04/19/24
July 28, 2015
Roger Goodell Upholds Tom Brady's 4-Game Suspension on Appeal: NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has upheld the four-game suspension of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady over the deflated-football scandal, the league announced Tuesday. In the decision, Goodell stated that part of his justification was Brady's destruction of his cell phone while league investigators were seeking information from it. "The most significant new information that emerged in connection with the appeal was evidence that on or about March 6, 2015 -- the very day he was interviewed by [Ted] Wells and his investigative team -- Brady instructed his assistant to destroy the cellphone that he had been using from early November 2014, a period that included the AFC Championship Game and the initial weeks of the subsequent investigation."
No one expected the commissioner to overturn the commissioner's own ruling that was based on a report the commissioner commissioned himself. This was just a necessary pre-flight routine before Brady and the NFLPA sues the NFL and Goodell.
posted by hincandenza at 03:22 PM on July 28, 2015
Brady broke league rules and 4 is in order.
The NFL ought to have a different classification of penalty for personal conduct infractions.
Hardy shouldn't be allowed to play in the NFL. Read that his suspension was reduced because the woman he beat up couldn't be found to testify during his appeal? Time for the NFL lawyers to add some legal verbiage to the player contracts.
posted by cixelsyd at 03:23 PM on July 28, 2015
Read that his suspension was reduced because the woman he beat up couldn't be found to testify during his appeal? Time for the NFL lawyers to add some legal verbiage to the player contracts.
What verbiage would that be?
If a player isn't convicted of a crime but we're pretty sure that he did do it, then we can punish him anyways?
posted by grum@work at 04:10 PM on July 28, 2015
I was expecting a reduction to two games, but four is reasonable given the circumstances. Brady's destruction of his phone is shady. He obviously had something he wanted to stay hidden.
But I'll be glad when this matter is over and Brady is playing again. Goodell could have avoided all of this drama by punishing the act quickly (and less severely) without getting into intent.
posted by rcade at 04:16 PM on July 28, 2015
No one expected the commissioner to overturn the commissioner's own ruling that was based on a report the commissioner commissioned himself.
Remember, it wasn't the commissioner that ruled he should get four games. It was NFL Vice President Troy Vincent who handed down the punishment.
It was his boss (Goodell) that gave him the authority to levy the punishment, and then was the one who heard the appeal.
I'm sure it was a fair appeal. /s
posted by grum@work at 04:17 PM on July 28, 2015
Camp opens tomorrow. I'm not sure whether to think "well, at least Goodell got this done before camp started", or "Goodell waited until the last possible moment before the start of camp to rule on this".
If Goodell had not issued a decision today and forced Belichick to prepare 2 QB's all through camp and then upheld Brady's suspension after the final pre-season game, Belichick would have made plans to eat Goodell's liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
posted by beaverboard at 06:04 PM on July 28, 2015
I'm glad it stays at 4 instead of dropping to 1 or 2 games. Seems more likely we'll get a court case this way and I would love to see how a real court rules on this.
posted by tron7 at 06:11 PM on July 28, 2015
I think Brady's threat to sue is a bluff. If he sues he'll be forced to go through a deposition under oath and the judge won't look kindly on his decision to destroy evidence.
posted by rcade at 06:56 PM on July 28, 2015
This legal blog is all over the issue of what Brady did to his potential legal case by destroying evidence.
posted by rcade at 08:16 PM on July 28, 2015
Whoa -- the NFL pre-emptively filed suit over this in New York, trying to keep Brady from filing in Minneapolis.
posted by rcade at 10:13 PM on July 28, 2015
That's an interesting point about the courts keeping their hands off of arbitration, but it surprises me that one can consider the NFL Commissioner Goodell delenda est to be an "arbitrator" in a sentence handed down by the NFL.
posted by Etrigan at 11:34 PM on July 28, 2015
would love to see how a real court rules on this
Really?
This is an NFL rule that has been broken, the NFL should have jurisdiction over enforcement. If a court sides by the NFL it just makes the whole incident into more of a White Bronco affair for the media. If it rules against the NFL, which it never would under the circumstances, then NFL rules are deemed not enforceable and the integrity of the game is gone. And the legacy of the parties involved doesn't change.
posted by cixelsyd at 11:52 PM on July 28, 2015
This is an NFL rule that has been broken, the NFL should have jurisdiction over enforcement.
If you can't see the flaw in that logic I'm not sure it's worth pointing it out.
posted by yerfatma at 08:44 AM on July 29, 2015
I don't see any flaw in the idea that a sports league should be able to police itself with the commissioner as the ultimate authority. That's the point of having a commissioner going back to the elevation of Kennesaw Mountain Landis as the first Commissioner of Baseball.
Tom Brady and the players union agreed to Roger Goodell's authority to police the sport in the collective bargaining agreement. Even if you think Goodell didn't enforce the league's rules properly or fairly, I don't see how you can attack the idea of the NFL as the ultimate authority for matters like this without undermining the entire system of self-policing.
Surely nobody here would prefer that the in-sport punishment for all player conduct matters was decided by actual courts.
posted by rcade at 09:02 AM on July 29, 2015
I don't see how you can attack the idea of the NFL as the ultimate authority for matters like this without undermining the entire system of self-policing.
If they are going to come with heavy-handed and inconsistent punishments when there is a lack of any truly damning evidence, then I'm fine with undermining the system. Looking forward to it. Though, I'd settle for having a level-headed commissioner.
posted by tron7 at 10:31 AM on July 29, 2015
Surely nobody here would prefer that the in-sport punishment for all player conduct matters was decided by actual courts.
Of course not, but it's not as though the NFLPA collectively-bargained for a putz who makes up the rules as he goes along. If Goodell decided to interpret the CBA as saying any punished player had to do yard work for him, would that still be an internal matter?
Don't get me wrong, none of this looks good for Brady, but it's sort of amazing this new information came to light in the last few weeks in spite of $5 million dollars worth of ex-G Man's time and didn't get leaked until the day of the decision. How is this anything but a Cover Your Ass? And as Mike Florio asked (I apologize again), if this is new evidence of bad behavior, why isn't Brady getting a longer ban?
Seems like Bob Kraft isn't happy:
I have often said, If you want to get a deal done, sometimes you have to get the lawyers out of the room.' I had hoped that Tom Brady's appeal to the league would provide Roger Goodell the necessary explanation to overturn his suspension. Now, the league has taken the matter to court, which is a tactic that only a lawyer would recommend.Once again, I want to apologize to the fans of the New England Patriots and Tom Brady. I was wrong to put my faith in the league. Given the facts, evidence, and laws of science that underscore this entire situation, it is completely incomprehensible to me that the league continues to take steps to disparage one of its all-time great players, and a man for whom I have the utmost respect.
posted by yerfatma at 10:42 AM on July 29, 2015
if this is new evidence of bad behavior, why isn't Brady getting a longer ban?
Part of the basis of the original 4 game ban was the reluctance to cooperate and provide requested information. It's not as if the NFL is going to impose a "contempt of court" type addition based upon the intentional destruction of that evidence.
The NFL wants to be viewed as handling the matter with correct process. The NFL certainly doesn't want an ongoing spectacle involving one of it's mantlepiece players. The NFL wants resolution.
Once again it is Kraft , Brady and the Patriots who choose to keep throwing fuel on the fire here. And although the Patriots are a key part of the NFL, they are 1 of 32 members of a league that must abide by both it's rules and decisions.
posted by cixelsyd at 11:40 AM on July 29, 2015
If they are going to come with heavy-handed and inconsistent punishments when there is a lack of any truly damning evidence, then I'm fine with undermining the system.
I think the evidence of a Brady cover up is pretty damning. His actions throughout this process make me wonder whether he's dumb, at least off the football field.
But if the commissioner sucks, undermine that commissioner, not the system of allowing the NFL to police itself.
posted by rcade at 01:01 PM on July 29, 2015
I'm no Goodell fan, but whether or not you want to believe his judge jury and executioner act is good for the league, you have to look with a critical eye at Tom Brady for destroying his cellphone during the midst of this investigation. And I just can't buy the story that he thought investigators wouldn't need it during their collection of evidence in the case.
- He may or may not have used it to send and receive texts on the matter. - It's possible the NFL could petition his carrier to turn over records of texts both sent and received using the phone (the legalities of this are another subject altogether) - It may even be his practice to destroy old cellphones to protect his privacy once he obtains a new one for use.
If he wanted a chance at reducing (or preferably, eliminate) his suspension, he should've held onto it. Destroying it just made him look like he was trying to hide something, or at least showed everyone he's a complete imbecile.
posted by NerfballPro at 02:10 PM on July 29, 2015
I loved this passage in an ESPN piece on the Hoodie's presser yesterday: "He wasn't there to answer questions. He was there to defy, to deflect, to be on-message, to make everyone feel bad for not asking about football. Irascible coach. Focused coach. Everything Patriots fans love about their coach, who has delivered four Super Bowls and no apologies in 15 years. Belichick could emblazon a middle finger on his hoodie and rally six states to his side while telling the outside world its questions don't matter."
Pats fans, it must be nice to have that gruff and cunning bastard on your sidelines. "Four Super Bowls and no apologies" would be great on a T-shirt.
posted by rcade at 03:07 PM on July 29, 2015
you have to look with a critical eye at Tom Brady for destroying his cellphone during the midst of this investigation
Absolutely. It's like a race to the bottom between the two sides.
Pats fans, it must be nice to have that gruff and cunning bastard on your sidelines.
posted by yerfatma at 03:24 PM on July 29, 2015
It's possible the NFL could petition his carrier to turn over records of texts both sent and received using the phone (the legalities of this are another subject altogether)
There is no way that the carrier would hand over the information as part of some internal NFL investigation.
Even if this goes to federal court, the content of those text messages (or recipients of the messages or phone calls) is irrelevant at this point. The argument is whether the punishment is fair, not whether the ruling was correct in the first place.
posted by grum@work at 04:21 PM on July 29, 2015
I thought it was interesting that Boston Globe sports columnist Dan Shaunessy wrote a piece today titled Deal with it Tom Brady and the Patriots are cheaters. Looking for that link again I see the Globe is reporting that Brady has also sued the NFL in US District Court in Minneapolis on Wednesday evening, arguing that Brady's four-game suspension violates binding rulings from the Adrian Peterson lawsuit earlier this year, "and gives the back of the hand to the fundamental arbitral principles concerning procedural fairness and arbitrator bias."
posted by billsaysthis at 09:24 PM on July 29, 2015
Not to editorialize but I think Goodell and Brady should both sit in the corner for a year, or until they grow up and can stop acting like idiots play nice.
posted by billsaysthis at 09:26 PM on July 29, 2015
From Shaunessy: "Going to federal court could result in Brady serving his suspension at a more inopportune time (December?)."
I've been wondering the same thing. Isn't it a big risk for Brady to push his potential suspension deeper into a season? I'd rather have my star quarterback out to start a season than at any other point later.
posted by rcade at 08:38 AM on July 30, 2015
I don't know all the particulars of the suspension. Is Brady allowed to attend training camp if he's suspended?
If not, then a good plan would be to contest the ban now and get an injunction allowing him to train with the team, then drop the suit at the end of pre-season and serve the first four games.
Personally, I'd like to see Garoppolo play the away game against Buffalo. I think that would be a fair test.
The Pats catch a few scheduling breaks: not having to go to Miami in Sept. (or Jax for that matter) when daytime game temps are still in the upper 80's or worse; hosting the warm weather Dolphins at night in late Oct. and Titans in late Dec.; traveling to balmy Houston and Miami in Dec. and Jan.
If the Pats somehow won 3 of the first 4 games and Garoppolo was playing well, if I were the Pats, I would not put Brady on the field in Game 5. Have him in uniform and on the sidelines throughout the game. With no explanation what the fuck so ever to anyone. Let em wonder and let em talk. Don't announce the starter. Just send Jimmy out there without a word. Take that Pats at Colts mega rematch prime time night game national ratings blockbuster and shove it up Goodell's image and market-minded behind.
The correlation between the suspension and the season schedule is no accident. Why help the damn league coin an extra layer of money off of such a contrivance and affront?
Even have Tom warm up a few times on the sideline to get the announcers dripping saliva on their game notes, then have him go sit back down on the bench.
posted by beaverboard at 10:17 AM on July 30, 2015
Brady was in drills for the first day of camp.
posted by rcade at 01:01 PM on July 30, 2015
There is no way that the carrier would hand over the information as part of some internal NFL investigation. Even if this goes to federal court, the content of those text messages (or recipients of the messages or phone calls) is irrelevant at this point. The argument is whether the punishment is fair, not whether the ruling was correct in the first place.
An appeal in federal court would be about procedure and method of rule enforcement, not the deflation issue. Cell phone records are, as you said, no longer relevant toward any appeal or legal procedure going forward. But to me, all that does is deflect the issue of Brady's culpability. Does Brady's reputation get rescued, win or lose? It didn't seem to help the bountygate players and coaches when their suspensions and punishments were overturned.
posted by NerfballPro at 02:50 PM on July 30, 2015
For anyone who cares to wade through 54 pages of legalese, it is on the NFLPA web site. To lessen the effort needed, it is at least double spaced.
I skimmed through it, and my take is that the appeal is largely based on procedure and precedent. It also makes mention of the NFL's unfortunate habit of allowing damning but inaccurate information to find its way into the media. The league is then very slow to set the record straight. NFLPA calls the report of Brady destroying his cellphone a "red herring", and maintains, as Brady did, that all of the pertinent information was available to the Wells team from the cellphones of McNally and Jastremski.
The big problem for the NFLPA is that the case has been moved from Minnesota, where the hope had been that Judge Doty, who had ruled against the NFL in the Peterson case, would be the judge. The NFL outmaneuvered them by filing in a federal court in the Southern District of NY as soon as the suspension was upheld. Thus, "prior filing" was cited and the appeal will be heard in NY. The judge slated to hear the appeal has already told the two sides to tone down the rhetoric and try to work out a mutually acceptable solution. In other words, "shut up and deal with it".
posted by Howard_T at 04:12 PM on July 30, 2015
The NFL outmaneuvered them by filing in a federal court in the Southern District of NY
Outmaneuvered?
The NFL offices are based in NY. That is where the case should take place.
Why the hell would the case be held in Minnesota where no party involved has any connection to?
posted by cixelsyd at 04:34 PM on July 30, 2015
The NFLPA based its filing in MN on the facts that the NFL did business there and had a franchise there. It's the same idea as suing Walmart in Detroit, for example. You would rather get a hearing there than to enter the suit in Bentonville, Arkansas. The NFL offices being in NYC is one of the reasons that the judge who initially ruled on the appeal in MN gave in his decision to move it all to NYC.
posted by Howard_T at 04:51 PM on July 30, 2015
The NFLPA based its filing in MN hoping they could possibly get a judge with precedent of ruling against the NFL assigned to the case .. no other reason.
posted by cixelsyd at 05:57 PM on July 30, 2015
That is correct. And the PA was outmaneuvered in that regard.
posted by beaverboard at 06:55 PM on July 30, 2015
How does holding a hearing in it's proper place qualify as a "maneuver"?
The correct statement is that Brady, The Patriots, Robert Kraft, and the NFLPA have once again failed in their latest maneuver in an attempt to avoid levied punishment for breaking league rules.
posted by cixelsyd at 12:22 AM on July 31, 2015
How does holding a hearing in it's proper place qualify as a "maneuver"?
Do you ever get tired of begging the question? Of course people try for favorable court locations. Couldn't one argue the correct jurisdiction is where the horrible crime took place, Massachusetts? One of the interesting comments from deadspin's inexplicably large pool of legal professionals in the commentariat was that the NFLPA could have petitioned the NFL took forever to address the appeal precisely so they could craft their injunction whule leaving the NFLPA scrambling. They also suggested it's uncommon for the defendant to try to force a venue.
But keep beating the drum.
posted by yerfatma at 07:57 AM on July 31, 2015
To keep beating this horse, Chris Mortensen backed out of an appearance on Boston's WEEI today when it became obvious the hosts wanted to talk about how he got hold of the completely erroneous "11 out of 12 balls were 2 pounds light" report that sparked the whole controversy and has never been retracted by the NFL. John Dennis of 'EEI (God help me) is reporting Mike "You guys are in so much fucking trouble" Kensil was the original source, a totally unbiased former Jets employee now working for the league office.
It's been bugging me that ESPN's legal experts are so sure Brady has no chance when Mike Florio and the laywer/ commenters at deadspin feel so differently, but I am no law-talkin' guy so what can I do besides trawl Google looking for previous stories from them (ever notice how much ESPN's site sucks if you try to search by author? It's almost like they don't want their talent to ever get too big for ESPN). I came up with almost nothing from Bountygate except this really weird rant from Lester Munson about Paul Taglibue overturning the suspensions. I can't tell if it's just that Munson is a really old person or if he's carrying water for the NFL but there's something so off about it, especially since he makes reference Taglibue graduating from Georgetown, which feels like a reference to how Jesuit law schools produce good but strict/ humorless lawyers and also uses the word "pontificating" as though one could write a binding opinion without sounding like you're coming down from on high. The piece itself opens with "In 22 single-spaced pages of pedantic, pretentious and occasionally patronizing prose . . . " and expands on the theme as he goes.
posted by yerfatma at 09:59 AM on July 31, 2015
Couldn't one argue the correct jurisdiction is where the horrible crime took place, Massachusetts?
Yes, but the league is based in New York City so that's just as reasonable a choice of venue.
I was shocked the NFL filed a suit pre-emptively to defend itself within minutes of announcing the appeal decision. Either Goodell is taking this personally or there's a bigger motive at stake, such as a chance to take the NFLPA down in a strategically advantageous way. I hope there's some investigative journalism being undertaken by an outlet with no financial ties to the NFL that will dig into why Goodell is running the league the way he is.
Another thing that baffles me is why Brady didn't just provide some text messages to the league. If he could have said "I gave the league the information it requested, after consultation with my attorney" I think he receives a two-game suspension instead of four. If he's innocent, the messages help further that claim. If he's guilty, he could have been sneaky and only provided messages that didn't show it. The league would not have been able to demand all his messages to prove he omitted some.
posted by rcade at 11:02 AM on July 31, 2015
I was shocked the NFL filed a suit pre-emptively to defend itself within minutes of announcing the appeal decision.
Why be shocked, rcade? The NFL was dead sure that the NFLPA would follow through with its stated intention of going to court over the suspension. They filed as soon as they could in order to have the idea of "first to file" in their favor, thus having a better chance of New York being the venue for the actual hearing. The motive for doing this is that their case might not be as solid as many think. When I skimmed through the NFLPA's filing, I noted that there was precedent that precluded Brady from being punished for violations related to equipment; such violations were found to be the fault of the team and not the individual. There were also precedents that players had not been punished for "general awareness" of violations. The New Orleans "Bountygate"* and the Miami bullying** cases were specifically cited. The NFLPA is claiming that the specific punishment by suspension of Brady would be an illegal expansion of the NFL's disciplinary procedures. Much is based on "The Law of the Shop" labor practices.
*The NFLPA claims that members of the New Orleans defense other than those actually punished for offenses must have been "generally aware" of the bounty practice, but were not punished.
**Similarly, the NFLPA's claim is that in the Miami bullying case, members of the offensive line other than Richie Incognito must have been "generally aware" of the bullying and did nothing to stop it. They too were not subjected to discipline.
posted by Howard_T at 12:37 PM on July 31, 2015
The motive for doing this is that their case might not be as solid as many think.
Brady has made the case for being punished over his non-cooperation pretty solid. I don't see how he gets far in court after destroying his phone on the day he did.
As for the NFL's punishment being overturned by a court, I find compelling the legal analysis offered by the lawyer and sports journalist Lester Munson. Brady's been punished under an arbitration process players agreed to in the CBA and judges don't like to open the can of worms that comes from reversing arbitrators.
It's not like Brady is suffering massive off-the-field damages here. A guy with an estimated net worth of $120 million is losing $1.88 million in pay. That sucks, but if he lost 1.5% of his net worth from a bad business investment I don't think anyone would regard it a major setback for him.
As for his on-the-field punishment, that's something the NFL is far more qualified to determine than an outside court. If the NFL considers intentionally deflated footballs below 12.5 PSI a major rules violation, I believe its authority to make that conclusion should be accepted.
posted by rcade at 01:12 PM on July 31, 2015
I find compelling the legal analysis offered by the lawyer and sports journalist Lester Munson.
Who works for ESPN. That seems to be the line he and Roger Cossack are hewing to but it (as best I can tell) isn't the point. Brady's argument will be specifically that the CBA doesn't say he can be punished like this for equipment violations and that there is no prior example of equivalent punishment for non-compliance with an investigation in general or non-compliance regarding a cell phone: § Brett Favre's Willy v. cell phone camera glass, Jenn Sterger NFL, et al.
posted by yerfatma at 03:21 PM on July 31, 2015
I find compelling the legal analysis offered by the lawyer and sports journalist Lester Munson.
Who works for ESPN.
There seems to be a pattern here of sources within the NFL leaking information, both false and somewhat accurate, if incomplete, to ESPN. (Absolutely false statements about the ball pressures and an incomplete statement about Brady's 'phone records.) The tactic seems to be to get the focus placed on supposed misconduct by Brady and the Patriots, rather than any stretching of the CBA. It's a bit like handing a can of gasoline and a book of matches to an arsonist and making him promise not to start any fires.
posted by Howard_T at 03:42 PM on July 31, 2015
I don't see where leaks have anything to do with Munson's legal analysis.
Brady will of course have vociferous arguments to make. He and the NFLPA have creative attorneys who have to do something aggressive with the facts available to them.
But treating "equipment violations" like a well-established category of case law that Goodell had an obligation to follow seems, to me, like one of those soft lobs a bad quarterback throws over the middle of the field that gets a wide receiver clobbered. It seems easy to counter with the argument that DeflateGate is a unique set of circumstances.
But if Brady wants to risk serving a late-season suspension and either he or the NFLPA is willing to put huge money into a lawsuit, I don't have a problem with them trying to smack down Goodell. Maybe they'll prevail.
Paragraph 3 of this comment is dedicated to Blaine Gabbert and Steve Pelluer.
posted by rcade at 06:48 PM on July 31, 2015
I just ran across this blog tonight. It is perhaps the most reasoned analysis of the whole thing. It is written by a lawyer, Steph Stradley, who is also an NFL fan. The blog article is rather lengthy, but it is worth the read, if only to see a more or less neutral view. In response to rcades comment about leaks, above, MS Stradley makes note of the leaks and puts them in the category of "a bright, shiny object" intended to distract people from paying attention to the main point of contention.
My take on the leaks is that it is a deliberate attempt by the NFL to sully the reputation of the Patriots and Brady, thus making it more difficult for them to defend themselves in the so-called court of public opinion. This string of e-mails should be indicative of the NFL's attitude during this whole thing. Admittedly this is from a Patriots' web site, but the e-mails were sent and were not edited before being published on the site. Take them for what they are.
posted by Howard_T at 10:35 PM on July 31, 2015
Goodell upholds Tom Brady's suspension. So his maybe having something to do with some deflated footballs is in effect equal to Greg Hardy's proven assault and threat to kill.