Brady 4 Game Suspension Upheld

[Patler]

The League simply has to recognize when it doesn't have a case against the player. The fact that we are now on reason #3 for the player suspension tells you all you need to know about the strength of the case.

If Goodell had any idea how to do his job, he would have sanctioned player and team at the existing low end, thereby lowering the risk of the punishment being overturned or even appealed. He would them have the competition committee write up new rules regarding the balls. The League office would draw up new procedures over how to handle them on Game Day after they are inspected. He then issues an updated Policy on Game Integrity that includes the players and enhanced punishments for violations.

Problem solved. The game did not turn on ball inflation, punishments were applied, procedures and sanctions will be reviewed.

The only thing it doesn't do is let you look like a public Get Tough guy. It simply functions.

Except I truly believe that would not have addressed the leagues goals in the situation.

[pbmax]

The players very much are employees at will. The team can fire a player at any time for any reason, or no reason. The player can quit at any time, even mid-season like the former Badger guard did a few years ago. Neither needs to develop justification. The players are more like employees at will than they are like any other employee type that I can think of.

Actually, the CBA speaks to each of these situations. That the owners value flexibility for controlling their roster is one of the negotiated areas in the CBA. The CBA speaks to discipline up to and including firing, retention of rights, bonus money owed and status on every team initiated waiver. Players who leave often are pressed to return bonus money, and that is governed by the contracts permissible under the CBA.

But even if the CBA said the players spot on team will be an at-will situation, the CBA still governs the entire process.

The League cannot avoid it. If they could, they would. But they need that exemption or, for instance, the League would lose the ability to control the TV contracts of teams. just as the SEC escaped out of the NCAA football contracts.

[Patler]

Actually, the CBA speaks to each of these situations. That the owners value flexibility for controlling their roster is one of the negotiated areas in the CBA. The CBA speaks to discipline up to and including firing, retention of rights, bonus money owed and status on every team initiated waiver. Players who leave often are pressed to return bonus money, and that is governed by the contracts permissible under the CBA.

But even if the CBA said the players spot on team will be an at-will situation, the CBA still governs the entire process.

The League cannot avoid it. If they could, they would. But they need that exemption or, for instance, the League would lose the ability to control the TV contracts of teams. just as the SEC escaped out of the NCAA football contracts.

Which is exactly why I wrote in my earlier post that the NFL gets tied up in its own laundry. The CBA is as much (or more) a laundry list of rules for the teams as it is rules for the relationship of players and teams.

[pbmax]

Which is exactly why I wrote in my earlier post that the NFL gets tied up in its own laundry. The CBA is as much (or more) a laundry list of rules for the teams as it is rules for the relationship of players and teams.

I just don't see the out strategy here for discipline. The League needs the CBA and collective bargaining to keep the limited exemption to anti-trust. The players aren't just going to agree to a CBA in name only that does not give them something in return. Or at least, they don't anymore, long ago, the PA and CBA were just a fig leaf.

The players want rules and for the rules to be uniformly enforced. That will impinge on the teams. The same teams that want the CBA to maintain the exemption.

I think you are saying the teams would be better off handling player discipline on their own, but the teams themselves have concluded its better to relinquish that control because negotiating as a League for business contracts is good for business.

[Patler]

I think you are saying the teams would be better off handling player discipline on their own, but the teams themselves have concluded its better to relinquish that control because negotiating as a League for business contracts is good for business.

No, that's not at all what I was saying. The players don't want that, the teams don't want that, the leagues doesn't want that. Player discipline in the hands of the league is fine. Shackling the league with the standards of the criminal justice system is ridiculous. But, that is likely what will result from this, when a player like Brady decides to fight.

[Guiness]

No, that's not at all what I was saying. The players don't want that, the teams don't want that, the leagues doesn't want that. Player discipline in the hands of the league is fine. Shackling the league with the standards of the criminal justice system is ridiculous. But, that is likely what will result from this, when a player like Brady decides to fight.

That's kind of what I've been driving at - regardless of Brady having done something or not, the league remotely prove it, even on the lower threshold of 'the preponderance of evidence'. They don't have one single shred of concrete evidence, everything is circumstantial and I don't see it holding water with a judge.

[mraynrand]

It gets kind of circular: Goodell should have had a toothless fine/punishment for Brady that Brady and team would accepts, so that he could retain the 'teeth' to fine in the future - but that teeth depends on being able to enact real fines and real punishments relying on less rigor than the criminal justice system which now looks to be less likely going forward. So, the league loses - if Brady is allowed to 'walk' in this case - even if, as PB argues, Brady is effectively 'totally clean' and nothing can be 'proven.'

[ThunderDan]

That's kind of what I've been driving at - regardless of Brady having done something or not, the league remotely prove it, even on the lower threshold of 'the preponderance of evidence'. They don't have one single shred of concrete evidence, everything is circumstantial and I don't see it holding water with a judge.

That is exactly how fraud cases in Wisconsin get tried. There is a statement made and then all of the horrible things that happened after the statement are piled on after the fact. Nothing is for sure or a fact. Both sides hire professionals to state how said "statement" caused damages or didn't. The judge rules on which side made the stronger argument.

[sharpe1027]

That's kind of what I've been driving at - regardless of Brady having done something or not, the league remotely prove it, even on the lower threshold of 'the preponderance of evidence'. They don't have one single shred of concrete evidence, everything is circumstantial and I don't see it holding water with a judge.

People have go to jail without any concrete evidence all the time. Saying that it is circumstantial does not prove your point.

[George Cumby]

It gets kind of circular.'

Soooooo...... Like PackerRats?

[pbmax]

The Judge in the case seems to accept at face value that the balls were deflated. So Narrative 1, Science 0 on that front. Has to help the NFL.

[pbmax]

It gets kind of circular: Goodell should have had a toothless fine/punishment for Brady that Brady and team would accepts, so that he could retain the 'teeth' to fine in the future - but that teeth depends on being able to enact real fines and real punishments relying on less rigor than the criminal justice system which now looks to be less likely going forward. So, the league loses - if Brady is allowed to 'walk' in this case - even if, as PB argues, Brady is effectively 'totally clean' and nothing can be 'proven.'

The League is bound up by rules in the CBA, but not bound by criminal or civil standards in the Courts for discipline. Smuggler had a fine point that Federal Judges have to give wide latitude to CBA policies and procedures. I think Patler is mistaking CBA involvement for the commish tripping over his own feet.

The Commish has a virtually free hand to increase penalties for infractions that fall under game integrity or Player Conduct or conduct detrimental to the game. He did this after the second Rice video leaked. He just couldn't use that standard in cases already before him, acts committed prior to the new policy.

He hands Brady the fine, the team still has the same penalty (there is no defense to removing the balls early from the refs) and then he convenes the competition committee to change the chain of custody policy on the stupid balls. Then he passes a new set of penalties for game equipment tampering AND he gives the players a copy of the Game Integrity policy.

Done. And done competently. Goodell just seems to prefer to have one press conference to announce he is eradicating a plague single-handedly. I also don't think he does well thinking long term about getting buy in from players and teams on this stuff. Tagliabue's excoriation of him when he overturned most of BountyGate still stands as the best indictment of Goodell's methods.

[mraynrand]

The Judge in the case seems to accept at face value that the balls were deflated. So Narrative 1, Science 0 on that front. Has to help the NFL.

The science only showed that they could possibly have naturally deflated. You know this right? Science doesn't disprove that there was an intentional effort on the part of Brady and NE to go outside the rules and change the inflation to suit them. And 'Narrative' is a nice euphemism for 'inculpatory evidence'

[sharpe1027]

The Judge in the case seems to accept at face value that the balls were deflated. So Narrative 1, Science 0 on that front. Has to help the NFL.

Defining one finding/view as "science" and the other as "narrative" doesn't make you more correct.

[pbmax]

The science only showed that they could possibly have naturally deflated. You know this right? Science doesn't disprove that there was an intentional effort on the part of Brady and NE to go outside the rules and change the inflation to suit them. And 'Narrative' is a nice euphemism for 'inculpatory evidence'

Yes I do. But since there is no direct evidence of deflation operations, the fact that science CAN explain the lower pressure places a greater burden on other evidence to show the crime.

And that evidence rests on the belief the conspiracy existed for one game. Its swiss cheese.

I agree that the Pats were up to something. But this was dumb hill to choose to die on.

[pbmax]

Defining one finding/view as "science" and the other as "narrative" doesn't make you more correct.

No, but the court should be concerned with the fact that most cold weather games are played with deflated balls and no one gets investigated. Until you run into an ex-Jet employee, acting on tips from the Ravens and Colts. And the evidence you use to initiate the investigation was in the hands of the Colts prior to halftime.

[mraynrand]

The League is bound up by rules in the CBA, but not bound by criminal or civil standards in the Courts for discipline. Smuggler had a fine point that Federal Judges have to give wide latitude to CBA policies and procedures. I think Patler is mistaking CBA involvement for the commish tripping over his own feet.

The Commish has a virtually free hand to increase penalties for infractions that fall under game integrity or Player Conduct or conduct detrimental to the game. He did this after the second Rice video leaked. He just couldn't use that standard in cases already before him, acts committed prior to the new policy.

He hands Brady the fine, the team still has the same penalty (there is no defense to removing the balls early from the refs) and then he convenes the competition committee to change the chain of custody policy on the stupid balls. Then he passes a new set of penalties for game equipment tampering AND he gives the players a copy of the Game Integrity policy.

Done. And done competently. Goodell just seems to prefer to have one press conference to announce he is eradicating a plague single-handedly. I also don't think he does well thinking long term about getting buy in from players and teams on this stuff. Tagliabue's excoriation of him when he overturned most of BountyGate still stands as the best indictment of Goodell's methods.

I certainly agree it could have been handled better.

[mraynrand]

Yes I do. But since there is no direct evidence of deflation operations, the fact that science CAN explain the lower pressure places a greater burden on other evidence to show the crime.

And that evidence rests on the belief the conspiracy existed for one game. Its swiss cheese.

I agree that the Pats were up to something. But this was dumb hill to choose to die on.

You make good points, but "the fact that science CAN explain the lower pressure places a greater burden on other evidence to show the crime." OK, I'll just look at the cell phone records...

Yes, science shows that the old man could have slipped down the stairs and died, but we're trying to find out whether he was pushed by his wife.

[Patler]

No, pb, I am not confusing things; however, I also am not interpreting everything in the same way that you are. I also believe your nice neat little package for letting Brady off virtually scot-free would not have accomplished in any way shape or form what the powers to be hoped to accomplish in this situation. However, it would have shown them to prostrate themselves belly-up in front of Brady, Belichick and the Patriots.

[sharpe1027]

No, but the court should be concerned with the fact that most cold weather games are played with deflated balls and no one gets investigated. Until you run into an ex-Jet employee, acting on tips from the Ravens and Colts. And the evidence you use to initiate the investigation was in the hands of the Colts prior to halftime.

Now you are telling us what the court should and shouldn't do? You seem very dismissive of anyone else's take on this, whether it be fellow posters or the court.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the "narrative" is far more compelling evidence than you are giving it credit and the "science" is also not what you make it out to be.