Brady's suspension lifted

[USABuffaloFan]

Well Tuco, that was a complete about face from Goodell being able to go after Brady for conduct detrimental to the league, what happened? Your article 15 not " holding water". Has it turned paper thin when viewed at all angles?

[NoSaint]

After reading most of the opinion on the way home, I agree with the poster's above that the decision ridiculously seems to say, basically, that since the CBA didn't explicitly say the Brady could be suspended for having ball boys steal game balls and deflate them, you can't suspend him for that. So, in other words, unless your CBA is the size of the NYC phone book, you really aren't likely yo be able to punish creative cheaters. Belichick* is going to run wild with this.....

Seems disingenuous at best from someone that followed so closely

[peterpan]

Brady needs to be punished and idc if it's a cheap shot Albert haynesworth style or not. Break his knee then smash his face in.

 

Then tell the media he can consider his punishment served

[K-9]

Brady needs to be punished and idc if it's a cheap shot Albert haynesworth style or not. Break his knee then smash his face in.

 

Then tell the media he can consider his punishment served

Calm down now, peter. Get a grip.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Rob's House]

It's funny. I've hated Brady so much for so long and now I find myself defending him. It reminds me of something a wise man once told me: people don't have a strong sense of justice; they have a strong sense of injustice.

 

I feel that because for however much I've hated him and the Pats*, I hate the trumped up, unjust accusations more. I just don't think manipulating the air pressure in footballs is that big a deal.

 

Maybe it's karmic balance because Spygate was a much bigger deal and was basically glossed over, but this is much ado about nothing IMO.

Edited September 4, 2015 by Rob's House

[Georgia Bill]

Having not read the CBA or the opinion I can't comment on the legal aspect, but I think the outcome is just for 2 reasons:

 

1. "More likely than not" is a bull **** standard for imposing penalties.

 

2. Underinflating footballs isn't that big of a deal.

Agreed - Much ado about nothing. Let's get on with the season.

[MattM]

Seems disingenuous at best from someone that followed so closely

Not at all. I read the brief and am wholly unconvinced by Judge Berman's decision. He really seemed to have it in for the NFL.

 

Look at section IV(A) on notice (the first, which usually means the author's view of their best, argument). The judge keeps harping on how Brady did not know he could be suspended for "being generally aware" (which is a crock, I think that anyone who read the texts and considered all of the other circumstantial factors, such as the swag given to Tweedledumber, the calls to Tweedledumb right after the story broke, and Brady's destroyed cell phone knows full well that Tommy Boy was more than "generally aware" here, but that's the language Wells used) of the balls being deflated by his flunkies after being stolen from the refs. The same applies for obstructing a League investigation--in fact, he says that since no one before has ever been suspended for obstruction, you can't do that here (begging the question of how one ever gets to suspend such an obstructionist dirtbag in the first place). The judge goes on to say that the "conduct detrimental" catch all is too general to apply here to allow suspension in a case like this. Combined, that means that the rules should somehow be clear that when stealing balls and deflating them, you can be suspended. WTF? Is that really necessary? The NFL somehow needs to spell all that out in its CBA in order to punish a cheater? What a mess of an opinion from a policy standpoint.

 

I was also wholly unconvinced by the arguments about Pash--he had Ted Wells on the stand basically saying "I don't even know what Pash did to the report which must mean that his changes were so minor" (which as someone who's worked in that environment and field can tell you that in reality this means that some junior associate took a few lightweight comments from Pash (who felt he had to contribute something) that were so lightweight he didn't even need to run them by the boss--they may have honestly been typos) and that was not good enough for Berman to set aside the NFL's view that Pash's testimony was worthless to the Pats*. It's almost like he was looking for reasons to crater the League's decision.

 

In his final argument, he seems to be saying that despite arbitration by its terms having different discovery rules, no, you need to allow full discovery as you would in litigation. Ridiculous (in my opinion at least).

 

Once again, I'm not a litigator, but I am unconvinced by his arguments, which are a real world, operational nightmare for the League going forward. This literally eviscerates the League's ability to impose discipline unless said discipline is explicitly described in the CBA. As noted above, creative cheaters (of which we have the best in our division) will have a field day with this.

 

I also find it somewhat funny that a number of posters here who in other contexts I've seen spout pro-business/conservative principles so readily support what can really only be described here as liberal judicial activism of a judge helping out an employee against his employer.

[K-9]

It's funny. I've hated Brady so much for so long and now I find myself defending him. It reminds me of something a wise man once told me: people don't have a strong sense of justice; they have a strong sense of injustice.

 

I feel that because for however much I've hated him and the Pats*, I hate the trumped up, unjust accusations more. I just don't think manipulating the air pressure in footballs is that big a deal.

 

Maybe it's karmic balance because Spygate was a much bigger deal and was basically glossed over, but this is much ado about nothing IMO.

It's not. As we've seen in the past.

 

But a player compensating team employees to circumvent the officials' responsibility to ensure compliance with league rules and then refusing to cooperate in the investigation of that act, is quite another matter.

 

IMO, there was certainly enough circumstantial evidence for a reasonable person to conclude there was at least a 51% chance that Brady indeed compensated McNally to ensure his preference for softer footballs by deflating them after they were checked by the game officials.

 

I agree with Berman on the Pash and withheld documents issues, but I think he got it wrong on the question of notice.

 

Like I alluded to previously, I can live with the fact that the court found fault with the league's prosecution of the appeal, etc.

 

I take some comfort in knowing that this court decision did nothing to exonerate Tom Brady.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[MattM]

It's not really that complex. You throw in a clause that covers everything you didn't think of. I'm sort of amazed they didn't already.

 

In the event that a player commits a crime, violates a stated NFL rule or policy, or conspires with other individuals to violate stated NFL rules or policies which have not been specifically addressed elsewhere within this Collective Bargaining Agreement, the minimum punishment shall be a suspension without pay of no less than two regular season or playoff games or a combination thereof, whichever occurs first. The Commissioner shall retain the right to evaluate all cases without known precedent on a case by case basis and implement additional penalties up to and including indefinite suspension without pay. Appeals of punishments in excess of the 2 game minimum shall immediately proceed to binding arbitration be heard by an, independent, qualified, individual of mutual agreement to the League and NFLPA. The arbitrator shall have the authority to render summary judgement and implement punishment no greater than that originally sought by the league and no less than the established 2 game minimum.

 

See? Done.

The League effectively did that in the Conduct Detrimental paragraph and the judge said something like that that is not specific is too vague to be enforced. Nice try, though, as that is what a rational, logical person might think to do.

[USABuffaloFan]

Brady needs to be punished and idc if it's a cheap shot Albert haynesworth style or not. Break his knee then smash his face in.

Then tell the media he can consider his punishment served

New Orleans found out what bounty's will do for your club.

It's not really that complex. You throw in a clause that covers everything you didn't think of. I'm sort of amazed they didn't already.

 

In the event that a player commits a crime, violates a stated NFL rule or policy, or conspires with other individuals to violate stated NFL rules or policies which have not been specifically addressed elsewhere within this Collective Bargaining Agreement, the minimum punishment shall be a suspension without pay of no less than two regular season or playoff games or a combination thereof, whichever occurs first. The Commissioner shall retain the right to evaluate all cases without known precedent on a case by case basis and implement additional penalties up to and including indefinite suspension without pay. Appeals of punishments in excess of the 2 game minimum shall immediately proceed to binding arbitration be heard by an, independent, qualified, individual of mutual agreement to the League and NFLPA. The arbitrator shall have the authority to render summary judgement and implement punishment no greater than that originally sought by the league and no less than the established 2 game minimum.

 

See? Done.

Not so easy! That would be a article in the CBA and never would have been signed. Nice Try though!

[DC Tom]

The problem here is two fold, the NFL had only circumstantial evidence, couldnt demand his cell, they are not a legal authority thus Brady had no obligation to make it available, so the obstruction charges after they concluded the investigation are bogus even though what Brady did is BS. Finally all QBs manipulate balls drag them scuff them etc and work with some sort of air pressure so enforce this rule with no previous history of enforcement or standard to enforce is bs imo normal law enforcement has known enforcement standards andvwhen broken they get in trouble so really this has been fun and while i think Brady is an arrogant prick so is the NFL and I luv seeing them pitted against each other. Now uf only whaley could be added to that mess I would be really happy.

 

Both points are nonsense. The CBA itself allows Goodell to punish a player for obstruction if he judges that to be "conduct detrimental." Because it's just that open-ended.

 

And there's a wide gulf between QBs manipulating the balls within the rules, and manipulating them outside the rules, to the point where they have to have them stolen from the officials' possession to be manipulated. That's a completely false equivalence.

[USABuffaloFan]

Not at all. I read the brief and am wholly unconvinced by Judge Berman's decision. He really seemed to have it in for the NFL.

 

Look at section IV(A) on notice (the first, which usually means the author's view of their best, argument). The judge keeps harping on how Brady did not know he could be suspended for "being generally aware" (which is a crock, I think that anyone who read the texts and considered all of the other circumstantial factors, such as the swag given to Tweedledumber, the calls to Tweedledumb right after the story broke, and Brady's destroyed cell phone knows full well that Tommy Boy was more than "generally aware" here, but that's the language Wells used) of the balls being deflated by his flunkies after being stolen from the refs. The same applies for obstructing a League investigation--in fact, he says that since no one before has ever been suspended for obstruction, you can't do that here (begging the question of how one ever gets to suspend such an obstructionist dirtbag in the first place). The judge goes on to say that the "conduct detrimental" catch all is too general to apply here to allow suspension in a case like this. Combined, that means that the rules should somehow be clear that when stealing balls and deflating them, you can be suspended. WTF? Is that really necessary? The NFL somehow needs to spell all that out in its CBA in order to punish a cheater? What a mess of an opinion from a policy standpoint.

 

I was also wholly unconvinced by the arguments about Pash--he had Ted Wells on the stand basically saying "I don't even know what Pash did to the report which must mean that his changes were so minor" (which as someone who's worked in that environment and field can tell you that in reality this means that some junior associate took a few lightweight comments from Pash (who felt he had to contribute something) that were so lightweight he didn't even need to run them by the boss--they may have honestly been typos) and that was not good enough for Berman to set aside the NFL's view that Pash's testimony was worthless to the Pats*. It's almost like he was looking for reasons to crater the League's decision.

 

In his final argument, he seems to be saying that despite arbitration by its terms having different discovery rules, no, you need to allow full discovery as you would in litigation. Ridiculous (in my opinion at least).

 

Once again, I'm not a litigator, but I am unconvinced by his arguments, which are a real world, operational nightmare for the League going forward. This literally eviscerates the League's ability to impose discipline unless said discipline is explicitly described in the CBA. As noted above, creative cheaters (of which we have the best in our division) will have a field day with this.

 

I also find it somewhat funny that a number of posters here who in other contexts I've seen spout pro-business/conservative principles so readily support what can really only be described here as liberal judicial activism of a judge helping out an employee against his employer.

 

All your retric could prove is NFL should have penalized Brady 25k and maybe tried to apply this x 11! A very liberal NY fed judge got this right!

[DC Tom]

It's not really that complex. You throw in a clause that covers everything you didn't think of. I'm sort of amazed they didn't already.

 

In the event that a player commits a crime, violates a stated NFL rule or policy, or conspires with other individuals to violate stated NFL rules or policies which have not been specifically addressed elsewhere within this Collective Bargaining Agreement, the minimum punishment shall be a suspension without pay of no less than two regular season or playoff games or a combination thereof, whichever occurs first. The Commissioner shall retain the right to evaluate all cases without known precedent on a case by case basis and implement additional penalties up to and including indefinite suspension without pay. Appeals of punishments in excess of the 2 game minimum shall immediately proceed to binding arbitration be heard by an, independent, qualified, individual of mutual agreement to the League and NFLPA. The arbitrator shall have the authority to render summary judgement and implement punishment no greater than that originally sought by the league and no less than the established 2 game minimum.

 

See? Done.

 

It is in there. It's precisely the clause that Berman just vaporized. Again...read the CBA before opining on it.

[Tuco]

Well Tuco, that was a complete about face from Goodell being able to go after Brady for conduct detrimental to the league, what happened? Your article 15 not " holding water". Has it turned paper thin when viewed at all angles?

Look, I was simply responding to a poster who was claiming the NFL has no rights to suspend a player, that only the player's team can do that. The poster's post said exactly the following-

 

"If a individual violates the NFL Integrity rule that is on the team first, the NFL has no rights to discpline a individual for this"

 

 

I was just pointing out by pasting paragraph 15 that the poster was incorrect in that statement. This was, actually, after I read the judge's decision where he even mentions the paragraph and gives his reasons why it doesn't apply here. I have my reasons to want to disagree with the judge but I certainly wasn't arguing for it at that point when I posted it. I was responding to "the NFL has no rights to discipline an individual for this." Clearly in this case the judge has decided they don't. But it is still there, stated as a right in every NFL player contract. All I wanted to do was point that out to that poster because I feel his claim that the right doesn't exist was in error.

[DC Tom]

Goodell and the NFL has lost every arbitrated case that went to Federal Court this past year. Why is that? Why did anyone think Goodell can do what ever he wants according to federal law and individual punishments. The lawyers weren't as careful as you think for the NFL. Unless you get the NFLPA to sign off on changes and rules, they represent the individuals then in federal court, not the appeal process, the individual player has a good chance of defeating a over zealous Commisioner. This is what has been happening. The CBA is a collection of rules. Goddell and lawyers picked which rule they were going after Brady for and it did not fit the circumstances. End of story!

 

It's because Goodell's an idiot. He lost the Rice case because of double-jeopardy, which is disallowed by the CBA. He lost the Perterson case because he retroactively applied a new policy against an issue on which an older policy applied, in violation of the CBA. He lost the Vilma case because the court judged Bountygate to be a "compensation issue," which Goodell doesn't have disciplinary authority over, as spelled out in the CBA.

 

This, he lost simply because the judge didn't agree with the CBA. That's a wildly different type of decision than any of the previous ones.

[DC Tom]

Look, I was simply responding to a poster who was claiming the NFL has no rights to suspend a player, that only the player's team can do that. The poster's post said exactly the following-

 

"If a individual violates the NFL Integrity rule that is on the team first, the NFL has no rights to discpline a individual for this"

 

 

I was just pointing out by pasting paragraph 15 that the poster was incorrect in that statement. This was, actually, after I read the judge's decision where he even mentions the paragraph and gives his reasons why it doesn't apply here. I have my reasons to want to disagree with the judge but I certainly wasn't arguing for it at that point when I posted it. I was responding to "the NFL has no rights to discipline an individual for this." Clearly in this case the judge has decided they don't. But it is still there, stated as a right in every NFL player contract. All I wanted to do was point that out to that poster because I feel his claim that the right doesn't exist was in error.

 

It's also Article 46 of the CBA. It's a completely ridiculous notion.

 

Of course, now that Berman has eviscerated that part of the CBA, and set the precedent for a literal, exact, "if it ain't there, it ain't a violation" reading of league policy, it is true that the NFL has no rights to discipline an individual.

[stinky finger]

Looks like cheaters do prosper. Pathetic.

They lost a first and fourth. I'm good.

 

I want the prick to play so we can kick his @#$% ass!

[DC Tom]

What the league put in there had no boundaries at all which is what made it too vague. All you have to do is put in a basic framework of parameters and more clearly establish an independent appeal process and it's fine.

 

It's what the league AND THE NFLPA put in there and agreed to.

 

The NFLPA are the real morons here; the court should have told them "Tough ****, you idiots, you agreed to this. Next time, don't be morons." Not "You idiots, you agreed to this. But I'll bail out you morons."

[stinky finger]

I hope we sack that bastard 10 times week 2.

10?

 

that's it?

 

apparently not a Bills fan.

[MattM]

All your retric could prove is NFL should have penalized Brady 25k and maybe tried to apply this x 11! A very liberal NY fed judge got this right!

Do you understand what "including but not limited to" means (along with the spelling of "rhetoric")? That's what the policy you're referring to literally says and, since I suspect you may not know what that means, it means that you'll get hit with $25k as a fine OR ANY OTHER PUNISHMENT WE WANT. Nice try, though.....

 

 

Edited September 4, 2015 by MattM