- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 4,703
- Reaction score
- 6,840
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I defer to her judgement. Its hard to gauge the tone in a transcript vs actual sound.Stephanie Stradley @StephStradley 14m14 minutes ago
Just finished reading the Wed #Deflategate hearing transcript. Woof. Worse-sounding for NFL than original reports.
I also have wondered why kessler has not hit this one out of the park.Also, Goodell didn't accurately portray Brady's appeal testimony in his 20-page opinion upholding the four-game suspension. Specifically, he wrote that Brady "ONLY" discussed preparation of Super Bowl footballs in conversations with equipment assistant John Jastremski when Brady's actual testimony said otherwise.
Wow, Berman saying defering to arbitrator is somethiong judges have difficulty doing
View attachment 10130
I agree, but worth keeping in mind that you can't overturn an arbitration ruling solely on the basis that Goodell misunderstood or forgot or whatever Brady's testimony, because it's not enough to prove that Goodell is wrong. I think they would have to argue that Goodell specifically asking and Brady specifically answering multiple times that he and Jastremski discussed the ball deflation accusations suggests that the only reasonable interpretation of Goodell's claim to the contrary in the arbitration award is that it is a deliberate misrepresentation, and it thus evidences Goodell's evident partiality as an arbitrator.http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...umstances-trump-legal-precedent-in-brady-case
I also have wondered why kessler has not hit this one out of the park.
p43: Nash - beyond all that, per the CBA it up to Commissioner to judge Brady's culpability, involvement, knowledge and awareness.
p41: Nash invokes head of Princeton Physics department.
I don't recall hearing about this. What did he say?
I agree, but worth keeping in mind that you can't overturn an arbitration ruling solely on the basis that Goodell misunderstood or forgot or whatever Brady's testimony, because it's not enough to prove that Goodell is wrong. I think they would have to argue that Goodell specifically asking and Brady specifically answering multiple times that he and Jastremski discussed the ball deflation accusations suggests that the only reasonable interpretation of Goodell's claim to the contrary in the arbitration award is that it is a deliberate misrepresentation, and it thus evidences Goodell's evident partiality as an arbitrator.