Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Deflation-gate
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 439 of 466 (785260)
06-01-2016 10:36 AM


AFL-CIO Files Amicus Curiae Brief
The AFL-CIO yesterday filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Tom Brady's petition for a rehearing before the full 2nd Circuit. This adds to the two amicus briefs already filed by professors and by the New England Patriots, and in this case adds some substantial weight.
The brief is so short and cogent that I shall simply quote from it. This is from the introductory letter:
quote:
A review of the substance of the Commissioner’s decision makes clear that, in hearing the appeal, the Commissioner was acting in a role of an employer seeking to justify his own initial disciplinary decision rather than as a neutral arbitrator.
This is from the body of the brief:
quote:
Because the Commissioner — who issued the discipline to Brady in the first instance — failed to follow basic procedural fairness and acted arbitrarily as an employer seeking to justify his own disciplinary decision rather than as a neutral arbitrator considering an appeal — his decision should be vacated. While the NFL and NFLPA bargained to allow the Commissioner to hear appeals of disciplinary decisions, they did not agree to let the Commissioner, sitting as an appellate arbitrator, to act in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious. Regardless of who hears appeals, labor arbitration always must be fundamentally fair.
The Supreme Court has made clear that elementary requirements of impartiality taken for granted in every judicial proceeding are not suspended when the parties agree to resolve a dispute through arbitration. Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Cont’l Casualty Co., 393 U.S. 145, 145 (1968). Even a cursory review of the Commissioner’s decision makes clear that he acted in the self-serving role of an employer justifying his own disciplinary decision rather than as a neutral arbitrator considering an appeal.
It is well-established that an arbitrator [i]s to look only at the evidence before the employer at the time of discharge and, therefore, the correctness of a discharge must stand or fall upon the reason given at the time of discharge. United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 39-40 & n.8 (1987) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Other reasons can’t be added later when the case reaches arbitration merely in an attempt to strengthen the employer[’]s defense. N. BRAND & M. BIREN, DISCIPLINEAND DISCHARGE IN ARBITRATION Ch. 2.II.A.3, p. 50 (2d ed. 2008). Otherwise, the Association’s bargained-for right to appeal [an] action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental, JA345 (CBA Art. 46 1(a)), is rendered meaningless.
The Commissioner, rather than limiting his review to his initial rationale for the discipline, instead change[d] the factual basis for the disciplinary action after the appeal hearing conclude[d], Slip Op. 1 (Katzmann, C.J., dissenting). The initial discipline was based on the Commissioner’s finding that Brady was at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots’ employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without [Brady’s] knowledge. JA329. In its appeal, the Association, therefore, contested whether the evidence relied upon by the Commissioner constituted a legally adequate basis upon which to impose this . . . discipline, JA 1119, i.e., whether general aware[ness] of the wrongful actions of others is a sufficient basis for discipline under the CBA.
Rather than engage with this issue to test the correctness of [the discipline] based upon the reason given at the time,’ M Misco, 484 U.S. at 39 n.8 (1987), the Commissioner attempt[ed] to strengthen the employer[’]s defense, BRAND & BIREN, DISCIPLINE AND DISCHARGE, p. 50. As the dissenting panel member explained, the Commissioner made a change [that] was material to the rationale for his initial disciplinary decision — from a theory that it was more probable than not that Tom Brady . . . was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of [Jim] McNally and [John] Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls, to a theory that Brady ‘knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements and rewards in support of a scheme by which, with Mr. Jastremski’s support, Mr. McNally tampered with the game balls[,]’ i.e., that Brady knowingly engaged in a quid pro quo. Slip Op. 3 (Katzmann, C.J., dissenting) (quoting JA14 and SA51) (emphasis in Slip Op.).
The substantiality of the Commissioner’s shifting rationale for Brady’s discipline, ibid., serves as strong evidence that the Commissioner was not acting as a neutral arbitrator considering an appeal at all, but rather as an employer seeking to justify his own initial disciplinary decision. The panel majority therefore erred in extending deference to the Commissioner’s decision.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 440 of 466 (785264)
06-01-2016 3:31 PM


Kenneth Feinberg Files Amicus Curiae Brief
Kenneth Feinberg yesterday filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Tom Brady's petition for a rehearing before the full 2nd Circuit. This adds to the three amicus briefs already filed by professors, by the New England Patriots, and by the AFL-CIO. Kenneth Feinberg served as a negotiator in some famous victims cases, such as 9/11, the BP oil spill, and the Boston Marathon bombing, and as arbitrator in cases involving the Zapruder film and Holocaust legal fees.
His brief is phrased in more legalistic language than the others and so I won't quote from it, but with this fourth friend of the court brief and Brady's own brief a clear consensus of legal opinion against the NFL is emerging:
  • Goodell violated the CBA when he added new offenses and conclusions to the original finding.
  • Goodell violated the CBA when he ruled new and unprecedented penalties for equipment violations.
  • Goodell violated fairness by assigning in-house counsel to the case (Jeff Pash) and then ruling that Brady could not have full access to the results of the investigation. Concerning fairness Feinberg is actually pretty clear, so I will quote a portion of that part of his brief:
    quote:
    3. Selection of a Non-Neutral Does Not Waive Right to a Fair Arbitration. It is relatively common for parties to select a non-neutral arbitrator, but this does not vitiate the arbitrator’s obligation to act without bias.
Fairness has always been the key issue at the center of Deflategate. In science we like to say that the most extreme claims require the best evidence. In the law we'd like to believe that the most extreme penalties also require the best evidence, but now after nearly a year and a half there is no evidence of purposeful deflation and no evidence of Brady involvement. ESPN's Kevin Seifert comments along the same lines today:
quote:
Deflategate is 500 days old and we still don't know if it happened.
Real doubt exists at the most basic and existential level imaginable. Did anything unnatural happen to footballs used in the 2014 AFC Championship Game? The NFL, backed by a multimillion dollar third-party report, believes it did. Science, reason and innate skepticism diminish the certainty of its answer.
But courts of appeal do not rule on matters of fact. At best they might accept arguments on issues of fact as indications of bias. We're left hoping that Goodell's own arrogance caused him to commit violations that finally result in the correct penalty, i.e., none, even though the erroneous original finding can never be changed, at least not in the eyes of the NFL.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Name correction in last point of list: "Troy Vincent" => "Jeff Pash"

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 441 of 466 (785324)
06-02-2016 12:52 PM


Law and Industrial Relations Professors File Amicus Curiae Brief
Will it never end? How many friend of the court briefs supporting Brady are going to be filed?
However many it ends up being, yet another Amicus Curiae brief was filed yesterday in support of Tom Brady's petition for a rehearing before the full 2nd Circuit. I don't have time just at the moment to read and summarize this, but I will get to it as soon as time makes itself available.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2016 8:55 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 443 of 466 (785411)
06-04-2016 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 442 by NoNukes
06-02-2016 8:55 PM


Re: Law and Industrial Relations Professors File Amicus Curiae Brief
Strangely I can't find the article now, but Brady's legal team requested the amicus briefs from the professors, the AFL-CIO, Ken Feinberg and the Patriots. While several of the briefs were very well argued (I'm thinking of those from the AFL-CIO, Feinberg, and the law and industrial relations professors), that they were solicited and not spontaneous diminishes their value in my eyes. That doesn't make what they say less convincing, but it does put their motives into question, especially the AFL-CIO's, who explicitly stated their high level of concern about the impact on labor arbitration going forward. If their concern was so great, why did they have to wait to be asked before filing the brief?
When Brady first filed his petition for a rehearing the odds for success were put at around 1% or less. But as the specific legal issues become more and more clear in people's minds they've been thinking the odds are increasing. Myself I put them at 50/50 about now. The judges on the 2nd Circuit have to be considering the possibility that if the ruling is allowed to stand then the future will find them reviewing cases that cite Brady v. NFL, not a very tantalizing prospect. On the other hand maybe they're thinking the Supreme Court should look it, if they so choose.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2016 8:55 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2016 4:46 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 445 of 466 (785497)
06-06-2016 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by NoNukes
06-06-2016 4:46 AM


Re: Law and Industrial Relations Professors File Amicus Curiae Brief
NoNukes writes:
but it does put their motives into question
What questions would you ask about their current motives?
You're so literal sometimes. "Putting their motives into question" doesn't mean there are questions for them. It means that they stated motives (particularly in the case of the AFL-CIO) that could be called into question. If you want it phrased as a question then I guess it would be, "Doesn't the fact that you had to be asked to submit your brief mean that you overstated your level of concern about the impact of the Brady ruling on the future of arbitration?"
Myself I put them at 50/50 about now.
You have some sense about these things?
While I was never able to put anywhere near as fine a point on things as Kessler and Olson and the better amicus briefs, I did identify the key issues through each part of the process, so I'm pretty confident that the odds are way better than the thousand-to-one odds for most petitions for rehearing. As just a sports case it wouldn't have much of a chance, but emphasizing the impact to arbitration across the labor/management spectrum greatly improves the chances. Plus the dissenting judge was the chief judge of the 2nd Circuit. He'll be arguing for a rehearing, and a few of those amicus briefs will allow him to make extremely effectively argued points. I especially liked this from the AFL-CIO brief:
quote:
The proposed amicus brief is desirable because it provides a clear explanation to the Court of the lack of procedural fairness in the underlying decision. A review of the substance of the Commissioner’s decision
makes clear that, in hearing the appeal, the Commissioner was acting in a role of an employer seeking to justify his own initial disciplinary decision rather than as a neutral arbitrator.
That's pretty much sums up what I've been trying to say in this thread.
It's interesting to note that the various briefs for rehearing state the same thing about neutral arbitrators in different terms. The AFL-CIO brief stresses that the Commissioner did not act as a neutral arbitrator, but Goodell is not a neutral arbitrator. As head of the NFL he is definitely a non-neutral arbitrator. The Feinberg brief correctly notes Goodell's non-neutral status, and makes clear that the appointment of non-neutral arbitrators is not uncommon, but makes the further point that a status of non-neutrality does not remove the arbitrator's obligation to act without bias.
The AFL-CIO brief doesn't make the "non-neutral but unbiased" distinction and just uses the term "neutral" to imply a requirement that all arbitrators be unbiased. I prefer Feinberg's approach.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2016 4:46 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2016 11:56 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 447 of 466 (785524)
06-06-2016 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 446 by NoNukes
06-06-2016 11:56 AM


Re: Law and Industrial Relations Professors File Amicus Curiae Brief
NoNukes writes:
I think my question has merit.
Your question indicated a misunderstanding of what the term "called into question" means. You're a "literally interpret everything" machine.
Your estimate was a fifty percent chance. That's about 500 times as large as the odds you are quoting for the typical petition.
Yes, way better than the usual odds. Naturally there's no way anyone could know the actual odds, I just used the term 50/50 in the sense of a toss-up. You have just *got* to get a better feel for when people are just talking casually and stop taking everything so literally. "Omigod, he mentioned an actual number, I'll challenge it. Is that 50.0%? How do you know it's not 50.1%?"
How many of those petitions are you familiar with? I admit that I've never read a rehearing petition for anything other than the Federal Circuit, but I'm not speculating beyond saying that rehearings are historically rarely granted. At least when you opine on the Supreme Court you have some familiarity with the personalities. My guess is that you know nothing about this particular court and even less regarding the relative merit of this petition and those others.
Well, good luck with your guesses. One of us was right about the science, right about arbitration, and right that the big issue is fairness, and it wasn't you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2016 11:56 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2016 3:22 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(1)
Message 449 of 466 (785548)
06-06-2016 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 448 by NoNukes
06-06-2016 3:22 PM


Re: Law and Industrial Relations Professors File Amicus Curiae Brief
NoNukes writes:
There is nothing personal at stake here.
Since there's nothing personal at stake here then maybe the next time you have a guess that I "know nothing" about something you could keep it to yourself. I know you don't have the same level of interest that I do and that you're not as informed, and I think that's fine. One would think that that would make you more circumspect with comments like I "know nothing," but it doesn't seem to. Plus your greater knowledge about the law seems to give you a false confidence that more often leads you to error than insight once you step away from legal minutia.
I do not spew uninformed and unsupported opinions into my messages. I'm obviously very interested in Deflategate because I believe Tom Brady got a raw deal, so I read a lot on both sides of the issue (the New York and Buffalo papers are good for anti-Patriot perspectives), and I form my opinions out of what I read. I'm not alone in believing that the odds are closer to 50/50 now, for example see Brady Getting a Rehearing 'Closer to a Toss-up' Now. There have been a couple articles that included information about the makeup of the 2nd Circuit and how they might vote on the petition (can't seem to find them now).
I don't mind having my opinions challenged, but I'm not going to remain silent when told I "know nothing." I'm going to object, on two grounds. First, I know much more than nothing about Brady's petition chances, but I consider that the minor ground. Much more important, second but not lesser, such accusations have no place in dispassionate and objective debate. If by evidence and argument you show that someone knows nothing, fine.
I did already explain what "calling their motives into question" means when I said it could be phrased like this: "Doesn't the fact that you had to be asked to submit your brief mean that you overstated your level of concern about the impact of the Brady ruling on the future of arbitration?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 448 by NoNukes, posted 06-06-2016 3:22 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 450 of 466 (785793)
06-11-2016 10:54 AM


The Judgments That Count
However Brady fares before the 2nd Circuit and (if necessary) the Supreme Court, it seems inevitable that it will be the enduring judgment of most of the country that Brady is guilty of football tampering, and that this is further evidence that the "Cheatriots" deserve their reputation.
It also seems inevitable that Goodell's reputation as a clown when it comes to administering justice within the NFL will be just as enduring. A couple recent articles make clear why it is deserved:
The first article, written by lawyer/arbitrator David Evans, speaks for itself:
quote:
Arbitrators are an extension of the justice system and operate under the same basic principles as our courts.
...
But by agreeing to a non-neutral arbitrator for disciplinary appeals, the bargaining party – here, the NFL Players Association – does not forfeit all of the procedural protections applied in labor arbitrations. Agreeing to the Commissioner's authority to hear disciplinary appeals is not the same thing as agreeing to allow the Commissioner to run amok.
...
No arbitrator, partial or impartial, should have allowed the “independent investigator's” law firm to represent the NFL's interests at the hearing and deny Brady access to potentially exonerating information. No arbitrator should have allowed the NFL's General Counsel to avoid cross-examination about his role in preparing the very report on which the Commissioner based his punishment. No arbitrator acting in good faith should have issued a final award analogizing Brady's “offense” to steroid use and without even mentioning or discussing the schedule of collectively bargained fines arguably applicable to such offenses. And certainly no reasonable arbitrator should have conjured up new grounds to support his own decision after he had imposed discipline on other discredited grounds. These are the hallmarks of a fundamentally unfair arbitration and represent one of the rare exceptions where the courts can and should intervene.
...
The Second Circuit should not allow the public's perception of the arbitration process to be sullied by a Commissioner impersonating an arbitrator.
The second article requires a bit of explanation. It notes the parallels between the Brady case and the Richie Incognito case. When I was listing prior Goodell misadventures the case of Richie Incognito did not come to mind, but now because of a suit brought by former Miami offensive line coach Jim Turner we can see the parallels to Deflategate. Lawyer Ted Wells was the independent investigator in both cases, and as Turner bluntly put it, "Independent investigator my [butt]."
In a sport as coarse as football where the most common word of sneaked recorded conversations is "bleep" it defies belief that a player could be suspended for verbal abuse and harassment of a teammate, yet that's what happened to Rickie Incognito. When the accusations came to light he was suspended from the Miami Dolphins for the rest of the 2013 season. The NFL hired Ted Wells to investigate, and one result was that the Dophins fired offensive line coach Jim Turner, who was also found culpable. Turner filed suit against Ted Wells and his law firm in mid-2015.
The charges in the Turner lawsuit parallel the Brady claims, that a "high ranking National Football League official...attended many of the interviews conducted during their supposedly independent investigation." During Deflategate arbitration Brady was denied access to the internal notes and communications from the NFL's law firm, one of the chief grounds of the appeal challenge to the 2nd Circuit. Turner had no arbitration hearing because as a coach he is not a member of the NFLPA and has no right to arbitration, but he has filed for discovery of this same information, and Wells is fighting it tooth and nail (his attempt to avoid discovery has already been denied by the court once, but last week he filed another request). One wonders why and can be forgiven for suspecting that the information will further document a pattern of NFL behavior designed to yield the result they want while denying people due process.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Percy, posted 06-11-2016 2:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 451 of 466 (785809)
06-11-2016 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Percy
06-11-2016 10:54 AM


A New Theory
Columnist Robert Parry of Consoritumnew.com has a new theory: Deflategate Twist: 31 NFL Teams Are Cheating
The accusations of cheating are just exaggeration, but he does have an interesting theory. Goodell has relentlessly pursued Brady and the Patriots with charges and penalties for cheating because that's what the majority of his employers want. Barry claims that a preponderance of the management organizations of the 32 teams are pressuring Goodell to do this, and that explains why none of the evidence has held up.
Barry quotes Mike Reiss's report that, "I think Goodell would do it [end Deflategate] if that's what 31 other ownership groups wanted, but it was clear as a possible settlement was recently explored behind the scenes that the majority of owners want the full penalty for Brady and the Patriots. Goodell is following their lead."
Barry then argues that, "the Management Council, which controls [Goodell's] $35 million salary, urged him to view the absence of two Patriots equipment employees at the appeal hearing as proof of Brady’s guilt..."
Recall that Officials Locker Room attendant McNally and Equipment Manager Jastremski are accused of conspiring with Brady to implement a scheme to deflate footballs. As part of their evidence the NFL cites text messages between McNally and Jastremski after the Jets game earlier in the season when the balls were discovered to have been overinflated by more than 3 PSI. Barry then introduces a new argument:
quote:
But an objective reading of those text messages would have undercut the NFL’s allegations, since neither McNally nor Jastremski made any reference to why they had failed to under-inflate the balls after they were filled with air by the officials. You would have expected Jastremski to chastise McNally for his failure to deflate the balls or for McNally to offer an excuse about why he didn’t, but that topic is never raised in the exchange.
When looked at in this light it's fairly convincing. The text messages in the Wells Report after the October 17, 2014, Jets game (see page 5) have a bewildering number of interpretations given their lack of specificity but look damning until one realizes that there is no mention of how McNally screwed up in not deflating the footballs to Brady's desired level. Not just that, but rereading these texts again after all this time it is apparent that both McNally and Jastremski believe the referees to be the last ones to have adjusted ball inflation. And in this exchange it is clear that McNally's plan is to overinflate the footballs even more than the previous week (it reads very strangely, and I think gross exaggeration of counterproductive intent must just be McNally's style):
JastremskiCan't wait to give you your needle this week :)
McNallyFuck tom....make sure the pump is attached to the needle.....fuckin watermelons coming
But fatally damning for the NFL position as stated by Wells (though only to the interested public, since this isn't reviewable by the courts, though the courts could send this back to the NFL to rehear the arbitration) is the glaring contradiction that Barry next notes but which somehow have been missed until now. According to the Wells Report, "It was the first time in [Walt] Anderson‟s nineteen years as an NFL official that he could not locate the game balls at the start of a game." So if McNally, Jastremski and Brady had developed a scheme to deflate footballs after they'd been checked by the officials and before they reached the field, then the AFC Championship Game was the first time they'd ever succeeded, and what's more, it required an unexpected confluence of circumstances, as described by Barry:
quote:
If, as Goodell acknowledges, this was the only time that McNally could have slightly deflated some footballs for whatever miniscule benefit that might have created, then that would mean that Brady and his co-conspirators anticipated that the NFC game would go into overtime, that it would delay the start of the AFC game, and that the sudden-death ending would cause confusion among the referees, allowing McNally to slip away, enter a bathroom and take a tiny amount of air out of the Patriots footballs.
And as I myself have stated several times, it would make no sense for Brady to have underinflated footballs at home but not away where he wouldn't have the benefit of the home locker room attendant, because of the inconsistency.
So while I don't believe that the other 31 owners are cheating, I do think they are encouraging Goodell to come down hard on Brady and the Patriots, that Goodell made that need very apparent to Wells, and that that explains why the improving understanding of the evidence is running so strongly against the NFL.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Percy, posted 06-11-2016 10:54 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 12:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 453 of 466 (785878)
06-12-2016 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by NoNukes
06-12-2016 12:57 PM


Re: A New Theory
NoNukes writes:
I have no evidence for this one way or the other, but I've always assumed that Goodell was doing what the owners want with regards to pursuing this matter.
Not sure what you mean by "pursuing this matter," so just to be clear, the article wasn't suggesting that Goodell pursued the Deflategate charges at the behest of owners. It was suggesting that Goodell orchestrated a ruling of guilty at the behest of owners.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 12:57 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 7:34 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 455 of 466 (785903)
06-13-2016 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by NoNukes
06-13-2016 7:34 AM


Re: A New Theory
NoNukes writes:
I've expressed my own opinion. If it is not the same as the one expressed in the article, that's fine too.
But what's your opinion? It can't be known unless you reveal what you meant by "pursuing this matter?" Without that information no one can know your opinion or whether it agrees with the article. If "pursuing this matter" means pursuing the Deflategate charges, then you don't agree with the article's main premise, while if it means orchestrating a ruling of guilty then you do agree.
Myself, I don't think the evidence is conclusive, just that it's an interesting theory. I *do* believe that Goodell is bozo enough to screw up the investigation and arbitration efforts without much encouragement, but whether a subset of owners gave him an extra push, who knows.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 7:34 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 11:39 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 457 of 466 (786054)
06-15-2016 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by NoNukes
06-13-2016 11:39 AM


Re: A New Theory
NoNukes writes:
My comment is not a rebuttal of the articles premise. It expresses a related but distinct idea. But for the record, by pursuing the matter, what I am referring to is the fact that the owners appear to want a tough, management favorable punishment system, and that they negotiated for exactly that in the protective bargaining agreement. Goodell has by now, had several opportunities to drop the matter, but has taken none of them.
Okay, I get it.
The CBA, as written, allows Goodell the final say if he so elects, accordingly, little orchestration was even needed. Goodell could have listened to anything, met with anyone, and reviewed anything short of a confession by the Patriots owner that he deflated the footballs, and pronounced the same conclusion.
You seem to be saying that the investigative process and Goodell's performance as an arbitrator could have been even worse than they were. I guess that would have made the legal process easier. As it is, most of the briefs have argued that agreement to a non-neutral arbitrator does not relinquish rights to fairness and due process. Arbitrators have broad discretion and can even fail in according with these rights, but within bounds.
Recent articles have not been as sanguine as me about Brady's chances. I see fewer signs now of the optimism that emerged during the flood of amicus briefs. My assessment of Brady's petition chances have diminished somewhat.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 11:39 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2016 11:11 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 459 of 466 (786321)
06-20-2016 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by NoNukes
06-18-2016 11:11 PM


Re: A New Theory
NoNukes writes:
However IMO, it will be difficult/impossible to argue successfully that the mere fact that Goodell was the hearing officer is outside of the agreement or that it was not what the parties meant when the agreement was signed.
Brady/NFLPA isn't arguing this, and none of the amicus briefs argue this position. You may be thinking of things I said a while back before I understood the CBA.
Who is writing about this stuff nowadays? Aren't most folks watching hockey, basketball, or baseball?
The amicus briefs generated a flurry of articles and responses, things seem to be quiet again now.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2016 11:11 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2016 11:02 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 461 of 466 (786329)
06-20-2016 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by NoNukes
06-20-2016 11:02 AM


Re: A New Theory
NoNukes writes:
Yes, and things you continued to say after I pointed out the text in Article 46. It's nearly impossible to tell when you've dropped or conceded an issue.
Sorry - you were right.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2016 11:02 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by Diomedes, posted 06-23-2016 10:17 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 464 of 466 (792466)
10-10-2016 7:52 AM


Deflategate Over
Tom Brady returned to the field yesterday in a game between the New England Patriots and the Cleveland Browns. When asked about Deflategate at the post game press conference Brady said, "I'm moving on."
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024