the NFL.

 

[Harry Hooper]

 
They also said that the variability of the Patriots' balls at halftime (standard deviation of 0.40 or 0.41 psi) was higher than that of the Colts balls (SD = 0.14 or 0.16 psi), and this difference is thought to be caused by McNally rapidly deflating balls in the bathroom with a ball needle and no gauge to guide him.
 
But in Appendix 2, Exponent reenacts this alleged McNally scenario using 3 different people measuring 13 balls as quickly as possible.  Each of the three subjects is able to release air from all balls in 71 seconds or less (Appendix 2, Table 1), but they produce very little variability, not only in the data within one person's set of readings, but when comparing the subjects' readings to each other (Appx 2, Tables 1-4).
This experiment contradicts the theory that McNally introduced variability by deflating the footballs.  
 
For what it's worth, Appendix 2, Tables 1-4 are completely fabricated. 
Red flags for fabricated data include lack of variability and closeness of experimental results to hypothesized results.
Note that the amount of air released from the footballs in the three experimental repeats was 0.762, 0.772 and 0.747 psi,  respectively.  Recall that earlier in the document Exponent went to great lengths to show that the Patriots' balls dropped more than the Colts' balls at halftime, and this drop was 0.73-0.75 psi (Table 6).  
 
In other words, this experiment of releasing a random amount of air from 13 footballs as fast as humanly possible resulted in no variability and a psi drop that was almost exactly the same as the difference between the Pats' and Colts' balls at halftime.  These data are simply too good to be true. 

 
 
Grewt post, there was also no video supplied of the 3 people actually doing this in ~70 seconds.

 

[Reverend]

This makes a lot of sense to me. At least some part of the point of having this giant publicly funded judicial system is to give some guidance to the disputes which don't end up in court. This case has absolutely zero value outside one-off freakshow situations can only really come up in some very limited contexts. If an opinion comes out of this, it's not going to have much meaning besides for the NFL.

 
I imagine Berman could write a very narrow opinion that only applies to CBAs where one of the parties to the case is the arbitrator, making it effectively apply only to the NFL.
 
Of course, that underscores what a crappy case this is.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Michael McCann ‏@McCannSportsLaw  42m
42 minutes ago
Why would NFL appeal a loss before Judge Berman? Because its won before in 2nd Cir. (ask @amilst44) and Brady could later serve suspension.

 

[bowiac]

I imagine Berman could write a very narrow opinion that only applies to CBAs where one of the parties to the case is the arbitrator, making it effectively apply only to the NFL.
 
Of course, that underscores what a crappy case this is.

Absolutely. You can write an effectively non-precedential opinion. It's just makes this even more of a waste of time and resources than "normal" litigation, as it won't even help steer future disputes.

 

[jsinger121]

Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet  3m3 minutes ago
Per 2 sources informed of Tom Brady’s thinking, his stance hasn’t changed. Not willing to accept any suspension in settlement at this point

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

Eddie, yes.  Both sides would agree on a statement and that would be that. 
 
Ivanvamp, Brady would be violating the agreed settlement order.  I'm not sure what the specific penalty would be.
 
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting my middle ground approach is likely.  I was just searching for something between the two sides that might give both a bit of what they want and need.
 
But that presumes that either or both sides want to make a deal, and I don't actually presume that. 

I don't think the NFL could be trusted not to leak "we had tons of great evidence, and it more than more than likely" even if it were blantantly untrue.  Brady's legacy will get tainted unless the Wells Report is officially tarnished.  
 
That said, possibly the NFL could say "Yes, we probably should've taken more time with the Wells report as there are a lot of complicated issues and compromised data that we didn't get to explore as thoroughly as we might have liked", which would be preferable to league PR than "We concocted a bunch of lies to shake down the Pats because they're better than us and we're jealous."  

 

[Archer1979]

 
Ian Rapoport ‏@RapSheet  3m3 minutes ago
Per 2 sources informed of Tom Brady’s thinking, his stance hasn’t changed. Not willing to accept any suspension in settlement at this point
 

 
The only way I read this is that Brady's legal team thinks they had a really good day today and any offers that may have been on the table in terms of suspension vanished the second Berman used the phrase "have been vacated".

 

[LogansDad]

I can't seem to shake that nagging "this-continues-to-go-perfectly-with-Berman-pounding-NFL-but-only-because-he-knows-he-can't-rule-against-them-despite-desperately-wanting-to" feeling...

This is exactly where I am at.  I hope we are wrong, but the NFL seems to be almighty in this fucking country these days.

 

[E5 Yaz]

This is exactly where I am at.  I hope we are wrong, but the NFL seems to be almighty in this fucking country these days.

 
And keep in mind what McCann said earlier about the NFL taking this to a favorable appeals court

 

[Average Reds]

This is exactly where I am at.  I hope we are wrong, but the NFL seems to be almighty in this fucking country these days.

I understand that people think this way because they don't want to get hopes up only to be crushed.

Having said this, we have moved beyond the part of the process that is controlled by the NFL. And far from being "almighty," the NFL has a pretty poor record in front of unbiased judges when their disciplinary process is reviewed.

This "myth of the power of the NFL" stuff really does not belong in any analysis of what is going on.

 

[AB in DC]

 
The only way I read this is that Brady's legal team thinks they had a really good day today and any offers that may have been on the table in terms of suspension vanished the second Berman used the phrase "have been vacated".

 
Sounds like he offered a one-game suspension yesterday to Goodell yesterday and got absolutely nothing in return, so he's not going to bother offering it again.

 

[Punchado]

 
Sounds like he offered a one-game suspension yesterday to Goodell yesterday and got absolutely nothing in return, so he's not going to bother offering it again.

Sounds more to me like this "leak" was made up by the NFL.  

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I grow tired of the "newspaper of record" consistently writing things like this:
 

Brady, too, continues to deny that he had anything to do with efforts by two Patriots staffers to deflate the team’s game balls at the A.F.C. championship game in January.
 

 
Apparently the editor was on vacation when it came time to insert the word "alleged" where appropriate. The concept of cheating is being etched into every narrative.

 

[tims4wins]

Wetzel with a tour de force
 
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/deflate-gate-judge-hammers-nfl-s-case-against-tom-brady---your-honor-is-spot-on---defense-crows--192153861.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
 
The last quote is my favorite. The ultimate proof that the NFL interpreted every single piece of evidence in the most negative light possible for Brady and the Pats, and the judge is calling BS.
 

When Nash tried to argue that Pash wasn't that involved and was more of an editor, Berman, like this was a cross-examination, pointed to an NFL press release that referred to Pash as "co-lead." Nash, stepped back from that lectern, again tried to minimize it as just a press release.
"Well," Berman said, "it's not my press release. You all wrote it."

 
 
 

"To me it is a conspicuous absence from Mr. Wells' finding," Berman said, noting that game and that game alone is what is in question here, not text messages referring to past games. "Why wouldn't you – he's a smart lawyer – say on January 18, 2015?"
Nash argued that it wasn't needed because the impetus for Wells' report was the AFC title game. Berman said that gave him, "some pause" and called it a leap to just base everything on "probably done it before or some guy from the Colts saying they do it all the time."
As an appreciative Kessler noted later to more courtroom laughs, "Your Honor is spot-on."

 
 
 

Nash said Goodell decided to liken it to performance-enhancing drugs, which Berman couldn't fathom.
"How is it equal to steroid use?" the judge asked with a tone of disbelief. "How did he pick steroid use?"
"I think the judgment goes to the integrity of the game," Nash defended.
"Everything goes to the integrity of the game," Berman said.

 
 
 

There was more, of course. A lot more. On every one of Kessler's points, Berman seemed to take a sympathetic stance and in turn was adversarial to the NFL. What that means in the end isn't determined, but consider toward the end, after Berman went after Nash for the suggestion that you could infer Brady was cheating because he stated that his preferred inflation level was 12.5 pounds per square inch, the legal limit. How, Berman wondered, could wanting the legal limit be a sign of illegal behavior?

 

[Eddie Jurak]

The Jeff Pash thing worries me a bit - if Berman vacates on that ground won't the NFL just stage another farce of a hearing, let Pash testify, and up hold the suspension anyway?

 

[Hoya81]

The Jeff Pash thing worries me a bit - if Berman vacates on that ground won't the NFL just stage another farce of a hearing, let Pash testify, and up hold the suspension anyway?

I would love to see that the NFLPA has reached out to Brady's contact list and gathered all the texts they could find it gets kicked back to RG.

 

[Section15Box113]

Wetzel with a tour de force

 
One point from the article on something that I might have missed.  Wetzel writes: "that the NFL didn't provide attorney notes to the NFLPA in violation of federal standards...."
 
I recall that the NFL did not provide Wells' interview notes (or other rationale behind the findings in the Wells Report), simply letting the report stand on its own.  I also recall that the PA had asked that these notes be released.
 
My question is: was this, in fact, a breach of federal standards? 
 
And if so, what specific standard was breached and what does that standard require? 

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Why didn't the NFL want Pash to testify under oath? Is there an innocent explanation? There are certainly plenty of non-innocent ones, which we'll never know.

 

[tims4wins]

Why didn't the NFL want Pash to testify under oath? Is there an innocent explanation? There are certainly plenty of non-innocent ones, which we'll never know.

 
I think the innocent explanation is what Nash said - that Pash's edits were immaterial. Plus if, according to the NFL, it didn't matter if the Wells Report was "independent", then it didn't matter if Pash made edits.

 

[Hoya81]

When Berman asked Kessler to read Brady's testimony aloud, NFL legal team was collectively looking like, "This can't be happening."
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) August 19, 2015

I got the impression the judge was not so impressed with the quality of the NFL's lawyers, either. @DandCShow https://t.co/1mJDEOtGd6
— Matt Taibbi (@mtaibbi) August 19, 2015

 

[Sportsbstn]

The Jeff Pash thing worries me a bit - if Berman vacates on that ground won't the NFL just stage another farce of a hearing, let Pash testify, and up hold the suspension anyway?

He seems to be hitting on so many more points than this as well. If the league is so worried about their ruling being reversed, well try to run a true fair hearing and it won't get here.

 

[WayBackVazquez]

 
One point from the article on something that I might have missed.  Wetzel writes: "that the NFL didn't provide attorney notes to the NFLPA in violation of federal standards...."
 
I recall that the NFL did not provide Wells' interview notes (or other rationale behind the findings in the Wells Report), simply letting the report stand on its own.  I also recall that the PA had asked that these notes be released.
 
My question is: was this, in fact, a breach of federal standards? 
 
And if so, what specific standard was breached and what does that standard require? 

 
Fundamental fairness.

 

[dcmissle]

 
And keep in mind what McCann said earlier about the NFL taking this to a favorable appeals court

If he called it "favorable" to the NFL, he is mischaracterizing that Court. It's a big court, there is a fair amount of diversity, and nobody will have a clue who it is favorable to, if either side, until a three-member panel is selected. And you likely won't know who is on the panel until the briefing is done, shortly before oral argument.

 

[Bleedred]

If he called it "favorable" to the NFL, he is mischaracterizing that Court. It's a big court, there is a fair amount of diversity, and nobody will have a clue who it is favorable to, if either side, until a three-member panel is selected. And you likely won't know who is on the panel until the briefing is done, shortly before oral argument.

I asked before, but does anyone know if today's hearing transcripts will be released to the public?