Justice finally served
 

The NFL isn't hurting by any means, and has never been more successful.

That said, imo, the NFL has a bigger problem in trying to protect the health of the athletes and keeping them out of jail / or alive in some instances.

So good for them and the appeals court. Maybe they can focus on a real issue now and work on the image of the NFL.

Justice was not served. A divided appeals court decided it did not have sufficient grounds to intervene in a private arbitration.

Justice
 

....is in the eye of the beholder :)

No justice here, just something for Pats haters to grasp at.

You're telling me that MAYBE being aware of some air in a football deserves the same, or harsher, penalty than guys like Ray "I didn't murder anyone" Lewis, Greg "she had it coming" Hardy, Adrian "we all beat our kids in the south" Peterson, Ben "she wanted me" Roethlisberger, etc.

Fans of other teams are so jealous of the Patriots last 16 (SIXTEEN) years of success that this is all they have.

Pats will start the season 3-1, win the AFC and defeat the Seahawks in the Superbowl.

LOL. Yeah, the NFL and it's " punishment " is so screwed up. The suspension for Brady and Hardy are the same. 4 games each.

I don't know where the " hate " is coming from, but NOBODY can reason that an under inflated football is on the same level as domestic abuse.

Thank you, Lou! Also, notice how Manning's two issues have really just been swept away? So again, some air in a football for Brady is a federal case, but Manning rubbing his junk on a woman in college and taking HGH-nope, not gonna talk about that.

Just proves everyone loves their cheater better than the other guys.
IMO much ado about nothing.
Proves the other adage too, mediocrity doesn't breed contempt - success does.

The NFL is a terrible product which destroys the lives of many who play and is supported chiefly by gambling interests.

You're absolutely right about all of this. But, I think it's total crap that players have a behavioral clause (or character clause or whatever it's called) in their contracts. What if your employer had such? Do you think it's right/fair for employers to get involved in employee matters that happen outside the place of employment? If my employer did that, I would tell them to pound sand as I'm walking out the door to go visit an attorney.

Yes, those guys all deserve jail time for what they did (IMO). But it's a criminal matter, nothing to do with their employment. Likewise, if I cheated at my place of employment, I deserve to be punished.

So if you are convicted of a crime you don't think your employer has a right to terminate you?

+++

A few times I've wanted to post a bit of a rant publicly about software my wifes company makes. And she's basically told me that she's fine with it as long as I can make as much as she does, because she'd probably get fired.

It's not an issue everywhere, but not at all uncommon.

Steve B

I really think it depends on the crime. If it has a potential to affect your future employment with the company, then yes.

But I'm not sure how the accusations against the referenced players affected their employment???:confused: Make them more violent? :rolleyes:

I read an interesting article that was mostly about Drew Brees saying the punishment system is a mess, which it is.

What I found interesting was that the article claimed that the decision was that the NFL hadn't proven anything, but that since the CBA specifies that the commissioner has the authority to apply the fines and suspensions as punishments the suspension couldn't be overturned.

I'm figuring it was legally a bit more complex than that, but that was a simple way to frame it for the non-Lawyers.

While it seems strange to a layman, "you're essentially not guilty but still have to take the punishment" It does make a tiny bit of sense because of the CBA which seems like a contract of sorts?

I wouldn't mind hearing a better explanation from someone who knows the law end.

Steve B

Well it is a bit like that episode of "South Park", where Apple can basically insert any type of language into their terms every time they do an update on your computer or IPhone, and you either wouldn't bother to read the new terms, or if you did you'd agree to them anyways, because what are you gonna do, throw away your $500 IPhone?

Players agree to the CBA because they don't want to go on strike and they think they have a reasonable partner on the other end who won't exploit their power. Turns out they were wrong...however that shouldn't give Goodell carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants because of some legalese loophole in his favor.

Read the intro to the opinion, it's pretty straightforward and explains the very limited role of the courts in the matter.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content...0000655650.pdf

Thanks Peter I actually read the whole thing. It makes a lot more sense now.

This and the suspension should hopefully end it. Seems pretty clear as I read it that all players basically agreed ahead of time to let Goodell issue whatever he feels is appropriate and unless he goes insanely far overboard they're stuck with it.

Steve B

Yeah, people mistakenly have viewed the court phase of this as an adjudication of his innocence or guilt, but it's nothing of the kind.

/face palm