Quote:
Originally Posted by PJinCA
I have to disagree with this post, not because I hate Tom Brady and the Patriots (which I do). Rather because the appellate court's decision had nothing to do with evidence or if the punishment was unfair. The decision was explicit: The decision made by the commissioner didn't have to be "fair" or based on evidence according to the CBA - which the NFLPA ratified and the NFL agreed to as well. This court just made the decision that they were not in a position to supercede an agreement made and signed by both parties.
The first court ruled, incorrectly, that the commissioner overstepped his bounds by punishing Brady and the team wit what the court felt was insufficient evidence. However, the CBA does not require the commissioner to have any evidence. The commissioner has sole discretion on punishment and "conduct detrimental to the league"can mean whatever he decides it means. That doesn't mean Tommy boy has to like it, nor the patriots owner or fans, but it is what the NFLPA agreed to - and by association, its what Brady agreed to.
Having seen and written hundreds of SOWs (statements of work) in my career, I know, you have to be VERY explicit in what you intend in an agreement, giving the other party broad powers will come back to bite you very hard if challenged in court. Because most sensible courts are reluctant to overturn an agreement between 2 parties, unless it is inherently illegal - which this one isn't
|
You actually didn't seem to read my post. I actually said that the appellate court was right on the grounds of arbitral deference and (not in so many words) the NFLPA was incompetent to agree to a CBA without a 3rd party arbitration process.
I was highlighting how, notwithstanding that the Appeals Court was right, the evidence is now overwhelming that the balls were not tampered with, but more importantly, Goodell drew the wrong conclusions in the first place.