Pneumonic Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 What do you guys think of this: pg 36 C. Brady Had No Notice of the Policy Under Which He Was Disciplined 109. Instead of applying the Player Policies, Vincent punished Brady pursuant to, and for being generally aware of, violations of the Competitive Integrity Policy, which like the Equipment Policy-is only incorporated into the Game Operations Manual and provided only to teams and team executives. Indeed, the Award specifically acknowledges that this Policy "imposes certification and reporting requirements on clubs and senior club executives." Award at 17 n.19.
Augie Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 What do you guys think of this: pg 36 C. Brady Had No Notice of the Policy Under Which He Was Disciplined 109. Instead of applying the Player Policies, Vincent punished Brady pursuant to, and for being generally aware of, violations of the Competitive Integrity Policy, which like the Equipment Policy-is only incorporated into the Game Operations Manual and provided only to teams and team executives. Indeed, the Award specifically acknowledges that this Policy "imposes certification and reporting requirements on clubs and senior club executives." Award at 17 n.19. That is exactly the kind of crap that concerns when when we talk about finding a just resolution. Forget guilt or innocence, who can win the lawyer war?
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 What do you guys think of this: pg 36 C. Brady Had No Notice of the Policy Under Which He Was Disciplined 109. Instead of applying the Player Policies, Vincent punished Brady pursuant to, and for being generally aware of, violations of the Competitive Integrity Policy, which like the Equipment Policy-is only incorporated into the Game Operations Manual and provided only to teams and team executives. Indeed, the Award specifically acknowledges that this Policy "imposes certification and reporting requirements on clubs and senior club executives." Award at 17 n.19. Why does that matter or affect anything in the least? I'm serious. He knew the rules that he was breaking (The Goodell report went further that the Wells report in some ways in explaining exactly what the Patriots did). He was then interviewed and didn't provide information they asked, lied to the investigators. He was disciplined, half for the offense they determined he was part of and half for obstructing the investigation when they determined his answers were implausible. He then had an appeal and didn't provide what they asked him for (the day he destroyed his phone). Then in his hearing he didn't provide what they asked him to, His team wouldn't let the league ask the only guys who could help exonerate Brady any questions. He was then denied appeal. What notice he had of what he was being punished for had no bearing on the questions or his answers (although I assume the league made it clear what he was being accused of and under what league law).
John from Riverside Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 OK so let me see if i have this correct...... The patriots.....the patriots owner....the patriots fans...and TOM Brady.....feel that they are being slighted by the NFL? I mean......really?
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 This is hilarious. It's Don Yee's explanation of the cell phone issue. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/don-yee-says-shift-to-destroyed-cell-phone-was-expected/ Some of it sounds reasonable. Some of it sounds like total nonsense. The fun part for me is that Yee says the NFL asked for Tom's phone records from 09/14 to 02/15. The time in question. Yee then says, so we say to ourselves do we have a phone from that time period? Tom recycles his phone a lot. Then Yee says we found one that he had from Oct to November and they had someone get info off it and presented it to the NFL. But that was all they had. And they wrote Goodell and said we don't have any more from that time period. Well, apparently that was all they had because they didn't ask Tom for his phone. The one that he destroyed was from Nov 14 - to March of 2015, the day of his investigation interview. And the one that included all of the time period in question. So they never bothered to get all the texts and calls and emails from Tom's phone he was actually using during that time and still using, and give them to the NFL.
K-9 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 What do you guys think of this: pg 36 C. Brady Had No Notice of the Policy Under Which He Was Disciplined 109. Instead of applying the Player Policies, Vincent punished Brady pursuant to, and for being generally aware of, violations of the Competitive Integrity Policy, which like the Equipment Policy-is only incorporated into the Game Operations Manual and provided only to teams and team executives. Indeed, the Award specifically acknowledges that this Policy "imposes certification and reporting requirements on clubs and senior club executives." Award at 17 n.19. Again, Brady was disciplined under the 'conduct detrimental' provision and notice is clearly articulated in his contract. Vincent did not punish Brady, Goodell did, and he gave Vincent the authority to notify the Patriots* of the punishment as well. GO BILLS!!! This is hilarious. It's Don Yee's explanation of the cell phone issue. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/29/don-yee-says-shift-to-destroyed-cell-phone-was-expected/ Some of it sounds reasonable. Some of it sounds like total nonsense. The fun part for me is that Yee says the NFL asked for Tom's phone records from 09/14 to 02/15. The time in question. Yee then says, so we say to ourselves do we have a phone from that time period? Tom recycles his phone a lot. Then Yee says we found one that he had from Oct to November and they had someone get info off it and presented it to the NFL. But that was all they had. And they wrote Goodell and said we don't have any more from that time period. Well, apparently that was all they had because they didn't ask Tom for his phone. The one that he destroyed was from Nov 14 - to March of 2015, the day of his investigation interview. And the one that included all of the time period in question. So they never bothered to get all the texts and calls and emails from Tom's phone he was actually using during that time and still using, and give them to the NFL. In other words, they gave Wells everything he wanted except what he specifically asked for. GO BILLS!!!
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Again, Brady was disciplined under the 'conduct detrimental' provision and notice is clearly articulated in his contract. Vincent did not punish Brady, Goodell did, and he gave Vincent the authority to notify the Patriots* of the punishment as well. GO BILLS!!! In other words, they gave Wells everything he wanted except what he specifically asked for. GO BILLS!!! Yep. Then after they were admonished for it, they get a list of who he called and who he texted and gave that to them. Not the texts, because he had already destroyed it by then. Yee also said he changed his phone that week March 2015 (actually day) because Iphone6's had just come out and he wanted the new phone. Except iphone 6's came out in Sept of 2014. He did explain the three missing texts, however, although not why. That they didn't provide those because Wells gave back Jastremski's phone on Feb 7, although those texts that particular day would have been quite interesting, no?
Pneumonic Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Again, Brady was disciplined under the 'conduct detrimental' provision and notice is clearly articulated in his contract. Vincent did not punish Brady, Goodell did, and he gave Vincent the authority to notify the Patriots* of the punishment as well. I believe the NFLPA's counter is as follows: 106. This is because the Player Policies actually given out and made applicable to players provide only for specified, collectively bargained Fines for equipment violations, including those aimed at obtaining a competitive advantage. For example, the Player Policies provide that "[a] player may not use unauthorized foreign substances (e.g., stickum or slippery compounds) on his body or uniform . . . [and that] such a violation affects the integrity of the competition and can give a team an unfair advantage . . . ." NFLPA Ex. ll4 at 15. First-time offenders of this player rule, however, are only subject to a fine of 58,268. Id. at 20. The Player Policies also contain a catchall" provision for "Other Uniform/Equipment Violations." Id. at 15. First offenders of this provision are only subject to a fine of $5,512. Id. at 20. There is no separate category of violation specified for ball deflation in these policies. 107. These Players Policies, with their collectively bargained fines, do not provide for any suspensions despite the fact that violations of these Policies can be "conduct detrimental" to the integrity of the game. Then the matter of conduct detrimental being fair and consistent. According to the NFLPA, that seems not to have taken place here. A. Goodell Summarily Denies the {'Improper Delegation' Ground for Appeal Without Any Fair Process 132. Under the CBA, the Commissioner has the exclusive authority to impose conduct detrimental discipline on NFL players. NFLPA Ex. 107, CBA Art. 46, $ 1(a); NFLPA Ex. 108, CBA App. A, fl 15. The NFL has zealously guarded this responsibility as the Commissioner's-and the Commissioner's alone-for decades. 133. Recently, however, Goodell publicly stated his desire to abdicate his disciplinary role and allow a new individual to make the initial [Article 46] disciplinary decision." That is exactly what Goodell did here. As Vincent's letter disciplining Brady makes crystal clear, Goodell delegated to Vincent his exclusive CBA authority to impose conduct detrimental discipline on Brady. NFLPA Ex. 10. ) 134. The CBA does not allow this. In fact, the NFLPA brought a CBA grievance against the NFL, challenging the Commissioner's unilateral decision to delegate away his conduct detrimental powers. This grievance is pending, and the merits of any Commissioner delegation are not before this Court.
mikemac2001 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Who !@#$ing cares We know what happened Let's play football I'd rather see bills best Brady but I'll take an early season game with garappolo as well
KGUNBILLS Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 This whole thing is just another meaningless fiasco that will result in a lot of wasted time, millions of dollars spent and no justice served. Maybe they should just get him for tax evasion and be done with it. I'm tired of the NE circus act year in and year out. It's just another cat and mouse game played off the field. I would feel a lot better if we started whooping the snot out of them consistently on the scoreboard. Sigh.
MattM 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. The "no notice" argument here is just asinine. To take it to its logical conclusion, if the Pats* come up with some new way to cheat, they'll always be able to claim they were not aware of what the specific discipline would be for their new shenanigans, so therefore can't be punished for them. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?
May Day 10 Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 To me, it's already a win. Through the whole process I expected the nfl to turn over and push the narrative that brady is a swell guy. The opposite has happened and the whole football world sees the patriots as slimy cheaters who really are incapable of acknowledging any wrongdoing even though it has been laid out for all to see. You really have to believe there is much more behind the curtain there and hopefully this is the beginning if the end of the "run". Even if lawyers get the suspension overturned on a procedural technicality... will anyone proclaim that brady is innocent besides that senile little toad bob kraft and patriots fans? Brady has been exposed for who he really is. It's already a win and good on goodell and the nfl not going the easy route and helping brady here.
l< j Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Exactly. The Patriots (no asterisk is necessary any longer) and Brady will claim exoneration if they win on appeal, even though the 'win' will be because they received the wrong punishment for cheating. kj
Beerball Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 c) Tom** knows all and should practice what he preaches. His comment to the Ravens - learn the rules “Maybe those guys gotta study the rule book and figure it out. We obviously knew what we were doing and we made some pretty important plays. It was a real good weapon for us. Maybe we’ll have something in store next week.” Very good tie in.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I believe the NFLPA's counter is as follows: 106. This is because the Player Policies actually given out and made applicable to players provide only for specified, collectively bargained Fines for equipment violations, including those aimed at obtaining a competitive advantage. For example, the Player Policies provide that "[a] player may not use unauthorized foreign substances (e.g., stickum or slippery compounds) on his body or uniform . . . [and that] such a violation affects the integrity of the competition and can give a team an unfair advantage . . . ." NFLPA Ex. ll4 at 15. First-time offenders of this player rule, however, are only subject to a fine of 58,268. Id. at 20. The Player Policies also contain a catchall" provision for "Other Uniform/Equipment Violations." Id. at 15. First offenders of this provision are only subject to a fine of $5,512. Id. at 20. There is no separate category of violation specified for ball deflation in these policies. 107. These Players Policies, with their collectively bargained fines, do not provide for any suspensions despite the fact that violations of these Policies can be "conduct detrimental" to the integrity of the game. Then the matter of conduct detrimental being fair and consistent. According to the NFLPA, that seems not to have taken place here. A. Goodell Summarily Denies the {'Improper Delegation' Ground for Appeal Without Any Fair Process 132. Under the CBA, the Commissioner has the exclusive authority to impose conduct detrimental discipline on NFL players. NFLPA Ex. 107, CBA Art. 46, $ 1(a); NFLPA Ex. 108, CBA App. A, fl 15. The NFL has zealously guarded this responsibility as the Commissioner's-and the Commissioner's alone-for decades. 133. Recently, however, Goodell publicly stated his desire to abdicate his disciplinary role and allow a new individual to make the initial [Article 46] disciplinary decision." That is exactly what Goodell did here. As Vincent's letter disciplining Brady makes crystal clear, Goodell delegated to Vincent his exclusive CBA authority to impose conduct detrimental discipline on Brady. NFLPA Ex. 10. ) 134. The CBA does not allow this. In fact, the NFLPA brought a CBA grievance against the NFL, challenging the Commissioner's unilateral decision to delegate away his conduct detrimental powers. This grievance is pending, and the merits of any Commissioner delegation are not before this Court. To the first part of this, all of that doesn't matter. The NFLPA can point to equipment violations and say these don't carry suspensions because they weren't collectively bargained. Great. Well then they go on to say that those actions can be "conduct detrimental". Guess what? That is a suspendible offense. You can't make the argument that because equipment violation hasn't been collectively bargain to be suspendible offense, but conduct detrimental has, that one overrides the other. I mean, you could make that case, but it doesn't make sense. Second. Goodell already has addressed this in a letter to the NFLPA before Brady's appeal: “I did not delegate my disciplinary authority to Mr. Vincent; I concurred in his recommendation and authorized him to communicate to Mr. Brady the discipline imposed under my authority as Commissioner.” So I guess the NFLPA's case rests on liar, liar pants on fire. How could they possible prove that Goodell actually delegated authority? Was there some secret ceremony? Maybe there's a letter or a text message(unless he destroyed his phone)? I doubt it though, the NFL has been very thorough in this case.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 what a smart person should have done - 1) Buy new phone 2) hand SIM card to phone store "guy" to transfer contacts 3) Go into old phone settings and RESET PHONE - this wips out your installed apps and data 4) Tell store clerk or store manager to dispose of old phone or find a donate old phone kiosk 5) Go to meeting/inquisition I mean investigation and hand them the new phone. Very good tie in. why thank you. His dumb act is, well just dumb!
Beerball Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 There's nothing in the rules that says an elephant can't pitch. When a pitcher holds the ball with both hands in front of his body, with his pivot foot in contact with the pitchers plate and his other foot free, he will be considered in the Windup Position. The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of, the pitchers plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to a complete stop. Darwin doesn't agree. Exactly my concern. Pretty Boy is wrong, but I don't want to get outsmarted on some stupid procedural point and see the Cheaters walk away smelling like roses. They'd be fine with that.... I might lose my interest in the league. That wouldn't be the case, brady, kraft all of 'em would be shouting from the rooftops that tom had been exonerated and proven to be as pure as the driven snow. Too many people would agree.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) What do you guys think of this: pg 36 C. Brady Had No Notice of the Policy Under Which He Was Disciplined 109. Instead of applying the Player Policies, Vincent punished Brady pursuant to, and for being generally aware of, violations of the Competitive Integrity Policy, which like the Equipment Policy-is only incorporated into the Game Operations Manual and provided only to teams and team executives. Indeed, the Award specifically acknowledges that this Policy "imposes certification and reporting requirements on clubs and senior club executives." Award at 17 n.19. see above WRT to Brady and his stance on Rules edit / addition http://sports.yahoo.com/news/like-tom-brady-s-phone--yours-likely-isn-t-safe-from-employer-scrutiny-either-004933903.html If a company is involved in a legal case, personal phones and devices can be inspected as part of an investigation. "Many, many people in business don't seem to realize their phone they take pictures with on vacation – that can be reviewed in the event of litigation," said Michael Overly, a partner at Foley and Lardner in Los Angeles, who has testified before Congress on privacy issues. I'll say it again - Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Edited July 30, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever
dave mcbride Posted July 30, 2015 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 This piece is weak. It hinges on the supposition that Doty's ruling in the Peterson case will be overturned on appeal ("likely," in Munson's view). But Munson has NO idea whether this will happen, and he therefore fails to adequately factor in the very real possibility that the Peterson decision will be treated as precdential rather than as an outlier. After reading a fair bit about this, I think Brady and the nflpa will come out on top in the end.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 After reading a fair bit about this, I think Brady and the nflpa will come out on top in the end. i dont think either result would be surprising. it will be interesting to see if the see it through, or come to a settlement early. theres really a lot of viable range on this one, depending on the judge, it seems.
Recommended Posts