InsideTheParker said:Forgive me if this has been posted elsewhere, but I can't find it.
Maybe they had to, but they're ducking the issue of lack of notice to Brady. I suppose they'll get to it within point 2, but their list of issues seems to imply that they are saying that the lack of notice found as fact by the district judge can never suffice to overturn a suspension. That seems like a tall order. They've lost cases on this issue before, right? Maybe not at the second circuit, I guess.edmunddantes said:Here's the NFL's areas of appeal. Picture is in the tweet from Wallach.
There is good cause to expedite the appeal and argument. This appeal presents important and recurring issues associated with administration of the parties’ CBA. Prompt resolution of those issues will enable the parties to address and resolve future proceedings more effectively and more expeditiously, and also ensure that the parties have the opportunity, in advance of the 2016 regular season, to know Mr. Brady’s status and to plan accordingly. In addition, as the publicity surrounding this case confirms, these are issues in which NFL fans, as well as the parties, have substantial interest.
WayBackVazquez said:Also, the league has brought in Pratik Shah, formerly of the Solicitor General's office, and head of Akin Gump's (Nash's firm) Supreme Court and Appellate department. I would guess he'll argue at the Second Circuit.
Au contraire, bonjour.SeoulSoxFan said:As DFG news cycle has slowed down considerably, I'll be unpinning this thread within next several days. This thread has been absolutely invaluable & informative, so if enough of you think it should be moved to a subforum, let me know as well.
Read: "Oddsmakers, gamblers, sports radio callers, and the fantasy industry really really wants to know wutz gonna happen!!!" What a load of crap. Although it would be better for the Pats to have a ruling sooner rather than later (assuming it's after the season, and it will be), I still hope they're denied.dcmissle said:That is all I need to read to deny expedited treatment.
Second circuit rules/practice might be different, but this is a time frame I've seen:bankshot1 said:So if the appeals court adheres to the "no cutsies" protocol, and the NFL's request is denied, what's a normal timetable? Is another 3+ months to the requested January oral arguments date reasonable?
dcmissle said:That is true. But I see this case closer to margins than most. Clement loses his share. But they tend to be Hail Marys.
The panel is going to matter. A lot.
Exercising that authority, which mirrors the broad discretion given to commissioners in other sports to ensure the integrity of the game, the Commissioner suspended Tom Brady, quarterback on the New England Patriots, for four games after finding that Brady had participated in a scheme to deflate game balls to be used in a conference championship game. The scheme was aimed at gaining an unfair competitive advantage on the field, and it was devised to avoid detection by game officials. It struck at the heart of the game’s integrity and the public’s confidence in the NFL’s on-field product. The Commissioner’s conduct detrimental authority exists for incidents just like this.
Even accepting the notion that deflating game balls is an “equipment violation,” there was manifestly more going on here than that. Brady participated in a scheme to interfere with the officials’ ability to enforce rules going to the very heart of the game, and then not only refused to cooperate with the investigation into that scheme, but also affirmatively obstructed that investigation by destroying highly relevant evidence.
While the Wells Report concluded that Brady was “generally aware” of McNally and Jastremski’s actions, it also concluded that “it is unlikely that an equipment assistant and a locker room attendant would deflate game balls without Brady’s knowledge and approval,” and thus that McNally and Jastremski acted with “Brady’s awareness and consent.” Appellees are therefore simply wrong to argue that the Wells Report and the Commissioner’s initial disciplinary letter rested “solely” on a “general awareness” finding. JA73-74. They were based on knowledge, approval, awareness, and consent—all of which supported the Commissioner’s finding that Brady participated in the scheme.
BlackJack said:Am I reading this wrong or is the argument still basically 'sure we don't have any evidence but c'mon you just know he did it'
edmunddantes said:So all the tweets so far seem to show that the NFL is really hammering the LMRA.
I don't have access to the full brief so relying on those tweets.
Is the LMRA thing a big a winner as the NFL seems to think it is? I don't recall them objecting to the other standard (can't recall the acronym) being included when it was in the briefs, but I'm not certain.
1 At times, the district court relied on the Federal Arbitration Act rather than the LMRA. That was incorrect; because this dispute arises under a collective bargaining agreement, the LMRA governs judicial review of the award. See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Union Local 812, 242 F.3d 52, 54-55 (2d Cir. 2001). In all events, the court’s analysis would fare no better under the FAA provisions on which it erroneously relied, as “the stringent standard for vacating an arbitration award is materially the same under the FAA [and the] Labor Management Relations Act.” Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Serv., 754 F.3d 109, 113 (2d Cir. 2014).
If they win this, doesn't it, in effect, say that Roger Goodell can suspend any player, any time, for any reason, or no reason, as long as he writes up some bullshit rationalization?WayBackVazquez said:
The argument is still "you might not like his findings and rulings, and his interpretation of the CBA, but the Commissioner was granted the power to make those findings, and a court is not supposed to disturb them."
Eddie Jurak said:If they win this, doesn't it, in effect, say that Roger Goodell can suspend any player, any time, for any reason, or no reason, as long as he writes up some bullshit rationalization?
Federal courts have upheld other commissioners’ exercise of that broad authority. See Charles O. Finley & Co. v. Kuhn, 569 F.2d 527 (7th Cir. 1978) (upholding baseball commissioner’s “best interests of Baseball” authority). And this Court has held—even outside the strict standard of review for labor arbitration under the LMRA—that the judiciary must defer to a professional sports league’s “interpretation of its own rules.” Crouch v. NASCAR, Inc., 845 F.2d 397, 403 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing Finley). Rather than “decide de novo whether” a league has correctly applied its own rules, the Court considers only whether league discipline was imposed “in bad faith or in violation of any local, state or federal laws.” Id. at 402-403. “[A]ny lower standard,” this Court explained, “would create too great a danger that courts will become mired down in what has been called the ‘dismal swamp’—the area of a group’s activity concerning which only the group can speak competently.” Id. at 403. Simply put, “the judiciary should not be [the League’s] ‘umpire and governor.’”
I think that's referencing one of Brady's old D&C interviews where he joked about Gronk spiking and deflating the ball.soxhop411 said:@WALLACHLEGAL: NFL: "Although he professed ignorance . . ., Brady's preference for deflated footballs had been a matter of public knowledge for years"
soxhop411 said:@WALLACHLEGAL: NFL: "Although he professed ignorance . . ., Brady's preference for deflated footballs had been a matter of public knowledge for years"