Brady Suspension Overturned

[packs]

If inflation or deflation is just a personal preference then why did the league set a rule that mandated the pressure of the football? The guy broke a rule. If you don't want to call it cheating, fine. But we should be able to agree what he did was in violation of league rules and a suspension seems fair to me.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by packs

If inflation or deflation is just a personal preference then why did the league set a rule that mandated the pressure of the football? The guy broke a rule. If you don't want to call it cheating, fine. But we should be able to agree what he did was in violation of league rules and a suspension seems fair to me.

I will say it AGAIN, what rule was he PROVEN to break?? This is the opportune word here: PROVEN in my opinion. The good thing is that here is the US, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty (lawyers chime in please )

[packs]

Well the balls were all underinflated on the Patriots side, so isn't that proof that they were deflated?

Equipment managers trade texts between each other talking about Tom's preferred deflation and either deflating or inflating the balls to his liking. Isn't that proof?

Four months into an investigation Tom Brady destroys his cell phone at the precise time that he is asked to turn it over. You can call that circumstantial, but if there's smoke there's fire.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by packs

Well the balls were all underinflated on the Patriots side, so isn't that proof that they were deflated?

Equipment managers trade texts between each other talking about Tom's preferred deflation and either deflating or inflating the balls to his liking. Isn't that proof?

Four months into an investigation Tom Brady destroys his cell phone at the precise time that he is asked to turn it over. You can call that circumstantial, but if there's smoke there's fire.

Actually, it wasn't ALL of the footballs, only 11 of 12 And some of the Colts were as well.

And if I was married to Giselle Bundchen I assure you I wouldn't turn my cell phone over either

In the end, Roger Goodell is a joke of a commissioner, IMHO.

[kcohen]

No. First, hindsight showed that there was no reliable measurement metric. Second, Brady had been informed by Wells that there was no need for his phone in the investigation. Relevant transcripts were apparently provided. Who knows what sorts of information were on the phone that Brady wouldn't have wanted divulged to the TMZs of the world. Once again, feel free to ignore relevant facts. Fortunately for the sake of basic fairness, the judge did not.

[packs]

Right I always just decide to destroy my phone out of the blue when the court comes asking for it and the media has done nothing but talk about the damning texts that might be on it should it be turned over to the court.

How do you explain the equipment managers discussing their manipulation of the footballs to Tom's liking? Were they lying? Was that part of an elaborate set up months in the making for the championship game?

[rats60]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

I will say it AGAIN, what rule was he PROVEN to break?? This is the opportune word here: PROVEN in my opinion. The good thing is that here is the US, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty (lawyers chime in please )

He was given his day in court and found guilty. You can choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that he was proven guilty.

Numerous quarterbacks have come out and said that there is no doubt in their minds that he was involved. Yesterday, it was Fran Tarkenton. QBs are the ones who dictate how the balls are prepared. I guess you think that Brady is unique and has nothing to do with how the Pats prepare their balls. If that was the case, then why did he lobby the NFL to change the rule allowing visiting teams to prepare their own balls?

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by rats60

He was given his day in court and found guilty. You can choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that he was proven guilty.

Numerous quarterbacks have come out and said that there is no doubt in their minds that he was involved. Yesterday, it was Fran Tarkenton. QBs are the ones who dictate how the balls are prepared. I guess you think that Brady is unique and has nothing to do with how the Pats prepare their balls. If that was the case, then why did he lobby the NFL to change the rule allowing visiting teams to prepare their own balls?

I'll say it again, he was never PROVEN guilty, it was stated he was guilty. HUGE difference!!

[packs]

Huge difference when you want there to be one. No difference at all when someone is sentenced to jail time for something they didn't do.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

I'll say it again, he was never PROVEN guilty, it was stated he was guilty. HUGE difference!!

That is your OPINION, not fact. HUGE difference.

[egri]

My kind of restaurant: http://www.foxsports.com/buzzer/stor...-berman-090315

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by rats60

He was given his day in court and found guilty. You can choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that he was proven guilty.

Numerous quarterbacks have come out and said that there is no doubt in their minds that he was involved. Yesterday, it was Fran Tarkenton. QBs are the ones who dictate how the balls are prepared. I guess you think that Brady is unique and has nothing to do with how the Pats prepare their balls. If that was the case, then why did he lobby the NFL to change the rule allowing visiting teams to prepare their own balls?

In what court would that be where he was proven guilty? Unless you're speaking of the NFL kangaroo court, I have no idea what you're talking about. And that "court" offered no real proof. They believed him to be "generally aware" that something was going on. By that squishy criterion, you should be criminally liable when you are "generally aware" that illegal drugs are being sold on your the block.

[Vintageclout]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

I will say it AGAIN, what rule was he PROVEN to break?? This is the opportune word here: PROVEN in my opinion. The good thing is that here is the US, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty (lawyers chime in please )

Accurate point Greg, but I find it interesting that 8 "Blacksox" were exonerated in a US Court of Law, and then suspended for LIFE by Landis the following day? Too many inconsistencies with that theory.

JoeT.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by packs

If inflation or deflation is just a personal preference then why did the league set a rule that mandated the pressure of the football? The guy broke a rule. If you don't want to call it cheating, fine. But we should be able to agree what he did was in violation of league rules and a suspension seems fair to me.

Even if he did something, of which I've seen no real proof, the league mandate for altering equipment is a fine, not suspension. If you choose to ignore basic facts, well ...... there's no law against jealously and envy of Brady's and the Patriots' success.

The real travesty here is the Goodell kangaroo court and the NFL's overreach. The judge obviously agreed to the extent of overturning a finding originally held within the framework of a CBA, which I understand they are normally very reluctant to do.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by kcohen

...
The real travesty here is the Goodell kangaroo court and the NFL's overreach. The judge obviously agreed to the extent of overturning a finding originally held within the framework of a CBA, which I understand they are normally very reluctant to do.

Goodell has had his rulings overturned regarding Rice, Peterson and now Brady. I agree with the "overreach" in the first two rulings, but I think it's perfectly within the NFL's rights to make decisions like the one regarding Brady. They might have screwed it up, but I think if you are going to let the courts pop in to overrule things that are related ONLY to the sport that the commissioner is responsible for (which the Rice and Peterson things were not), then you've opened the doors for all sorts of things;i.e-any time ANY fine or punishment is imposed in ANY sport, we're off to court. If a commissioner can't do his job, just get rid of him.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Goodell has had his rulings overturned regarding Rice, Peterson and now Brady. I agree with the "overreach" in the first two rulings, but I think it's perfectly within the NFL's rights to make decisions like the one regarding Brady. They might have screwed it up, but I think if you are going to let the courts pop in to overrule things that are related ONLY to the sport that the commissioner is responsible for (which the Rice and Peterson things were not), then you've opened the doors for all sorts of things;i.e-any time ANY fine or punishment is imposed in ANY sport, we're off to court. If a commissioner can't do his job, just get rid of him.

What you "think" is "perfectly within the NFL's rights" does not reflect the legal standard of review of the Commissioner's decision, as properly articulated by the court.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA''), "the validity of an award is subject to attack
only on those grounds listed in [9 U.S.C.] § 10, and the policy of the FAA requires that an award
be enforced unless one of those grounds is affirmatively shown to exist." Wall Street Assocs.
L.P. v. Becker Pari bas Inc., 27 F .3d 845, 849 (2d Cir. 1994). For example, FAA § I 0 provides
that the Court may vacate an arbitral award "where the arbitrators were guilty of ... refusing to
hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy." 9 U.S.C. § I O(a)(3). The Court may
also vacate an arbitral award "where there was evident partiality ... " 9 U.S.C. § I O(a)(2).
A "principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its
essence from the collective bargaining agreement, since the arbitrator is not free to merely
dispense his own brand of industrial justice." 187 Concourse Assocs. v. Fishman, 399 F.3d 524,
527 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Saint Marv Home, Inc. v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Dist. 1199, 116
F.3d 41,44 (2d Cir. 1997)). "[A]s the proctor of the bar gain, the arbitrator's task is to effectuate
the intent of the parties. His source of authority is the collective-bargaining agreement, and he
must interpret and apply that agreement in accordance with the 'industrial common law of the
shop' and the various needs and desires of the parties." United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters,
954 F.2d 801, 809 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 94 S. Ct. 1011,
1022 (1974)) (emphasis omitted).
It is the "law of the shop" to provide professional football players with advance notice of
prohibited conduct and potential discipline.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The essence of the opinion:

The Court is fully aware of the deference afforded to arbitral decisions, but, nevertheless,
concludes that the Award should be vacated. The Award is premised upon several significant
legal deficiencies, including (A) inadequate notice to Brady of both his potential discipline (fourgame
suspension) and his alleged misconduct; (B) denial of the opportunity for Brady to
examine one of two lead investigators, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General
Counsel JeffPash; and (C) denial of equal access to investigative files, including witness
interview notes.

[packs]

How do you explain the text messages between equipment manages directly referencing Tom's preference for under inflation? Doesn't that show that he directed the equipment managers to inflate balls to his liking, an inflation that is in violation of league rules?

I feel like we're arguing over whether or not OJ was guilty. It's so obvious what happened. The legal opinion is not as relevant as your eyes and ears.

[bigfish]

Packs,

I suggest you read legal briefs of Marbury vs Madison, the people vs Larry Flint, and the people vs life savers....

Then you might be more qualified to rule on this than Judge Berman / the other 3 lawyers that have weighed in.

Are you a Jets or Giants fan?

All in good fun...it might be time for you to fold.

cheers,

Patriots season ticket holder

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by packs

How do you explain the text messages between equipment manages directly referencing Tom's preference for under inflation? Doesn't that show that he directed the equipment managers to inflate balls to his liking, an inflation that is in violation of league rules?

I feel like we're arguing over whether or not OJ was guilty. It's so obvious what happened. The legal opinion is not as relevant as your eyes and ears.

I don't think that your argument holds any water unless text messages to which you refer showed that Brady directed the equipment guys to inflate or deflate the balls beyond the regulation psi range? It's a far cry from having a preference, which most quarterbacks probably do have, to directing that something irregular be done to the footballs.