Patriots being investigated after Colts game (1 Viewer)

[Bossman]

Seems the Patriots are voicing their frustration.

They really spilled their guts here:

http://wellsreportcontext.com/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=nfl

From Patriots Franchise (linked above):

 In addition, ...to preserve the public impressions of the Wells Report and the League’s pursuit of Tom Brady, the League rejected the suggestion of measuring PSI during every game in the 2015 season and publishing the results. Instead, it chose to perform “random spot checks” during the season and then refused to release the results of those checks, no doubt because doing so would confirm that there was nothing unusual about footballs falling below regulation in cold weather.

They really make the league look ridiculous. Not sure how anyone could argue against the Patriots after reading the entire article.

 

[The Big Donkey]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/25/federal-court-reinstates-new-england-patriots-bradys-suspension-over-deflategate-ruling.html

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Have a seat tom

 

[Run It Up]

Hope the NFL is ready for another appeal.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

This thread should get interesting.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Hope the NFL is ready for another appeal.

Highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would grant cert on this type of question, IMO. 

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Hope the NFL is ready for another appeal.

Appeal to where?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Hope the NFL is ready for another appeal.

You think the Supreme Court will waster their time on this?

 

[Bayhawks]

Hope the NFL is ready for another appeal.

I asked this in the other thread:  can he appeal?  And if so, can he get his suspension "put on hold" until the appeal is decided (as long as this has taken, it seems unlikely it will be decided before week 1)?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I asked this in the other thread:  can he appeal?  And if so, can he get his suspension "put on hold" until the appeal is decided (as long as this has taken, it seems unlikely it will be decided before week 1)?

Only to the Supreme Court now.

 

[Bayhawks]

Only to the Supreme Court now.

That's what I assumed, and I can't see any way the SC would hear this appeal.

However, I don't understand the minutiae of our legal system (especially the civil side), so I'm curious about whether there is any other legal recourse for Brady/the NFLPA.

 

[LBH]

Glad to see this cheating scum brought to justice 

 

[Run It Up]

The Supreme Court is down a seat atm, but I don't see a reason why they wouldn't appeal, the NFL lost on more than one ground, then won the appeal by changing their argument to literally the CBA says we can do what we want.

The NFLPA has been more concerned by that this whole time.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I would need to read the ruling before opining about next steps.  It could be a final ruling, it could be a remand with instruction.  Does any body have a link to the ruling?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The Supreme Court is down a seat atm, but I don't see a reason why they wouldn't appeal, the NFL lost on more than one ground, then won the appeal by changing their argument to literally the CBA says we can do what we want.

The NFLPA has been more concerned by that this whole time.

The Supreme Court doesn't have to hear it though and my guess is they won't waste judicial resources on this matter. People would go nuts.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

A few lengths behind on the far turn, but we could still finish strong and challenge the Gordon thread at the wire.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I would need to read the ruling before opining about next steps.  It could be a final ruling, it could be a remand with instruction.  Does any body have a link to the ruling?

It's remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitration award (the suspension).

FWIW, the NFL did not change its argument from the District Court to the Appeals Court.  It's the same argument.  Article 46 vests the Commissioner with broad discretion to penalize conduct affecting the integrity of the game.  The CBA allowed him to serve as arbitrator, and arbitrations subject to collective bargaining agreements under the LMRA are entitled to great deference. 

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

It's remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitration award (the suspension).

FWIW, the NFL did not change its argument from the District Court to the Appeals Court.  It's the same argument.  Article 46 vests the Commissioner with broad discretion to penalize conduct affecting the integrity of the game.  The CBA allowed him to serve as arbitrator, and arbitrations subject to collective bargaining agreements under the LMRA are entitled to great deference. 

Thanks.

I look forward to reading the ruling in full.

Peter King must be apoplectic.

 

[Run It Up]

You might be right, but i don't think the Pats stop here.

 

[Brendon1215]

You might be right, but i don't think the Pats stop here.

The Pats never stop. 

 

[Run It Up]

So it was remanded to someone or Berman?

Also you are correct, they didn't change their base argument that they have the power to punish however they want courtesy of the last bargaining agreement. But they did stop going after Brady during the appeal process, as it wasn't the basis.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

The Supreme Court doesn't have to hear it though and my guess is they won't waste judicial resources on this matter. People would go nuts.

You might be right, but i don't think the Pats stop here.

Its over. Serve the 4 and move on 

 

[Pickle Rody]

The Pats never stop cheating. 

FYP

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

You might be right, but i don't think the Pats stop here.

The Pats aren't a party to the suit.  The NFLPA is.  It's important to understand that the Supreme Court is not an error correcting court.  They don't just take a case because the Court of Appeals may be wrong.  This is a case about whether an arbitrator's award conforms with a collectively bargained agreement.  At its heart, its simply a question of contract interpretation, and the Supreme Court just doesn't take those types of cases because they don't present any unique federal questions.

 

[Mookie]

Sorry Pats fans - It's over.  You lost.  Your QB is suspended 4 games.  Any vindication you felt over Judge Berman's decision - none of which focused on guilt/innocence - is gone.  Accept your **** and move on.

 

[Run It Up]

Was it or wasn't it remanded? That's all that matters, I'm at work and haven't been able to read but someone above mentioned it was. 

 

[apalmer]

Was it or wasn't it remanded? That's all that matters, I'm at work and haven't been able to read but someone above mentioned it was. 

Accordingly, we  REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND with instructions to confirm the award.

 

[Run It Up]

So Berman gets to reaffirm his position with additional grounds against the league... 

 

[apalmer]

So Berman gets to reaffirm his position with additional grounds against the league... 

No, he gets to enter an order affriming what the NFL did.

 

[Run It Up]

Unpack that for me, this being remanded back to Berman was one of the 3 most likely outcomes. To date this has been explained as essentially a do-over, how is this different?

 

[Burl]

No, he gets to enter an order affriming what the NFL did.

The way I understand it is, they can either appeal to get the case heard by the same appeals court that just reversed the decision or go before the supreme court.  In other words, this saga is likely done and decided.

 

[apalmer]

Unpack that for me, this being remanded back to Berman was one of the 3 most likely outcomes. To date this has been explained as essentially a do-over, how is this different?

There is a difference between a simple remand (where the appellate court says "look at the facts again in light of what we said in our opinion") and a remand with instructions to enter judgment affirming the arbitration decision (where the appellate court says, "there's nothing further you need to look at, just enter judgment in favor of the NFL"). 

ETA: This quote from the opinion might help clarify

Because the district court held that Brady was deprived of adequate notice and fundamental fairness, it declined to address the  Association’s alternative grounds for vacatur.    Although it is our  usual practice to allow the district court to address arguments in the  first instance, we choose to address the Association’s arguments here  because they were fully briefed below and on appeal and because they are meritless. 

 

[Run It Up]

Thanks.

Well ####, looks like the NFLPA has three options, accept it, petition the entire district to rule the appeal or take it to the SCOTUS.

Not great.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Thanks.

Well ####, looks like the NFLPA has three options, accept it, petition the entire district to rule the appeal or take it to the SCOTUS.

Not great.

They could do surgery on Brady to make him look identical to Jimmy Garapolo and try to sneak him into the game that way.

 

[Shutout]

I can't get my councilman to post a "children at play" sign in my neighborhood but this stuff drags out for two years and is a step away from the Supreme court.  What a country.

 

[Bossman]

One of the three judges ruled in favor of Brady / NFLPA:



http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/04/25/second-circuits-chief-judge-would-have-scrapped-brady-appeal-based-in-part-on-stickum-rules/



Second Circuit’s Chief Judge would have scrapped Brady appeal, based in part on stickum rules


The dissenting opinion also points to the failure of the Commissioner to compare Brady’s alleged misconduct to the use of stickum, an equipment violation for which a first offense triggers a fine of $8,268.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

They could do surgery on Brady to make him look identical to Jimmy Garapolo and try to sneak him into the game that way.

Somewhere Belichick is reading this and thinking "Hmmmm....".

 

[Bossman]

What this judge isn't factoring is that the suspension was also for tampering with an investigation by destroying his cell phone.

If Brady was truly innocent, he got some really bad advice by his attorney to not provide his cell phone. This act just screams "guilty" either way.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Somewhere Belichick is reading this and thinking "Hmmmm....".

Hey, I saw it work for John Travolta and Nicholas Cage.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The stickum rule argument is terrible.  The majority eats Katzmann's lunch on that issue. 

Katzmann dissented on two grounds:

1)  That Brady lacked notice that his failure to cooperate would be considered.  As the majority notes, that's a weird argument to make considering that  Brady offered an expert's affidavit about the contents of his cell phone at the hearing.  Perhaps more relevantly, Goodell penalized Brady because he found he participated in the scheme.  The alleged destruction of evidence simply supported an adverse inference.  I think the majority is correct on this, but Katzmann's position isn't absurd.

2) That the stickum penalty was "more apt" to the circumstances than the steroid penalty.  This is just a ludicrous argument under the deferential standard of review.  Brady wasn't penalized under the steroid policy.  He was penalized under Article 46.  There have been no cases applying Article 46 to Brady's conduct, so Goodell decided on a punishment based on what he thought was analogous behavior.  Under the CBA, Brady has no remedy for the claim that another provision is more analogous. That just can't support vacatur. 

 

[Stealthycat]

imagine if the ref's had started with Indy balls ..... tested all those, twice, with different readings each time, and then only had time to check 4 patriots balls ?

it would be Luck suspended, Colts without a first round pick and that owner paying million fine

 

[apalmer]

imagine if the ref's had started with Indy balls ..... tested all those, twice, with different readings each time, and then only had time to check 4 patriots balls ?

it would be Luck suspended, Colts without a first round pick and that owner paying million fine

Or imagine that the Pats didn't cheat.

 

[Bossman]

The stickum rule argument is terrible.  The majority eats Katzmann's lunch on that issue. 

Katzmann dissented on two grounds:

1)  That Brady lacked notice that his failure to cooperate would be considered.  As the majority notes, that's a weird argument to make considering that  Brady offered an expert's affidavit about the contents of his cell phone at the hearing.  Perhaps more relevantly, Goodell penalized Brady because he found he participated in the scheme.  The alleged destruction of evidence simply supported an adverse inference.  I think the majority is correct on this, but Katzmann's position isn't absurd.

2) That the stickum penalty was "more apt" to the circumstances than the steroid penalty.  This is just a ludicrous argument under the deferential standard of review.  Brady wasn't penalized under the steroid policy.  He was penalized under Article 46.  There have been no cases applying Article 46 to Brady's conduct, so Goodell decided on a punishment based on what he thought was analogous behavior.  Under the CBA, Brady has no remedy for the claim that another provision is more analogous. That just can't support vacatur. 

Whats "ludicrous" is why you jump from "stick-um" to "steroids".

The judge argues that stick-um would give the same advantage as deflation. Gaining a better grip on the ball.

 Does that not make sense to you?

 

[BassNBrew]

Goodell should get an extension for this.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Ramsay Hunt doing outstanding work in here.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Or imagine that the Pats didn't cheat.

It's easier to imagine all the people living life in peace...

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Whats "ludicrous" is why you jump from "stick-um" to "steroids".

The judge argues that stick-um would give the same advantage as deflation. Gaining a better grip on the ball.

 Does that not make sense to you?

Not as grounds to reverse an arbitrator's decision, no.  You might be concerned with whether Goodell was right or wrong.  But neither the district court nor the court of appeals should have been.  Arbitrators are allowed to be wrong. 

This is about the power of federal judges to vacate arbitration awards enforcing collectively bargained for contract provisions.  Federal courts don't have grounds to reverse Goodell just because "stickum gives you a better grip on the ball."  I could point out that a prohibition against stickum is generally easy to enforce (it's pretty clearly visible in a way that underinflated balls are not), but that's beside the point.  Goodell was dealing with an issue of first impression under the CBA.  The CBA granted him broad powers to impose penalties on offenses affecting the integrity of the game.  I determining the penalty, he drew an analogy with the steroid policy.  That his analogy is not necessarily the most apt one is irrelevant.  It's not enough for Goodell to be wrong.  Goodell has to disregard the contract  or some clearly established law of the shop completely.  He didn't.   

 

[Bossman]

Not as grounds to reverse an arbitrator's decision, no.  You might be concerned with whether Goodell was right or wrong.  But neither the district court nor the court of appeals should have been.  Arbitrators are allowed to be wrong. 

This is about the power of federal judges to vacate arbitration awards enforcing collectively bargained for contract provisions.  Federal courts don't have grounds to reverse Goodell just because "stickum gives you a better grip on the ball."  I could point out that a prohibition against stickum is generally easy to enforce (it's pretty clearly visible in a way that underinflated balls are not), but that's beside the point.  Goodell was dealing with an issue of first impression under the CBA.  The CBA granted him broad powers to impose penalties on offenses affecting the integrity of the game.  I determining the penalty, he drew an analogy with the steroid policy.  That his analogy is not necessarily the most apt one is irrelevant.  It's not enough for Goodell to be wrong.  Goodell has to disregard the contract  or some clearly established law of the shop completely.  He didn't.   

No, your post was about how "Katzmann dissented on two grounds"

Not about a judges power to vacate.

... then you speak of "steroids"?

Your fancy talk is hard to follow, has no flow, is a lot of fluff. 

 

[Run It Up]

If the NFLPA appeals and loses or accepts the ruling the result is Goodell now has authority to create misconducts and punishment for those misconducts and has no obligation to notify anyone of those and their corresponding penalties.

When's the CBA expire and when should we expect them to hold out.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

If the NFLPA appeals and loses or accepts the ruling the result is Goodell now has authority to create misconducts and punishment for those misconducts and has no obligation to notify anyone of those and their corresponding penalties.

I have no idea what reasoning brought you to such a conclusion.