This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's all great and wonderful. Sure, the story about the 50,000 yard football is inconsistent, but what does that have to do with proving the Patriots deflated footballs after they were inspected in the AFCCG against the Colts?
It looks like that questioning came up because he told his mother in a text that he did get the actual gameball. I guess he was lying and trying to make himself sound like sort of a big deal to his mother. I can see why he would not want to admit that at first.
I don't understand why this is all the NFLPA is focusing on. As far as I know (I've read the CBA, but I'm by no means an expert), Goodell is supposed to hand out discipline, so he obviously should not have allowed Vincent to do so. That being said, there is nothing from preventing Goodell from re-issuing the discipline himself, thereby making it valid. In addition, the CBA allows Goodell to decide who hears an appeal (himself, someone he designates, or an neutral party). So, he has named himself, which is within his rights, per the CBA. I don't see anything in the CBA that would force him to recuse himself if the NFLPA does ask him to testify.
That's what I'm thinking, too. As the hearing officer in the appeal, Goodell could simply tell the NFLPA that it's wrong -- appeal denied. Even if that goes to court, Goodell could just reinstate the exact same penalty himself.
It's procedural violations like these that have led to the NFL losing all its recent appeals - Vilma, Peterson, Rice... This is how it starts. Wait until they start adding in all the other transgressions during the actual investigation.Bottom line, this is a billion dollar company being run like General Tso's Roofing Contractors, Inc. Goodell's NFL has been running roughshod over the collective bargaining agreement for years and continues to do so. His incompetence shows with all the recent rulings in high profile cases. They all get overturned. The guy's a buffoon.
When was the last time the NFL was actually ahead of an issue. Think again of how Goodell hid under his desk while this story was running away with itself.
I think you hit the nail right on the head. What this does is set up the likelihood that this goes to court, which is exactly what the NFL didn't want. Courts don't normally handle CBA cases unless you have something like this, where there has been a clear violation of what was collectively bargained. In short, the NFL gave Tom Brady an inside track into getting this taken to court, where it's very possible the entire suspension could get overturned. I think the NFL is 0-3 in its last three court cases like this.
Ummm yeah, the Patriots don't want this going to court...they continue to look bad...and the NFLPA has almost zero power.
The makes up things as he goes line is just tired and old.
right. What makes it so is the CBA, where it's in black and white that only the Commissioner can rule on punishments involving conduct detrimental. It's indisputable fact. The NFL ####ed up here - plain and simple.Goodell will probably next argue that Vincent really didn't determine the penalty after all - that he was just delivering the message. And if you read Vincent's letter to Brady it does allow for that wiggle room - in fact there's some wording in the letter that almost appears like that's exactly what was going on. But the problem is that this is not supported by all the other stuff that came out from Goodell right after the Wells Report saying that Vincent would be handling the penalty. There were public statements made, and even a written letter to the Patriots, saying clearly that Vincent was the one doling out the punishment.
Let's say Brady takes this court on the grounds that Goodell couldn't properly delegate authority to Troy Vincent (which strikes me as an accurate reading of the CBA) and wins. So what? Goodell comes back and reimposes the exact same penalty himself. That's a completely pyrrhic victory.
Come on dude. You are smarter than that. Have you not been paying attention? Ray Rice? AP? Vilma? Read all the lies thatTroy Vincent said to Adrian Peterson. When AP confronted him on them, he lied again. And then AP turned over the conversation that he recorded on his cell phone. Dead to rights.You can hate the Patriots and despise their cheating ways. I totally get this, and to a point I share in the sentiment. But you cannot defend the actions of the NFL with the players the last few years. It's ludicrous.
You really think a court of law would make that ruling? They would more than likely dismiss the suspension than give Goodell another chance to screw it up.
I do think the severity of this punishment factors in the prior nonsense with Spygate, that the Pats are repeat offenders. The Report acknowledges that neither Belichik nor Kraft knew about the deflation, yet the team was still slapped with the harshest penalty in the history of the game.Everyone is focusing in on the Brady suspension, but the real blow here was the loss of not one, but two draft picks. That is huge. Unprecedented. It's a clear message to Kraft that he needs to change the culture within his organization.
There was a recent court case earlier this month, that said Goodell could not arbitrate certain cases. It could end up affecting the Brady appeal...
They can't appeal the team punishment, the Saints however reached out to the league to reduce penalty after Tags basically told them they colossally ####ed up with bountygate.
Ok, how bout this,
I don't usually follow these things, but I think I read that just the players can appeal.
This has been covered, ad nauseum.
David - just curious - you keep saying that the Pats got off easy for Spygate, which was essentially a matter of the Pats illegally videotaping defensive signals from the sidelines. If they were taping the signals from 30 feet away, it would have been legal, correct?So what would you think would be more severe, illegally videotaping signals from the sidelines, or videotaping the opponent's walk-through prior to a game? If the Pats did the latter, would you view that as more severe than videotaping from the sidelines during the game?
I have been...he does not take every case the exact same way and a lot of it pisses people off.
I think this is probably exactly what happened, if the full scope of Spygate was in fact covered up (and I believe it was).
In your particular case we just figure you like arguing incessantly about nonsense in every other thread -- your hate is for sunshine
I think videotaping an opponents walk-through prior to a game would constitute egregious cheating, especially prior to a Superbowl. No one can prove that happened, but some of the 2001 Rams are convinced it did.
This is what the NFLPA wants, but I can't find anywhere in the CBA that would require Goodell to not hear the appeal based on that. According to this, he doesn't plan to recuse himself.
Egregious cheating??? What if there is evidence that the team videotaped the walk-through, but the coaches insist they never viewed the tape? In other words - they blame it on a rogue video guy? Still egregious? Worthy of discipline from the League? I mean, after all, the coaches didn't view it.
Not a lawyer, but that's almost certainly false. The CBA clearly and unambiguously grants Goodell the right to hear appeals. If "we're going to call you as a witness" forced him to recuse himself, then players would run that play every single time, essentially nullifying that part of the CBA.
Yes, absolutely. If a court finds that the NFL didn't follow it's own procedure in dishing out punishment, the most likely outcome (as I understand it as a layman) is to dismiss the suspension and send it back to the league. Then Goodell reimposes the suspension himself, as laid out in the CBA. My understanding is that that's essentially what happened in Bountygate.
What about Adrian Peterson? They didn't throw that back to the NFL to reconsider his punishment.
I didn't follow that case, and I don't know what the basis for the court's ruling was.
For me it's nothing more than the text messages. That alone speaks to nefarious activity, if not in this game than in others. But I'm not convinced that the balls were even doctored in this game. The evidence in the report just doesn't point to large scale deflation of the balls. In order to prove that, you have to discount the ref's recollection of using the logo gauge pregame. You can't rely on the ref's memory for the reading of the balls pregame and then not rely on him saying he used the logo gauge. If you are really being honest here, that just smells of bias.
