Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[Go Kiko go]

The only substantive issue before the judge, as I understand it, is whether due process was observed. In order to succeed Brady must establish bias on the part of the Commissioner. That can happen even when the properly appointed arbitrator is an interested party, in other words it can happen whether the decision maker is an interested or a third party. That makes sense since any arbitrator, whether "interested" or not, can hypothetically be biased.

 

There are also Brady's other claims that the penalty imposed is inconsistent with the terms of the CBA (either because the CBA didn't provide for an individual player, rather than a team, to be punished for an equipment violation or because the extent of the punishment was not consistent with the CBA provisions).

 

But yeah, there doesn't appear to be any basis for the judge to have to wade into the underlying scientific evidence.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[starrymessenger]

I have a feeling we'll see a settlement now that the judge has asked for one. I can see why. He's either "the guy who let Goddell beat up on Brady" or "the guy who let Brady walk"

Two games, Brady doesn't cop to anything, the NFL says it was for not assisting with the investigation. Everyone saves some face and walks away a bit unhappy...the sign of a good compromise.

Possible I guess but I'm not so sure. I would expect that encouraging the parties to come to a negotiated settlement is procedurally part of any labour dispute that comes before the court. So I don't know how much importance can be given to a pre-trial conference of the type that will occur on Aug 12. Not to mention that there is no evident middle ground here given the positions that have been taken by the participants and the importance of the issues that are at stake from a league governance perspective.

I agree the judge would probably want Brady and the league to settle this, unless he's the kind of guy who enjoys the profile.

[Go Kiko go]

Possible I guess but I'm not so sure. I would expect that encouraging the parties to come to a negotiated settlement is procedurally part of any labour dispute that comes before the court.

 

Exactly. Encouraging parties to settle is part of any dispute that comes before the federal courts.

[starrymessenger]

There are also Brady's other claims that the penalty imposed is inconsistent with the terms of the CBA (either because the CBA didn't provide for an individual player, rather than a team, to be punished for an equipment violation or because the extent of the punishment was not consistent with the CBA provisions).

 

But yeah, there doesn't appear to be any basis for the judge to have to wade into the underlying scientific evidence.

That's interesting. In effect they would be asserting that the CBA actually prohibited the specific penalty imposed on the player. Intuitively I would expect this to be a legitimate ground for the appeal, if established to be the case. On the other hand I don't see how that would have anything to do with the issue of bias, which has been widely reported to be the sole matter to be considered in the appeal.

JMO but I would expect that the League's general supervisory authority would be such as to negate Brady's arguments regarding adequate notice/precedent but i don't know.

[Go Kiko go]

That's interesting. In effect they would be asserting that the CBA actually prohibited the specific penalty imposed on the player. Intuitively I would expect this to be a legitimate ground for the appeal, if established to be the case. On the other hand I don't see how that would have anything to do with the issue of bias, which has been widely reported to be the sole matter to be considered in the appeal.

JMO but I would expect that the League's general supervisory authority would be such as to negate Brady's arguments regarding adequate notice/precedent but i don't know.

 

They're advancing a few arguments based on the central theme that the punishment falls outside the bounds of the CBA:

 

They argue that the CBA requires that players have "advance notice" of potential discipline, and that Brady lacked notice of the following aspects of his punishment: "(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."

 

They also argue that the CBA requires "fair and consistent treatment" of all rule violations and that "the ball pressure 'testing'" on which the punishment was based "did not generate reliable information because of its failure to implement any protocols for collecting such information."

[starrymessenger]

They're advancing a few arguments based on the central theme that the punishment falls outside the bounds of the CBA:

 

They argue that the CBA requires that players have "advance notice" of potential discipline, and that Brady lacked notice of the following aspects of his punishment: "(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."

 

They also argue that the CBA requires "fair and consistent treatment" of all rule violations and that "the ball pressure 'testing'" on which the punishment was based "did not generate reliable information because of its failure to implement any protocols for collecting such information."

Thanks. These CBA based grounds look to me to be more promising (for TB) than any argument based on bias. I would not be surprised if that's why counsel has asserted them. I have no idea whether or how they impact the Commissioners supervisory jurisdiction and responsibility to protect (as he sees it) the integrity of the game, which I would imagine pretty much to be job one for him. Arguing successfully that the penalty was the wrong one and not sanctioned by the CBA (which therefore limited the Commissioner's decision making powers) might have the practical effect of reversing the suspension but it would not rehabilitate Brady's image given that he has denied knowledge/responsibility categorically. I suppose that he could agree to pay the fine while saying that it should never have been levied in the first place.

[SRQ_BillsFan]

I'm not a laywer so this means nothing

 

To me it's NOT an equipment violation. It's doing something illegal to cheat and gain an advantage in an actual game. That would make this unchartered territory. So how could you argue that it is not in line with other penalties.

 

And why would I have to tell someone not to steal balls and cheat. Who doesn't think you could be punished for that. But I understand it's not that simple.

 

What good is any of this if all a player has to do is appeal every ruling to get it tossed or a reduction?

[Rocky Landing]

I'm not a laywer so this means nothing

 

To me it's NOT an equipment violation. It's doing something illegal to cheat and gain an advantage in an actual game. That would make this unchartered territory. So how could you argue that it is not in line with other penalties.

 

And why would I have to tell someone not to steal balls and cheat. Who doesn't think you could be punished for that. But I understand it's not that simple.

 

What good is any of this if all a player has to do is appeal every ruling to get it tossed or a reduction?

Have you ever stayed at a Holiday Inn? If so, your opinion is as valid as anyone's on here.

[starrymessenger]

I'm not a laywer so this means nothing

To me it's NOT an equipment violation. It's doing something illegal to cheat and gain an advantage in an actual game. That would make this unchartered territory. So how could you argue that it is not in line with other penalties.

And why would I have to tell someone not to steal balls and cheat. Who doesn't think you could be punished for that. But I understand it's not that simple.

What good is any of this if all a player has to do is appeal every ruling to get it tossed or a reduction?

You're right. It's sure not like wearing the wrong colour socks. Maybe the judge will have to opine on the meaning of "equipment violation".

[Mr. WEO]

I'm not a laywer so this means nothing

 

To me it's NOT an equipment violation. It's doing something illegal to cheat and gain an advantage in an actual game. That would make this unchartered territory. So how could you argue that it is not in line with other penalties.

 

And why would I have to tell someone not to steal balls and cheat. Who doesn't think you could be punished for that. But I understand it's not that simple.

 

What good is any of this if all a player has to do is appeal every ruling to get it tossed or a reduction?

 

Ask Big Ben, or Dashon Goldston, or Brandon Merriweather, or everyone in bountygate, or Ray Rice, or Adrian Peterson, or Greg Hardy, or..................

[Pneumonic]

I'm not a laywer so this means nothing

 

To me it's NOT an equipment violation. It's doing something illegal to cheat and gain an advantage in an actual game. That would make this unchartered territory. So how could you argue that it is not in line with other penalties.

 

And why would I have to tell someone not to steal balls and cheat. Who doesn't think you could be punished for that. But I understand it's not that simple.

 

What good is any of this if all a player has to do is appeal every ruling to get it tossed or a reduction?

 

Complicating matters is the video of the Vikes/Panthers game where footballs were being illegally doctored via some salamander heaters. All the league did with this cheating is warn the teams not to heat up footballs anymore. They certainly didn't set up a trap as they did with deflategate.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Complicating matters is the video of the Vikes/Panthers game where footballs were being illegally doctored via some salamander heaters. All the league did with this cheating is warn the teams not to heat up footballs anymore. They certainly didn't set up a trap as they did with deflategate.

That's not really what happened nor is it close. The league allows ball boys to use hand warmers to heat up the balls so they stay warm and at the correct temperature and do not freeze, but for some reason do not let the ball boys stand by the bigger heaters on the sidelines with the balls. It was freezing outside and the handwarmers were not working so the ball boy stood near the big heater so the ball didn't freeze. Trying to keep the ball normal not alter it. So they told them they couldn't do that. There was no need for anything else or any investigation. Not close to the same thing.

[NoSaint]

And why would I have to tell someone not to steal balls and cheat. Who doesn't think you could be punished for that. But I understand it's not that simple.

 

What good is any of this if all a player has to do is appeal every ruling to get it tossed or a reduction?

to the first half, its at this point the type of punishment. i hate to make the court/jail comparisons, but think of getting sent to jail for what has previously only been a fine. without notice that the penalties are changing, youd likely be pretty upset. hes not saying no penalty is needed, but that the penalty is out of line with the standards with no specific notice that would be changing, i believe.

 

and not every league imposed penalty gets lowered. but some do. especially when the nfl pushes the bounds of their common practices. we will see if they got it right here, or pushed too far.

[Pneumonic]

That's not really what happened nor is it close. The league allows ball boys to use hand warmers to heat up the balls so they stay warm and at the correct temperature and do not freeze, but for some reason do not let the ball boys stand by the bigger heaters on the sidelines with the balls. It was freezing outside and the handwarmers were not working so the ball boy stood near the big heater so the ball didn't freeze. Trying to keep the ball normal not alter it. So they told them they couldn't do that. There was no need for anything else or any investigation. Not close to the same thing.

 

“You can’t do anything with the footballs in terms of any artificial, whether you’re heating them up, whether it’s a regular game ball or kicking ball, you can’t do anything to the football,” NFL V.P. of officiating Dean Blandino said at the time. “So that was noticed during the game, both teams were made aware of it during the game and we will certainly remind the clubs as we get into more cold weather games that you can’t do anything with the football in terms of heating them up with those sideline heaters.”

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

fact or fiction is TBD

 

I heard on the radio that the court proceedings will be open to the public.

Nice!!

[l< j]

to the first half, its at this point the type of punishment. i hate to make the court/jail comparisons, but think of getting sent to jail for what has previously only been a fine. without notice that the penalties are changing, youd likely be pretty upset. hes not saying no penalty is needed, but that the penalty is out of line with the standards with no specific notice that would be changing, i believe.

 

and not every league imposed penalty gets lowered. but some do. especially when the nfl pushes the bounds of their common practices. we will see if they got it right here, or pushed too far.

Anyone in the NFL ever been fined or suspended or caught being a party to or having knowledge of gameballs being stolen before? Ever heard of a case like that? No, because this is unprecedented. There are no rules that say "don't steal gameballs." And there is nothing that specifies a penalty for stealing game balls or being a party to stealing game balls or having knowledge of game balls being stolen. Because it's unprecedented.

 

He's a bum and a cheat. 4 games is too light.

 

kj

[NoSaint]

Anyone in the NFL ever been fined or suspended or caught being a party to or having knowledge of gameballs being stolen before? Ever heard of a case like that? No, because this is unprecedented. There are no rules that say "don't steal gameballs." And there is nothing that specifies a penalty for stealing game balls or being a party to stealing game balls or having knowledge of game balls being stolen. Because it's unprecedented.

 

He's a bum and a cheat. 4 games is too light.

 

kj

well, thats one way to stomp out what might have been productive conversation.

[YoloinOhio]

@McCannSportsLaw: Tom Brady -- while under oath -- gives an unequivocal denial of any wrongdoing in an alleged ball deflation scheme: http://t.co/8DUXbNrM5J

@MikeGarafolo: Brady says he did his own grilling of Jastremski on the footballs. Believed his denial. http://t.co/EigPoSj6oi

[l< j]

well, thats one way to stomp out what might have been productive conversation.

 

I'm not trying to stamp any conversation out; I apologize for coming on strong.

 

But your analogy doesn't hold. It isn't that there is a fine specified and he got jail time. There is no precedent available to make that kind of judgment, because no one has ever been involved in or knew about someone stealing gameballs before.

 

kj

[YoloinOhio]

 

@AlbertBreer: Transcript indicates that there were three texts between Tom Brady and John Jastremski on February 7 that weren't recovered.