Curran: There’s still a hole in the NFLPA argument

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/curran-there-s-still-big-hole-nflpa-argument-0

Not sure about this but strange no one else from the lawyers or even the NFL bought this theory up.

Judge Berman can tell the NFL to go fuc.k itself no matter what the ******ed CBA implies. It's so vague and meaningless that there are enough holes in it for him to make any ruling he desires. Now whether he will do so or not isn't known, but he isn't beholden to the otherworldly force of the commissioner's authority. If he wants to rule against the NFL he can. We just need to wait and see what he wants to do.

What is Curran saying is the hole?

I love how Curran has championed exposing the sham of this whole thing, but he is off here. The NFLPA's argument is far beyond just comparing lack of notice compared to Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson which is only one argument. They also point out that there is notice in the player's rule book about other equipment violations like putting stickum on a player's hand or gloves. Or how the NFL only had in a rule book given to owners. Curran is picking at a small argument in a much larger one.

Rob0729 said:

I love how Curran has championed exposing the sham of this whole thing, but he is off here. The NFLPA's argument is far beyond just comparing lack of notice compared to Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson which is only one argument. They also point out that there is notice in the player's rule book about other equipment violations like putting stickum on a player's hand or gloves. Or how the NFL only had in a rule book given to owners. Curran is picking at a small argument in a much larger one.

Click to expand...

Makes you wonder when you hear stuff like this. Who got to him? I mean he's been turning slowly for a while now and I can't quite put my finger on it. What is his angle here?

ViperGTS said:

Makes you wonder when you hear stuff like this. Who got to him? I mean he's been turning slowly for a while now and I can't quite put my finger on it. What is his angle here?

Click to expand...

I think Curran is still on the right side, only trying harder to show things from both angles. Either way, you're right, he's been having some bad days lately.

supafly said:

I think Curran is still on the right side, only trying harder to show things from both angles. Either way, you're right, he's been having some bad days lately.

Click to expand...

He has had a few in the past as well, remember his prediction with the Brady knee recovery??

Pointing out the difference between the Rice/Peterson situation(off the field) and the Brady situation(on the field) is just reporting what he sees, but somehow he leaves out there probably was no human manipulation of the air pressure..

Curran is just reiterating what the NFL has said all along. The league is saying that the NFLPA's claim that there was no advanced notice that Brady could be punished for heading up a scheme to deflate the balls below the allowable range is incorrect because it is included in the "integrity of the game" clause in Brady's contract.

True, but without proof a) that Brady instructed the Patriots staffers to deflate the balls below the allowable limits, b) that the balls were actually deflated by humans, c) that the balls gave the team or player a competitive advantage, and d) that the officials had protocols were in place to determine if such a scheme took place, Curran has nothing new.

Guys like Curran would be better off just gathering some news on that actual football team in the absence of any development about DeflateGate.

goheels22002 said:

c) that the balls gave the team or player a competitive advantage

Click to expand...

I think this could end up being larger than anyone thinks. Without any competitive advantage (and would a QB do something that hurts him but helps his RB?), the league's "integrity of the game" has to go out the window.

I think the problem with this argument is the Wells report and the initial punishment said nothing about a scheme to deflate balls, only Brady's general awareness. It wasn't until Brady's appeal ruling that Goodell said the punishment was for the "scheme" despite no new evidence during the hearing (unless they try and argue Brady's damaged phone which certainly can't prove a scheme).

While (we think) Burman can't take the actual evidence against Brady into consideration because this is simply about the process and not guilt or innocence, he can take into account evidence that Goodell used to increase the ruling from 'generally aware' to 'scheme' to determine if Goodell was a partial arbitrator and if this was a fair process. I don't think this is anything major to worry about.

And there's still holes in the nfl's argument....Adam Schefter tweeted this picture out of box on nfl approved ball. Lol

Comcast Sportsnet Headline:

Curran: There’s still a big hole in the NFLPA argument

Actual Curran quote from video:

"...there might be a little pock mark in their argument."

Did Kensil get a job at Comcast or something?

So, Curran hasn't been following the process? The integrity of the game is applied against teams, not players and it's only retroactive to the previous season.

Curran's trolling. he's not on anybody's "side" he's a writer trying to keep interest in the story.

If the NFL wins, then they essentially have the right to make stuff up and defame players to get out of player contracts -- I find it hard to imagine regardless of any employee/employer agreement, that such a thing would be legal.

Even if Curran's argument is accepted by Berman, which is not guaranteed based on his questioning of evidence in support of this scheme, he can still vacate based on:

• Evidently partial arbitrator
• Arbitrator misconduct

Berman only needs to rule in the NFLPA's favor on one to vacate.

I'd like to see if Berman modifies the award based on rejecting this NFL argument. There's nothing in the Well's report conclusion which indicates a scheme led by Brady, nothing in the appeal transcript to indicate the same. The judge may very well find that Goodell exceeded his power also by ruling on issues not before him in the appeal.

Wilfork#75 said:

While (we think) Burman can't take the actual evidence against Brady into consideration because this is simply about the process and not guilt or innocence, he can take into account evidence that Goodell used to increase the ruling from 'generally aware' to 'scheme' to determine if Goodell was a partial arbitrator and if this was a fair process. I don't think this is anything major to worry about.

Click to expand...

Berman did hammer on Goodell's use of "scheme" when he repeatedly questioned the NFL's Pash about the lack of any evidence to support a "conspiracy". He said you need conspirators to have a conspiracy.

I'm falling to see the hole he's seeing...

voluntarysaftey said:

If the NFL wins, then they essentially have the right to make stuff up and defame players to get out of player contracts -- I find it hard to imagine regardless of any employee/employer agreement, that such a thing would be legal.

Click to expand...

I would love to have Berman ask the NFL attorneys what would stop the commish from railroading a player.