#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
edmunddantes said:
I think if we ever saw the privileged notes, there was probably a lot of massaging and lawyering to try and make this work. Sunk cost fallacy. We've come this far, spent $X and Y hours. Let's keep pushing it. What's the worse that happens? We lose independent arbitrator grounds? We've already lost that a couple of times. What's one more going to hurt? 
OK, but correct me if I am wrong here---
Isn't this why your lawyers make the big bucks? They are supposed to recognize risk and advise how to mitigate it. The NFL outside counsel should have been telling the NFL to slow down and think, that Brady was not Incognito, and things can get out of your control when they get to federal court. Again, this risk was no surprise. Federal judges and arbitrators had chided Goodell in Bountygate, and in the Rice and Peterson cases. Maybe it seemed to laymen that they could keep counting on the same result, but I can't imagine how experienced litigators here can warn not to piss off federal judges, but Paul, Weiss partners didn't have enough foresight or self-confidence to lay that out. Their reputation was on the line.

Here's a concrete question: at what point, if you are Wells, do you start taking cautious action to protect your own reputation? Before the report is issued when you realize there is no evidence? Before the coached press conference? Before the appeal? Wells was swinging his ego around unnecessarily even during the appeal, when he had to know there were good odds the judge in the eventual suit would make the transcript public.

Edit: or never? Is Wells' only mistake that he took the work and after that he's gotta do what the client wants?
 

Otis Foster

rex ryan's podiatrist
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
1,707
"Here's a concrete question: at what point, if you are Wells, do you start taking cautious action to protect your own reputation? Before the report is issued when you realize there is no evidence? Before the coached press conference? Before the appeal? Wells was swinging his ego around unnecessarily even during the appeal, when he had to know there were good odds the judge in the eventual suit would make the transcript public. "

That's a good question. I would have thought that a first priority would be to true up the findings against the CBA. That does not appear to have been done. Another priority was either get the word 'independent' out of your lexicon, or cut off all interim communication with Pash, RG et al. Again, it didn't happen. Nor did he split off the prosecutorial function from the investigative till late in the game.

I reluctantly put it down to a kind of short-sightedness that can afflict any lawyer. You become so immersed in the fine details and esoteric issues within the case that it obscures your sense of the greater whole.

The point to me is this: there's no absolute prohibition vs allowing one party to a CBA to arbitrate a dispute, but make damn sure he does it in a clean room atmosphere. It appears Wells never drew that line at the outset, or if he did, RG ignored him. I'm not sure we'll ever know.
 

OCST

Sunny von Bulow
SoSH Member
Jan 10, 2004
24,483
The 718
dcmissle said:
He's professional. The piece was hard hitting but fair. We will easily be able to count one one hand the people who will emerge from this mess with their reputations enhanced. Florio will probably top that short list.
 
Stradley
Berman
maybe Kessler
 
fake edit: not that Berman's reputation needs burnishing from the likes of us.
 

Joe D Reid

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
4,208
EDIT--in response to crystalline.

I also think that it is unusual for an independent investigation to feed into a CBA proceeding like this. God knows there are plenty of lawyers doing internal investigations right now, but the majority of them are done in order to get in front of or placate regulators, or at the behest of audit committees. A guy like Wells (and, for that matter, a firm like PW) doesn't necessarily have a lot of experience advising a client who is in a quasi-prosecutorial or quasi-judicial posture, as opposed to a defensive one.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
22,089
A Scud Away from Hell
WayBackVazquez said:
how absurd it is that a company like ESPN that has its pick among the top lawyers in the country, uses a guy with Munson's lack of legal acumen and his disciplinary record. I just wouldn't say he was polite to do so.
 
I'd say ESPN knows exactly what it's doing in hiring -- and keeping -- Munson. Someone malleable enough to serve as the "legal" mouthpiece for itself and (foil hat alert) the NFL. 
 

LuckyBen

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 5, 2012
3,396
SeoulSoxFan said:
I'd say ESPN knows exactly what it's doing in hiring -- and keeping -- Munson. Someone malleable enough to serve as the "legal" mouthpiece for itself and (foil hat alert) the NFL.
I know it is in journalism and not law, but how is this guy adjunct at NU? Is he teaching 101 courses that should be going to grad students?

Edit: I undersold the Journalism department, as it is one of the best. I assume his wife knows some people, I would just expect more out of a school like Northwestern.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
Maybe your experience of representation are different from mine but find it hard to believe that good, experienced counsel could sit across from their client and counsel them on this course of action.  Sure, there is the possibility that that they said "Well Rodger, we understand your position and we think its flat out stupid" and he insisted they go along with it it, but I have to believe there was a general consensus that this would work.  I truly believe his counsel misread the landscape and made some critical errors.  
 
Say what you will about what goes on behind closed doors, but they were intimately involved in the writing/drafting of the Wells Report and initial discipline decision, as well the commissioners final judgment.  I firmly believe they needed to anticipate the legal issues raised by the NFLPA and countered them preemptively from the beginning, which they completely failed to do.  
 
I really don't think you can dispute that their legal team handled this poorly - which includes the involved of Pash in the editing of the report, and to questioning at the hearing.
I also dispute this.

I think one thing people have failed to understand is that Gooddell - who I'm sure has been interfacing with the lawyers - does not care if he gets reversed. At this point, it's a win-win situation for him. If the ruling is upheld, he has a great precedent for doing whatever he wants. If he doesn't win - and I don't expect that he thinks he will - it's fine because he has done what the majority of owners and the vast majority of the interested public want but he was overturned by the courts. And Brady gets to play, which means more money for the owners.

If Gooddell really cared about being overturned, he would have done something more with AP. But he didn't because (i) it's truly in the interests of the league for AP to play, and (ii) the NFL doesn't give a rats ass about whether players hit their children/wives, they just care about the PR fallout of any such acts.

It's remarkable that the NFL filed a seven page brief and didn't even address the evident partiality issue.

This is not a typical case where Brady is on one side and Gooddell is on the other. In a lot of ways, so long as Berman doesn't rule that Gooddell is partial - which would blow Article 46 out of the water - the interests of Gooddell and Brady are not terribly adverse.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,233
In a "defense" of Wells that I wrote some time back,I suggested, (before his press conference) that "generally aware" was simply the best he could do/as far as he was willing to go. The "small towel" analogy above is a good one.
 
I also still think that there is a real chance that he was taken aback by what Goodell did with his findings. And if he's given the sodium pentothol, I think he calls bullshit on Goodell's upping the ante on appeal with a "he wasn't just generally aware, he ordered it" conclusion.
 
Someone suggested that Wells has lost a client.  I dont see why. He gave the client exactly what it was looking for.
 
The poster who cited "arrogance" is probably onto something.  I dont know who Goodell has in his inner circle, but to the extent its the Pat-haters like kensil, he's not going to get any "hey what are you doing" advice.  Troy Vincent is a yes-man, rescued by the NFL from his days as a bad PA leader.  Not that he would have listened, but he had 1000 people saying "we got those bastards now."  Ironically, "generally aware" might have been the only voice in the wilderness cautioning restraint.
 
This circles back to the Mara request.  Goodell's bosses were likely looking for blood. To the extent any lawyers were advising him otherwise -- and I think there were, because trhese are good lawyers, and the case's shortcomings are evident (even though they still have a good shot at winning) -- RG ignored them and went with his bosses. Just another finger into another wind for Roger Goodell. He lacks the intellectual gravitas that would allow him to make up his own mind.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
IMO, the last two posts are directly on point.

To blame the inept record/performance of the NFL in court on the lawyers really misses the forest for the trees. It also fundamentally misunderstands the management/labor dynamic at the heart of how the NFL operates.

Goodell may be an inept fool in the way he misreads the pulse of the public, but he's a very useful idiot who carries water for (and vigorously protects the interests of) the owners. If part of that means he has to take a beating in court when he goes too far, the owners give him 44 million reasons a year not to be too concerned about it.

The lawyers who represent the NFL are there to make the best of the bad facts they are dealing with. So they wrap them in the CBA (which is a pretty powerful wrapper) and hope it allows them to skate. When it doesn't, they move on.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
WayBackVazquez said:
The award is either vacated (or modified), or it's confirmed. It should be immediately appealable no matter what action he takes on the award. Vacating for a full do-over or vacating to reopen the hearing, it's still vacatur.
Quick questions about possible Berman rulings.
 
A confirmation seems clear enough. Brady gets 4-games, but can appeal..
 
But if Berman vacates the award, does that mean the NFL can (but doesn't have to) re-hear the case, or that Brady is not subject to double-jeopardy, and that he skates?
 
If it vacated (modified) is the interpretation that the NFL gets another shot at Brady, but within very specific guidelines set by the judge?
 
Are there any rulings Berman is not allowed to make, like assigning a specific penalty ($50,000 fine) for non-cooperation?
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
Perhaps its wishful thinking on my part but I think this thing has evolved and that this no longer is, if it ever truly was, a win-win for Goodell. I think a lot of people including some owners know this is a bad look for the league, and it is destined to be at least a bit of a story through the next two drafts.

Edit: sorry. Thought I was in the orher thread.
 

Gorton Fisherman

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
May 26, 2002
2,485
Port Orange, FL
Okay here's a thing that I'm now officially tired of: media types acknowledging the lack of evidence and various misconduct by the NFL being pointed out by Kessler, but then dismissing it all as irrelevant because "THE NFLPA AGREED TO THIS SYSTEM IN THE CBA!" Enough already with this crap. Just because the CBA allows Goodell to determine punishment and also hear appeals DOES NOT MEAN that any decision he makes is necessarily legal or consistent with labor law. If Goodell had given Brady the death penalty as punishment for DFG I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have held up. Absurd example, I know, but people need to stop with this notion that any ruling Goodell makes is automatically bulletproof just because of the existence of the CBA.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,558
Here
It is tiresome, especially in light of Rice and Peterson, which are recent rulings, mind you.
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
Gorton Fisherman said:
Okay here's a thing that I'm now officially tired of: media types acknowledging the lack of evidence and various misconduct by the NFL being pointed out by Kessler, but then dismissing it all as irrelevant because "THE NFLPA AGREED TO THIS SYSTEM IN THE CBA!" Enough already with this crap. Just because the CBA allows Goodell to determine punishment and also hear appeals DOES NOT MEAN that any decision he makes is necessarily legal or consistent with labor law. If Goodell had given Brady the death penalty as punishment for DFG I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have held up. Absurd example, I know, but people need to stop with this notion that any ruling Goodell makes is automatically bulletproof just because of the existence of the CBA.
Amen.  It's a gross over simplification that only serves the NFL's PR. Not that this should be surprising from ESPN. I mean from my limited viewing of them since this shit started is they put a bunch of ex players and Polian on set and for all intents and purposes say " Fire away at NEP".
 
This goes back to something McCan has alluded to in that there is the possibility the Judge is really beating on the NFL because he knows that if he rules for the NFL nobody outside of NE is going to read the opinion.  However, I don't really agree with position because if the NFL is upheld Polian and company will likely suddenly be far more interested in what the documents say rather than soley the league printed out talking points. 
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
Otis Foster said:
"Here's a concrete question: at what point, if you are Wells, do you start taking cautious action to protect your own reputation? Before the report is issued when you realize there is no evidence? Before the coached press conference? Before the appeal? Wells was swinging his ego around unnecessarily even during the appeal, when he had to know there were good odds the judge in the eventual suit would make the transcript public. "

That's a good question. I would have thought that a first priority would be to true up the findings against the CBA. That does not appear to have been done. Another priority was either get the word 'independent' out of your lexicon, or cut off all interim communication with Pash, RG et al. Again, it didn't happen. Nor did he split off the prosecutorial function from the investigative till late in the game.

I reluctantly put it down to a kind of short-sightedness that can afflict any lawyer. You become so immersed in the fine details and esoteric issues within the case that it obscures your sense of the greater whole.

The point to me is this: there's no absolute prohibition vs allowing one party to a CBA to arbitrate a dispute, but make damn sure he does it in a clean room atmosphere. It appears Wells never drew that line at the outset, or if he did, RG ignored him. I'm not sure we'll ever know.
 
It is pretty clear that Wells was hired to write a report that Brady did it, not to investigate what actually happened.  So, among the pretty narrow sliver of people whose opinion Wells cares about, most likely have made up their minds based just on that reality.  Some will recognize a lawyer gets paid to do things; others (mostly likely from his more aggressively crim defense oriented peers) will recognize that he sold out here and should have walked away given the evidence rather than framing an innocent man with wishy-washy language.
 
In terms of 'protect himself' I think the ship has sailed. 
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,700
Wayland, MA
BannedbyNYYFans.com said:
Heard Borges on CSNNE..."Lester got his law degree from the University of Chicago, he's a pretty smart guy. And he's a good friend of mine."

More reason to hate Munson.
 
Checked with my son who's at NU. Munson teaches a course called "Sports and Society" at Medill (the journo school). He does get pretty good marks from the students, according to my son. And given NUs connections to ESPN (Greenberg, Wilbon, Adande, etc) perhaps that's what got him the ESPN gig. Or vice versa.
 

TomTerrific

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,700
Wayland, MA
TomTerrific said:
 
Checked with my son who's at NU. Munson teaches a course called "Sports and Society" at Medill (the journo school). He does get pretty good marks from the students, according to my son. And given NUs connections to ESPN (Greenberg, Wilbon, Adande, etc) perhaps that's what got him the ESPN gig. Or vice versa.
 
Hmm. Just took a look at these reviews, and not that it matters one damn bit, but there's a recurrent anti-athlete theme there. Here's one for example, "I learned a lot about sports coverage and how many professional athletes are horrible people"
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
Munson knows next to nothing about labor law, which is clear from, among things, the fact that he doesn't even have a handle on the relevant procedure. To wit:

"First, he actually decided to take the case on. That's rare enough when dueling parties have previously contractually agreed to allow disputes to be handled by arbitration. But rather than punting the case immediately, as I and other legal analysts figured would happen, Berman has tolerated multiple briefings and hearings, with more to come."

This is unmitigated horseshit. The idea that a court would sua sponte dismiss a petition to *CONFIRM* or vacate an arbitration award under the LMRA and FAA because of deference to collectively-bargained arbitration is W-R-O-N -G. What a hack.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
So whether one visits V and N or not, and regardless of one's political leanings, there is no doubt that the hottest ticket in American today is to a Donald Trump event. He is white hot. And he is a great friend of TB. This should play out in an amusing way, one way or another.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
bankshot1 said:
Quick questions about possible Berman rulings.
 
A confirmation seems clear enough. Brady gets 4-games, but can appeal..
 
But if Berman vacates the award, does that mean the NFL can (but doesn't have to) re-hear the case, or that Brady is not subject to double-jeopardy, and that he skates?
 
If it vacated (modified) is the interpretation that the NFL gets another shot at Brady, but within very specific guidelines set by the judge?
 
Are there any rulings Berman is not allowed to make, like assigning a specific penalty ($50,000 fine) for non-cooperation?
There is no equivalent to double jeopardy here. If the Judge orders a do over, there will be a do over, in accordance with the CBA, and whatever else the opinion requires. As has been discussed, there are certain findings that could not reasonably result in a rehearing because they can't be corrected. For example, if Berman finds that lack of notice that Brady could be penalized renders the penalty invalid, that would be seemingly impossible to cure on remand.

From what I've seem of the case law, the only time a ruling like you suggest would clearly hold up would be if there was an identifiable error in calculation, e.g., the CBA calls for $10,000 for each Super Bowl ring, and the award calls for a $50,000 fine, Berman could reduce to $40,000. But I would be careful about "allowed." He's "allowed" to make lots of rulings that would likely be reversed by the Second Circuit. And if he "modified" the award by finding that the law of the shop set an upper limit for the vioations found was xxx, and set such a penalty, he would PROBABLY get reversed, but he's certainly allowed to do so.

Edited to fix bad Latin.
 

SocrManiac

Tommy Seebach’s mustache
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
8,632
Somers, CT
Ed Hillel said:
It is tiresome, especially in light of Rice and Peterson, which are recent rulings, mind you.
 
Almost more tiresome is that Rice and Peterson actually committed the crimes. They weren't "generally aware" of somebody else maybe doing something bad.
 
I realize the underlying point is the overturning of Goodell's rulings, but it's infuriating that Brady is linked to these guys just because they all fall under recent NFL foulups. The cases couldn't be more different but they're tied together by circumstances.
 
Edit: My point made no sense.
 

Bongorific

Thinks he’s clever
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
8,433
Balboa Towers
MarcSullivaFan said:
Munson knows next to nothing about labor law, which is clear from, among things, the fact that he doesn't even have a handle on the relevant procedure. To wit:

"First, he actually decided to take the case on. That's rare enough when dueling parties have previously contractually agreed to allow disputes to be handled by arbitration. But rather than punting the case immediately, as I and other legal analysts figured would happen, Berman has tolerated multiple briefings and hearings, with more to come."

This is unmitigated horseshit. The idea that a court would sua sponte dismiss a petition to *CONFIRM* or vacate an arbitration award under the LMRA and FAA because of deference to collectively-bargained arbitration is W-R-O-N -G. What a hack.
It really shouldn't be hard for ESPN to find 3-4 lawyers in the NY/CT area that practice labor and/or crim law as those are typically the only fields that touch the pro leagues. Having Munson out there is like having a cardiologist give his opinion regarding the latest player injuries and timetables for return. Yeah, he's a doctor and has a basic understanding of ortho issues from year 1 of med school, but he's way outside his expertise.

Come to think of it, ESPN does a similar thing with Stephania Bell. At least she's a physical therapist and knows about ortho injuries but I think ESPN could afford radsox or DRS. What's $10 to a billion dollar company?
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,185
Bongorific said:
It really shouldn't be hard for ESPN to find 3-4 lawyers in the NY/CT area that practice labor and/or crim law as those are typically the only fields that touch the pro leagues. Having Munson out there is like having a cardiologist give his opinion regarding the latest player injuries and timetables for return. Yeah, he's a doctor and has a basic understanding of ortho issues from year 1 of med school, but he's way outside his expertise.

Come to think of it, ESPN does a similar thing with Stephania Bell. At least she's a physical therapist and knows about ortho injuries but I think ESPN could afford radsox or DRS. What's $10 to a billion dollar company?
 
They could afford to have actual analysts rather than talking-head ex journalists too.  But they are in the media personality business, not the accuracy business.  Don't forget that!
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Bongorific said:
It really shouldn't be hard for ESPN to find 3-4 lawyers in the NY/CT area that practice labor and/or crim law as those are typically the only fields that touch the pro leagues. Having Munson out there is like having a cardiologist give his opinion regarding the latest player injuries and timetables for return. Yeah, he's a doctor and has a basic understanding of ortho issues from year 1 of med school, but he's way outside his expertise.
It's much worse than that. It's like having a guy who was a really bad, drunk doctor operating out of a strip mall for a couple of years, until he was banned from practicing for repeated malpractice do it. Duke, Bonds, Hernandez, Penn State, here...he is incredibly consistent in being clueless. You should read some of the links below.

WayBackVazquez said:
Munson is probably the worst legal analyst working in major media today. His Barry Bonds trial analysis was from another planet. Give it a couple of days; the law professor blogs will have plenty of reasonable handicapping of this case.
Some reading about Lester and Barry:
http://www.hangingsliders.com/2011/04/14/lester-munsons-legal-analysis-of-the-barry-bonds-verdict-is-anything-but/
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/12/19/meanwhile-in-an-alternate-universe-where-the-barry-bonds-prosecution-was-a-triumph-for-the-prosecution/
He was also totally off the wall in the Duke Lacrosse case. Read about his treatment of that case, as well as his legal background (ambulance chaser forced out of the legal profession in disgrace):
http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/03/lester-munson-legal-expert.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-04-17/news/9102040136_1_settlement-check-lawyer-disciplinary-supreme-court
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
WayBackVazquez said:
There is no equivalent to double jeopardy here. If the Judge orders a do over, there will be a do over, in accordance with the CBA, and whatever else the opinion requires. As has been discussed, there are certain findings that could not reasonably result in a rehearing because they can't be corrected. For example, if Berman finds that lack of notice that Brady could be penalized renders the penalty invalid, that would be seemingly impossible to cure on remand.

From what I've seem of the case law, the only time a ruling like you suggest would clearly hold up would be if there was an identifiable error in calculation, ie, the CBA calls for $10,000 for each Super Bowl ring, and the award calls for a $50,000 fine, Berman could reduce to $40,000. But I would be careful about "allowed." He's "allowed" to make lots of rulings that would likely be reversed by the Second Circuit. And if he "modified" the award by finding that the law of the shop set an upper limit for the vioations found was xxx, and set such a penalty, he would PROBABLY get reversed, but he's certainly allowed to do so.
WBV- thanks for adding clarity-your posts have been very helpful in getting a better handle on the process,
 

Oklahoma Jones

New Member
May 16, 2013
44
Saints Rest said:
Seems like the only thing missing is that the fallen dude on the street should be TB12.
 
Agreed. I used my meager photoshop skills to make that small change. All credit to Buster Olney the Lonely and Martin Scorsese.
 
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
SocrManiac said:
 
Almost more tiresome is that Rice and Peterson actually committed the crimes. They weren't "generally aware" of somebody else maybe doing something bad...
 
- It's also very possible that McNally, with Brady's urging, committed a "crime" on AFCCG day. We keep (rightfully) pointing out that the Wells report doesn't provide evidence of tampering. It also doesn't exclude tampering (deviation calculations work in both directions). The report is a set-up, but it doesn't prove things one way or the other.
 
- The NFL doesn't care about verdicts. The football-viewing public still thinks Rice, Peterson, Incongito, etc. are criminals who only got off because of legal tricks perpetrated by the union. The NFL never got stained by the over-turning of those cases. NFL don't care. They did what they had to do to keep the public (including sponsors) trust - verdict be damned.
 
- Brady is referred to as an NFL trophy and face-of-a-team (as opposed to those other guys). Really? Who gives a shit besides Patriots fans? Substitute Rodgers for Brady and how offended would we all be?
 
It's sad. The only way Goodell "loses" is if the owner's decide he's gone a step too far (how likely is that?). I think the NFL sincerely believes those balls were fucked with and that Brady had something to do with it - but they just can't prove it "beyond a reasonable doubt" (versus preponderance of evidence or generally aware). I don't think the commissioner is out to get Brady or the Pats. I do think that they realize they (he) can't lose regardless of any ruling - because at the end of the day it will look like he tried to protect the integrity of the game but was stymied by a bunch of smart lawyers in cahoots with a too-powerful union.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
For anyone interested, Daniel Wallach is going through the entire Kessler transcript on twitter. It started late last night and he continued this morning.
 

Bleedred

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 21, 2001
9,963
Boston, MA
Goodell cannot lose, period.   Worst case for him is what....he loses his job in week 1?    He will then have the burden of figuring out how to spend the $300 million+ he's made as NFL commissioner.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,837
soxhop411 said:
Stephanie Stradley Is killing Bart Hubbuch on Twitter
 
Hubbach doesn't seem like a bright guy. And that goes back before all of this.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Oklahoma Jones said:
 
Agreed. I used my meager photoshop skills to make that small change. All credit to Buster Olney the Lonely and Martin Scorsese.
 
Maybe add the line " As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be the Commissioner"
 
throw in some "Layla"...
 

Groovenstein

Member
SoSH Member

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
Munson wrote this about Garvey;

"To make sure everyone understood its ruling, the Supreme Court went so far as to say in the Garvey decision that even when the arbitrator's "procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct," a federal judge may not "interfere with an arbitrator's decision that the parties [players and owners] bargained for."

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13479971/fooled-judge-deflategate-case-nfl-win-end-new-england-patriots-tom-brady

This is what Garvey actually says:

"Consistent with this limited role, we said in Misco that [e]ven in the very rare instances when an arbitrators procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct, as a rule the court must not foreclose further proceedings by settling the merits according to its own judgment of the appropriate result. 484 U.S. at 4041, n. 10. That step, we explained, would improperly substitute a judicial determination for the arbitrators decision that the parties bargained for in their agreement. Ibid. Instead, the court should simply VACATE the award, thus leaving open the possibility of further proceedings if they are permitted under the terms of the agreement. Ibid."

[Caps added for emphasis.]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1210.ZPC.html

The Supreme Court is saying the where the award shows affirmative misconduct, the court should VACATE and leave open the possibility of further proceedings under the CBA rather than essentially stepping into the arbitrator's shoes and fashioning its own award. Munson--amazingly--morphs this into the Supreme Court saying that even where there is affirmative misconduct, the district court must defer to the arbitrator. Just entirely wrong.

Which results in Hubbuch tweeting this nonsense:

https://twitter.com/barthubbuch/status/635174502192705536

Sigh.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
This is my favorite part of their exchange:

@BartHubbuch: @StephStradley @tonygig Blatantly obvious to anyone who truly knows how NFL football operates that cheating went on. TB deserves to sit.

@StephStradley: @BartHubbuch @tonygig I was just answering a q about a legal issue. Cheater-cheater pumpkin eater isn't a legit football or legal argument.
I think I'm in love.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,991
Newton
Great points, MSF. Tho Stradley says Garvey isn't totally irrelevant, you raise a broader point: that Munson is dangerous because most sports writers assume that as the legal analyst for the foremost sports network, Munson must know what he's talking about.

Also, this exchange is still going on:

@BartHubbuch: @StephStradley I seem to have stumped you by bringing up JM & JJ. I realize their actions are an "inconvenient truth" for Brady Truthers.

@StephStradley: @BartHubbuch I'm not a "Brady truther." Like judge, I'm concerned about NFL's big assumptions+why did NFL hide the exculpatory info/texts?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
Hoya81 said:
@StephStradley @tonygig I'm no RG fan, as anyone who reads me knows. But the idea of NEP/Brady getting off on technicalities repulses me. Bart Hubbuch (@BartHubbuch) [URL="https://twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/635154591693148161
https://twitter.com/BartHubbuch/status/635154591693148161"]August

link to tweet 22, 2015[/url]
I really hate this statement. Am I the only one who learned in public school about the importance of rights afforded us by the justice system?

Sure, Tom may get off on a "technicality", but that's only because it's the only avenue he has left after being subjected to a process the was biased against him. Guilty until proven innocent (which is an impossibility).

Only when put before an agnostic third party was the NFL forced to shine sunlight on the operation and their lies began to unravel.

As an American, these "technicalities" should disgust you.

Edit: In certain cases, we let murderers go free when their rights are violated. I fully support this, as the greater principle is more important than the one crime. And here we're just talking about a little air.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
This is so bizarre.

No, guys, you're not going to root the court into one direction or another.

When it happens in politics -- e.g. with polls -- I understand it: you're trying to spin results to create a sense of inevitability, or a comeback, or whatever. It doesn't work, but for morale purposes anyway, it makes sense.

This is stupid.
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
Van Everyman said:
Great points, MSF. Tho Stradley says Garvey isn't totally irrelevant, you raise a broader point: that Munson is dangerous because most sports writers assume that as the legal analyst for the foremost sports network, Munson must know what he's talking about.

Also, this exchange is still going on:
To be clear, I'm not saying Garvey is irrelevant. But it is a pretty blatant example of a court (the Ninth Circuit COA in that case--the district court actually affirmed the arbitrator) blatantly second guessing the arbitrator's factual determinations, which seemed pretty reasonable in the first place. I doubt Berman would do anything that whacky. The Ninth Circuit is known for some pretty quirky L&E rulings.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
It's interesting that Hubbach ends up by making the forceful comment that it's "blatantly obvious to anyone who knows how NFL operates that cheating went on." You know every once in awhile I wonder if I am missing something that 85% or so of the country is getting about this and maybe Brady did something. But then I read that comment, or I hear Volin say that he thinks the league may be hiding evidence that would implicate Belichick , or I read that there's an owner who says the league is holding back evidence that would prove cheating, or I hear Dungy talking about imaginary bugging devices, or I see Bob Ryan ranting about how the Patriots are always stepping over the line of some unnamed rule, or I read that other teams think the Patriots have been getting away with (again unnamed) crimes for years, and I realize I'm not missing anything because there actually is nothing but the fruitful imaginations of all these accusers. These 85% are blinded by some combination of paranoia and stupidity and hatred and media mobbing to the point that they have total conviction that the Patriots are up to something. And if the facts in front of us don't prove it then we are looking at the facts incorrectly and anyway there are other better hidden facts that they KNOW prove they are right!

As someone who talks with paranoid people on pretty much a daily basis it's all quite familiar. It's just a very strange phenomenon to watch play out this way.
 

garzooma

New Member
Mar 4, 2011
126
Van Everyman said:
@BartHubbuch: @StephStradley @tonygig Blatantly obvious to anyone who truly knows how NFL football operates that cheating went on. TB deserves to sit.
 
 
Too bad there wasn't an independent investigation to determine what was blatantly obvious.  Go bitch to Goodell, Bart.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,474
Melrose, MA
Bleedred said:
Goodell cannot lose, period.   Worst case for him is what....he loses his job in week 1?    He will then have the burden of figuring out how to spend the $300 million+ he's made as NFL commissioner.
I think the "loss" scenario for Goodell would be 1 of 2 things (I don't know that either of these is even possible):
 
1. Berman, having concluded that Goodell is just a mouthpiece for the owners and has no decision authority, starts hauling owners into court.  The owners may want Goodell to shiv Tom Brady, but they for damned sure don't want to be seen as wielding the knife themselves, nor do they want to go anywhere near Judge Berman.  If this becomes a possibility, the owners may conclude that Goodell is more trouble than he is worth - part of his job is to protect them.
 
2. Berman rules (if this is even possible) that the NFL has somehow waived privelege on the Wells report, and that NFL, Paul Weiss, and Exponent must turn over all of their work, draft reports, and communications.  No doubt there is a metric fuckton of stuff that would undermine the report and everyone involved in it.  
 
Both of these seem unlikely even if possible, but either would end with a huge fork sticking out of Goodell's back. 
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Agree with the above. Those are the only two things that could cost RG his job on this.

The first one would prompt a "resignation" after a decent interval.

If the second one were bad enough, he might have to step down right away.