We should definitely believe that someone who had an underling disappear his phone probably turned over a super accurate and helpful list to the NFL

this is what Wells asked for - a list. and this is what he got (he never expected to get the actual phone)

Isn't the issue to be debated in federal court not whether or not Brady is guilty, or whether destroying his phone can be interpreted as being uncooperative, but rather whether Rog acted within his power to make himself the arbitrator? And doesn't the current CBA give him that power? No argument from me that Rog is a buffoon, but how on earth did the NFLolPA agree to that?

I think there is a decent chance that 1. Kraft backed down on his original hard stance when he had a handshake deal with Rog to reduce the suspension, 2. Rog made that handshake deal wanting to mend his previously strong relationship with Kraft, stupidly underestimating the hell he would catch from other owners, 3. Rog figured out that Kraft is only one owner, so better off to burn one bridge than several, 4. Rog did his typical 180 and reneged on the handshake deal.

So really, we once again have yet another example of the ineptitude of ROG!

my understanding is that it will be all about the process of the investigation, whether the CBA was violated, etc. was the Wells report actually independent (no, certainly not without privileged documents)

Judge Berman must have been chosen by someone who's been before him in the past. And he (Berman) sure didn't waste any time.

looool, these points assume that Kraft and Rog now have a strained relationship, which is just...no. Everything Kraft says is pure lip service to the Pats honks. Him and Rog are still tight. They have much, much bigger mutual interests that squash a ruling over deflated footballs.

Kraft said today he regrets his decision to back down. So is he gonna sue the NFL now? Is he gonna call for Goodell's job? Is he gonna take any action whatsoever? (we know as an owner he's not gonna help the NFLPA). So what is he gonna DO, exactly?

His whole thing today is literally just words. His "support of Tom" is just in the form of going to a podium and being all "grrr! The league! *shakes fist*" And that's it. And yet it somehow works in getting people to believe that there's some kind of KRAFT V GOODELL thunderdome underway. But there's NOTHING there. They prob joke with each other about how Kraft will have to be mean to his buddy to the press while they smoke cigars and laugh like cartoon villains.

Vagos,

That was my first thought as well--if Kraft is so outraged and regretful, then why isn't he doing anything about it legally?

Kraft never had real immediate recourse, he was never gonna sue. there is no real mechanism for him protesting save for an anti-trust lawsuit or something that could threaten the league

decent chance today is all about PR for Pats fans. also decent chance his recourse is removing ROG from power when his contract is up

Ya, lol. When Rog's contract is up 4 years from now, and Brady is out of the league, and Kraft has probably all but handed the reins of the team to his son, he's totally gonna campaign to get his buddy Rog (who he offered his steadfast support to amid ACTUAL scandals like domestic and child abuse) out of the commish's chair.

And not because it might be prudent for the Kraft ownership group, but because he told Pats fans on July 29th, 2015 that he was mad about that deflated football thing, and gosh darnit, he meant it!

winning Super Bowls is bliss so I am a happy homer for sure.

I appreciate a good rivalry though so I'm looking forward to the raising of the AFC Championship Game Finalist banner in Lucas - congrats on that!

Is that because he would sue if he knew Brady and co were 100% innocent?

Wat

Are you suggesting that the party that filed in NY is forum shopping and not the party that filed in Minnesota?

No, I wasn't suggesting anything other than what I wrote. Berman's request for an expedited response is atypical, hence my comment.

Also, I thought an owner is bound by the NFL Constitution and can't sue the league, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

Also, I believe motion to vacate has been filed in Minnesota with Judge Kyle (who was the judge that recused himself in the 2011 antitrust matter)

He's not suing bc he's not Al Davis.

err no - cliffnotes for slow pony folks confused why Kraft hasn't sued:

Lol shuffle.

Hoya that's a kool legal story and all, but...

Then we're done here, right? Goodell is the arbitrator here, and it's beyond obvious that Brady is guilty to everyone except the very densest Pats fans (i.e. 95% of them).

Of course it's a kangaroo court, it's set up like that deliberately. Sporting bodies routinely suspend players for "bringing the game into disrepute" charges that are completely subjective.

I personally think this ruling gets upheld just fine in a civil court anyway, but you're correct that the destruction of the phone is not the smoking gun here. I don't know the rules of evidence, but it might not even be admissible.

Not so fast on being done. Brady filed his federal lawsuit in Minnesota where Judge David Doty will almost surely here the case and Judge Doty has come down on the side of the players consistently and often.

I keep hearing people talking about how Tom Brady's gonna be so mad and take it out on opposing defenses when he comes back. Well now that baby-hands can't use his special balls anymore, how's he going to dominate?

My guess is the same method he used to dominate the Seahawks in the Super Bowl but maybe he'll use a different technique to dominate, remains to be seen

Lol no and at this point Brady's guilt is pretty far down the list of things that matter. They are going to argue that Goodell abused or misused all sorts of power amd acted outside the cba. From PFT:


The 54-page petition requests that the the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota vacate the arbitration award in the Tom Brady case, arguing that the four-game suspension “defies” the Court’s decision in the recent Adrian Peterson case, “ignores” the “law of the shop” and essence of the labor deal, and “gives the back of the hand” to fundamental principles of “procedural fairness and arbitrator bias.”

The Peterson case is relevant because, according to the NFLPA, Judge David Doty concluded that the NFL is required to give players advance notice of potential discipline.

“Brady had no notice of the disciplinary standards that would be applied,” the petition says at page 3, “and no notice of the potential penalties.”

The petition also points out that the league and the NFLPA collectively bargained the punishment for “alleged equipment tampering by players,” and that the NFL was not permitted to disregard those provisions without advance notice.

The petition likewise explains that the “Competitive Integrity Policy” was “never given” to players, and that it specifically applies only to teams, not to players.

As to the allegation that Brady failed to cooperate with the investigation, the NFLPA argues that “a fine is the only penalty that has ever been upheld in such circumstances.” (In 2010, Brett Favre was fined $50,000 for failing to cooperate with an investigation regarding allegations that he texted inappropriate photos to a Jets employee.)

More generally, the petition claims that the discipline violates the “law of the shop” that requires fair and consistent treatment of players by basing Brady’s discipline on air-pressure tests that “did not generate reliable information,” and that the arbitrator (Commissioner Roger Goodell) was “evidently partial.”

As to the discipline based on air pressure, the NFLPA notes that the NFL first issued procedures for ball pressure testing only three days ago — “a stark concession that it had no procedures in place when the data on which Brady’s punishment was based was collected.”

At page 8, the petition calls the 20-page ruling from Commissioner Roger Goodell “little more than an exercise in rehashing the [Ted] Wells Report,” and accuses Goodell of making “unfounded, provocative and mystifying attacks on Brady’s integrity.”

As to that point, the NFLPA dusts off the ruling of former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue in the bounty case of 2012, who found that the NFL has never suspended players solely for obstructing an NFL investigation: “In my forty years of association with the NFL, I am aware of many instances of denials in disciplinary proceedings that proved to be false, but I cannot recall any suspension for such fabrication. This is no evidence of a record of past suspensions based purely on obstructing a League investigation.”

Right or wrong, the fact that the NFL doesn’t, and hasn’t, suspended players for such behavior arguably means that the NFL can’t suddenly start doing it, without collective bargaining. Which means that the NFL technically cannot suspend Brady for failing to cooperate — and that no players can be suspended for failing to cooperate until the NFL secures the ability to do so at the bargaining table.

The document also contains a lengthy quote from the statement provided on Wednesday by Patriots owner Robert Kraft. Which really isn’t surprising. Kraft’s verbal challenge to the league office sounds a lot like the kind of rhetoric for which NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith often draws criticism.

This time around, the union Smith runs and the team Kraft owns have one big thing in common: They agree in their mutual strong criticism of the NFL.

They didn't get Doty.