To some of us this was totally expected

guppy wrote:The process was so fundamentally unfair, and lacked independence and impartiality, that vacating Goodell's kangaroo court's "appeal" decision was really the only possible result........if you were a fair-minded, objective, and reasonable person.


To rely exclusively on the argument that the CBA gives Goodell the authority to do anything he wants is an oversimplification and actually intellectually lazy.  You can have arbitration, but it CANNOT be carried out irresponsibly and unfairly which the Brady process CLEARLY, CLEARLY was.

Rick wrote:

guppy wrote:The process was so fundamentally unfair, and lacked independence and impartiality, that vacating Goodell's kangaroo court's "appeal" decision was really the only possible result........if you were a fair-minded, objective, and reasonable person.


To rely exclusively on the argument that the CBA gives Goodell the authority to do anything he wants is an oversimplification and actually intellectually lazy.  You can have arbitration, but it CANNOT be carried out irresponsibly and unfairly which the Brady process CLEARLY, CLEARLY was.

Read the decision. Don't go by what they must be saying on Boston Fan Boy radio. Actually read a document for once.

IV.    Analysis.

An arbitrators factual findings are generally not open to judicial challenge, and we accept the facts as the arbitrator found them.

Brady basically got off an a technicality. A couple of them actually.
The strange notion that Brady should have been specifically told what was made very clear in every contract and CBA he ever signed. That breaking rules and refusing to cooperate was conduct detrimental and that he could be punished for it.
And that he should have been allowed to call Pash at his appeal. Which has some merit despite the fact that it wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome of the appeal.
That's what it is and, unlike you, I respect the process.
But do me a favor will you, please don't use words like "exonorated", "vindicated" or anything similar. Just accept that he got away with it and be happy with that.

Rick?  or George?   LOL.

Here are the appropriate words:  "Framed"  "Innocent".

Tried to explain it so even dummies can understand it.  The CBA gave Goodell the authority.  It did NOT give the the power to ABUSE  that authority.

Brady is and always was INNOCENT.

Wells Report = Joke.  Always was.  Complete and total stinking pile of garbage.  Totally discredited and ripped to shreds by multiple independent sources.
Brady = More integrity than you.  Anyone judging someone without any incriminating evidence has NO integrity.  Time to look in the mirror.

Told you in America there is still a requirement of fundamental fairness.  This is not Iran.

Good luck at the 2nd Circuit.  LOL.

Rick wrote:

guppy wrote:The process was so fundamentally unfair, and lacked independence and impartiality, that vacating Goodell's kangaroo court's "appeal" decision was really the only possible result........if you were a fair-minded, objective, and reasonable person.


To rely exclusively on the argument that the CBA gives Goodell the authority to do anything he wants is an oversimplification and actually intellectually lazy.  You can have arbitration, but it CANNOT be carried out irresponsibly and unfairly which the Brady process CLEARLY, CLEARLY was.

Read the decision. Don't go by what they must be saying on Boston Fan Boy radio. Actually read a document for once.

IV.    Analysis.

An arbitrators factual findings are generally not open to judicial challenge, and we accept the facts as the arbitrator found them.

Brady basically got off an a technicality. A couple of them actually.
The strange notion that Brady should have been specifically told what was made very clear in every contract and CBA he ever signed. That breaking rules and refusing to cooperate was conduct detrimental and that he could be punished for it.
And that he should have been allowed to call Pash at his appeal. Which has some merit despite the fact that it wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome of the appeal.
That's what it is and, unlike you, I respect the process.
But do me a favor will you, please don't use words like "exonorated", "vindicated" or anything similar. Just accept that he got away with it and be happy with that.

You seriously have zero understanding of legal reasoning and analysis.   Zero.

He didn't "get away with it" you tool, because there was no "it" in the first place to get away with.   Try to get that through your skull.  I know its hard because you're so entrenched in your position (your own fault).  But try.

Now to change tracks from the legal world to the real world, the appropriate words are:  "vindicated",  "exonerated", "framed", "innocent", "absolved", "justice" "righteousness", "victory".

 

guppy wrote:

Rick wrote:

guppy wrote:The process was so fundamentally unfair, and lacked independence and impartiality, that vacating Goodell's kangaroo court's "appeal" decision was really the only possible result........if you were a fair-minded, objective, and reasonable person.


To rely exclusively on the argument that the CBA gives Goodell the authority to do anything he wants is an oversimplification and actually intellectually lazy.  You can have arbitration, but it CANNOT be carried out irresponsibly and unfairly which the Brady process CLEARLY, CLEARLY was.

Read the decision. Don't go by what they must be saying on Boston Fan Boy radio. Actually read a document for once.

IV.    Analysis.

An arbitrators factual findings are generally not open to judicial challenge, and we accept the facts as the arbitrator found them.

Brady basically got off an a technicality. A couple of them actually.
The strange notion that Brady should have been specifically told what was made very clear in every contract and CBA he ever signed. That breaking rules and refusing to cooperate was conduct detrimental and that he could be punished for it.
And that he should have been allowed to call Pash at his appeal. Which has some merit despite the fact that it wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome of the appeal.
That's what it is and, unlike you, I respect the process.
But do me a favor will you, please don't use words like "exonorated", "vindicated" or anything similar. Just accept that he got away with it and be happy with that.

Rick?  or George?   LOL.

Huh? Rick. I'm just telling you what I've been telling people all afternoon. Don't take a big victory lap over this. I've stayed pretty much completely silent about this whole thing hoping that someday somebody at some level of the process would find a justifiable hole in the swiss cheese of the NFL case. Berman did with the Pash thing at least.

Rick wrote:

Actually read a document for once.

Screw you.

unlike you, I respect the process.

Screw you again. 


But do me a favor will you, please don't use words like "exonorated", "vindicated" or anything similar.

Exonerated.

Vindicated.

Deal with it.

Just accept that he got away with it

There was no "it" to "get away with".  Totally manufactured, bogus case from the get-go. 

Innocent. 

Justice served.  Only partially, since Brady has been wrongly defamed, and the NFL and Wells should be held accountable and made to pay.   

Judge Berman was the very first impartial, unbiased person to review the entire matter.  NFL appealing his decision has no shot.  None. 

Time to really celebrate the championship and the MVP himself.  You know, take a victory lap. 

Rick wrote:
But do me a favor will you, please don't use words like "exonorated", "vindicated" or anything similar.

Do me a favor will you.  Wake up and smell the coffee.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


"Tom Brady deserved total vindication."
                               - Jonathan Kraft

Numb1Fan wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Numb1Fan wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]