Pessimism about court case chances (ESPN)

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...tom-brady-doesnt-get-appeal-result-he-desires

Discussing Brady's chances of winning in court, and not encouraging. Two lawyer types saying that Goodell is within his negotiated rights even if he does a lousy job of arbitration. One even suggests that Peterson's win in court is likely to be overturned on appeal.

However, it doesn't take up the matter of defamation.

We talked about this in the hearing thread. Munson's been wrong about pretty much everything with regards to this case, and both men ignore the reality of both the new CBA and recent history with appeals against the NFL.

Might as well make a thread about Borges' opinion.

Saw court and ESPN, guessed it was Munson, didn't bother clicking.

Today was a good day.

Brady2Moss said:

Saw court and ESPN, guessed it was Munson, didn't bother clicking.

Today was a good day.

Click to expand...

Well that depends, did you have to use your AK?

Florio is making an open and shut case for Brady's defamation lawsuit regarding the NFL's intentional misinformation campaign of the PSi readings in the leaks to Mortenson and the Gardi letter to the Patriots.

Munson and Cossack are ignorant of that and are only focusing on the Goodell/arbitrator angle.

shmessy said:

Florio is making an open and shut case for Brady's defamation lawsuit regarding the NFL's intentional misinformation campaign of the PSi readings in the leaks to Mortenson and the Gardi letter to the Patriots.

Munson and Cossack are ignorant of that and are only focusing on the Goodell/arbitrator angle.

Click to expand...

I agree, but:

Who exactly did the defaming? In particular, is the NFL on the hook in a way that can lead to a settlement where penalties are vacated and so on?

ESPN is a bunch of dumbasses. Of course they are pessimistic, their whole existence is

Fencer said:

Thanks. I think the subject is worth splitting out even so.

Meanwhile, another Reiss post rounds up recent success


I agree, but:

Who exactly did the defaming? In particular, is the NFL on the hook in a way that can lead to a settlement where penalties are vacated and so on?

Click to expand...

No, but they are on the hook for irreparably harming one of the faces of the NFL with limited evidence, and strong evidence to the contrary.

In true NFL style, I would ask you to prove the Mort report did not cause damage to "Brady's Brand," during the weeks leafing up to and following the super bowl. Let alone the period surrounding the wells report and weeks following.

Whoops, nfl is ****ed.

shmessy said:

Florio is making an open and shut case for Brady's defamation lawsuit regarding the NFL's intentional misinformation campaign of the PSi readings in the leaks to Mortenson and the Gardi letter to the Patriots.

Munson and Cossack are ignorant of that and are only focusing on the Goodell/arbitrator angle.

Click to expand...

correct me if i'm wrong... but isn't Florio tight with Brady?

RIguy54 said:

correct me if i'm wrong... but isn't Florio tight with Brady?

Click to expand...

You are wrong. He has never been tight with Brady.

Florio is a long-time Steelers fan and Patriots hater. He is also a practicing attorney.

The fact that he has been taking up with the Patriots in this matter since approximately March is significant.

Deus Irae said:

We talked about this in the hearing thread. Munson's been wrong about pretty much everything with regards to this case, and both men ignore the reality of both the new CBA and recent history with appeals against the NFL.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I think the subject is worth splitting out even so.

Meanwhile, another Reiss post rounds up recent success in appealing suspensions, and says that Browner settled for a reduced (or more precisely a more definite) penalty as part of an agreement not to sue.

Fencer said:

I agree, but:

Who exactly did the defaming?

Click to expand...

Troy Vincent (see his taunting tweets in the aftermath of handing down his punishments), Gardi, whoever runs the NFL Facebook/Tweet pages, Roger Goodell, Mike Kensil, Jeff Pash, etc.

The major defaming happened with both the Mort report and the Gardi letter (one public, one private) that had erroneous information that the NFL never felt necessary to correct. You DID see how quickly the NFL tried to correct Schefter today regarding the appeal meeting protocol? How come they never felt the need to correct clearly and and known (to the NFL) PSi info that was wrongly propogated? Why did they purposely let those PSi reports hang out there for 4 months, yet they didn't let 19 minutes go by regarding what they tried to claim was wrong reporting by Schefter today?

Open and shut case.

shmessy said:

Troy Vincent (see his taunting tweets in the aftermath of handing down his punishments), Gardi, whoever runs the NFL Facebook/Tweet pages, Roger Goodell, Mike Kensil, Jeff Pash, etc.

The major defaming happened with both the Mort report and the Gardi letter (one public, one private) that had erroneous information that the NFL never felt necessary to correct. You DID see how quickly the NFL tried to correct Schefter today regarding the appeal meeting protocol? How come they never felt the need to correct clearly and and known (to the NFL) PSi info that was wrongly propogated? Why did they purposely let those PSi reports hang out there for 4 months, yet they didn't let 19 minutes go by regarding what they tried to claim was wrong reporting by Schefter today?

Open and shut case.

Click to expand...

The case has to overcome questions like:

• The tweets were from Vincent personally??
• As for the private letter from Gardi, if it was private, then what was defamatory about it?
  
• Who was Mort's source?

That said, it seems likely that Mort's report was defamatory on the part of SOMEBODY (most likely Mort's tipster). And if the NFL is implicated in some way (which seems more probable than not), then their aggressive refusal to cure the defamation makes them look awfully liable.

But "open/shut" is, I fear, somewhat of an overstatement.

Fencer said:

The case has to overcome questions like:

• The tweets were from Vincent personally??
• As for the private letter from Gardi, if it was private, then what was defamatory about it?
  
• Who was Mort's source?

That said, it seems likely that Mort's report was defamatory on the part of SOMEBODY (most likely Mort's tipster). And if the NFL is implicated in some way (which seems more probable than not), then their aggressive refusal to cure the defamation makes them look awfully liable.

But "open/shut" is, I fear, somewhat of an overstatement.

Click to expand...

I agree with pretty much everything you said. One thing for the NFL* to consider is they know what they did/didn't do with regards to this case.

How much can they cover it all up, with a "real" investigator. And, how much damage will be done to the football Brand if this thing goes to court and all sorts of discovery happens. Will it be worth a 4 game suspension to TB?

Media keep looking at this from Brady's perspective (as in he has something to lose). What about the NFL, do they really thing bad press won't affect revenues?

Fencer said:

The case has to overcome questions like:

• The tweets were from Vincent personally??
• As for the private letter from Gardi, if it was private, then what was defamatory about it?
  
• Who was Mort's source?

That said, it seems likely that Mort's report was defamatory on the part of SOMEBODY (most likely Mort's tipster). And if the NFL is implicated in some way (which seems more probable than not), then their aggressive refusal to cure the defamation makes them look awfully liable.

But "open/shut" is, I fear, somewhat of an overstatement.

Click to expand...

All fine points. I will respectfully add that your comment re: overstatement is a major understatement

It is not in ESPN's vested interest to back Brady or believe that there was an injustice here.. if they did they may lose a few twitter followers..

ESPN is helping to control the NFL message for some reason, more inside information??

We can also turn things around and say:

• Brady's reputation has unquestionably taken a huge hit.
• Whose doing was that, at least to start the ball rolling, OTHER than the NFL's?

So if he sues for defamation, their defenses are mainly one or more of:

• What they said was true.
• What they said was false, but not defamation because they get to say things like that.
• What they said was false, but not defamation because they didn't know they were false.

I'd be pleased for them to be on the spot making any of those arguments.

Wow, now even ESPN is turning against the Patriots.

DarrylS said:

It is not in ESPN's vested interest to back Brady or believe that there was an injustice here.. if they did they may lose a few twitter followers..

ESPN is helping to control the NFL message for some reason, more inside information??

Click to expand...

ESPN does it for ratings. 99% of their audience hates the Patriots. Anti-NE news is being eaten up by their viewers !