- Commissioner’s statement on Ventura, Marte
- Ronnie O’Sullivan: Masters champion ‘felt so vulnerable’ in final
- Arron Fletcher Wins 2017 WSOP International Circuit Marrakech Main Event ($140,224)
- Smith challenges Warner to go big in India
- Moncada No. 1 on MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- Braves land 2 on MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- Kingery makes MLB Pipeline’s Top 10 2B Prospects list
- New Zealand wrap up 2-0 after Bangladesh implosion
- Mathews, Pradeep, Gunathilaka to return to Sri Lanka
- Elliott hopes for rain for Poli
Munson: Why Tom Brady never had a chance in court
- Updated: April 25, 2016
4:53 PM ET
In a 2-1 decision on Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York reinstated New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady’s four-game suspension for his participation in a scheme to deflate footballs used in the 2015 AFC Championship Game. The court’s decision, the dissent from one judge and the possibilities of an appeal raise questions:
Q: This decision comes as a surprise to some, but it shouldn’t, right?
A: Correct. Legal analysts and scholars have long predicted this result. A basic rule of American law prevents federal judges from reconsidering rulings by arbitrators such as NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, who handled the Brady case under appointment from the league’s collective bargaining agreement.
Editor’s PicksPDF: Read the appeals court’s ruling
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday in New York that Patriots quarterback Tom Brady must serve a four-game Deflategate suspension imposed by the NFL, overturning a lower judge and siding with the league.
Court reinstates Brady’s four-game suspension
Tom Brady’s four-game suspension from the Deflategate scandal has been reinstated by a U.S. appeals court ruling Monday.
1 Related
Numerous legal precedents from the U.S. Supreme Court and other reviewing courts provide that only when an arbitrator’s ruling was the result of fraud or dishonesty can the ruling be reversed by a federal judge. The most famous of these precedents was a Supreme Court decision involving former Major League Baseball player Steve Garvey’s attempt to recapture money he lost during the MLB owners’ collusion conspiracy of the 1980s.
In discussion of their decision against Brady, the first case the judges relied on was the Garvey decision. In reviewing the bizarre ruling from an arbitrator in Garvey’s case, the high court refused to reconsider the ruling even though the arbitrator’s decision was “improvident, even silly.” Goodell’s decision, in contrast to the decision made by the Garvey arbitrator, was brilliantly reasoned, meticulously detailed, and well written. In their …
continue reading in source espn.go.com