eom
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,064
- Reaction score
- 1,487
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.THANK YOU!
The same generalized conduct detrimental language appeared in Peterson’s and Rice’s (and the
Bounty players’) Player Contracts, but their discipline was still vacated for want of notice. The mere fact that players generally know they can be punished for conduct detrimental is insufficient when, as here, there is a specifically applicable policy. To conclude otherwise would render the Player Policies—and the notice they provide—a nullity.
Vincent testified that the discipline he imposed rests exclusively on the findings of the Wells Report (supra), which specifically declines to conclude that Brady was directly involved in ball tampering.
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.’”
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.
What is the basis for the NFLPA's claim that Peterson is binding precedent, or whatever they're saying that's close to that?
Is it because the decision states aspects of the Law of the Shop?
I can't believe we lost a 1st round draft pick for this ********