Quick Hits 4 U

Mushing in to work this morning I had three quick hits in mind, but I'm recalling only two now.  Maybe the third one will come to me.  Wait, just thought of it.

(1) For all the effort they put into the prank, I guess they had to burn some segments, but the Corby/Killer prank on Blake the Apprentice Engineer was a colossal flop.  Two segments -- the setup and the calls with Blake.

Blake's reaction -- none.   While he claimed it was 50-50 in his mind as to whether it was a prank, I don't believe he thought it was legit for a second.  And he didn't bite.

So the story became Killer's acting, which Danny jubilated over at great length.  I had a different thought when I heard Killer's calls.  I thought I would know this is a setup in 13 seconds.

No matter.  Sometimes pranks -- not my favorite Ticket things anyway -- succeed wildly, sometimes they crater.  This one was hard to listen to as Blake repeatedly shrugged it off.


(2)  This site is a long-time critic of Fight Night.  I don't like it.  I don't like the idea, I don't like the execution.  And I'm not an anti-boxing guy.

They're doing Fight Night again, of course, but it seems to me that they're really downplaying it this year.  Maybe it's because I have been away and not able to listen as much as usual, could be way wrong here. The shows are soliciting fighters, but they're not making that search into bits.   Just seems like the usual enthusiasm is missing this time around.



(3) The Brady hearing before U.S. District Court Judge Richard Berman:

I'm not familiar with the collective bargaining agreement or the rules by which discipline is handed out in the Niffle.  I'm thinking that there must be a written, bargained-for procedure for things like this, with standards of review and whatnot.

So why are we in federal court?

While the U.S. and the state legal systems strongly favor the bargained-for private dispute resolution procedures, those procedures are not unlimited in what they can do.  For example, Roger Goodell or an arbitrator could not have imposed a death sentence on Brady.  So a party who is disappointed in a private dispute resolution can always ask a court to review it.

However, because the courts tend to defer to bargained-for procedures, the standard the courts use to review these decisions is strict.  Again, perhaps there is a different standard in this case, but usually the decision appealed from must be shown to be "arbitrary and capricious."  In other words, the courts will usually not substitute their judgment for those of the fact-finder/judge in the private proceeding.  There must have been something seriously unjust or procedurally outrageous with the private proceeding for a court to intervene.

It's my understanding that Goodell's decision was mainly based on Brady's lack of credibility under all of the facts and circumstances -- Brady says he wasn't guilty, but he acted very guilty.  Goodell says -- taking all of that into account, balancing the facts we have before us, you're guilty.  Four games.

But the news accounts today suggest that Judge Berman, instead of deferring to the fact-finder's determination of credibility, which always receives great deference by a reviewing court, is substituting his judgment for Goodell's and crediting Brady's denial over the circumstantial evidence of guilt. 

I dislike Roger Goodell a lot.  But it seems to me that the federal court here is overstepping its bounds unless, contrary to usual practice, an appeal from the private disciplinary process is reviewed on a take-a-fresh-look-at-the-evidence standard.

Gut:  I think Brady is lying and I think the Patriots are exceptional cheaters in a league where there are a lot of them.  I thought four games was lenient.  So there's my dog in the hunt.

If anyone knows the actual standards for court review of a Commissioner's decisions in these cases, I would be very grateful if you would fill us in.  If the standard isn't "arbitrary and capricious," then -- surprise! -- I'm wrong.