KnowMo2724
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 1,684
- Reaction score
- 65
- Points
- 48
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/04/17/spygate-lawsuit-may-still-have-some-hope/
On the eve of oral arguments in the class action filed against the New England Patriots arising from the Spygate matter, we took issue with an item in the Associated Press that failed to properly characterize the tenuous status of the litigation, which seeks a full refund paid by the Patriots of all tickets purchased to games between the Jets and the Patriots at the Meadowlands from 2000 through 2007.
Though that criticism of the AP article still applies, the oral arguments that occurred last week suggest that the case may have a chance to proceed.
It had been dismissed without a hearing by a federal judge in New Jersey. In the federal system, an automatic right of appeal exists. At the appellate level, the matter initially is considered by a randomly-drawn three-judge panel. And at least one of the judges decided to pose some very tough questions to the lawyers representing the Patriots and coach Bill Belichick.
Judge Robert E. Cowan called the videotaping of defensive coaching signals by the Patriots a "a tremendous violation, no doubt about that," according to Nathan Gorenstein of the Philadelphia Inquirer. At one point, Cowen asked how the cheating was any different than a team taking money to throw a game.
"It's not rigged," attorney Shepard Goldfein said. "There is no certainty of outcome."
The other two judges included D. Michael Fisher, who is a Steelers season-ticket holder, and Gene E.K. Pratter, a trial-level federal judge sitting by assignment, a common practice at the appellate level.
In the end, the case comes down to whether the purchase of a ticket creates a contractual guarantee of honesty and fair play, and whether consumer protection laws apply.
All that said, one of the most unfortunate aspects of the litigation process is the disconnect between the so-called "record" of evidence and reality. Though the plaintiffs in the case have no way to know it and the Patriots and the NFL have no reason to admit it (yet, if ever), the truth (as we've heard it since September 2007 from multiple league insiders) is that this kind of stuff was happening all the time, and that the Patriots were the ones who got caught.
Of course, that admission could cut both ways. A judge could believe that the "all's fair" approach employed by the NFL's teams balances out the notion that someone has an unfair advantage. Alternatively, a judge could conclude that the whole league is corrupt, and that maybe a huge judgment will be the best way to ensure that the rules will be followed in the future.
The status of the case will depend on the decision made by the three judges. Two votes will deliver victory. Then, if the case returns to district court and proceeds, the league eventually will have to spend a lot of time and money on a case that eventually could result in sworn testimony of Belichick, Browns coach Eric Mangini, and dozens of others.
On the eve of oral arguments in the class action filed against the New England Patriots arising from the Spygate matter, we took issue with an item in the Associated Press that failed to properly characterize the tenuous status of the litigation, which seeks a full refund paid by the Patriots of all tickets purchased to games between the Jets and the Patriots at the Meadowlands from 2000 through 2007.
Though that criticism of the AP article still applies, the oral arguments that occurred last week suggest that the case may have a chance to proceed.
It had been dismissed without a hearing by a federal judge in New Jersey. In the federal system, an automatic right of appeal exists. At the appellate level, the matter initially is considered by a randomly-drawn three-judge panel. And at least one of the judges decided to pose some very tough questions to the lawyers representing the Patriots and coach Bill Belichick.
Judge Robert E. Cowan called the videotaping of defensive coaching signals by the Patriots a "a tremendous violation, no doubt about that," according to Nathan Gorenstein of the Philadelphia Inquirer. At one point, Cowen asked how the cheating was any different than a team taking money to throw a game.
"It's not rigged," attorney Shepard Goldfein said. "There is no certainty of outcome."
The other two judges included D. Michael Fisher, who is a Steelers season-ticket holder, and Gene E.K. Pratter, a trial-level federal judge sitting by assignment, a common practice at the appellate level.
In the end, the case comes down to whether the purchase of a ticket creates a contractual guarantee of honesty and fair play, and whether consumer protection laws apply.
All that said, one of the most unfortunate aspects of the litigation process is the disconnect between the so-called "record" of evidence and reality. Though the plaintiffs in the case have no way to know it and the Patriots and the NFL have no reason to admit it (yet, if ever), the truth (as we've heard it since September 2007 from multiple league insiders) is that this kind of stuff was happening all the time, and that the Patriots were the ones who got caught.
Of course, that admission could cut both ways. A judge could believe that the "all's fair" approach employed by the NFL's teams balances out the notion that someone has an unfair advantage. Alternatively, a judge could conclude that the whole league is corrupt, and that maybe a huge judgment will be the best way to ensure that the rules will be followed in the future.
The status of the case will depend on the decision made by the three judges. Two votes will deliver victory. Then, if the case returns to district court and proceeds, the league eventually will have to spend a lot of time and money on a case that eventually could result in sworn testimony of Belichick, Browns coach Eric Mangini, and dozens of others.
