- Joined
- Sep 1, 2010
- Messages
- 30,761
- Reaction score
- 37,994
Playing fast and loose with the rules again, what else is new?
SITE MENU
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.
Playing fast and loose with the rules again, what else is new?
This are often electronically filed by midnight. Not sure if that happened here.
McCann says, "For that reason, the amicus briefs filed on Tuesday—just like the amicus briefs filed last Wednesday by the New England Patriots and a group of scientists—should be viewed with appropriate caution."
he's not questioning the motivation of the filers--he's cautioning brady supporters from getting their hopes up too much:
but he also says that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight because he has no stake in this fight. My point is that neither do the scientists. While I understand that this is no longer about the psi in footballs, ultimately the case is based on a violation that didn't happen.
right, but the judges are the ones who are going to decide if the case gets re-heard. so the only way that the briefs can increase the odds of a re-hearing is if they sway the judges' opinions.
i couldn't find the part in his article where he said that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight.
Here's the paragraph from the article.
i don't think McCann is saying that Feinberg's brief should be given more weight--just that it can only help (and not hurt) Brady's case, just like the scientists' brief. he says earlier:Here's the paragraph from the article.
Why Kenneth Feinberg weighing in matters
NFL
Video
Tom Brady facing Deflategate long shot despite en banc appeal petition
by Michael McCann
Feinberg may be the most influential voice yet to speak up on behalf of Brady. Feinberg is a legendary figure in legal circles, particularly among those connected to “fund distribution,” which refers to allocation of settlements to victims of large-scale harms. Feinberg has been entrusted with determining formulas that most fairly compensate victims of some of the worst incidents in recent history. He undertook this duty in assessing claims by victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster and the Boston Marathon bombings. In this capacity Feinberg acts as a neutral arbitrator. In 2014, I had theopportunity to interview Feinberg regarding his role in the Ed O’Bannon v. NCAAcase and specifically his plans to form the Former College Athletes Association, a group that would negotiate name, image and likeness rights on behalf of former college athletes.
Feinberg has no personal or reputational stake in whether Brady wins or loses, nor does he have a connection to the NFL or the NFLPA. In truth, you might expect someone of Feinberg’s stature to view getting involved in Deflategate as a net negative: no one on either side of this controversy has looked particularly good, and Feinberg has an impeccable reputation to protect. But as Feinberg explains in his amicus brief, he believes that the enforcement of Brady’s suspension would trigger consequences well beyond sports. He contends it would destabilize the system of arbitration in the Unites States and that it would make it harder for Feinberg and others like to him to carry out their duties.
Thanks for clearing that up guys. I knew it was in there somewhere, just wanted to be sure I had my facts straight.
The judges of CA2 will either heed the evidence and well reasoned and informed arguments and grant a rehearing, and the due process that it represents, or they will disregard the evidence and arguments and deny a rehearing, demonstrating that due process is an illusion that evaporates before the altar of the rich and powerful.
Thanks, Mini-Mack, take it you're one of us who actually saw him play for us? Didn't he (and whole team) look great in our real unis w/real logo? It's what Tom & Co. should be wearing in Houston Feb. 5th.
