Silver Surfer
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,698
- Reaction score
- 7,415
Especially after they suspend a guy who was likely never going to play again.
IT'S NEVER TOO LATE!
LOL
Newsflash: The NFL just gave Aaron Hernandez a lifetime ban.
Especially after they suspend a guy who was likely never going to play again.
IT'S NEVER TOO LATE!
LOL
Likely meaning that the only potential for the case derailing is that. Not that it's likely, but there might be a sliver of opening there. I'm not sure the actual likelihood.
Look I get why people are so animated over it, but that's not my point. My point people think one side is all about the law and order, and the other isn't is asinine.
Boy, people need to read what I wrote again.
..... said every Patriots fan on the planet last year.You are partially right. It does come down to three random judges. But what you are willfully overlooking is that each of those judges took an oath to uphold the law and that fundamental fairness is a tried and true standard that has been supported by precedent time and again. And that the appeals court statistically defers to the lower court verdict in roughly 85 percent of all cases.
This case is about fundamental fairness and the league is on the wrong side and is likely going down. They didn't even follow the basic (and broad) jurisdiction afforded them by the CBA.
"Fresh start" may have been a bad choice of words because yes, you are absolutely right in that the appeals judges will know the history of the issue they have to adjudicate. The very nature of an appeal is such that the party making the appeal has to explain why the ruling they are appealing is faulty and should not stand. However, appeals judges are most certainly not beholden to the lower court and will not automatically defer to a lower court ruling, no matter how harsh the language in that ruling is.An Appeals court is not a fresh start. All sworn testimonies, facts, and evidence do carry over and are reviewed by all parties and will be used in addition to the Appeals proceedings. There will be 3 judges that will 3 judges who will cross examine both parties and will ask even more detailed questions. These judges also will come to consider the harsh language that Judge Mazzant's used in classifying the NFL's treatment of Zeke.
So no its not a fresh start.
They ran to NY last year before they had any rulings....... the same reasons applyThe reason why the NFL wants the case in NY is because that district is bound by the Brady ruling issued by the Court of Appeals last year, which pretty much said the arbitrator can do whatever he wants. This case would be a slam dunk for the NFL in that district. The ruling specifically states that "exclusion of the testimony was consistent with the Commissioner’s broad authority to regulate procedural matters and comported with the CBA" so right away one of Elliott's key points is removed.
Well yeah, they saw CA2 as a friendly district and ultimately they were right. But if they lost Brady last year, they wouldn't have been running back to NY (although that's undoubtedly where Elliot would have filed).They ran to NY last year before they had any rulings....... the same reasons apply
Is Formaldehyde on the banned substance list....Newsflash: The NFL just gave Aaron Hernandez a lifetime ban.