AFL-CIO files amicus brief in support of Tom Brady

[SVN]

THIS I cannot wait to see. And it will happen so...get your popcorn ready.

Yes but the NFL then gets the last chance to respond. If that happens. So who knows what other story they will write to influence the judges.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

I'll be honest. I don't know how we could see ANY pro-NFL Amicus filings because the process was so flawed and unfair..

A few options:

- MLB, NBA, NHL on the rights of sports leagues
- pro-business lobbying groups
- Bill Nye the Science Guy
- Lester Munson

 

[Galeb]

A few options:

- MLB, NBA, NHL on the rights of sports leagues
- pro-business lobbying groups
- Bill Nye the Science Guy
- Lester Munson

Maybe, but I doubt the other major sports leagues want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. They try to brush scandals under the rug, not manufacture them.

 

[XLIX]

I think some judges may be lazy in low profile cases that aren't an appeal of a highly respected judge. It's certainly possible in this case, but it's a lot less likely than corruption.

It's unlikely that it was a bribe that turned the judges. You can underestimate the influence of Roger, a NY senator's son and a bunch of billionaires if you want, but competency was never a requirement of influence. Wealth and power are. I appreciate your disagreement as it strengthens my argument.

The wealthy disregard law all the time. You of all people should know this.

So the fact that it's a high profile case with the whole nation watching increases the chance there was a bribe?

Do ya know how stupid you sound???

 

[XLIX]

A few options:

- MLB, NBA, NHL on the rights of sports leagues

But this isn't about the rights of sports leagues. This is about fundamental fairness in arbitration. Since the commissioners of those league don't get to hand pick an arbitrator, they know that unfair arbitration is just as likely to burn them as help them, so they don't want arbitrators to deviate from the essence of the CBA.

 

[Galeb]

So the fact that it's a high profile case with the whole nation watching increases the chance there was a bribe?

Do ya know how stupid you sound???

Perhaps you missed this part of my post, so I will highlight it for you:

"It's unlikely that it was a bribe that turned the judges."

What I said was that a judge would be a lot less likely to be lazy on a high profile case, especially when it is an appeal of a well respected judge's ruling, vs if it were a low profile case.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Maybe, but I doubt the other major sports leagues want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. They try to brush scandals under the rug, not manufacture them.

Rich Hill had an as-usual excellent article on that very question this morning.

DeflateGate: Player unions from MLB, NBA, and NHL decline to support NFLPA and Patriots QB Tom Brady

 

[Galeb]

Rich Hill had an as-usual excellent article on that very question this morning.

DeflateGate: Player unions from MLB, NBA, and NHL decline to support NFLPA and Patriots QB Tom Brady

That's a good article, thanks for sharing.

 

[Hammer of Thor]

Maybe, but I doubt the other major sports leagues want to touch this with a 10 foot pole. They try to brush scandals under the rug, not manufacture them.

I don't think it's likely but it's possible. But I agree that the others would be best served by ignoring it, the same way the other unions are staying away. MLB was just as bad at this type of stuff (player relations and fan marketing) under Bud Selig - the 1994/1995 strike/lockout was an embarrassment, and the response to PEDs and the Mitchell report was just as ludicrous of a witch hunt. But Rob Manfried seems to have gotten the message and has brilliantly handled the Cardinals hacking scandal.

 

[GrogansArmy]

Rich Hill had an as-usual excellent article on that very question this morning.

DeflateGate: Player unions from MLB, NBA, and NHL decline to support NFLPA and Patriots QB Tom Brady

Thanks for the link, I found this interesting:

If the rehearing is granted, Brady won't be cleared for another year or two, but we'll know if the courts will move forward with the next step, or if they'll just say no thanks in the coming weeks.

So does that mean that if Brady is granted a rehearing and if its supposed to take a year or two, his suspension will still stand? Then if he wins the rehearing, he just gets back the money he lost from the suspension? I would hope if they decide to rehear that they would stop the suspension until the verdict of the rehearing...

 

[RobertWeathers]

Thanks for the link, I found this interesting:



So does that mean that if Brady is granted a rehearing and if its supposed to take a year or two, his suspension will still stand? Then if he wins the rehearing, he just gets back the money he lost from the suspension? I would hope if they decide to rehear that they would stop the suspension until the verdict of the rehearing...

Its all still unsettled if hes denied the en banc then he may go to SCOTUS. If he is granted en banc he has a longer runway. In either instance he can be granted a stay but not sure how long that process lasts.

Others may better elaborate than I have.

 

[BelichickFan]

If Brady wins an "en banc" the pro NFL appeal is, in essence, over turned and Judge Berman's decision stands until the en banc decision.

 

[DaBruinz]

A few options:

- MLB, NBA, NHL on the rights of sports leagues
- pro-business lobbying groups
- Bill Nye the Science Guy
- Lester Munson

If you think that then there is no point in discussing anything because arbitration has been the preferred way to handle things for the past 4 decades and for MLB, NBA and NHL. And it has nothing to do with the "Right of Sports leagues".

Even Pro Business lobbying groups won't touch this because they know that there is already legal precedent that over-rides it. As pointed out in 2 of the Amicus Briefs. If they were to do so, they'd likely lose ground on it. Not gain..

 

[DaBruinz]

So does that mean that if Brady is granted a rehearing and if its supposed to take a year or two, his suspension will still stand? Then if he wins the rehearing, he just gets back the money he lost from the suspension? I would hope if they decide to rehear that they would stop the suspension until the verdict of the rehearing...

No. If Brady is granted a re-hearing or an en banc, then the suspension can not be enforced until the hearing(s) are completed.

 

[Gumby]

al.

Rich Hill had an as-usual excellent article on that very question this morning.

DeflateGate: Player unions from MLB, NBA, and NHL decline to support NFLPA and Patriots QB Tom Brady

Well, he (Wallach) was prescient about the AFL bit, i just hope the 13 panel judges dont give so much credence to this one argument (below). It is about the only one the nyjfl has made that seems to have any logic/justification to it (but even that doesnt justify gotohell's ridiculous overstepping of a disasterously open-ended authority).

Uniqueness of NFL CBA could have bit the NFLPA in the end
"[The other unions filing briefs] could also be seen as harming Brady's interest," Wallach noted. "Because those other unions fought for, negotiated, and collectively bargained for a different system of arbitration and legal filings from three players unions that fought for a different mode of arbitration could underscore the point that that the NFL Players Association and Brady got exactly what they bargained for. The NFL would likely respond to those amicus briefs by pointing out that very fact."

Think about it. The NFL's argument is rooted in the belief that the commissioner has been intentionally granted complete power through the CBA. If three other leagues come over with entirely different arbitration processes, the NFL can point and say, See? That sort of language was possible, but the NFLPA agreed to our language. Therefore, the language in our CBA was intentional

 

[n6249c]

I think this goes to the NFLs ineptitude in this ordeal when the guy says "we weighed the balls." They had no idea what they were doing. Zero.

funny thing is, weighing the balls might be a more accurate way of measuring how much air they contain. That is, if it were possible to control for wetness (which I would say it is not).

 

[n6249c]

Agree, Simply GREAT!

Feinberg hammers multiple points with a freaking sledgehammer logic (I like the below example):

First, an award that creates new violations never before identified or exacted punishment far in excess of that previously prescribed, is unenforceable. See In re Marine Pollution Serv., Inc., 857 F.2d 91, 93-96 (2d Cir. 1988). It is undisputed that the award here did both.

If the NFL sought to add a new violation for failure to report wrongdoing, increase the penalty for equipment violations, or begin suspending players for obstruction, it would be within its rights to do so. But these changes must come through the bargaining process—not the arbitration process. The arbitrator, whose authority is derivative of the contract, cannot modify the contract. Alexander, 415 U.S. at 53; Stolt-Nielsen, 559 U.S. at 683-84.

Talk about tidbits worthy of getting hard over, I loved the citation in Feinberg's example. Whose precedent did the Appellate panel ignore? WOW!

 

[Gumby]

If Brady wins an "en banc" the pro NFL appeal is, in essence, over turned and Judge Berman's decision stands until the en banc decision.

Even if it wasnt the case that the berman decision is the current baseline (as BF stated above) that both parties are appealing to overturn or uphold, stays are granted based on irreperable harm. TB cant get 4 games back in his not many years left career once the game dates are in the past. I would think courts would easily grant stays in such a situation.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I don't know about Hill's "one or two years" statement. Wallach was saying the other day on Twitter that even if en banc review is granted, it's not crazy for it to be reheard and decided by September.

If there's a big delay in ultimate resolution of the case, I think that a big delay will only happen if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case.

If the en banc review happens and a decision issues by September, say, and the loser asks SCOTUS to hear the case, SCOTUS would probably make its decision whether or not to hear the case by November (I'm basing that on a SCOTUS media guide that says they average taking 6 weeks to make the hear/not hear decision). If SCOTUS denies, that's the end of the line. So it could be all over by this November.

(Actually, if CA2 denies en banc and SCOTUS denies certioarari, it could all be over by the first Monday this October (SCOTUS doesn't act on post-June petitions except in emergencies (think death penalty stuff)) but lets them pile up over the summer and releases lots of the hear/no hear decisions on the first day of the new term.)

If SCOTUS does decide to hear it, then it depends on when SCOTUS makes the hear/no hear decision.

Now, if they do decide to hear it then Brady will almost certainly play the 2016-17 season w/o a suspension because there's no way they hear and decide it before the beginning of February given the assumed timeline. If they decide before the 3rd week of January to hear it, it will likely be heard in the 2016-17 SCOTUS term (Oct-June) and decided by the end of June 2017. If they decide after the 3rd week of January to year it, then according to the SCOTUS media guide it won't be heard until the 2017-18 term. But since it would be one of the first cases added for that term, it would probably be argued in Oct or Nov 2017 and perhaps decided before the end of 2017.

Putting that all together, I'd guess the possible timing outcomes are:
* All over by this Oct/Nov (ultimate loser before CA2 petition SCOTUS, SCOTUS denies)
* All over by Spring 2017 (ultimate loser before CA2 petitions SCOTUS, SCOTUS accepts in a typical timeframe)
* All over by Dec 2017/Jan 2018 (ultimate loser before CA2 petitions SCOTUS, SCOTUS accepts in an abnormally long timeframe).

Actually, I suppose I'm too hasty with "all over", now that I think about it.

First, if en banc review is granted it is entirely possible that the en banc court decides to only throw out what Berman decided but remands to him to decide the other things. The NFL could ask SCOTUS to hear that. Say SCOTUS denies it in October. So now it's in front of Berman. Then when he's done with that go-round, the losing side could appeal that to CA2 and then the loser there could try for en banc and then petition SCOTUS.

Or here's one (highly unlikely!) that could take even longer. En banc vacates Berman but remands for consideration on other things. NFL petitions SCOTUS to hear that appeal. SCOTUS a very long time to decide but ultimately agrees to take the case and in Dec 2017 upholds CA2. So now it goes to Berman. Then the loser there appeals to CA2. That could take you all the way to the end of 2018.

TL;DR: If SCOTUS won't take the case it'll likely be all over by November at the latest. If they do take it, then tack on another 5-6 months at a minimum.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

If Brady wins an "en banc" the pro NFL appeal is, in essence, over turned and Judge Berman's decision stands until the en banc decision.

Right! When a federal circuit court grants en banc review, the decision of the 3-judge panel is wiped off the books as if it never happened (in this case, that'd bring Berman's decision back to life). Then the en banc court hears the appeal as if it was appealed from Berman to the en banc court in the first place. And if the en banc court ties then Berman's decision is affirmed (without creating any precedent though, IIRC).