Brady/Goodell Round 1

[HuskyHawk]

Absolutely. The judge thinks the NFL is entirely full of s---t because they went after Brady without having any evidence against him, and he worked backwards from the result he wanted to figure out how to best write it up. That happens every day in law. The bigger the case, the more often it happens. When I read the gold cases, the abortion cases, the commerce clause cases, and others, it became painfully clear to me that that is how most of the big decisions are reached by the Supreme Court. They figure out the result they want, and then they go backwards from that conclusion and fit the facts and laws to it.

Surely you don't think it's a coincidence that "liberal" judges tend to "interpret" laws in a way that leads to liberal results and "conservative" judges "interpret" the laws in ways that lead to conservative results? Do you?

It's a wonderful fiction that they beat into your head when you're a young lad and you don't know squat about anything. Courts are impartial. Courts apply the law. Courts follow the rules.

Big buckets of baloney. When it comes to matters of social import, most judges do whatever they want, regardless of the rules and procedures and laws. But they are smart people, and they write opinions to explain why they did what they did, never having the cajones to admit, "this is the result I wanted, the rest doesn't matter to me."

That's what happened here. The Judge clearly saw that the entire prosecution of Brady by Goodell was a legal and scientific embarrassment, and he decided to remedy it.

I have zero doubt that, IF the NFL had the evidence, the Judge would have ruled in their favor and would not have overturned their arbitrament on cleverly worded pretexts.

Really - the Judge said that Brady did not have notice that being "generally aware of the misdeeds of others" was punishable. Come on. Just think about that.

The NFL facts were this:

1. Brady had a part in deflating the balls.
2. Brady was punished for that.

Sure, on paper the Judge "accepted" those facts, because that's the game he has to play when writing his opinion. But when he then says that the NFL did not give notice that being "generally aware" of the misdeeds of others is punishable, isn't that really him saying, "I'm not buying your conclusion that Brady had a part in deflating the balls"?

Of course it is.

I think the judge's analysis is legally correct, not just pretext. But you are correct that he knows that the league set out to catch the Patriots at something and made it up from there. It attempted to collect evidence of that something and mostly failed (why did they stop testing the Colts balls after 4 of 5 of those were underinflated again?). Manipulated the evidence with illogical assumptions, such as the referee using the gauge he says wasn't the one he used. Then decided that vague partial conversations from Brady to guys who inflate footballs, about inflation of footballs (which is completely fine, since that is their job) none of which suggest anything about doing it after giving the balls to the referees, is somehow a smoking gun. Then they yell about a guy who's wife is the worlds #1 model, destroying his phone not long after the Fappening leak of celebrity photos and videos.

Meanwhile, the NFL rules explicitly call for a small fine for this conduct, even if proved clearly. Yes, he knew all that, and even then the process the league used was so flawed that his analysis is spot on. The reason it works that way is simply that if the league had evidence it wouldn't have followed such an unfair process. It wouldn't have needed to.

 

[noeynox]

The winner, by knockout, AND STILLLLLLLL.......

 

[sledog]

a) PV/T = const

b) refs did not establish a chain of custody for the balls.


QED

 

[ctchamps]

I think the judge's analysis is legally correct, not just pretext. But you are correct that he knows that the league set out to catch the Patriots at something and made it up from there. It attempted to collect evidence of that something and mostly failed (why did they stop testing the Colts balls after 4 of 5 of those were underinflated again?). Manipulated the evidence with illogical assumptions, such as the referee using the gauge he says wasn't the one he used. Then decided that vague partial conversations from Brady to guys who inflate footballs, about inflation of footballs (which is completely fine, since that is their job) none of which suggest anything about doing it after giving the balls to the referees, is somehow a smoking gun. Then they yell about a guy who's wife is the worlds #1 model, destroying his phone not long after the Fappening leak of celebrity photos and videos.

Meanwhile, the NFL rules explicitly call for a small fine for this conduct, even if proved clearly. Yes, he knew all that, and even then the process the league used was so flawed that his analysis is spot on. The reason it works that way is simply that if the league had evidence it wouldn't have followed such an unfair process. It wouldn't have needed to.

Hence the observation by Nomar (see his first post in this thread) that Berman made a comment regarding the 2nd half of the game, which, as you lawyers expressed, was outside the purview of the arbitration review (confined to procedure) but not out of bounds in regards to his personal observations. It's a shame for Brady that this observation could not have been part of the record. As I've suggested in another post in this thread I feel the NFL is not determined to keep Brady from playing but is going through all this drama to give the public the impression that the NFL has turned the corner regarding scandals. There is nothing more effective than going after one of the greatest stars of the game to make this point. If there was a serious concern about cheating then there would not have been such blatant incompetence.

 

[intlzncster]

Why?

Because I like to sleep when I go to bed!

 

[donyell34]

Time to turn the page our esteemed lawyers. Patriots win ; patriots win.

 

[mauconnfan]

Time to turn the page our esteemed lawyers. Patriots win ; patriots win.

Giants 12 Pats 9

Again?

 

[8893]

Fun watching the other lawyers weigh in.

I'm not sure there is as big of a void between Nomar & McCracken and The Law Offices of Frank Ivy as they might believe.

Nomar and Ern are technically correct, of course; but I think brother Ivy is merely echoing the truism that if you give the court a reason to want to rule in your favor, it will find a way.

 

[mauconnfan]

As many said on the radio yesterday as I was driving, and some were from the Pats area of the world, Brady was guilty of something but the NFL did an awful job with their penalties. Hence most just think Goodell and the NFL needed to be dosed with reality, it was unfair what they handed out and I agree. I'm good with that, but in the end the hatred for Goodell and NFL with their severe penalties took away from what did happen.

But who cares I wanted him to play against the Cowboys anyway so it's time for football. (seems way too early doesn't it?) Really glad it's pretty much over with. But if fat mouth Kraft keeps throwing out victory jabs it's going to come back to haunt him.

 

[TasteofUConn]

but I think brother [Taste] is merely echoing the truism that if you give the court a reason to want to rule in your favor, it will find a way.

Amen Brother, Amen.

 

[nomar]

Fun watching the other lawyers weigh in.

I'm not sure there is as big of a void between Nomar & McCracken and The Law Offices of Frank Ivy as they might believe.

Nomar and Ern are technically correct, of course; but I think brother Ivy is merely echoing the truism that if you give the court a reason to want to rule in your favor, it will find a way.

We apparently disagree on the meaning of pretext.

I don't think Frank shocked anyone's conscience by pointing out judges often work backwards.

 

[Deepster]

Finally. Brady is set free. Just like OJ was.

 

[Adesmar123]

Finally. Brady is set free. Just like OJ was.

Yeah but Brady didn't drive around for a few hours in a White Ford Bronco while 50 police cars followed him.............or did he? hmmmm

 

[Danzz]

Bottom line: Brady cheated and got away with it.

 

[intlzncster]

Hahaha. I love that people think that. Truthers.

 

[Husky25]

A court can't disagree with an arbitrator's factual findings or his decisions on how to weigh certain evidence.

There were not appeal hearings. The hearings were meant to affirm the arbiter's decision. In order for a judge to affirm. He must review some evidence. In the NFL's haste to keep the case from Minnesota and Judge Doty, they may have shot themselves in the foot.

Don't kid yourself. Goodell will survive this even if the outcome doesn't go in his favor. He's making the owners a boat load of money.

Yeah, but he's doing it ugly. Most of these owners are like Mafia Dons. Make me gobs money, but keep the Shield clean. Goodell is failing at the second criteria.

 

[Husky25]

Bottom line: Brady cheated and got away with it.

Truther: "It's pretty obvious that Brady did something."

Rational Human: "What is that something? Where is the proof?"

Truther: "I don't know, but it's pretty obvious."

Me: The defining characteristic of obviousness is knowing what it is.

Occam's Razor.

 

[August_West]

Yeah but Brady didn't drive around for a few hours in a White Ford Bronco while 50 police cars followed him...or did he? hmmmm

That is what is called a "yet"

 

[Rocktheworld]

Absolutely. The judge thinks the NFL is entirely full of s---t because they went after Brady without having any evidence against him.

This is the part that never made sense to me. Why would the NFL go after and try to assassinate the character of Tom Brady of all people, and go to such lengths and create such fabrications to do so?

 

[UConn990411]

Bottom line: Brady cheated and got away with it.

I'll ask this question again: what's the cheating Brady got away with?

There's no proof the footballs were under inflated.

 

[intlzncster]

This is the part that never made sense to me. Why would the NFL go after and try to assassinate the character of Tom Brady of all people, and go to such lengths and create such fabrications to do so?

It's pretty easy actually. There's been many reports from inside the NFL that this was pushed by multiple jealous competing owners. You think Goodell did all this of his own Accord? Not a chance.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Nomar and Ern are technically correct, of course; but I think brother Ivy is merely echoing the truism that if you give the court a reason to want to rule in your favor, it will find a way.

Right, but the reason this doesn't hold up in this context is that every day, in every jurisdiction in America, courts sign off on arbitration awards that are incorrectly decided, based on virtually no evidence, etc. And the reason is because the law essentially compels them to. The craziest thing about this case is that it would have been incredibly easy for Goodell to avoid this result if he had been a little bit more careful in the conduct of the hearing. So, Ivy's general argument that Berman's ruling is a pretext might hold up when substantive issues of law are being tried to the court, but that's not what's at issue when you're confirming an arbitration award and, "frankly," nothing in his posts indicates to me that he understands that distinction, hence my conclusion that he's talking out of his ___.

 

[Robertelamin]

Take the lawyer talk to the cesspool where it belongs.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Take the lawyer talk to the cesspool where it belongs.

 

[StoweD210]

Meanwhile, the NFL rules explicitly call for a small fine for this conduct, even if proved clearly. Yes, he knew all that, and even then the process the league used was so flawed that his analysis is spot on. The reason it works that way is simply that if the league had evidence it wouldn't have followed such an unfair process. It wouldn't have needed to.

I wanted to highlight your last two sentences and expand on the whole "The court decision was only about the process, it doesn't mean Brady's not guilty" argument. The process the league by which the league determined guilt was found to be unfair and prejudiced against Brady. (This doesn't even get into the false information the league fed to the media in January to make Brady look guilty or the biased "independent" investigation that uniformly rejected every explanation offered by the Patriots side, but found no faults or errors on the NFL's part.) If a partial and unfair process was used to determine the original verdict, that casts doubt on whether they reached the right verdict.