I wish he were still alive to see this day. I have to think that if the late great baseball union leader were alive today, Kraft would be his favorite owner bar none.
What Kraft and the Patriots are doing here is really without precedent-in football, or for that matter, baseball and basketball-he's standing with his player and those who work for him against an arbitrary and capricious ruling by the Commissioner.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-england-patriots/0ap3000000492683/Patriots-release-rebuttal-to-Wells-Report
Now to show how capricious and arbitrary he really is, Goodell is now installing himself to be judge, jury, and executioner of Brady's appeal.
By the way, it's amazing to me how most people are so reflexively pro-management in these disputes. All you hear about is how Brady and the Patriots failed to cooperate-Brady should have given over his phone and all his records to them.
The fact that he didn't proves in the mind of public opinion that therefore he must be guilty. It's as if there's no such thing as the US Constitution. There is such a thing as proper cause and due process; with this in mind, why exactly should Tom Brady be compelled to testify against himself and to be assumed guilty because he didn't?
There is such a thing as Miranda Rights whereby you don't have to testify against yourself. Now all the geniuses in the sports press conclude that if Brady were innocent he'd testify against himself.
That's not how due process works-and what Miller showed is that yes baseball-and football-are these wonderful games that we love, but that there is a business side to this as well and players have a the same legal rights as the rest of us.
Why would I if I'm innocent not testify against myself? Because in a Kangaroo Court, the truth doesn't matter.
There are a lot of moving parts here. Brady has appealed and he and the NFLPA had wanted an independent arbitrator but Goodell ignored this request.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000492665/article/tom-brady-appeals-suspension-goodell-to-hear-case
A lot of people are arguing that's the fault of the union who did accept this collective bargaining agreement in 2011 that gave Goodell this option to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Maybe, but it's never too late to overturn a bad agreement. This is why I'm not sure what Goodell's endgame is here. Maybe it's to lay down the law to show who's boss.
Or maybe it's actually the realization that this has gone much further than it needed to and that this freak show is not worth it. I mean here is Tom Brady the game's greatest QB and ambassador and you're trying to spit on his shoes and brand a Scarlet C on his chest. It doesn't make sense.
Remember that this appeal process is not necessarily the end of it. If Brady isn't satisfied by the verdict he may de-certify his union membership take it to court where he can get a truly independent hearing.
Then there is the Patriots who put out that point by point rebuttal of the Wells Report and who also have the option of appealing the punishment and also of a lawsuit against Goodell.
With all these possibilities, Goodell may realize that the best choice might be to be a little more conciliatory to Brady in the appeal and maybe even let him go with no suspended games.
Basically there are 2 possible reasons he took the appeal personally.
1. He wants to be the tough guy and come down and tell Brady he has to eat the 4 game suspension. Or even if he cuts from say 4 to 2, he wants to establish that it's his league and he'll make the rules.
2. Or he does realize that this has the potential to spiral out of control over a pretty trivial issue to start with-whether or not a few balls were a few psi short of 12.5 lbs in the first half of a 45-7 game; that Pats were up 17-7 at the half but won the second half where everyone agrees the balls were the correct weight, 28-0
He may decide it's not worth going to war over. It could also really backfire if he made the union reconsider it's CBA agreement that gives him all this power.
As for all this carping on that one part of the rebuttal where the Pats claimed that 'Deflator' meant he was trying to lose weight, I think most people are just clueless about the law-due process, etc.
Remember no one would stop harping when Bill Clinton said 'That depends what the definition of is is.' That was seen as the most ludicrous and damning moment of human history at the time.
Yet ultimately, Clinton knew what he was doing-it's about not testifying against yourself. The law isn't always just about common sense.
If Goodell has common sense he may want to defuse this rather than further inflame it.
P.S. Again, a lot of people just presume that it's the most natural thing in the world for the Commissioner to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Everyone thought that Barry Bonds was going to jail but they were wrong. Everyone thought that Clemens was going to lose in court and go to jail and they were wrong.
Scott Sumner says that all that matters is the conventional wisdom
In a way I sympathize with Krugman. I can’t understand how anyone could think a fiat money central bank would be unable to debase its currency at zero rates. I can’t imagine how anyone could think money was not obviously way too tight in 2008 (recall that interest rates were not at the zero bound.) So I get the frustration he must feel about his views being ignored by the VSPs. But I also understand that the part of my brain that tells me that the conventional narrative is stupid, is itself unreliable."
What Kraft and the Patriots are doing here is really without precedent-in football, or for that matter, baseball and basketball-he's standing with his player and those who work for him against an arbitrary and capricious ruling by the Commissioner.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/new-england-patriots/0ap3000000492683/Patriots-release-rebuttal-to-Wells-Report
Now to show how capricious and arbitrary he really is, Goodell is now installing himself to be judge, jury, and executioner of Brady's appeal.
By the way, it's amazing to me how most people are so reflexively pro-management in these disputes. All you hear about is how Brady and the Patriots failed to cooperate-Brady should have given over his phone and all his records to them.
The fact that he didn't proves in the mind of public opinion that therefore he must be guilty. It's as if there's no such thing as the US Constitution. There is such a thing as proper cause and due process; with this in mind, why exactly should Tom Brady be compelled to testify against himself and to be assumed guilty because he didn't?
There is such a thing as Miranda Rights whereby you don't have to testify against yourself. Now all the geniuses in the sports press conclude that if Brady were innocent he'd testify against himself.
That's not how due process works-and what Miller showed is that yes baseball-and football-are these wonderful games that we love, but that there is a business side to this as well and players have a the same legal rights as the rest of us.
Why would I if I'm innocent not testify against myself? Because in a Kangaroo Court, the truth doesn't matter.
There are a lot of moving parts here. Brady has appealed and he and the NFLPA had wanted an independent arbitrator but Goodell ignored this request.
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000492665/article/tom-brady-appeals-suspension-goodell-to-hear-case
A lot of people are arguing that's the fault of the union who did accept this collective bargaining agreement in 2011 that gave Goodell this option to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Maybe, but it's never too late to overturn a bad agreement. This is why I'm not sure what Goodell's endgame is here. Maybe it's to lay down the law to show who's boss.
Or maybe it's actually the realization that this has gone much further than it needed to and that this freak show is not worth it. I mean here is Tom Brady the game's greatest QB and ambassador and you're trying to spit on his shoes and brand a Scarlet C on his chest. It doesn't make sense.
Remember that this appeal process is not necessarily the end of it. If Brady isn't satisfied by the verdict he may de-certify his union membership take it to court where he can get a truly independent hearing.
Then there is the Patriots who put out that point by point rebuttal of the Wells Report and who also have the option of appealing the punishment and also of a lawsuit against Goodell.
With all these possibilities, Goodell may realize that the best choice might be to be a little more conciliatory to Brady in the appeal and maybe even let him go with no suspended games.
Basically there are 2 possible reasons he took the appeal personally.
1. He wants to be the tough guy and come down and tell Brady he has to eat the 4 game suspension. Or even if he cuts from say 4 to 2, he wants to establish that it's his league and he'll make the rules.
2. Or he does realize that this has the potential to spiral out of control over a pretty trivial issue to start with-whether or not a few balls were a few psi short of 12.5 lbs in the first half of a 45-7 game; that Pats were up 17-7 at the half but won the second half where everyone agrees the balls were the correct weight, 28-0
He may decide it's not worth going to war over. It could also really backfire if he made the union reconsider it's CBA agreement that gives him all this power.
As for all this carping on that one part of the rebuttal where the Pats claimed that 'Deflator' meant he was trying to lose weight, I think most people are just clueless about the law-due process, etc.
Remember no one would stop harping when Bill Clinton said 'That depends what the definition of is is.' That was seen as the most ludicrous and damning moment of human history at the time.
Yet ultimately, Clinton knew what he was doing-it's about not testifying against yourself. The law isn't always just about common sense.
If Goodell has common sense he may want to defuse this rather than further inflame it.
P.S. Again, a lot of people just presume that it's the most natural thing in the world for the Commissioner to be Judge, Jury, and Executioner. Everyone thought that Barry Bonds was going to jail but they were wrong. Everyone thought that Clemens was going to lose in court and go to jail and they were wrong.
Scott Sumner says that all that matters is the conventional wisdom
In a way I sympathize with Krugman. I can’t understand how anyone could think a fiat money central bank would be unable to debase its currency at zero rates. I can’t imagine how anyone could think money was not obviously way too tight in 2008 (recall that interest rates were not at the zero bound.) So I get the frustration he must feel about his views being ignored by the VSPs. But I also understand that the part of my brain that tells me that the conventional narrative is stupid, is itself unreliable."
"Indeed it’s more than unreliable, it’s a logical contradiction. The conventional narrative can never, ever be stupid, as ‘stupidity’ is defined as reasoning that falls short of the conventional wisdom."
http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=29399#comments
I guess that's kind of how Richard Rorty's pragmatists look at it. For Rorty 'truth' is basically whatever the consensus is of a particular society.
Whatever you want to say about the conventional wisdom, it's often dead wrong.
P.S.S. Sumner doesn't 'sympathize' with Krugman, that's just more of his patented concern trolling.
P.S.S.S. Truth is stranger than fiction; even stranger than that is Justice.
P.S.S.S.S Because of my high esteem of Marvin Miller I wish him something better than that he 'rest in peace'; that he not rest in peace; or better yet that he not rest at all. No consequential spirit wants rest or peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment