The Big Cat Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 In Canada all we have to do is take a 30 minute multiple choice exam and we can become a supreme court judge I am presiding over a case tomorrow morning at 9 CBF Wish the same applied to being able to reside over a wedding. Holy smokes! I'm "officiating" a wedding in Toronto over Labor Day, but there will be nothing "official" about it. Canada don't play when it comes to that. Not sure if this was posted or not...but go old Mark Cuban comments on this matter...pretty surprising: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/mark-cuban-on-tom-brady-four-game-suspension-for-deflategate-is-actually-lite/ar-AAdGHeY "As far as 4 games being upheld, the NBA owner in me is surprised it wasn't extended. The old saying 'the cover up is always worse than the crime' applies here. Once he destroyed his phone this all went from did he break the rules of the game, to 'can he get away with deceiving the commissioner.' We can argue whether 4 games was too much for deflating the ball. You can't argue whether 4 games is enough for trying to make a fool out of the commissioner of the NFL. The NFL can't have players, their agents and Lawyers thinking that if you do wrong and just destroy the evidence it will all be OK. That can undermine the integrity of the league. If this was the NBA, I truly think the suspension would have been more than 25pct of the season. So while the Pats fans I'm sure will disagree, I think the punishment of 4 games for trying to destroy evidence is actually lite." "Yeah, but still," Pats* fans, probably.
Wayne Cubed Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 right but if you pair that with lack of cooperation not being previously penalized (as also cited in the tagliabue ruling in the bountygate case), it starts to strip down the argument to him being penalized for press conferences. i know the sum can be bigger than individual pieces, but if none of the individual pieces have been suspensions previously, you start to get to what i was saying about an argument regarding the arbitrator being fair and consistent, as the cba calls for. itll be an interesting case, potentially, that the draw of the judge could widely effect. ive read a few comments from links in the thread saying that he really strongly pushes for settlements. i still suspect we see an injunction on the suspension, and then a push to get this into a 3rd party appeal process instead of the courts -- but we will see. The new Personal Conduct Policy, which includes conduct detrimental to the league, only came into effect in December 2014. Goodell see's not cooperating with the league in an investigation as such. So the Bountycase really has no bearing, as it was pre new Personal Conduct Policy. It states: "The league has increased education regarding respect and appropriate behavior, has provided resources for all employees to assist them in conforming their behavior to the standards expected of them, and has made clear that the league's goal is to prevent violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. In order to uphold our high standards, when violations of this Personal Conduct Policy do occur, appropriate disciplinary action must follow." Now it doesn't say what's appropriate, but it certainly states that conduct detrimental to the league is punishable. I suppose the argument would be is not cooperating with an investigation considered conduct detrimental.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 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. He's saying it doesn't apply because the NFL changed the rules in the Peterson case, the egregious error he mentioned. They didn't here. Then he says as a second point that even that will be overturned. The first point is the salient one.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) The new Personal Conduct Policy, which includes conduct detrimental to the league, only came into effect in December 2014. Goodell see's not cooperating with the league in an investigation as such. So the Bountycase really has no bearing, as it was pre new Personal Conduct Policy. It states: "The league has increased education regarding respect and appropriate behavior, has provided resources for all employees to assist them in conforming their behavior to the standards expected of them, and has made clear that the league's goal is to prevent violations of the Personal Conduct Policy. In order to uphold our high standards, when violations of this Personal Conduct Policy do occur, appropriate disciplinary action must follow." Now it doesn't say what's appropriate, but it certainly states that conduct detrimental to the league is punishable. I suppose the argument would be is not cooperating with an investigation considered conduct detrimental. im not arguing its not in the rulebook, im pointing out that tagliabue said the following the last time this was discussed: "Although not entirely comparable to the present matter, this illustrates the NFL's practice of fining, not suspending players, for serious violations of this type," Tagliabue explains in his official ruling. "There is no evidence of a record of past suspensions based purely on obstructing a League investigation. In my forty years of association with the NFL, I am aware of many instances of denials in disciplinary proceedings that proved to be false, but I cannot recall any suspension for such fabrication." and that the CBA does have a "fair and consistent" punishment clause, despite granting the league much leeway. in a lesser incident, but another jets comparable, while looking for the quote i saw mention of favre being fined $50k for lying about the jenn sterger incident and not providing requested texts. Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint
The Wiz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 im not arguing its not in the rulebook, im pointing out that tagliabue said the following the last time this was discussed: and that the CBA does have a "fair and consistent" punishment clause, despite granting the league much leeway. in a lesser incident, but another jets comparable, while looking for the quote i saw mention of favre being fined $50k for lying about the jenn sterger incident and not providing requested texts. But dick pics don't have any impact on the integrity of the game... maybe the integrity of Favre's game but not football.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) But dick pics don't have any impact on the integrity of the game... maybe the integrity of Favre's game but not football. but in the discussion of stonewalling investigators and lying, its integrity of the league investigations still. Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint
The Wiz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) but in the discussion of stonewalling investigators and lying, its integrity of the league investigations still. In that sense yes, completely agree. Edited July 30, 2015 by The Wiz
Wayne Cubed Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 im not arguing its not in the rulebook, im pointing out that tagliabue said the following the last time this was discussed: and that the CBA does have a "fair and consistent" punishment clause, despite granting the league much leeway. in a lesser incident, but another jets comparable, while looking for the quote i saw mention of favre being fined $50k for lying about the jenn sterger incident and not providing requested texts. The problem with the Tagliabue statement is there isn't a record of past suspension until there's a record of a suspension. There wasn't a record of suspending players for violating the personal conduct policy until the personal conduct policy was instituted in 1997.
LeGOATski Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Isn't it a good thing if the NFL is changing its ways by applying harsher penalties to cheaters and liars? This is the first time under the new CBA that someone is being dealt with for obstructing the investigation into cheating that occurred on the field, right? The federal court should allow the NFL to set a new precedent in accordance with their new CBA, not force them to remain the same.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) In that sense yes, completely agree.and im not arguing it as totally perfect smoking gun for the nflpa, but i know ive had a few people ask about whether any player has turned down the request without being suspended, so i figured id mention it once i saw it. The problem with the Tagliabue statement is there isn't a record of past suspension until there's a record of a suspension. There wasn't a record of suspending players for violating the personal conduct policy until the personal conduct policy was instituted in 1997. which would imply that the league, might, need to institute a more formal "cooperation with investigations" policy moving forward. Something along the lines of a basic "2 game penalty for declining to provide requested materials" in advance of this, wouldve made the "advance notification" section fulfilled, and create a "fair and consistent" process moving forward. as is, here we are with the case in court. the league still may win those points, but its certainly easier to contest based on how they handled it. Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint
The Wiz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 and im not arguing it as totally perfect smoking gun for the nflpa, but i know ive had a few people ask about whether any player has turned down the request without being suspended, so i figured id mention it once i saw it. It's a fair point to bring up. The only other thing I would say is that Farve isn't part of being a repeat offender of a sexting scandal. Kind of my feeling of the Jets kicker thing. We don't know what happened with the kicking ball or if he owned up to it from the start so pointing it out as something Brady could use in his favor might be premature (not saying you pointed it out, just in general).
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 I find it very troubling unqualified people are reading judicial decisions and commenting as if they understand it. Until somebody takes a lesson on Civil Procedure and Personal Jurisdiction specifically on minimum contacts you will not understand one iota what the judge wrote there. Understanding the plain English meaning is pointless without understanding the case law for statutory and constitutional limitation in this regard. I've had that lesson.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 It's a fair point to bring up. The only other thing I would say is that Farve isn't part of being a repeat offender of a sexting scandal. Kind of my feeling of the Jets kicker thing. We don't know what happened with the kicking ball or if he owned up to it from the start so pointing it out as something Brady could use in his favor might be premature (not saying you pointed it out, just in general). and to be honest, thats one of the other common things ive seen argued that im not sure is strong footing. brady isnt a repeat offender, is he? was he ever mentioned in the spygate issues (genuinely i dont recall, but i dont think so)? i see that being a good argument for penalizing the pats strongly, but is it for an individual player?
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 im not sure why you say that as the minnesota judge wasnt the one everyone keeps discussing as pro-nflpa and none of us know anything about the guy that was assigned in minnesota, or ny from what I read my understanding is that they *** wanted to go to Minny to get the judge that favored the nflpa and might have let Brady*** off scott free. Rog went to NY with a plan which made it more difficult for Brady*** to get off scott free.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) from what I read my understanding is that they *** wanted to go to Minny to get the judge that favored the nflpa and might have let Brady*** off scott free. Rog went to NY with a plan which made it more difficult for Brady*** to get off scott free. and when they filed in minnesota, they didnt get assigned that judge anyway, even if it was heard there instead of ny is what im pointing out. they wanted judge doty in minnesota, but he wasnt assigned the case in minnesota even if it were to stay there. so the nfl got the ny circuit they wanted, but we are still learning about the judge assigned (as he wasnt handpicked, just the group of judges in the pool was and those can go different ways) Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) and when they filed in minnesota, they didnt get assigned that judge anyway, even if it was heard there instead of ny is what im pointing out. they wanted judge doty in minnesota, but he wasnt assigned the case in minnesota (and the other judge kicked it to NY, where we will see what this judge thinks as the nfl didnt handpick a judge, they just picked the circuit). we are saying the same thing. they wanted doty, didn't get him and it got kicked back to ny where Rog went to in the first place the Brady*** end around lost NFL wins first round, as Brady court battle sent to New York http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-shutdown-corner/nfl-wins-first-round--as-brady-court-battle-sent-to-new-york-143220864.html Edited July 30, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever
The Wiz Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 and to be honest, thats one of the other common things ive seen argued that im not sure is strong footing. brady isnt a repeat offender, is he? was he ever mentioned in the spygate issues (genuinely i dont recall, but i dont think so)? i see that being a good argument for penalizing the pats strongly, but is it for an individual player? Brady isn't a repeat offender per se but it's not exactly like he didn't benefit from spygate. The organization was punished as a whole instead of individuals (unless that camera man was fired). I didn't see this but posted but you gotta give them Chowder heads credit for being creative. http://nesn.com/2015/07/dont-forget-roger-goodell-also-destroyed-evidence-in-spygate-fiasco/
LeGOATski Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Brady isn't a repeat offender per se but it's not exactly like he didn't benefit from spygate. The organization was punished as a whole instead of individuals (unless that camera man was fired). Brady was at least generally aware of actions that took place in an effort to gain an unfair competitive advantage during the Spy-gate scandal and the lesser-known Headset-gate scandal.
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 Brady isn't a repeat offender per se but it's not exactly like he didn't benefit from spygate. The organization was punished as a whole instead of individuals (unless that camera man was fired). I didn't see this but posted but you gotta give them Chowder heads credit for being creative. http://nesn.com/2015/07/dont-forget-roger-goodell-also-destroyed-evidence-in-spygate-fiasco/ oh lord! pats fans..... to the individual aspect, ill give a few devils advocate questions - does that follow all players that were on the roster? or just brady? like if wilfork gets in trouble in houston, is spygate a strike for him? and the whole coaching staff? if one of the assistants is a coach elsewhere is that a risk to them? or is that just a pats/BB issue strike? not sure how youd draw the line if you open it up.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 30, 2015 Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Brady isn't a repeat offender per se but it's not exactly like he didn't benefit from spygate. The organization was punished as a whole instead of individuals (unless that camera man was fired). I didn't see this but posted but you gotta give them Chowder heads credit for being creative. http://nesn.com/2015/07/dont-forget-roger-goodell-also-destroyed-evidence-in-spygate-fiasco/ let me tell you how I feel. Brady*** is an arrogant prick who believes he is above the law and his hubris bit him in the azz and now he's paying the price. He's part of an organization that has bent and broke rules for the past 15 seasons and IMO that is why repeat offender is being associated with him. Jerry Jones insinuates Pats should take medicine http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/jerry-jones-insinuates-pats-should-take-medicine?p=ya5nbcs&ocid=yahoo Jerry Jones isn’t going to provide a shoulder for Robert Kraft to cry on. Speaking Wednesday as his Dallas Cowboys opened training camp, Jones threw his support behind NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell. “He’s doing an outstanding job,” Jones said of Goodell. “I can tell you firsthand that in his spot you have to with people that you are counting on to help build and to help excel as far as the National Football League, I'm talking about the owners, you have to know that you're going to make some decisions that are very unpopular with that particular group. This is the case. Edited July 30, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever
Recommended Posts