The Verdict Is In On Deflategate...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not quite any more

[Guinevere]

Long Run is much closer to being correct than anyone here will give him credit for.

First of all, the arbitrator's decision is reviewed under the Federal Arbitration Act (9 US section 10) -- it is a deferential standard of review. An arbitration decision is upheld unless the complaining party can show:

(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.

The NFLPA is focussing on (2) and (4) in its counterclaim. They also make some allegations under (3), where the NFL didn't allow the NFLPA full access to the investigation and investigators. These are difficult, but not impossible to meet standards.

Second, in addition to the standard for review, there is long-standing precedent that applies to the case, the "common law" of arbitration. It is referred to as "the Law of the Shop" and it requires notice of what conduct is subject to discipline, and what the universe of discipline might be. It seems clear from the many articles I've read, the language of the CBA about equipment does not apply to individuals or players, but to teams, and there there is a max penalty specified. In addition, the law of the Shop requires fairness in application of penalties. This punishment/penalty is unprecedented, even if there was any so-called "obstruction," and even if you buy the NFL's "integrity of the game" argument. Favre was fined 50K for after a clear finding (not any "generally aware" crap) that he impeded a sexual harassment investigation. The suspension for the Saints headhunters who failed to cooperate in that investigation was thrown out by Paul Tagliabue himself, because there was no evidence that the NFL had ever suspended a player for that kind of conduct. these two point are ultimately related to the constitutional concepts of due process, and required even in private arbitral proceedings.

Third, while there may be a trial on one or more of the above elements, this is not a de novo (new, fresh) review of the evidence. There will be no new witnesses, or re-examination of witnesses. The NFL had the chance to call and examine the men LJ claims are "Brady's two accomplices" at the arbitration hearing and never called them. They do't get a chance to call them now. There is no chance that they will ever testify in this matter. There is no smoking gun and they will not be "throwing Brady under the bus."

Fourth, as to obstruction, I suggest you, LJ, actually read the information about the evidence provided and the arbitration heading transcript. Brady gave over everything including all phone records and copies of all relevant texts. There is no obligation to turn over an entire cell phone full of irrelevant and personal material and I would never have let my client do such a thing. It is also unprecedented. If the NFL wanted him to keep his phone, they could have and should have issued what is called a "litigation hold" to make it clear they were still seeking the phone. They failed to do so, and the onus is on them.

Fifth, a vigorous and sound defense is not "arrogance" or "obstruction" and I continue to find that construction amazing, arrogant, biased, and uneducated (or willfully blind) about the law, due process, and the point of a fair tribunal.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't think anybody cares any more

[Long Run]

I don't think anybody cares any more

post = ironic

[Econoline]

I don't think anybody cares any more

Every day I have to open this thread at least momentarily, so that the "UNREAD POSTS" icon will disappear. (Should I have put this in the "OCD" thread?)

Finally, someone has said something both short enough to read and true enough to agree wholeheartedly.

Well done, General.

[Joe Guy]

Would someone here please give me a detailed explanation of what is going on with 'Deflategate'?

[Econoline]

Oh God I hope not.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Joe, nothing

[Guinevere]

I don't think anybody cares any more

Says one of the most prolific posters to this thread.

It's a free board Meade, no one makes you read anything, and no one requires you to post, either. Same goes for you, Econo. Obviously some of us here *are* interested.

[Guinevere]

This, perhaps, explains Meade's obsession with this thread:

Uh oh Meade, now you've done it-done went and made Ms. Smartypants look silly. The punishment is severe-she will no longer grant you an audience. Have you a crying towel?

This one gets lots of use

[Joe Guy]

Oh God I hope not.

Joe, nothing

Okay, thanks!

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh, Guin. I just want to see the best players play the game.

no one makes you read anything, and no one requires you to post

[Guinevere]

Your point?

[Long Run]

Sauce, goose, gander. Not sure I get it either, but then it's been smoky here the last couple of days.

[Guinevere]

I got that Long Run, but have no idea how that applies to my comment he quoted.

[wesw]

oh , I know I know. what s good for the patriot is good for the tory!

tar a la 'range and feathers a la geese!

check please! ...pressure check that is.....

[MajGenl.Meade]

I got that Long Run, but have no idea how that applies to my comment he quoted.

Well, Guin... no one makes you read anything and no one requires you to post either. It applies to both of us, don't it m'lady?

(I kind of admire wesw's alternative analysis)
(But lately I've been too nice to him, so I won't mention it)

[Lord Jim]

Hey Guin!

You've got a friend:

'Leave Tom Brady alone!': Donald Trump defends Patriots quarterback at Mass. meet-and-greet

Donald Trump showed his Patriotic side Friday when he defended Deflategate-tainted football star Tom Brady.

“Leave Tom Brady alone,” Trump told a crowd of reporters when asked about the Patriots quarterback. “Tom Brady is an honest guy.”

The Queens-born Republican front-runner was in Norwood, Massachusetts for a meet-and-greet hosted by Ernie Boch Jr.

Brady was suspended by the NFL for four games for his role in the cheating scandal in which underinflated footballs were used by the New England Patriots in the AFC Championship game in January.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2341142

Wow, if Donald Trump calls you "an honest guy", it's pretty much case closed...you couldn't ask for a better endorser of your veracity than Donald Trump....

I wonder if Tom will return the favor and endorse The Donald?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Trump was sending up a trial balloon.... (wait for it... wait for it...)

[Guinevere]

But, but, Meade, you don't carezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz