Brady: Four-game suspension reinstated

[kearly]

You know, I don't want to rain on your parade and bring you down from your lofty perch. However, despite the result being what you were praying for your reply clearly demonstrates that you have absolutely zero clue about what the appellate court arguments were or what exactly this ruling was.

Read a little bit about it in the news releases.

I've been following this case for months and have posted updates in this forum from time to time. I'm not a legal expert by any means, I'm not nearly smart enough for that. But I have noticed that judges tend to drop hints about their leanings in very public cases.

For example, Berman downplayed the importance of deflated footballs and openly mocked the NFL attorneys, so it wasn't a shock at all when he ruled in favor of Tom Brady. On the flip side, judges in the appellate court spoke up about the destroyed phone and seemed far more sympathetic to the idea that Goodell acted within his authority. So when they favored the NFL by a 2-1 decision, it wasn't surprising, and in fact there have been clear signs of the Patriots preparing for this decision for the past two months, including a contract restructure for Tom Brady's contract and the creation of new websites whose content seemed to hint at an upcoming defeat.

As I said in the post you replied to, this wasn't officially putting Brady on trial. But if elements of guilt were meaningless, then why did the judges mention them? This leads me to believe that the context of the case colored the decision-making of the judges rulings (rightly or wrongly) when technically they were only deciding whether or not Goodell acted within his broadly defined authority as bargained with the NFLPA.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Waiting for your response Vancanhawksfan.

"Lofty perch" huh? Utterly uncalled for. No wonder Kip quit doing Random Thoughts. Sigh.

Waiting for your response Vancanhawksfan.

 

[chris98251]

Not a surprise at all. Love it. Judge Berman went against historical precedent to rule in favor of Brady, and ignored a mountain of circumstantial evidence to do so. The appeals judges weren't so quick to overlook things like the suspect destroying his phone. Technically this wasn't putting Brady on trial, but the details of the case factored when determining if Goodell acted within his authority. Which he did.

It sucks that Brady would miss week 1 against AZ. But he might not, if he decides to attempt another appeal (difficult) or try to delay the suspension.

You know, I don't want to rain on your parade and bring you down from your lofty perch. However, despite the result being what you were praying for your reply clearly demonstrates that you have absolutely zero clue about what the appellate court arguments were or what exactly this ruling was.

Read a little bit about it in the news releases.

Seems that someone has a higher Perch to look down on from above, just remember that Karma is a Bitch.

Also, everyone here has been following this pretty closely, you may not agree with Kearly but I do know he has a history of being thorough and makes a effort to fact find about most of what he posts, he may interpret things in a different way but it's his right to an opinion. That's happens when you have a long history of good posts and contributions, maybe someday you can achieve that status as well.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Not a surprise at all. Love it. Judge Berman went against historical precedent to rule in favor of Brady, and ignored a mountain of circumstantial evidence to do so. The appeals judges weren't so quick to overlook things like the suspect destroying his phone. Technically this wasn't putting Brady on trial, but the details of the case factored when determining if Goodell acted within his authority. Which he did.

It sucks that Brady would miss week 1 against AZ. But he might not, if he decides to attempt another appeal (difficult) or try to delay the suspension.

You know, I don't want to rain on your parade and bring you down from your lofty perch. However, despite the result being what you were praying for your reply clearly demonstrates that you have absolutely zero clue about what the appellate court arguments were or what exactly this ruling was.

Read a little bit about it in the news releases.

Seems that someone has a higher Perch to look down on from above, just remember that Karma is a Bitch.

Also, everyone here has been following this pretty closely, you may not agree with Kearly but I do know he has a history of being thorough and makes a effort to fact find about most of what he posts, he may interpret things in a different way but it's his right to an opinion. That's happens when you have a long history of good posts and contributions, maybe someday you can achieve that status as well.

STILL waiting for your response to kearly's post Vancanhawksfan................
Also waiting for your response to this post by Chris, Vancanhawksfan..............

 

[pmedic920]

;{)