stratslinger
Well-Known Member
Imagine that - in the end, the judge's decision all boils down to Goodell not following the CBA.
His points:
1) The player has to be given prior notice of conduct and penalty for said conduct - the notice Brady (and all other players) had been given for any sort of equipment violations amounted to fines.
2) Again, under prior notice, no player was given prior notice about football pressures - that notice was given to the teams and their staff. As in the 2009 Jets game where an illegally tampered-with kicking ball was attempted to be entered into play, the staff member responsible for the balls was penalized, but the kicker - the player who would benefit from the tampering - was never even investigated, let along penalized - completely in line with what's set forth in the CBA. The application of those rules to Brady is an overreach of the CBA.
3) Again, under prior notice, even if you want to make the case for conduct detrimental due to withholding or destroying evidence, nobody in the history of the NFL has ever been suspended for that. The CBA doesn't say it's acceptable, past precedent doesn't say it's acceptable, ergo, it's not acceptable.
These come right out of the judge's decision. Points 1 & 2 are things I pointed out a month or two back (maybe the judge is an HBT'er?), Point 3 is actually a point made by Paul Tagliabue in the Bounty Gate appeals.
His points:
1) The player has to be given prior notice of conduct and penalty for said conduct - the notice Brady (and all other players) had been given for any sort of equipment violations amounted to fines.
2) Again, under prior notice, no player was given prior notice about football pressures - that notice was given to the teams and their staff. As in the 2009 Jets game where an illegally tampered-with kicking ball was attempted to be entered into play, the staff member responsible for the balls was penalized, but the kicker - the player who would benefit from the tampering - was never even investigated, let along penalized - completely in line with what's set forth in the CBA. The application of those rules to Brady is an overreach of the CBA.
3) Again, under prior notice, even if you want to make the case for conduct detrimental due to withholding or destroying evidence, nobody in the history of the NFL has ever been suspended for that. The CBA doesn't say it's acceptable, past precedent doesn't say it's acceptable, ergo, it's not acceptable.
These come right out of the judge's decision. Points 1 & 2 are things I pointed out a month or two back (maybe the judge is an HBT'er?), Point 3 is actually a point made by Paul Tagliabue in the Bounty Gate appeals.
![Craft A Brew - Safale BE-256 Yeast - Fermentis - Belgian Ale Dry Yeast - For Belgian & Strong Ales - Ingredients for Home Brewing - Beer Making Supplies - [3 Pack]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51bcKEwQmWL._SL500_.jpg)
