Greg Hardy's Potential Appeal - A Primer

[loublue22]

it bothers me that a Hardy appeal would not include the facts of his actual case, which I think are on his side

 

[d_dub88]

I think Hardy would use an argument closer to the Bounty-Gate players case than Brady case.

1.The evidence is mostly hearsay.
2.There is a lack of due process by the league office.
3.There is a lack of impartiality.
4.No transparency in the process.

 

[burmafrd]

it bothers me that a Hardy appeal would not include the facts of his actual case, which I think are on his side

facts? you want to use FACTS in a court of law? What planet are you from?


I am bored so here is my rant about the US Legal System. It is NOT a justice system- Berman pretty much demonstrated that and every legal talking head just confirmed it. Guilt or innocence means NOTHING. It is all how you appear on the stage that is the courtroom and how good is your performance. Berman ranted about Brady not being told in detail the possible penalties. Hello- so what? He knew it was wrong and did it anyway so why should that matter?
The NFL is not a court of law with subpoena powers and if oh by the way you lie you can go to jail. Berman and the other shysters just ignore those FACTS and act like they should have been doing it the same way a DA does it in the legal system. Which the NFL could not.

Now as regards the makeup of the NFL system it is indeed a joke as everyone now knows. Goodell throws darts at a board with penalties on it and that is how it is decided. And the Owners could care less - and since he only has to please the owners there you have it. You look at the three examples of Hardy, Peterson and Brady and you know the system is a total and complete joke.

But that frankly should take a back seat into figuring out if something hinky went on and if so who did it. It seems clear that there was shady dealings and Brady knew about it and should face a penalty. But Berman and the rest of those idiots could care less about that. It is all about how it looks on paper and sounds in a courtroom.

the OJ Simpson case may have been an extreme example but anyone watching it should have realized just how broken the system is. But no one cares enough to make the changes needed.

The point should not be if someone got a fair trial or not- it SHOULD Be punishing the guilty and clearing the innocent. And it is not in the legal system just like it is not in the NFL. But Berman has no right to throw stones in the glass house he loves so much.

 

[Nightman]

facts? you want to use FACTS in a court of law? What planet are you from?


I am bored so here is my rant about the US Legal System. It is NOT a justice system- Berman pretty much demonstrated that and every legal talking head just confirmed it. Guilt or innocence means NOTHING. It is all how you appear on the stage that is the courtroom and how good is your performance. Berman ranted about Brady not being told in detail the possible penalties. Hello- so what? He knew it was wrong and did it anyway so why should that matter?
The NFL is not a court of law with subpoena powers and if oh by the way you lie you can go to jail. Berman and the other shysters just ignore those FACTS and act like they should have been doing it the same way a DA does it in the legal system. Which the NFL could not.

Now as regards the makeup of the NFL system it is indeed a joke as everyone now knows. Goodell throws darts at a board with penalties on it and that is how it is decided. And the Owners could care less - and since he only has to please the owners there you have it. You look at the three examples of Hardy, Peterson and Brady and you know the system is a total and complete joke.

But that frankly should take a back seat into figuring out if something hinky went on and if so who did it. It seems clear that there was shady dealings and Brady knew about it and should face a penalty. But Berman and the rest of those idiots could care less about that. It is all about how it looks on paper and sounds in a courtroom.

the OJ Simpson case may have been an extreme example but anyone watching it should have realized just how broken the system is. But no one cares enough to make the changes needed.

The point should not be if someone got a fair trial or not- it SHOULD Be punishing the guilty and clearing the innocent. And it is not in the legal system just like it is not in the NFL. But Berman has no right to throw stones in the glass house he loves so much.

Amen, just like last year when Suh is magically allowed to play against DAL.

Berman just made stuff up, just like he accused Goodell.

"No one told Brady that cheating was bad"......Brady threw a Hail Mary and Berman caught it.

 

[Hoofbite]

So what does this have to do Hardy and his situation? Absolutely nothing.

Maybe you can enlighten me with what you mean by that.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean anything when it comes to disciplining an employee. You don't even have to be charged. Hell, you don't even have to break a law. Wear the wrong shoes to work.

They are abiding by the laws.

 

[Nightman]

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean anything when it comes to disciplining an employee. You don't even have to be charged. Hell, you don't even have to break a law. Wear the wrong shoes to work.

They are abiding by the laws.

There are still courts and laws to deal with.

People that get fired or punished without cause sue and win all the time.

Even with a CBA there are limits to an employers powers.

 

[Hoofbite]

If the court finds that the NFL was wrong in regards to Hardy' case and demand that his punishment is lowered to 2 games the commish will mostly likely have to have to comply or else be found in contempt of court.

And he would comply. He could also just leave him on the exempt list. They are not the same and a ruling against the suspension wouldn't have any impact on the exempt list. He would need a separate ruling for that, and because the exempt list has been a part of the CBA for years and years it's unlikely any judge would want to basically void the CBA.

I doubt very highly that the commish will use that so called trump card that you clearly imagined just because he can and that the Goddell can do whatever he wants even against the U.S court system.

It wouldn't be against the U.S. court system. I think that's the part you are not understanding. The ruling will not be, "Greg Hardy must play". The ruling would be, "Greg Hardy cannot be suspended 4 games because his incident took places under the previous conduct policy".

They are not the same and a ruling against 1 doesn't not carry over to the other. Hardy's whole case is about what was in the CBA at the time. If a 4 game suspensions for DV were in the CBA at the time his incident occurred, he wouldn't have a case. The exempt list was in the CBA.

If he does happen use that trump card with Hardy while not enforcing anything on Brady it will certainly cause public outrage for sure. I can see the media writing about how the commish is going hard on Hardy who is a black man, while he is letting Brady, who is white go clean without any punishment whatsoever.

First and foremost, nobody would buy that argument because the public doesn't view cheating in sports on the same level that they view DV. Many forms of cheating in sports are perfectly legal. Scuff a baseball, corked bat, spying on practice, and whatever else. Not criminal. DV is criminal. In general, the public doesn't care about cheating in sports. Plenty of people don't even watch sports. You can't even begin to argue that the players are being treated differently based on race when the reasons for their punishment justify any difference in punishment that may exist. Their "crimes" would have to be equal to be able to say such a thing and not get laughed at.

Were these race comments prevalent when Goodell gave Brady 4 games after giving Hardy 10? I don't remember hearing a single one.

Secondly, it's obviously not up to Goodell at this point whether or not Brady plays. He suspended him but it was overturned, just as Hardy could have his suspension overturned. The difference being, Brady is not on the exempt list and Hardy (unless he came off without a whisper) currently is.

If there is one thing that the commish will try to avoid is public outrage. Thus I doubt highly that he's gonna try and enforce anything on Hardy if the courts decide to side against the NFL.

He wouldn't have to enforce anything. Just treat him just as he treated Peterson. Peterson didn't come off the exempt list until the date he was eligible for reinstatement per the suspension that was overturned. Think about that.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...eterson-eligible-return-nfl-article-1.2185385

That article came out over 6 weeks after the ruling in Peterson's favor.

Honestly, I know you hope that Goodell wouldn't do it but if you don't think he wouldn't do it just to get the final say and retain some sort of authority in the matter then I don't think you have really been paying attention to what Goodell has been doing. The guy has been criticized time and time again for overstepping his boundaries and yet we're going to pretend like he wouldn't exercise every bit of power that is actually granted to him to ensure that his rulings are final? Okay, then.

 

[Hoofbite]

There are still courts and laws to deal with.

People that get fired or punished without cause sue and win all the time.

All the time relative to never winning at all, maybe. But establishing "cause" isn't all that hard if someone really wants to get rid of a person, and some states don't even require a cause.

Even with a CBA there are limits to an employers powers.

I think a more accurate statement would be "only with a CBA are there limits to an employers powers" when talking about firing people.

The vast majority of the employed don't have union representation and are employed at will, which - IIRC, not or lawyer or anything - has only a few exceptions when it comes to firing people. Given everyone will inevitably provide enough "ammo" for termination (be it dress code, time clock errors, going over on breaks, poor attitude, or you name it) for any superior who is hell bent on getting rid of them and most people don't have a lot in terms of protection.

 

[Nightman]

All the time relative to never winning at all, maybe. But establishing "cause" isn't all that hard if someone really wants to get rid of a person, and some states don't even require a cause.



I think a more accurate statement would be "only with a CBA are there limits to an employers powers" when talking about firing people.

The vast majority of the employed don't have union representation and are employed at will, which - IIRC, not or lawyer or anything - has only a few exceptions when it comes to firing people. Given everyone will inevitably provide enough "ammo" for termination (be it dress code, time clock errors, going over on breaks, poor attitude, or you name it) for any superior who is hell bent on getting rid of them and most people don't have a lot in terms of protection.

I don't know. Federal Law is pretty strong. That is why Unions aren't as relevant. States and Fed law offer a lot of protections.

You may be able to fire and punish initially, but you will have to account for it some point.

The NFL has taken a beating in Federal court lately and they have a strong CBA.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't know. Federal Law is pretty strong. That is why Unions aren't as relevant. States and Fed law offer a lot of protections.

You may be able to fire and punish initially, but you will have to account for it some point.

The NFL has taken a beating in Federal court lately and they have a strong CBA.

They've taken a beating for going outside of the CBA, which a situation that wouldn't have been possible without the CBA in the first place. They have representation and strictly defined parameters for employment. Most people do not. Tweet something controversial and you're out.

 

[khiladi]

If it's up to the NFL, than the 4 game suspension of Brady is the right of the NFL, which is my point...

It's Sherman who supposedly said something like this in regards to tampering with the balls in relation to PEDs.. How can the NFL rule Brady deflating balls be equivalent to a 4 game suspension for PEDs?

Well, Brady didn't just tamper with the balls... There is no precedent in regards to what Brady did..

You may as well ask, "What did Big Ben do that was detrimental to the league?"

Is there really any need to ask that question? How the NFL chooses to define what is detrimental always has been and always will be up to the discretion of the NFL. Just like any other employer in the country, they decide what conduct makes them look bad. Arguing whether or not you think it was detrimental is pointless because neither you or I - nor anyone else on this site - has any say in the matter because we aren't owners in the NFL.

Now, whether or not his suspension is just is certainly up for debate, but even this ultimately doesn't matter because it looks like he'll serve every bit of that 4 game suspension without a fight.

I suspect the real reason he isn't going to contest it is because the NFL holds the ultimate trump card. As far as I can tell, he's still on the exempt list. Searched around a bit and no mention of him ever coming off the list. Asked in this thread and nobody replied so I'm assuming that nobody really knows. If he is on the list, overturning his suspension is irrelevant because he still cannot play while he's on that list. Roger controls when he comes off the exempt list and the exempt list has been an included part of the CBA for some time (Vick went on it in 2009) so there is no "technicality" to have the courts intervene. He could have his suspension entirely squashed and still be subject to Roger's call. As it is, he's probably hoping that his 4 game suspension will satisfy Roger's need for punishment, but if he were to go through with the appeal and have his suspension reduced to nothing who knows how long Roger keeps him on that list. Based on when Peterson came off the list, it could be the full 10 games.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean anything when it comes to disciplining an employee. You don't even have to be charged. Hell, you don't even have to break a law. Wear the wrong shoes to work.

They are abiding by the laws.

Equal protection still applies and this is not always the case. Managers the world over want you to believe the above but when it comes down to it they lose in court all the time.

 

[khiladi]

Too funny, an article just posted that NFL Owners are meeting to suspend Goodell indefinitely from his role in handing out suspensions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-roger-goodells-role-in-disciplinary-process/

Owners of NFL teams plan to discuss the possibility of changing Commissioner Roger Goodell’s role in the player disciplinary process, several people familiar with the situation said Friday.

Although it’s uncertain whether Goodell’s authority would be reduced, the decision to reevaluate his role resolving appeals is the first solid sign the outcome of Tom Brady’s court case could have a lasting and significant impact on his position.

“There will certainly be discussion about that,” one owner said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. The owner said he is “not sure where it will lead.”

As if its a bad thing. Goodell no longer has to be the fall guy, while still getting big his massive check as Commissioner.

So Goodell essentially gets rewarded for this.

And Tom Brady looks like a hero for forcing a change to the process of the arbitrary whims of the dictator despite cheating.

We're the Patriots upset with Goodell and the process when he burned the evidence in Spygate?

What a joke...

 

[khiladi]

Amen, just like last year when Suh is magically allowed to play against DAL.

Berman just made stuff up, just like he accused Goodell.

"No one told Brady that cheating was bad"......Brady threw a Hail Mary and Berman caught it.

The fact that NFL lawyers couldn't counter these points with some rational justifications either shows incompetence or they were just putting on a show.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Brady threw a Hail Mary and Berman caught it.

The real question is - was it deflated?

 

[casmith07]

it bothers me that a Hardy appeal would not include the facts of his actual case, which I think are on his side

An appeal in court could include the facts of the previous case, or the lack thereof.

 

[casmith07]

I think Hardy would use an argument closer to the Bounty-Gate players case than Brady case.

1.The evidence is mostly hearsay.
2.There is a lack of due process by the league office.
3.There is a lack of impartiality.
4.No transparency in the process.

Bingo. That and, 5) There is now precedent capping the action at two games under the previous policy - similar to an inverse ex post facto ruling. Further, there is precedent for zero based on the above four errors on the part of the league.

 

[casmith07]

Too funny, an article just posted that NFL Owners are meeting to suspend Goodell indefinitely from his role in handing out suspensions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-roger-goodells-role-in-disciplinary-process/

Owners of NFL teams plan to discuss the possibility of changing Commissioner Roger Goodell’s role in the player disciplinary process, several people familiar with the situation said Friday.

Although it’s uncertain whether Goodell’s authority would be reduced, the decision to reevaluate his role resolving appeals is the first solid sign the outcome of Tom Brady’s court case could have a lasting and significant impact on his position.

“There will certainly be discussion about that,” one owner said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. The owner said he is “not sure where it will lead.”

The way Goodell has been handling this is starting to threaten the business of the NFL - a lot of which has to do with labor restrictions due to the CBA. They are trying to protect their investment -- it's clear Goodell, long term, would do more harm than good for the league with regard to labor issues.

 

[Bungarian]

I don't think he is going to do it. The lawyer that defended Brady was on Sirius talking about how they had won over and over. He listed Hardy's suspension being reduced as a win. I don't think the NFLPA would want to risk losing because they want a long string of wins.

 

[ConstantReboot]

And he would comply. He could also just leave him on the exempt list. They are not the same and a ruling against the suspension wouldn't have any impact on the exempt list. He would need a separate ruling for that, and because the exempt list has been a part of the CBA for years and years it's unlikely any judge would want to basically void the CBA.

Well if the judge rules that in under any circumstance that Hardy shall NOT be suspended for more than two games than the NFL will have to comply regardless of this so called trump card you called the exempt list. If the Commish does decide to use it against Hardy and enforce a 4 game suspension and not doing anything regarding Brady's case, I'm pretty sure that he will receive some sort of backlash from the media about it. Right now the Commish is having PR issues with the Brady ruling. I'm willing to bet he will not want the PR nightmare that will ensue if he went along suspend Hardy 4 games using the exempt list just for the hell of it.

It wouldn't be against the U.S. court system. I think that's the part you are not understanding. The ruling will not be, "Greg Hardy must play". The ruling would be, "Greg Hardy cannot be suspended 4 games because his incident took places under the previous conduct policy".

Like I mentioned it depends on what the judge rules. If it states that in under NO CIRCUMSTANCES that Hardy gets suspended for more than 2 games and that there is no room for discussion about it, the NFL MUST comply. It won't matter if the Commish wants to use the exempt list. The court will still construe that as contempt of court and not willing to comply by the judges order.

They are not the same and a ruling against 1 doesn't not carry over to the other. Hardy's whole case is about what was in the CBA at the time. If a 4 game suspensions for DV were in the CBA at the time his incident occurred, he wouldn't have a case. The exempt list was in the CBA.

Both Hardy and Brady's case was ruled as "actions detrimental to the integrity of the league." It didn't specify anything about DV or that Brady cheated. Thus both were given a 4 game suspension. Therefore, Hardy does have a case just like Brady - if he so wishes to pursue it.

First and foremost, nobody would buy that argument because the public doesn't view cheating in sports on the same level that they view DV. Many forms of cheating in sports are perfectly legal. Scuff a baseball, corked bat, spying on practice, and whatever else. Not criminal. DV is criminal. In general, the public doesn't care about cheating in sports. Plenty of people don't even watch sports. You can't even begin to argue that the players are being treated differently based on race when the reasons for their punishment justify any difference in punishment that may exist. Their "crimes" would have to be equal to be able to say such a thing and not get laughed at.

OMG many forms of cheating in sports is STILL CHEATING. I think your off your rockers on this and I totally disagree with what you say here. As for Hardy he was found NOT GUILTY. Therefore, you are assuming that he is a criminal. HE IS NOT. Once again, he is not a criminal and thus the suspension against him is unwarranted. As for Brady - there is evidence against him, he failed to cooperate and he was found destroying and covering up evidence. Yet he is walking away from any kind of punishment. One is really guilty but walking away scott clean. Thats Brady. While the other was NOT GUILTY - thats Hardy. But is still being punished.

Were these race comments prevalent when Goodell gave Brady 4 games after giving Hardy 10? I don't remember hearing a single one.

Secondly, it's obviously not up to Goodell at this point whether or not Brady plays. He suspended him but it was overturned, just as Hardy could have his suspension overturned. The difference being, Brady is not on the exempt list and Hardy (unless he came off without a whisper) currently is.

Like I mentioned before the exempt list is only a fabricated trump card. I highly doubt that the Commish would use it just because he can. Thats acting like a dictator. If the courts rule that he can't suspend Hardy for more than 2 games under any circumstances the commish will have to comply.

He wouldn't have to enforce anything. Just treat him just as he treated Peterson. Peterson didn't come off the exempt list until the date he was eligible for reinstatement per the suspension that was overturned. Think about that.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...eterson-eligible-return-nfl-article-1.2185385

That article came out over 6 weeks after the ruling in Peterson's favor.

And the league would be in a PR mess once again if they treated Hardy just like they treated Peterson. There is already talk with the owners wanting to remove the power of disciplinary powers from the commish. I'm sure that he will want to stay away from the PR mess that might ensue if he decides to further punish Hardy.

Honestly, I know you hope that Goodell wouldn't do it but if you don't think he wouldn't do it just to get the final say and retain some sort of authority in the matter then I don't think you have really been paying attention to what Goodell has been doing. The guy has been criticized time and time again for overstepping his boundaries and yet we're going to pretend like he wouldn't exercise every bit of power that is actually granted to him to ensure that his rulings are final? Okay, then.[/quote]