Florio: Brady's suspension could be overturned because Goodell didn't follow the CBA

The language of Article 46 implies that the Commissioner will take the action against Brady, not Troy Vincent or anyone else. And it’s obvious that Vincent made the decision. Indeed, Goodell made it clear from the moment that Wells report was issued that “Troy Vincent and his team will consider what steps to take in light of the report.”

Some believe Goodell delegated the decision to Vincent to create a buffer aimed at insulating Goodell against the wrath of Patriots owner Robert Kraft. Regardless, the union will argue that the plain language of Article 46 required Goodell to make the initial decision, and that he was prevented from delegating it to anyone else.

Click to expand...

Article 46 also requires that, for any discipline imposed for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of football, the Commissioner “shall consult with the Executive Director of the NFLPA prior to issuing, for on-field conduct, any suspension or fine in excess of $50,000.” Assuming that Brady’s infraction involves on-field conduct because it relates to footballs used during games, Goodell was required to consult with DeMaurice Smith before issuing the discipline.

If that didn’t occur, it’s likely not fatal to the suspension. It nevertheless shows a failure by the NFL to dot all i’s and cross all t’s in a case where the evidence against Brady as it relates to the AFC title game relies on a hypertechnical scientific analysis of football air pressure. Thus, if technicalities can be used against Brady, why can’t technicalities be used against the NFL?

Click to expand...

neuronet said:

Useful stuff, but if Brady's case relied much on picky legal points like these, he'd be in trouble.

Click to expand...

Sicilian said:

Theories like these make me question anyone who thinks there's some grand NFL conspiracy against the Patriots. What makes it seem like they have it out specifically for the Patriots is that the PUBLIC hates us, and the league basically sticks it's thumb to the wind and does whatever it thinks will make the largest percentage of the population like them.

These numbskulls couldn't conspire to cover a bowl of cereal in milk without forgetting to put the cereal in a bowl first.

Click to expand...

glm said:

How exactly would he be in trouble?

Click to expand...

neuronet said:

If that were the extent of his case, he might win on a technicality, but not on substance. He should defeat them because the evidence doesn't support that he is guilty, not on a legal technicality. (Obviously these aren't mutually exclusive: my point is that if he only had such technicalities, that would be a bad sign)).

If a guy gets off a murder charge because there was no search warrant, but there is really good evidence he did it (obtained from the warrant), that does not speak well to his character. Brady is not that guy: I believe he didn't actually do the crime, and that's what they should push (perhaps in addition to any pedantic legal technicalities).

Click to expand...

Sicilian said:

Theories like these make me question anyone who thinks there's some grand NFL conspiracy against the Patriots. What makes it seem like they have it out specifically for the Patriots is that the PUBLIC hates us, and the league basically sticks it's thumb to the wind and does whatever it thinks will make the largest percentage of the population like them.

These numbskulls couldn't conspire to cover a bowl of cereal in milk without forgetting to put the cereal in a bowl first.

Click to expand...

FrodoBagginz said:

I hope Brady says "I'm not going to use technicality to beat this. I am here to clear my name and my legacy not on technicalities but on proving this Wells report is false with many flaws and I am innocent. I plan on taking this all the way to prove I am innocent and this was a deliberate conspiracy to defame me."

Click to expand...

PATS16N0 said:

The North Remembers.

Click to expand...