FB: Wisconsin Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[jknezek]

Why do you guys keep thinking about this like it's a criminal case? It's not. It's not criminal, it's not civil, it's a workplace issue. Your workplace has rules. If you don't follow the rules, you get punished. The bar for what qualifies as "breaking the rules" is a heck of a lot lower in a workplace then in a criminal or civil case. Confusing the two and insisting on the same processes and standards is ludicrous. He's not going to jail, he's not even being sued. He's being told by the organization to which he is responsible that he broke their rules and has to take a few days of unpaid leave in punishment. Big whoop.

I daresay that if your boss thought you broke the rules in your workplace, you would face consequences as well. And your boss wouldn't have to prove it at a legal level either for a minor suspension. Don't like it? Quit and find a new job. I'm sure the CFL would love Tom Brady to come play up north of the border. But otherwise, he is subject to the rules of the NFL which don't have to reach up to the criminal statutes. If he didn't want to help the NFL investigate the case and provide the information and answers they wanted, then they will assume he is hiding something. Your boss would make the same assumption and act appropriately. The NFL doesn't have subpoena power any more than the NCAA does, so they rely on cooperation. You don't cooperate? Then you are going to be punished.

For crying out loud guys, an unsportsmanlike penalty, or a targeting call, can get you suspended. You don't have to go to court to prove it for the NFL to level the suspension.

[DBQ1965]

Well said jknezek.  Having spent enough of my career (now retired) dealing with incidents of sexual misconduct in the work place, you are spot on in focusing on work place rules and expectations.  You don't have to break the law to be in violation of the rules ... and to find your butt in a jam.

[wally_wabash]

Why do you guys keep thinking about this like it's a criminal case? It's not. It's not criminal, it's not civil, it's a workplace issue. Your workplace has rules. If you don't follow the rules, you get punished. The bar for what qualifies as "breaking the rules" is a heck of a lot lower in a workplace then in a criminal or civil case. Confusing the two and insisting on the same processes and standards is ludicrous. He's not going to jail, he's not even being sued. He's being told by the organization to which he is responsible that he broke their rules and has to take a few days of unpaid leave in punishment. Big whoop.

I daresay that if your boss thought you broke the rules in your workplace, you would face consequences as well. And your boss wouldn't have to prove it at a legal level either for a minor suspension. Don't like it? Quit and find a new job. I'm sure the CFL would love Tom Brady to come play up north of the border. But otherwise, he is subject to the rules of the NFL which don't have to reach up to the criminal statutes. If he didn't want to help the NFL investigate the case and provide the information and answers they wanted, then they will assume he is hiding something. Your boss would make the same assumption and act appropriately. The NFL doesn't have subpoena power any more than the NCAA does, so they rely on cooperation. You don't cooperate? Then you are going to be punished.

For crying out loud guys, an unsportsmanlike penalty, or a targeting call, can get you suspended. You don't have to go to court to prove it for the NFL to level the suspension.

I don't think that breaking the workplace rule is at issue here.  I think what is at issue, now at least, is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  Not even close.  So what is he being punished for?  The NFL says he didn't cooperate.  He'll say that he didn't forfeit his right to privacy.  In a lot of workplace situations where somebody would rather take the discipline than forfeit that right, it stops there because most people don't have the means or patience take an action against an employer who would otherwise trample an employee's rights.  Tom Brady has the means and he has until September to figure out if he's being punished because he didn't let the NFL violate his rights and whether or not that is legal.  This part is going to be way more interesting than what happened to those footballs. 

[emma17]

^^
Agreed. I imagine this will ultimately be resolved behind the scenes and we will be left only w speculation as to what really happened.

[jknezek]

I don't think that breaking the workplace rule is at issue here.  I think what is at issue, now at least, is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  Not even close.  So what is he being punished for?  The NFL says he didn't cooperate.  He'll say that he didn't forfeit his right to privacy.  In a lot of workplace situations where somebody would rather take the discipline than forfeit that right, it stops there because most people don't have the means or patience take an action against an employer who would otherwise trample an employee's rights.  Tom Brady has the means and he has until September to figure out if he's being punished because he didn't let the NFL violate his rights and whether or not that is legal.  This part is going to be way more interesting than what happened to those footballs.

First, there is no crime. His employer says he broke a rule and is being punished for it. That's all. Punishment fits the rule breaking? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. He has the option to appeal and I'm sure he will. How are his rights being trampled? He doesn't have a RIGHT to play in the NFL. No one does. It is a privilege to play in the NFL, and if he doesn't want to, he can take his talents to a professional league somewhere else. That is not a right. He agrees to play there and he agrees to play by their rules. They say he broke the rules, and the contract by which he plays and is employed gives the NFL the option to say that and to punish him, just like it gives him the option to appeal.

He was asked for his phone, specific emails, other things germane to proving whether he broke the rules or not. He declined. The NFL did NOT violate any of his rights by asking for those things. He did not provide them, so the NFL had to make a decision based on the information it had. The NFL, as is their ability defined by the player union contract, made a decision and issued a punishment.

This is not a question of RIGHTS. This is a question of whether the punishment is allowed under a contract. The NFL says it is. Brady, I'm sure, will say it is not.

Personally I'm pretty sure the NFL issued a 4 game suspension knowing he would appeal and would probably end up with a 2 game suspension. If they issued a 2, it would have been reduced to a 1 or less. That tends to be how these things are settled in the real world.

[wally_wabash]

I don't think that breaking the workplace rule is at issue here.  I think what is at issue, now at least, is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.  Not even close.  So what is he being punished for?  The NFL says he didn't cooperate.  He'll say that he didn't forfeit his right to privacy.  In a lot of workplace situations where somebody would rather take the discipline than forfeit that right, it stops there because most people don't have the means or patience take an action against an employer who would otherwise trample an employee's rights.  Tom Brady has the means and he has until September to figure out if he's being punished because he didn't let the NFL violate his rights and whether or not that is legal.  This part is going to be way more interesting than what happened to those footballs.

First, there is no crime. His employer says he broke a rule and is being punished for it. That's all. Punishment fits the rule breaking? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. He has the option to appeal and I'm sure he will. How are his rights being trampled? He doesn't have a RIGHT to play in the NFL. No one does. It is a privilege to play in the NFL, and if he doesn't want to, he can take his talents to a professional league somewhere else. That is not a right. He agrees to play there and he agrees to play by their rules. They say he broke the rules, and the contract by which he plays and is employed gives the NFL the option to say that and to punish him, just like it gives him the option to appeal.

He was asked for his phone, specific emails, other things germane to proving whether he broke the rules or not. He declined. The NFL did NOT violate any of his rights by asking for those things. He did not provide them, so the NFL had to make a decision based on the information it had. The NFL, as is their ability defined by the player union contract, made a decision and issued a punishment.

This is not a question of RIGHTS. This is a question of whether the punishment is allowed under a contract. The NFL says it is. Brady, I'm sure, will say it is not.

Personally I'm pretty sure the NFL issued a 4 game suspension knowing he would appeal and would probably end up with a 2 game suspension. If they issued a 2, it would have been reduced to a 1 or less. That tends to be how these things are settled in the real world.

I think the NFL has a proven track record of downright incompetence when it comes to meting out punishments.  So is this punishment fair, based on the rules and the agreement between the league and the players union?  I thought somebody posted that the punishment for the football inflation thing is $25,000.  So where did the four games come from?  Is he getting four games because he wouldn't let Ted Wells rifle through his phone?  There's no way that stands up to an appeal with an independent arbitrator.  I'd not be the least bit surprised if Brady doesn't miss a single game and the NFL office winds up with (more) egg on their face. 

[jknezek]

I think the NFL has a proven track record of downright incompetence when it comes to meting out punishments.  So is this punishment fair, based on the rules and the agreement between the league and the players union?  I thought somebody posted that the punishment for the football inflation thing is $25,000.  So where did the four games come from?  Is he getting four games because he wouldn't let Ted Wells rifle through his phone?  There's no way that stands up to an appeal with an independent arbitrator.  I'd not be the least bit surprised if Brady doesn't miss a single game and the NFL office winds up with (more) egg on their face.

I agree with all of this. I never said the punishment is fair. In fact, a few days ago I thought it would be a one game suspension and a franchise token fine with a mid-round draft pick thrown in. I still think that is pretty close to where it all ends up. Which might actually be the NFL's goal.

What got me started was all these comments about rights and burden of proof like it was some kind of criminal case. It simply isn't. If you think that way, you are going about it all wrong. This is 100% a workplace issue and it will be decided and defined by the contract between the NFL and the Players Union. Anyone who thinks that there is some higher standard that needs to be met, or some kind of rights issue, is on a high horse without understanding anything about how the world works.

Why is the NFL, the NCAA, and any other organization without subpoena power so inept at these kinds of cases? Because it is impossible to compel release of the information needed. Since there is no way on God's Green Earth a non-governmental agency should have those powers, these organizations are simply stuck doing the best they can with incomplete information and, sometimes, incompetent investigation.

Unfortunately, you still have to enforce the rules.

As for the often talked about $25K that people love to throw around on the internet, they are simply wrong. That is the MINIMUM penalty for under inflation, not the maximum. See this story, about 1/2 way down and a host of other credible news stories instead of internet board postings and comments sections:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/21/onfoot/x9cDtrfMPAO15Stwm4uXrN/story.html

[OzJohnnie]

Speaking of egg on the face, I read an interesting thought yesterday. Brady had been suspended four games which will cost him about $2m. The Pats have been fined $1m. Normally only a player fine goes to the NFL while a suspension is salary unpaid by the team. So it could possibly be that the Pats are up $1m through this punishment.

[hazzben]

@ jknezek

I hear what you're saying. My brining up Brady's right to privacy wasn't to say that his right to privacy is violated because he was asked to turn over personal email and phone records. But if, as a society, we jump to the conclusion that someone is guilty because they stood by their right to privacy, it's not much of a right at all. Even though I think Brady probably did exactly what he's accused of, there isn't actually any hard evidence to make the case that he did. What Wells and the NFL did was argue that he probably did, and they argued specifically that because he stood by his right to privacy, he must have/probably/maybe been guilty. Aka, guilty people don't lawyer up. That's not insignificant in a free society.

And make no mistake about it. Brady did nothing illegal and this wasn't a criminal proceeding, but now with the suspension and fine, you'd better believe this might become a legal matter. There's a union and collective bargaining agreement in play here. The NFLPA won't sit idly by if they think he's been wronged.

I kind of wonder if part of the brutal penalty (keep in mind it's way more than what Ray Rice originally got) is that the NFL knows this is going to get appealed and they know their case isn't air tight. But they still want to punish Brady. So rather than deal out the punishment they thought was appropriate, they went further, in the hopes that on appeal, it gets reduced to an amount they still think stings and makes an example of Brady, et. al.

I'd be surprised if it's really 4 games when the dust settles. And I wouldn't be surprised if, regardless of the outcome of the appeal, the Patriots go all scorched earth with the NFL next year. How awesomely awkward if Brady and Co. go on a tear and end up with Roger Dodger having to hand them hardware at the end of all this?! Not a pats fan, but that'd be really entertaining to watch.

And something tells me the Draft won't be held in Boston anytime soon. Gooddell would need secret service protection to make those first round pick announcements.

[d-train]

Speaking of egg on the face, I read an interesting thought yesterday. Brady had been suspended four games which will cost him about $2m. The Pats have been fined $1m. Normally only a player fine goes to the NFL while a suspension is salary unpaid by the team. So it could possibly be that the Pats are up $1m through this punishment.

Or it's a wash when the suspension is cut in half on appeal.

[BoBo]

Pray for Brady, since this is where he'll have to spend his time during the suspension.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEw0Om4UsAA1eSx.jpg:large

picture courtesy @Will_Ferrell

[badgerwarhawk]

I wonder who sent those text messages to the locker room attendants from Brady's phone?  (confused)

[BoBo]

I wonder who sent those text messages to the locker room attendants from Brady's phone?  (confused)

AH...Brady?

Listen to his former teammate and ESPN talking head Teddy Bruschki (sp?) comment about this a couple days ago, he said. Brady and the Pat players didn't even know those guys real names, yet text messages and phone calls were on their phones from Brady's phone.  Confusing? Not really.

[wally_wabash]

As for the often talked about $25K that people love to throw around on the internet, they are simply wrong. That is the MINIMUM penalty for under inflation, not the maximum. See this story, about 1/2 way down and a host of other credible news stories instead of internet board postings and comments sections:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/01/21/onfoot/x9cDtrfMPAO15Stwm4uXrN/story.html

Right, but I don't see how you get from $25k to 4 games for the player (unpaid), $1 million for the club, and a first round pick.  And if the escalation of penalties by the NFL on this issue is primarily because Brady told Ted Wells to get bent when he went after his phone, then I could see that being actionable and a ruling that says you (NFL) can't excessively punish Tom Brady because he didn't authorize you to go through is personal electronic records. 

That's a good article linked and I think the penalties listed there are fair.  $100k fines for player and club, and maybe the loss of a mid-round pick.  That seems appropriate to me. 

[emma17]

I wonder who sent those text messages to the locker room attendants from Brady's phone?  (confused)

Hey BW- I get the feeling we aren't likely to see you sporting a #12 Pats jersey any time soon.
I think most people do feel he ordered the balls to be under inflated. Do you feel the NFL punishment is appropriate?