August 19th hearing transcript now available

[raduray]

p34: Inability to formally challenge Goodell as arbiter. Goodell refused to hear arguments so no record for appeal.

 

[SVN]

Stephanie Stradley ?@StephStradley 14m14 minutes ago
Just finished reading the Wed #Deflategate hearing transcript. Woof. Worse-sounding for NFL than original reports.

I defer to her judgement. Its hard to gauge the tone in a transcript vs actual sound.

 

[raduray]

P35: Nash co-lead investigator with Wells, edited report, but not made available for examination.

 

[Palm Beach Pats Fan]

page 28 goes directly at the Garvey argument:

Kessler:
"They're going to say I'm arguing the facts here. I'm not....becuase there were no procedures (for ball testing), they couldn't meet the CBA standard of fair and consistent discipline"

edit: already covered, my bad!

 

[raduray]

P38 is where Kessler throws Yee under the bus for Brady refusing to turn over the phone, but not acknowledging Brady violation because lack of notice.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

Based on what I have read so far, tf this fiasco is allowed to stand then the law as it pertains to justice is REALLY F'd up. Of course it already was/is F'd up, however, in circumstances where misbehavior/injustice is SO blatant I'd still like to think even the F'd up law can see its way through to a just outcome.

 

[Deus Irae]

If anyone finds a PDF version of this, please supply the link.

Thanks.

 

[SVN]

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...umstances-trump-legal-precedent-in-brady-case

Also, Goodell didn't accurately portray Brady's appeal testimony in his 20-page opinion upholding the four-game suspension. Specifically, he wrote that Brady "ONLY" discussed preparation of Super Bowl footballs in conversations with equipment assistant John Jastremski when Brady's actual testimony said otherwise.

I also have wondered why kessler has not hit this one out of the park.

 

[raduray]

p40: Nash's turn. Not going to argue Kessler's law and precedent interpretation but will rely instead on content of Goodell's ruling.

 

[raduray]

P41: Nash - Goodell held a fair and extensive hearing where evidence was presented and he ruled on the evidence. Under the law, the player does not get to reargue the evidence.

 

[jah]

Wow, Berman saying defering to arbitrator is somethiong judges have difficulty doing

But also that it's the legal standard...

 

[raduray]

p41: Nash invokes head of Princeton Physics department.

I don't recall hearing about this. What did he say?

 

[smurfalarm]

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/new-...umstances-trump-legal-precedent-in-brady-case

I also have wondered why kessler has not hit this one out of the park.

I agree, but worth keeping in mind that you can't overturn an arbitration ruling solely on the basis that Goodell misunderstood or forgot or whatever Brady's testimony, because it's not enough to prove that Goodell is wrong. I think they would have to argue that Goodell specifically asking and Brady specifically answering multiple times that he and Jastremski discussed the ball deflation accusations suggests that the only reasonable interpretation of Goodell's claim to the contrary in the arbitration award is that it is a deliberate misrepresentation, and it thus evidences Goodell's evident partiality as an arbitrator.

 

[raduray]

P42: Nash - Goodell relied on Wells Report. Also, regarding Berman's concern about the quantum leap of adding additional charges, he cites Wells page 9 stating "action of Patriots employees would not likely have occurred without his (Brady) knowledge and approval".

 

[raduray]

p43: Nash - beyond all that, per the CBA it up to Commissioner to judge Brady's culpability, involvement, knowledge and awareness.

 

[raduray]

p43: Nash - Goodell not limited to Wells Report. Refers to Brady testimony.

 

[raduray]

I'm done. All I'm doing is paraphrasing snippets. This should be done with a pdf where you can cut and paste segments. Now I can finish reading without interrruption

 

[BradyFTW!]

p43: Nash - beyond all that, per the CBA it up to Commissioner to judge Brady's culpability, involvement, knowledge and awareness.

And yet according to Goodell it was he who made the determination that Vincent notified Brady of, since Goodell alone was authorized to issue that punishment.

So they're simultaneously claiming that the Vincent letter was Goodell's judgment (because it has to be) and that it's someone else's judgment (because Goodell wants to change it after the fact).

 

[adam941]

p41: Nash invokes head of Princeton Physics department.

I don't recall hearing about this. What did he say?

Wasn't he the one the league got to stand behind Exponent's results?

 

[BradyFTW!]

I agree, but worth keeping in mind that you can't overturn an arbitration ruling solely on the basis that Goodell misunderstood or forgot or whatever Brady's testimony, because it's not enough to prove that Goodell is wrong. I think they would have to argue that Goodell specifically asking and Brady specifically answering multiple times that he and Jastremski discussed the ball deflation accusations suggests that the only reasonable interpretation of Goodell's claim to the contrary in the arbitration award is that it is a deliberate misrepresentation, and it thus evidences Goodell's evident partiality as an arbitrator.

Good point, but the arbitrator being fraudulent/corrupt/misrepresenting the facts is grounds to vacate an award. Can only guess what Kessler's motivations are, but maybe he figures that the other three grounds for vacatur are much easier to argue, so he's mostly just leaving that one alone?