#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Sal Pal on WEEI, elaborating a little: Game Day Ops Manual specifies $25K fine for ball tampering (never levied) so how do you get to $1.9 Mill--Tom's four
game salary? Tom never asked anyone for balls under 12.5 PSI. Per Sal, who's been talking with NFLPA lawyers, they think Roger will go to two games. Tom's
not interested in that, and will then take it to court.He only wants only exoneration.
game salary? Tom never asked anyone for balls under 12.5 PSI. Per Sal, who's been talking with NFLPA lawyers, they think Roger will go to two games. Tom's
not interested in that, and will then take it to court.He only wants only exoneration.
I think that's overly optimistic.nighthob said:
The overwhelming majority of non-Patriots fans I speak with think Brady and the Patriots are guilty of tampering with the footballs. They all also think Brady's punishment is ridiculous. That's the narrative among the average sports fan, and right now there's enough going on both inside and outside the sports world that nobody is really thinking about this any more outside that narrative.
If Brady's suspension is somehow overturned, most will conclude the reversal was a result of the punishment being excessive as opposed to Brady being found innocent. Few fans are going to look into the details of science they don't understand. While I would love to see a Federal judge tear apart the Wells report, the reality is that the chances of that happening are miniscule for reasons that were discussed many pages ago.
It's not optimistic, it's the reality of a 24/7 news world where media outlets have to compete for news while not offending major world governments. Non-sports news organisations don't care about the story at the moment, because there's nothing particularly juicy about it. If the NFL forces this to trial in a federal court, then there's going to be a lot of news that will pique the interest of newspaper editors, cable news people, etc. because it's a freebie that doesn't involve pissing off Uncle Sam.lexrageorge said:
EDIT: To be clear, I've said previously in this thread and the others, that if Goodell were smart (and he isn't) that he'd rescind the suspension and let the mud stick. But if the NFL decides to take this to a full trial there's no way they can keep CNN from covering the trial. They can pressure ESPN into a news blackout now, but during a full trial even the Worldwide Bleeder is going to have to acknowledge the story. And it won't be pretty for the NFL as the story "Two senior NFL officials compromised the integrity of a title game in order to run a half assed sting operation" will play in the tabloid news era.
That's worded like ass. How did Luhnow have access before 2012? And LaRussa was gone by then. So, no overlap. It would seem the last three years are at issue.BelichickFan said:
I guess Luhnow must have kept his same login/password combo even after moving to a new locale. Apparently no one ever taught him the trick of generating a random password that you can't forget.
Except that's not the narrative that will get played. Instead, it will be "NFLPA/Brady appeal league's punishment in court, claiming innocence and that punishment is excessive; Goodell vows to fight for integrity of the game". There will be nothing that says the NFL conducted a sting outside of a few folks on the fringe whom Goodell could care less about.nighthob said:
Sure, it will get some news coverage. But even most of the mainstream news will not care that much about digging into the facts. They will just say a highly respected independent investigator hired a highly respected scientific consultancy to conduct some experiments. Based on those experiments, and the text messages, the highly respected independent investigator determined that Brady was at least "generally aware" that the clown characters "more probably than not" tampered with the footballs during the Colts game. Brady, meanwhile, claims that he was not aware of any tampering, and his NFLPA representatives claim that the league did not follow the process spelled out in the CBA when handing down a punishment that the NFLPA feels is excessive. That will be the mainstream media's narrative.
lambeau said:
You left out Sal's explaining that Tom is under orders from UGG Boots to pursue the case to the full extent of the law.
We are at the point where RG has zero leverage -- and this preposterous fiction that he is a neutral hearing officer bites him in the ass.
RG probably wants nothing more than to cut the suspension in half and for this to go away. That's win/win/win for him.
But he can't tell Brady, *I'll cut the suspension in half if you fold; if you don't, I won't.* Judges cannot pull that shit; they have to mete our justice as they find it. Even a veiled threat of this sort is extremely dangerous. Kessler would use it to prove his point that this is sham justice.
If RG acts like a wise and magnanimous judge and cuts Brady a break, Tom will say "thanks for half a loaf; I'll get the other half in federal court." The penalty can be ratcheted down in this process but not up. Brady is playing with house money at all times. And because RG has to be very circumspect about what he says and does not say, he can't even attempt to leverage the team to pressure Brady to get to his dream state.
RG probably wants nothing more than to cut the suspension in half and for this to go away. That's win/win/win for him.
But he can't tell Brady, *I'll cut the suspension in half if you fold; if you don't, I won't.* Judges cannot pull that shit; they have to mete our justice as they find it. Even a veiled threat of this sort is extremely dangerous. Kessler would use it to prove his point that this is sham justice.
If RG acts like a wise and magnanimous judge and cuts Brady a break, Tom will say "thanks for half a loaf; I'll get the other half in federal court." The penalty can be ratcheted down in this process but not up. Brady is playing with house money at all times. And because RG has to be very circumspect about what he says and does not say, he can't even attempt to leverage the team to pressure Brady to get to his dream state.
Belichick/Kraft have banned all national media from his OTAs 
. Sal Pal says this is the first time he's ever seen it happen, although it is within the team's rights under the bylaws. Sal Pal is just sitting outside the stadium reporting lol.
. Sal Pal says this is the first time he's ever seen it happen, although it is within the team's rights under the bylaws. Sal Pal is just sitting outside the stadium reporting lol.
epraz said:
That's one possibility, but if Goodell was ever stupid enough to actually then increase the punishment, he'd get just destroyed in court after it went through the process again. More likely is that a judge rules there's insufficient evidence to meet the standards for punishment under the CBA anyway, and doesn't give Goodell the choice, without more evidence. Given the number of scientists who will back up Brady and the lack of those who will back up Wells, I wouldn't be surprised to see a judge use language that flat out suggests Brady is innocent of what he's been accused of. If this does happen, I will be real interested to see if anything becomes of the team penalties. It's why I really wish Kraft had said something along the lines that he reserved the right to reconsider his actions and that he'd be watching Brady's case closely. If a court finds that Brady is likely innocent of his charges and that science explains the PSI levels, the very idea of even punishing the team is flat out BS.
https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?/topic/231975-head-lawyer-of-nfl/
While Roger would seem to have great latitude, apparently by labor law he really doesn't. Sal Pal really emphasized the NFLPA legal position that discipline has to be consistent--and by that standard, neither cell phone withholding (Favre), chatter not resulting in on-field transgressions (Bountygate), nor
even ball-tampering (fine set at $25K)can justify suspension.
So why isn't Roger's brain (Pash, above) telling him this? I can only think Roger, after the Rice debacle, was desperate to look tough, and overplayed this.
While Roger would seem to have great latitude, apparently by labor law he really doesn't. Sal Pal really emphasized the NFLPA legal position that discipline has to be consistent--and by that standard, neither cell phone withholding (Favre), chatter not resulting in on-field transgressions (Bountygate), nor
even ball-tampering (fine set at $25K)can justify suspension.
So why isn't Roger's brain (Pash, above) telling him this? I can only think Roger, after the Rice debacle, was desperate to look tough, and overplayed this.
lambeau, RG has demonstrated that he sleeps quite soundly even while losing these appeals. They don't recognize precedent, so they are not terribly concerned about creating bad precedent. That will change, if at all, only with a definitive Court of Appeals ruling on a particular issue, and even then they may argue that they are not bound until the Supreme Court resolves it. They bring a gangster mentality to this.
The discipline creates the headlines; how it gets resolved in the wash appears in footnotes. And who is to say they are crazy entirely? Fans here complain about the exact same thing.
The discipline creates the headlines; how it gets resolved in the wash appears in footnotes. And who is to say they are crazy entirely? Fans here complain about the exact same thing.
Wow--Kessler has the opportunity to give lawyers a good name by bringing some civilization to this Wild West show.
There's really no way for the NFL to avoid that if they elect to take this to a full trial. That wouldn't happen until next offseason at the earliest. And, yes, if the NFL appeals and it goes to a full trial, and all the NFL's internal communications enter the public realm, newsrooms aren't going to ignore a free corruption story just to do the NFL a solid.lexrageorge said:
Let me repeat what I've said about 100 times in this thread. There will be no full trial. There will probably be no discovery. If Brady challenges the NFL's disposition of his appeal in federal court, it will be on a petition to vacate Goodell's decision, which is a narrow inquiry. If you want an example, find Judge Doty's decision in the Adrian Peterson case. The NFL will not be on trial.
Ed Hillel said:Belichick/Kraft have banned all national media from his OTAs
Does this mean that local media is permitted but national media is not?
Why can't they challenge whether the evidence could meet the standard provided in the CBA, namely a preponderance of the evidence? If the evidence suggests there is no factual way Brady could have violated the "integrity of the game," that would seemingly be relevant to a judge, would it not? Even if it's specifically bargained that Goodell is the judge and jury, isn't there a legal presumption that he has to be reasonable in that capacity?MarcSullivaFan said:
What if the judge grants the petition to vacate Goodell's ruling on either procedural grounds, or on the fact that the penalty does not fit the crime. Could the NFL appeal the judge's ruling?MarcSullivaFan said:
First, I'm not sure what exactly you disagree with me about. My overall point is that if this ends up in federal court, there's going to be little or no new evidence. The court is going to look at what's in the record and the CBA. It's not a trial in any sense of the word. I'm not saying that Brady and the NFLPA have no chance of getting RG's decision vacated; I'm pointing out that it won't be an opportunity for broad fact-finding that will expose the NFL. That's a fantasy.Ed Hillel said:
Secondly, it is much, much more deferential standard than "reasonableness." See the Peterson decision for more on the relevant analysis. http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2015/0226/DotyPetersonruling.pdf
Third, the preponderance of the evidence standard is not in the CBA. I'm not even sure it's been applied against a player to this point.
lambeau said:
This is EXACTLY what I was hoping Brady would do. It looks like Brady and his legal team have set the tone for this meeting as basically, vacate or this is going to court. By attacking Goodell on 2 fronts it serves both Brady and the union, basically saying you have absolutely no proof that Brady did anything wrong and your penalty is just making shit up as you go along (which helps in future player cases). I still would like to see Brady and co pin down Goodell and Vincent on EXACTLY what the 4 game suspension covers as the league has been vague. The Wells report is now dog shit and suspending Brady for non cooperation gets Brett Farve's punishment thrown in the commissioner's face.
I would put the odds Brady plays week 1 at, at least 80%.
Yes, to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the AP case is now.lexrageorge said:
People need to realize that as strong as TB's legal position is, it is weaker than AP's and certainly weaker than Ray Rice's. RG fought nonetheless.
A sincere question:dcmissle said:
Can Brady's team transform this out of a 'law of the shop' and/or CBA issue, and effectively turn this into an accusation of cheating?
Let's suppose that somehow they have some evidence that suggests that NFL higher up intentionally set out to entrap the patriots rather than correcting the issue before the game. The 'sting' situation. Doesn't that amount to an illegal tampering with the game by the NFL, which could be argued is on par with points shaving or somethjng of the sort?
I know I'm making some leaps about circumstances that are not evident right now. Im just asking: could there be a mechanism by which this could happen?
MarcSullivaFan said:
Ok, I think we're probably on the same page, then. I misunderstood you. As for your second part, we're dealing with a very different situation than Peterson here, and really different than any I think we've seen. There's an issue as to the fact-finding, not just the punishment. Having read the Doty decision, I'm not even sure how Brady's appeal would proceed. It looks like it's going to be quite complicated, at least in terms of fitting in the fact-finding. I think they already will have a strong argument based on the law of the shop, though I'm not sure I'd say it's a slam dunk. I have no idea how they're going to handle the standard of review, although I'd think preponderance is likely the standard that will be adopted. I look forward greatly to reading the Kessler's arguments.
Certainly, but that was never really going to be the essence of Brady's appeal, and nor is it the desired result, since Goodell can get around that by just enacting the punishment again under whatever process a judge lays forth. They're going to have to win based on the punishment being too severe, or on an argument that the Wells Report doesn't actually support its findings.
One thing I'm unclear on is if Brady will be allowed to present scientists to rebut Wells' findings.
Ed Hillel said:
I think Goodell would be a fool if he didn't let Brady present such evidence.
While it *is* an interesting question as to how Brady would get the factual issues into the likely fed court proceeding. Courts can overturn arb desicions if the arbitrator refuses to hear pertinent evidence; and theere's a general "any other misbehavior that prejudices a party" ground. But even if the trial court made that finding, it would probably remand for the Goodell to consider whatever Brady has to offer. as opposed to the court making a finding that "the evidence shows no deflation." (although the court does have the power to modify or correct an award.
How much evidence gets into a fed court proceeding is up to the judge. If the judge thinks that the NFLPA has made a reasonable claim of reversible error, and requests reasonable discovery on some "corruption"-ish issue, some discovery might be permitted.
I agree that that is a conceivable scenario in which new evidence would come in, but the union will have a lot of convincing to do to get a judge to go down that road. Although having a sham grievance/arbitration procedure is a good start! The other possibility would be evidence needed to establish past practice (law of the shop) if Goodell ignores it or refuses to allow the union to present it.joe dokes said:
Goodell is going to have his hands full running this hearing.
Edit: Also if the judge buys the argument that Goodell is limited in how he can delegate his disciplinary authority, then he could allow discovery and new evidence on that issue.
MarcSullivaFan said:
And it could be that a major part the NFLPA strategy is to create a record for the fed court of Goodell refusing to hear evidence, etc. That's not legal rocket science. It's *every* trial lawyer's job to make sure a record is created for appellate review. But it may be more up-front here, where Goodell himself is something of a target. I could envision things ranging from requests to admit the AEI stuff, to asking Goodell to order NFL personnel like Kensil to appear at depositions to explore the "bias and corruption" angle of arbitration review. There's little hope of Goodell saying yes, but the more he says "no," the more court ammo for the NFLPA.
Mike McCann was on the radio this AM saying he thinks Brady has a strong case in federal court. He emphasized Roger being the judge and appearing as a
witness as a particular vulnerability for the NFL which a federal judge would frown on.
Roger says he is a marginal witness at most, but I think Kessler and Yee plan to put him front and center as perpetrating a sting, colluding with the Colts implying that they had predetermined the Patriots' guilt, and rather than having an independent investigation they obtained instead
a biased report from a law firm which receives a steady revenue stream from Roger. So while their points are procedural (Roger as arbiter) there should
be plenty of red meat for Pats' fans. Delicious.
witness as a particular vulnerability for the NFL which a federal judge would frown on.
Roger says he is a marginal witness at most, but I think Kessler and Yee plan to put him front and center as perpetrating a sting, colluding with the Colts implying that they had predetermined the Patriots' guilt, and rather than having an independent investigation they obtained instead
a biased report from a law firm which receives a steady revenue stream from Roger. So while their points are procedural (Roger as arbiter) there should
be plenty of red meat for Pats' fans. Delicious.
Why prejudge? As a Pats fan, wouldn't you want the same level of fairness you would expect extended to other teams? It's always better to wait for the facts to come out.
An important point is made here:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/17/baseball-hacking-scandal-is-another-fifa-style-warning-to-the-nfl-and-its-teams/
Any NFL team that does not get out in front of this is inviting trouble. The incentives are too great. This crap has been going on in corporate sphere forever, and it's only surprising that it has not come up in pro sports until this week.
An important point is made here:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/17/baseball-hacking-scandal-is-another-fifa-style-warning-to-the-nfl-and-its-teams/
Any NFL team that does not get out in front of this is inviting trouble. The incentives are too great. This crap has been going on in corporate sphere forever, and it's only surprising that it has not come up in pro sports until this week.
If the Cardinals were about to play the Astros in the world series, and this story broke on the day of Game 1, it would get plenty of attention.
I think FIFA ultimately may stand as the catch-all "gate" for sports corruption. Depends on how many people spend time in prison. I think that is what Florio is getting at.
If I'm an NFL owner, the possibility of something like this would scare the crap out of me. Not for gray hair guys -- for whom getting caught in something like this would be career ending. But for young guys trying to make their bones.
If I'm an NFL owner, the possibility of something like this would scare the crap out of me. Not for gray hair guys -- for whom getting caught in something like this would be career ending. But for young guys trying to make their bones.
