"Tom Brady prefer his balls to feel a certain way" - balls underinflated

[emperus]

But I don't see where this was an appeals court ruling, this was an initial trial from what I understand. It was up to Brady/NFLPA as to what they wanted ruled on. The filed an appeal to the NFL punishment, but not another court's ruling. They were the plaintiff in an initial trial and filed a suit based upon the merits they wanted the judge to rule on. The judge could have expanded it depending on the merits and could have filed subpoenas, bit he likely knew it didnt matter. As far as I understand it.

Unless I do not know something important I believe people fundamentally misunderstand this process. Berman didn't rule in appeal, he ruled in trial which can be appealed. Furthermore, he didn't choose to rule on the process of punishment voluntarily, he was asked to rule on specific items in the complaint filed by brady and the nflpa. The judge can choose to go beyond that, but only when pertinent to the complaint items. It was not Berman who kept it to process, and thus elminated the leagues options to appeal, it was brady and nflpa attorneys. Had those complaints been dismissed (ruled in leagues favor) with no possibility to amend (with prejudice) brady would have lost, however, he could have had a chance to amend and expand to the fact a if berman had dismissed without prejudice. Had berman expanded beyond the complaint's scope without reason and that were believed to be a procedural error the NFL could have appealed on that expansion.

I believe this to be accurate. I have sued a lot of people in my prior job and have had cases go either way. However, I am not an attorney (even though some of the ones I have had working for me said I should be one).

Because the NFL and NFLPA had a collectedly bargained arbitration hearing, the NFL could only file a petition to confirm the decision and the NFLPA could only file a petition to appeal the ruling. And there are limited reasons to appeal the arbitration ruling and all those reasons focus in on the process of the arbitration hearing, not retrying the facts. So, there would be no reason the judge would even rule on those facts or ask for Brady's phone (though he did talk about them).

Here is a press release from the NFLPA on the petition they filed.

From the NFLPA:

NFLPA FILES PETITION ON BEHALF OF TOM BRADY IN MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

The NFLPA filed an appeal today on behalf of Tom Brady in U.S. District Court of Minnesota to vacate the four-game suspension upheld by Goodell based on the following:

There was no direct evidence in the Wells Report so the discipline was based on a made up “general awareness” standard to justify such absurd and unprecedented punishment.
Roger Goodell delegated his disciplinary authority to Troy Vincent, violating our Collective Bargaining Agreement, and then as the “arbitrator,” he ruled on his own improper delegation, botching basic arbitration law and fundamental fairness.
A collectively bargained policy already exists regarding tampering with equipment that provides only for fines, not suspensions. Troy Vincent ignored this policy when he issued his initial discipline. The policy that Vincent did apply to Brady only covers teams and team executives, not players. The NFL once again violated players’ right to advance notice of discipline to try to justify unprecedented punishment.
No player in NFL history has served a suspension for “non-cooperation” or “obstruction.” And, in this case, the evidence is paper-thin.
The appeals hearing held on June 23, 2015 defied any concept of fundamental fairness and violated the principles of our CBA.
The collective bargaining agreement provides procedures and guidelines for how the Commissioner conducts disciplinary hearings and the rules applicable to players. The NFL chose to violate these principles.

By pursuing this petition, our union is protecting the rights of Tom Brady and of every NFL player past, present and future.

 

[Perknose]

Wow, the NFL and ESPN's prpoganda!!

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/13533995/split-nfl-new-england-patriots-apart

What specific parts are propaganda? Seriously just asking, but help me out, and point out what specific statements or alleged facts are BS. I don't have a dog in this fight, just trying to process it all.

 

[emperus]

What specific parts are propaganda? Seriously just asking, but help me out, and point out what specific statements or alleged facts are BS. I don't have a dog in this fight, just trying to process it all.

Simply, why are we talking about this today? What facts have changed that this had to be reported on AGAIN 7 years later? And add to it that this report was teased and released on ESPN (Mike and Mike) who happened to have secured an interview with Goodell almost 30 minutes after teasing the release and interviewing the writer.

The goal is to again paint the Patriots in a negative light and garner sympathy for Goodells failed attempt at punishing Brady.

The report relies heavily on unnamed sources and reports speculation from Players the Pats beat as fact.

Here goes one paragraph

When Spygate broke, some of the Eagles now believed they had an answer for a question that had vexed them since they lost to the Patriots 24-21 in Super Bowl XXXIX: How did New England seem completely prepared for the rarely used dime defense the Eagles deployed in the second quarter, scoring touchdowns on three of four drives? The Eagles suspected that either practices were filmed or a playbook was stolen. "To this day, some believe that we were robbed by the Patriots not playing by the rules ... and knowing our game plan," a former Eagles football operations staffer says.

It reminds me of the last play in Last years SuperBowl. Malcolm Butler knew the play and jumped the route and intercepted the pass. It later came out that the Patriots had practiced that play in practice. Did the Patriots have a time machine and watched the Seahawks run that play? No, they prepared for it by watching the Seahawks, and by understanding their tendencies knew that was the play they would run.

 

[purbeast0]

it's going to be hilarious if the patriots come out and completely obliterate the steelers in 2 days and brady has like 5 touchdowns.

 

[cronos]

it's going to be hilarious if the patriots come out and completely obliterate the steelers in 2 days and brady has like 5 touchdowns.

Why would it be hilarious?

 

[LegendKiller]

Because the NFL and NFLPA had a collectedly bargained arbitration hearing, the NFL could only file a petition to confirm the decision and the NFLPA could only file a petition to appeal the ruling. And there are limited reasons to appeal the arbitration ruling and all those reasons focus in on the process of the arbitration hearing, not retrying the facts. So, there would be no reason the judge would even rule on those facts or ask for Brady's phone (though he did talk about them).

Here is a press release from the NFLPA on the petition they filed.

From the NFLPA:

I do not see this as correct. The CBA does not defend anybody, or lay out, specific causes for petition. Indeed, the CBA itself was the cause for petition as it deprived Brady and any other players of due process and equitable treatment under the superior law of the land. Brady and the NFLPA did not need to retry the case because the entire trial was a travesty of law, which is why they attacked it, and not the facts themselves. The facts were immaterial to the process Goodell used to mete out punishment, especially when he ignored his own evidence (gathering and conclusion of which also deprived Brady of standard procedural cross examination and access to all material).


In summary they didn't go there because they didn't need to. Not because they couldn't. Had Goodell stuck to the facts it never would have gotten that far. Fuethermore, had he stuck to the facts AND those facts supported him (which they didn't ) Brady still would have been able to appeal.

Finally, if the league wishes to appeal and expand to include facts, then they can ask for the phone records to be subpoenaed. Or, the dge could have asked to dermis whether the league had just cause. How ever, he already knew they didn't since the already had all of the texts within reason.

Ay the end if the day, the texts are discoverable. No matter what.

 

[purbeast0]

Why would it be hilarious?

because it'll make the nfl rage even more, as well as many people on this forum who are patriots haters.

 

[emperus]

I do not see this as correct. The CBA does not defend anybody, or lay out, specific causes for petition. Indeed, the CBA itself was the cause for petition as it deprived Brady and any other players of due process and equitable treatment under the superior law of the land. Brady and the NFLPA did not need to retry the case because the entire trial was a travesty of law, which is why they attacked it, and not the facts themselves. The facts were immaterial to the process Goodell used to mete out punishment, especially when he ignored his own evidence (gathering and conclusion of which also deprived Brady of standard procedural cross examination and access to all material).


In summary they didn't go there because they didn't need to. Not because they couldn't. Had Goodell stuck to the facts it never would have gotten that far. Fuethermore, had he stuck to the facts AND those facts supported him (which they didn't ) Brady still would have been able to appeal.

Finally, if the league wishes to appeal and expand to include facts, then they can ask for the phone records to be subpoenaed. Or, the dge could have asked to dermis whether the league had just cause. How ever, he already knew they didn't since the already had all of the texts within reason.

Ay the end if the day, the texts are discoverable. No matter what.

That's wrong. The judge isn't there to review (retry) the facts. Here is a quote from Berman's ruling.

An arbitrator's factual findings are generally not open to judicial challenge, and we accept the facts as the arbitrator found them. See Westerbeke Corn. v. Daihatsu Motor Co .. Ltd .. 304 F.3d 200,213 (2d Cir. 2002); see also Int'l Bhd. ofElec. Workers. Local97 v. Niagara Mohawk Power Com., 143 F.3d 704,726 (2d Cir. 1998).

The CBA is enforceable by law. Arbitration rulings are enforceable by law.

There are specific reasons why arbitration awards can be vacated. They are outlined below.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/9/10

9 U.S. Code § 10 - Same; vacation; grounds; rehearing

US Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) In any of the following cases the United States court in and for the district wherein the award was made may make an order vacating the award upon the application of any party to the arbitration—
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators, or either of them;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.

You should read the Berman ruling on the case. It'll give you a better understanding of why he ruled and what limited what he could rule on (process). Here is another portion from the ruling (I quoted (9 U.S.C.] § 10 above):

III. Legal Standard
"Although judicial scrutiny of arbitration awards necessarily is limited, such review is sufficient to ensure that arbitrators comply with the requirements of the statute at issue." Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Com., IllS. Ct. 1647, 1655 (199I) (quoting Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon, 107 S. Ct. 2332, 2340 (1987)). "The deference due an arbitrator does not extend so far as to require a district court to countenance, much less confirm, an award obtained without the requisites of fairness or due process." Kaplan v. Alfred Dunhill of London, Inc., No. 96 Civ. 259 (JFK), 1996 WL 640901, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 4, 1996).

Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA''), "the validity of an award is subject to attack only on those grounds listed in (9 U.S.C.] § 10, and the policy of the FAA requires that an award be enforced unless one of those grounds is affirmatively shown to exist." Wall Street Assocs. L.P. v. Becker Paribas Inc., 27 F.3d 845, 849 (2d Cir. 1994).

I'm also not arguing this further.

 

[cronos]

because it'll make the nfl rage even more, as well as many people on this forum who are patriots haters.

Oh, I see what you mean, I think. I guess it'll be super satisfying for Patriots fans. Personally I just want the season to start and for this ridiculous circus to be over. If Brady wants to throw five TDs then hell yeah it's more fun for me to watch so I'm all for that

 

[dud]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...spread-over-many-years/?cid=eref:nbcnews:text

 

[JujuFish]

because it'll make the nfl rage even more, as well as many people on this forum who are patriots haters.

It'll be more hilarious if the Patriots come out and get destroyed and Brady throws 5 picks, because it'll make the Patriots fans rage even more.

 

[Perknose]

Simply, why are we talking about this today? What facts have changed that this had to be reported on AGAIN 7 years later?

It read like a comprehensive retrospective/overview/deep background of the whole rigmarole to me. So, I, who had not followed this closely, was glad for it.

It actually seemed well done and balanced to me, but I'm not interested in arguing that fact if you disagree, as you are closer to all this than I am.

The goal is to again paint the Patriots in a negative light and garner sympathy for Goodells failed attempt at punishing Brady.

I don't think it spared Goodell one bit. I did not come away with any sympathy for Goodell's near-clownish bumbling at all, which it did highlight at every turn. In short, it made no excuses for him, nor did I see the article attempt to gain any sympathy for him. And I didn't see any instance of it unfairly painting the Pats in a negative light. <shrug>

The report relies heavily on unnamed sources and reports speculation from Players the Pats beat as fact.

Here goes one paragraph

When Spygate broke, some of the Eagles now believed they had an answer for a question that had vexed them since they lost to the Patriots 24-21 in Super Bowl XXXIX: How did New England seem completely prepared for the rarely used dime defense the Eagles deployed in the second quarter, scoring touchdowns on three of four drives? The Eagles suspected that either practices were filmed or a playbook was stolen. "To this day, some believe that we were robbed by the Patriots not playing by the rules ... and knowing our game plan," a former Eagles football operations staffer says.

Actually, they were scrupulous about reporting opinion and speculation unsupported by hard evidence as exactly that, in every single instance. To reiterate, I did not see one instance where they presented unnamed sources and other speculation as fact.

Even the one quoted instance you provide as proof of your allegation simply does not support your allegation. Just saying.

 

[emperus]

It read like a comprehensive retrospective/overview/deep background of the whole rigmarole to me. So, I, who had not followed this closely, was glad for it.

It actually seemed well done and balanced to me, but I'm not interested in arguing that fact if you disagree, as you are closer to all this than I am.



I don't think it spared Goodell one bit. I did not come away with any sympathy for Goodell's near-clownish bumbling at all, which it did highlight at every turn. In short, it made no excuses for him, nor did I see the article attempt to gain any sympathy for him. And I didn't see any instance of it unfairly painting the Pats in a negative light. <shrug>



Actually, they were scrupulous about reporting opinion and speculation unsupported by hard evidence as exactly that, in every single instance. To reiterate, I did not see one instance where they presented unnamed sources and other speculation as fact.

Even the one quoted instance you provide as proof of your allegation simply does not support your allegation. Just saying.

So, why report rumors and allegations by unnamed sources at all? And why is this report even coming out today 8 years later? What does it have to do with deflategate? Maybe OTL can do a report on Delfategate, that actually tests balls in inclimate weather and report their findings. Why haven't they done that to date?

Instead of talking about Brady's win in court on Thurs and how incompetent Goodell is, what are we talking about after a long weekend? How/Whether the Patriots cheated in 2007.. lol @ESPN trying to turn the page.

 

[Phokus]

What specific parts are propaganda? Seriously just asking, but help me out, and point out what specific statements or alleged facts are BS. I don't have a dog in this fight, just trying to process it all.

I'm at work, and i can't read that, but someone mentioned in another forum that there was mention in the article about the Pats taping the Ram's practice during the 2001 superbowl... except that turned out to be a lie and BOTH the Boston Herald and ESPN (just recently) had to retract the story, so if they put that in yet another story, i'm a bit shocked that they'd do so again after admitting they got it wrong just recently.

 

[Anubis]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...spread-over-many-years/?cid=eref:nbcnews:text

this isn't new news every team has been doing it since the 70s

 

[emperus]

Here is an article from 2009, that details what happened. Pretty long but pretty informative.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...pygate-punishing-success-and-promoting-parity

 

[ControlD]

I'm at work, and i can't read that, but someone mentioned in another forum that there was mention in the article about the Pats taping the Ram's practice during the 2001 superbowl... except that turned out to be a lie and BOTH the Boston Herald and ESPN (just recently) had to retract the story, so if they put that in yet another story, i'm a bit shocked that they'd do so again after admitting they got it wrong just recently.

It only comes up by way of a quote from Mike Martz. The context is that Martz believes the NFL changed his testimony and attributed quotes to him that he did not make during the investigation.

 

[dainthomas]

It'll be more hilarious if the Patriots come out and get destroyed and Brady throws 5 picks, because it'll make the Patriots fans rage even more.

:thumbsup:

 

[Perknose]

So, why report rumors and allegations by unnamed sources at all? And why is this report even coming out today 8 years later? What does it have to do with deflategate? Maybe OTL can do a report on Delfategate, that actually tests balls in inclimate weather and report their findings. Why haven't they done that to date?

As I understand the article, they reported all the known facts and also all the things many insiders believed happened but that aren't proven around the Spygate controversy as background explanation for why Goodell then ridiculously overreacted with his Deflategate decisions.

That progression is inherent in it's title, Spygate to Deflategate: Inside what split the NFL and Patriots apart

It basically portrays Goodell as bumbling, needlessly secretive, and out of his depth throughout both controversies. I thought it was really well written. Anyone who reflexively disagrees should take the time to read the whole thing.

I'm at work, and i can't read that, but someone mentioned in another forum that there was mention in the article about the Pats taping the Ram's practice during the 2001 superbowl... except that turned out to be a lie and BOTH the Boston Herald and ESPN (just recently) had to retract the story, so if they put that in yet another story, i'm a bit shocked that they'd do so again after admitting they got it wrong just recently.

The article is a long and comprehensive recounting of ALL that went on, and includes all facts (so labelled and supported) and what others believed may have happened (also so labelled) so as to give the reader a thorough understanding of the background of why Goodell behaved as he did.

Some excerpts from this long article -- bolding and the one bracketed emendation mine -- which reference that rumor/allegation, and clearly and repeatedly label it as such:

There were regular rumors that the Patriots had taped the Rams' walk-through practice before Super Bowl XXXVI in February 2002, one of the greatest upsets in NFL history, a game won by the Patriots 20-17 on a last-second Adam Vinatieri field goal. The rumors and speculation reached a fever pitch in 2006.

Then [the late Pa Senator Arlen] Specter moved to the most damning allegation still unresolved at the time: that the Patriots had taped the Rams' pre-Super Bowl walk-through.

The commissioner acknowledged that he first "got wind" of the widespread rumor the previous September, something he had not said publicly. But Goodell told Specter the NFL had found no hard evidence that New England had taped the walk-through, saying that the league interviewed the video staffs of the Patriots and the Rams. "Each said no taping went on, and if it had, the Rams' video staff surely would have reported it," the notes show.

After the interview, Specter was even more convinced that Goodell had neglected to look hard enough for the truth. And so he decided to investigate the things the NFL had chosen to ignore. "The league's explanations just didn't add up, and the senator's prosecutorial instincts wouldn't allow him to let it go," Fisher says.
Since the Patriots had lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl, Walsh had emerged as a reluctant whistleblower in media stories. He had not been interviewed by the NFL and had kept eight previously undisclosed spying tapes and other material from his days in New England; he was fired in 2003 for performance issues. Walsh hinted that the cheating was more widespread than anyone knew -- and, perhaps, that he possessed proof that the Patriots had taped the Rams walk-through.

[...]

Afterward, Goodell told reporters that the information provided by Walsh was "consistent with what we disciplined the Patriots for last fall" and that he "was not aware" of a taped Rams walk-through and "does not know of anybody who says there is a tape." Hoping to end the matter forever, Goodell added that unless some new piece of information emerged, the league's interest in Spygate was closed.

[...]

Then Specter turned to the alleged videotaping of the Rams' walk-through. Walsh confessed that after the Patriots' team picture, he and at least three other team videographers lingered around the Louisiana Superdome, setting up cameras for the game. Suddenly, the Rams arrived and started their walk-through. The three videographers, in full Patriots apparel, hung around, on the field and in the stands, for 30 minutes. Nobody said anything. Walsh said he observed star Rams running back Marshall Faulk line up in an unusual position: as a kickoff returner. That night, Walsh reported what he had seen to Patriots assistant coach Brian Daboll, who asked an array of questions about the Rams' formations. Walsh said that Daboll, who declined through the Patriots to comment for this story, drew a series of diagrams -- an account Daboll later denied to league investigators.

[...]

In the meeting in Specter's office, the senator asked Walsh: "Were there any live electronics during the walk-through?"

"It's certainly possible," Walsh said. "But I have no evidence."

In the coming years, the Patriots would become baffled by those persistent rumors, which were mostly fueled by a pre-Super Bowl 2008 Boston Herald report -- later retracted -- that a team videographer had taped it. Some media outlets -- including ESPN -- have inadvertently repeated it as fact. According to Patriots spokesman Stacey James, "The New England Patriots have never filmed or recorded another team's practice of walkthrough. ... Clearly the damage has been irreparable. ... It is disappointing that some choose to believe in myths, conjecture and rumors rather than give credit to coach Belichick, his staff and the players."

Seems like a thorough, sober, unbiased recounting to me. In short, it is my take-away that the article is no anti-Pats hatchet job whatsoever, nor is it any whitewash of Goodell or the NFL.

If anyone more versed in this sad tale disagrees, read it and come back here and post that which you believe to be inaccurate, intentionally or otherwise.

 

[Perknose]

Btw, for all you Pats fans: &#8220;Do Your Job: Bill Belichick and the 2014 New England Patriots,&#8221; an hour-long documentary that airs Wednesday on NFL Network at 8 p.m. ET.

 

[glenn1]

It'll be more hilarious if the Patriots come out and get destroyed and Brady throws 5 picks, because it'll make the Patriots fans rage even more.

It would, but that would require a very heroic "any given Sunday" performance from a very mediocre Steelers D. Week 2 @ BUF is a much more realistic beatdown opportunity.

 

[Phoenix86]

What specific parts are propaganda? Seriously just asking, but help me out, and point out what specific statements or alleged facts are BS. I don't have a dog in this fight, just trying to process it all.

The whole article is a smear campaign. Spygate? Really?

edit: ok I could only get a little way into the video before I turned it off. Watched the rest and it is a pretty fair view of the history. At first I thought they were throwing up spygate as dirt.

 

[emperus]

If anyone more versed in this sad tale disagrees, read it and come back here and post that which you believe to be inaccurate, intentionally or otherwise.

Sounds like you are very unbiased.

Read this article as a companion to the piece you read. Gives a lot more information as to the rules and what rules were broken.for more information and for a better understanding of what was left out of the piece today.

Promoting Parity

 

[emperus]

Bill Simmons is a jerk..lol

Patriots Fan Offers Counterpoint To Bombshell ESPN Report

Also doesn't explain the Patriots' ongoing success from game 2 2007 through SB 49 which mirrored their success from 2001 thru game 1 2007.

 

[Perknose]

Bill Simmons is a jerk..lol

Patriots Fan Offers Counterpoint To Bombshell ESPN Report

Lol, those tweets were killer. And, as a certified Eagles fan, I can say that, whatever else transpired or didn't, the Eagles very deservedly lost SB39 to a better team that played better when it counted.

This is why I can't stand most call-in sports radio programs, or the idiot comments section after just about any on-line sports article. The fanboism, over-the-top conspiracy theories, and reflexively hysterical hate all constitute the worst kind of useless noise.

I think back around the time of Spygate, which I really didn't follow that closely, I was probably moved to take it all as gospel truth which then gave me a reason to hate on BB and the Pats . . . those bastids (shakes palsied fist in the air)!

But I was never really into it and soon moved on. Whether or not they bent the rules (my guess is they probably did to some degree, but also probably weren't the only team doing so anyway), whatever inconsistent advantage they gained cannot begin to account for their astounding ongoing success. What with the salary cap and draft order and such, to stay that good this long is a tremendous achievement.

BB and TB will waltz into the HOF when their time comes, and deservedly so. The rest of this stuff will just be a footnote. Finally, for a guy taking home ~ $40,000,000 a year, Roger Goodell sure comes across like one wildly incompetent puss.