Kapaernick

[untermensche]

Section 5. Enforcement of Anti-Collusion Provisions: Except as provided in Section
16(d) below, any player or the NFLPA, acting on that player’s or any number of players’
behalf, may bring an action before the System Arbitrator alleging a violation of Section 1
of this Article. In any such proceeding, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply. Issues
of relief and liability shall be determined in the same proceeding (including the amount
of damages, pursuant to Section 9 below, if any). The complaining party shall bear the
burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that (1) the challenged
conduct was or is in violation of Section 1 of this Article and (2) caused any
economic injury to such player(s).

Section 6. Burden of Proof: The failure by a Club or Clubs to negotiate, to submit
Offer Sheets, or to sign contracts with Restricted Free Agents or Transition Players, or
to negotiate, make offers, or sign contracts for the playing services of such players or
Unrestricted Free Agents, shall not, by itself or in combination only with evidence about
the playing skills of the player(s) not receiving any such offer or contract, satisfy the
burden of proof set forth in Section 1 above. However, any of the types of evidence
described in the preceding sentence may support a finding of a violation of Section 1 of
this Article, but only in combination with other evidence which, by itself or in combination
with such evidence, indicates that the challenged conduct was in violation of Section
1 of this Article. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the NFL or its Clubs from
arguing that any evidence is insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof set forth in Section
5 above. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the NFLPA or any player from
arguing that any evidence is sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof set forth in Section
5 above, except as set forth above.

A couple relevant sections from the above doc. My emphasis.

The second provision seems intended to specifically knock out the 'but I'm better than that Jet's backup so it must be collusion" line of argument.

In pro football where winning is supposed to be the most important thing, as long as you are not playing criminals, that happening several times could tip the scale.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A couple relevant sections from the above doc. My emphasis.

The second provision seems intended to specifically knock out the 'but I'm better than that Jet's backup so it must be collusion" line of argument.

In pro football where winning is supposed to be the most important thing...

I live in Ohio and can assure you that winning isn't the most important thing... making a profit is.

 

[dismal]

In pro football where winning is supposed to be the most important thing...

I live in Ohio and can assure you that winning isn't the most important thing... making a profit is.

None of this really matters when it comes to having actual evidence of collusion.

For that you need evidence of people colluding.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Section 5. Enforcement of Anti-Collusion Provisions: Except as provided in Section
16(d) below, any player or the NFLPA, acting on that player’s or any number of players’
behalf, may bring an action before the System Arbitrator alleging a violation of Section 1
of this Article. In any such proceeding, the Federal Rules of Evidence shall apply. Issues
of relief and liability shall be determined in the same proceeding (including the amount
of damages, pursuant to Section 9 below, if any). The complaining party shall bear the
burden of demonstrating by a clear preponderance of the evidence that (1) the challenged
conduct was or is in violation of Section 1 of this Article and (2) caused any
economic injury to such player(s).

Section 6. Burden of Proof: The failure by a Club or Clubs to negotiate, to submit
Offer Sheets, or to sign contracts with Restricted Free Agents or Transition Players, or
to negotiate, make offers, or sign contracts for the playing services of such players or
Unrestricted Free Agents, shall not, by itself or in combination only with evidence about
the playing skills of the player(s) not receiving any such offer or contract, satisfy the
burden of proof set forth in Section 1 above. However, any of the types of evidence
described in the preceding sentence may support a finding of a violation of Section 1 of
this Article, but only in combination with other evidence which, by itself or in combination
with such evidence, indicates that the challenged conduct was in violation of Section
1 of this Article. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the NFL or its Clubs from
arguing that any evidence is insufficient to satisfy the burden of proof set forth in Section
5 above. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the NFLPA or any player from
arguing that any evidence is sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof set forth in Section
5 above, except as set forth above.

A couple relevant sections from the above doc. My emphasis.

The second provision seems intended to specifically knock out the 'but I'm better than that Jet's backup so it must be collusion" line of argument.

You are right, but the Burden of Proof says that such argument can be used in combination with other points. Here are some hypothetical bullet points that could be used in combination with the other points from Section 6, where any particular combination could be added to try to make a case:
1. The President gives the NFL money.
2. The President puts pressure on NFL to fire such players.
3. At least two NFL owners agree with the President.
4. At least two NFL owners force players to comply with nationalistic displays.
5. At least two teams had opportunity to hire Kaepernick.

 

[dismal]

A couple relevant sections from the above doc. My emphasis.

The second provision seems intended to specifically knock out the 'but I'm better than that Jet's backup so it must be collusion" line of argument.

You are right, but the Burden of Proof says that such argument can be used in combination with other points. Here are some hypothetical bullet points that could be used in combination with the other points from Section 6, where any particular combination could be added to try to make a case:
1. The President gives the NFL money.
2. The President puts pressure on NFL to fire such players.
3. At least two NFL owners agree with the President.
4. At least two NFL owners force players to comply with nationalistic displays.
5. At least two teams had opportunity to hire Kaepernick.

None of the above.

Kaepernick will need to show evidence owners colluded to not hire him. Not more, Not less.

 

[blastula]

You are right, but the Burden of Proof says that such argument can be used in combination with other points. Here are some hypothetical bullet points that could be used in combination with the other points from Section 6, where any particular combination could be added to try to make a case:
1. The President gives the NFL money.
2. The President puts pressure on NFL to fire such players.
3. At least two NFL owners agree with the President.
4. At least two NFL owners force players to comply with nationalistic displays.
5. At least two teams had opportunity to hire Kaepernick.

That still wouldn't be collusion, the owners would have to collude with each other, not a third party.

Colin Kaepernick’s NFL Collusion Case Analyzed | SI.com


His best bet is obtaining communication records where owners did discuss shutting him out. But I doubt that ever happened. Owners didn't need to explicitly collude to effectively blackball him.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Kaepernick should just go and beat the shit out of his girlfriend or something. He'll be back on the field in three or four weeks.

 

[untermensche]

In pro football where winning is supposed to be the most important thing...

I live in Ohio and can assure you that winning isn't the most important thing... making a profit is.

That is what the owners will have to claim.

But is that in itself as damaging as having some respectful protest?

 

[dismal]

I live in Ohio and can assure you that winning isn't the most important thing... making a profit is.

That is what the owners will have to claim.

But is that in itself as damaging as having some respectful protest?

The owners don't have to claim anything. The burden will be on Kaepernick to show they colluded.

 

[untermensche]

That is what the owners will have to claim.

But is that in itself as damaging as having some respectful protest?

The owners don't have to claim anything. The burden will be on Kaepernick to show they colluded.

This is arbitration.

They have to answer the complaint.

They are not risking their freedom. They have to present a case.

 

[dismal]

The owners don't have to claim anything. The burden will be on Kaepernick to show they colluded.

This is arbitration.

They have to answer the complaint.

They are not risking their freedom. They have to present a case.

I'm literally quoting the document. The burden of proof is on Kaepernick. The owners will only need to rebut what evidence he has that they conspired not to sign him. If any.

 

[untermensche]

This is arbitration.

They have to answer the complaint.

They are not risking their freedom. They have to present a case.

I'm literally quoting the document. The burden of proof is on Kaepernick. The owners will only need to rebut what evidence he has that they conspired not to sign him. If any.

If his charges are reasonable and they do not rebut his charges reasonably this can tip the scale in his favor.

 

[sharon45]

If the owners give the whole procedure the finger, that could also help Kapaernick.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

1. The President gives the NFL money. No, he doesn't. The US government does. They are not equivalent.
2. The President puts pressure on NFL to fire such players. So far, they've fired no one.
3. At least two NFL owners agree with the President. So far, they've fired no one.
4. At least two NFL owners force players to comply with nationalistic displays. So far, they haven't. And the result of this week's owners' meetings will almost certainly result in no owners doing that.
5. At least two teams had opportunity to hire Kaepernick. He has to show that they agreed not to hire him. Each owner can easily give logical reasons for not doing it.

He needs to show EVIDENCE of collusion. A bunch of easily refuted arguments won't cut it.

 

[untermensche]

1. The President gives the NFL money. No, he doesn't. The US government does. They are not equivalent.
2. The President puts pressure on NFL to fire such players. So far, they've fired no one.
3. At least two NFL owners agree with the President. So far, they've fired no one.
4. At least two NFL owners force players to comply with nationalistic displays. So far, they haven't. And the result of this week's owners' meetings will almost certainly result in no owners doing that.
5. At least two teams had opportunity to hire Kaepernick. He has to show that they agreed not to hire him. Each owner can easily give logical reasons for not doing it.

He needs to show EVIDENCE of collusion. A bunch of easily refuted arguments won't cut it.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

 

[dismal]

He needs to show EVIDENCE of collusion. A bunch of easily refuted arguments won't cut it.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

*sigh*

I guess I should bring a lawsuit against the NFL for colluding to keep me out and hope the arbitrator is as clueless as you are.

 

[untermensche]

Circumstantial evidence is evidence.

*sigh*

I guess I should bring a lawsuit against the NFL for colluding to keep me out and hope the arbitrator is as clueless as you are.

Are you saying it is impossible to make a reasonable conclusion that collusion occurred based on circumstantial evidence?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

*sigh*

I guess I should bring a lawsuit against the NFL for colluding to keep me out and hope the arbitrator is as clueless as you are.

Are you saying it is impossible to make a reasonable conclusion that collusion occurred based on circumstantial evidence?

We are saying that the arbitrator will require more than circumstantial evidence, all of which has a logical alternate explanation. We are also saying that 32 teams reaching the same conclusion, even for the same reason, is not even circumstantial evidence of collusion.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying it is impossible to make a reasonable conclusion that collusion occurred based on circumstantial evidence?

We are saying that the arbitrator will require more than circumstantial evidence, all of which has a logical alternate explanation. We are also saying that 32 teams reaching the same conclusion, even for the same reason, is not even circumstantial evidence of collusion.

You are basically saying that no matter the conduct of the owners it is impossible to prove collusion unless you hear them talking about it.

I don't believe you.

And we shall see.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

We are saying that the arbitrator will require more than circumstantial evidence, all of which has a logical alternate explanation. We are also saying that 32 teams reaching the same conclusion, even for the same reason, is not even circumstantial evidence of collusion.

You are basically saying that no matter the conduct of the owners it is impossible to prove collusion unless you hear them talking about it.

I don't believe you.

And we shall see.

In 2015, Barry Bonds lost his collusion case against Major League Baseball, even though his circumstantial case was an order of magnitude stronger than Kaepernick's:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/...nds-in-collusion-case-over-his-career-ending/

Yes, we shall see.