Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
I read an interesting article that was mostly about Drew Brees saying the punishment system is a mess, which it is.
What I found interesting was that the article claimed that the decision was that the NFL hadn't proven anything, but that since the CBA specifies that the commissioner has the authority to apply the fines and suspensions as punishments the suspension couldn't be overturned.
I'm figuring it was legally a bit more complex than that, but that was a simple way to frame it for the non-Lawyers.
While it seems strange to a layman, "you're essentially not guilty but still have to take the punishment" It does make a tiny bit of sense because of the CBA which seems like a contract of sorts?
I wouldn't mind hearing a better explanation from someone who knows the law end.
Steve B
|
Well it is a bit like that episode of "South Park", where Apple can basically insert any type of language into their terms every time they do an update on your computer or IPhone, and you either wouldn't bother to read the new terms, or if you did you'd agree to them anyways, because what are you gonna do, throw away your $500 IPhone?
Players agree to the CBA because they don't want to go on strike and they think they have a reasonable partner on the other end who won't exploit their power. Turns out they were wrong...however that shouldn't give Goodell carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants because of some legalese loophole in his favor.