kearly
New member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 15,974
- Reaction score
- 0
Vancanhawksfan":2jgxiu66 said: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.