RI Bills Fan Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 they couldnt force them, but they surely could have asked from what i have read. They did ask, and the NFLPA refused saying that TB wanted to face his accusers not his friends. Which is the point KTD was making earlier.
NoSaint Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 They did ask, and the NFLPA refused saying that TB wanted to face his accusers not his friends. Which is the point KTD was making earlier. The NFLPA informed the NFL that they would not be inviting them. I have seen no record of the nfl inviting them to the hearing, and the article we are referencing addresses that point directly. Does the nflpa have the authority to define who the NFL can invite here? especially outside of players?
GG Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 The NFLPA informed the NFL that they would not be inviting them. I have seen no record of the nfl inviting them to the hearing, and the article we are referencing addresses that point directly. Does the nflpa have the authority to define who the NFL can invite here? especially outside of players? Why would the NFL invite people to an appeal commenced by Brady & Co.?
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Why would the NFL invite people to an appeal commenced by Brady & Co.? This is what I don't understand. It's an appeal of a ruling. And Goodell is the arbitrator.
starrymessenger Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Why would the NFL invite people to an appeal commenced by Brady & Co.? Right. Someone sitting in appeal would not initiate the production of evidence. That was Well's job.
Mr. WEO Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Why would the NFL invite people to an appeal commenced by Brady & Co.? Right. Someone sitting in appeal would not initiate the production of evidence. That was Well's job. Both wrong onthis account. Sitting right there at the NFL's table in the appeal was none other than the main author of the "Wells Report". Lorin Reisner, of that "independent report", was present and even conducted part of Brady's cross-examination. Hey, and Wells was there too--as a witness, where he said he considered the NFL to be his "client" and therefore he would no divulge soem of his conversations with the league, due to "attorney-client privilege". There's the "independent investigator for you. He did say that he gave the NFL's general counsel Pash a copy of his "independent report" before it was released---and allowed him to comment on it. Go figure.
JohnC Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 100% incorrect. The issue is the integrity of the game, and you have a franchise that has consistently operated on the rules' edges for 15 years, and has at times crossed the edges, and was caught. While the ball deflation may be a minor point, and something that the defenders are hanging their hat on, it's clear the NFL's message to the * is, F*^NG ENOUGH WITH THIS CRAP. You can argue all the legal minutiae about the process and how unfair Goodell & the NFL have been to the *, but that completely misses the point why the league is going hard after them. What you are acknowledging is that the issue isn't really about the condition of the balls so much as it is about punishing a franchise for an accumulation of perceived transgressions. That is a perverted and discriminatory approach to take when judging a particular incident. It is that distorted perspective that often gets RG's disciplinary decisions altered by an an arbitrator who is more objective and discerning when reviewing his flawed decisions.
GG Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 What you are acknowledging is that the issue isn't really about the condition of the balls so much as it is about punishing a franchise for an accumulation of perceived transgressions. That is a perverted and discriminatory approach to take when judging a particular incident. It is that distorted perspective that often gets RG's disciplinary decisions altered by an an arbitrator who is more objective and discerning when reviewing his flawed decisions. So your argument is that the accumulation of minor offenses should not account at all in the official's judgment? Even to a franchise which has been warned previously to keep its nose clean? I'm sure our legal beagles will find plenty of parallels in the law, where the judge finally has had enough of the petty thief after his 50th visit to the courthouse.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Both wrong onthis account. Sitting right there at the NFL's table in the appeal was none other than the main author of the "Wells Report". Lorin Reisner, of that "independent report", was present and even conducted part of Brady's cross-examination. Hey, and Wells was there too--as a witness, where he said he considered the NFL to be his "client" and therefore he would no divulge soem of his conversations with the league, due to "attorney-client privilege". There's the "independent investigator for you. He did say that he gave the NFL's general counsel Pash a copy of his "independent report" before it was released---and allowed him to comment on it. Go figure. The appeal was entirely about the Wells report findings. Wells firm did the entire report, which was then edited by Pash. All of the questioning from both sides was about the validity of the report. The NFL didn't write the report, Wells and his team did. So they were there to answer as well as ask questions of the witnesses trying to discredit the report. The NFL lawyers, including Pash, wouldn't have half of the knowledge of the report as Reisner would and did.
Mr. WEO Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 The appeal was entirely about the Wells report findings. Wells firm did the entire report, which was then edited by Pash. All of the questioning from both sides was about the validity of the report. The NFL didn't write the report, Wells and his team did. So they were there to answer as well as ask questions of the witnesses trying to discredit the report. The NFL lawyers, including Pash, wouldn't have half of the knowledge of the report as Reisner would and did. Do I really have to point out that Wells's insistence that he was an independent investigator when he allowed the company paying for his report to edit it is ridiculous? Come on Kelly...look what you just wrote. And then you go on to say that, despite reading the entire report, discussing its contents in its entorety with the investigators----and then "editing it", Pash would still not be able to figure out what questions to ask the witnesses? This is some logical gymnastics.
JohnC Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 So your argument is that the accumulation of minor offenses should not account at all in the official's judgment? Even to a franchise which has been warned previously to keep its nose clean? I'm sure our legal beagles will find plenty of parallels in the law, where the judge finally has had enough of the petty thief after his 50th visit to the courthouse. With respect to impacting Brady in this particular case absolutely not! His case should be judged on its own merits. If you want to justify a tarnished process then that is your prerogative. I'm not going to go along with that perversion of a disciplinary process.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Do I really have to point out that Wells's insistence that he was an independent investigator when he allowed the company paying for his report to edit it is ridiculous? Come on Kelly...look what you just wrote. And then you go on to say that, despite reading the entire report, discussing its contents in its entorety with the investigators----and then "editing it", Pash would still not be able to figure out what questions to ask the witnesses? This is some logical gymnastics. You're missing the point as usual. The entire investigation, 100% of it was done by Wells' firm, independent or not. They did it all. Pash commented on it after reading and allegedly wordsmithed it. So in an appeal on the investigation, the team who did the investigation, 100% of it, was there to defend it or answer questions raised by its detractors. That makes perfect sense. Reisner asked questions of Brady in redirect after Kessler, Brady's lawyer, went through Brady's actions from the investigation. It makes 100% sense that Reisner and not Pash or the seven other NFL lawyers would then do follow up questions for Brady as well as the guys trying to tear down the Exponent elements. The NFL wouldn't understand the investigation nearly as well as the lawyers that did it. That's what I was responding to. You acted like there was no reason for Wells guys to be at the same table. The NFL had 11 lawyers to defend its ruling and the NFLPA and Brady had 10.
GG Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 With respect to impacting Brady in this particular case absolutely not! His case should be judged on its own merits. If you want to justify a tarnished process then that is your prerogative. I'm not going to go along with that perversion of a disciplinary process. Unfortunately for the defenders, everything that Goodell has done has been in line with his powers allowed by an agreement with NFLPA. Don't confuse his process with another enforcement proceeding. It's clear that the NFL wanted to send a message and did it within its enforcement powers.
starrymessenger Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 (edited) Both wrong onthis account. Sitting right there at the NFL's table in the appeal was none other than the main author of the "Wells Report". Lorin Reisner, of that "independent report", was present and even conducted part of Brady's cross-examination. Hey, and Wells was there too--as a witness, where he said he considered the NFL to be his "client" and therefore he would no divulge soem of his conversations with the league, due to "attorney-client privilege". There's the "independent investigator for you. He did say that he gave the NFL's general counsel Pash a copy of his "independent report" before it was released---and allowed him to comment on it. Go figure. It's Brady's appeal. Hardly surprising that he would be questioned concerning his reasons for saying that the investigator's conclusions should be set aside. That doesn't mean that the person hearing the appeal is introducing new or additional evidence. On the other hand there was nothing stopping Brady and his team from coming forward with new or additional evidence that might exculpate him. Presumably if they had such evidence they would have done so and it's production would have been allowed. The Commissioner evidently thought their decision not to have the employees participate in the appeal hearing gave rise to a negative inference relative to Brady's credibility. Whether or not he was right in doing so, it was not inconsistent with his role in the proceedings. It's possible too that an aggregate of facts and circumstances may have influenced and, in his mind at least, added weight to his judgement in coming to this particular conclusion, for example the destruction of the cell phone, the fact that three communications with Jastremski were not recoverable etc... Edited August 6, 2015 by starrymessenger
Mr. WEO Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 You're missing the point as usual. The entire investigation, 100% of it was done by Wells' firm, independent or not. They did it all. Pash commented on it after reading and allegedly wordsmithed it. So in an appeal on the investigation, the team who did the investigation, 100% of it, was there to defend it or answer questions raised by its detractors. That makes perfect sense. Reisner asked questions of Brady in redirect after Kessler, Brady's lawyer, went through Brady's actions from the investigation. It makes 100% sense that Reisner and not Pash or the seven other NFL lawyers would then do follow up questions for Brady as well as the guys trying to tear down the Exponent elements. The NFL wouldn't understand the investigation nearly as well as the lawyers that did it. That's what I was responding to. You acted like there was no reason for Wells guys to be at the same table. The NFL had 11 lawyers to defend its ruling and the NFLPA and Brady had 10. One point of contention the union is promoting is whether Goddell was "biased" in this matter. The sole reason that Goodell hired Wells to produce this independent report was to give the appearance of eliminating bias in whatever punishment he may hand down, pending the report's findings. Yes, the NFL had "11 lawyers" (the number is meaningless), but why would an independent investigator be one of the lawyers representing the NFL in the appeal? How does that eliminate bias. Every one of those other 10 lawyers could have asked the exact same questions (htye weren't hard questions for a lawyer to come up with)---especially Pash, who by that time was as familiar with every aspect as anyone in the room. And since Wells et al did no research on the scient hemselves (thye in turn paid for the Exponent report), they are in no position to defend it in directly in an appeal. This appeal was not a trial of the Wells report, so I can't see how it's appropriate for the individual who was paid to produce an independent report can than act as the legal counsel for the company that paid for the report in a matter that turns on that same report. How is that not introducing the element of bias into the appeal?
JohnC Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Unfortunately for the defenders, everything that Goodell has done has been in line with his powers allowed by an agreement with NFLPA. Don't confuse his process with another enforcement proceeding. It's clear that the NFL wanted to send a message and did it within its enforcement powers. Your position makes no sense to me. There is no doubt that RG has an immense amount of authority regarding disciplinary issues based on the CBA. But having almost unlimited authority does not give one a license to run amok and do whatever you want. There has to be some reasonable level of consistency, staying with the established guidelines and in general a sense of fairness. Roger Goodell is not a law onto his own. He has been overruled a number of times not because he was judicious but because he was injudicious. In a number of cases when an objective eyes (arbitrators) reviewed some of his rulings it was determined that not only were his decisions off base but in the Rice case his was questionable (dishonest). In the Ray Rice case Roger Goodell lied when he said he raised the punishment in his initial ruling because he had new information. The arbitrator said that was not the case. I'll say it again although to many it means little: This case isn't about Brady. The ball infranction and Brady's role is a trivial and inconsequential matter. The most important issue is the tainted process led by the commissioner. That is what should be the focus of attention. The travesty is the disciplinary process, not the PSI levels that the multi-million $$$ flawed investigation couldn't adequately determine.
GG Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 And you would be wrong again. This is about a pattern of cheating by an organization that's been caught before and was told to stop it. While the punishment may seem capricious and arbitrary to you, and you say you don't care about the PSIs and the infraction, it is important because they tampered with equipment, lied about it and stonewalled the investigation. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, there plenty of instances where the penalties were much more harsh than the infraction because of a coverup. Did Martha Stewart really deserve two years in prison for a $40K stock tip? Most reasonable people would say no. But she deserved it for lying and trying to destroy evidence. Tommy Boy's cheating & pride are the reasons he'll be sitting for four games. If he manned up to it in January, he'd be slapped only with a $25K fine.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 One point of contention the union is promoting is whether Goddell was "biased" in this matter. The sole reason that Goodell hired Wells to produce this independent report was to give the appearance of eliminating bias in whatever punishment he may hand down, pending the report's findings. Yes, the NFL had "11 lawyers" (the number is meaningless), but why would an independent investigator be one of the lawyers representing the NFL in the appeal? How does that eliminate bias. Every one of those other 10 lawyers could have asked the exact same questions (htye weren't hard questions for a lawyer to come up with)---especially Pash, who by that time was as familiar with every aspect as anyone in the room. And since Wells et al did no research on the scient hemselves (thye in turn paid for the Exponent report), they are in no position to defend it in directly in an appeal. This appeal was not a trial of the Wells report, so I can't see how it's appropriate for the individual who was paid to produce an independent report can than act as the legal counsel for the company that paid for the report in a matter that turns on that same report. How is that not introducing the element of bias into the appeal? Yes the appeal was. It had nothing to do with Goodells power or anything but the investigation. Brady's side brought in guys to refute Exponents work and the NFL brought in Exponent guys to refute the refuting. But the lawyers who knew the case inside out are the ones charged with asking the questions. Pash knew little about the investigation until he read it. That's why he wanted to comment on it and change some wording.
DC Tom Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Your position makes no sense to me. There is no doubt that RG has an immense amount of authority regarding disciplinary issues based on the CBA. But having almost unlimited authority does not give one a license to run amok and do whatever you want. There has to be some reasonable level of consistency, staying with the established guidelines and in general a sense of fairness. Roger Goodell is not a law onto his own. He has been overruled a number of times not because he was judicious but because he was injudicious. In a number of cases when an objective eyes (arbitrators) reviewed some of his rulings it was determined that not only were his decisions off base but in the Rice case his was questionable (dishonest). In the Ray Rice case Roger Goodell lied when he said he raised the punishment in his initial ruling because he had new information. The arbitrator said that was not the case. I'll say it again although to many it means little: This case isn't about Brady. The ball infranction and Brady's role is a trivial and inconsequential matter. The most important issue is the tainted process led by the commissioner. That is what should be the focus of attention. The travesty is the disciplinary process, not the PSI levels that the multi-million $$$ flawed investigation couldn't adequately determine. Actually, Goodell is a law unto himself within the confines of the CBA. And every time he's been overruled, it's been strictly because he exceeded the confines of the CBA. And that's a mark of Goodell's remarkable stupidity...because the CBA is awfully permissive. He can do nearly anything under the umbrella of "conduct detrimental."
Mr. WEO Posted August 6, 2015 Posted August 6, 2015 Yes the appeal was. It had nothing to do with Goodells power or anything but the investigation. Brady's side brought in guys to refute Exponents work and the NFL brought in Exponent guys to refute the refuting. But the lawyers who knew the case inside out are the ones charged with asking the questions. Pash knew little about the investigation until he read it. That's why he wanted to comment on it and change some wording. So Pash did not know enough about the report to ask basic questions at the appeal, yet he was allowed to edit the reports after he read it? Exactly how could he edit it if he wasn't very familiar with its process and findings? How did he knwo what to edit? Reisner wasn't an "Exponent guy"
Recommended Posts