THE NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has indicated there will be an appeal after Tom Brady's four-game ban over 'Deflategate' was overturned by a federal judge.
The four-time Super Bowl winner had faced missing the start of his New England Patriots' title defence, which begins next week, due to a saga that had rumbled on since last January's AFC Championship Game.
Brady was suspended for four games in the aftermath of that victory over the Indianapolis Colts after he was found guilty of being "at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities" relating to under-inflated balls – a factor that is thought can assist quarterbacks in making throws in cold conditions.
The 38-year-old strenuously denied any involvement, though, and, after taking his fight to the courts, reports emerging from the United States on Thursday indicated district judge Richard M Berman had overturned the suspension.
But that may not be the end of the matter, with Goodell saying in a statement that the NFL is prepared to challenge the decision.
"We are grateful to Judge Berman for hearing this matter, but respectfully disagree with today's decision," Goodell said on NFL.com. "We will appeal today's ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game. The commissioner's responsibility to secure the competitive fairness of our game is a paramount principle, and the league and our 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. While the legal phase of this process continues, we look forward to focusing on football and the opening of the regular season."
Back in January, the NFL asked Ted Wells to produce an independent report on 'Deflategate' and, in lights of his findings, four months later the league hit Brady with a four-game suspension, while the Patriots were also fined $1m and docked two draft picks.
Brady appealed through the NFL Players' Association – a motion Goodell denied – with further evidence coming to light that the quarterback had destroyed his mobile phone prior to an interview with Wells.
The quarterback then issued a statement on Facebook expressing his disappointment at the decision, accusing the NFL of having "zero evidence of wrongdoing" and vowing to continue with the appeal process.
Judge Berman had urged the two sides to come to a settlement independently but, with the season rapidly approaching and an agreement nowhere near, he appears to have intervened by overturning the suspension the NFL had imposed on one of their star players.
In his findings – parts of which were published on NFL.com – Berman said it was unfair that Brady was subjected to a four-game suspension, the same length of ban a player gets for violating the NFL's substance and abuse policy.
He said: "The court finds that no player alleged or found to have had a general awareness of the inappropriate ball deflation activities of others or who allegedly schemed with others to let air out of footballs in a championship game and also had not cooperated in an ensuing investigation, reasonably could be on notice that their discipline would [or should] be the same as applied to a player who violated the NFL policy on anabolic steroids and related substances."
If the NFL's appeal fails, it would be a further blow to commissioner Goodell's authority after running-back duo Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson both won high-profile appeals to be reinstated following lengthy bans in the past 12 months.
The NFLPA hailed the decision to free Brady from his ban as a victory for the union's collective bargaining agreement.
A statement on its website said: "This decision should prove, once and for all, that our collective bargaining agreement does not grant this commissioner the authority to be unfair, arbitrary and misleading.
"While the CBA grants the person who occupies the position of commissioner the ability to judiciously and fairly exercise the designated power of that position, the union did not agree to attempts to unfairly, illegally exercise that power, contrary to what the NFL has repeatedly and wrongfully claimed."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here