Official Brady vs. NFL Federal Court 8/12 Thread (LIVE UPDATES)

TommyD4207 said:

Well, yes, that's exactly what they're doing, because honestly, that's their only play.

Hope and pray Berman buys what the NFL is selling, but if he doesn't, they need to lose on their merits, so Goodell can at least go back to the league and say "I tried, damn activist judges". Because most of the owners would buy that line of crap.

Click to expand...

lamafist said:

Why should Smith lose his job? That clause, or something to its extent, has existed in every prior CBA without causing any problems. This CBA didn't grant the commissioner any new powers -- Goodell's just the first commissioner who's tried to abuse them so egregiously.

Click to expand...

YOUGOTMOSSED said:

But they're also risking him giving them a public beatdown in the decision. It will be a public relations disaster and a prelude to the mother of all defamation suits by Brady and the Patriots.

Click to expand...

ChrisR2223 said:

What does this mean?

Click to expand...

"Pt here isn't Ct needs to decide disputed issues of fact...Award evidences a clearly biased agenda—not an effort at fairness&consistency"

Click to expand...

TommyD4207 said:

I was gonna do a whole long thing, but I think I'll just try to boil it down.

Article 46 of the CBA give Goodell sole authority as to who the hearing officer will be. He can choose himself. It says it right there, Article 46, section 2 -



Bolded, italicized, underlined. It says it right there.

The NFLPA is not opposing this point.

For some reason, you are. I don't know.

What the NFLPA is arguing, and I agree, is in Section 16 of the CBA, where the arbitrator MUST be a neutral, impartial arbitrator. THEORETCIALLY, Roger Goodell can serve this role, but his actions in this case and the previous four cases he's lost prove otherwise.

This has little to do with Section 46, save for the fact that Goodell had the right to appoint someone else (and didn't). It's Section 16 which buries Goodell, especially in that "increasing of punishment" part which I think can be reasonably argued.

You're right on your second part about looking for guilt, by the way. It's just super-unusual for a judge to do that in this situation. That's bad, bad news for the NFL, way worse than the sports media is letting on, and that's why your Stradleys, your Wallachs, your McCanns have gone from "50/50-ish" to "I'd be stunned if Brady loses".

UNLESS Berman bought what the NFL had to say, of course. That's always a possibility.

The CBA says what it says, and it was agreed to, and DeMaurice Smith needs to lose his job over it. The upshot is, going forward, Section 46 is going to have very little bite, unless Goodell really enjoys losing in court - because he could very well be looking at 0-5. He would be the Jacksonville of NFL Comissioners.

Click to expand...

Section C said:

The NFL Has No Defense for the Lack of Notice That Brady Could BeDisciplined Under a “General Awareness” Standard

The NFL does not deny that no NFL player has ever been punished for “general awareness” of another person’s alleged misconduct. Because this unprecedented standard is indefensible under the CBA requirement of disciplinary notice, the NFL does not even try to defend it, and instead claims that “[t]he Commissioner did not discipline Brady for merely being ‘generally aware’ of a violation of the playing rules.”. Although the NFL now denies that it applied a “generally aware” disciplinary standard, that is exactly what Vincent wrote in his letter imposing the discipline:

With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots’ employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge.

Vincent’s letter says nothing else about Brady’s alleged involvement in ball tampering. Moreover, Vincent testified that the discipline he imposed rests exclusively on the findings of the Wells Report, which specifically declines to conclude that Brady was directly involved in ball tampering. Wells merely found in his Report “that it is more probable than not that Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski,” and he testified to the same effect at the arbitration.

Despite this record, the NFL now argues that Brady was suspended “for having ‘approved of, consented to, and provided inducements in support of’ ‘a scheme to tamper with the game balls.’”. But the NFL cites to the Award to make this argument—not to the source of the discipline, i.e., Vincent’s letter and the Wells Report. As the Court observed, the Award accuses Brady of having participated in a “scheme” fourteen times —but the word does not appear once in the 139 page Wells Report or the Vincent discipline letter. This is a clear essence-of-the-CBA violation. As the Article 46 arbitrator, Goodell only had the authority to adjudicate the discipline appealed to him; Peterson establishes that the arbitrator has no CBA authority to justify a suspension on a different basis from that upon which it was imposed.

Indeed, it is settled law that arbitrators may not lawfully “exceed the scope of the [parties’] submission.” United Steelworkers v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597(1960). Here, the matter submitted to Goodell for arbitration was Brady’s appeal of the discipline imposed upon him for alleged “general awareness.” Goodell did not have the authority, sitting as the Article 46 arbitrator, to support the discipline ab initio on grounds not found when the discipline was imposed. Peterson
is conclusive

Click to expand...

Mike the Brit said:

Excellent post. But it still leaves open what a "neutral, impartial" arbitrator is. If the NFLPA had asked for discovery and revealed that the NFL had been engaged in a sting to try to get the Pats, then that would have blown things out of the water incontrovertibly. I still can't quite believe that Kessler didn't.

Click to expand...

TommyD4207 said:

It really doesn't. In fact, it couldn't be more clear.

Click to expand...