Tom Brady suspension nullified....

Submitted by DFW_Michigan_Man on
Can't link from phone but just saw on Twitter. Go Blue!

McSomething

September 3rd, 2015 at 10:24 AM ^

I'm not too surprised by this. I'm not because there was zero evidence or precedent to suspend him, but I've seen dumber things get through the courts. I don't much care for the NFL, but for those that do (yes, even the Patriots and Tom Brady haters) need to celebrate this ruling. The reason being that this suspension being upheld would've set a horrendous precedent for power to dole out punishment on a whim by the league commissioner. Facts and evidence be damned.

ijohnb

September 3rd, 2015 at 10:31 AM ^

figure out how to even start to disect that analysis.  The discipline was not doled out "on a whim," it was done entirely consistent with a mutually bargained agreement as to the procedure for discipline.  There was very little "evidence or precedent" to overturn it.  This is very bold move by the federal court and may be in serious trouble on appeal.  I'm glad it is overturned but this is a very surprising turn of events.

ijohnb

September 3rd, 2015 at 10:46 AM ^

did not need evidence or precedent to issue a suspension, it is their right under the collective bargaining agreement.  Look, I get it, you are discussing it from a place of objective fairness, I am looking at it from a legal nuts and bolts perspective.  I think Goodell is a clown but there are some inherent misperceptions in your argument.  From a legal standpoint this is a very surprising decision. 

McSomething

September 3rd, 2015 at 10:50 AM ^

Since when does the NFL possess the right to suspend "just because"? And you do know this is not the first time since the current CBA was put in place that the league has had a suspension overturned, correct? Isn't this actually the third?

In reply to by Franz Schubert

JamieH

September 3rd, 2015 at 11:50 AM ^

Goodell now has a very consistent pattern of getting smacked down anytime his cases go to federal court.  In fact, I think he has lost every time.  As Franz said, that is why the NFL rushed to file this in New York, because they knew if the case went to the Minnesota judge they were already screwed.  So this is hardly "surprising". 

All they found out by moving the case to NY is that the problem isn't the specific federal judge that gets the case, the problem is with Goodell and the NFL. 

In reply to by ijohnb

Michigantrumpet82

September 4th, 2015 at 8:24 AM ^

Actually this makes Goodell 0-5 recently

When decisions are reviewed by an outside impartial process. Brady, Peterson, Ray Rice, Bountygate and Greg Hardy.

And I particularly admire ijohnb's chutzpah in putting forth his opinion about Berman's decision before he even has actually read the decision!

We can thank Goodell for making us all amateur physicists and labor lawyers.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

TIMMMAAY

September 3rd, 2015 at 10:55 AM ^

You are completely ignoring the fact that the NFL has a direct rule, and clearly defined punishment already in place for the specific infraction in question. Goodell chose to go beyond that, by a massive margin. 

What is the issue here? 

idclark5

September 3rd, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^

I don't think Judge Berman agrees with you there. He believes that it was not* entirely consistent with the mutually bargained agreement and that's why he vacated the suspension.

grumbler

September 3rd, 2015 at 7:51 PM ^

I'm guessing you are not a lawyer.  Discipline in an arbitration hearing must be doled out not only in accordance with the letter of the CBA, but also in accordance with the prior arbitration practices of the organization and the "industry."  The Goodell decision did none of those things.  The only bold move on the part of the judge was to give Goodell so many opportunities to stop dancing the Flamenco on his own crank.  Goodell declined, and stands no chance in an appeal.

Michigantrumpet82

September 4th, 2015 at 8:45 AM ^

Article 46, which was the negotiated part of the CBA

you are discussing, does give the Commisioner the ability to hand out discipline and hear appeals for "conduct detrimental". However -- and this is the point which ijohnb seems to miss -- this does NOT give the Commissioner carte blanche to do whatever he wants outside the bounds of accepted precedent, the other terms of CBA, established caselaw, and due process protections.

Judge Berman himself eviscerated the NFL's "The CBA so haha we win!" argument:

"NFL precedent demonstrates that, in Article 46 arbitration appeals, players must be afforded the opportunity to confront their investigators."

I a m a labor law attorney and I can tell you categorically that you should not believe anything you hear from ESPN and other NFL mouthpieces. My colleagues and I have been shaking our heads over the NFL's position for months now.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Above and Beyond

September 3rd, 2015 at 10:28 AM ^

The guy is a winner and doesn't lose. Congratulations, Tom. This entire deflate thing was ridiculous from the start. The Patriots were not going to lose that game no matter what.

 

Also, OP. You can easily link from your phone.

Blue_sophie

September 3rd, 2015 at 11:24 AM ^

Looks like Stagg vs. Yost is alive and well. Lester Munson is an graduate of the University Chicago. . . and apparently he is also an ESPN Schill.

Munson, from an interview: "I went to law school under parental pressure. After graduation, I worked briefly at a law firm and in other few law-related jobs, finally left in 1989 to go into journalism, and have been in that field ever since."

Ass.

jmblue

September 3rd, 2015 at 10:30 AM ^

Of course this was going to happen.  The NFLwasted its time pointlessly drawing a line in the sand on this.  If it really cared about this issue, it would have just changed the rules and supplied all the footballs itself.  But it doesn't really care.

LSAClassOf2000

September 3rd, 2015 at 10:45 AM ^

It seems to me that there are so many more places where the NFL could at least be more noble and take more constructive stands within its rules and culture, and yet they waste months of time trying to defend a suspension over game balls and their relative state of inflation. Of all the hills they could make a stand on, why that one? Of all the issues they probably should tackle within their own walls, why a rule which few probably even thought about before this affair? To me, it speaks to Roger Goodell's unwillingness to sincerely face more pressing problems.