Roger Goodell loses, Brady wins

[Tornado700]

Agree or disagree? I disagree in a big way. Not only does Brady and Belicheat get away with another cheating scandel, but it essentially strips the commissioner of his power to discipline players of wrong doing. This is a precedent which will have bad consequences for the NFL's future. What's your take?

[tgann68]

Sh*t show

[Robjr83]

Ray Rice is still persona non grata who had an NFL version of double jeopardy. Brady actively conspired and destroyed evidence directly related to the integrity of the game but won't even miss a quarter of football.

[varaven45]

And now the Steelers lose !

[tsylvester]

It was the only way the judge could rule. This was about abuse of power, the process, not about whether or not Brady was involved in fixing the footballs. The CBA states a player who is deamed involved in something that goes against the integrity of the game is to be fined, not suspended. Goody went beyond that and suspended him, and did so for four games.

 

 

Now, factor in the emails that were uncovered a few weeks ago showing some one in the NFL offices leaked to Mort false reports of the air pressures, and did so, quite exageratedly. So instead of being 1-2 pds under the limit, in reality they were only an oz or so under, leading to the reports that showed footballs can, do and have lost weight during cold weather games. In a court of law, to an outside observer, there is not enough, likely no evidence neither Brady nor the Pats in anyway, did anything to the footballs. Add in that several of the footballs the Colts used were also under weight, and Goody clearly went over board.

 

Sure, there is an appeal, but that appeal is 1) likely to take years 2) Brady is likely to win based on how the judge worded his ruling.

[thundercleetz]

Good, I'm glad the Steelers don't get off easy.

[cravnravn]

It was the only way the judge could rule. This was about abuse of power, the process, not about whether or not Brady was involved in fixing the footballs. The CBA states a player who is deamed involved in something that goes against the integrity of the game is to be fined, not suspended. Goody went beyond that and suspended him, and did so for four games.

 

 

Now, factor in the emails that were uncovered a few weeks ago showing some one in the NFL offices leaked to Mort false reports of the air pressures, and did so, quite exageratedly. So instead of being 1-2 pds under the limit, in reality they were only an oz or so under, leading to the reports that showed footballs can, do and have lost weight during cold weather games. In a court of law, to an outside observer, there is not enough, likely no evidence neither Brady nor the Pats in anyway, did anything to the footballs. Add in that several of the footballs the Colts used were also under weight, and Goody clearly went over board.

 

Sure, there is an appeal, but that appeal is 1) likely to take years 2) Brady is likely to win based on how the judge worded his ruling.

So throw out the text messages from the 2 still unemployed?

 

Throw out the fact that Brady destroyed his phone, knowing that his phone would be called in as evidence?

[tsylvester]

So throw out the text messages from the 2 still unemployed?

 

Throw out the fact that Brady destroyed his phone, knowing that his phone would be called in as evidence?

 

 

Yes, because the process was completely wrong in the first place. This is much like the police entering your house with out a warrant or permission, finding something illegal there, and arresting you. The charges would be thrown out.

[cravnravn]

Whoa, you play for the NFL, you're in a different world, different rules apply here.

[thundercleetz]

So throw out the text messages from the 2 still unemployed?

 

Throw out the fact that Brady destroyed his phone, knowing that his phone would be called in as evidence?

Exactly for your points is why the NFL should have taken Brady's offer of being suspended one or two games for a failure to cooperate. Even with the factors you named, the evidence was circumstantial at best. Then throw into the fact a flawed and nonpartial process, and the NFL had no chance.

[cravnravn]

How is the cell phone circumstantial? It's hard evidence that had been destroyed. Not lost,not stopped working, but physically smashed by someone in bradys camp.

[dc.]

It's circumstantial because you don't actually have evidence, you are relying on the circumstance (odd timing of phone destruction) in place of evidence and to make presumptions about evidence

[dc.]

Max, you have consistently said the CBA says that a detrimental action can only be a fine. What's the source on that? I can't find it in my studies of the CBA, though they have been brief.

[dc.]

Follow up; my research and the article below both say that conduct detrimental gives the league commissioner authority to practically do whatever he wants. There are certain fine schedules and the like for specific offenses, but if it's not on the offense list and is conduct detrimental, it can be pretty open ended.

 

Now, the judge obviously thinks there needed to be some precedent or warning, but I think the league will gave a good shot at winning an appeal

[tsylvester]

Follow up; my research and the article below both say that conduct detrimental gives the league commissioner authority to practically do whatever he wants. There are certain fine schedules and the like for specific offenses, but if it's not on the offense list and is conduct detrimental, it can be pretty open ended.

 

Now, the judge obviously thinks there needed to be some precedent or warning, but I think the league will gave a good shot at winning an appeal

 

 

Precedent, the previous cases were all fines. The NFL agreed to the schedule of punishments the NFLPA outlined for first & second offfenses for "conduct detrimental to the game", all of them, fines.

 

 

I didn't look up the exact rules in the CBA, but here is a good article on this-http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/08/conduct-detrimental-vs-equipment-violations-in-brady-vs-nfl/

 

 

That would all be fine and dandy (is anything ever dandy without being fine?) if the NFL and NFLPA hadn’t otherwise negotiated a long list of specific rules spelling out specific punishment for a wide variety of situations where player behavior otherwise could be deemed conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game of professional football.

The fine schedule, for example, contains many specific instances of behavior that the Commissioner, given his extremely broad powers, could otherwise deem to be “conduct detrimental.” But the Commissioner can’t, because the NFL already has agreed that only a fine is justified for a first and second offense. (For some finable offenses, a suspension potentially becomes appropriate under the league’s system of progressive discipline.)

 

 

 

It reminds of the time Jamaal Lewis got into trouble with that drug issue. Everyone wondered how long he would be suspended, most thought 4 games. However, because the NFL used certain verbage, Jamaal fell under certain criteria which ment the max he could face was a fine & 2 games.

 

In Brady's case, while the Comish could impose what ever he wanted, in this case, only with in the perview of the rules he and the NFLPA agreed to, when they did the new CBA; fines, fines, only then a suspension after repeated issues. Since this was Brady's first offense, he had to be fined at max.

 

Thus, the judge's ruling. In his ruling, through all the pages, you see everything I have stated on this matter.

[Tornado700]

How is the cell phone circumstantial? It's hard evidence that had been destroyed. Not lost,not stopped working, but physically smashed by someone in bradys camp.

I'm with you Crave but can answer this one for you. A cell phone (and Brady's voice telling someone to deflate the balls) is direct evidence. Without the cell phone, evertything is speculative, therefore, circumstantial.

[Tornado700]

Here's what I don't understand. Why even have a NFL commissioner? Obviously, any future infractions by players will be tried in a court of law. Everything. This is just wrong.

[dc.]

 

 

Precedent, the previous cases were all fines. The NFL agreed to the schedule of punishments the NFLPA outlined for first & second offfenses for "conduct detrimental to the game", all of them, fines.

 

 

I didn't look up the exact rules in the CBA, but here is a good article on this-http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/08/conduct-detrimental-vs-equipment-violations-in-brady-vs-nfl/

 

 

 

It reminds of the time Jamaal Lewis got into trouble with that drug issue. Everyone wondered how long he would be suspended, most thought 4 games. However, because the NFL used certain verbage, Jamaal fell under certain criteria which ment the max he could face was a fine & 2 games.

 

In Brady's case, while the Comish could impose what ever he wanted, in this case, only with in the perview of the rules he and the NFLPA agreed to, when they did the new CBA; fines, fines, only then a suspension after repeated issues. Since this was Brady's first offense, he had to be fined at max.

 

Thus, the judge's ruling. In his ruling, through all the pages, you see everything I have stated on this matter.

I forgot to tag my article, but you tagged the same one. We're reading it quite differently though. The CBA highlights many offenses and punishments, but none of those are conduct detrimental by definition. The article is actually saying the Goodell, by rule in the CBA, has the ability to levy any punishment for any action not listed specifically in the agreement.

 

In other words, when the act was out in the list, it is removed from being conduct detrimental. But if it's not in the list, the CBA says it's the commissioners decision.

[tsylvester]

I forgot to tag my article, but you tagged the same one. We're reading it quite differently though. The CBA highlights many offenses and punishments, but none of those are conduct detrimental by definition. The article is actually saying the Goodell, by rule in the CBA, has the ability to levy any punishment for any action not listed specifically in the agreement.

 

In other words, when the act was out in the list, it is removed from being conduct detrimental. But if it's not in the list, the CBA says it's the commissioners decision.

 

 

 

Precedent, remember. If something, in a court of law now, is not "listed", then one can rely on what was previously done. Remember, the judge brought up the punishment in relation to how punishments are done, under conduct detrimental, to those who use roids or are abusive, 4 games.

 

While at the same time, Brady was only accused of tampering with equiptment. In that case, you have to turn to precedent, which then falls to what have they done before with "stickum, greasing uniforms", etc which all are only finable offenses for the first two instances caught.

[dc.]

Except, the league is arguing there is no precedent for this kind of attempt at cheating. And they are right.

 

The other infractions are NOT technically conduct detrimental because they have been removed from that list. The fines have no bearing on other conduct penalties.

[tsylvester]

Except, the league is arguing there is no precedent for this kind of attempt at cheating. And they are right.

 

The other infractions are NOT technically conduct detrimental because they have been removed from that list. The fines have no bearing on other conduct penalties.

 

 

I agree to a point. However, the league was wrong, thus the judges ruling. tampering with game equiptment is, well, tampering with game equiptment; an unfair advantage.

 

In that game, the Colts' footballs, once the truth came out, were under almost exactly the same amount, yet no punishment. The fact the league truly had no system in place to 1) properly, consistantly measure the air and 2) record the air pressures is laughable. I am not sure if the judge mentioned that part, I did not read his entire ruling, but boy what a mess the NFL made over something that had no bearing on the game,

 

We/ I can say that since Brady played much better in the second half, after the footballs were changed out..... Great discussion though.

[cravnravn]

Where you getting the Colts balls were under inflated? Never heard that one time since February,

 

Brady is a fucking cheater, always has been.

[dc.]

 

 

I agree to a point. However, the league was wrong, thus the judges ruling. tampering with game equiptment is, well, tampering with game equiptment; an unfair advantage.

 

In that game, the Colts' footballs, once the truth came out, were under almost exactly the same amount, yet no punishment. The fact the league truly had no system in place to 1) properly, consistantly measure the air and 2) record the air pressures is laughable. I am not sure if the judge mentioned that part, I did not read his entire ruling, but boy what a mess the NFL made over something that had no bearing on the game,

 

We/ I can say that since Brady played much better in the second half, after the footballs were changed out..... Great discussion though.

The judge went no where near the actual factual info about footballs because it's not a valid appeal. Appeals don't deadly with issues of fact which have been decided already. They deal with the "in betweens" like whether a fact was admissible or a rule (precedent) followed appropriately or not.