The Stephen A. Smith-from ESPN"s First Take- argument is that
1. This is much ado about nothing
2. But Roger Goodell is all-powerful ased on the 2012 collective bargaining agreement so no way can he lose.
3. For some reason despite 1 Stephen A also declares that 'Brady is 'not going to get off Scot-Free.'
4. SA also gets almost apocalyptic that if the NFL loses this case that's the end of the Commissioner not just in the NFL but in MLB, NHL, and the NBA. The sun may just not come out tomorrow if Goodell doesn't get his way here.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/on-tom-brady-nfl-sounds-more-like.html
So this is the whole anti Brady argument as it's evolved-its' no big deal but Goodell is all-powerful within the NFL and so he wins.
Well the judge in the appeal who has begged the NFL to negotiate a deal doesn't seen so impressed by Goodell's all-powerful monarch self.
"It happened over and over during Nash's 63 minutes in front of the judge and with each Berman question or counterpoint, none of them positive for the NFL, Nash began taking a small, but telling, step back from the lectern, like a boxer retreating in the face of an incoming haymaker."
"He may have expected to duel NFL Players Association attorney Jeffrey Kessler here. He probably wasn't expecting the judge to be even tougher on him and it figuratively rocked him."
"Berman reminded everyone last week not to read too far into the tone and frequency of his questions to lawyers because it wouldn't necessarily reveal his feeling on the case. This week he didn't repeat the request."
"Not that it would've mattered."
"Berman could still rule for the NFL and could just be playing Devil's Advocate – this is a United States District Court, not a political debate – but it sure didn't feel that way here on Wednesday morning. One example among many?"
"There has to be some basic process of fairness that needs to be followed," Berman argued to Nash after the NFL explained why it failed to allow Brady to question certain witnesses, notably general counsel Jeff Pash, who also co-wrote the disputed Ted Wells report about deflated footballs.
"When Nash tried to argue that Pash wasn't that involved and was more of an editor, Berman, like this was a cross-examination, pointed to an NFL press release that referred to Pash as "co-lead." Nash, stepped back from that lectern, again tried to minimize it as just a press release."
"He may have expected to duel NFL Players Association attorney Jeffrey Kessler here. He probably wasn't expecting the judge to be even tougher on him and it figuratively rocked him."
"Berman reminded everyone last week not to read too far into the tone and frequency of his questions to lawyers because it wouldn't necessarily reveal his feeling on the case. This week he didn't repeat the request."
"Not that it would've mattered."
"Berman could still rule for the NFL and could just be playing Devil's Advocate – this is a United States District Court, not a political debate – but it sure didn't feel that way here on Wednesday morning. One example among many?"
"There has to be some basic process of fairness that needs to be followed," Berman argued to Nash after the NFL explained why it failed to allow Brady to question certain witnesses, notably general counsel Jeff Pash, who also co-wrote the disputed Ted Wells report about deflated footballs.
"When Nash tried to argue that Pash wasn't that involved and was more of an editor, Berman, like this was a cross-examination, pointed to an NFL press release that referred to Pash as "co-lead." Nash, stepped back from that lectern, again tried to minimize it as just a press release."
"Well," Berman said, "it's not my press release. You all wrote it."
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/deflate-gate-judge-hammers-nfl-s-case-against-tom-brady---your-honor-is-spot-on---defense-crows--192153861.html
Fairness? Why would the judge be discussing fairness? I thought Goodell was all=powerful and His will be done fair or not because that;s what the CBA says.
Fairness? Why would the judge be discussing fairness? I thought Goodell was all=powerful and His will be done fair or not because that;s what the CBA says.
I've had this argument with Brady haters. Berman said something very important: even if there is a CBA it can't violate the law. If Goodell is an absolute monarch in the NFL his rule must still comply fully with the laws of the United States.
Maybe he should call Trump's' lawyer to see if he can change this part of the Constitution as well.
I think there has been a rush to judgment of many against Brady for one reason: he's a great player, one of the greatest ever and a lot of envious people love to see the fall of greatness.
I noticed that many on Twitter praised Goodell's standing by the harsh sentence because it shows that in the NFL the rules apply to everybody. I think because such people don't like high achievers like Brady they just want to see him brought low.
It's almost as if because he's the Golden Boy he must be guilty. There's nothing fair about wrongly punishing someone-and the NFL rules for deflating a football call for no more than a $30,000 dollar fine-or punishing them overly severely just because they are a great football player.
Like a lot of people cheering Brady's punishment have no idea if he's guilty or not but they just presume he is because they enjoy the Golden Boy being brought low.
What I might recommend for Smith and other Brady haters is reading the Constitution sometime. I mean-and I like this guy and agree with him often but on this he's just been totally and utterly wrong-there is something called due process, and the right not to testify against yourself. It's in the Constitution.
If you don't like it call Trump's lawyer and see if he can get it overturned.
No comments:
Post a Comment