Roger Goodell upholds Tom Brady suspension

[Mr. Pink]

He can take this to court and watch it be litigated for 3 years and then just retire, all the while never actually missing any games.

Meanwhile he destroyed his cellphone allegedly because Stephen A Smith heard it? Smith is a hack when it comes to Basketball which is his speciality and people are going to take what he says about football matters seriously?

[Mace]

Surprise, surprise, Roger Goodell is doubling down.

The fact that he's pulled the bi2arre tactic of going to court immediately on handing down his ruling shows that the NFL knows that it's case won't stand up in an impartial court, so they're trying to bum rush it through with a friendly judge.

I dunno. Maybe. But you have to admit it's peculiar he destroyed his phone knowing they wanted it.

[Fixxxer]

Cheaters (should) never prosper.

[Mace]

Cheaters (should) never prosper.

I resent that.

[Victor7]

He can take this to court and watch it be litigated for 3 years and then just retire, all the while never actually missing any games.

Meanwhile he destroyed his cellphone allegedly because Stephen A Smith heard it? Smith is a hack when it comes to Basketball which is his speciality and people are going to take what he says about football matters seriously?

Stephen A Smith is indeed a class A douchebag.

However the whole phone destruction thing is real. Its on the NFL's statement about the suspension being upheld.

[DynaPaul]

Ban him for life!

[Discotrish]

Stephen A Smith is indeed a class A douchebag.

However the whole phone destruction thing is real. Its on the NFL's statement about the suspension being upheld.

Patti

[POTLAND PSILBYLO]

II like what Jim Kelly said. "Brady doesn't have to cheat." But if he did, it's probably for the money. Pete Rose.

[Victor7]

Patti

Law Abiding Citizen. Very underrated movie. Quite good IMO

[sudzy]

How far is he willing to go to keep this charade? Is he willing to go to court and risk perjuring himself?

[SpikedLemonade]

I read this somewhere else and it made sense....



The appeal will NOT be based on the facts of whether or not the balls were deflated at Brady's or anyone elses direction. The NFLPA has already laid out what the appeal will likely be based on:

■ The NFL had no policy that applied to players;
■ The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players;
■ The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of “general awareness” to predicate a legally unjustified punishment;
■ The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and
■ The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.

If that is a basis for a lawsuit, Brady's text messages won't be relevant. And therefore its unlikely a subpoena would be granted for those records.

[Night Train]

He destroys the phone and then demands everyone take his word.

Got it.

Suck a dick, Brady.

[BillsImpossible]

@soshnick BREAKING: @NFL asks federal court to confirm Tom Brady suspension. Complaint filed in Manhattan #sportsbiz #NFL #preemptivestrike

Rotoworld: http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/1163/tom-brady

Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reports the NFL has asked the U.S. District Court in Manhattan to "confirm" Tom Brady's four-game suspension.

In other words, they're suing Brady before he can sue them. Brady's 2014-15 decision to slightly under-inflate his footballs has resulted in an all-out war with the league. The SportsBusiness Journal's Daniel Kaplan speculates the league's suit is designed to get the matter out of judge David Doty's jurisdiction in Minnesota. Doty has often been a thorn in the NFL's side. Brady's case is looking a bit shaky amidst the revelation he intentionally destroyed his phone on the day of his meeting with investigator Ted Wells.

Tom Brady has no, "standing," in legal terms.

I think that's what the NFL is trying to prove in the Manhattan U.S. District Court.

What is, "standing?"

Can Tom Brady's lawyers prove that his personal legal interest has been invaded by the NFL?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Standing

The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute.

The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear "cases" arising under federal law and "controversies" involving
certain types of parties.

In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.

[Discotrish]

How far is he willing to go to keep this charade? Is he willing to go to court and risk perjuring himself?

The NSA has the texts.

Lets take a Wiki-Peek!

Patti

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Tom Brady has no, "standing," in legal terms.

I think that's what the NFL is trying to prove in the Manhattan U.S. District Court.

What is, "standing?"

Can Tom Brady's lawyers prove that his personal legal interest has been invaded by the NFL?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Standing

The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute.

The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.
The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear "cases" arising under federal law and "controversies" involving
certain types of parties.

In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.

You have it backwards. The plaintiff in a lawsuit has to prove standing, not the defendant. Brady is the defendant in this Manhattan suit which is apparently seeking a declaratory judgment.

That said, he clearly does have standing to challenge the NFL, they are preventing him from playing four games - a multi-million dollar deprivation.

[Ingtar33]

I read this somewhere else and it made sense....



The appeal will NOT be based on the facts of whether or not the balls were deflated at Brady's or anyone elses direction. The NFLPA has already laid out what the appeal will likely be based on:

■ The NFL had no policy that applied to players;
■ The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players;
■ The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of “general awareness” to predicate a legally unjustified punishment;
■ The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and
■ The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.

If that is a basis for a lawsuit, Brady's text messages won't be relevant. And therefore its unlikely a subpoena would be granted for those records.

1) false, they did have a policy, two of them in fact. one was anyone tampering with a football gets a fine, the second is that the commissioner has the power to arbitrarily change a punishment to fit the events
2) wrong. its in the nfl rule book
3) hard argument to make, it's a lawyer argument that might work with the right judge
4) immaterial, goodell's suspension is made on the terms of unfair competitive advantage, and drew the comparison to steroid use, in which the league has no obligation to prove a competitive advantage was gained. in which it doesn't matter what standard the league uses to measure psi. seeing as psi is measured the SAME EVERYWHERE ON EARTH. this is why we have "STANDARD" weight and measurements. the nfl's definition of PSI is no different then anyone else. this argument is just awful, and the NFLPA will probably drop it
5) I don't know what in the collective bargaining agreement covers this situation so this might be their best argument, depending on what they think he's violating.

[BillsImpossible]

Tom Brady is an employee of the NFL.

His bosses found him guilty after spending millions of dollars on an investigation that lasted for months.

They ultimately found Brady guilty, and offered him a paltry 1 game suspension, but the two sides couldn't agree on the wording of the what would have been a 1 game suspension.

Was Tom Brady's, "personal legal interest," invaded by the NFL?

No. He has no legal standing because his personal legal interest was not violated by the NFL.

Brady is an employee of the NFL that is getting disciplined for his actions.

Millions of employees all over America have tried suing their employers for being fired.

Tom Brady wasn't fired, he was offered a 1 week stay in the NFL detention room.

1 game and he turned it down in favor of being a ***** and destroying his reputation.

Whoever is Tom Brady's public relations assistant should be fired.

Can't the NFL, "fire," a player?

Tom Brady needs to be fired.

The NFL is a private business of a sports league. They did their due diligence, spent a lot of money investigating what really happened, and made a decision to give their employee a 4 week vacation.

I think the courts will look at Tom Brady's case like any other disgruntled employee with a lot of money and a lawyer to help spend his money.

lol.

[Discotrish]

It will be interesting to see what happens to the Patriots' fumble rate this year.

Patti

[BillsImpossible]

The appeal will NOT be based on the facts of whether or not the balls were deflated at Brady's or anyone elses direction. The NFLPA has already laid out what the appeal will likely be based on:

■ The NFL had no policy that applied to players;
■ The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players;
■ The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of “general awareness” to predicate a legally unjustified punishment;
■ The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and
■ The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.

If that is a basis for a lawsuit, Brady's text messages won't be relevant. And therefore its unlikely a subpoena would be granted for those records.

Not on your best day, sweetheart.

[BillsImpossible]

Always remember:

"The Deflator," text messages were about weight loss.