upstater1
Hall of Fame Poster
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 26,465
- Reaction score
- 16,652
I'd put this question in the other thread about the poster who consulted judges, but that thread has been destroyed by a troll.
I know the Patriots have to accede to the NFL's decisions and they can't fight them in court. I know that Brady's appeal doesn't necessarily need to go to an arbitrator outside the NFL.
However, does this give carte blanche to the NFL? Doesn't the NFL have a duty to be fair?
It seems to me that in the case when an independent investigation has demonstrably twisted and skewed things, there may be a recourse outside the Patriots' agreements with the NFL, and outside the NFLPA's agreements with the NFL as well..
Here we have evidence that the Wells report did something twisted with Walt Anderson's testimony.
Remember, Roger Goodell emphasized that he has to equally consider the positions of 31 NFL teams. Which to my mind means he has to be fair to everyone, including the Patriots. He also has to be fair to the NFLPA.
Can the Patriots and/or Brady sue not on the basis of Goodell's decision (that can't be contested), but can they sue on the fact that a malicious execution of an investigation was undertaken to fundamentally subvert the Patriots' and/or NFLPA agreements with the NFL? Seems to me the NFL has a duty to be fair, if indeed part of the agreement with the Patriots is that no appeals may be filed. But what if there is evidence of malicious unfairness?
It's right there in the Wells report. They deliberately skewed things against the Patriots and Tom Brady.
To my non-legal mind, this gives the Patriots and/or Brady an avenue.
I know the Patriots have to accede to the NFL's decisions and they can't fight them in court. I know that Brady's appeal doesn't necessarily need to go to an arbitrator outside the NFL.
However, does this give carte blanche to the NFL? Doesn't the NFL have a duty to be fair?
It seems to me that in the case when an independent investigation has demonstrably twisted and skewed things, there may be a recourse outside the Patriots' agreements with the NFL, and outside the NFLPA's agreements with the NFL as well..
Here we have evidence that the Wells report did something twisted with Walt Anderson's testimony.
Remember, Roger Goodell emphasized that he has to equally consider the positions of 31 NFL teams. Which to my mind means he has to be fair to everyone, including the Patriots. He also has to be fair to the NFLPA.
Can the Patriots and/or Brady sue not on the basis of Goodell's decision (that can't be contested), but can they sue on the fact that a malicious execution of an investigation was undertaken to fundamentally subvert the Patriots' and/or NFLPA agreements with the NFL? Seems to me the NFL has a duty to be fair, if indeed part of the agreement with the Patriots is that no appeals may be filed. But what if there is evidence of malicious unfairness?
It's right there in the Wells report. They deliberately skewed things against the Patriots and Tom Brady.
To my non-legal mind, this gives the Patriots and/or Brady an avenue.