From the beginning of Brady v. NFL — a melodrama that’s outlasted the length of some marriages — the cacophony of the roar has suffocated noble hints of rational argument.

The roars bear tentacles, too, beginning with fans of the Patriots, who seem to take this personally, as if the banner unveiled Thursday night will be any smaller. The roars of national media, who trot out battalions of legal experts and their technobabble. The roars of the Patriot media, who have taken to moral posturing over assessment of fact, perhaps viewing it the easier path to remain loyal to the brand.

It must be true. Tom said so.

And so it’s no stunning upset that the cacophony completely missed the point of Judge Richard Berman’s ruling that, essentially, threw Roger Goodell down a flight of stairs. Berman’s ruling drove a semi through a hilariously flawed process, but nowhere came close to proclaiming Brady’s — or the Patriots’ — innocence.

But then, there’s an inconvenience to complexity. And fewer endeavors are more esoteric than the vagaries of collective bargaining, lawyerspeak and the rest of the blathering this case has produced, all the way to the immortal “Ideal Gas Law.”

What is truth?

What is fiction?

Does it matter?

It’s like in “Chicago,” when Richard Gere sings about the old “Razzle Dazzle.”

“Give 'em the old hocus pocus; Bead and feather 'em. How can they see with sequins in their eyes? What if your hinges all are rusting? What if, in fact, you're just disgusting? Razzle dazzle 'em, and they'll never catch wise.”

The crux of Berman’s ruling centers around his notion of “industrial justice,” the judge’s term for Goodell’s disciplinary losing streak. The commish swung and missed on Greg Hardy, Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice, too. Judge Berman’s implication: Until the NFL changes its disciplinary process, avalanches of appeals will occur. And succeed.

Why? Berman believes that the league’s Collective Bargaining Agreement between the players and league does not authorize Goodell to run an autocracy. Rather than appealing the Brady decision, the NFL should throw its considerable resources to new and more thorough disciplinary measures so they don’t resemble Mo, Larry and Curly the next time some miscreant runs afoul of the law. Like in the next 30 seconds, given the NFL’s recent history.

Such as: Goodell can’t be judge and jury, no matter what the CBA’s language may imply. It won’t hold up (and hasn’t) in court. Investigations must be more transparent. The idea that Brady’s minions had no notice of his possible suspension or were denied equal access to evidence suggests the NFL’s disciplinary tactics redefine amateur hour.

Once again, though: Judge Berman delineates what should be a clearer — but isn’t — line between what is ethical and what is legal. Berman ruled on the law. He ruled on the process. His ruling is a defeat for the NFL’s tactics, not a victory for all the folks who felt the need to stage a hunger strike for their guy Tom.

“The court decided that the process was imperfect,” Ron Katz, the chairman emeritus of the Institute of Sports Law and Ethics at Santa Clara University, told columnist Bill Rhoden of the New York Times. “That’s the difference between law and ethics.”

More Rhoden: “The Brady case poses ethical issues that go beyond the weight of a football, into the lengths we as a society will go to win. … This has nothing to do with the debate about whether Brady is the greatest quarterback of his generation. But rules are rules, sportsmanship is sportsmanship, and cheating is cheating.”

Indeed: We don’t know any more now than we did before Berman’s ruling about what Brady knew. Or when he knew it. Or whether the two equipment room employees are patsies. Or acted independently. Certainly, Brady’s actions — destroying his phone among them — should arouse suspicion to anyone who isn’t in the tank, particularly because he plays for a franchise that’s been punished for cheating in the past.

Do I think Brady had an inkling something was amiss? I do. Do I think it ever merited a four-game suspension, in a league where, to quote the great Dan Jenkins, the games ought to begin with burglar alarms sounding instead of kickoffs? Not even close.

Just one thing: At least understand the baseline of Berman’s ruling. I get that we all adhere to ideas that represent our understanding, not necessarily the truth. The truth here is that Brady is no closer to innocent. He’s just a free man. Thanks to the abject incompetence of the most financially successful sports league of them all.

This is the opinion of Day sports columnist Mike DiMauro.

Twitter: @BCgenius