Iâve been critical of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell for his handling of disciplining Adrian Peterson, Ray Rice and Greg Hardy. His disciplinary actions violated the NFL-NFLPA rules of the shop in terms of how long Commissioner Goodell could suspend players for. For instance, when Adrian struck his son with a wooden switch, the maximum suspension for such an offense was 2 games. Ditto with Ray Rice.
After the public outcry over the Rice suspension reached deafening levels after a video was found from inside the casino hotel showing Ray Rice hitting his then-fiancé, Commissioner Goodell instituted a new set of rules. In both the Rice and Peterson cases, federal judges ruled that the violations happened before the new rules went into effect. In those instances, the judges ruled that Commissioner Goodell hadnât applied the existing “rules of the shop” in disciplining Rice and Peterson.
I fully support Commissioner Goodellâs ruling against Tom Brady for a multiple reasons, which Iâll get into shortly. First, though, itâs important to highlight what went into the NFLâs decision:
On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed. He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. ?During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.
Because the appeal that the NFLPA will file in federal court within the next 2 weeks will be about the process that the NFL used, they wonât be re-litigating Troy Vincentâs or Roger Goodellâs findings of facts. Thatâs why itâs certain that the federal appellate courts will uphold Bradyâs suspension. Thatâs also why the judiciary wonât grant an injunction that would put Bradyâs suspension on hold until the appeal can be heard.
Injunctions and TROs arenât granted unless the court thinks that the plaintiff has a chance of winning on the merits of the case. That gets into the procedural part of this suspension.
Most importantly, the collective bargaining agreement between the NFL and the NFLPA stipulates that the NFL commissioner has the right to hear the appeals for violations of league rules regarding the games itself. Thereâs a different procedure in place for what the NFL and NFLPA call personal conduct policies. Petersonâs and Riceâs violations violated the NFLâs personal conduct policies. Tom Bradyâs violation had to do with the game itself.
Since the collective bargaining agreement gives Commissioner Goodell the right to hear Bradyâs appeal, itâs difficult to see how a court could rule against the NFL in this case. Further, the fact that the NFL highlighted the fact that Brady destroyed his cell phone knowing that the NFL investigator wanted to look at the text messages between Brady and the Patriotsâ locker room guys is a major red flag. There isnât an honest investigator alive who wouldnât think of this as a major infraction.
Thatâs like telling the IRS agent that you get rid of your tax returns every 2 years right before they audit you. Of course, that isnât going to fly.
I donât know when the NFLPAâs lawsuit will be heard or in which court itâll be filed. Whatâs certain, though, is that itâll end with Tom Brady serving a 4-game suspension.
Well, you could most certainly be right, but I think the NFL is wrong. They have no evidence, to my knowledge. I keep hearing that “Patriot balls were deflated but Colt balls were not, therefore somebody deflated the Patriot balls.” But AFAIK the Colt balls were NOT all tested, and it was later concluded that the pressure difference could have been due to temperature alone. Iâm sure that the ball boys had been told or were at least aware to inflate to the bottom of the tolerance band, perfectly legal, but we have no evidence whatsoever that anybody asked or did anything to violate the rules. Itâs all circumstantial and wouldnât likely hold up in court. Now the kangaroo court of the NFL…
Jerry, letâs stipulate that there isnât documentary proof or an affidavit from Mr. Jastremski that said “I deflated the footballs because Tom Brady told me to deflate them after the officials inspected them.” Iâd consider that smoking gun evidence. In the vast majority of criminal cases, convictions are obtained without smoking gun testimony. Does that make the convictions of the criminals who got convicted by connecting the dots through circumstantial evidence flimsy? Of course it doesnât.
Further, several of the Patriotsâ footballs werenât just a little under pressure. One was almost 2psi less than acceptable. Itâs impossible to convince me that thatâs because it was cold out. Further, we know from multiple QBs, both past and present, that thereâs no way those equipment guys did anything other than what their teamâs starting QB told them to do. That includes statements from HoF QBs like Troy Aikman and Steve Young to former Jaguars starting QB Mark Brunell to former players like Brian Dawkins, Jerome Bettis and Ryan Clark.
As for your asinine statement that the ruling “wouldnât likely hold up in court”, itâs about to be upheld in court.
I suspect you are correct that the ruling WILL be upheld in court because of the contract he was a party to. I donât think it would hold up in a criminal or even civil court based simply on the lack of evidence. Again, as far as I know, the Colts footballs may have been under-inflated also but were not tested. And an expert has testified that cold weather COULD make the difference found. As for the court of public opinion, I think Brady has lost that one, too. Itâs a crying shame how the media can set out to destroy someone- particularly a “hero” or a Republican of any kind- based on almost nothing, and succeed.
J:
The NFL thought there were text messages (and I believe they have seen at least one from an equipment guy to Brady). Showing the phone and the messages wouldâve confirmed everything. Brady is trying the Hillary defense which isnât working well.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
It may be the Hillary defense, but itâs being played completely differently. Hillary is only being penalized in the sense of public opinion, and the major media AND her “employer,” the Democrat Party faithful, are covering for her. Brady is being pilloried and pursued by the press AND his employer, and is suffering real financial and career harm as a direct result. One might like such penalties to be levied on the basis of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”