Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyCanuck
As a labour relaitons professional on the management side who has handled hundreds of employment investigations, argued many cases at arbitration, and negotiated several collective agreement ... this whole thing is ridiculous.
- I read the Wells Report. Even if you accept the science cited (which has been irrefutably disproved), his conclusions were entirely flawed. He concluded that the "preponderance of evidence" tipped in favour of Tom Brady being involved. I read the Wells Report and came to another equal conclusion: if the balls were tampered with (and there is no evidence that they were), the two equipment guys took it upon themselves to do so to keep the prima donna QB from bitching at them. If you have another equal probability, by definition ... you do not have the "preponderance of evidence" or balance of probabilities. That should have been a full stop to this whole thing.
- The science of the Wells Report was flawed in of itself. When the referee could not confirm which gauge was used and whether the same one was used at halftime as was used pregame ... you have no evidence upon which to draw any conculsions.
- Tom Brady's refusal to turn over his cell phone was appropriate. Given the kangaroo court nature of NFL justice, I'd be very cautious about letting them snoop. He agreed to turn over all relevant communication and there is no basis to conclude that he withheld anything. Turning over the phone is a red herring.
The NFL was wrong to impose any discipline on Brady or the Patriots. There was simply no evidence to support the conclusions of the Wells Report. Had the NFL Collective Agreement read like any other one I've ever seen (or negotiated) the grievance would have been adjudicated by a third party arbitrator who would have thrown out the discipline. End of story.
The problem with this whole case is the sheer negligence of the NFLPA in allowing the NFL Commissioner to be the final arbiter at his (or her) choosing. The lack of an independent grievance arbitration process allowed the NFL to conduct themselves in a manner entirely consistent with the Kangaroo Court they are.
The appellate decision is correct in that there was an overreach in overturning Goodell's decision as patently unreasonable. Portions of it were (such as the reliance on new evidence not before him in making his decision), but based on his acceptance of the Wells Report his decision was only unreasonable, not patently so.
What is really wrong about this is that the actual evidence is irrefutable: the balls were never tampered with. The pressures observed (by either gauge) have been proven to be within Ideal Gas Law parameters. Like him or not, a Hall of Fame QB's reputations has been unfairly tarnished and the Patriots as a franchise have been needlessly punished. |
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