MattM

In addition to the points raised above, two others: (a) the equipment violation sections always refer to "his" equipment, which to me means a player's uniform--is a ball considered "his" equipment, even for a QB, or is it more likely outside of that?; and (b) even the equipment violation provisions say "including, without limitation" a $25k fine. That clearly allows for other punishment, even in such a case.

Do you understand what "including but not limited to" means (along with the spelling of "rhetoric")? That's what the policy you're referring to literally says and, since I suspect you may not know what that means, it means that you'll get hit with $25k as a fine OR ANY OTHER PUNISHMENT WE WANT. Nice try, though.....

The League effectively did that in the Conduct Detrimental paragraph and the judge said something like that that is not specific is too vague to be enforced. Nice try, though, as that is what a rational, logical person might think to do.

Not at all. I read the brief and am wholly unconvinced by Judge Berman's decision. He really seemed to have it in for the NFL. Look at section IV(A) on notice (the first, which usually means the author's view of their best, argument). The judge keeps harping on how Brady did not know he could be suspended for "being generally aware" (which is a crock, I think that anyone who read the texts and considered all of the other circumstantial factors, such as the swag given to Tweedledumber, the calls to Tweedledumb right after the story broke, and Brady's destroyed cell phone knows full well that Tommy Boy was more than "generally aware" here, but that's the language Wells used) of the balls being deflated by his flunkies after being stolen from the refs. The same applies for obstructing a League investigation--in fact, he says that since no one before has ever been suspended for obstruction, you can't do that here (begging the question of how one ever gets to suspend such an obstructionist dirtbag in the first place). The judge goes on to say that the "conduct detrimental" catch all is too general to apply here to allow suspension in a case like this. Combined, that means that the rules should somehow be clear that when stealing balls and deflating them, you can be suspended. WTF? Is that really necessary? The NFL somehow needs to spell all that out in its CBA in order to punish a cheater? What a mess of an opinion from a policy standpoint. I was also wholly unconvinced by the arguments about Pash--he had Ted Wells on the stand basically saying "I don't even know what Pash did to the report which must mean that his changes were so minor" (which as someone who's worked in that environment and field can tell you that in reality this means that some junior associate took a few lightweight comments from Pash (who felt he had to contribute something) that were so lightweight he didn't even need to run them by the boss--they may have honestly been typos) and that was not good enough for Berman to set aside the NFL's view that Pash's testimony was worthless to the Pats*. It's almost like he was looking for reasons to crater the League's decision. In his final argument, he seems to be saying that despite arbitration by its terms having different discovery rules, no, you need to allow full discovery as you would in litigation. Ridiculous (in my opinion at least). Once again, I'm not a litigator, but I am unconvinced by his arguments, which are a real world, operational nightmare for the League going forward. This literally eviscerates the League's ability to impose discipline unless said discipline is explicitly described in the CBA. As noted above, creative cheaters (of which we have the best in our division) will have a field day with this. I also find it somewhat funny that a number of posters here who in other contexts I've seen spout pro-business/conservative principles so readily support what can really only be described here as liberal judicial activism of a judge helping out an employee against his employer.

After reading most of the opinion on the way home, I agree with the poster's above that the decision ridiculously seems to say, basically, that since the CBA didn't explicitly say the Brady could be suspended for having ball boys steal game balls and deflate them, you can't suspend him for that. So, in other words, unless your CBA is the size of the NYC phone book, you really aren't likely yo be able to punish creative cheaters. Belichick* is going to run wild with this.....

. Because it's not obvious enough that you shouldn't steal the balls from the refs post-weigh in and deflate them? Smdh....

Best I can tell from what I've read so far, looks like all you need to do is cheat on new, novel ways not explicitly covered in the CBA and you're scot free. As just last year alone showed, Belicheat could do that differently each game for years....

I wonder if this guy would have written the same article about Lance Armstrong at the beginning of Oops, misfire--his scandal, before everything was known/confirmed about him? I doubt it, since the guy's seems to obviously be a Pats* fan seeking solely to minimize the scandal plaguing his hero, but who knows? Some may have blown this out of proportion (it's only sports after all), but most folks believe that the rules should be followed, while others root for the Cheats*.....

Personally, I'm still waiting for the Pats* to trot out all those other low level staffers that Brady showered with tens of thousands of dollars worth of memorabilia like he did McNally (whose name he later claimed he didn't even know). After all, they must be out there, right? Tommy does this for all the fellas, right? Especially those who are asked in texts to do things that benefit Tommy and who in said texts also demand such items from Tommy. As Barnum said, there's one born every minute....

NYT ran an article this morning quoting a professor of Sports Law saying that the NFL will win this case. From his quote it sounded like he didn't even think it was close, FWIW. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/31/sports/football/looking-for-clues-on-how-decision-will-swing-for-tom-brady.html

Very simple explanation--the judge badly wants the case to settle and so is chiding/cajoling the party with the stronger case to try to get them to settle. Game theory would support this view (although he may appear to some a bit foolish for questioning one way and deciding another). On your question above on why Pash would not testify, that also may be as simple as attorney-client privilege, as he's an attorney working for the League. I'm not a litigator (thank God), but attorneys are rarely called as witnesses in most cases.

Nice end to a good offensive half

. If he were on a low cost rookie deal maybe. Not at $4.5m/yr.

Best part if they cut Cassel is that we get $4 or $5m back for our cap that we can carry over into next year when we'll need it.

Every. Single. Year. You can set your seasonal clock to Goodwin getting hurt.

I'm an in-house attorney (similar to Pash's role here). His "editing" could have been as simple as changing names and titles of the addressees (since the internal who's who of the League is something Wells is not likely to know). I would wager that it's certainly not much more than that--I'd also wager that whatever it was he did it was not substantive.

Funny that we're all here arguing whether or not he should get off on what all would agree is a technicality when all you really needed to do was read the texts between the two maroons, the gifts Brady lavished on the Deflator (I'm still waiting for the Pats* to bring forward other low level staffers who got anywhere near what McNally got from Brady), Brady's creepy sudden interest in these guys when the story broke and Brady's totally unconvincing non-denial denial to know he did this. The breaking of the phone just as he was being questioned was just icing on the cake. Everything Brady's defense team (which seems to include Mike Florio) is meant just to obfuscate those facts.....

May have spoken too soon--Pats* have only that one penalty. Meanwhile, Cats have 5 for 45 yds in the half. Brady just led a two-minute TD drive with an 18 yarder to--wait for it--Scott Chandler

It's hard to win in the NFL when playing with properly inflated footballs.....

One down, 763 to go to even out the BS penalty calls the Pats* have gotten in the Brady/Belicheat era....

Here's the article I was referencing--"6" was a bit of hyperbole, but not by too much relatively: http://gizmodo.com/almost-none-of-the-women-in-the-ashley-madison-database-1725558944 Doesn't take an actual affair to cause problems. Looks like being caught trolling for one is all it takes....

Especially since it's come out that there were about 6 real women signed up for AM to go with the 32m men signed up.....

Yeah, because taking a baseball bat to your Ferrari is the mature, level-headed response to the situation most would have. In all honesty, when I read the Martin Wells report my first thought was that Incognito needed the mental health help as much as Martin did. I hope they both get that help.

Many thanks for another TC in the books, Astro--and as an old ER guy, love the plug for the local restaurant. Folks may also want to try the Northside Inn, Perlo's and Lemoncello's in ER.

l Let's hope he's as good and long-lived as Ricky. Didn't he play into his 60's, or did it only seem that way?