Deflationgate part II

[ace2000]

My two cents... just glad it's resolved. I'm tired of the story. I think he's guilty but unless there was definitive proof, this was probably the best outcome. His legacy is diminished.

 

[PigsDad]

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

["Roger"]

I have no idea what will happen, but here is one opinion claiming that the recent ruling will be overturned.

 

[theo]

I have no idea what will happen, but here [see link in post directly above] is one opinion claiming that the recent ruling will be overturned.

The cited article makes for interesting reading, but I am prompted to wonder if the author ever actually read the (40 pages) decision of Judge Richard Berman.
When I did so, I was surprised by the number of specific references to NFL non-compliance with various matters of law, each with an accompanying U.S. Code cite.

Personally, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that this ruling and decision can or will ever be overturned on appeal if / when it actually gets reviewed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the first place and not just quietly dropped before then by the (perhaps a bit humbled) NFL.

Aside from who knew / did / said / hid / what in this matter, this court decision is just a flat out spanking of the NFL and its' disciplinary process, which clearly needs substantive overhaul (and then actual adherence thereto) if the NFL ever wants to impose penalties fairly and / or have any hope of making them "stick" in the future.

Just my personal opinion. YMMV.

 

[SueDonJ]

Appeals court: QB Tom Brady must serve 'Deflategate' penalty

SportsTalk Radio is having another ridiculous day today - very entertaining!

Oh, and I am thrilled anytime the obnoxiously obnoxious Patriots and their fans come out on the losing end.

 

[Talent312]

...Personally, I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that this ruling and decision can or will ever be overturned on appeal...

Well, theo, how does it feel to have egg on your face <figuratively>?

 

[x3 skier]

Sounds like it was really 3-0 against Brady and the NFLPA because the dissent seemed to about the actual penalty, not if any was deserved at all. I'm not a lawyer but I've never slept in a Holiday Inn Express either.

Cheers

 

[theo]

Well, theo, how does it feel to have egg on your face <figuratively>?

In a word --- humbling (...and thank you for asking ), particularly after having thoroughly read Judge Berman's outright spanking of the NFL in his earlier ruling.
I do not actually count myself among the rabid Patriots devotees for whom SueDonJ so consistently (and so gratuitously) expresses limitless and unmitigated disdain, so my own personal reaction to today's events is actually somewhat tempered and largely one of surprise from a legal perspective.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals (split) decision essentially upholds NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell's authority to impose whatever he damn well pleases for penalties. The fact that Tom Brady inexplicably destroyed his cell phone (i.e., potential evidence) has now certainly come back to bite Brady in the butt, essentially creating (whether inadvertently or deliberately matters not at all at this point) an "inference" of having had "something to hide". All in all, certainly not an illogical inference --- so be it.

It remains to be seen what happens next. Brady certainly has additional avenues of appeal, but it might not be in his (or his teams') best interests to prolong the agony. Goodell could "forgive" the suspension after the other punitive measures already imposed (big team fine, loss of first round draft pick), but Goodell "forgiving" the suspension is about as likely as a meteor striking the Earth today, IMnsHO. Brady might now opt to drop this and just "sit" for the first four games of the coming season, but I am frankly inclined to doubt that he would or will choose any such passive option. Just as a casual NFL observer, I would still be comfortable predicting a 11-5 (or better) record and a playoff berth for the N.E. Patriots in the coming season, with or without Tom Brady "warming the pine" for the first four games of the season.

We'll see. Maybe I'm inviting wearing more "egg on my face", but what the heck. We're all entitled to have (and to express) a viewpoint --- and to risk being wrong.

 

[SueDonJ]

... I do not actually count myself among the rabid Patriots devotees for whom SueDonJ so consistently (and so gratuitously) expresses limitless and unmitigated disdain, ...

I'm sorry, Theo, if I gave you or anyone the impression that I was counting you among the "obnoxious" fans. I'm sure you're hearing some of the same things I'm hearing; to me it's almost scary how nutty some people are about all this. Believe me, I haven't lumped your rational thought processes with the irrationality coming from the whackos, not at all.

*****
I'm finding a sort of poetic justice here in that Brady has never been a voice for the Players' Union, but he almost has to continue this fight if the union is ever going to have any success at rewriting the CBA as it stands today. They certainly can't want to continue with it, not when a Court ruling has come down in favor of the power it gives to the Commissioner. If two years ago there'd been a discussion about the union trying to re-negotiate the CBA Brady's name would never have come up as the catalyst or the spokesperson.

 

[davidvel]

Too tired to read all the previous posts. I think I commented on earlier threads that I was a bit shocked from a legal perspective that the district court applied a trial court standard to the CBA, basically ruling that the mutually agreed authority of the Commissioner didn't count.

I doubt this is over, they'll continue to play the game and time the appeals so he'll play. If you read the ruling itself it's a bit of a slap-down of the trial judge.

 

[Kal]

All they can do is appeal to the Supreme Court. If the court rejects taking the case, that's the end of the road.

If they start the process now, upon rejection, the penalty will start. If that occurs in the next few months, he's out the first 4 games of the 2016 season. If mid-season then he is out 4 games at that point. If the rejection occurs after the 2016 season, he will be out the first 4 games of the 2017 season.

So the team probably needs to look at the schedule to guess when it would be best for him to sit.

 

[Talent312]

The Supremes won't take this case. There's no earth-shaking issue of public policy involved. The Players Assoc could try an an end-around this 3-judge panel by asking for an en banc rehearing by the all the judges of the circuit court of appeals, but that's rarely granted.

The NFL just put one thru the up-rights with 2 seconds remaining.
.

 

[theo]

The Supremes won't take this case. There's no earth-shaking issue of public policy involved.

Agreed. No chance that the U. S. Supreme Court would ever agree to hear this case --- and very little likelihood of ever even being asked to do so.

The Players Assoc could try an an end-around this 3-judge panel by asking for an en banc rehearing by the all the judges of the circuit court of appeals, but that's rarely granted.

Dunno, but do wonder. The dissenting view among the (3) judges hearing the appeal was in fact that of the Chief Justice who, in his (9 pages) dissenting opinion, overtly expressed concern about "fairness" in the seemingly "selective" application of penalties (...while also reaffirming the NFL Commissioner's authority to impose penalties).

Interesting, to be sure --- and likely not yet over. Please excuse me now while I try to decide whether to eat or to wear my breakfast eggs this morning.

 

[T_R_Oglodyte]