Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The decision expressly says: "In view of the Court's determinations regarding the inadequacy of notice and discovery afforded to Brady, the Court does not reach Brady's other claims, which include ... Brady argues that 'Goodell purports to sustain the suspension on factual conclusions that Brady participated in ball tampering -- but those factual conclusions ... appear nowhere in the Wells Report and were not the basis for the discipline imposed by Vincent." I'm sure that Brady's lawyers included this argument to shoot for vindication, since it gave Berman a chance to address the evidence about what Brady did, but Berman declined the invitation. So there was no vindication for him.
|
That claim isn't aimed at the underlying facts (or "facts") - it's aimed at Goodell's final discipline, which is based on reinterpretation of "facts" and the addition of those not in the Wells report, in that specific case Goodell's finding that Brady participated, when the Wells report found only general awareness. Whatever the flaws of the Wells report, Brady did not challenge the factual findings because basically there's no legal basis under the CBA for him to do so.
