Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jeff Carter]

I think a warning would have been appropriate punishment in the first place. There's no way that the outcome of the game was affected. That said, Brady, the Patriots, and all their fans thoroughly deserve to bear the brunt of any and all "shrunken balls"-themed razzing that might come their way this year.

I don't have a dog in the fight--still enjoying the meaningful September baseball being played here for the first time in about a generation.

[g'bye, Dick Rees]

The only person in this anywhere near as assinine as the Commisioner is the Seattle coach.  They should change the name Seahawks to PCU.

[Mark Cadwallader]

As it should be, Tom Brady has won his case, the suspension is vacated, and Roger G. can kiss Patriots Nations collective asses. Not only is this good for the Patriots, but illustrates what is wrong with a dictatorship called Goodell. All of NFL will benefit from this decision which proves once again that people in America can't be prosecuted for something they might have done without proof. This was a witch hunt, a kangaroo court without merit and the decision is exactly what it should have been. Brady NOT GUILTY.
 
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2015/09/03/tom-brady-defeats-nfl-judge-berman-rules-to-vacate-four-game-suspension/

While I agree that the Court's opinion appropriately found that the NFL's procedures and action did not comport with the requirements of due process (and therefore unfair), and that the discipline imposed on Brady could not lawfully be affirmed, nothing in the decision says that Brady is "not guilty" of knowing about the claimed deflations, or that he did not interfer with the investigation. I don't particularly care about the entertainment provider called the NFL, but please don't confuse the judge saying the process wasn't fair with somehow exonerating Mr Brady from all wrong-doing.

Thank you for providing the link to the Court's decision. It is interesting reading (to me, at least).

[Tim McCulloch]

While I agree that the Court's opinion appropriately found that the NFL's procedures and action did not comport with the requirements of due process (and therefore unfair), and that the discipline imposed on Brady could not lawfully be affirmed, nothing in the decision says that Brady is "not guilty" of knowing about the claimed deflations, or that he did not interfer with the investigation. I don't particularly care about the entertainment provider called the NFL, but please don't confuse the judge saying the process wasn't fair with somehow exonerating Mr Brady from all wrong-doing.

Thank you for providing the link to the Court's decision. It is interesting reading (to me, at least).

That's it in bold print.

Specifically Brady was denied significant parts of a defense, including introducing witnesses on his behalf.

This is a case about labor law and the way the NFL handled the arbitration in violation of their Players Association collective bargaining agreement.

[John Halliburton]

Read the report.

One interesting thing I had not known before...
When the Colts player brought the football (Patriots ball) to the sidelines, he gave it to his coaching staff. They, instead of immediately handing it over to officials, took it on themselves to measure the pressure therefore tainting the evidence. Sheesh!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

And in the act of doing so, lowered the pressure.  Sorry, there's no way around that, some air always leaks out when you check.

John

[John Roberts {JR}]

I'm shocked.. adults cheat in high stakes sports competition...


Nothing to see here....

JR

[Ray Aberle]

That's it in bold print.

Specifically Brady was denied significant parts of a defense, including introducing witnesses on his behalf.

This is a case about labor law and the way the NFL handled the arbitration in violation of their Players Association collective bargaining agreement.

And I agree with that- it is definitely good to uphold your agreement with anyone; that's the whole principle of ethics and integrity.

However, if the underlying problem was true; that Mr. Brady knew about or should have known about the footballs that he was using in the game might have been not up to spec (and he's a smart man, having played football most of his life; I am sure he would be able to tell if they don't "feel right") then he could have been more supportive of the investigation, if not initiating it himself. "Yes, I noticed they didn't feel right, but I wasn't able to do anything about that during the game" would have been OK. I don't think he needed to surrender his cell phone upon demand, as that would have been an illegal search and seizure, but if there was nothing to see there, voluntarily showing investigators that there wasn't anything to be concerned about would have helped his case.

Re the punishment and "not knowing that a 4 game suspension was a possible penalty," the NFL can't possibly imagine every potential illegal action and stipulate penalties for each. At some point "common sense" has to prevail, and a punishment is levied based on the action(s) being penalized. I would presume that the decision for a 4-game suspension was made by the NFL commissioner and was appropriate given the circumstances of this situation and past history of the Patriots allegedly breaking other NFL regulations. Past behaviour often is used as a factor in determining sentences (or a lack of one) in criminal courts.

That all being said, I'm not a big fan of baseball. 

-Ray

[Stephen Swaffer]

 I don't think he needed to surrender his cell phone upon demand, as that would have been an illegal search and seizure, but if there was nothing to see there, voluntarily showing investigators that there wasn't anything to be concerned about would have helped his case.

Do laws regarding illegal search and seizure really apply here?  Those laws are made to protect citizens and guarantee their freedom to live life as they choose within the boundaries of our laws.  If one chooses to make his living making an insane amount of money for throwing an inflated pigskin around a pasture, certainly the organization providing that opportunity has the right to determine the conditions you need to meet to participate?  Its not like you are being denied an opportunity to feed your family.

IF one is guilty of cheating (ie an ethics violation), it seems somewhat one sided to complain that the employer did not use good ethics in following its agreement.

I don't pretend to know the truth of what happened-not worth any effort on my part to find out.  I do think this is a silly waste of our justice system when we have criminals that need to have cases heard.  I guess I never have understood cheating to win anyway.  I like to win as much as anyone-but what bragging rights does winning by crook give you?

[Mark Cadwallader]

As Tim McC pointed out, this is a labor law case. It is a dispute between management and workers. The two sides agreed to a specific contract (a "collective bargaining agreement", or CBA), and both sides have to operate in accordance with the terms of the CBA. The judge determined that management did not act in accordance with the provisions of the CBA, so he vacated the ruling of the arbitrator.  With all due respect, "ethics" has nothing to do with the case. There may be ethical or moral issues related to individual's conduct, but those are not the legal issues over which the Court has jurisdiction.

[Ray Aberle]

As Tim McC pointed out, this is a labor law case. It is a dispute between management and workers. The two sides agreed to a specific contract (a "collective bargaining agreement", or CBA), and both sides have to operate in accordance with the terms of the CBA. The judge determined that management did not act in accordance with the provisions of the CBA, so he vacated the ruling of the arbitrator.  With all due respect, "ethics" has nothing to do with the case. There may be ethical or moral issues related to individual's conduct, but those are not the legal issues over which the Court has jurisdiction.

I would assume that the CBA also dictates that the workers will abide by a specific expectation of conduct (i.e. the rules of football), and if the CBA doesn't currently contain language stipulating penalties for violating the rules of the game, you can be damn certain it will now.

(To be more precise, the "management" that Mr. Brady reports to is his team's owners/management. I would be interested to know how the CBA determines the breakdown of who is doing what- the NFL doesn't hire a player, the team does, so any CBA should be between the team owner/management and the player, NOT between the player and the NFL. With that in mind, I think it is more complicated then a simple labor law/"dispute between management and workers." This would be akin to the liquor control board assessing a fine to an employee because they sold beer to an under age/undercover LCB agent- the store hired the employee, so they're liable for the employee's actions, but the employee broke the law, so they are personally liable for their actions as well. the store might appeal the fine and potential revocation of their liquor license, but the initial incident still occurred.)

My comments regarding ethics and morals were directed at the alleged actions that precipitated this entire situation. As Stephen points out, if one breaks the rules, it is an interesting situation to complain about being treated unfairly. I would have high respect for someone in Mr. Brady's position to, if he truly didn't know about the under inflation problem prior to the game, as soon as he realised something was wrong, to bring it to the appropriate person's attention. "Hi, it looks like I have a bad ball as it's leaking. It doesn't feel right. Can I get a new one?" Having never played professional football, though, I can't say if there's an easy way to do that during a game.

-Ray

[ProSoundWeb Community]