In the context of the Wells Report findings ("general awareness", "more likely than not", the PSI levels being off (as conceded in Wells Report) by about 0.1 to 0.2 of a PSI), the schedule of fines for equipment violations set forth in the rule book, the high likelihood that any deflation was caused by operation of the ideal gas law, the "deflategate" texts from the two guys dated months before the Colts play-off game, that Brady never was found to ask for any balls below the 12.5 legal limit, that other equipment tampering has either been ignored or admonished with warning (Vikings heating balls), that refusal to turn over phones has only met wtih a fine (Brett Favre), to suggest the NFL's position of 3 games was just as reasonable as Brady's offer of a one game suspension, is nonsensical to me.
I still don't understand why people knock the "more likely than not" standard. It's been the burden of proof in civil cases for literally hundreds of years. It's hardly shocking, or worthy of criticism.
As for the other issues, you don't really examine the evidence at this stage. It's not about who has the facts on their side. Rather, it's about who has a stronger legal position. Most experts concede that that is the NFL, although the Judge in this matter may rely on procedural issues to vacate the arbitration award. (I'd be very surprised if the Judge made a finding that Goddell was partial, though. That would essentially render that portion of the CBA meaningless, and Judges in general won't touch collectively bargained agreements).
So, yes, in terms of the strength of legal positions, the NFL's offer of 3 games is on par with Brady's offer of 1 game.
I think people generally knock it because this situation is like a criminal prosecution. Civil disputes are usually about contract language or culpability not whether or not something happened.
Personally, I'm fine with the standard, I just don't think the NFL came anywhere close to meeting it. In fact, it is no standard at all if you can dismiss all the evidence you don't like and turn your opinions into evidence on your side. That is the inherent difficulty in letting one side do all the investigation, interviews, weighing of the evidence and handing out the penalties. Add to that not letting the other side see evidence or cross the co-author of the report leads to this entire process being a sham and not an arbitration.
While people can say the NFLPA gave Goodell this power, they did not agree to waive all due process. As far as I can tell, due process wasn't addressed in the CBA. The NFL never said there wouldn't be due process and the NFLPA never waived it.
With that said, I can't see the NFL prevailing. If Berman agrees the NFL does not owe the NFLPA a fair process that would go against Federal Law which requires it. If Berman allows Goodell to be a partial arbiter, it would go against Federal Law. It would set the precedent that Goodell doesn't really even owe the players anything other than appearing before him during an arbitration hearing. He wouldn't have to have an investigation, allow the players to cross anyone, or even pay attention in the arbitration hearing. I can't see that happening. Guess we will know by Friday.
Topic: #DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension) (Read 600466 times)