McCann's explainer on the current state of the case

[QuantumMechanic]

McCann has a good piece up about what will happen tomorrow and going forward:

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/11/deflategate-hearing-roger-goodell-tom-brady-judge-berman

 

[Hoodie]

I don't suppose the Judge would look kindly on it if Brady spits on Goodell.

 

[GrogansArmy]

That was useful, good summarization, thank you.

 

[ViperGTS]

What is still quite troubling to me is that an article such as this had to be written. In my opinion, I don't understand how under who will "win" it would state Brady. Under why all it would say is the NFL lied in numerous instances. That trumps any CBA argument.

How that's isn't the belief, troubles me. It seems so cut and dry, yet not many seem to think so, other than Steph Stradley. The NFLs' lies invalidate the CBA.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

What is still quite troubling to me is that an article such as this had to be written. In my opinion, I don't understand how under who will "win" it would state Brady. Under why all it would say is the NFL lied in numerous instances. That trumps any CBA argument.

How that's isn't the belief, troubles me. It seems so cut and dry, yet not many seem to think so, other than Steph Stradley. The NFLs' lies invalidate the CBA.

More accurately: Goodell's lies and the NFL's lies should invalidate the deference that the CBA gives to the commissioner. The problem is that it might not.

 

[GrogansArmy]

From what I've read the CBA allows Goodell to lie, section 46 or something. And the NFLPA might win due to precedent. Seems to all depend on the Judge. Sounds like 50/50 to me.

Disclaimer - I know absolutely nothing about law, I'm just going by what I've read and seems to make sense to me.

 

[MagicMarker]

We might find out tomorrow, if Berman leans on one side or the other. However, I suspect both sides would rather lose than settle.

 

[ViperGTS]

More accurately: Goodell's lies and the NFL's lies should invalidate the deference that the CBA gives to the commissioner. The problem is that it might not.

No they DO yet you are right it might not. Which is horrendously wrong. You can't lie. You can't deceive. There can't be should. No ambiguity. Call it law of shop or whatnot.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

No they DO yet you are right it might not. Which is horrendously wrong. You can't lie. You can't deceive. There can't be should. No ambiguity. Call it law of shop or whatnot.

Basically, here's the issue. The NFL is basically saying that "We can do whatever we want, because the NFLPA said we could in the CBA." Moreover, as McCann notes, the balance starts off tipped in the NFL's favor.

The NFLPA is basically saying, "Well, you're right: the CBA doesn't place many limits on your actions. On the other hand, even if the CBA doesn't require it, you can't ply this much bulls—t and still say it was 'fair.'" The question is whether this argument is compelling enough to outweigh the NFL's arguments.

 

[GrogansArmy]

No they DO yet you are right it might not. Which is horrendously wrong. You can't lie. You can't deceive. There can't be should. No ambiguity. Call it law of shop or whatnot.

I totally agree, unfortunately throughout history many innocents have gone to jail due to poorly worded laws.

 

[Gronkowski123]

Basically, here's the issue. The NFL is basically saying that "We can do whatever we want, because the NFLPA said we could in the CBA." Moreover, as McCann notes, the balance starts off tipped in the NFL's favor.

The NFLPA is basically saying, "Well, you're right: the CBA doesn't place many limits on your actions. On the other hand, even if the CBA doesn't require it, you can't ply this much bulls—t and still say it was 'fair.'" The question is whether this argument is compelling enough to outweigh the NFL's arguments.

the nfl has one argument, the cba and that's all they technically need..
many on this board are confident that berman throws the suspension out but im not.

i dont know the exact number, but i saw somewhere that in this part of NY, only like 3 out of 68 arbitration cases have been overturned. those figures are most likely wrong idk..

how can roger go from generally aware to fully aware/mastermind behind scheme. brady should punch him in the face for that.

so if brady loses, he sits 4 games. an injunction at this point would be highly unlikely according to mccann.

 

[ChoWZa]

so if brady loses, he sits 4 games. an injunction at this point would be highly unlikely according to mccann.

There's been enough doubt raised about all this nonsense now, this has done damage to the NFL and Brady's legacy will be fine. What will the argument be 20 years from now.. Brady deflated footballs by 0.5 PSI in the first half of a game where they beat the Colts by 40 points, so he's not the greatest ever? Does that sound like an intelligent argument? It just won't hold up, the person will be mocked and laughed at. This is just popular now because it's recent. The real story is how Goodell imploded and will be the last commissioner ever to see this kind of unchecked power.

Like McCann says this case isn't about Brady's guilt. The case will really just confirm how bad of a deal the CBA is, Brady could admit he deflated all the Pats and Colts balls now and legally it wouldn't matter, though I'm sure Berman would find that strategy odd.

The real danger if Brady settles, or doesn't win:

It means Goodell can target anyone he wants for any reason with any penalty for any alleged violation.
He can spend money on an investigation which the sole purpose is to back up whatever charge and make the NFL look as good as possible, but certainly not to ascertain any sort of truth.
The investigation cannot be questioned.
His decisions cannot be appealed.
His decisions cannot be challenged in court (CBA).

Brady is fighting for justice, not exoneration, unfortunately.

 

[Wheelman]

NFL appealing the ruling and winning the appeal during the post season is worrisome. If the NFL loses they will appeal. Let's just hope they won't win the appeal. I don't think they should but you never know with the law.

 

[SVN]

vs ?@SVN2010 2h2 hours ago
@McCannSportsLaw @SInow Will the public know which way the judge is leaning via leaks ?Or how much should one believe any leaks tom.
Michael McCann ?@McCannSportsLaw 2h2 hours ago
@SVN2010 @SInow We may hear claims by lawyers for each side that the judge seems to favor them, but the judge is not likely to tip his hand.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

NFL appealing the ruling and winning the appeal during the post season is worrisome. If the NFL loses they will appeal. Let's just hope they won't win the appeal. I don't think they should but you never know with the law.

For those who say Brady shouldn't settle, right there is the attraction for settling. It ends things once and for all. The case is over for good. Everyone knows what's going to happen and they'll know it immediately and can finally make definite plans for it.

That said, I think Brady should refuse to agree to any settlement that has a non-zero suspension or that requires him to admit he did something. Being suspended for all four games is better than that.

 

[Fencer]

For those who say Brady shouldn't settle, right there is the attraction for settling. It ends things once and for all. The case is over for good. Everyone knows what's going to happen and they'll know it immediately and can finally make definite plans for it.

That said, I think Brady should refuse to agree to any settlement that has a non-zero suspension or that requires him to admit he did something. Being suspended for all four games is better than that.

Right, except that I think Brady should and will wind up filing a defamation suit -- and I'm somebody who usually hates libel suits and the like.

• Just filing it is an act of aggressively saying that he deserves his reputation back. Then the public can begin to consider whether he's correct.
  
• More specifically, it demonstrates very visibly that he feels he did NOTHING wrong, that he has nothing to hide, that the NFL doesn't "have something" on him, that he hasn't been cheating all along, etc., etc.

Brady would shock the haters by filing for defamation.

They wouldn't shut up for long, more's the pity -- but they would be knocked back on their heels.

 

[Mike the Brit]

From what I've read the CBA allows Goodell to lie, section 46 or something. And the NFLPA might win due to precedent. Seems to all depend on the Judge. Sounds like 50/50 to me.

Disclaimer - I know absolutely nothing about law, I'm just going by what I've read and seems to make sense to me.

Seems to me that there are two conditions for the NFL to win.

1. If the NFLPA's arguments about the "law of the shop" prevail, the NFL has no chance -- it's an equipment violation for which there is no precedent for punishing players, let alone to that degree. So it must be

2a. The Commissioner's discretion under section 46 (to take disciplinary action to preserve the integrity of the game and the reputation of the league) is so wide that Brady has no procedural rights to challenge the process.

or:

2b. Brady has procedural rights and those were upheld.

My guess is that it all turns on 2b and I can't see how that doesn't run strongly in Brady's favour. Was the Wells Investigation really independent of the League Office? Was the Wells Investigation carried out impartially or did it have an agenda? Was the League Office unprejudiced or had it made up its mind in advance that there was an infraction? Did Brady have a chance to see and challenge the evidence against him? Did Brady really fail to co-operate? It's hard to believe.

I'm disturbed about two things.

First, it seems to me that Kessler has all of his eggs in basket number 1. I'm not so sure about how that will work out (but he's the highly-paid lawyer, not me).

Secondly, the judge doesn't seem to recognize that it isn't your common-or-garden arbitration case. The building's burned down and the landlord and the tenant are arguing about who pays how much. If there's an arbitrator, it would have to take a lot to overrule her or him, of course, and it's totally reasonable for the judge to want to bang the heads of the two sides together until they agree out of court. But this is a disciplinary case. Brady has been convicted of cheating and lying under oath. To push him to compromise seems like forcing him to admit that he's a little bit pregnant.

 

[DarrylS]

A well written piece, I do believe Brady and his legal team should try to ascertain which way Berman is leaning prior to doing much of anything.. they have another date next week.

As much as Berman wants both side to settle, suspect both have their heals dug in and there may be more movement after today.. neither side wants to "lose"...

Both legal teams will be very interested in the types of questions Judge Berman asks and how he directs the conversation. It’s possible that Judge Berman will demonstrate more skepticism for the legal arguments of one side than the other. If he does, that could serve as a forewarning of how he might rule.

 

[RIpats88]

Article 46 has already been shot down in court as an argument 4 times by separate judges on the "we can do whatever we want" argument.

Unless berman disagrees and goes against those four rulings, then i don't see how he doesn't vacate the suspension

 

[Gronkowski123]

Article 46 has already been shot down in court as an argument 4 times by separate judges on the "we can do whatever we want" argument.

Unless berman disagrees and goes against those four rulings, then i don't see how he doesn't vacate the suspension

exactly...the one thing im clinging to at this point!