good ol' PCB is firing on all cylinders in July!
very cool.
going to be one heck of a season.
now if you'll excuse me, out of sheer obligation, I have to go bump the "Patriots Champions" thread.
heh heh...
Hey, not every week can be Brett Favre Week.
good ol' PCB is firing on all cylinders in July!
very cool.
going to be one heck of a season.
now if you'll excuse me, out of sheer obligation, I have to go bump the "Patriots Champions" thread.
heh heh...
Hey, not every week can be Brett Favre Week.
Lucky for us.
😛
Bump for the sore winner. 😛
Brady cheated. your owner agreed and didn't contest anything. If you don't like it, tough.
Bump for the sore winner. 😛
Brady cheated. your owner agreed and didn't contest anything. If you don't like it, tough.
Owner did not agree, and neither does Brady. Next stop, federal court.
For once I can agree with The Donald.
[Edited on 7/28/2015 by gondicar]
Bump for the sore winner. 😛
Brady cheated. your owner agreed and didn't contest anything. If you don't like it, tough.
Owner did not agree, and neither does Brady. Next stop, federal court.
For once I can agree with The Donald.
[Edited on 7/28/2015 by gondicar]
Two things about this that I see. First, courts generally do not get involved in sports discipline. There has to be some law broken. I don't see any law broken here.
Second, I am surprised to see Trump opposing a fellow megalomaniac. But, then again, Trump seldom says or does anything that makes sense.
Statement from Tom Brady's agent, Don Yee:
"The Commissioner’s decision is deeply disappointing, but not surprising because the appeal process was thoroughly lacking in procedural fairness.
Most importantly, neither Tom nor the Patriots did anything wrong. And the NFL has no evidence that anything inappropriate occurred.
The appeal process was a sham, resulting in the Commissioner rubber-stamping his own decision. For example, the Wells investigative team was given over 100 days to conduct its investigation. Just days prior to the appeal hearing, we were notified that we would only have four hours to present a defense; therefore, we didn’t have enough time to examine important witnesses. Likewise, it was represented to the public that the Wells team was ‘independent’; however, when we requested documents from Wells, our request was rejected on the basis of privilege. We therefore had no idea as to what Wells found from other witnesses, nor did we know what those other witnesses said.
These are just two examples of how the Commissioner failed to ensure a fair process.
Additionally, the science in the Wells Report was junk. It has been thoroughly discredited by independent third parties.
Finally, as to the issue of cooperation, we presented the Commissioner with an unprecedented amount of electronic data, all of which is incontrovertible. I do not think that any private citizen would have agreed to provide anyone with the amount of information that Tom was willing to reveal to the Commissioner. Tom was completely transparent. All of the electronic information was ignored; we don’t know why. The extent to which Tom opened up his private life to the Commissioner will become clear in the coming days.
The Commissioner’s decision and discipline has no precedent in all of NFL history. His decision alters the competitive balance of the upcoming season. The decision is wrong and has no basis, and it diminishes the integrity of the game.”
"alters the competitive balance".
not so. Now, missing four games, there's balance. 😛
Interesting how this little bit of information came out.
how convenient,,I would think in today's world,they could get the info needed from Verizon,AT+T
etc...
how convenient,,I would think in today's world,they could get the info needed from Verizon,AT+T
etc...
They can't retain the content of anyone's text messages. Remember that whole NSA thing?
Ummm,ok. I have personally went back and recovered old text messeges from Verizon.
But then again,I don't have the coin to block them.Local news just said,one of Goddell's issues was the destroyed phone.
Time to accept things and move on. Who destroys a cell phone and SIM card?
Time to accept things and move on. Who destroys a cell phone and SIM card?
Who said he destroyed it? Roger Goodell. Why anyone believes anything from him or the NFL office given their track of bungling these types of cases and given the misinformation they have already put out which was debunked by the Wells Report itself, is beyond me.
Statement from Brady below. Can't wait for this to land in court.
Posted this morning on Tom Brady's Facebook page:
I am very disappointed by the NFL’s decision to uphold the 4 game suspension against me. I did nothing wrong, and no one in the Patriots organization did either.
Despite submitting to hours of testimony over the past 6 months, it is disappointing that the Commissioner upheld my suspension based upon a standard that it was “probable” that I was “generally aware” of misconduct. The fact is that neither I, nor any equipment person, did anything of which we have been accused. He dismissed my hours of testimony and it is disappointing that he found it unreliable.
I also disagree with yesterdays narrative surrounding my cellphone. I replaced my broken Samsung phone with a new iPhone 6 AFTER my attorneys made it clear to the NFL that my actual phone device would not be subjected to investigation under ANY circumstances. As a member of a union, I was under no obligation to set a new precedent going forward, nor was I made aware at any time during Mr. Wells investigation, that failing to subject my cell phone to investigation would result in ANY discipline.
Most importantly, I have never written, texted, emailed to anybody at anytime, anything related to football air pressure before this issue was raised at the AFC Championship game in January. To suggest that I destroyed a phone to avoid giving the NFL information it requested is completely wrong.
To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested. We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing. There is no “smoking gun” and this controversy is manufactured to distract from the fact they have zero evidence of wrongdoing.
I authorized the NFLPA to make a settlement offer to the NFL so that we could avoid going to court and put this inconsequential issue behind us as we move forward into this season. The discipline was upheld without any counter offer. I respect the Commissioners authority, but he also has to respect the CBA and my rights as a private citizen. I will not allow my unfair discipline to become a precedent for other NFL players without a fight.
Lastly, I am overwhelmed and humbled by the support of family, friends and our fans who have supported me since the false accusations were made after the AFC Championship game. I look forward to the opportunity to resume playing with my teammates and winning more games for the New England Patriots.
Lotsa billable hours in that Facebook post. Lawyers, man.
Lotsa billable hours in that Facebook post. Lawyers, man.
Oh c'mon, don't be so cynical! I read that as a heartfelt missive straight from TB12's soul. Nothing but raw emotion there. I might've actually shed a tear...
I think it goes without saying that we all can agree that the Patriots and Tom Brady are cheating cheaters who cheat.
Time to accept things and move on. Who destroys a cell phone and SIM card?
Lots of reasons to trash a cell phone if you know its about to be examined that have nothing to do with sports. Just ask Tiger. 😛 There is no actual proof of wrongdoing here. In a court of law this stuff doesn't stand a chance, whether he is guilty or not.
I think it goes without saying that we all can agree that the Patriots and Tom Brady are cheating cheaters who cheat.
no, we don't all agree. How many games have the Patriots won because they "cheated"? Name one.
Time to accept things and move on. Who destroys a cell phone and SIM card?
Who said he destroyed it? Roger Goodell. Why anyone believes anything from him or the NFL office given their track of bungling these types of cases and given the misinformation they have already put out which was debunked by the Wells Report itself, is beyond me.
No, Brady was asked for the cell phone in March. He refused several requests for it and in June he said he destroyed it on the day he was asked to produce it. He said he regularly does that. Those were Brady's words and not Goodell's. Meanwhile, two other cell phones that he owned but was no longer using were produced. Why weern't they destroyed? (I can't wait to hear the spin for this.) The fact is that if Brady had admitted he was complicit in deflating his balls, he probably would have just received a slap on the wrist. He tried to cover it up and he got caught. He won't win in court.
why? because he trashed some phones? where's the proof that has to be presented by the NFL? the nfl is pissed because he didn't cooperate. that's not proof.
I think it goes without saying that we all can agree that the Patriots and Tom Brady are cheating cheaters who cheat.
I wouldn't go that far, no. Bending the rules to get a competitive edge is nothing new or unique in professional sports.
why? because he trashed some phones? where's the proof that has to be presented by the NFL? the nfl is pissed because he didn't cooperate. that's not proof.
This isn't a court of law. There is a certain burden of proof on both parties. You can say whatever you want, but the fact is that the balls were deflated and when asked to provide evidence that could clear Brady or show him to be guilty, he chose to destroy the evidence and not tell the NFL. Now if you think that is not damning, then you probably would not believe it if Brady confessed that he was guilty.
why? because he trashed some phones? where's the proof that has to be presented by the NFL? the nfl is pissed because he didn't cooperate. that's not proof.
He's an employee of an organization that is part of a larger organization. His employment status is collectively bargained. The NFL is not a legal entity, although Goodell already asked a Federal court for backing. No crimes were committed here. IMO, the NFLPA needs to be careful as to not project the appearance of any player being bigger than the game.
Further pursuit in court once again pits the NFL and the NFLPA against each other, but they would only really be fighting about the process that Goodell went through and if it violated the CBA. I would think (not a lawyer, just guessing) that any sport commissioner's power to penalize for "conduct detrimental" is incredibly far-reaching and would be backed up quite significantly by a judge. I could be 1000% wrong, though.
In many ways, it's now quite far past whether anything was done to those footballs or not.
That press conference was just plain stupid. You know Belichik won't say anything. Kraft's comments seemed odd to me. The whole thing is stupid. Let it go.
Everything in Moderation. Including Moderation.
doesn't the "conduct detrimental" need to be proven?
In upholding the suspension, Goodell (and I can only guess the union will argue he shouldn't have heard the appeal) seemed more stoked about Brady's lack of cooperation than any actual wrong doing.
That press conference was just plain stupid. You know Belichik won't say anything. Kraft's comments seemed odd to me. The whole thing is stupid. Let it go.
right. when it's Brady getting accused, the Patriots cheat, the cloud over the SB, all of it, a six month circus at the Patriots expense, back then the whole freakin' world was talking about it. Now, a 4 game suspension and let it go?
it doesn't work like that. you weren't on the receiving end of it.
doesn't the "conduct detrimental" need to be proven?
In upholding the suspension, Goodell (and I can only guess the union will argue he shouldn't have heard the appeal) seemed more stoked about Brady's lack of cooperation than any actual wrong doing.
All depends on how the CBA is structured and how conduct has been defined. It's all about the lawyers now.
The union has some options and arguments regarding how the commissioner's office went through the process. Every time a player's union goes on strike and a new CBA takes forever to negotiate is that all of these things are agreed to word by word.
Here's a pretty good piece written in SI by an attorney in Massachusetts:
What will happen if Brady, NFLPA take Deflategate suspensions to court?
With Tuesday's announcement that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has upheld Tom Brady’s four-game suspension, there is increasing speculation that Brady and the National Football League Players’ Association will go to court unless Goodell vacates the suspension. In all likelihood, Brady and the NFLPA have already written the legal filings necessary to petition a federal judge to intervene on their behalf. Their only decision now is whether to file them.
What kind of case would they have?
Brady and the NFLPA would argue that the NFL is in violation of federal labor and arbitration laws. In doing so, they would contend the league has violated what’s known as the “law of shop,” which refers to general requirements of fairness and consistency in the interpretation of arbitration agreements. As explained more fully in another SI.com article, Brady would assert that even though the collective bargaining agreement generally empowers Goodell to hear player appeals, the law of shop should have barred Goodell from hearing Brady’s appeal. Brady would demand that a court vacate the fine or at least temporarily restrain the NFL from imposing it until a trial could occur.
Brady’s case would be about process, not Deflategate, and a judge, not a jury, would decide the case.
Keep in mind, Brady’s case would not center on the underlying accusations against Brady and the Patriots. Also, neither Brady nor the NFL would share evidence with each other, and no jury would be empaneled to render a decision. Instead, a judge would hear legal arguments about the lawfulness of the process used by the NFL to judge Brady. While in theory a jury might hear Brady’s case sometime over the next couple of years, the odds of that occurring are extremely low. This dispute will almost certainly be resolved long before a jury trial would occur.
Some have speculated that Brady might seek review by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This would be a possible venue for a variety of reasons, including the fact that most of the alleged facts in Deflategate took place in Foxboro, Mass. Another option for Brady would be to file in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and hope that the court’s chief judge, U.S. District Judge John R. Tunheim, assigns the case to U.S. District Judge David Doty, who is considered player-friendly. The NFL would likely object to Brady filing in Minnesota, but the league and players have a long history of resolving disputes there.
Brady and the NFLPA would have excellent legal counsel in court. Jeffrey Kessler and his law firm partner David Greenspan would likely be retained for any court filing. Kessler led Brady’s appeal before Goodell and both he and Greenspan won Adrian Peterson’s case in court.
If Brady goes to court, he would likely assert four core arguments:
I. Goodell was inherently biased and should not have heard Brady’s appeal.
Brady could offer a logical argument that Goodell had no business hearing his appeal and Goodell’s decision to do so violated the law of shop. Brady would assert that Goodell has been a central figure in the Deflategate controversy and thus is inherently biased in reviewing Brady’s appeal. Goodell, Brady would stress, supervised the same referees who weren’t sure which pressure gauge they used to measure PSI and who failed to record PSI levels before the AFC Championship Game. According to former NFL vice president of officials Mike Pereira, Goodell’s office recently ordered significant changes to how game footballs will be monitored. This seems like an implicit admission by Goodell that league rules governing how NFL referees protect and measure footballs were flawed at the time of the AFC Championship Game. Goodell also hired Ted Wells, an attorney whose strategies for investigating Deflategate have come under significant fire from scientists and other informed parties. Goodell, in sum, seems intertwined with the same controversy that gave rise to Brady’s suspension.
Brady would also seem likely to highlight false—and highly damaging—leaks from purported “league sources” to selected journalists in the days that followed the AFC Championship Game. If those “league sources” were in fact league officials, Goodell would be responsible for his subordinates leaking information to media. All of these factors suggest that Goodell has been too conflicted in Brady’s appeal to fairly evaluate Brady’s arguments.
More recent reporting highlights other evidence that Goodell has been anything but a detached and neutral observer. Multiple media reports indicate that owners of rival teams—including Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay and Baltimore Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti—have aggressively pressured Goodell to sustain Brady’s four-game suspension. Rival ownership groups are far from unbiased: they presumably want to see Brady sit in order to gain a competitive advantage over the Patriots. While Bisciotti has already denied these reports and while it is unclear what impact any post-appeal lobbying has played in Goodell’s reasoning, it is worth remembering that Goodell works for the 32 ownership groups. If some of his bosses are pressuring him to make a particular decision, it is plausible that Goodell’s ability to be fair has already been irreparably compromised. If so, Brady would have a good argument that the law of shop has been violated.Brady could also attempt to link Goodell's arguable conflict of interest to Goodell's decision to severely suspend Brady for four games. Brady’s suspension seems especially harsh when considering that Brett Favre was only fined $50,000 in 2010 for a failure to cooperate in a league investigation. Despite Favre only receiving a fine, the NFL has cited Brady’s alleged failure to cooperate in a league investigation as a key rationale for the four-game suspension. Brady could also stress that other instances of football tampering to assist NFL players have not led to punishment. For instance, in a chilly game played last November in Minneapolis (Minn.), the Carolina Panthers and Minnesota Vikings were caught using ball boys to impermissibly heat footballs. No player on either team was punished. Brady thus has a sensible argument that his four-game suspension is excessive when viewed in the context of precedent. Brady could contend that Goodell’s determination of a punishment was corrupted by self-interest and a lack of objectivity.
II. Troy Vincent’s ill-defined role violated the CBA.
Brady would also highlight the unclear role played by Troy Vincent as evidence of a flawed process. Vincent originally levied Brady’s original punishment through a letter dated May 11, 2015. In the letter, Vincent referenced that “the Commissioner has authorized me to inform you of the discipline, pursuant to his authority under Article 46 of the CBA…” This language suggests that Vincent’s role was ministerial rather than substantive and designed merely to relay a ruling by Goodell. It is uncertain why Goodell would not have written the letter to Brady himself—unless Goodell had, without express support from the CBA, delegated authority to Vincent. A cynic might surmise that Goodell deployed Vincent to create distance between himself and the punishment of a highly popular player.
III. Brady was judged under policies that fell outside of the CBA.
Brady would also object to the standard of proof used to judge his alleged misconduct. Much has been made of Wells concluding that it was “more probable than not” that Brady had “general awareness” of a ball-deflation scheme. Neither the “more probable than not” nor “general awareness” standards are mentioned in the CBA. In defense of Wells, the “more probable than not” standard is mentioned in a different league document—the Policy on Integrity of the Game and Enforcement of Competitive Rules.
The Policy on Integrity, however, was not collectively bargained. The Policy on Integrity is also not mentioned by name in the 301-page CBA and rules about football preparation appear intended for teams rather than players. Brady could thus insist that he has been evaluated by an impermissible standard.
Brady would further highlight how the CBA omits any language compelling him to turn over his cell phone, text messages or emails. Brady would stress that an obligation to share personal belongings with the NFL should be treated as an invasive request and one that requires written consent by the NFLPA.
IV. Goodell refused to issue a ruling “as soon as practicable” in violation of the CBA.
Lastly, Brady would contend that Goodell has intentionally delayed announcing a decision on Brady’s appeal in order to make it harder for Brady to obtain timely relief from a court. There are seven weeks between today and the start of the regular season, and that may not be enough time for Brady to secure a ruling from a court. The litigation process takes time. Each side would be provided weeks to write briefs.
There would likely be opportunities for oral arguments as well. Whichever judge is assigned to hear Brady’s case would have other cases on his or her docket. Some of those cases would concern far more meaningful matters than whether a professional football player is eligible to play and those cases would be prioritized over Brady’s case. As a point of illustration, Peterson and the NFLPA petitioned a federal court on December 15, 2014 and the court made its decision more than nine weeks later on February 26, 2015. Now again consider that the 2015 NFL regular season is only seven weeks away. Time is running out for Brady to get assistance from a court.
Plus, last Friday Bleacher Report’s Jason Cole reported that the NFL intends to “wear down” Brady into accepting a reduced punishment. Under Article 46, Goodell has to render a decision “as soon as practicable.” This vague language affords Goodell substantial discretion on timing, but vague does not mean limitless. Goodell has a good faith obligation to adhere to “as soon as practicable”—not “as soon as Brady is worn down.”The NFL’s defense strategy
The NFL would be confident that Brady’s best arguments play better in the court of public opinion than in the court of law. Unfortunately for Brady, federal courts are required by law to accord high deference to arbitration awards. Goodell’s forthcoming decision on Brady’s appeal will constitute such an award. The normal standard of review for a federal court review advantages Goodell: so long as the arbitrator (Goodell) is applying the CBA in a plausible way and acting within the scope of his authority, the court should only overturn an arbitration award if a serious error occurred.
I. Brady should blame his union, not the NFL, for Article 46.
The NFL would first maintain that Brady should complain to his union for agreeing to give Goodell the authority that lies at the heart of Brady’s legal theory. According to Article 46 of the CBA, Goodell enjoys sweeping discretion to hear player appeals over personal conduct matters. Article 46 also does not obligate Goodell to be neutral or impartial when he acts in the capacity of a hearing officer. In fact, there is no language in Article 46 that references impartiality—unlike Article 16, which contemplates an impartial arbitrator for other types grievances. Goodell presiding over Brady’s appeal does not appear to break any actual rule negotiated by the NFL and NFLPA. Along those lines, although Brady’s punishment might seem unnecessary and while the scientific validity of an intentional ball deflation scheme might seem doubtful, those are likely insufficient justifications for a federal court to overrule Goodell on a CBA matter.
II. Brady’s challenge is structurally weaker than those of Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson.
The NFL would also carefully distinguish Brady’s challenge from challenges brought by Peterson and Rice. Peterson successfully argued that he was retroactively punished by a new policy, while Rice successfully argued that he was double punished. Peterson and Rice thus relied on straightforward theories. Brady, in contrast, would be required to argue a more amorphous idea that Goodell was so conflicted in Deflategate that he should not have served as the presiding officer in Brady’s appeal—despite Article 46 expressly saying he could serve as the presiding officer.
III. Some of Brady’s purported evidence can’t be proven in court.
Brady’s arguments are in part premised on allegations that seem difficult to prove in court. This is especially true of media leaks, including those from “league sources.” Leaks are of limited value to Brady unless he can prove the identity of the sources. Journalists who have received leaks are under a professional obligation to not reveal their sources. Courts also rarely force journalists to reveal sources under threat of incarceration, and typically only do so in matters of national security—not in matters of football security.
IV. A Brady victory in court could prove brief and counter-productive.
Even if Brady succeeds in convincing a court to vacate or restrain the NFL from suspending him, the victory could prove short-lived and ill timed. As it has done in Peterson’s case, the NFL would appeal a Brady victory in a federal district court to a federal appeals court. Both Peterson and the NFL still await a decision by a federal appeals court, which is not surprising since appeals courts often take months, if not longer, to render a decision. As a result, Brady could “win” before a federal district judge and then months later—possibly in November, December or January—“lose” before a federal appeals court.
Brady might also have to eventually share with the NFL all of the texts and emails he was unwilling to share during the Wells investigation. The same principle, of course, applies to the NFL and its officials, who would likewise be required to share information with Brady’s attorneys. This unwanted sharing would be part of what’s called pretrial discovery, where a court orders each side to answer questions under oath and provide requested materials. To be clear, pretrial discovery would not occur for months, if it occurs at all. Pretrial discovery would also not take place prior to any court hearing for a petition by Brady that his fine be vacated or restrained. Instead, pretrial discovery would take place until after a motion to dismiss hearing, which would not occur for months, and only if a court denies the NFL’s motion to dismiss.
Brady could also sue the NFL for defamation
Alternatively, Brady could file a defamation lawsuit against Goodell, Vincent and Wells and contend that these men have harmed his reputation through false accusations. Former New Orleans Saints linebacker Jonathan Vilma adopted such a strategy to combat accusations made of him by Goodell in regards to the Bountygate scandal. Brady would seem poised to file any defamation lawsuit in Massachusetts, where the jury pool would include many Patriots fans and where the underlying dispute took place.
Upside:
If Brady had nothing to do with an intentional ball deflation scheme, or if no such scheme occurred, Brady would have a sound argument that he has been wronged. Brady could offer expert testimony that his endorsement income has suffered. He could also introduce evidence that his family has been adversely affected by the controversy. For instance, a recent Boston Globe story discussed resistance by a country club to an application by Brady and his wife, Gisele Bundchen for membership in part due to the media frenzy caused by Deflategate.
While a trial for a defamation lawsuit likely wouldn’t take place until next year (if it takes place at all), Brady could use pretrial discovery to force NFL officials to testify under oath.
Downside:
There are several downsides. Most notably, Brady is a public figure, and under the law, a public figure has an added hurdle in a defamation lawsuit. Such a figure must prove “actual malice,” meaning Brady would need to show that NFL officials lied intentionally or knowingly. Proving intent or knowledge is often difficult, especially in a fact-pattern where much of the evidence would be based on confidential leaks to media.
A defamation lawsuit would also take months, if not years, to play out and any success for Brady would only lead to monetary damages. Brady, whose net worth is reportedly about $120 million and whose wife reportedly has a net worth of about $380 million, may not find the potential payoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions of dollars in damages worth a long-term and acrimonious legal battle.
While pretrial discovery would only occur after a court declines to dismiss Brady’s lawsuit—which means months from now, if ever—Brady would become subject to pretrial discovery and potentially required to share his emails and texts to locker room assistants Jim McNally and John Jastremski.
The odds are heavily against Brady filing a defamation suit. If he goes to court, it is far more likely he would seek to stop the NFL from carrying out a suspension.
Michael McCann is a Massachusetts attorney and the founding director of the Sports and Entertainment Law Institute at the University of New Hampshire School of Law. In the fall 2015 semester, he will teach an undergraduate course at UNH titled “Deflategate.” McCann is also the distinguished visiting Hall of Fame Professor of Law at Mississippi College School of Law and he will be teach “Intellectual Property and Media in Sports Law” at the 2015 Oregon Law Sports Law Institute.
http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/07/27/tom-brady-nflpa-deflategate-suspension-federal-court
doesn't the "conduct detrimental" need to be proven?
In upholding the suspension, Goodell (and I can only guess the union will argue he shouldn't have heard the appeal) seemed more stoked about Brady's lack of cooperation than any actual wrong doing.
The way it works in all major sports is pretty much the same. If the league decides there is an offense that merits a fine and/or suspension, the make a ruling. In this case, they suspended Brady for 4 games. The accused can then appeal to the league for a suspension reduction or removal. The appeal is always heard by the league. Usually, this results in a negotiation that ends with a suspension reduction. By all reports that is what the league was willing to do. However, Brady wanted none of that, he would accept no suspension. The league decided to keep it at 4 games citing Brady's lack of cooperation and the destruction of evidence. From all reports, the NFL followed the CBA to the letter.
Whether you believe this or not, Brady could have avoided this by admitting to it in the beginning and accepted a slap on the wrist.
doesn't the "conduct detrimental" need to be proven?
In upholding the suspension, Goodell (and I can only guess the union will argue he shouldn't have heard the appeal) seemed more stoked about Brady's lack of cooperation than any actual wrong doing.
The way it works in all major sports is pretty much the same. If the league decides there is an offense that merits a fine and/or suspension, the make a ruling. In this case, they suspended Brady for 4 games. The accused can then appeal to the league for a suspension reduction or removal. The appeal is always heard by the league. Usually, this results in a negotiation that ends with a suspension reduction. By all reports that is what the league was willing to do. However, Brady wanted none of that, he would accept no suspension. The league decided to keep it at 4 games citing Brady's lack of cooperation and the destruction of evidence. From all reports, the NFL followed the CBA to the letter.
Whether you believe this or not, Brady could have avoided this by admitting to it in the beginning and accepted a slap on the wrist.
admit to what?
