Mike Reiss on What it Would Take for Zero Games For Brady

[Jackson 2]

You get on my case for being wrong and not knowing the appeals rules and you don't even know them yourself.

The NFL has 10 days to SCHEDULE the appeal, not hear the appeal.



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...hearing-to-start-within-10-days-after-appeal/



http://247sports.com/Bolt/Deadline-to-schedule-Tom-Bradys-appeal-draws-near-37441696



http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...2015/05/tom_brady_appeal_date_still_uncertain

So before you get all high and mighty and pretend you know more than everyone else, you might want to educate yourself.

 

[RayClay]

Well we'll never know now.

No, you'll never know. Had you been at the owners meeting talking to the only person with the power to change the punishment like Kraft was, then you'd know.

That's why he made a statement totally condemning the punishment and the process.

Now, he could have said he wasn't going to appeal because the process was fixed and the league was corrupt, but even the haters can see that wouldn't make sense.

But the one thing that we all can agree upon is the entire process has taken way too long. And I don’t think anyone can believe that after four months of the AFC Championship Game, we are still talking about air pressure and the PSI in footballs. I think I made it clear when the report came out that I didn’t think it was fair. There was no hard evidence, and everything was circumstantial. And at the same time, when the discipline came out, I felt it was way over the top. It was unreasonable and unprecedented, in my opinion.

"I believe unconditionally that the New England Patriots did nothing wrong in this process that was in violation of NFL rules," Kraft said at the team's first media availability in Arizona.

"If the (Ted) Wells investigation is not able to definitively determine that our organization tampered with the air pressure in the footballs, I would expect and hope the league would apologize to our entire team, and in particular to coach (Bill) Belichick and Tom Brady, for what they've had to endure this week," Kraft added, at times sounding angry.

"I'm disappointed in the way this entire matter has been handled and reported upon. We expect hard facts rather than circumstantial leaked evidence to drive the conclusion of this investigation."

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

And you do it with grace and dignity, I might add. You are a model and inspiration to which we should all aspire.

You accidentally responded to the wrong post.
Please go back, edit and quote me.
Thanks!

 

[PatsFanSince74]

In regards to libel, the wording in regard to what is opinion vs what is fact is important.

Ted Wells: "Based on the evidence, it also is our view"
Troy Vincent: "the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence"

Even though both these statements make reference to the shoddy "evidence" in the report, Wells' statement refrains from making definitive conclusions of Tom Brady's actions and behaviour. Saying "our view" is like saying "I think" or "it is my opinion" or "my theory". All examples of statement of opinion, which Brady's legal team would have a hard time proving to be defamatory since it would have to be a statement of fact... which leads us to Vincent's statement.

Saying "established" pretty much means "No doubt about it", "No question", "100% fact". Hardly the "preponderance of evidence" standard set forth by the NFL. This is the kind of statement that can be exploited by Brady's Legal team as a form of libel. And it isn't the only statement in his letter that provides libelous language.

"Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.) despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."

"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football."

In that first statement above, Vincent claims that Brady didn't cooperate much at all, that he refused to turn over his phone and uses Well's statement that they were going to handle the info in his phone with proper care. He then adds in that Brady provided testimony which was deemed insufficient and contradictory. Of course this testimony is nowhere to be found in the report. So how can he really know what Brady told the Wells team? If Don Yee's notes provide insight that proves contradictory to Vincent's claims, it's libel.

Regarding the second statement, what actions is Vincent referring to? The "evidence" of tampering is pathetically weak and, even on Pg 228 of the Wells Report, concludes that "the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain." This is the case that the NFL is presenting. Pitiful.

Vincent's claims that Brady was uncooperative will soon be tested either at the appeal hearing or in Federal Court. Should this statement prove untrue, it's libel.

As I said in my post, I was making a debating point on one narrow point; by definition, a point can be made on the other side, as you have demonstrated. I assume you're an Attorney, so I leave the definition of "libel" in your hands.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

You couldn't make a "pretty strong argument", at all. There is not, despite Vincent's claim, "substantial and credible evidence to conclude you ( you being Tom Brady) were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs".

That's pretty much the whole point.

Splitting hairs here, but I don't see a lot of logical daylight between "substantial and credible evidence to conclude...at least generally aware" and "more probable than not." But, your point in your earlier post is still valid, viz., this is a question that has enough nuance and uncertainty around it that it would not be tossed out of court. Whether your interpretation would prevail is not clear but it is still reasonable as an hypothesis.

 

[Deus Irae]

Splitting hairs here, but I don't see a lot of logical daylight between "substantial and credible evidence to conclude...at least generally aware" and "more probable than not." But, your point in your earlier post is still valid, viz., this is a question that has enough nuance and uncertainty around it that it would not be tossed out of court. Whether your interpretation would prevail is not clear but it is still reasonable as an hypothesis.

substantial evidence:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s087.htm

Notice the last line...

 

[PatsFanSince74]

substantial evidence:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s087.htm

Notice the last line...

Thanks. Interesting reading. I guess the ability to argue the fine points of both sides of all that case law is why the top lawyers get $1,000+ an hour.

 

[Deus Irae]

Thanks. Interesting reading. I guess the ability to argue the fine points of both sides of all that case law is why the top lawyers get $1,000+ an hour.

Absolutely...

The law is often a pain in the ass to figure out, which is just how the lawyers, and governments, want it.

 

[BTTA]

Ummm. It was never a mistake. I knew that Goodell can't increase the suspension (although that didn't stop him with Ray Rice which was overturned by the courts). That was the point of my original post. Goodell is never going to reduce Brady's suspension to zero. Not in a million years. I was using hyperbole to make a point. If read enough of my posts, I use hyperbole all the time to make points.

But it is still far more likely he tries to find a loophole to increase the suspension like he tried with Ray Rice than rescind the suspension. I think there is a 0.00000000001% Goodell tries to increase the suspension. That is still far more likely than it goes to zero.

FWIW, Rob, I read your original post as TIC and exactly as you explain it above.

The competitiveness and hormones around here create intransigence that wouldn't happen in the course of normal civil discourse.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Absolutely...

The law is often a pain in the ass to figure out, which is just how the lawyers, and governments, want it.

This is going OT, but whenever I visit DC and reflect on the multi-billion dollar industry that has built up around deciphering our laws and influencing the votes of 535 Senators and Representatives as well as the decision-making of another 100 or so in the Executive Branch, I think that our Founders would be turning in their graves. But that definitely belongs in a political forum.

 

[Jackson 2]

You accidentally responded to the wrong post.
Please go back, edit and quote me.
Thanks!

My apologies, but I just went back and couldn't find it. Post #?

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think the most important comment that Reiss makes is "It might be 4 or 0 to him." I doubt that Reiss said that idly.

This is now a game of chicken. Goodell is hoping that a two or one game suspension will keep Kessler and the NFLPA out of court.

Goodell has known all along that there was a good probability that an independent arbiter would have reduced the suspension to one or two games, so the smart thing would have been for him to send the case to arbitration, as it would have been a lot more difficult to take the League to Court if a respected, unbiased, independent Arbiter upheld part of the suspension. But he also knew that there was a reasonable chance that such an arbiter would not only have taken the suspension to zero but also trashed the Wells report in the process. So, he couldn't take a chance on sending it there and had to keep control of the process.

Now he's stuck.

Like a golfer in Match Play, who has to assume his opponent is going to sink that 18 foot putt, Goodell has to assume that there is no difference between a four game suspension and a one game suspension in Brady's mind and so he has to assess the damage that a court case with a Disclosure process would do to the League and a lot of others if he doesn't take it to zero.

Brady has very wisely kept his mouth shut and has sent no signals one way or the other as to what he plans to do. But Goodell has to be wondering if Reiss was just filling cyber-air or reflecting something he's heard from Brady or people close to him.

 

[The Gr8est]

I think the most important comment that Reiss makes is "It might be 4 or 0 to him." I doubt that Reiss said that idly.

This is now a game of chicken. Goodell is hoping that a two or one game suspension will keep Kessler and the NFLPA out of court.

Goodell has known all along that there was a good probability that an independent arbiter would have reduced the suspension to one or two games, so the smart thing would have been for him to send the case to arbitration, as it would have been a lot more difficult to take the League to Court if a respected, unbiased, independent Arbiter upheld part of the suspension. But he also knew that there was a reasonable chance that such an arbiter would not only have taken the suspension to zero but also trashed the Wells report in the process. So, he couldn't take a chance on sending it there and had to keep control of the process.

Now he's stuck.

Like a golfer in Match Play, who has to assume his opponent is going to sink that 18 foot putt, Goodell has to assume that there is no difference between a four game suspension and a one game suspension in Brady's mind and so he has to assess the damage that a court case with a Disclosure process would do to the League and a lot of others if he doesn't take it to zero.

Brady has very wisely kept his mouth shut and has sent no signals one way or the other as to what he plans to do. But Goodell has to be wondering if Reiss was just filling cyber-air or reflecting something he's heard from Brady or people close to him.

I think an independent arbiter would reduce the suspension to zero games rather than the one or two that you are suggesting.

There is no evidence at all that Brady did anything deserving punishment.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

I think an independent arbiter would reduce the suspension to zero games rather than the one or two that you are suggesting.

There is no evidence at all that Brady did anything deserving punishment.

And even if not cooperating is sanction-worthy (which I would reject if I were the arbitrator), past protocol would make that a fine, not a suspension.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I think an independent arbiter would reduce the suspension to zero games rather than the one or two that you are suggesting.

There is no evidence at all that Brady did anything deserving punishment.

I wasn't "suggesting" anything since, by definition, we can't know what an independent third party would have done.

Logically, I'm not sure how my saying that there was "a reasonable chance" that "an independent arbiter would have taken the suspension to zero" differs in any material way from your statement that "I think an independent arbiter would reduce the suspension to zero games..." There might be a difference in "emphasis," but in the end both statements say the same thing.

If you meant to say "I'm 100% certain that an independent arbiter would reduce the suspension to zero games," then you should have just said so.

I'd disagree with that statement, but at least I'd know what you are arguing.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

And even if not cooperating is sanction-worthy (which I would reject if I were the arbitrator), past protocol would make that a fine, not a suspension.

As far as I know, Brady cooperated fully within the context of the CBA, so that would not be an admissible argument once it got to arbitration, let alone to court...which is just one of the reasons I don't think Goodell wants this to go to court.

 

[The Gr8est]

I wasn't "suggesting" anything since, by definition, we can't know what an independent third party would have done.

Logically, I'm not sure how my saying that there was "a reasonable chance" that "an independent arbiter would have taken the suspension to zero" differs in any material way from your statement that "I think an independent arbiter would reduce the suspension to zero games..." There might be a difference in "emphasis," but in the end both statements say the same thing.

If you meant to say "I'm 100% certain that an independent arbiter would reduce the suspension to zero games," then you should have just said so.

I'd disagree with that statement, but at least I'd know what you are arguing.

I am referring to the part of your post that says "Goodell has known all along that there was a good probability that an independent arbiter would have reduced the suspension to one or two games".

My point is that I don't see any evidence of a neutral person finding any reason to suspend Brady at all.

There is no evidence he did anything worthy of being suspended for.

 

[Kdo5]

Goodell cannot be negotiated with. Bring it to court and sink or swim there.

I don't understand why media members, even good local ones, are talking about this as if Brady and the PA are aiming to get this settled in the appeal. That isn't what they want at all! They want to expose this appeal process as the joke it is and blow the whole thing up. Brady and the PA don't want to play Goodell's game, they want to flip the board.

I was bored in traffic the other day and flipped on the radio. Squeaky and the Douche were suggesting that it's in Tom's best interest to settle with a two game suspension and that he wouldn't want to take this to court unlike the NFLPA because Tom is not a union guy and never has been.

 

[Nunchucks]

You never know what would happen in court or in independent arbitration. However, from what we know, it seems Tom would be cleared of all charges.....If that is the case, why would the Patriots still be out a first round pick? That part makes no sense to me.

 

[The Gr8est]

You never know what would happen in court or in independent arbitration. However, from what we know, it seems Tom would be cleared of all charges.....If that is the case, why would the Patriots still be out a first round pick? That part makes no sense to me.

If this is not just a rhetorical question, then the answer is that jealous NFL* entities want the Pats' ability to be consistently competitive, weakened.