[Roberton3]

The below sentence suggests the judge tacitly accepts that Brady knew what was happening.

Berman’s ruling accepted the union’s argument that Brady had no notice that a “general awareness” of misconduct by others could lead to discipline. That was the basis of the original suspension levied by NFL senior vice president Troy Vincent. Goodell determined in his arbitration award that Brady had participated in “a scheme to tamper with footballs.”

I think you're misinterpreting that -- reading something into it that isn't there.  The judge ruled that the NFL couldn't suspend Brady based on "general awareness" of misconduct by others.  If he rules that, then it doesn't matter whether Brady knew what was happening or not.  The reason the opinion doesn't address whether Brady knew or not isn't that the judge accepts it, it's that it's legally irrelevant.

[Roberton3]

The below sentence suggests the judge tacitly accepts that Brady knew what was happening.

Berman’s ruling accepted the union’s argument that Brady had no notice that a “general awareness” of misconduct by others could lead to discipline. That was the basis of the original suspension levied by NFL senior vice president Troy Vincent. Goodell determined in his arbitration award that Brady had participated in “a scheme to tamper with footballs.”

I think you're misinterpreting that -- reading something into it that isn't there.  The judge ruled that the NFL couldn't suspend Brady based on "general awareness" of misconduct by others.  If he rules that, then it doesn't matter whether Brady knew what was happening or not.  The reason the opinion doesn't address whether Brady knew or not isn't that the judge accepts it, it's that it's legally irrelevant.