Augie Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 OK, I'd hate to turn the tide of emotion here, so I'm going back to a measured hope for justice.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Florio's argument was extraordinarily retarded. Florio's argument is equivalent to "If I rip off the quarterback's leg and beat him with it, I can't be suspended because the CBA doesn't explicitly state that I can't be suspended for ripping off the QB's leg and beating him with it." It's the dumbest !@#$ing logic imaginable. I understand it's a bunch of lawyers, and this is what lawyers do. but so much of it is just plain laughable. Like, for instance, the NFLPA argued that the NFL had to change their protocol on the balls three days ago! Because they didn't know what they were doing. They changed them because they didn't think the Patriots would steal them. And the changes were, 1] now they number them after they measure them, 2] now the visiting team gives them 24 instead of 12, 3] now instead of the head ref there measuring them they have two refs there, and 4] if the balls are between 12.5 and 13.5 they don't help the teams out anymore they leave them as is, and if they are outside of 13.5 or 12.5 they set them at 13.0 Totally insignificant changes, but basically put in place to stop the Patriots from stealing them and altering them again.
Pneumonic Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) One of Brady's best facts is Wells Report wasn't independent. NFL paid for it and Brady now says NFL edited it, too. https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw/status/626534382552096768 NFL imposing penalty meant for teams (not players) on Brady is the "repondeat superior" doctrine in reverse. Good argument for Brady & NFLPA https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/626565891086512129 Judge Kyle assigned to PA/Brady v. NFL case. He was assigned Brady v. NFL in 2011 but recused himself. Judge Kyle worked for Briggs & Morgan, who served as lead counsel for NFLPA in the Reggie White antitrust case. In Brady v. NFL I (2011),Judge Kyle & Judge Schilitz recused & case was assigned to Judge Nelson, who ruled for Brady. 8th Cir then reversed Assuming Judge recuses again,case will be randomly reassigned,so Doty still in play.PA might argue should be assigned to him as related case https://twitter.com/SportsLawGuy Edited July 30, 2015 by Pneumonic
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 :lol: This is great. An apparently Russian woman who constantly writes in the comments section of ProFootballTalk and Florio is complaining that Deflategate is bringing out the venom in his readership... Here’s a portion of the message that arrived in the PFT mailbox tonight. “Patriots tom brady is wrongdoing for deflategate. Text messages. I support to roger goodell. I hates Patriots robert kraft is a–hole and a–hole and stupid and dumb. Robert kraft is wrong and liar. Patriots qb tom brady is lie and liar and dumb and cheat. Tom brady is guilt. I against tom brady and Robert kraft. Patriots owners Robert kraft is fired and out of office and go to jail. . . . “President Eric Winston is wrong and demaurice smith is wrong and fired and failed. Roger goodell is rigth. Ted wells is rigth. I like to roger goodell and ted wells. I not like tom brady and Robert kraft. I am never watch on tv for football. Roger goodell is winner. Nflpa are loses. Tom brady is loses. Robert kraft is loses. “I did read from roger goodell said against tom brady is 4 games. Tom brady is look bad and devil. . . . “Boston bruin is loses. Basketball in boston are loses. Red sox are most loses hahahahahahahahahahah. Tom brady is wrongdoing for deflategate. Tom brady is dumb.” She sounds 100x more educated, informed and articulate than the average Pats fan in this fiasco.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Gold ^^^ Someone in the comment section after that wrote, "It is any wonder that they never got moose and squirrel." :lol:
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 One of Brady's best facts is Wells Report wasn't independent. NFL paid for it and Brady now says NFL edited it, too. https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw/status/626534382552096768 That is stupid. By that definition, independent investigations are impossible. NFL imposing penalty meant for teams (not players) on Brady is the "repondeat superior" doctrine in reverse. Good argument for Brady & NFLPA https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/626565891086512129 That is stupider. "Respondeat superior" is when Goodell fines the Patriots for what Tom Brady did. "Respondeat superior 'in reverse'" is holding the individual responsible for the malfeasance of a corporation - that would be penalizing Brady because of something the Patriots as a single entity did. Neither applies, since this is an "employer" punishing an "employee" for malfeasance in the workplace. And that's besides the fact that the CBA explicitly states that the league can impose penalties on players. Where'd that idiot get his law degree? The back of an Archie comic, with a free pair of X-Ray specs? Someone in the comment section after that wrote, "It is any wonder that they never got moose and squirrel." :lol: In Soviet Russia, football deflate you! It really didn't sound much more incoherent than Florio's usual writing.
Saxum Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I agree with you wrt the fans' reactions, but please don't say their cheating likely had no bearing on game outcomes. The balls were under-inflated by at least 8%. They are easier to throw, catch, and hold on to than balls that are inflated to The League rock-hard standard. What if the First Down yard markers were "adjusted" so that their opponents would have to gain 30 feet to get a first down (using The League's standard), but the yard markers used by the Pats*** were just 8% shorter, i.e., 27.6 feet? Would an advantage like that have no bearing on game outcomes? They cheated, they lied, they got caught, they can go to hell for all I care. They have done that before - "Just give it to them" by the referees and once again it was for the P*tri*ts but dave mcbribe will say the zebras do it for all of the teams. does anyone think this will hurt Brady with the HOF? I would love for him to not be a first ballot guy or better yet, never get in like Pete Rose. Only if he posts a picture in his green outfit on Instagram and Facebook.
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 NFL imposing penalty meant for teams (not players) on Brady is the "repondeat superior" doctrine in reverse. Good argument for Brady & NFLPA https://twitter.com/WALLACHLEGAL/status/626565891086512129 I don't buy it. Goodell imposed the punishment meant for teams already when he fined them $1m and took away the draft picks. He clearly states in his report filed in court yesterday, that Brady is being punished for conduct detrimental, which is clearly spelled out in the Standard Player Contract. GO BILLS!!!
BUFFALOKIE Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I REALLY want to see Belichick take the stand. "I'm not concerned with that now. I'm just looking ahead to the Aaron Hernandez appeal." Lol! You get me on that one DC!
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Lol! You get me on that one DC! Bill Belichick telling a knock-knock joke: "Knock knock" Who's there? "Orange" Orange who? I'm just looking ahead to the next knock-knock joke.
Pneumonic Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I don't buy it. Goodell imposed the punishment meant for teams already when he fined them $1m and took away the draft picks. He clearly states in his report filed in court yesterday, that Brady is being punished for conduct detrimental, which is clearly spelled out in the Standard Player Contract. GO BILLS!!! I think the Peterson referencing will end up being critical as it seems Kessler filed this with that disregard of precedent in mind. But, I am no lawyer! At any rate, the seemingly relevant points that counter your claim are as follows: ln Peterson, this Court squarely held that the law of the shop under the CBA affords players advance notice of potential discipline. This Court further held in Peterson that any arbitration award sustaining discipline in the absence of proper notice is an award contrary to the essence of the CBA and must be vacated. Thumbing its nose at the Peterson order, Commissioner Goodell's Award upholds Brady's four-game suspension in its entirety despite the undisputed arbitration record of several egregious notice defects: Brady had no notice of the disciplinary standards that would be applied to him; no notice of the disciplinary policies that would be applied; and no notice of the potential penalties. In fact, the NFL collectively bargained over the punishments (fines, not suspensions) for alleged equipment tampering by players-including those designed to gain a competitive advantage-and was not free to disregard that CBA bargain and subject Brady to other standards, policies, and penalties without any notice at all. The notice defects which each independently require vacating the Award are: (i) suspending Brady for claimed "general awareness" of alleged misconduct by other people, an unknown disciplinary standard never previously applied to players in the history of the NFL; (ii) suspending Brady despite the fact that the Player Policies provide only for specified fines for any type of equipment violation; (iii) subjecting Brady to the Competitive Integrity Policy, which applies only to Clubs-not players; and (iv) suspending Brady for alleged non-cooperation, when a fine is the only penalty that has ever been upheld in such circumstances. By ignoring each one of these notice failures, the Award-as in Peterson-utterly disregards the CBA law of the shop and must be vacated for defying the essence of the CBA.
Augie Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Bill Belichick telling a knock-knock joke: "Knock knock" Who's there? "Orange" Orange who? I'm just looking ahead to the next knock-knock joke. Thanks for the laugh.
YoloinOhio Posted July 30, 2015 Author Posted July 30, 2015 Lester Munson: Brady, NFLPA likely to come up short in federal court challenge http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13332578/new-england-patriots-quarterback-tom-brady-nflpa-likely-come-short-court-challenge-roger-goodell-decision
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I think the Peterson referencing will end up being critical as it seems Kessler filed this with that disregard of precedent in mind. But, I am no lawyer! At any rate, the seemingly relevant points that counter your claim are as follows: ln Peterson, this Court squarely held that the law of the shop under the CBA affords players advance notice of potential discipline. This Court further held in Peterson that any arbitration award sustaining discipline in the absence of proper notice is an award contrary to the essence of the CBA and must be vacated. Thumbing its nose at the Peterson order, Commissioner Goodell's Award upholds Brady's four-game suspension in its entirety despite the undisputed arbitration record of several egregious notice defects: Brady had no notice of the disciplinary standards that would be applied to him; no notice of the disciplinary policies that would be applied; and no notice of the potential penalties. In fact, the NFL collectively bargained over the punishments (fines, not suspensions) for alleged equipment tampering by players-including those designed to gain a competitive advantage-and was not free to disregard that CBA bargain and subject Brady to other standards, policies, and penalties without any notice at all. The notice defects which each independently require vacating the Award are: (i) suspending Brady for claimed "general awareness" of alleged misconduct by other people, an unknown disciplinary standard never previously applied to players in the history of the NFL; (ii) suspending Brady despite the fact that the Player Policies provide only for specified fines for any type of equipment violation; (iii) subjecting Brady to the Competitive Integrity Policy, which applies only to Clubs-not players; and (iv) suspending Brady for alleged non-cooperation, when a fine is the only penalty that has ever been upheld in such circumstances. By ignoring each one of these notice failures, the Award-as in Peterson-utterly disregards the CBA law of the shop and must be vacated for defying the essence of the CBA. When they were talking about no notice in the Peterson case that was about punishment rules were not in place at the time of the incident. The NFL had certain punishment rules in place, AD did something stupid, the NFL changed the punishment rules, and then applied them to AD. That is what "no notice" was and why Doty overturned it. That is clearly not the case in Brady. It isn't the literal layman definition of "no notice" like he wasn't told, "Hey, Tom! If you lie to us we will dock you two games!" It's an entirely different concept. Lester Munson: Brady, NFLPA likely to come up short in federal court challenge http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13332578/new-england-patriots-quarterback-tom-brady-nflpa-likely-come-short-court-challenge-roger-goodell-decision That was written before he saw the NFLPA filing but it still holds true I'm sure.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 When they were talking about no notice in the Peterson case that was about punishment rules were not in place at the time of the incident. The NFL had certain punishment rules in place, AD did something stupid, the NFL changed the punishment rules, and then applied them to AD. That is what "no notice" was and why Doty overturned it. That is clearly not the case in Brady. It isn't the literal layman definition of "no notice" like he wasn't told, "Hey, Tom! If you lie to us we will dock you two games!" It's an entirely different concept. The nflpa likely responds that: if the league has never suspended for that and suddenly does- there's a seeming parallel that they have changed policy, even if not explicitly.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) The nflpa likely responds that: if the league has never suspended for that and suddenly does- there's a seeming parallel that they have changed policy, even if not explicitly. They have though. That is why Goodell equated it to the PED violations. When a player accused of cheating, and then doesn't cooperate, or is caught masking or obstructing the investigation into his wrongdoing, they are subject to stiffer penalties and suspensions. It's player conduct, breaking the rules, messing with the integrity and purity of the game. He laid it out very clearly in his ruling. It's insane, as we discussed earlier, that just because no one had stolen balls and taken them to a bathroom and altered them before they cannot punish a player harshly for it. Goodell literally spend about 5 pages explaining why he made the decision and what rules apply, what don't, and how it was reached. It starts on page 14 and goes to about 19. It's very thorough. Edited July 30, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
Pneumonic Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 They expand on the material more on pages 16-19. Under B. THE CBA LAW OF THE SHOP AFFORDS PLAYERS ADVANCE NOTICE OF POTENTIAL DISCIPLINE ....... 47-51
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 They expand on the material more on pages 16-19. Under B. THE CBA LAW OF THE SHOP AFFORDS PLAYERS ADVANCE NOTICE OF POTENTIAL DISCIPLINE ....... 47-51 No, it doesn't. That's a gross misrepresentation of "advance notice."
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I think the Peterson referencing will end up being critical as it seems Kessler filed this with that disregard of precedent in mind. But, I am no lawyer! At any rate, the seemingly relevant points that counter your claim are as follows: ln Peterson, this Court squarely held that the law of the shop under the CBA affords players advance notice of potential discipline. This Court further held in Peterson that any arbitration award sustaining discipline in the absence of proper notice is an award contrary to the essence of the CBA and must be vacated. Thumbing its nose at the Peterson order, Commissioner Goodell's Award upholds Brady's four-game suspension in its entirety despite the undisputed arbitration record of several egregious notice defects: Brady had no notice of the disciplinary standards that would be applied to him; no notice of the disciplinary policies that would be applied; and no notice of the potential penalties. In fact, the NFL collectively bargained over the punishments (fines, not suspensions) for alleged equipment tampering by players-including those designed to gain a competitive advantage-and was not free to disregard that CBA bargain and subject Brady to other standards, policies, and penalties without any notice at all. The notice defects which each independently require vacating the Award are: (i) suspending Brady for claimed "general awareness" of alleged misconduct by other people, an unknown disciplinary standard never previously applied to players in the history of the NFL; (ii) suspending Brady despite the fact that the Player Policies provide only for specified fines for any type of equipment violation; (iii) subjecting Brady to the Competitive Integrity Policy, which applies only to Clubs-not players; and (iv) suspending Brady for alleged non-cooperation, when a fine is the only penalty that has ever been upheld in such circumstances. By ignoring each one of these notice failures, the Award-as in Peterson-utterly disregards the CBA law of the shop and must be vacated for defying the essence of the CBA. Brady's "notice" is clearly spelled out in the CBA's 'Standard Player Contract.' This is a weak argument. I don't think the Peterson precedent is relevant either, as it pertains to a punishment imposed "retroactively"; i.e. there was no specified punishment for Peterson's actions at the time he committed them. Again, Brady's punishment, for conduct detrimental, is clearly noted in his contract. If you haven't read Goodell's report, you should do so. His argument for why he adhered to Law of Shop is very clear and compelling. The non-precedence for Brady's punishment is a non-starter. There simply is no requirement for there to be a precedent given the latitude the commissioner has in his collectively bargained power to administer punishment for conduct detrimental. I just find the argument weak on its merits. Doesn't mean a judge will agree or not; that remains to be seen. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts