starrymessenger

Agree 100%.

Disagree. This buys the Bills respect and the goodwill of players throughout the league. Not a bad thing. I don't think this guy will be a problem. I also doubt that anyone will be sticking a finger in his face and daring him to hit them. If he can't play he will be cut loose.

Take it with a grain of salt. It would mean that both the League's and Brady's attorneys were out to lunch and that only this guy knows what he's doing. Highly doubtful. Note also his concluding reference to the League's alleged forum shopping. He fails to mention that a Minny Judge rejected the player's bid to have the matter heard in Minnesota because the matter had no legal, factual or logical connection with that jurisdiction. Isn't that forum shopping? This looks a lot like a partisan piece to me. Brady has more trolls than Vladimir Putin.

Now that's a player's coach. I absolutely love it. Welcome to Buffalo IK!

Thanks again. Just a guess on my part but I would have thought that the Commissioner could not be considered to have acted arbitrarily in making reasonable inferences especially since these arbitration appeals seem to allow for new evidence and therefore presumably for findings of fact (unlike what goes on in real appellate courts which strictly review matters of law). Otherwise the person hearing the appeal would be very much hamstrung. As for deciding what is within or without the CBA would seem to involve simply construing the document, though I can appreciate that this exercise might not be straightforward.

That would be odd since Brady wanted Minny and the League wanted NY.

Thanks, that is very helpful. So Brady's position is that as a factual matter he had no knowledge of their wrongdoing but that, in any event, even if he did he is not responsible for their conduct. When hearing the appeal is the Commissioner allowed to make "reasonable" inferences from the facts before him, including for example the testimony of the appellant in the appeal itself, his course of conduct etc...or is he limited to opining only on the adequacy of the decision under appeal?

Well my assumption was that the process, however it might offend someone's sense of "fairness" as not having the trappings and outward appearance of a truly independent proceeding, would pass legal muster if it was contemplated by the CBA and if the participants were not bias, in other words, were not plainly acting fraudulently. It's possible though that the standard is different and if so it would help advance the discussion if a real expert could weigh in.

As a lawyer you're in a better position to comment on this than most other posters, especially if you have special insight into the practice and procedure of federal courts in adjudicating labour disputes. How exactly did the League fail to observe its own policies and the CBA. Whether it was "fair" or not I think most of us were under the impression that the League had the authority to act as it did.

Apparently the CB was dissing him. Newton was in position to tackle him after a shallow pass was intercepted. Like doing a slow trot around the bases after hitting a home run.

IK is done with the Jets. Who knows, maybe Geno is too.

Exactly. This wasnt about $600. The situation gave rise to a $600 loss, but who should bear it? Smith was being a good guy in agreeing to show up at the guy's camp. He was just asking to be made whole for his out of pocket expenses. He had a good reason beyond his control for not attending. Nobody was at fault. Each guy felt like he was being disrespected by the other. Throwing a punch is not nice, but not a big deal. People kill when they perceive that they are being disrespected all the time. Countries go to war. But these guys are just kids. Where were the vets in that locker room?

Well a dark cloud certainly seems to hang over him.

Just yesterday NFLN did a one on one segment with Geno who said how the Jets players were all for one and one for all and how he was working on his leadership skills. I guess he meant leading with his chin. I can hardly wait for the follow up tonight.

As far as I know there is no doubt that McNally took two bags of balls out of the locker room, which he was not authorized to do, and went into a bathroom with them. But I defer to those who have been following this episode more closely if there is anything to add.

Giselle: "Did you cheat on me?" Tom: "I don't think so". Not that we will likely ever know, but the extent of the possible cheating can be an ongoing risk to Brady's reputation. In a worse case scenario, which personally I tend to doubt, where Tom knows that balls are being secreted and deflated and where he rewards his then coconspirators with autographed items, IMO he's just about in Charlie Hustle land.

He must have lost a step if the cops chased him down.

Gotcha.

Agreed. And if he told me to kill my first born I'd encourage him to seek professional help.

As a practical matter, I see that JG is now getting the majority of the first team reps in NE. I suspect that this is more Kessler's call than Bill's.

You're right the case is about whether the Commissioner and the League had the right to do the things that they did. Seems to me like there are two different ways to challenge the League's decision. One is, as you say, bias. I would expect that to be hard for Brady to establish. It requires bad faith on the League's part. While you might not like the appointment of Wells, the presence and participation of his colleague at the appeal hearing etc...I doubt that is sufficient to establish bias. Another and perhaps more promising avenue for Brady is to say that the League's action is wholly outside the terms of reference of the CBA (which is after all the governing document), including how it has previously been interpreted and applied. I don't know whether in considering this ground of appeal you can avoid getting into exactly what Brady is being punished for. Clearly the League believes he is being punished for more than a minor and immaterial equipment violation judging from the severity of the punishment. They have come to the conclusion that he knowingly participated in some way in a scheme to deflate game balls. They also believe that his subsequent denials are disengenuous and that he failed to fully cooperate with the investigation. Noncompliance is generally viewed in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding as extremely serious misbehavior. So maybe the case boils down to whether there was any reasonable basis on the evidence for the League/Commissioner coming to the conclusion that it did concerning Brady's involvement and behavior. Remember it is not necessary for the judge to agree with the decision for him to affirm it. He might have himself come to a different conclusion on the facts and still dismiss the appeal. Was there enuf evidence to enable the Commissioner to decide as he did (whether you agree him it or not)? I believe there was. But then of course he would have to admit to something and he is congenitally incapable of doing that.

It's Brady's appeal. Hardly surprising that he would be questioned concerning his reasons for saying that the investigator's conclusions should be set aside. That doesn't mean that the person hearing the appeal is introducing new or additional evidence. On the other hand there was nothing stopping Brady and his team from coming forward with new or additional evidence that might exculpate him. Presumably if they had such evidence they would have done so and it's production would have been allowed. The Commissioner evidently thought their decision not to have the employees participate in the appeal hearing gave rise to a negative inference relative to Brady's credibility. Whether or not he was right in doing so, it was not inconsistent with his role in the proceedings. It's possible too that an aggregate of facts and circumstances may have influenced and, in his mind at least, added weight to his judgement in coming to this particular conclusion, for example the destruction of the cell phone, the fact that three communications with Jastremski were not recoverable etc...

Agree. Doormats no more. The franchise has turned a big corner and is headed in the right direction, maybe even the Promised Land. The chains are off. All hail the Pegulster.

Right. Someone sitting in appeal would not initiate the production of evidence. That was Well's job.

That's right. Wells and Goodell are not supposed to think Tom did anything wrong. Jastremski specifically told Tom in his text message that it was "unrealistic" to believe that Tom actually did it himself.