Patriots being investigated after Colts game (1 Viewer)

[Old Smiley]

Glad someone remembers Beakman.

 

[Run It Up]

In the appeal testimony there is a lot of talk about exponent making corrections in their small print but still using the bad numbers the entire time.

 

[espnespn]

I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).

Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.

When the judge has gone on record OVER and OVER again stating he wants a settlement, it wouldn't be in his best interest to rip the side that is losing the case to encourage one. He's trying to knock the NFL (the actual winning side) down a peg to make them sweat a little to force them into a settlement for fear of losing. Like it or not everything the judge has been shredding is basically trumped by the CBA.

"Doesn’t the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allow Roger Goodell to be completely unfair, given his role of investigator, judge and appellate judge?

No. No. No. No. Please people stop saying that. It is a commonly held view that is often parroted by people who should know better."

"To simplify, the NFLPA makes the general argument that both the fairness procedures in the CBA and NFL rules and just basic “industrial due process” weren’t followed. That is, the NFLPA didn’t have to build in a lot of detailed technical fairness procedures into the document because all union members receive these protections under CBAs. Industrial due process is that bare minimum standards of due process that are allowed all disciplined employees in arbital proceedings.

As a part of this, the NFLPA argues that the NFL failed to follow “the law of the shop.” That is, that the NFL failed to follow the custom and practice that they’ve used in the past."

http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-questions/

 

[Old Smiley]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?

THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?

OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!

Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.

So wait a second....a few psi doesn't affect a football or the outcome of a game, but the length of the needle on a psi gage makes all the difference in the world?

Thanks, Prof. Beakman.

So you don't understand that one gauge was inside Exponents range of what was found explicable by the elements and one was not? And that the ref remembered using the gauge that fit with the weather explanation? And that Wells dismissed that recollection for no reason?

But of course, there was reason. Wells was hired to make a case against the Pats.

 

[moleculo]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?

THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?

OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!

Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.

So wait a second....a few psi doesn't affect a football or the outcome of a game, but the length of the needle on a psi gage makes all the difference in the world?

Thanks, Prof. Beakman.

So you don't understand that one gauge was inside Exponents range of what was found explicable by the elements and one was not? And that the ref remembered using the gauge that fit with the weather explanation? And that Wells dismissed that recollection for no reason?But of course, there was reason. Wells was hired to make a case against the Pats.

of course there was reason. Wells/Exponent spelled out why pretty clearly, yet the patsfans.com echo chamber always neglects to mention this. I'm not going to re-hash as it's been discussed a thousand times already.

 

[Old Smiley]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?

THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?

OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!

Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.

So wait a second....a few psi doesn't affect a football or the outcome of a game, but the length of the needle on a psi gage makes all the difference in the world?

Thanks, Prof. Beakman.

So you don't understand that one gauge was inside Exponents range of what was found explicable by the elements and one was not? And that the ref remembered using the gauge that fit with the weather explanation? And that Wells dismissed that recollection for no reason?But of course, there was reason. Wells was hired to make a case against the Pats.

of course there was reason. Wells/Exponent spelled out why pretty clearly, yet the patsfans.com echo chamber always neglects to mention this. I'm not going to re-hash as it's been discussed a thousand times already.

Well I've heard no explanation other than the gauges are so danged similar, which if they're so danged similar why did Wells fudge the picture? BTW: not only are the gauges placed differently relative to the rulers, but the pictures are at different scales, as well -- both to minimize the difference.

 

[Burl]

Where there is smoke, there is fire...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html

 

[ChromeWeasel]

I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).

Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.

When the judge has gone on record OVER and OVER again stating he wants a settlement, it wouldn't be in his best interest to rip the side that is losing the case to encourage one. He's trying to knock the NFL (the actual winning side) down a peg to make them sweat a little to force them into a settlement for fear of losing. Like it or not everything the judge has been shredding is basically trumped by the CBA.

"Doesn’t the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allow Roger Goodell to be completely unfair, given his role of investigator, judge and appellate judge?

No. No. No. No. Please people stop saying that. It is a commonly held view that is often parroted by people who should know better."

"To simplify, the NFLPA makes the general argument that both the fairness procedures in the CBA and NFL rules and just basic “industrial due process” weren’t followed. That is, the NFLPA didn’t have to build in a lot of detailed technical fairness procedures into the document because all union members receive these protections under CBAs. Industrial due process is that bare minimum standards of due process that are allowed all disciplined employees in arbital proceedings.

As a part of this, the NFLPA argues that the NFL failed to follow “the law of the shop.” That is, that the NFL failed to follow the custom and practice that they’ve used in the past."

http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-questions/

That's a fantastic read.

 

[Anarchy99]

Where there is smoke, there is fire...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html

There have been so many rumors as to what the Patriots have alleged to have done over the years that one could argue that BB is brilliant for getting everyone to think that they are under 24/7 surveillance. Bugging the locker room has been one of the rumors that has been swirling behind closed doors for years.

 

[dansav]

Where there is smoke, there is fire...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html

Where there are haters there are people grasping at straws.. Wonder why manning played so bad in foxboro over the years. He was mentally broken before he stepped on the field..,

 

[Jrodicus]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?

THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?

OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!

Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.

So wait a second....a few psi doesn't affect a football or the outcome of a game, but the length of the needle on a psi gage makes all the difference in the world?

Thanks, Prof. Beakman.

So you don't understand that one gauge was inside Exponents range of what was found explicable by the elements and one was not? And that the ref remembered using the gauge that fit with the weather explanation? And that Wells dismissed that recollection for no reason?

But of course, there was reason. Wells was hired to make a case against the Pats.

Google "gage R&R" and get back to me with what you learn.

 

[Old Smiley]

I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).

Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.

When the judge has gone on record OVER and OVER again stating he wants a settlement, it wouldn't be in his best interest to rip the side that is losing the case to encourage one. He's trying to knock the NFL (the actual winning side) down a peg to make them sweat a little to force them into a settlement for fear of losing. Like it or not everything the judge has been shredding is basically trumped by the CBA.

"Doesn’t the most recent Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) allow Roger Goodell to be completely unfair, given his role of investigator, judge and appellate judge?

No. No. No. No. Please people stop saying that. It is a commonly held view that is often parroted by people who should know better."

"To simplify, the NFLPA makes the general argument that both the fairness procedures in the CBA and NFL rules and just basic “industrial due process” weren’t followed. That is, the NFLPA didn’t have to build in a lot of detailed technical fairness procedures into the document because all union members receive these protections under CBAs. Industrial due process is that bare minimum standards of due process that are allowed all disciplined employees in arbital proceedings.

As a part of this, the NFLPA argues that the NFL failed to follow “the law of the shop.” That is, that the NFL failed to follow the custom and practice that they’ve used in the past."

http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-questions/

That's a fantastic read.

She's been great. I'd like to hear a back and forth between her and Andrew Brandt.

 

[moleculo]

Well I've heard no explanation other than the gauges are so danged similar, which if they're so danged similar why did Wells fudge the picture? BTW: not only are the gauges placed differently relative to the rulers, but the pictures are at different scales, as well -- both to minimize the difference.

sigh.

When checked vs a highly accurate and calibrated master gauge, the non-logo gauge was found to be within 0.1PSI of dead-nuts accurate. The logo gauge was consistently 0.3-0.4 higher.

The Patriots claimed they submit balls at 12.5 PSI, and the Colts claim they submit the balls at 13.0PSI. The referee recalled when interviewed that when he gauged the patriots balls pre-game, they were all at or near 12.5 psi; as he had to adjust the pressure up on a couple because they were slightly low. Likewise, the Colts balls were all at or around 13.0 psi.

There are two possibilities:

1. the referee used the non-logo gauge pre-game as his readings corresponded with both the Patriots and Colts stated inflation levels.
2. the referee used the logo gauge, and both the Patriots AND Colts gauges measured almost exactly 0.4 psi high.

do you think it's likely that both teams gauges would be out of calibration by the same amount as the referees gauge?

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).

Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.

My experience would be otherwise, though that is, I grant you, counterintuitive at first.

Here is a thought for those who presume the Judge has made up his mind in favor of Brady. Why would a Judge, who believes that he is overseeing a faulty investigation as you presume he is signaling, and who believes the process falls short of the fundamental fairness required by due process encourage the victim of those flaws to settle, to agree to adverse consequences when none are coming, nor should come, based on your beliefs and reasoning. he would basically be saying lets punish the righteous, the innocent, you know, at least a bit. Don't you think it possible that were he as solidly in your camp's line of thinking he would be avoiding what would clearly be an unjust outcome by settlement?

 

[ChromeWeasel]

I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).

Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.

My experience would be otherwise, though that is, I grant you, counterintuitive at first.

Here is a thought for those who presume the Judge has made up his mind in favor of Brady. Why would a Judge, who believes that he is overseeing a faulty investigation as you presume he is signaling, and who believes the process falls short of the fundamental fairness required by due process encourage the victim of those flaws to settle, to agree to adverse consequences when none are coming, nor should come, based on your beliefs and reasoning. he would basically be saying lets punish the righteous, the innocent, you know, at least a bit. Don't you think it possible that were he as solidly in your camp's line of thinking he would be avoiding what would clearly be an unjust outcome by settlement?

I have no expectation that the judge has made up his mind, but I believe that he is inclined to rule for Brady. The judge has to overturn an existing arbitration, and he has to have a legal reason to do so. Especially in such a high-profile case where any ruling is almost certain to be appealed and scrutinized. The judge is doing everything he can to avoid having to make a ruling either way. It's a lot easier on him to get the parties to an agreement. There's just no scrutiny down the line that way.

A good judge would want to let an existing arbitration stand, especially with a prior agreement in place that allows latitude to the arbitrator. But Berman has made it very clear that he's got standing to rule against the NFL here. I'm sure that he doesn't want to do that, which is why he's doing everything possible to get them to terms.

Most people don't see it as a 100% change the judge rules for Brady, but the past 2 weeks have shifted the odds to more likely than not that Brady is going to win.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

I think they are going about as well as they expected. They know the more critical he is of them, the more likely he will rule in their favor. The holes that he is poking in their case have been hashed and rehashed in this thread 50 times already, none of this is new information so it isn't as if any of this is hurting them in the eyes of the public (except NE of course).

Seriously? I'm not a lawyer, but I've followed lots of cases over the years, and generally speaking, when the judge is ripping one side to shreds in arguments, that is not a good sign for that side.

My experience would be otherwise, though that is, I grant you, counterintuitive at first.

Here is a thought for those who presume the Judge has made up his mind in favor of Brady. Why would a Judge, who believes that he is overseeing a faulty investigation as you presume he is signaling, and who believes the process falls short of the fundamental fairness required by due process encourage the victim of those flaws to settle, to agree to adverse consequences when none are coming, nor should come, based on your beliefs and reasoning. he would basically be saying lets punish the righteous, the innocent, you know, at least a bit. Don't you think it possible that were he as solidly in your camp's line of thinking he would be avoiding what would clearly be an unjust outcome by settlement?

These are all good points. I imagine that the judge would prefer a settlement in part because it makes his life much easier--this will be a controversial decision either way.

I don't think it's clear that Brady will win. Amongst other things, the fact that the judge has said it might take longer than Sept 4 indicates that he thinks there are tricky issues at stake.

That said, I think it's pretty clear that the Judge is disgusted by the NFL's behavior throughout this case. Whether that is enough to overturn the appeal (given that the arbitrary [edit to correct Freudian slip: arbitrator] gets a lot of deference) is not 100% clear to me, but surely it's a good sign for Brady's case. I object strongly to the "reverse psychology" argument that his slamming of the NFL indicates that he's leaning more towards them.

 

[Run It Up]

Where there is smoke, there is fire...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html

Maybe it's all those precautions that cause him to choke everytime he plays NE.

 

[Run It Up]

Well I've heard no explanation other than the gauges are so danged similar, which if they're so danged similar why did Wells fudge the picture? BTW: not only are the gauges placed differently relative to the rulers, but the pictures are at different scales, as well -- both to minimize the difference.

sigh.When checked vs a highly accurate and calibrated master gauge, the non-logo gauge was found to be within 0.1PSI of dead-nuts accurate. The logo gauge was consistently 0.3-0.4 higher.

The Patriots claimed they submit balls at 12.5 PSI, and the Colts claim they submit the balls at 13.0PSI. The referee recalled when interviewed that when he gauged the patriots balls pre-game, they were all at or near 12.5 psi; as he had to adjust the pressure up on a couple because they were slightly low. Likewise, the Colts balls were all at or around 13.0 psi.

There are two possibilities:

• the referee used the non-logo gauge pre-game as his readings corresponded with both the Patriots and Colts stated inflation levels.
• the referee used the logo gauge, and both the Patriots AND Colts gauges measured almost exactly 0.4 psi high.

do you think it's likely that both teams gauges would be out of calibration by the same amount as the referees gauge?

They don't account for time and this is revealed in the appeal testimony.

 

[Road Warriors]

OK-I get what the NFLPA is arguing, and I understand their points. I haven't read/seen anything where the judge has given the impression that the CBA was violated. The NFLPA saying "he violated the CBA," and the judge saying "you violated the CBA" are 2 different things. I was just wondering if there was something from the hearing today (or last week) where the judge gave the impression that the CBA had been violated. That's why I asked about the Pash thing, b/c while he said that might be cause to have an arbitration hearing decision over-turned, my understanding is because that would be a violation of federal law, not the CBA. I can't find any indication that the judge has indicated the CBA has been violated, although he has questioned the NFL's findings.

I already posted this in the thread. Berman has specifically said that he sees legal ground to vacate the arbitration.

From Stephens Twitter:

• My impression: Berman tipped his hand a bit to NFL in an effort to make the sides settle.
• Berman: "There are some basic procedures of fairness that have to be followed.... You got to let someone make their case."
• He grilled Nash on why the Brady team wasn't able to call Jeff Pash (need to doublecheck that name) wasn't allowed to be called as witness.
• Berman: "I don't understand the thinking to not allow Mr. Pash as a witness. Who else but Pash had the opportunity to edit the Wells Report?
• Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. (ChromeWeasel edit: this seems like a HUGE statement from the judge)
• Berman: "The next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what suspension would he get?"
• Nash again deferred to Goodell's judgement on that.
• To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
• Berman then grilled Nash on Goodell's comparison of ball tampering/deflation to steroid use. Berman very skeptical of that point.
• Berman: How did he pick steroid use to explain he suspended Mr. Brady four games?"

These last two items seem to get into the area of "Law of the Shop" which, if I understand it, is how previous precedent is used to define actions under a collectively bargained agreement.

It seems to me that the judge here compared the ball tampering to stick'um, an on field advantage around equipment, which has previously been handled with a small to moderate fine for a first offense.

The NFL position of this being more similar to steroid use is their attempt to use the substance policy as precedent for the scope of the 4-game suspension. I think this is a very difficult position to defend.

I think this is where the NFL case has it's biggest problem.

 

[Godsbrother]

Where there is smoke, there is fire...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/peyton-manning-takes-extreme-precautions-154328475.html

There have been so many rumors as to what the Patriots have alleged to have done over the years that one could argue that BB is brilliant for getting everyone to think that they are under 24/7 surveillance. Bugging the locker room has been one of the rumors that has been swirling behind closed doors for years.

I don't think anyone underestimates BB's cheating brilliance!

 

[Witz]

OK-I get what the NFLPA is arguing, and I understand their points. I haven't read/seen anything where the judge has given the impression that the CBA was violated. The NFLPA saying "he violated the CBA," and the judge saying "you violated the CBA" are 2 different things. I was just wondering if there was something from the hearing today (or last week) where the judge gave the impression that the CBA had been violated. That's why I asked about the Pash thing, b/c while he said that might be cause to have an arbitration hearing decision over-turned, my understanding is because that would be a violation of federal law, not the CBA. I can't find any indication that the judge has indicated the CBA has been violated, although he has questioned the NFL's findings.

I already posted this in the thread. Berman has specifically said that he sees legal ground to vacate the arbitration.

From Stephens Twitter:

• My impression: Berman tipped his hand a bit to NFL in an effort to make the sides settle.
• Berman: "There are some basic procedures of fairness that have to be followed.... You got to let someone make their case."
• He grilled Nash on why the Brady team wasn't able to call Jeff Pash (need to doublecheck that name) wasn't allowed to be called as witness.
• Berman: "I don't understand the thinking to not allow Mr. Pash as a witness. Who else but Pash had the opportunity to edit the Wells Report?
• Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. (ChromeWeasel edit: this seems like a HUGE statement from the judge)
• Berman: "The next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what suspension would he get?"
• Nash again deferred to Goodell's judgement on that.
• To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
• Berman then grilled Nash on Goodell's comparison of ball tampering/deflation to steroid use. Berman very skeptical of that point.
• Berman: How did he pick steroid use to explain he suspended Mr. Brady four games?"

These last two items seem to get into the area of "Law of the Shop" which, if I understand it, is how previous precedent is used to define actions under a collectively bargained agreement.

It seems to me that the judge here compared the ball tampering to stick'um, an on field advantage around equipment, which has previously been handled with a small to moderate fine for a first offense.

The NFL position of this being more similar to steroid use is their attempt to use the substance policy as precedent for the scope of the 4-game suspension. I think this is a very difficult position to defend.

I think this is where the NFL case has it's biggest problem.

Though the stick'um example and the ball tampering example would both be considered an on field advantage around equipment, the two situations could be viewed as being different. A wide receiver isn't touching the ball nearly as many times in a game as the QB. In 2014, the WR with the most catches in the year averaged 8 catches a game (with averaging just over 11 targets a game). The QB on the other hand, touches the ball pretty much every single offensive play (the median offensive plays per game in 2014 was about 63 (NE's average was just over 67 offensive plays per game)).

Who really knows what the NFL's rationale was in comparing the deflating of footballs to steriods, but the one argument that could be made was that an individual utilizing steriods benefits from this by being in on every play (whether from a defensive or offensive perspective) similar to the advantage Brady could have had by playing with the deflated balls.

 

[T J]

The economist questioned the way Exponent handled their numbers. That's what economists do. The lawyer called Wells/Exponent on what looks like a lawyerly dirty trick. That's the kind of thing lawyers are supposed to be able to spot.

Nothing to do with chemistry. No one is out of their lane.

Mathematicians deal with numbers. Economists deal with the economy. Not even close to the same thing.

 

[PatsWillWin]

OK-I get what the NFLPA is arguing, and I understand their points. I haven't read/seen anything where the judge has given the impression that the CBA was violated. The NFLPA saying "he violated the CBA," and the judge saying "you violated the CBA" are 2 different things. I was just wondering if there was something from the hearing today (or last week) where the judge gave the impression that the CBA had been violated. That's why I asked about the Pash thing, b/c while he said that might be cause to have an arbitration hearing decision over-turned, my understanding is because that would be a violation of federal law, not the CBA. I can't find any indication that the judge has indicated the CBA has been violated, although he has questioned the NFL's findings.

I already posted this in the thread. Berman has specifically said that he sees legal ground to vacate the arbitration.

From Stephens Twitter:

• My impression: Berman tipped his hand a bit to NFL in an effort to make the sides settle.
• Berman: "There are some basic procedures of fairness that have to be followed.... You got to let someone make their case."
• He grilled Nash on why the Brady team wasn't able to call Jeff Pash (need to doublecheck that name) wasn't allowed to be called as witness.
• Berman: "I don't understand the thinking to not allow Mr. Pash as a witness. Who else but Pash had the opportunity to edit the Wells Report?
• Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. (ChromeWeasel edit: this seems like a HUGE statement from the judge)
• Berman: "The next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what suspension would he get?"
• Nash again deferred to Goodell's judgement on that.
• To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
• Berman then grilled Nash on Goodell's comparison of ball tampering/deflation to steroid use. Berman very skeptical of that point.
• Berman: How did he pick steroid use to explain he suspended Mr. Brady four games?"

These last two items seem to get into the area of "Law of the Shop" which, if I understand it, is how previous precedent is used to define actions under a collectively bargained agreement.

It seems to me that the judge here compared the ball tampering to stick'um, an on field advantage around equipment, which has previously been handled with a small to moderate fine for a first offense.

The NFL position of this being more similar to steroid use is their attempt to use the substance policy as precedent for the scope of the 4-game suspension. I think this is a very difficult position to defend.

I think this is where the NFL case has it's biggest problem.

Though the stick'um example and the ball tampering example would both be considered an on field advantage around equipment, the two situations could be viewed as being different. A wide receiver isn't touching the ball nearly as many times in a game as the QB. In 2014, the WR with the most catches in the year averaged 8 catches a game (with averaging just over 11 targets a game). The QB on the other hand, touches the ball pretty much every single offensive play (the median offensive plays per game in 2014 was about 63 (NE's average was just over 67 offensive plays per game)).

Who really knows what the NFL's rationale was in comparing the deflating of footballs to steriods, but the one argument that could be made was that an individual utilizing steriods benefits from this by being in on every play (whether from a defensive or offensive perspective) similar to the advantage Brady could have had by playing with the deflated balls.

Cool. Ever heard of anyone being suspended for someone else taking steroids?

 

[PatsWillWin]

The economist questioned the way Exponent handled their numbers. That's what economists do. The lawyer called Wells/Exponent on what looks like a lawyerly dirty trick. That's the kind of thing lawyers are supposed to be able to spot.

Nothing to do with chemistry. No one is out of their lane.

Mathematicians deal with numbers. Economists deal with the economy. Not even close to the same thing.

Yeah, Economists deal mostly with verbs.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

The economist questioned the way Exponent handled their numbers. That's what economists do. The lawyer called Wells/Exponent on what looks like a lawyerly dirty trick. That's the kind of thing lawyers are supposed to be able to spot.

Nothing to do with chemistry. No one is out of their lane.

Mathematicians deal with numbers. Economists deal with the economy. Not even close to the same thing.

So what, you think a mathematician should have been the expert witness? Maybe a number theorist or an expert on abstract algebra? Why not an accountant or a vegas card dealer? They deal with numbers too.

A) The arguments against exponent's report seem legit on the merits, regardless of who levied the argument.

B) Exponent has been criticized for giving one-sided arguments on behalf of their clients before (e.g., a report saying second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer on behalf of the tobacco industry)

C) The lead scientist on exponent is indeed a scientist, but not really on the relevant topic (http://www.exponent.com/gabriel_ganot/), and honestly the science here really is not in dispute by anybody

D) The critiques of the methodology come down to statistics, and most social scientists (yes including economists) are perfectly capable of speaking with authority on that

 

[DropKick]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?

THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Not that I disagree with you but I'll play devil's advocate for a moment.

The intercepted ball was measured by the Colt's and (per the Wells' Report) was reported to be 11.0. Keep in mind this was the ball that inspired the halftime measurements. Later it was measured three times and the measurements were now "under 12.0". The actual measurements recorded on the ball were 11.45, 11.35 and 11.75, respectively.

None of these measurements are too far from what the Ideal Gas Law might suggest and it didn't gain air if the Colt's measured it numerous times. But how does one ball vary so much? Incidentally, the report concluded a ball would lose 0.01 PSI per measurement.

The average difference in PSI drop between the between the team's balls was ~0.65. Assuming some of that delta can be attributed to more time for the Colt's ball to adjust to the higher temperature. Some, perhaps, due to wet/dry conditions. The sample size of the Colt's balls was tiny; they made a mistake recording the pressure of one ball and some of the balls actually exceed 13.0 pre-game... Also, the precision of the instruments was 0.05 - not extraordinarily precise either.

There is a lot of precise numerical analysis in the Wells Report. But even the best mathematical analysis doesn't mean much if you can't get a reliable measurement. That's my biggest problem.

ETA: You commented on the relative length of the needles but more important to me is how sloppy the measurement is... they couldn't even position the ruler in the same relative location. This speaks volumes about the integrity of the process.

 

[DropKick]

The economist questioned the way Exponent handled their numbers. That's what economists do. The lawyer called Wells/Exponent on what looks like a lawyerly dirty trick. That's the kind of thing lawyers are supposed to be able to spot.

Nothing to do with chemistry. No one is out of their lane.

Mathematicians deal with numbers. Economists deal with the economy. Not even close to the same thing.

Economists deal with complex mathematical models. I don't think the analysis here was anything special but let's stop dissing economists. Some of my best friends are economists.

 

[Witz]

OK-I get what the NFLPA is arguing, and I understand their points. I haven't read/seen anything where the judge has given the impression that the CBA was violated. The NFLPA saying "he violated the CBA," and the judge saying "you violated the CBA" are 2 different things. I was just wondering if there was something from the hearing today (or last week) where the judge gave the impression that the CBA had been violated. That's why I asked about the Pash thing, b/c while he said that might be cause to have an arbitration hearing decision over-turned, my understanding is because that would be a violation of federal law, not the CBA. I can't find any indication that the judge has indicated the CBA has been violated, although he has questioned the NFL's findings.

I already posted this in the thread. Berman has specifically said that he sees legal ground to vacate the arbitration.

From Stephens Twitter:

• My impression: Berman tipped his hand a bit to NFL in an effort to make the sides settle.
• Berman: "There are some basic procedures of fairness that have to be followed.... You got to let someone make their case."
• He grilled Nash on why the Brady team wasn't able to call Jeff Pash (need to doublecheck that name) wasn't allowed to be called as witness.
• Berman: "I don't understand the thinking to not allow Mr. Pash as a witness. Who else but Pash had the opportunity to edit the Wells Report?
• Berman: "I believe some arbitration awards have been vacated" because a witness was not allowed to be called without explanation. (ChromeWeasel edit: this seems like a HUGE statement from the judge)
• Berman: "The next time someone tampers with a ball but cooperates, what suspension would he get?"
• Nash again deferred to Goodell's judgement on that.
• To which Berman said "I have a little trouble with that."
• Berman then grilled Nash on Goodell's comparison of ball tampering/deflation to steroid use. Berman very skeptical of that point.
• Berman: How did he pick steroid use to explain he suspended Mr. Brady four games?"

These last two items seem to get into the area of "Law of the Shop" which, if I understand it, is how previous precedent is used to define actions under a collectively bargained agreement.

It seems to me that the judge here compared the ball tampering to stick'um, an on field advantage around equipment, which has previously been handled with a small to moderate fine for a first offense.

The NFL position of this being more similar to steroid use is their attempt to use the substance policy as precedent for the scope of the 4-game suspension. I think this is a very difficult position to defend.

I think this is where the NFL case has it's biggest problem.

Though the stick'um example and the ball tampering example would both be considered an on field advantage around equipment, the two situations could be viewed as being different. A wide receiver isn't touching the ball nearly as many times in a game as the QB. In 2014, the WR with the most catches in the year averaged 8 catches a game (with averaging just over 11 targets a game). The QB on the other hand, touches the ball pretty much every single offensive play (the median offensive plays per game in 2014 was about 63 (NE's average was just over 67 offensive plays per game)).

Who really knows what the NFL's rationale was in comparing the deflating of footballs to steriods, but the one argument that could be made was that an individual utilizing steriods benefits from this by being in on every play (whether from a defensive or offensive perspective) similar to the advantage Brady could have had by playing with the deflated balls.

Cool. Ever heard of anyone being suspended for someone else taking steroids?

Not even worth it.

 

[Old Smiley]

ETA: You commented on the relative length of the needles but more important to me is how sloppy the measurement is... they couldn't even position the ruler in the same relative location. This speaks volumes about the integrity of the process.

I say they did it on purpose. That pair of pictures appears as they do in the report. You are meant to compare them. They are meant to mislead. Not sloppy; sneaky.

Note the difference in scale as well.

Your league in action.

 

[Old Smiley]

Wow. Tom Curran really letting it fly.

 

[Jercules]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?

THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?

OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!

Such withering sarcasm from a man who's spent countless hours trying to convince us an entire football organization's accomplishments are null because of fractions of psis that were maybe removed from their footballs.

 

[ratbast]

The NFL looks awful, no matter how this finishes.

.

 

[TripItUp]

The NFL looks awful, no matter how this finishes.

.

correct

The judge dismantling the Wells report has been a huge egg on their face, regardless of the outcome.

Goodell is a buffoon.

 

[moleculo]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?

OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!

Such withering sarcasm from a man who's spent countless hours trying to convince us an entire football organization's accomplishments are null because of fractions of psis that were maybe removed from their footballs.

I did no such thing.

 

[Green and Gold]

This thread is like masturbation without the payoff.

 

[moleculo]

Well I've heard no explanation other than the gauges are so danged similar, which if they're so danged similar why did Wells fudge the picture? BTW: not only are the gauges placed differently relative to the rulers, but the pictures are at different scales, as well -- both to minimize the difference.

sigh.When checked vs a highly accurate and calibrated master gauge, the non-logo gauge was found to be within 0.1PSI of dead-nuts accurate. The logo gauge was consistently 0.3-0.4 higher.

The Patriots claimed they submit balls at 12.5 PSI, and the Colts claim they submit the balls at 13.0PSI. The referee recalled when interviewed that when he gauged the patriots balls pre-game, they were all at or near 12.5 psi; as he had to adjust the pressure up on a couple because they were slightly low. Likewise, the Colts balls were all at or around 13.0 psi.

There are two possibilities:

• the referee used the non-logo gauge pre-game as his readings corresponded with both the Patriots and Colts stated inflation levels.
• the referee used the logo gauge, and both the Patriots AND Colts gauges measured almost exactly 0.4 psi high.

do you think it's likely that both teams gauges would be out of calibration by the same amount as the referees gauge?

They don't account for time and this is revealed in the appeal testimony.

That's the argument you economist made, and he is wrong.Exponent first ran a statistical study to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the colts and Patriots balls. They found there was. They next developed a transient heat transfer model to examine the effect of time and temperature, and were able to very closely simulate the Colts readings....however they were unable to simulate the Pats readings with natural causes alone. Time was a significant factor here.

What they did not do was re-do the statistical model, factoring in time. That's what your economist is harping about. Maybe they should have, I don't know what the results would be, but I suspect that the end result would not change.

 

[Old Smiley]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?

THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?

OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!

Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.

lol. If I was them, and wanted to "cheat it", I simply wouldn't have included a close-up of the needle, and I certainly wouldn't have included a ruler. No one would have even noticed that there was no ruler in the pic.

But the ruler makes it look all official and scientific.

 

[Jrodicus]

Yea Exponent seems real independent and unbiased

http://www.robertblecker.com/deflategate-the-smoking-gun/

wait, so the needles differed in length by less than an inch?

THIS.CHANGES.EVERYTHING.

Look at the pictures. Look at how they placed the gauges against the rulers. At this point in the game, are we going to call that an honest mistake?

OMG, this is super critical to the overall conclusions. We should totally toss everything out because of trick photography.You know, before I thought that these two pressure gauges, of the same size, shape, and color were nearly identical. Now that you point out that one needle is less than an inch longer than the other, they look completely different. Only a buffoon would think they are similar...It's almost a whole inch!1!!!1!!

Why do you cheat it then? Because you're going to ignore the ref's recollection about which gauge he used because it doesn't work for your case you're building. But you're going to totally accept the same ref's recollection as to 12 numbers he didn't give a hoot about.

lol. If I was them, and wanted to "cheat it", I simply wouldn't have included a close-up of the needle, and I certainly wouldn't have included a ruler. No one would have even noticed that there was no ruler in the pic.

But the ruler makes it look all official and scientific.

I have no idea on their intent (and neither do you), but maybe they just wanted to include a picture showing the length of the thread on the needle? I haven't read the verbiage in the report, just going off the pictures posted earlier.

If you've ever done any design work, or know how to a read a blueprint for that matter, then it might make more sense. For brevity, and to reduce clutter, you try to minimize called out measurements. Assuming that the threads on both needles are the same, you don't need to measure the full length of both needles, just one of them.

If you measure the full length of both needles, and someone asks the question, "How long is just the pipe on each?", then you have to subtract the length of the threading on both. If you measure just the pipe on one but the full length on the other, then you only have to subtract the threading once, not twice. If you're working with datums or assembly drawings, you wouldn't expect to see every point measured to every other point; you just need all of the relationship data to determine any desired point.

Honestly, I really wouldn't be surprised if they took multiple other pictures that they didn't include in the report for the sake of brevity and with the understanding that their target audience isn't people on FBG forums who aren't familiar with GD&T (Geometric Design and Tolerancing).

 

[moleculo]

the length of the needle has nothing to do with physical inflation of the ball. A difference in length of ~0.600" isn't all that significant when the whole gauge is observed. This whole business is just silly.

It is funny though that a lawyer specializing in the death penalty is the one to question needles.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Probably more like pure lemon juice than the sweetened Kool-Aid that's been passed around these parts lately, but it manages to wrap up the arguments against Brady winning:

In two hearings, Berman has questioned numerous aspects of the 20-page page decision that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell issued on July 28 that led to Brady's four-game suspension. Berman suggested, for example, that Goodell made a "quantum leap" from Brady being "generally aware" of the deflation of game balls suggested in the Wells Report to Goodell's conclusion that Brady "knew about, approved of, consented to and provided inducements in support" of the deflation.

While Brady and his supporters no doubt find some comfort in Berman's attack on Goodell's reasoning, they shouldn't try to read into Berman's statements and questions from the bench. Why? Because the judge is not leaning in Brady's direction. He has been, instead, doing what hundreds of judges do in American courtrooms each day: trying to push the side with the stronger legal position into consideration of a settlement.

There is nothing subtle or particularly sophisticated about what Berman is doing. Most judges prefer settlements over trials. A trial consumes days and weeks of judicial time, and the judge could face an embarrassing reversal by a higher court on any decision the jurist makes in a trial. To save time and to avoid reversals, judges like Berman use their leverage to try to push litigants into settlements, something Berman has been doing for more than three weeks.

In this case, recognizing that the NFL has convincing evidence and significant legal precedents on its side, Berman knows the only way he can produce a settlement is to show the league that there is a possibility it could lose a case that it should win. That is why he devoted most of a hearing Wednesday to picking apart the Goodell opinion and the league's legal position.

The strength of the NFL position in the litigation is indisputable. It is based on powerful legal precedents that severely limit a federal judge's review of an arbitration decision and on the convincing evidence gathered for the Wells report and described in surprisingly powerful terms in Goodell's decision.

The limits on a federal judge's authority over an arbitration decision are well established. Brady and the union lawyers want Berman to reconsider everything in Goodell's 20-page opinion. The legal term for the Brady demand is a hearing "de novo." It means a do-over, and a do-over is exactly what Berman is not permitted to do under American law.

NFL attorneys needed only nine pages in a brief they filed this past Friday to describe the unquestioned legal doctrine that limits what Berman can do. It may be the shortest brief the NFL has filed in its massive history of litigation.

The rule that judges should not tamper with an arbitrator's decision is so well recognized and obvious that a U.S. Supreme Court opinion involving Steve Garvey was issued in 2001 as a per curiam decision. That means the ruling was not only unanimous, it should have been clear to all concerned that there was no reason for the case to be considered at the high court level.

Garvey had gone to federal court to challenge an arbitrator's adverse ruling in his claim for $3 million in damages he thought he suffered during the MLB collusion conspiracy of 1985-87. He wanted the federal courts to reconsider the arbitrator's ruling.

Sound familiar?

The nation's highest court ruled that even when an arbitrator's decision was "improvident or even silly," it does "not provide a basis for a court to refuse to enforce the award." Even when the federal judge considering the arbitration award is "convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error, it does not suffice to overturn [the arbitrator's] decision," the court ruled.

To make sure everyone understood its ruling, the Supreme Court went so far as to say in the Garvey decision that even when the arbitrator's "procedural aberrations rise to the level of affirmative misconduct," a federal judge may not "interfere with an arbitrator's decision that the parties [players and owners] bargained for."

Garvey walked away with nothing.

In the current NFL case, other legal precedents indicate that Goodell, as the arbitrator established in the NFL collective bargaining agreement, has the power to determine what constitutes conduct detrimental to the league, whether there was a violation, and what the appropriate punishment is. It's obvious, and it's simple. Goodell has the authority to answer all of the questions in the dispute, and a federal judge has no authority to reconsider his answers.

The weakness of Brady's legal position is clear in any consideration of the arguments offered by Brady, the union, and the union lawyers. Jeffrey Kessler and his team of lawyers from the firm of Winston and Strawn are the most resourceful advocates I have seen in 25 years of reporting on legal issues in sports. The best they have come up with in their briefs and arguments in support of Brady are vague assertions of "fundamental fairness" and the "evident partiality" of Goodell as the arbitrator.

The problem with these assertions is that the NFLPA agreed in collective bargaining that Goodell would be the final authority in conduct detrimental cases, and, as the arbitrator, Goodell decides on all issues of fairness. They agreed to a partial arbitrator, and they agreed to his notions of fairness.

The Brady legal team also claims that Brady had no "notice" that deflating game balls or that lying about it would be subject to punishment. The now-famous provisions of Article 46 of the collective bargaining agreement give the commissioner authority to impose discipline for any conduct that is "detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football." It is difficult, if not impossible, to think that Brady could not have known that deflating game balls below the minimum required pressure did not affect the integrity of the competition. His awkward and unsuccessful attempt to cover up what happened show that he had "notice" that there would be a problem.

Earlier in the litigation, Brady's union attorneys filed more than 4,000 pages of exhibits, documents and transcripts in an effort to show some strength in their position. This kind of document dump is never a sign of strength. It is an admission that there is nothing conclusive or dispositive in their material, no smoking gun that supports their position.

In their final brief for Berman, the union lawyers resorted to overstatement and hyperbole in their effort to conceal a weak position. The Goodell opinion, they said, is nothing but a "propaganda piece" and part of a "smear campaign" directed at Brady. It is not a sign of strength when union lawyers try to convince a federal judge that the commissioner of the most successful sports league in the world would deliberately slander and smear one of its most recognizable and greatest players.

It all seems very desperate, but Brady and Pats fans shouldn't entirely lose hope. Berman has not ruled yet, has called Brady and Goodell back to court on Aug. 31 and could find a way to rule for Brady. It has happened previously in litigation involving celebrity athletes.

But even if that happens, it's unlikely Berman's decision would stand.

Shira Scheindlin, another federal judge in the same building where Berman is considering the Brady dispute, ruled in favor of Maurice Clarett in 2004, allowing him to enter the NFL draft even though legal precedents supported the collective bargaining position that a player was not eligible for the draft until his college class has completed its third year.

Relying on the negotiated provisions for the draft in the union agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit quickly reversed Scheindlin's ruling. The opinion upholding the NFL's position was written by Sonia Sotomayor, who is now a U.S. Supreme Court member.

Berman's varied tactics may yet get Brady and the league to a settlement. But if not, whether it's a decision by Berman in the next few weeks or a decision in the higher court in the next few months, the NFL is going to end up the winner in the Brady dispute.

 

[Anarchy99]

What I find interesting is that article is from ESPN, and across the board their legal experts seemingly all got the same script to announce that Brady has no chance of winning. I have heard three or four of them parrot the same think almost verbatim on this case. I think these folks were told what to say. Elsewhere, there may be some media outlets with legal people saying the NFL could still win, but there are a ton of people suggesting Brady has a great case.

 

[Old Smiley]

That's Lester Munson, who was wrong on Rice, wrong on Peterson, and who earlier in the piece you're quoting says he expected the Brady case would be thrown out.

Always claiming the NFL will win.

I'm not confident in anything, but this guy should be called Wrong Way Munson.

ETA: I mean, how can you keep going on about how arbitration cases never get overturned when two NFL arbitration cases have been overturned in the past year alone?

 

[Old Smiley]

What I find interesting is that article is from ESPN, and across the board their legal experts seemingly all got the same script to announce that Brady has no chance of winning. I have heard three or four of them parrot the same think almost verbatim on this case. I think these folks were told what to say. Elsewhere, there may be some media outlets with legal people saying the NFL could still win, but there are a ton of people suggesting Brady has a great case.

Same with Andrew Brandt. The lock-step is starting to look weird.

 

[Tool]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to think that Brady could not have known that deflating game balls below the minimum required pressure did not affect the integrity of the competition. His awkward and unsuccessful attempt to cover up what happened show that he had "notice" that there would be a problem.

I find these two sentences odd. He's assumming that Brady is guilty. I know a lot of people agree with this view but it does not seem unbiased.

 

[Bayhawks]

I'm no legal expert, and what this article says makes sense; however, I find it very difficult to believe that Brady has "no chance" to win.

Based on everything (outside that article) I can find, it seems like a legal argument could be made for over-turning Goodell's decision, AND a legal argument could be made for upholding it. Someone with more legal expertise than I would have to comment on the strengths of these respective arguments.

With regards to the judge not wanting his decision over-turned, is what the ESPN article says true? That the US Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have ruled for arbitrators (NFL) in these types of situations?

 

[Bayhawks]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to think that Brady could not have known that deflating game balls below the minimum required pressure did not affect the integrity of the competition. His awkward and unsuccessful attempt to cover up what happened show that he had "notice" that there would be a problem.

I find these two sentences odd. He's assumming that Brady is guilty. I know a lot of people agree with this view but it does not seem unbiased.

Agreed. I, personally, think he either was involved or found out about it after the fact, then tried to "cover it up." That being said, using the fact that I believe he did it or covered it up as some kind of proof that he did it or covered it up seems illogical. It seems like that is what the author of the article is doing there.

 

[The Man Who Met Andy Griffith]

What I find interesting is that article is from ESPN, and across the board their legal experts seemingly all got the same script to announce that Brady has no chance of winning. I have heard three or four of them parrot the same think almost verbatim on this case. I think these folks were told what to say. Elsewhere, there may be some media outlets with legal people saying the NFL could still win, but there are a ton of people suggesting Brady has a great case.

Yeah, I've noticed the same thing. Between this, and the whole Simmons mess, at some point something will come out about the business side controlling "journalism" at ESPN. They are basically Fox News for sports at this point.

 

[Old Smiley]

Stephanie Stradley ‏@StephStradley 1m1 minute ago

Stephanie Stradley retweeted Ted Kackley

Um. I disagree with much of Munson's legal analysis & his characterization of what the judge is likely is thinking.

Stephanie Stradley ‏@StephStradley 7m7 minutes ago

Munson embraced Wells Report as unassailable in May & declared Brady couldn't win http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/12888612/tom-brady-nflpa-cannot-win-appeal-filed-deflategate … Berman seems more reasonably O Rly?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

With regards to the judge not wanting his decision over-turned, is what the ESPN article says true? That the US Court of Appeals and Supreme Court have ruled for arbitrators (NFL) in these types of situations?

I can't find the quote now, but one lawyer who handles cases related to arbitration said that in his career (100s of cases), he'd had something like five overturned -- and they were all public sector.

And I'm not a lawyer, but given the choice between Florio and the Patriot's beat reporters or Munson and Cossack I'm going with Munson and Cossack.

 

[Anarchy99]

It is difficult, if not impossible, to think that Brady could not have known that deflating game balls below the minimum required pressure did not affect the integrity of the competition. His awkward and unsuccessful attempt to cover up what happened show that he had "notice" that there would be a problem.

I find these two sentences odd. He's assumming that Brady is guilty. I know a lot of people agree with this view but it does not seem unbiased.

Agreed. I, personally, think he either was involved or found out about it after the fact, then tried to "cover it up." That being said, using the fact that I believe he did it or covered it up as some kind of proof that he did it or covered it up seems illogical. It seems like that is what the author of the article is doing there.

The author of that article is saying the NFL can hang its hat on the CBA that gives the commissioner the right to discipline players as he sees fit and the right to hear appeals and uphold his own decision. That's it. According to Munson, the rest is noise and legally irrelevant.

Brady's procedural argument is that nowhere does it state in the rules or CBA that a player can be suspended for messing with equipment (in this case the footballs), the rules that apply to players state that messing with equipment carries a fine, that no player in the history of the league has been suspended for failing to cooperate, and the integrity of the game clause is ONLY applicable to teams and management personnel NOT individual players. (I posted the integrity of the game provisions pages and pages ago.)

Technically, any violation, PED use, salary cap skirting, etc. is an effort to gain an advantage and could be viewed as violating the integrity of the game (which, to reiterate, is a TEAM rule). That and conduct unbecoming are catch-all phrases that could literally be implemented at any time over anything. Goodell is essentially arguing he can do whatever the eff he wants and the NFLPA and the courts can't stop him.

As far as Brady goes, even if he did do something or instructed someone to do something, there has been nothing remotely similar in league history that has resulted in a player suspension. It already has come out that being generally aware of a violation is not worthy of a suspension.

IMO, the league would have had a much better case if they caught Brady red handed or if they had conclusive data to show that something unnatural happened to the footballs. But they have no logs of what the balls measured at the start, they didn't measure all of the Colts footballs, and they have no empirical data or historical data to show what the footballs should have measured in terms of PSI.

That being said, maybe the judge will rubber stamp that the court can not overturn an appeal decision in a collective bargained labor agreement and give the win to the NFL. But I don't think this particular judge will ignore Brady's case.