No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I totally get that your opinions are based entirely on your distaste for Patriots fans

You love this. It's your go-to defense mechanism. The problem is, I don't find Patriots fans any more odious than Jets fans, Raiders fans, or Eagles fans. I think most fans of any team that has been accused of the enormous amount of shady shit as your team would react in a similar way. What you don't seem to get is that your thoughts are so heavily influenced by your homer-dom that you have zero credibility. You try to accuse me of the same thing (on the flip), but you can't seem to get it through your head that I would make the same arguments against any other team in the league if they were accused of the shit the Patriots were accused of.

When I shit all over Tebow, religious lunatics say I have it out for him. And they pointed out that magical 3 game set when he just won, baby!

When I criticize Kobe because he's selfish, I'm just a hater and clearly don't like the Lakers'.

When I talk about how fraudulent Phil Jackson is, I'm just jealous of his amazing success.

When I shit on the Knicks' complete ineptitude or the Yankees' (abundantly clear) knowledge of Arod's and Giambi's juicing, no one bats an eye. Funny that.

When I shit on the Patriots cheating ways, it's all because I just can't stand Boston.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

...rather than, say, reading Berman's decision. Frabjous.

I read it. I think it's often ridiculous. And your conclusion, after admitting that whether or not Brady cheated was not at issue, that you think the judge didn't think Brady cheated based on the loosest of dicta is just comical. But whatever helps you take Brady balls deep without gagging. More power to ya.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You love this. It's your go-to defense mechanism. The problem is, I don't find Patriots fans any more odious than Jets fans, Raiders fans, or Eagles fans. I think most fans of any team that has been accused of the enormous amount of shady shit as your team would react in a similar way. What you don't seem to get is that your thoughts are so heavily influenced by your homer-dom that you have zero credibility. You try to accuse me of the same thing (on the flip), but you can't seem to get it through your head that I would make the same arguments against any other team in the league if they were accused of the shit the Patriots were accused of.

When I shit all over Tebow, religious lunatics say I have it out for him. And they pointed out that magical 3 game set when he just won, baby!

When I criticize Kobe because he's selfish, I'm just a hater and clearly don't like the Lakers'.

When I talk about how fraudulent Phil Jackson is, I'm just jealous of his amazing success.

When I shit on the Knicks' complete ineptitude or the Yankees' (abundantly clear) knowledge of Arod's and Giambi's juicing, no one bats an eye. Funny that.

When I shit on the Patriots cheating ways, it's all because I just can't stand Boston.

Whatever.

I read it. I think it's often ridiculous. And your conclusion, after admitting that whether or not Brady cheated was not at issue, that you think the judge didn't think Brady cheated based on the loosest of dicta is just comical. But whatever helps you take Brady balls deep without gagging. More power to ya.

TM

You posted something about Berman's decision which was incorrect. Since I actually have read Berman's decision, I posted about it. In response, you said, "Ha ha ha. No it's not. It's hard for a Patriots fan to come to any conclusion other than they each want to take Brady in their mouth." You may not have a particular grudge against Pats fans, but I don't think I'm way off-base in guessing that mood affiliation is involved. (And all that other shit you're posting about now -- I don't think those conversations were with me.) I'm not sure how you're forming your opinions about things like what Berman wrote, but actually reading what he wrote would give you better information.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You posted something about Berman's decision which was incorrect. Since I actually have read Berman's decision, I posted about it. In response, you said, "Ha ha ha. No it's not. It's hard for a Patriots fan to come to any conclusion other than they each want to take Brady in their mouth." You may not have a particular grudge against Pats fans, but I don't think I'm way off-base in guessing that mood affiliation is involved. (And all that other shit you're posting about now -- I don't think those conversations were with me.) I'm not sure how you're forming your opinions about things like what Berman wrote, but actually reading what he wrote would give you better information.

Fuck off. I read most of Berman's decision. Your biggest complaint with what I wrote has to do with a technical point of his decision. Maybe you're right that I should have distinguished whether or not Goodell's power to appoint himself hearing officer in 'any appeal' was not itself found to be in violation of due process, but his application of such power in this case was (although, practically speaking, I don't see a difference--the judge is basically saying that the word "any" does not apply).

But the fact that you continue to assert that the judge has vindicated Brady (indirectly or not) of the underlying cheating accusation is just bullshit.

That said, I find his entire line of reasoning that Brady had no notice that he may be punished for engaging in a cheating scheme (or, to be specific, this particular cheating scheme) to be absofuckinglutely ridiculous. The decision relating to Brady's inability to compel testimony from Pash or to review notes of the investigation seems pretty sound.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

That said, I find his entire line of reasoning that Brady had no notice that he may be punished for engaging in a cheating scheme (or, to be specific, this particular cheating scheme) to be absofuckinglutely ridiculous.

Blame the labor laws for that one. And the New Orleans Saints players, for winning on much the same point in the bounty investigation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Fuck off. I read most of Berman's decision. Your biggest complaint with what I wrote has to do with a technical point of his decision. Maybe you're right that I should have distinguished whether or not Goodell's power to appoint himself hearing officer in 'any appeal' was not itself found to be in violation of due process, but his application of such power in this case was (although, practically speaking, I don't see a difference--the judge is basically saying that the word "any" does not apply).

As someone who now occasionally practices employment law, I didn't think the distinction I was making was technical. I read Berman to be saying that while the arbitration could have been fair, it wasn't, for specific reasons relating to the way the NFL handled things.

But the fact that you continue to assert that the judge has vindicated Brady (indirectly or not) of the underlying cheating accusation is just bullshit.

I did not say that, and if you think I did perhaps that explains why you responded the way you did. The decision expressly says: "In view of the Court's determinations regarding the inadequacy of notice and discovery afforded to Brady, the Court does not reach Brady's other claims, which include ... Brady argues that 'Goodell purports to sustain the suspension on factual conclusions that Brady participated in ball tampering -- but those factual conclusions ... appear nowhere in the Wells Report and were not the basis for the discipline imposed by Vincent." I'm sure that Brady's lawyers included this argument to shoot for vindication, since it gave Berman a chance to address the evidence about what Brady did, but Berman declined the invitation. So there was no vindication for him.

I do think that if you read the decision, it's hard to escape thinking that Berman did not buy any of what the NFL was selling, including the proposition that the league was addressing a real problem. For example, the putting of "independent" in scarequotes.

That said, I find his entire line of reasoning that Brady had no notice that he may be punished for engaging in a cheating scheme (or, to be specific, this particular cheating scheme) to be absofuckinglutely ridiculous. The decision relating to Brady's inability to compel testimony from Pash or to review notes of the investigation seems pretty sound.

Relatively speaking, I agree, but with these arbitrations there should be some pretense that the employer and employee actually agreed to what is going on, and the lack of notice goes to the problem that Goodell was just making it up as he went.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The decision expressly says: "In view of the Court's determinations regarding the inadequacy of notice and discovery afforded to Brady, the Court does not reach Brady's other claims, which include ... Brady argues that 'Goodell purports to sustain the suspension on factual conclusions that Brady participated in ball tampering -- but those factual conclusions ... appear nowhere in the Wells Report and were not the basis for the discipline imposed by Vincent." I'm sure that Brady's lawyers included this argument to shoot for vindication, since it gave Berman a chance to address the evidence about what Brady did, but Berman declined the invitation. So there was no vindication for him.

That claim isn't aimed at the underlying facts (or "facts") - it's aimed at Goodell's final discipline, which is based on reinterpretation of "facts" and the addition of those not in the Wells report, in that specific case Goodell's finding that Brady participated, when the Wells report found only general awareness. Whatever the flaws of the Wells report, Brady did not challenge the factual findings because basically there's no legal basis under the CBA for him to do so.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As someone who now occasionally practices employment law, I didn't think the distinction I was making was technical.

I hope you talk like this in real life so everyone can instantly experience what a douche you sound like.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I read Berman to be saying that while the arbitration could have been fair, it wasn't, for specific reasons relating to the way the NFL handled things.

The arbitration could have been fair if Goodell hadn't appointed himself hearing officer in "any appeal." Are you saying that if he had given Brady notice that he could be suspended for cheating, granted Brady access to the investigator and the notes, that he could have then appointed himself hearing officer and shut it down after patiently listening to all of Brady's evidence?

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I do think that if you read the decision, it's hard to escape thinking that Berman did not buy any of what the NFL was selling, including the proposition that the league was addressing a real problem. For example, the putting of "independent" in scarequotes.

I honestly think you're looking so hard to find something that reads well for Brady that you think this means something.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Relatively speaking, I agree, but with these arbitrations there should be some pretense that the employer and employee actually agreed to what is going on, and the lack of notice goes to the problem that Goodell was just making it up as he went.

Goodell was definitely making it up as he went along. But to stand before a judge and say, "I had NO idea that cheating of this type would be punished," is nonsense. You can argue that the number of games is without precedent (and Kraft (and I'm sure Brady) was ready to accept a shorter suspension) and Berman wouldn't have been wrong to reduce the suspension. But to say that you weren't on notice that you would be punished for participating in a cheating scheme, but the coaches and GM were, is just plain absurd.

TM

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I
Goodell was definitely making it up as he went along. But to stand before a judge and say, "I had NO idea that cheating of this type would be punished," is nonsense. You can argue that the number of games is without precedent (and Kraft (and I'm sure Brady) was ready to accept a shorter suspension) and Berman wouldn't have been wrong to reduce the suspension. But to say that you weren't on notice that you would be punished for participating in a cheating scheme, but the coaches and GM were, is just plain absurd.

TM

That wasn't his argument. His argument was that he had been notified that the fine for such cheating was $5512 or something.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

That wasn't his argument. His argument was that he had been notified that the fine for such cheating was $5512 or something.

Fair enough. But the violation of the Competitive Integrity Policy should have resulted in a punishment to the team of a paid suspension of Brady (no harm to Brady since he's being compensated), because the Chief Executives, Club Presidents, GMs, and Head Coaches were on notice and the team should have been punished. Brady should have then been fined the highest sum possible under Player Policies. Poorly thought-out by the Goodell and his staff.

But Berman's rejection of the conduct detrimental policy argument the League actually used is troublesome. In each of Berman's examples (which were fed to him by Kessler*) where it was used, he points to other policies which must be used to supporting any punishment under the conduct detrimental clause, which essentially renders the clause meaningless. Maybe that's his point--that he is essentially striking the whole clause from the CBA because exercising it without support elsewhere in the CBA or Player Polices necessarily means there is no notice to the player. But I think this is a stretch. The whole point of having such a clause is to catch shit that isn't expressly spelled out and which may not have precedent in order to protect the league.

TM

*Who is brilliant, by the way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I hope you talk like this in real life so everyone can instantly experience what a douche you sound like.

Wait a second, I'm going to write this down. The guy who repeatedly makes crass and uncalled-for oral-sex metaphors is telling me I sound like a douche. Got it. Go on.

The arbitration could have been fair if Goodell hadn't appointed himself hearing officer in "any appeal." Are you saying that if he had given Brady notice that he could be suspended for cheating, granted Brady access to the investigator and the notes, that he could have then appointed himself hearing officer and shut it down after patiently listening to all of Brady's evidence?

Yes. The court notes that issue on pages 11-12 of the decision, and quotes Goodell addressing the point on page 16. I don't see anything in the legal discussion that says that Goodell couldn't serve as the arbitrator. And Berman suggests otherwise when he points out that "[A] 'principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement....'" (page 19). As we all know, the NFLPA expressly agreed to this.

I honestly think you're looking so hard to find something that reads well for Brady that you think this means something.

I have never doubted your honesty.

Goodell was definitely making it up as he went along. But to stand before a judge and say, "I had NO idea that cheating of this type would be punished," is nonsense. You can argue that the number of games is without precedent (and Kraft (and I'm sure Brady) was ready to accept a shorter suspension) and Berman wouldn't have been wrong to reduce the suspension. But to say that you weren't on notice that you would be punished for participating in a cheating scheme, but the coaches and GM were, is just plain absurd.

Three things:

1. When you read the discussion of notice, you get the sense that what's really being addressed is whether the amount of punishment is proportionate with other decisions made by the NFL. Or at least I do.


2. As to the facts of what Brady did, you've said I'm looking hard for something positive for Brady, but I think it's pretty clear from a close reading of the text:
Berman quotes the NFL as saying that Goodell suspended Brady "for having approved, consented to, and provided inducements in support of a scheme to tamper with game balls." Page 26. Having noted the league's argument, Berman rejects it by instead discussing what's in the Wells Report. Berman then says that the Award "rel[ies] upon the Wells Report finding that Brady was 'generally aware' of the alleged ball tampering misconduct of the Patriots equipment staff." Further down on page 26. Thus, Berman addresses whether Brady had notice that "'general awareness' of others' misconduct -- which is the principal finding in both the Wells Report and the Vincent Letter" -- as prohibited. Top of page 27. I think it's clear from this that Berman has little regard for the supposed facts that Brady did something wrong, for the following reasons: (1) Without any evident factual basis, the NFL recharacterized what Brady supposedly did over time, and Berman pointedly deals with what's in the Wells Report, not what Goodell later said. If Berman weren't skeptical of the NFL's version of the facts, he would credit what Goodell said in the Award, not what's in the Wells Report. (2) The Court expressed skepticism of the concept of general awareness, first at the hearing and then in footnote 16, page 25, and by putting it in scarequotes.

3. Anyhoo, as to your point that Brady should have been on notice that he would get in trouble for 'cheating of this type," of course Berman points out that the Player Policies said that league discipline would be imposed for equipment violations, and that "first offenses will result in fines." See top of page 28. Brady didn't see he didn't think he could be punished, he said the punishment was not per league policy.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Wait a second, I'm going to write this down. The guy who repeatedly makes crass and uncalled-for oral-sex metaphors is telling me I sound like a douche. Got it. Go on.

Yep. The difference is I'm not sucking my own dick in my arguments like you. Write that down too.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Yes. The court notes that issue on pages 11-12 of the decision, and quotes Goodell addressing the point on page 16. I don't see anything in the legal discussion that says that Goodell couldn't serve as the arbitrator. And Berman suggests otherwise when he points out that "[A] 'principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement....'" (page 19). As we all know, the NFLPA expressly agreed to this.

Maybe. I tend to think that Berman was just looking for reasons to overturn the decision.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have never doubted your honesty.

Why, thank you.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Three things:

1. When you read the discussion of notice, you get the sense that what's really being addressed is whether the amount of punishment is proportionate with other decisions made by the NFL. Or at least I do.


2. As to the facts of what Brady did, you've said I'm looking hard for something positive for Brady, but I think it's pretty clear from a close reading of the text:
Berman quotes the NFL as saying that Goodell suspended Brady "for having approved, consented to, and provided inducements in support of a scheme to tamper with game balls." Page 26. Having noted the league's argument, Berman rejects it by instead discussing what's in the Wells Report. Berman then says that the Award "rel[ies] upon the Wells Report finding that Brady was 'generally aware' of the alleged ball tampering misconduct of the Patriots equipment staff." Further down on page 26. Thus, Berman addresses whether Brady had notice that "'general awareness' of others' misconduct -- which is the principal finding in both the Wells Report and the Vincent Letter" -- as prohibited. Top of page 27. I think it's clear from this that Berman has little regard for the supposed facts that Brady did something wrong, for the following reasons: (1) Without any evident factual basis, the NFL recharacterized what Brady supposedly did over time, and Berman pointedly deals with what's in the Wells Report, not what Goodell later said. If Berman weren't skeptical of the NFL's version of the facts, he would credit what Goodell said in the Award, not what's in the Wells Report. (2) The Court expressed skepticism of the concept of general awareness, first at the hearing and then in footnote 16, page 25, and by putting it in scarequotes.

3. Anyhoo, as to your point that Brady should have been on notice that he would get in trouble for 'cheating of this type," of course Berman points out that the Player Policies said that league discipline would be imposed for equipment violations, and that "first offenses will result in fines." See top of page 28. Brady didn't see he didn't think he could be punished, he said the punishment was not per league policy.

No comment on 1. Your argument under 2 is unconvincing and, in fact, really just reinforces the fact that you're looking for what you want to find. As for 3, your conclusion doesn't address the League's argument, it just restates what Berman seized on, which is exactly what Kessler wanted him to. See my post in response to Burger.

TM