I tell you what, if this case hinged on the NFL submitting a list of previous arbitration cases captioned with their own legal ramification conclusions, the Brady case was DOA to begin with. Put another way, if this judge is going to stay with the thinking 'courts don't overturn arbitration rulings' then, again, the NFL's list of previous cases was unnecessary. Brady's case was all but DOA from the start.
IMHO (albeit legally ignorant) the judge is obviously going to rule for Brady in some form or fashion. How that exactly is done or is worded I don't know. Look, wasn't it crystal clear from legal circles this case had nothing to do with guilt, right?? This was a case about contract and procedure. Yet this judge has dove significantly into the question of guilt. How bad will this judge look if he takes the courts time to point out (and even mock) multiple points regarding the NFL's case of guilt? The judge did all this to them say "arbitration doesn't get overruled. Article 46 is all that matters. Case closed". If that is the case why waste the court's time with issues of guilt whatsoever? Other than procedural items why question the term "gate", use finger quotes for independent investigation, ask about the lack of specificity for the Indy game of which Brady is accused ofm(and point out why oily Wells left it out/vague), etc etc.
In terms of the precedent argument -- as someone else pointed out -- that the judge doesn't want to open the precedent flood gate, this case is very unlikely to be a major precedent setting event. The NFL has acted onfairly and badly. The judge knows this. The NFL argument is, basically, doesn't matter we can do what we want. So if this judge is so gutless to think 'doesn't matter how bad the employer acts/rigs the arbitration process, arbitration rulings are just not questioned!' then the only 'precedent' being set here is that employers have virtual carte blanche to do anything they want to the arbitration process. Bottom line: if the NFL wins and this case stands, it is a FAR more reaching ruling in that it makes it possible for those who hols the power to rig the process and do so with near impunity. To me that is very worrisome and I hope the judge recognizes this too (and makes a comment on it in his final ruling)....