Reiss will get the chance to address 1 or 2 of these issues, if that. Don't get your hopes upEL Jeffe said:
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
This part never gets mentioned enough. The entire episode is a butt-hurt farce. I hope Kensil and Brady destroy them in court.bankshot1 said:
Is Gary Myers changing his tune? His "guide" to the appeal was predominantly written from Brady's side.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-guide-roger-goodell-tom-brady-showdown-article-1.2265222
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-guide-roger-goodell-tom-brady-showdown-article-1.2265222
I'm not so sure the last part is true. (Said so in the other thread without realizing this thread was here.)RGREELEY33 said:
I want nothing more than for the sham that is the Wells Report to be scrutinized in a forum not controlled by the NFL. But if Goodell vacates the suspension and gives Brady a relatively minor fine for non-cooperation that is aligned with what he fined Favre for refusing to turn over his cell phone, how does Brady get a court to agree to hear his appeal?
Courts are incredibly reluctant to hear cases when arbitration is dictated by a contract (the CBA, in this case.) In order to overcome that reluctance, you must present an issue that is not or cannot be covered by the contract (fraud, for example) or you must show that the contract has been violated (failure to follow procedure, failure to follow the "law of the shop" or some other item.)
If Goodell words his decision carefully and does not allege that Brady was part of any conspiracy to deflate footballs - even if he leaves intact the underlying implication - I can't see grounds for Brady to get a court to hear an appeal of a minor fine for failure to turn over his phone.
Sadly, I have experience in both arbitration and lawsuits related to arbitration, but I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off. I'd love to get the perspective of one of our actual litigators on this one.
RedOctober3829 said:
Myers sure sounds like he thinks Brady is innocent and that the Wells report is BS. Bonus points for mentioning the AEI report and taking its findings seriously. Still, his piece contains some annoying elements such as:
Umm, because Brady knows that no incriminating evidence exists, since no actual crime occurred?
Felger has been making a variation of this same idiotic point for the past couple weeks: "It is unwise for Brady to take this to court, because then he'd have to turn over his cell phone, and of course then he'd be screwed for sure!" If Felger wasn't a moron, he would know that the most logical explanation for Brady not being afraid to take this matter to court is because he knows full well there is nothing incriminating on his phone. The reason he didn't turn his personal phone data over to the NFL isn't because he is guilty and has something to hide, as Felger and similar nitwits blindly accept as incontrovertible fact, but rather because the NFL had no business asking for it, and it would have set a horrible precedent for his fellow players and the union for him to have done so.
My guess is that Brady will have no problem handing his phone records over to a court of law with proper subpoena powers if necessary. And he will have no fear of doing so, since he (and only he) knows what his phone records actually contain.
If Goodell vacates the suspension (which I give less than a 1% chance of him doing); and if he acknowledges that there is no evidence that he can see that implicates brady in any conspiracy to deflate footballs (which I give less than a .0001% chance of him doing), then I think it's possible that Brady accepts the decision, makes a statement of full exoneration, and moves on to PittsburgAverage Reds said:
The concept that Wells explicitly only asked for text messages related to this situation is such a farce. Wells wouldn't have even known what to look for to start ... incriminating text messages could have gone to literally hundreds of different people, including friends, teammates, and family members. How do you do a thorough inventory of what was on his phone/email without having to look through all manner of personal messages and, then, with all of the stuff that comes out of people's phones just by being hacked and the recent history of leaks by the NFL, Brady is supposed to trust that his most personal information is not going to show up on TMZ?
And to use the Brett Favre situation as a point of comparison is idiotic as well ... the whole THING with Favre (pun intended) was that he was sending graphic photos by text to team employees ... his phone was the whole story.
And to use the Brett Favre situation as a point of comparison is idiotic as well ... the whole THING with Favre (pun intended) was that he was sending graphic photos by text to team employees ... his phone was the whole story.
You realize that Kessler is the one who brought up the Favre punishment as one of his main points, right?
Doesn't matter that the phone was the whole story. It's the broader point of not complying. If Favre's punishment was a $50,000 fine AND it was the whole story(considering they had actual proof of his dick photos) how does Brady's punishment go all the way up to 4 games missed and forfeiture of $1.88 million? It's "generally aware" that this is a complete joke.JeffLedbetter said:
Kessler must have a gigantic boner right now. He has such much ammo. Roger must know this, right?
Anyone want to guess when Roger will actually rule on this? I've read that it could take months, as in, right around the start of the season. If that happens, and it's not to Brady's satisfaction, won't this drag into the season and beyond with the courts and potentially have zero impact on 2015?
What if Brady had simply handed over the texts to Jastremski that Wells already knew about? Relevant to the investigation, but nothing more.Super Nomario said:
Would Wells have considered that to be "full cooperation", or would he have demanded more?
Brady, of course, will show zero contrition. As such, Goodell will announce - in mid-September - that the penalty will remain. The subsequent court case will drag this farce well into the year of our lord twenty and sixteen.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/the-only-thing-worse-than-our-system-of-public-justice-is/
I had missed this explanation by a former Supreme Court clerk that Wells is even wrong on the law--'more probable than not" is not the same as "preponderance of the evidence". He cites Brady Anderson hitting 50 HR's as probable PED use but w/o evidence.
Perhaps it's been covered here; if not, do our legal eagles agree?
I had missed this explanation by a former Supreme Court clerk that Wells is even wrong on the law--'more probable than not" is not the same as "preponderance of the evidence". He cites Brady Anderson hitting 50 HR's as probable PED use but w/o evidence.
Perhaps it's been covered here; if not, do our legal eagles agree?
An NFL investigation is not a legal proceeding and Wells/the NFL don't have the power to disbar anyone.amarshal2 said:
In short, no.
So, will any transcript of the "appeal" be public outside of leaks and when can we expect the release of Goodell's ruling on his own ruling? I apologize if this has been posted already, but for some reason Google is not helping me here.
The primary relevance of that, I suspect, is that in an appeal to federal court getting the burden wrong is reversible on a lower standard than the factual findings. At least, in theory.
His point is a bit weird. "More probable than not" is the standard language in jury instructions for preponderance of the evidence. He's making a different point -- that something must appear more probable than not based on the evidence, not based on hunches. One can claim the Wells report's conclusions are not fairly supported by the evidence, which I think is this guy's point (and I think he's correct). But quibbling about a difference in terms of art is a rather roundabout way to make that straightforward point.lambeau said:
Super Nomario said:
Certainly in retrospect, Brady looks wise for concluding that this was a fix and he couldn't win by setting the precedent of turning over his phone. Though, at the time he did it, that calculus seemed like it would be closer.
Isn't there a chance Brady shows up with, say, an indepedent expert report along the lines of the AEI report and presents that to Goodell? The objective of this hearing is, I think 1) to make the point repeatedly and clearly that Goodell is both prosecutor and judge (which I assume they'll do via trying to call Goodell as a witness?) and 2) to create the most favorable record for appeal (if this were an actual trial appeal the record would be fixed---but I do not think that is the case here, as Goodell's requests for 'considering new info' suggests)
Things that you might think about which would help there:
- A print-out of the most clearly relevant texts and dare Goodell to ask for more or say it isn't sufficient---but again, not sure I see why that's a good idea for him, really.
- A 'counter' expert report
- An opinion letter from a legal ethicist that Goodell has a conflict
- Whatever Massachusetts labor law or decision best suggests that employers cannot compel individuals to turn over their private cell phone (just guessing, but it's bound to be the case)
I suppose there's a risk that presenting anything 'new' here opens up the possibility that NFL fixes the judge/prosecutor issue in a new (revised) sentence, but hard to see how.
Which is, of course, very unlikely to ever happen at the court hearing to begin with. But if challenging makes people think Brady is innocent, since he'll have to hand over his phone, that's a mistake we can live with.simplyeric said:
RedOctober3829 said:
On the first point - the "non-cooperation", I think it's clear it was nothing more than a fishing expedition. I mean, I posed this the other day, but what if Brady had turned over the exact same texts that Wells already had from Jastremski, and said, there you go. That's what's "relevant" to this investigation. ?? I think there's no way that's satisfactory to Wells. I think it's 100% likely that Wells pushes for more, or at least still deems Brady to not really have cooperated.
On the second, bolded point….. Ya think? $50,000 compared to 4 games and almost $2 million in lost salary? It's only 37 times greater of a penalty (dollars-wise), never mind the 4 games lost. "Attorneys could argue that the penalties…are excessive when compared with the Favre case." Hahaha. Yes, they COULD argue that. This is the biggest no-brainer of the entire case.
Robinson carries significant NFL water in that write up. He unwittingly also describes exactly why the player may feel inclined to go before a court for records type requests in comparison to the PR diven Gooddell.ivanvamp said:
The reason I bring up the trust thing as a response to this article is Robinson is relating what seemed like more malfeasance from the league office
As it stands, a league source told Yahoo Sports that Brady initially believed he had fully satisfied requests for information when he sat for an extended interview. The source added that after speaking with investigators, Brady was never specifically informed that his interview alone was not enough. Nor was he advised, the source said, that a failure to turn over requested material would be seen as an obstruction significantly impacting penalties.
That latter point – significant obstruction – has crystalized as Brady's biggest problem since the penalties were handed down, and was accentuated most recently by Goodell at the league's San Francisco meetings.
Brady was never informed of any of those consequences yet the NFL hangs the majority of it's case on noncompliance ? Pretty suspect.
And then he follows with this stare down which left me asking why does he need to give in to NFL records request.
This is where the weight of penalties suddenly shift to a different pylon: the dot-connecting in Wells' report. To phrases like "at least generally aware" and "more probable than not" and "likely." All of those phrases mean this: In the best estimation of Wells' report, Brady is guilty.
That's it. If Brady fully cooperates and isn't implicated through his own words, then it comes down to where the evidence points, and nothing else. And strictly from a public relations standpoint, that's a remarkably low standard when compared against the standard Brady had to meet.
All of which brings us to this: If Brady turns over his communications and if they don't implicate him, then the NFL will be basically saying: Tom Brady met our high standard of cooperation. While no further evidence was found, we still do not believe he has exonerated himself. So he will remain suspended in some fashion based on a lower bar of estimation and circumstantial evidence met by our investigators. While we could not prove Brady's involvement beyond a doubt, we do not believe he proved his innocence beyond a doubt. Our standard wins. His loses.
That's a tough reality.
Of course, Brady still has to meet the league's standard. He still has to satisfy the NFL's need to see his communications. There is no more ambiguity about what is on the line. Goodell has spelled it all out. This directs us to one last question: With Brady's legacy in play, with four games and $1.88 million on the line, with his integrity being questioned, if he has done nothing wrong …
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tom-brady-s-appeal--3-things-the-qb-must-answer--explain-before-roger-goodell-031913117.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma
Has there been any sort of precedent set in previous appeals for when to expect the results? I know this entire thing has been a clusterf*ck from day one, but is there an idea that it will be this week, next month, the bye week, etc?
Michael McCann was on Saturday morning with Gasper and Murray. He says to expect a ruling to come down on the Friday before July 4th. However, it's been over 3 weeks since Greg Hardy's appeal and there has been no ruling yet.dstunbound said:
I think we should be more careful here. There is NOTHING nefarious, unusual, slippery, sleazy or otherwise concerning about either "likely" or "more probably than not." Legally they mean the same thing. Ansd has has been pointed out ad nauseum it is an uncontroversial burden of proof applied in alsmot all forms of non-criminal litigation.
"at least generally aware," though is a big problem, IMO.
joe dokes said:
My whole issue with "generally aware" is this: Can we now essentially "prosecute" people for being "generally aware" of something? How many Saints players were at least "generally aware" of the bounty issue? How many Broncos players were at least "generally aware" that their OLinemen years ago were smearing themselves with vaseline illegally? How many Seahawks players were "generally aware" of all their teammates using PEDs? I mean, since when is being "generally aware" of something a punishable offense?
Was Goodell at least "generally aware" of leaks in the NFL office during this episode? Was he "generally aware" of the Ray Rice video? Good grief.
I think a lot of you are underestimating Goodell. He's a baffoon, but he's not that dumb. If 51% of SoSH nation can guess that reducing the penalty to 2 games means it goes to court, then i'm pretty sure someone up in NFL headquarters has interrupted Goodell's arts and crafts time to inform him about it.
There is only one reason he could possibly be so insistent on running the appeal himself and that's to appear to be in control, and the only way he can end this while appearing to be in control is by vacating the punishment and calling it new evidence. That stage has already been set after the Kraft meeting. Hell, Kraft probably gave him that advice himself.
-Reduce the suspension, it goes to court, gets absolved and Goodell looks powerless.
-Vacate the suspension and leave a fine for non-cooperation and the NFLPA sues to avoid a precedent where the league has rights to players personal phones, and Goodell looks powerless.
-Call it new evidence, admit to being fooled by the numbers like 98% of the human population, come out looking like a fair man in charge. Twist a few words in support of Wells and Exponent in this issue, blame it on the foggy memories of the officials who measured the balls, no one really gets thrown under the bus. Wait until a month before the season to issue official judgement and on-field football takes over the narrative before enough people bother to ask the pertinent questions about Exponent and Well's independence. Once Brady is out of the picture, no one will care anymore.
I know, this does actually require one to consider that Goodell actually does have human-level intelligence, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that this whole time, however, if you stop for a minute and try to put yourselves in Goodell's shoes, the way he (and the rest of the NLF FO) has acted since day one is how one might actually expect someone to act if they actually genuinely believed that Brady was guilty and hiding it. It doesn't have to be some kind of legion of doom secret meeting conspiracy. It could actually genuinely be that these people just didn't understand the science and getting a little bit over zealous.
Now is the first time in this whole saga where it looks like the growing consensus is that no actual crime took place and that notion is spreading. There's no win for the NFL or Goodell left except to look like they are in control.
Full vacation of the penalty and a photo opp with a smiling Goodell, Brady and Kraft is the only option he has left. I believe literally every other option ultimately leads to the end of his tenure as commissioner (eventually).
There is only one reason he could possibly be so insistent on running the appeal himself and that's to appear to be in control, and the only way he can end this while appearing to be in control is by vacating the punishment and calling it new evidence. That stage has already been set after the Kraft meeting. Hell, Kraft probably gave him that advice himself.
-Reduce the suspension, it goes to court, gets absolved and Goodell looks powerless.
-Vacate the suspension and leave a fine for non-cooperation and the NFLPA sues to avoid a precedent where the league has rights to players personal phones, and Goodell looks powerless.
-Call it new evidence, admit to being fooled by the numbers like 98% of the human population, come out looking like a fair man in charge. Twist a few words in support of Wells and Exponent in this issue, blame it on the foggy memories of the officials who measured the balls, no one really gets thrown under the bus. Wait until a month before the season to issue official judgement and on-field football takes over the narrative before enough people bother to ask the pertinent questions about Exponent and Well's independence. Once Brady is out of the picture, no one will care anymore.
I know, this does actually require one to consider that Goodell actually does have human-level intelligence, and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that this whole time, however, if you stop for a minute and try to put yourselves in Goodell's shoes, the way he (and the rest of the NLF FO) has acted since day one is how one might actually expect someone to act if they actually genuinely believed that Brady was guilty and hiding it. It doesn't have to be some kind of legion of doom secret meeting conspiracy. It could actually genuinely be that these people just didn't understand the science and getting a little bit over zealous.
Now is the first time in this whole saga where it looks like the growing consensus is that no actual crime took place and that notion is spreading. There's no win for the NFL or Goodell left except to look like they are in control.
Full vacation of the penalty and a photo opp with a smiling Goodell, Brady and Kraft is the only option he has left. I believe literally every other option ultimately leads to the end of his tenure as commissioner (eventually).
drbretto said:
But they are hunkered down on the team punishments. He can't completely admit that nothing happened and still fine the Pats $1m and take two draft picks and he can't back off the team penalty without looking like he is in Kraft's pocket. Roger is backed into a corner. The only way out of this that avoids an embarrassing court case and makes him look to be in charge is to toe the line that something illegal happened but that Brady was not involved. That will take nuance and deft hand.
This will be screwed up, that is not the question. But the question is in which way will he screw it up? He will either throw more dirt on the Patriots as an organization or leave himself exposed to making the team penalty look ridiculous. My guess is that he basically throws the two numb nuts locker room guys under a freight train and insinuates that the Pats are by extension culpable.
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Why can't he remove the team punishments if he can publicly admit to "new evidence" showing they were not guilty? Why would that mean he's in Kraft's pockets? I'm all for admitting defeat on this subject real soon because I definitely haven't lost sight of his miraculous ability to fuck things up, but the smart move is absolutely to drop it all. He's not backed into a corner on the punishments. He's the king-god-man of the NFL and he can, just like that, feel magnanimous enough to eliminate those punishments all he wants if he feels that (t)he (general public) believes that Brady is indeed innocent.
drbretto said:
This would require admitting that the $5M he paid and the 100 days we waited for the Wells report was a total waste of time and money. This makes him look very stupid. Also, the general public does not believe Brady is innocent. Not even close.
As far as I can tell there are two big questions...
1) Is there any way he can have his cake and eat it too -- make the questions of the validity of the Wells report go away while maintaining credibility and saving face with everyone else
2) If not, where can Goddell best control the narrative?
Regarding #1, I don't see how he successfully blames the ball boys/organization and exonerates Brady. I guess it's possible but I see it as risky. People are going to ask questions about why he went from throwing the book at Brady to completely exonerating him (what will be needed for Brady to drop the court case). I don't think the public will buy it. I think there will be tons of stories about how Robert Kraft made it happen. This weakens his perception among the people who think the Pats are guilty: namely pretty much everybody down to the other 31 owners. Probably not happening.
As for #2, I believe the best chance he has to control the narrative is to try his hand in court. I don't agree that he will look like a baffoon if he loses in court. The public will not be paying attention. Many people think he is a baffoon, but it's not because he lost to Rice and AP in court. That would require the public to think he laughably over-stepped his bounds in suspending them and I don't think that is anywhere near the consensus. IF he loses in court, he can disagree with the courts decision publicly and save some face. Essentially the narrative is that they think Brady cheated and they don't have the same standards as the courts. The national TV media/worldwide leader will play nice as they have all along so they aren't punished the next time the broadcast contract is up for negotiation.
Edit: structure
drbretto said:
A small number of Patriots fans and likely the small number of NFL fans that can count to 15 without needing their fingers and toes think this whole thing is BS. The vast majority of the NFL universe thinks that Patriots are the worst cheaters in the history sports. The owners of the other teams are a petty group that likely don't give a crap about any of this at best and would like to see the Patriots knocked down a peg or two at worse.
The general public and the NFL owners are not going to accept a nuanced argument that everything they have been told so far about this is wrong, it's just not realistic. If the team penalties are over turned then the immediate reaction will be that Goodell is doing this because of Kraft. The outrage and backlash will be immense and Goodell would lose his job.
The smart move is to drop it all only if we are dealing with rational actors. But we are not.
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
This would be the most rational decision, and it would be my choice if I were Goodell. Vacate the Brady suspension entirely, but uphold the team penalties.
However, how does RG explain his decision? Won’t the media press (no pun intended) RG for release of any ‘new evidence’? How does he explain the removal of suspension or fines?
Also, I think this has gone well beyond deflated balls and is now a management vs. labor issue. So, my best guess is that the whole ugly mess ends up in court.
There is not a "growing consensus" that no actual crime took place. Outside of Patriots fans there are a few lone voices of sanity, and then an entire sea of media and fans who either believe the Pats and Brady are guilty no matter what, or don't really give a shit but don't mind Brady getting suspended because it means the Pats are weaker for those four games. Amongst the actual paying customers of the NFL, the vast, vast majority of them desperately want Goodell to uphold the suspension, so he will. If the courts overturn it later, well, that's not something the fans can pin on him.
Sadly, I agree, as I don't think that RG cares if he is overturned in court and see no incentive for him to do anything but uphold the suspension. As noted above, he can disagree with a court finding (losers often do) and still hold his credibility with the only constituency that counts (the other 31 owners). By standing by the Wells' report, he justifies the expense of paying Paul Weiss (although frankly, $5 million is slightly more than sofa lint money when it comes to the NFL revenues), and he can say, with a straight face (remember, we're talking about King Roger, first of his name) that Wells "revealed" nefarious goings on in Foxboro, even if the science is imperfect (dueling experts and all - RG's words), as the texts, particularly the "deflator" one, show real smoke. He can agree to live by the court decision even if he disagrees with it, Brady gets his suspension vacated, the team still pays $1 million, loses the draft picks, and Goodell is viewed as someone who did not back down to Kraft, particularly when the integrity of the league was at stake.Ralphwiggum said:
Wow, a league source reached out to Yahoo and said that about Brady never being informed he wasn't in compliance? Either there's a rogue in there, or the NFL is backing up the truck.
Edit - Or I guess league source could be a Pats guy. He should have pointed that out, if so.
And Robinson ignores the science. Blah.
Edit - Or I guess league source could be a Pats guy. He should have pointed that out, if so.
And Robinson ignores the science. Blah.