Please provide the section of the CBA that supports your statements..
...
The standard invoked by Vincent to assess the Penalties he chose to apply to Brady's alleged actions is based on Paragraph 15 (the "Integrity of the Game" clause) of Appendix A of the CBA which gives the power to the Commissioner to penalize a player who "is guilty of any other form of conduct
reasonably judged [my emphasis] by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football."
Unfortunately, there is no limit placed on the standards that the Commissioner can use when he asserts that he has "reasonably judged" that a particular action is "detrimental..."
How the NFLPA agreed to this nonsense in the first place is beyond me.
Then, if you read through the CBA, you find frequent references to the "
preponderance of evidence" [again, my emphasis] standard as justification for reaching one conclusion or another in a variety of matters.
Finally, if you go to Vincent's ruling, you find that he cites both the "Preponderance of Evidence" stipulation and Paragraph 15 of Appendix A as his justification for his findings.
Wells obviously chose the words "more probable than not" in his findings to dovetail with the "Preponderance of Evidence" standard throughout the CBA and the "reasonably judged" standard in the Appendix.
Don't flame or blame me as agreeing with any of this, as I think it is absurd.
It is
absurd that the NFLPA agreed to this when negotiating the CBA. In fact, it has been observed by several folks who follow this stuff more closely than do I that that the NFLPA wants to use this case to have a judge find that this, among other provisions of the CBA, are unacceptable. Of course, the problem is that those are the idiots who agreed to this crap in the first place!