"DeflateGate" Update: Suspension Upheld! Brady Accepts 4 Game Ban.

[BmoreBird22]

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

In this case, pretty much yes, considering there really is no precedent. 

As the first appeal showed us, they pretty much attempted to make a case that this falls in line similar to PED usage, but as I said, I don't buy that and neither did Judge Berman.

Had he cooperated, I think this would have been a two game suspension and the NFL probably reduces it to one upon appeal.

However, with the lack of cooperation, I think that's what really pushed them to four and no chance of appealing that down. 

As far as Judge Berman goes, I think the NFL botched it because they were so focused on PED usage and how the footballs relate that I'm not even sure they brought up his lack of cooperation, destroying the phone, etc, which the appellate court did.

[i82much]

4 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Sorry bud, we in the Real World here. Not fantasyland.

Easy on the mayo, sweetie.  

[Tank 92]

3 hours ago, 52520Andrew said:

Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter  23h23 hours ago

Tom Brady not ready to accept court ruling today - far from it, per sources. Mulling options with legal team. But this is not yet over.

 

Yay, this is STILL going on(note the sarcasm, it is heavy)

He can jump up and down, cry and stomp his feet but it looks like it's probably over.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/patriots/2016/04/25/tom-brady-suspension-deflategate-appeal/83504052/

[Inqui]

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Yup, will be interesting to see what happens.

I can't imagine the Supreme Court would really want to hear this case, but its "high profile" enough that they could want to look at it.

Well...

[Willbacker]

6 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

For example, PED's net a suspension, so deflating footballs, if you believe it creates an advantage, should as well.

This sums it up right here. PEDs. Cheating. 4 games. Deflating footballs. Cheating. 4 games. In other words. Cheating 4 games!!

[i82much]

The other issue here is the track record.  You commit a crime, you might get a light sentence.  Once you are a repeat offender, you get the hammer, and that is how it should be.  The Patriots have the most disgraced legacy in the history of US professional sports.  It is perfectly appropriate for them to receive grave punishment for their behavior.  

[BmoreBird22]

1 hour ago, Willbacker said:

This sums it up right here. PEDs. Cheating. 4 games. Deflating footballs. Cheating. 4 games. In other words. Cheating 4 games!!

Well, I'm actually in disagreement with the four game suspension because for PED's, you have to get nailed at least twice, maybe three times, so I think it should have been two, but his lack of cooperation didn't help his case.

[Grapple Raven]

8 hours ago, Tank 92 said:

He can jump up and down, cry and stomp his feet but it looks like it's probably over.

 

It would be extremely difficult for Brady to get an appeal to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals as they rarely accept "en banc" cases which is his only next recourse in the judicial system.  There are 22 judges in the 2nd Circuit and Brady would have to get a majority of 13 to actually agree to hear his case for reversal, and that doesn't mean Brady automatically gets a reversal.  Most appellate courts are very clear on arbitration cases as they don't like to interfere. Since the concurring opinion in Brady's case stated:

“The parties contracted in the CBA to specifically allow the commissioner to sit as the arbitrator in all disputes … They did so knowing full well that the commissioner had the sole power of determining what constitutes ‘conduct detrimental,’ and thus knowing that the commissioner would have a stake both in the underlying discipline … Had the parties wished to restrict the commissioner’s authority, they could have fashioned a different agreement.” 

The appellate court was essentially saying that it is not their place to make judgements in relating to CBA issues, and essentially that if Brady or any other players have a problem with discipline they need to take that up in the next negotiation of the CBA. 

Also, in the concurring opinion the judges felt since the evidence of the destruction of Brady's cell phone was after the first suspension was handed down it could be considered by Goodell when deciding the merits of whether to overturn or uphold Brady's suspension.  The destruction of the cell phone was seen as failure to cooperate with the investigation so therefore it was connected to the investigation and under Goodell's prevue as arbitrator under the CBA.  

The judge (Katzmann, writing the dissenting opinion) even stated that the NFL's penalties might not be a complete entity, but something that constantly changes due to circumstance so precedence would not be a strong consideration in this case. As stated by Katzmann "The Commissioner can be confronted with novel situations that are not per se identified in the roster of fines."  Katzmann also asked of Brady's attorney "Isn't that why the agreement gives the commissioner broad latitude to rule?"   Therefore based off that, I doubt that Brady will get an en banc.

 

Brady doesn't have a snowballs chance in this case reaching the U.S. Supreme Court.  The USSC is very discerning in relation to the types of cases it hears in appeals which usually address only issues of the constitution or federal law, neither of which Brady's case would fall under.

The USSC gets over 7000 case requests per year, in which they actually hear ( formal arguments) less than 100, and approx. 50 w/o hearing any arguments at all. If the USSC decides not to hear a case the decision of the lower court will stand.

The USSC only hears 3 types of cases: 1. cases appealed from lower federal courts, 2. cases appealed from state supreme courts, or 3. cases that haven't been previously heard by a lower court that deal w/ one state gov't vs. another state gov't which is extremely rare. 

Personally, I think the suspension stands.  If Brady is so concerned with his reputation, perhaps he should have thought about that a long time ago as he and he alone put himself in this situation.

[K-Dog]

Wow. Smart post of the day.

Excellent.  Well done!!

[berad]

Awesome post.

But you left out the words "farce", "conspiracy", and "jealousy" that I've heard are at the root of this whole thing and why he won't get an appeal. You used too many big words and facts.

[rmcjacket23]

13 hours ago, Willbacker said:

This sums it up right here. PEDs. Cheating. 4 games. Deflating footballs. Cheating. 4 games. In other words. Cheating 4 games!!

You've gotta get caught multiple times using PEDs before you are suspended for 4 games...

[rmcjacket23]

12 hours ago, i82much said:

The other issue here is the track record.  You commit a crime, you might get a light sentence.  Once you are a repeat offender, you get the hammer, and that is how it should be.  The Patriots have the most disgraced legacy in the history of US professional sports.  It is perfectly appropriate for them to receive grave punishment for their behavior.  

I mean, I'd buy that... for the $1M fine and the loss of the draft pick. Have no issue with that, because thats a punishment specifically for the organization.

But this isn't about punishment for an organization. Its about punishment for an individual player. so the "repeat offender" aspect isn't applicable.

Edited April 27, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[berad]

3 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

You've gotta get caught multiple times using PEDs before you are suspended for 4 games...

Not according to this article. In fact, maybe he should be looking at 6 games for "evidence that an attempt was made to manipulate..."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11542076/nfl-union-ok-new-performance-enhancing-drug-policy-human-growth-hormone-testing

A first violation of the PED policy will result in a suspension without pay for up to six games depending on violation:

• Positive tests for diuretics or masking agents will result in a two-game ban;

• Positive tests for a steroid, stimulant or HGH will result in a four-game ban;

• Evidence that an attempt was made to manipulate a test result will result in a six-game suspension.

Players will receive a 10-game suspension for a second violation of the policy, while a third positive test will result in a suspension of at least two years.

[rmcjacket23]

14 hours ago, BmoreBird22 said:

Had he cooperated, I think this would have been a two game suspension and the NFL probably reduces it to one upon appeal.

However, with the lack of cooperation, I think that's what really pushed them to four and no chance of appealing that down. 

As far as Judge Berman goes, I think the NFL botched it because they were so focused on PED usage and how the footballs relate that I'm not even sure they brought up his lack of cooperation, destroying the phone, etc, which the appellate court did.

Most likely. I always thought a one game suspension with a hefty fine was more than a sufficient punishment, and I never understood why fans think that short term suspensions accomplish nothing or aren't sufficient. I asked this same question like 15 months ago or whenever this came out... if it were Blake Bortles, and the circumstances were the exact same, would fans be so adamant about the punishment being the same for the PLAYER? Me personally, I doubt it.

 

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, berad said:

Not according to this article. In fact, maybe he should be looking at 6 games for "evidence that an attempt was made to manipulate..."

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11542076/nfl-union-ok-new-performance-enhancing-drug-policy-human-growth-hormone-testing

 

 

A good point... forgot about the changes in the policy.

Though as Judge Berman inquired, I'm still trying to see how these two things have identical or even similar material impact on an individual football game.

And no, before somebody comes up with this lame claim, cheating isn't cheating. If cheating were cheating, the punishment for cheating on a game of Monopoly would be the same as the punishment for cheating on your Taxes. 

Obviously, not so much.

[Moderator 3]

1 hour ago, rmcjacket23 said:

A good point... forgot about the changes in the policy.

Though as Judge Berman inquired, I'm still trying to see how these two things have identical or even similar material impact on an individual football game.

And no, before somebody comes up with this lame claim, cheating isn't cheating. If cheating were cheating, the punishment for cheating on a game of Monopoly would be the same as the punishment for cheating on your Taxes. 

Obviously, not so much.

Oh for heaven's sake.  That's ridiculous.  Maybe we should say "cheating in the NFL is cheating in the NFL, no matter how you do it".

[rmcjacket23]

Just now, Moderator 3 said:

Oh for heaven's sake.  That's ridiculous.  Maybe we should say "cheating in the NFL is cheating in the NFL, no matter how you do it".

And that would be wrong too, since cheating in the NFL isn't cheating in the NFL. There would be no deviation of punishment if there was, but there is, and you already know there is.

That's why people who say that are the one's who are truly ridiculous. Shows a complete lack of perspective.

[berad]

21 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

And that would be wrong too, since cheating in the NFL isn't cheating in the NFL. There would be no deviation of punishment if there was, but there is, and you already know there is.

That's why people who say that are the one's who are truly ridiculous. Shows a complete lack of perspective.

Maybe we should just say the commissioner has the latitude to decide what's cheating and how to punish it? That's what was agreed to in the CBA and what the courts have agreed with now.

Roger Goodell doesn't have the creativity to dream up all the ways that the Patriots could break the rules and write them down. He just has to react once they get caught.

What are you arguing, exactly? Tom Brady was over-punished? Guess that's just an opinion.

[beanfigger]

2 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I mean, I'd buy that... for the $1M fine and the loss of the draft pick. Have no issue with that, because thats a punishment specifically for the organization.

But this isn't about punishment for an organization. Its about punishment for an individual player. so the "repeat offender" aspect isn't applicable.

This is the first thing you said I agree with completely. It, again, raises the question of why Bill got off scott free this time around. Sean Payton is probably scratching his head about this, as well.

Tom should be suspended for cheating, but isn't shown to be a repeat offender of anything.

[rmcjacket23]

1 minute ago, berad said:

Maybe we should just say the commissioner has the latitude to decide what's cheating and how to punish it? That's what was agreed to in the CBA and what the courts have agreed with now.

Roger Goodell doesn't have the creativity to dream up all the ways that the Patriots could break the rules and write them down. He just has to react once they get caught.

What are you arguing, exactly? Tom Brady was over-punished? Guess that's just an opinion.

Well certainly he does, though I doubt he likes it, which is part of the reason he's willing to negotiate that power away. I know we all like to pretend that the CBA is just some blanket Bible-like document that is the be-all, end-all of legal determination, but the last 18 months has pretty much shown that not to be the case.

Plus, nobody really thinks at this point that Goodell is actually reacting to an actual rule violation. Much like the Ray Rice scenario, its a reaction to the reaction, not a reaction to the actual violation. He's just not been very good at gauging the temperature of the room.

My argument... yes, he's over-punished. That, and mostly, that many people on these boards that think he is fairly punished or mind-blowingly under-punished either lack perspective or only think that based on a prior dislike for the player. Basically, making a judgment based on emotion.

[rmcjacket23]

3 minutes ago, beanfigger said:

This is the first thing you said I agree with completely. It, again, raises the question of why Bill got off scott free this time around. Sean Payton is probably scratching his head about this, as well.

Tom should be suspended for cheating, but isn't shown to be a repeat offender of anything.

Well I mean in order to punish Bill for this, you'd actually have to at least proven he knew of anything. Its hard enough to convince anybody that you've got evidence that Brady did something... how in the World are you going to prove that Belichick knew about it or even cared about it? 

Holding Belichick mildly responsible for this is no different to me than trying to attempt to hold Brady responsible for SpyGate... there's just really no basis for it. Even Goodell, who doesn't always need a mountain of evidence to punish anybody, isn't going to reasonably punish Belichick personally by saying "well he's a detail freak, so he must have known".

[beanfigger]

6 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well I mean in order to punish Bill for this, you'd actually have to at least proven he knew of anything.

This is the exact opposite of what was said about Payton when he got a year for Bountygate. Exact opposite. Ignorance is not innocence. That is what was said.

[rmcjacket23]

2 minutes ago, beanfigger said:

This is the exact opposite of what was said about Payton when he got a year for Bountygate. Exact opposite. Ignorance is not innocence. That is what was said.

Well, they did have emails that were sent to Payton (via another party) that involved players announcing their intentions to be a part of the program and how much to wager at what time, etc. 

I didn't agree with his punishment either, but in this case they literally have nothing for Belichick. In a more reasonable World, I suppose you could say that the NFL realized how ludicrous it would be to suspend a coach for "failing to notice" that his employees were deflating footballs, but not sure they want to open that can of worms. It'd be sort of like suspending Marvin Lewis for Vontaze Burfict acting like an animal on the football field, because its technically his "job" to control his employees.

I suppose you could also argue that Belichick's "punishment" is sort of included in the decision to forfeit a 1st round pick. He's certainly one of the main people affected by that.

 

[beanfigger]

13 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Well, they did have emails that were sent to Payton (via another party) that involved players announcing their intentions to be a part of the program and how much to wager at what time, etc. 

I didn't agree with his punishment either, but in this case they literally have nothing for Belichick. In a more reasonable World, I suppose you could say that the NFL realized how ludicrous it would be to suspend a coach for "failing to notice" that his employees were deflating footballs, but not sure they want to open that can of worms. It'd be sort of like suspending Marvin Lewis for Vontaze Burfict acting like an animal on the football field, because its technically his "job" to control his employees.

I suppose you could also argue that Belichick's "punishment" is sort of included in the decision to forfeit a 1st round pick. He's certainly one of the main people affected by that.

 

Couple problems with your argument. You keep talking about the "real world", but bosses are held accountable for the actions of their subordinates in almost every profession all the time. That argument goes against your point.

Also, if Bellichick is being punished by losing drafts picks, Lewis is being "punished" the exact same way by losing his star player via suspension, so those points contradict each other.

If you disagree with the Bountygate punishments and think the NFL simply changed its mind about punishing teams and coaches that way, that's fair, but I'll just say that I disagree. No need to go any further their. It's just conflicting opinions, which is fine.

[kato]

A fair and unbiased opinion from the Washington Post:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/tom-bradys-lawyers-missed-the-point-his-innocence/2016/04/25/fc31fb7c-0b16-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html

 

Don't let the facts buoy your hatred for Tom.

[rmcjacket23]

54 minutes ago, beanfigger said:

Couple problems with your argument. You keep talking about the "real world", but bosses are held accountable for the actions of their subordinates in almost every profession all the time. That argument goes against your point.

Also, if Bellichick is being punished by losing drafts picks, Lewis is being "punished" the exact same way by losing his star player via suspension, so those points contradict each other.

If you disagree with the Bountygate punishments and think the NFL simply changed its mind about punishing teams and coaches that way, that's fair, but I'll just say that I disagree. No need to go any further their. It's just conflicting opinions, which is fine.

I will say... there's pretty much no profession on the planet that is similar to the NFL or professional sports injuries in general. That includes the rules the follow and how they handle discipline.

And under that scenario, that would mean Belichick is getting punished twice... once for not having a draft pick, and once for having his HOF QB get suspended. 

[Tank 92]

50 minutes ago, kato said:

A fair and unbiased opinion from the Washington Post:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/tom-bradys-lawyers-missed-the-point-his-innocence/2016/04/25/fc31fb7c-0b16-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html

 

Don't let the facts buoy your hatred for Tom.

Written by Sally Jenkins who is and has been a Brady supporter?  lol   sorry there sport, hardly fair or unbiased.

Obstructing an investigation, destroying evidence, blatantly lying in interviews, etc..  You should look at the facts and see the light. It really looks foolish to maintain that he wasn't/isn't guilty.

 

[beanfigger]

16 minutes ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I will say... there's pretty much no profession on the planet that is similar to the NFL or professional sports injuries in general. That includes the rules the follow and how they handle discipline.

And under that scenario, that would mean Belichick is getting punished twice... once for not having a draft pick, and once for having his HOF QB get suspended. 

There you go. Sound logic from you for once, even if it it does contradict things you've stated before 

I still believe Bill is getting off easy, and that four games for Brady is a joke for both sides.

[K-Dog]

1 hour ago, kato said:

A fair and unbiased opinion from the Washington Post:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/tom-bradys-lawyers-missed-the-point-his-innocence/2016/04/25/fc31fb7c-0b16-11e6-bfa1-4efa856caf2a_story.html

 

Don't let the facts buoy your hatred for Tom.

Don't let your love for Tom Brady  get in the way of seeing the facts.

[i82much]

4 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

I mean, I'd buy that... for the $1M fine and the loss of the draft pick. Have no issue with that, because thats a punishment specifically for the organization.

But this isn't about punishment for an organization. Its about punishment for an individual player. so the "repeat offender" aspect isn't applicable.

Ok, how about a 4 game suspension just for being a princess?