McCannSportsLaw

1) I tend to agree. Judge Berman's opinion was logical and well-reasoned. He was more critical of the NFL than I expected him to be, by which I mean I didn't expect his tone and style of writing to be so adamant. It was immediately clear that he totally rejected the NFL's legal theories . My instinct is that Brady will win the appeal (excluding the who's on the appellate panel factor).

2) That's how I read it, too, but it's not entirely clear. At a minimum it suggests that it if its reversed and remanded, Judge Berman could try another means of denying the NFL a win, and that could also lead to an even longer litigation calendar -- perhaps into 2017. There's a part of me that thinks this litigation will last for several more years and Brady will retire before it's over--and he'll never serve a suspension.

I don't, based on what I have seen (and that is pretty much everything that has been made publicly available). There is not actual evidence, in my view, to conclude with any justifiable certainty that Brady or the Patriots cheated. I know many people "think" they did and I know there are some questionable aspects to what happened (e.g., the deflator text; the bathroom), but when proof is lacking, "think" is just speculation. No court or jury, in my view, would convict either Brady or the Patriots of cheating (unless that court is the NFL).

I obviously disagreed with Lester about the legal issues involved in Deflategate and Brady v. NFL, but he has done a lot of great work over the years and we'll have to see how the appeal works out. I also think it's good that there was debate between legal analysts - it brought out more insights for readers.

In other countries, most notably the U.K., celebrities have had more success suing under defamation law because their defamation laws are favorable to plaintiffs. Sharon Stone, Keira Knightly have won (or struck favorable settlements) over there. But in the U.S. we haven't seen the same success. Jesse Ventura won in a controversial case involving Chris Kyle, but that was an exception. The main problem is showing actual malice -- that an untrue statement was made knowingly or intentionally. It's difficult to assemble proof to show that. As to Brady, I strongly doubt he'll now sue for defamation. He has beaten the NFL and, for all intents and purposes, has been vindicated. He would also need to link the NFL to media leaks, which can be hard because reporters would do everything possible to not cooperate. Also, even if he wins a defamation suit, it would only pay him money and he's reportedly worth in the ballpark of $120 million. A lawsuit would also be a distraction and time consuming. I just don't see the upside for him (not to mention he would be subject to pretrial discovery if his lawsuit gets past a motion to dismiss by the NFL).

Thank you, Starfoxer. I felt confident because I believed the NFL made too many errors in the manner in which it went about investigating, notifying and punishing Tom Brady. I also thought an important factor was that Goodell was the arbitrator. Many wrote that federal judges almost never vacate arbitration awards. That is true. But in all or almost all of those cases, they involved neutral arbitrators. Goodell was clearly not neutral. I understand the CBA permitted him to be the arbitrator, but that came with a price for the NFL: it made some of the favorable precedent for the league less binding on Judge Berman. I believe the appeal will take well into next summer and possibly beyond, since the losing side can petition for an en banc review.