Brady Suspension Overturned

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by egri

Kraft accepted the penalties "for the good of the NFL". He later said that was a mistake. Regardless of what you think about Brady, the fact remains that we are in a nation where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and there is no more proof of Brady's guilt than there is proof of life on Pluto. That you felt the need to insult his wife and drag their marriage into this tells me all I need to know about the merits (or lack thereof) of your case.

Right, so no commissioner can administer ANY disciplinary actions fairly unless he does it through our legal system. Same should be true if a child disobeys his parents. If it doesn't go through our legal system, it doesn't count. Everyone's always right about everything, no matter what the level, and it should take a judge to determine they are wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Right, so no commissioner can administer ANY disciplinary actions fairly unless he does it through our legal system. Same should be true if a child disobeys his parents. If it doesn't go through our legal system, it doesn't count. Everyone's always right about everything, no matter what the level, and it should take a judge to determine they are wrong.

Scott there is a collective bargaining agreement.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Scott there is a collective bargaining agreement.

Peter - it's obvious, and I'm not being sarcastic, that you understand the legal implications of all of this better than the rest of us, who represent the average joe who is watching from the sidelines. So no need to patronize me - I appreciate your expertise.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Peter - it's obvious, and I'm not being sarcastic, that you understand the legal implications of all of this better than the rest of us, who represent the average joe who is watching from the sidelines. So no need to patronize me - I appreciate your expertise.

Who was patronizing? I was simply explaining that your analogy didn't hold under the circumstances.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who was patronizing? I was simply explaining that your analogy didn't hold under the circumstances.

I'm aware of the collective bargaining agreement (plus, you already mentioned it in your previous response to me) - to the average guy watching football (as I already mentioned), I think my analogy holds up perfectly. I'm not a lawyer, and most people aren't - that fact gets lost on this forum because the lawyers are the ones who talk the 'loudest' and who absolutely never back down.