Jump to content

Judge Nullifies Brady's suspension


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 378
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I honestly dont even know why I watch the NFL.  It's become the biggest joke in all of sports. Saturdays >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>&g

no he hasn't.  was OJ vindicated when he was found not guilty? it's a stench that will never leave him.  he's a cheater and everyone knows it.

Shocker. Every suspended player should sue everytime.  Le'Veon Bell and Martavius Bryant should immediately file for injunctions to play week 1.

Posted Images

Absurd on so many levels. This judge effectively said that you can't be punished for cheating or lying unless you've been specifically told ahead of time what the consequences will be if you get caught.

Beyond idiotic is the idea that Brady was not able to interview NFL witnesses. He had no right to, just as the league wanted to interview the ball boys and couldn't.

The most insufferable part of this is the inane chatter from Pats fans who somehow think this proves that no wrong-doing occurred here. These people are really too stupid for words.

If I'm Goodell (only with balls), I'd simply come out today and say "Not only do we disagree with the judge's ridiculous ruling, but we will also not be adhering to it. Tom Brady will not be playing in the first 4 games and there will be no further discussion of the matter. If the Patriots attempt to insert him into the lineup for any of the first 4 games, they will immediately forfeit the game. Good day, sirs".  What's the judge going to do? Put him in federal prison for not letting some diva prick play a game in a privately owned league? F this noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the interesting part. Even if the NFL doesn't appeal....the Pats admitted guilt and will lose the picks. Then Brady got the good news lol.

Not just Brady, the NFLPA wins as well.  This judge just created a precedent that any player can choose to appeal based on this decision

The NFL has no choice now but to appeal. the good news is they can file for a stay of the judge's decision.

Like I said, it's going to be an interesting fall and winter...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not just Brady, the NFLPA wins as well.  This judge just created a precedent that any player can choose to appeal based on this decision

The NFL has no choice now but to appeal. the good news is they can file for a stay of the judge's decision.

Like I said, it's going to be an interesting fall and winter...

They did..

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL is going to appeal

 

"We are grateful to Judge Berman for hearing this matter, but respectfully disagree with today's decision," Goodell said. "We will appeal today's ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. The commissioner's responsibility to secure the competitive fairness of our game is a paramount principle, and the league and our 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. While the legal phase of this process continues, we look forward to focusing on football and the opening of the regular season."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just more proof of how far the Pats and their entire organization are willing to destroy the game that has given them so much.  

Think Kraft is willing to destroy the CBA to see this through.  

 

Utter madness!!!

What are you talking about?  Kraft rolled over and took it.  They didn't appeal the fine or getting docked picks..  This is all Brady and the NFLPA.  Contrary to what is apparently popular belief around here, players and owners are not on the same team in labor-management disputes. I don't see how any of this goes towards destroying the CBA and to the extent it does, it is certainly not Kraft's doing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about?  Kraft rolled over and took it.  They didn't appeal the fine or getting docked picks..  This is all Brady and the NFLPA.  Contrary to what is apparently popular belief around here, players and owners are not on the same team in labor-management disputes. I don't see how any of this goes towards destroying the CBA and to the extent it does, it is certainly not Kraft's doing.

This.

As mentioned, the Pats took their punishment but Brady got off.  This is a win for Brady and NFPA, and tangentially the Pats because Brady plays, but the Pats still lost in this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

NFL is going to appeal

 

"We are grateful to Judge Berman for hearing this matter, but respectfully disagree with today's decision," Goodell said. "We will appeal today's ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. The commissioner's responsibility to secure the competitive fairness of our game is a paramount principle, and the league and our 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. While the legal phase of this process continues, we look forward to focusing on football and the opening of the regular season."

Pfft.

Edited by The Crusher
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the decision and it's clear that "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football" is dead and can no longer be used as a ground to suspend a player.

There has to be a concrete policy in place with disciplinary perimeters for there to be upheld suspensions in the future.

The NFL has a bunch of morons as lawyers in drafting agreements and making legal arguments.  Compare that to what Selig did to ARod when ARod never failed a PED test.  MLB's CBA has a "best interest of the game" clause that allows the commish to make such harsh rulings.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the decision and it's clear that "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football" is dead and can no longer be used as a ground to suspend a player.

There has to be a concrete policy in place with disciplinary perimeters for there to be upheld suspensions in the future.

The NFL has a bunch of morons as lawyers in drafting agreements and making legal arguments.  Compare that to what Selig did to ARod when ARod never failed a PED test.  MLB's CBA has a "best interest of the game" clause that allows the commish to make such harsh rulings.

Serious question - what concrete policy would have sufficed? The league would have had to have had a specific outline for punishment regarding involvement in a scheme to tamper game balls? Or to hinder an investigation? To outright lie during the course of one multiple times?

The commissioner has no ability to make judgment calls? 

Edited by JetPotato
Link to post
Share on other sites

Serious question - what concrete policy would have sufficed? The league would have had to have had a specific outline for punishment regarding involvement in a scheme to tamper game balls? Or to hinder an investigation? To outright lie during the course of one multiple times?

It doesn't have to be so specific.

In fact, taking your last point, Taglibue in the BountyGate opinion (which Berman cites) admits that no player has ever been suspended for hindering an investigation or lying during an investigation.  So, the only way hindering an investigation can become suspension worthy is through an owner-union negotiated policy.  Surprising that there isn't one already!

As to tamper with game balls, there needed to be a policy concerning the tampering of game equipment and being "generally aware" of the tampering will lead to a suspension.  There's no such thing.

It's amazing that the NFL hadn't had such rules in place.

BTW, that's why the NFL-NFLPA negotiated a new domestic violence policy last year in the wake of the Ray Rice debacle.  Now, there is a policy in place giving notice of what is a violation and the punishment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, JP, this is the money quote from the Judge's opinion:

 

It is the "law of the shop" to provide professional football players with (advance) notice of prohibited conduct and of potential discipline. See. e.g., Langhorne, slip op. at 25 ("Any disciplinary program requires that individuals subject to that program understand, with reasonable certainty, what results will occur if they breach established rules."). Because there was no notice of a four-game suspension in the circumstances presented here, Commissioner Goodell may be said to have "dispense[ d] his own brand of industrial justice.'' 187 Concourse Assocs., 399 F.3d at 527 (citation omitted). "When the arbitrator's words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award." United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel & Car Com., 80S. Ct. 1358, 1361 (1960). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

While it would have been nice for Brady to serve deserved time, the good news here is that the Steelers and Bills will both take losses that are very important if the Jets are to eke out a wildcard berth.

SAR I

Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the decision and it's clear that "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football" is dead and can no longer be used as a ground to suspend a player.

There has to be a concrete policy in place with disciplinary perimeters for there to be upheld suspensions in the future.

The NFL has a bunch of morons as lawyers in drafting agreements and making legal arguments.  Compare that to what Selig did to ARod when ARod never failed a PED test.  MLB's CBA has a "best interest of the game" clause that allows the commish to make such harsh rulings.

That's the part I don't buy. The league DOES have a rule against tampering with balls. It's quite specific, and it's the reason this even became a conversation. Does each and every rule in the rule book need an associated penalty? That's ridiculous. He broke a rule, it should be up to the commissioner what the penalty is. That's part of his job.

Are you saying that if you and I were co-workers, and I walked in on you in the lunch room and peed on your sandwich, I could later sue when the boss because I was never told that if I did that, I would be fired?  How can a precedent be EVER set if the commissioner is prevented from doing so? If the league made mistakes in the past, they're not allowed to try to correct them?  So absurd. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to add, JP, this is the money quote from the Judge's opinion:

 

It is the "law of the shop" to provide professional football players with (advance) notice of prohibited conduct and of potential discipline. See. e.g., Langhorne, slip op. at 25 ("Any disciplinary program requires that individuals subject to that program understand, with reasonable certainty, what results will occur if they breach established rules."). Because there was no notice of a four-game suspension in the circumstances presented here, Commissioner Goodell may be said to have "dispense[ d] his own brand of industrial justice.'' 187 Concourse Assocs., 399 F.3d at 527 (citation omitted). "When the arbitrator's words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award." United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel & Car Com., 80S. Ct. 1358, 1361 (1960). 

How is a rule book that says "balls are to be in x to y range" not advance notice? How is the personal conduct policy not advance notice?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the part I don't buy. The league DOES have a rule against tampering with balls. It's quite specific, and it's the reason this even became a conversation. Does each and every rule in the rule book need an associated penalty? That's ridiculous. He broke a rule, it should be up to the commissioner what the penalty is. That's part of his job.

Are you saying that if you and I were co-workers, and I walked in on you in the lunch room and peed on your sandwich, I could later sue when the boss because I was never told that if I did that, I would be fired?  How can a precedent be EVER set if the commissioner is prevented from doing so? If the league made mistakes in the past, they're not allowed to try to correct them?  So absurd. 

IMO, that's where you're missing it.  You can say Brady broke a rule, but can't prove it.  "Generally aware" is just not going to cut it. 

If the NFL had anyone who came out and said "Yeah I doctored the balls" or "Tom asked me to deflate the balls", we would not have had an issue.  Instead, the friggin' idiot Goodell let fly with a ridiculous penalty for Brady with no evidence to back it up.  Like him or not, a four game ban was a ridiculous decision by Goodell.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, that's where you're missing it.  You can say Brady broke a rule, but can't prove it.  "Generally aware" is just not going to cut it. 

If the NFL had anyone who came out and said "Yeah I doctored the balls" or "Tom asked me to deflate the balls", we would not have had an issue.  Instead, the friggin' idiot Goodell let fly with a ridiculous penalty for Brady with no evidence to back it up.  Like him or not, a four game ban was a ridiculous decision by Goodell.

 

 

Right, but what about the fact that "Generally Aware" is the threshold established by the CBA?  That's why that specific term was used because it was agreed upon that it's what was required for a "guilty" verdict resulting in a punishment.

Edited by AFJF
Link to post
Share on other sites

so we are expected to see how  a united steelworkers ruling from 1960 was in play here, but the judge refused to see the similarities of cheating by manipulating the ball is like cheating with steroids

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right, but what about the fact that "Generally Aware" is the threshold established by the CBA?  That's why that specific term was used because it was agreed upon that it's what was required for a "guilty" verdict resulting in a punishment.

That's really stated in the CBA?  If so, the union boss needs a whupin'.  I'll relent if "generally aware" is all the burden of proof the NFL needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the part I don't buy. The league DOES have a rule against tampering with balls. It's quite specific, and it's the reason this even became a conversation. Does each and every rule in the rule book need an associated penalty? That's ridiculous. He broke a rule, it should be up to the commissioner what the penalty is. That's part of his job.

Are you saying that if you and I were co-workers, and I walked in on you in the lunch room and peed on your sandwich, I could later sue when the boss because I was never told that if I did that, I would be fired?  How can a precedent be EVER set if the commissioner is prevented from doing so? If the league made mistakes in the past, they're not allowed to try to correct them?  So absurd. 

As MM mentioned, there is no prohibition against being "generally aware."  That's what Brady was suspended on.  He wasn't suspended for tampering because even Wells didn't say Brady did it.

As to your second part, classic apples and oranges and depends on the fact.  Most jobs don't have a CBA.  Mine doesn't.  If I pissed on someone's sandwich, I could be fired.  But if there was a CBA and it wasn't prohibited such as saying that an employee may not damage another employee's property, then yeah, I could get off for doing that.

Again, this decision only exists in the world where there is a CBA in place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really stated in the CBA?  If so, the union boss needs a whupin'.  I'll relent if "generally aware" is all the burden of proof the NFL needs.

I'm not gonna' pretend to know the CBA off hand, but one of the first reports I saw following the release of the Wells report was that he used that language/term because it is the agreed upon standard for a player to be held accountable.  I initially thought he was being too spineless to come right out and say there was cheating, but it was essentially the NFL saying "Investigate this, and let us know if he was likely, generally aware" because that's all that is required.  I've been a little bit puzzled as to how it hasn't been mentioned much since then.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's really stated in the CBA?  If so, the union boss needs a whupin'.  I'll relent if "generally aware" is all the burden of proof the NFL needs.

it's doesn't. The NFL ask for this judge, took it to court and lost. Point blank....some of these posters gonna have to learn to get over it.

 

 

  • Thumb Down 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna' pretend to know the CBA off hand, but one of the first reports I saw following the release of the Wells report was that he used that language/term because it is the agreed upon standard for a player to be held accountable.  I initially thought he was being too spineless to come right out and say there was cheating, but it was essentially the NFL saying "Investigate this, and let us know if he was likely, generally aware" because that's all that is required.  I've been a little bit puzzled as to how it hasn't been mentioned much since then.

 

Yeah--if it is indeed in the CBA--that seems weird to me, too.  For it to have gone on this long, and get a respected judge to rescind the suspension, there must be other wording and/or requirements of proof.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...