Brady 4 Game Suspension Upheld

[King Friday]

All of this crap just leads me to believe that the next CBA agreement is going to involve a LENGTHY holdout by the players...because Goodell's heavy handed and confusing way of dealing out punishment is not winning over the players.

[Rutnstrut]

He also went from Android to iOS (iOS to Android?). I've known people who've gone in one direction or the other in less than 4 months after getting a new phone.

Same here, hell I have friends that pay full full price to "upgrade" 3 or 4 times a year. Just so they can say they have the latest and greatest, and they are far from millionaires.

[Guiness]

All of this crap just leads me to believe that the next CBA agreement is going to involve a LENGTHY holdout by the players...because Goodell's heavy handed and confusing way of dealing out punishment is not winning over the players.

I'd say +1...but they really seemed lined up to hold out this past time and caved at the 11th hour. I think the nature of the sport - young man's game, outside of QB's a very limited amount of earning years and fungibility of the journeymen class player, a new crop of players available every 12 months, really lowers the possibility of the union putting up a good fight.

[pbmax]

ProFootballTalk @ProFootballTalk 9h9 hours ago
Tom Brady's agent tells @tomecurran that NFL's shift in message to "destroyed" cell phone was expected http://wp.me/p14QSB-9Ouc

I suggest you read it. Because while there are some good nuggets of info, the word tortured does come to mind.

[pbmax]

Tom Curran writes that the man who seems responsible for initiating the investigation of the Patriots for deflate gate was a Jets employee until Eric Mangini was hired as head coach.

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/attention-circles-back-to-mike-kensil-as-deflategate-source

[pbmax]

Albert Breer @AlbertBreer
From Brady suit: "The purportedly independent Wells Report was edited by Pash, the NFL's General Counsel, before its public release."

[smuggler]

Looks to me like the NFL wins this one. The union's primary argument is that the arbitrator is biased. Arbitrator was agreed upon by the league and Brady via the CBA long ago. Doty would have gone against legal precedent to help out the labor, but the NY judge probably won't. Brady agreed to binding arbitration AND agreed to having it be levied by Goodell. He should have taken a deal. He's toast.

[pbmax]

Looks to me like the NFL wins this one. The union's primary argument is that the arbitrator is biased. Arbitrator was agreed upon by the league and Brady via the CBA long ago. Doty would have gone against legal precedent to help out the labor, but the NY judge probably won't. Brady agreed to binding arbitration AND agreed to having it be levied by Goodell. He should have taken a deal. He's toast.

The NFLPA has won the last two battles over Personal Conduct because of due process, not bias. For Rice, the Judge (not Doty) ruled that Commissioner Hairbrain was not lied to, but failed to understand what a punch might mean in the context of domestic violence. Without the video, he failed to imagine that it could be as severe as the video indicated. The Judge found this failure of comprehension to be consistent with the NFL's admitted failure to take the issue seriously, resulting in the new Policy.

The also lost on a second angle with Rice when they got stopped from applying a new rue after the fact.

Doty found that the same rulings applied to Peterson.

Brady's case, as argued by the NFLPA, is being contested on four points:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-in-minnesota/

1. Players advance notice of potential discipline. “Brady had no notice of the disciplinary standards that would be applied,” the petition says at page 3, “and no notice of the potential penalties.”

2. The league and the NFLPA collectively bargained the punishment for “alleged equipment tampering by players,” and that the NFL was not permitted to disregard those provisions without advance notice.

3. The petition likewise explains that the “Competitive Integrity Policy” was “never given” to players, and that it specifically applies only to teams, not to players.

4. A fine is the only penalty that has ever been upheld in such circumstances.” (In 2010, Brett Favre was fined $50,000 for failing to cooperate with an investigation regarding allegations that he texted inappropriate photos to a Jets employee.)

5. The petition claims that the discipline violates the “law of the shop” that requires fair and consistent treatment of players by basing Brady’s discipline on air-pressure tests that “did not generate reliable information,” and that the arbitrator (Commissioner Roger Goodell) was “evidently partial.”

Regarding #3, a Jets player, a kicker, was not subject to punishment despite being generally aware of tampering with the K balls by the Jets equipment staff in 2009.

[smuggler]

Doty's rulings were contrary to legal precedent and taken to higher court to continue litigation. The league and Goodell pooped thw bed with Rice's case, but it doesn't have any bearing on the Brady case, as far as I can see.

[pbmax]

Doty's rulings were contrary to legal precedent and taken to higher court to continue litigation. The league and Goodell pooped thw bed with Rice's case, but it doesn't have any bearing on the Brady case, as far as I can see.

You might be able to find one or some of his rulings that the NFL claims were contrary to legal precedent, but not Peterson's.

The 16-page ruling from Judge David Doty that reinstates Vikings running back Adrian Peterson turns on one fairly simple conclusion: The NFL cannot apply its new personal conduct policy retroactively.

“There is no dispute that the Commissioner imposed Peterson’s discipline under the New Policy,” Judge Doty wrote. “It is also undisputed that in the [Ray] Rice arbitration, the hearing officer unequivocally recognized that the New Policy cannot be applied retroactively, notwithstanding the Commissioner’s broad discretion in meting out punishment under the CBA. . . . Consistent with that recognition, the Commissioner has acknowledged that he did not have the power to retroactively apply the New Policy: ‘The policy change was forward looking because the League is “required to provide proper notice.”‘ . . . Yet, just two weeks later, the Commissioner retroactively applied the New Policy to Peterson.”

In other words, Judge Doty concluded that the NFL was making it up as went along.

[smuggler]

The legal precedent that Doty set aside was setting aside a binding arbitration. Even when arbitrators err, their rulings are pretty much universally upheld because it's quite the nasty legal can of worms to introduce legally binding agreements as debatable in court. I have heard, and I am no legal expert, that Peterson will lose ultimately because the higher court, while not disagreeing with Doty about the incorrectness of the arbitration, will nevertheless throw out his ruling due to the simple fact that Peterson had legally agreed to Goodell's crooked deal.

[pbmax]

The legal precedent that Doty set aside was setting aside a binding arbitration. Even when arbitrators err, their rulings are pretty much universally upheld because it's quite the nasty legal can of worms to introduce legally binding agreements as debatable in court. I have heard, and I am no legal expert, that Peterson will lose ultimately because the higher court, while not disagreeing with Doty about the incorrectness of the arbitration, will nevertheless throw out his ruling due to the simple fact that Peterson had legally agreed to Goodell's crooked deal.

It is a high hurdle. But after a Federal Court rules (re: Rice), the arbitrator must incorporate that ruling into their deliberations. This one did not even consider it.

We may find out soon. The appeal is still alive despite not being a hot topic. And the contempt of court hearing for Goodell placing Peterson back on the exempt list is set for Aug 13.

[pbmax]

Rodgers made it into the Brady appeal transcript. NFLPA was trying to ascertain the different treatment of previous instances of fooling around with the football's physical condition. First they asked about the Panthers warming the ball versus the Vikes, then Rodgers talking about ball pressure after the Patriots game:


Q: Let me ask you next about the following. Are you aware -- let's take a look at NFLPA Exhibit 177.
You will see this is a report quoting Aaron Rodgers that took place during the November 30th game
between the Packers and the Patriots. And you will see that Mr. Rodgers was quoted 7 as saying, "I like to push the limit to how much air
we can put in the football, even go over what they allow you to do and see if the officials take air out of it."
Do you see that?
A. Yes.

Q. Did you or anyone in your office conduct any 14 investigation of Mr. Rodgers for making that
statement?
A. No, sir.

Q. Would you agree with me that if Mr. Rodgers 18 was pushing the limit of how much air could be in a 19 football, that that would be him at least being
generally aware of activities to try to violate the NFL rules regarding pressure for footballs?
A. The way I'm reading, this is a post-game 23 comment and there is no need for us to react or 24 overreact.

Q. So this was not important enough for you to
react to Mr. Rodgers saying he liked to push the limit and see if officials caught it; that was not a serious thing for you to react?
A. In a post-game interview. Because if the testing of the games (sic) pre-game and all balls were in regulation, there is no need for us to react for post-game comment.

Q. So in your view, Mr. Rodgers not even being investigated and Mr. Brady being suspended for four games for allegedly being generally aware of someone else's activities, you think that's a consistent treatment, in your mind?
A. This is a post-game comment.


Clearly someone is not aware that Rodgers also commented about this on his radio show. Which would make it a pre-game comment as well.

Page 248-249, http://static.nfl.com/static/content...0000506502.pdf

[pbmax]

Page 254-55

Q. You were asked about Aaron Rodgers. It's NFLPA Exhibit 177. Do you have that?
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You were asked about a quote, and I note in the quote it says something about to see if the officials take the air out of it. And you were
asked whether you did an investigation.
Did you have any information that either
Mr. Rodgers or anyone from the Packers had actually tampered with a football after the officials
measured it?
A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have any information or any evidence that either Mr. Rodgers or anyone associated with the Packers actually used the football in that game or any other game in which the inflation was not properly done on the footballs after the officials
had measured it?
A. No, sir.

Q. Or at any time, did you have information that the packers or Mr. Rodgers used the football that was not properly inflated?
A. Not at all.

Q. If you had such knowledge and such evidence, would you have conducted an investigation?
A. What we would have done is our normal protocol. Before games, we would have tested the ball.

[pbmax]

Stephanie Stradley @StephStradley
Finished #Deflategate transcript. Can see why NFL wanted sealed. They want to win bc legal standard favors them. Not bc Brady did anything.

http://www.stradleylaw.com/nfl-brady-deflategate-transcript/