RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => General Discussion => Topic started by: Johnponz on March 05, 2016, 08:49:51 AM
-
No one is really talking about it anymore because of America's short attention span. However, it appears that Brady was involved in coordinating the deflation of the footballs. This is from the appeal hearing currently happening.
Still to be determined is whether or not the NFL followed "due process."
-
Does anybody still care, and more importantly, "did it ever matter". Remember, any football going into an NFL game passes through the hands of 2 game officials; the Wing official given the ball by the ballboy, and the Umpire who eventually spots it.
I wouldn't expect either of them to be able to tell the exact pressure of each ball they handle, but I have no doubt they wouldn't have been able to detect a "problem" ball and reject it.
-
The point is that it looks like Brady purposely coordinated the breaking of rules, thus he cheated. I am not saying the officials should have noticed the fact. Just pointing out that with all of the protests of the team's ownership and coach, it now looks like Brady/the team cheated.
It says something about Brady's character/ethics that he was willing to go through all of the steps that he apparently did just to gain a minuscule advantage. In my mind it taints all of his other accomplishments.
You are correct that no one cares now, but at the time it was a major story. I just believe the record should be set straight, and everyone realize that Brady apparently purposely cheated.
PS I hope this is not considered "getting personal." However Tom Brady is a major public figure, and deflategate was a major national news story so I hope it is okay to talk about it in this matter.
-
...it appears that Brady was involved in coordinating the deflation of the footballs. This is from the appeal hearing currently happening.
And you have the facts to back up the allegation?
-
I think this should be moved to the NFL section
-
Here are 2 stories on the topic.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/us/nfl-deflategate-appeal/index.html
And
http://www.huewire.com/miscellaneous/nfl-s-tom-brady-suspension-appeal-reportedly-goes-well-for-league/111744/
I posted it in general discussion because it is not really officiating related but rather a general sports topic.
-
The point is that it looks like Brady purposely coordinated the breaking of rules, thus he cheated. I am not saying the officials should have noticed the fact. Just pointing out that with all of the protests of the team's ownership and coach, it now looks like Brady/the team cheated.
It says something about Brady's character/ethics that he was willing to go through all of the steps that he apparently did just to gain a minuscule advantage. In my mind it taints all of his other accomplishments.
You are correct that no one cares now, but at the time it was a major story. I just believe the record should be set straight, and everyone realize that Brady apparently purposely cheated.
PS I hope this is not considered "getting personal." However Tom Brady is a major public figure, and deflategate was a major national news story so I hope it is okay to talk about it in this matter.
John, you DON"T KNOW Tom Brady had ANYTHING to do with the pressure in those balls, and it sounds like your conclusion that "thus he cheated" is based on pure speculation and what you've read in the tabloids.
I had no expectation that the game officials should have "noticed the fact", other than to suggest that if "the fact" was so obvious that the air pressure would make a difference and create an unfair advantage, they would have damn sure done something about it. The fact that they didn't suggests the differences were negligible, and just maybe this whole "scandal" is "much ado about nothing".
Setting the record straight is always a good idea, but you suggesting, "EVERYONE realize that Brady apparently purposely cheated." is a ridiculous exaggeration. If Brady (himself) did what you believe he did, he should be disciplined, but ONLY when his accusers PROVE he did, not speculate, surmise, guess because it's what they might be likely to do or just imagine. What does the "protests of the Team's management", or anyone else's previous conduct have to do with this allegation?
Tom Brady is a public figure, and sadly like other successful sports public figures who have stayed out of trouble, he has become a prime target for the "Investigative Sports Reporters" of ESPN, Sports Illustrated, & others to find something dirty they can manufacture a scandal around.
Perhaps the one thing worse than 24/7 news reporting, 24/7 Sports Reporting.
-
No one is really talking about it anymore because of America's short attention span. However, it appears that Brady was involved in coordinating the deflation of the footballs. This is from the appeal hearing currently happening.
Still to be determined is whether or not the NFL followed "due process."
same reason we don't talk about OJ any more. We all know he did it despite the jury
-
Al,
There is really no reason to accuse me of not doing my research. It is true that I have no first hand knowledge. However, I read from a couple of sources, one of which was CNN (hardly a tabloid) that the federal judges who were trying the case based on their questions were indicating that they believed Brady was involved. One of them said that the story of why he destroyed his cell phone made no sense. Another one said that the NFL's case was compelling (maybe I am paraphrasing here). Based on these accounts I reached my conclusions based on reasoned consideration. If you come to another conclusion that is fine. However, I have every right to post my opinion. I believe that it is a little bit of a shame that you have to use such a hostile tone to me with regard to my opinion. We can disagree but do not have to be disagreeable
-
Also if you read my post I did not say anything definitive. I used words like it appears and it looks like. You turned that into me saying that I KNOW something.
-
John, I never accused you of not doing your research, nor do I question your right to develop and/or announce your opinion. Forgive me but, "The point is that it looks like Brady purposely coordinated the breaking of rules, thus he cheated." seems a little bit more like a direct accusation, than an opinion.
You have every right to conclude, "It says something about Brady's character/ethics that he was willing to go through all of the steps that he apparently did just to gain a minuscule advantage. In my mind it taints all of his other accomplishments.", but all that stops short of being anything more than your "opinion", considered and researched but still shy of proven, yet pretty well concluded.
Sorry if you considered my tone "hostile", I was simply challenging your assessment and opinion, which seems purely subjective, yet includes a direct accusation of "cheating", which to me, seems somewhat excessively harsh and damning. If not a personal accusation, what would you consider "the tone" of labeling someone, especially a professional athlete, a "Cheater".
For the record, this wouldn't be the first time CNN has blown a story out of proportion to advance the interests of CNN. Today journalism too often isn't quite what it's supposed to be, or sadly once was.
-
I'm no Brady or Patriots fan and the organization has a reputation that may or may not be deserved but I fail to see how there is anything new coming out of a Federal appeals hearing. Any earth shattering revelations should have been born out at the District level. This is all arguments of law now.
-
I'm no Brady or Patriots fan and the organization has a reputation that may or may not be deserved but I fail to see how there is anything new coming out of a Federal appeals hearing. Any earth shattering revelations should have been born out at the District level. This is all arguments of law now.
I'm both a Brady and Patriots fan. I'm currently more interested in Red Sox spring training than this. I breathed a sigh of relief when word arrived that their equipment truck arrived safely at Ft. Myers, Florida. I breathed a sigh of disinterest when word arrived about Brady's upcoming day in court. I breathed a sigh of confusion when my wife thought tires were flat with temps below the donut in our frozen tundra. My current worries.......
SOX ROAD OPENER IN CLEVELAND..ONLY TRIP THIS YEAR...WILL BIG PAPI GET STUFF???
WILL THE MUD DRY BEFORE MY FIRST BASEBALL GAME?????
WILL BRADY TAKE HIS CASE ALL THE WAY TO THE BIGGEST COURT IN THE LAND?????
IF THEY ARE STILL PLAYING A JUSTICE SHORT, WHAT'S THE TIE BREAKER IF 4-4??????
IS CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS A JETS FAN???????
-
same reason we don't talk about OJ any more. We all know he did it despite the jury
Dont look now:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/us/oj-simpson-property-knife/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/us/oj-simpson-property-knife/)
-
Al,
There is really no reason to accuse me of not doing my research. It is true that I have no first hand knowledge. However, I read from a couple of sources, one of which was CNN (hardly a tabloid) that the federal judges who were trying the case based on their questions were indicating that they believed Brady was involved. One of them said that the story of why he destroyed his cell phone made no sense. Another one said that the NFL's case was compelling (maybe I am paraphrasing here). Based on these accounts I reached my conclusions based on reasoned consideration. If you come to another conclusion that is fine. However, I have every right to post my opinion. I believe that it is a little bit of a shame that you have to use such a hostile tone to me with regard to my opinion. We can disagree but do not have to be disagreeable
These judges have not yet ruled, and if you are attempting to discern their actual opinion from oral arguments you are making a grave mistake. The one federal judge who HAS ruled did not think the evidence was compelling.
Many scientific outlets have posted study after study since this broke indicating that the balls air pressure was entirely within legal range based on temperature at the time of measurement. The NFL itself said it would study the ball pressure issue by randomly testing balls in cold weather games last year and release the results. Well the season is over, where are the results? You have to imagine that if the results helped their argument we'd have all heard about it by now.
-
My semi-scientific study (if you live north of the "frost line" you can play,too :)) :
Nights of below the donut in Maine have hopefully gone, but we still have some chilly morns.
I can push a button on my big scary SUV Jeep and see the PSI of my tires.
Prior to a morning blastoff, the readings are 34-35 PSI.
At noontime, when I return to said vehicle on a quest to gnaw on the carcass of a mutilated mammal, the PSI readings are 37-38.
Verdict : Brady innocent = aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd..how many more tiphat:....
-
My semi-scientific study (if you live north of the "frost line" you can play,too :)) :
Nights of below the donut in Maine have hopefully gone, but we still have some chilly morns.
I can push a button on my big scary SUV Jeep and see the PSI of my tires.
Prior to a morning blastoff, the readings are 34-35 PSI.
At noontime, when I return to said vehicle on a quest to gnaw on the carcass of a mutilated mammal, the PSI readings are 37-38.
Verdict : Brady innocent = aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd aWaRd..how many more tiphat:....
Still does not explain (1) disparity in PSI in Pats balls v Colts balls and (2) Brady's failure to cooperate in investigation and negative inferences allowed to be created by his destruction of phone. Based on (2) alone I believe the Commish was well within his rights under the CBA to suspend Mr. Brady.
-
Still does not explain (1) disparity in PSI in Pats balls v Colts balls and (2) Brady's failure to cooperate in investigation and negative inferences allowed to be created by his destruction of phone. Based on (2) alone I believe the Commish was well within his rights under the CBA to suspend Mr. Brady.
As previously stated, you are completely entitled to form whatever conclusion you choose, just like everybody else.
As to your "evidence theories"; (1) How does the disparity in PSI between IND. & NE balls point directly to Mr. Brady? (2) Who knows what else, which may have been embarrassing in any number of ways, available on Brady's cell phone. If so, would anyone in their right mind trust the NFL and anyone else who may have gotten access to that information (pictures) to keep it confidential?
-
As previously stated, you are completely entitled to form whatever conclusion you choose, just like everybody else.
As to your "evidence theories"; (1) How does the disparity in PSI between IND. & NE balls point directly to Mr. Brady? (2) Who knows what else, which may have been embarrassing in any number of ways, available on Brady's cell phone. If so, would anyone in their right mind trust the NFL and anyone else who may have gotten access to that information (pictures) to keep it confidential?
So, if the cold weather had been the cause, you would have thought that one of more the the Colt balls would also have been below the PSI threshold. None of them were, they will all still legal -- and none of the Pat balls were. This suggests a reasonable inference to be drawn (yes, I am an attorney) that human intervention was involved. As far as the phone -- the NFL never asked for the phone to be turned over. Instead, during the meeting with the investigators and Brady and his attorney, the league investigators asked to sit, right there in the room, the Brady and his lawyer, and go through only the texts and emails with team officials. They were not asking to take the phone with them or to search for other things. And, instead of informing them that the phone had been destroyed, Brady and his lawyer simply said No, we refused to cooperate with you. Only later did Brady "confess" that the phone had been destroyed. That again allows for a reasonable inference to be drawn that he had something to hide, and failed to cooperate -- which under the CBA gives the Commish the authority to suspend. Just my humble opinion.
-
So, if the cold weather had been the cause, you would have thought that one of more the the Colt balls would also have been below the PSI threshold. None of them were, they will all still legal -- and none of the Pat balls were. This suggests a reasonable inference to be drawn (yes, I am an attorney) that human intervention was involved.
Not being an attorney, I defer to your experience and expertise. However, the concern that "human intervention" may have been involved, although a reasonable possibility, without additional specific evidence to support Mr. Brady's direct culpability, doesn't seem to support a specific accusation.
As for the phone, considering Mr. Brady's status as a "public figure" the risk of allowing plaintiff attorneys and/or League personnel to rummage through his PERSONAL "smartphone" opening the potential for "leaking" of potentially embarrassing information contained within, seems prohibitively high. Considering the potential for subsequent and additional Court proceedings and possible decisions REQUIRING disclosure, preemptively, and permanently destroying the device seems a prudent measure to eliminate such a potential development.
Paraphrasing some legal advice I've heard, "Never write/sign what you can verbally agree to, never speak what you can nod to, never nod to what you can confirm with a glance", and as some wise scholar advised, "It is often wiser to beg forgiveness, than seek permission".
-
I understand what you are saying -- the problem is that this is an employment issue and not a criminal issue. So, the moment he destroyed his phone and withheld the phone from the league and "failed to cooperate" he subjected himself, not to criminal exposure, but to an "adverse employment" decision. If a league official had done that -- he would have been fired. Not gone to jail -but fired. There is language in the NFL owners agreements that personnel "must" cooperate with the league. I believe there is a similar provision in the CBA. Once Brady failed to cooperate, for whatever reason and by any method, he subjected himself to punishment by the league -- in this case a 4 game suspension. I don't care if he did it or not, or his fingerprints are on it our not (I do, but not for this purpose), once he failed to cooperate, he gets what he gets.
As for the phone itself, and any private information, again, the league never asked him to give it his phone. They said, let us sit together, side by side, and read your emails and texts only between you and other Pat personnel. They did not want to see, read, copy, etc his photos, contacts, other personal emails or texts. Once he refused to do that -- he failed to cooperate. Again, not a criminal offense like not agreeing to a search of your car or house without a warrant. But a violation of his employer's rules and procedures. There is no entitlement to play in the league.
And, yes, I think it makes a difference. As an official (25 years), we all know that there are two things an two things only that we all check every game at the HS Varsity, College and Pro level. One if the chains to make sure they are 10 yards. Two, the balls to make sure they are within the prescribed PSI. I my humble opinion, you screw with either of those two things, I would throw the book at you. If I discovered that a home team chain gain had adjusted the chain by a few inches after I checked in pre-game, they would be fired from the game, ejected from the field and the local AD would be notified to take appropriate action and I would never allow him/her to work the chains at another game I officiated. This is not an "equipment violation" as I have heard some suggest -- this was not failing to play with a mouthpiece, or a thigh pad. This was the ball.
-
I understand what you are saying -- the problem is that this is an employment issue and not a criminal issue. So, the moment he destroyed his phone and withheld the phone from the league and "failed to cooperate" he subjected himself, not to criminal exposure, but to an "adverse employment" decision. If a league official had done that -- he would have been fired. Not gone to jail -but fired. There is language in the NFL owners agreements that personnel "must" cooperate with the league. I believe there is a similar provision in the CBA. Once Brady failed to cooperate, for whatever reason and by any method, he subjected himself to punishment by the league -- in this case a 4 game suspension. I don't care if he did it or not, or his fingerprints are on it our not (I do, but not for this purpose), once he failed to cooperate, he gets what he gets.
As for the phone itself, and any private information, again, the league never asked him to give it his phone. They said, let us sit together, side by side, and read your emails and texts only between you and other Pat personnel. They did not want to see, read, copy, etc his photos, contacts, other personal emails or texts. Once he refused to do that -- he failed to cooperate. Again, not a criminal offense like not agreeing to a search of your car or house without a warrant. But a violation of his employer's rules and procedures. There is no entitlement to play in the league.
And, yes, I think it makes a difference. As an official (25 years), we all know that there are two things an two things only that we all check every game at the HS Varsity, College and Pro level. One if the chains to make sure they are 10 yards. Two, the balls to make sure they are within the prescribed PSI. I my humble opinion, you screw with either of those two things, I would throw the book at you. If I discovered that a home team chain gain had adjusted the chain by a few inches after I checked in pre-game, they would be fired from the game, ejected from the field and the local AD would be notified to take appropriate action and I would never allow him/her to work the chains at another game I officiated. This is not an "equipment violation" as I have heard some suggest -- this was not failing to play with a mouthpiece, or a thigh pad. This was the ball.
This is the issue that the defenders of Brady don't seem to understand. He is being punished for failing to cooperate with the investigation, not with deflating the balls. My guess is if he had given full cooperation, they could not have proven that he had anything to do with the deflation and this would have been over with, but he chose not to and thus should be punished because he agreed to cooperate as entry to playing in the league
-
I don't mean to be difficult, but many of the facts being cited in this thread are not correct. The Wells report stated that Brady fully cooperated (of course, that is just Ted Wells' opinion, and you are free to draw your own).
In addition, only 4 of the Colts balls had their PSI measured (Compared to 12 Patriots balls, the officials ran out of time measuring the Colts balls). Of those 4, 3 registered below the minimum PSI of 12.5. This is despite having spent the entire halftime period in the warmer officials locker room, while presumably the Patriots balls were measured immediately after bringing them in from outdoors.
You can see the direct measurements in the Wells Report, starting on page 66.
-
This is the issue that the defenders of Brady don't seem to understand. He is being punished for failing to cooperate with the investigation, not with deflating the balls. My guess is if he had given full cooperation, they could not have proven that he had anything to do with the deflation and this would have been over with, but he chose not to and thus should be punished because he agreed to cooperate as entry to playing in the league.
Legal details accepted. It will be interesting to see how far the NFL pushes their (forced to cooperate) policy details, and to what extent Mr. Brady might continue contesting an adverse decision. I suspect the NFL understands the value of "franchise" (if not League) recognition, and golden geese still make for a very expensive sacrificial meal.
As for the phone, and potential privacy violations via "leaks", which by definition should never happen yet fill scores of Tabloids week after week, it may well depend on what was actually on that phone, which will likely NEVER be known for certain. Some legal scholars maintain that, in hindsight, President Nixon would have been far better served had he destroyed those tapes.
However, punishment, although contractually specified, based on speculation alone is not guaranteed to be consequence free when directed at a highly public and popular personality, and may be far more damaging than corrective. I suspect, even the NFL, is wary about pushing their "required to cooperate" mandate to the extent of inviting civil and/or Constitutional scrutiny by the Court, much less their customer base.
I submit, this is more a question of defending "process", rather than defending Mr. Brady specifically, and winning battles long decided and rapidly fading into distant memories, at the expense of maintaining a settled, successful and ever expanding peace, seems somewhat unnecessary. Apparently, that's a snowball the NFL will get to choose whether it's worthwhile to star rolling down the hill, having little control over what it might pick up on the way to the bottom..
-
As for the phone, considering Mr. Brady's status as a "public figure" the risk of allowing plaintiff attorneys and/or League personnel to rummage through his PERSONAL "smartphone" opening the potential for "leaking" of potentially embarrassing information contained within, seems prohibitively high.
This is a huge red herring and full of suppositions that are almost certainly false. In lawsuits, there is what is called discovery -- evidence gathering by both sides. Often one side will want something the other side doesn't want to give over -- in this case (if we are to believe you), the phone. Motions are filed back and forth but what often happens is the sides create an agreement (in Federal Court, I think its under Rule 13) that they put in writing and file with the court. Had Brady's lawyers actually been interested in turning over evidence that was relevant while still managing to protect Brady's privacy in other matters, they could have made a similar agreement (I realize it wasn't a suit) with the NFL and put an enforcement clause in there.
Of course, you have no idea if Brady ever even considered the matters you are asserting here, so it makes your points even less worthy of discussion.
The amount of conjecture, supposition and even outright stupidity that some will go to in order to defend Brady boggles the mind. Anyone who read the full report knows exactly what happened: he cheated. The only people that don't believe it are those that don't want to believe it -- sort of like the fans that scream and yell at you at your games. In defending Brady, you're doing what these fans are doing.
-
If I may, Joe, confirm I'm not an attorney, nor am I a NE Patriot fan, nor enamored with Mr. Brady, other than respect his accomplishments, performances and reliability over a relatively long career. You are absolutely correct, my conclusions are totally speculative AS ARE THE ACCUSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. I no more than the individuals who completed their investigation and "report" know FOR SURE that Tom Brady had a direct and intentional role in altering the air pressure in those footballs, for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage, which most certainly would be CHEATING.
Those operating from either the perspective that he cheated, or did not, are operating from the same level of speculation, presumption and opinion that has not, and may never be, actually proven, one way or the other.
Perhaps today, it's not as big a deal as before, but labeling a professional athlete as a CHEATER, seems to be the kind of thing you either PROVE, or shut up about. It has become so easy, so routine to throw someone under the nearest bus, based on nothing but speculation and presumption.
We, as officials, at least on the HS and Collegiate levels are required to know damn well what a defectively pressured football "feels" like. I don't expect we can feel the exact air pressure, but we should be able to recognize a ball that provided an unfair advantage. I've never worked on the NFL level, but expect those men are amply qualified to make the same judgments.
I don't know how many footballs passed through 2 sets of hands (the sideline official and the Umpire) changing balls EVERY play, but I suspect it was quite a few and I don't recall any being thrown back.
You are correct, I'll never KNOW whether Tom Brady actually did, or didn't do anything deliberate and intentional that day, but until I know for absolute sure, I'm not going to slander him as a cheater and cast a phony cloud over what has been a remarkable career.
-
I am neither a lawyer nor a scientist ,but only a sports fan....and -yap - a member of Patriot Nation.
As I recall, the report said something like "....probably had some knowledge of..."
As I believe ,the US Justice System says something like "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt..."
It seems to me, being only a sports fan, that "probably had some knowledge of..." doesn't pass muster with "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...".
BUT....
Regressing back to the Mitchell Report (use of illegal stuff in baseball, as reported by MAINE's :) former senator, George Mitchell)......
A lengthy list was published of current and former players charged with using illegal substances.
Talking heads on the Mike & Mike Show responded to the question of : "What should you do if you were on the list?" by answering something to the effect of: " ...yes I did, only_____, because of______ and back when______."
The talking heads said that most sports fans yEs: would quickly move on yEs:. The STORY would no longer be a deadhorse: story and the media would also move on. BUT IF a player disagreed and announced that he would fight this all the way to the courts, it would continue to remain news, and remain in the minds of the sports fans.
That made sense to me, and as both a sports fan and a Monday morning quarterback, would like to ask my favorite QB the following questions :
(1) You didn't throw many interceptions, but why did you thro the ones that you did ????
(2) If you had said, during the investigation : "I have mentioned that I like my footballs on the softer side and some attendant(s) may have felt they were helping me out..."; do you think that we of Patriot Nation would still be talking and worrying about this.
(3) Reasons for tossing your cell phone :
(a) don't like the color;
(b) it's broke;
(c) mad at it;
(d) has dirty pix of wife;
(e) has words of deflated footballs
Which reason was yours?????? pi1eOn
-
The talking heads said that most sports fans yEs: would quickly move on yEs:. The STORY would no longer be a deadhorse: story and the media would also move on. BUT IF a player disagreed and announced that he would fight this all the way to the courts, it would continue to remain news, and remain in the minds of the sports fans.
I agree with most of what you suggest, however in today's media world, bagging a Tom Brady would be like bagging a white lion. Hopefully "most" sports fans would understand and eventually forget. Pete Rose might disagree.
-
Ralph -- here is where your analysis goes wrong:
As I believe ,the US Justice System says something like "Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt..."
It seems to me, being only a sports fan, that "probably had some knowledge of..." doesn't pass muster with "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...".
This is not know and never was a criminal case. There are basically 3 different levels of "proof" in the US court system. First, "beyond a reasonable doubt". This applies exclusively to criminal cases because we should not be locking people up without sufficient proof. Because it is "criminal" standard, this only applies to the Government bringing actions.
The second and third standards of proof are what is used in the civil court system; "a preponderance of the evidence" or "clear and convincing evidence." Very really is clear and convincing used -- most civil matters, including employment and contract matters, use the preponderance of the evidence standard. This basically means is it "more likely than not". This is exactly what the Wells Report found. In this regard, it is like the traffic accident case where the Defendant is alleged to have run a red light and hit and injured the Plaintiff. The jury does not have to decide beyond a reasonable doubt --- the jury only has to decide is it "more likely than not" -- a 51% chance, that based on the evidence, did the Defendant run the red light. That can come down to simply believing the Plaintiff more than believing the Defendant -- even in the absence of other evidence. In a He Said -- He Said -- the jury get to decide who they believe more - 51-49. That is the standard that every EMPLOYER IS ENTITLED TO USE IN MAKING DECISIONS.
-
Thanks, DallasLJ, for your legal course. As a sports fan, you want to think your fav can do no ill ;). I think we can all agree this could have been put to bed many months ago with better cooperation on Brady's part.
On a personal note, Dallas has had a soft spot in my heart SINCE I spent 6 months of the Fall of 1968 there. I became a Cowboy's fan by attending nearly their entire season with comp tickets to the Cotton Bowl. They now rank 3rd on my list behind the Pats, and the Giants (Maine's favorite until the AFL came to town).
AHH, BUT THE DAZE OF DANDY DON MERIDITH AND BULLET BOB HAYES...
-
Why has this not been moved to the NFL section?
-
Why has this not been moved to the NFL section?
Probably because taking the air out of a football is not limited to the NFL. It happens at other levels, too.
-
Thanks, DallasLJ, for your legal course. As a sports fan, you want to think your fav can do no ill ;). I think we can all agree this could have been put to bed many months ago with better cooperation on Brady's part.
On a personal note, Dallas has had a soft spot in my heart SINCE I spent 6 months of the Fall of 1968 there. I became a Cowboy's fan by attending nearly their entire season with comp tickets to the Cotton Bowl. They now rank 3rd on my list behind the Pats, and the Giants (Maine's favorite until the AFL came to town).
AHH, BUT THE DAZE OF DANDY DON MERIDITH AND BULLET BOB HAYES...
I had suspected, Ralph, that there was something lurking in your background that would save you. Being a (former) Giants fan answers that question. (Actually you are still a Giants fan whose eyes may have been temporarily diverted by way of a new interest), but being a Giant fan is genetic. Want proof? check your fingernails, nibbled? Giants win often, but rarely easy.
As I'm sure you are well aware, but many newer Cowboy fans might have forgotten, the Cowboys first Head Coach (father) Tom Landry was an All-pro defensive back during his playing career with the NY Giants.
-
We, as officials, at least on the HS and Collegiate levels are required to know DARN well what a defectively pressured football "feels" like. I don't expect we can feel the exact air pressure, but we should be able to recognize a ball that provided an unfair advantage. I've never worked on the NFL level, but expect those men are amply qualified to make the same judgments.
I don't know how many footballs passed through 2 sets of hands (the sideline official and the Umpire) changing balls EVERY play, but I suspect it was quite a few and I don't recall any being thrown back.
If you are just handling the ball, you aren't likely going to notice 1-2 PSI. You need to squeeze it in order to notice it. A 10 PSI ball is still pretty tight but by doing a squeeze test you will noticed a difference. And while this has become a big issue since the AFC championship game, the NFL officials I've talked to have said that other than the required measurement before the game, the PSI of the ball was not a major concern or emphasis once they were checked. That's no different than any of our games. I understand this particular instance was brought to their attention at halftime of the game, and they were forced to deal with it.
I definitely agree this would have gone away quickly if Brady would have said something like, "yes, I like the ball as soft as legally allowed and my ball boys may have pushed the envelope a little too much." At worst he may have had a $25k fine and this would have all been over. But instead he and the Patriots went on the offensive and lied. At their first press conference he made two statements that could not both be true so he was lying in one of them. Early in his statements he said he's very particular about the footballs and the pressure. Later he said he did not notice anything unusual about the balls in the first half. Only one of those could be true based on the findings of the pressure at halftime. If he was very particular, he would noticed a 2 PSI difference. The only other exception is he only used 10.5 PSI balls so they seemed "normal" to him.
What I don't understand is why they chose to lie and cover up on this issue. It's not a major issue and worth lying about. It may have still been blown way out of proportion, but I doubt as much as it became.
-
What I don't understand is why they chose to lie and cover up on this issue. It's not a major issue and worth lying about. It may have still been blown way out of proportion, but I doubt as much as it became.
I don't disagree with much of anything suggested, except your description of "lying". You reference a Press Conference, which usually involves a lot of stupid, repetitive, suggestive, "gotcha" questions in rapid succession. Sorry, but I don't see any "smoking gun" in a conflict between; "yes I'm particular" and "no, I didn't see, or couldn't tell the difference out on the playing field (just like the 2 sets of game official's hands that the balls passed through on their way into the game).
Do you think considering that contradiction a deliberate, calculated effort to deceive, a "lie", on which to base, what today, would be a life long smear on an otherwise brilliant career (of Cheater) just a little exaggerated and overstated?
The whole point of "the hands the balls passed through" is that although the precise difference in PSI is clearly quantifiable with a pressure gauge, to experienced people who routinely deal with actually handling footballs, the difference is NOT AUTOMATICALLY DISCERNIBLE,nor does it automatically provide a deliberate "unfair advantage" so having a preference and "not readily noticing" such a PSI difference, is not only reasonable, but entirely LIKELY (depending on the degree of difference).
If the highly experienced, professional and worthy of playoff assignment game officials couldn't detect any SIGNIFICANT difference, or advantage, through their handling why would you assume a Quaterback ( in the middle of live game action) would?
It seems the MOST accurate assessment of this entire incident, was summed up by the Indianapolis Colts, who simply acknowledged, "We got beat".
It seems much more likely, this whole deflategate nonsense is, and has been, "Much ado about nothing", and the NFL allowed itself to be prodded into a dramatic over reaction by a hungry media frenzy looking to revitalize, and dredge back up, previous issues that have lost the attention of the public's spotlight.
-
In fairness to the game officials, and ourselves who as you say, handles the ball a lot, let's remember that this game was played in freezing cold weather. Each of the game officials was wearing gloves to keep their hands from freezing. For the gloves to be of any value for warmth, they also would have made it pretty hard for them to notice a 2 PSI difference in the balls.
So, I think it is a red-herring to say "well, the officials didn't notice, so it must not have been an issue."
-
I'm afraid you TOTALLY misunderstand my observation DallasLJ, allow me to clarify. In no way am I casting aspersions about the officiating capabilities or performance. You are correct those officials were wearing gloves, in harsh weather, in the midst of an important contest, which makes a significant difference to someone using a pressure gauge, at halftime (likely indoors). Mr. Brady was either using similar gloves, or elected to face the harsh weather without gloves for protection, and would be similarly hampered.
Bear in mind both the game officials, and players, had other responsibilities to share their focus on.
I don't know what specific PSI creates a feeling of a problem, however a good percentage of time I can detect, what I consider "problematic", and I suspect these eminently qualified, experienced, selected for post season assignment NFL officials can also detect, "problematic" and deal with it.
The ultimate question is, "was whatever PSI differential, that may have existed, create an unfair advantage, and/or was it severe enough to alert either the game officials, or Tom Brady, both of whom were engrossed in live game action".
All of which brings it back to a single point, if you are going to label Tom Brady a "LIAR" and therefore a "CHEATER", you really need to be basing those accusations on more that "coulda, shoulda" speculation.
-
deadhorse: deadhorse: deadhorse:
-
:thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup
Is it possible to fine anyone else that posts on this subject? ;D ;D ;D
-
https://youtu.be/kN7jWetRvsE?t=35s
-
deadhorse: deadhorse: deadhorse:
:bOW :bOW :bOW
-
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15353950/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-four-game-suspension-deflategate-reinstated-appeals-court
-
Well his suspension is reinstated. Goodell acted within his rights
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tom-bradys-deflategate-suspension-reinstated-153310809.html;_ylt=A0LEVxkwOh5XcXsAp7hXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
-
Wasn't it Yogi who said it ain't over till it's over. Still many legal obstacles which can be placed in the way.
-
Well his suspension is reinstated. Goodell acted within his rights
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tom-bradys-deflategate-suspension-reinstated-153310809.html;_ylt=A0LEVxkwOh5XcXsAp7hXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
Right result.
-
Wasn't it Yogi who said it ain't over till it's over. Still many legal obstacles which can be placed in the way.
I don't think so. The US Supreme Court will not take this case. NFL will enforce the suspension right away. Mr. Brady is sitting the first 4 games.
-
There is potentially 1 more step available at the appeals court if he chooses to try to get it. And if he does try for the SCOTUS step it will take them some time to even accept or deny the case. And the NFl could even revise the punishment on its own . I realize it is a long time until Sep but I doubt he will be missing any action in Sept
-
There is potentially 1 more step available at the appeals court if he chooses to try to get it. And if he does try for the SCOTUS step it will take them some time to even accept or deny the case. And the NFl could even revise the punishment on its own . I realize it is a long time until Sep but I doubt he will be missing any action in Sept
As an attorney, I can handicap the odds the Supreme Court takes the case at less than 5%. And, yes, Brady could ask for a rehearing, or a hearing, en banc, that is by all of the Court of Appeals Judges together. But, again the odds of that are very slim. More importantly, it would be highly unlikely, if not impossible, for any hearing before the end of the season. So, with the current status being that the League can enforce the rule, there is nothing legally to stop the suspension.
Now, if the League, the NFLPA and Brady want to discuss a deal to "drop the matter" now that the League has an published Court case ruling in its favor, I can see a "settlement" but I would be surprised, and disappointed, if there is not at least a 2 game suspension.
-
This from the beginning of the Court's Decision:
The basic principle driving both our analysis and our conclusion is well established: a federal court’s review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly circumscribed and highly deferential—indeed, among the most deferential in the law. Our role is not to determine for ourselves whether Brady participated in a scheme to deflate footballs or whether the suspension imposed by the Commissioner should have been for three games or five games or none at all. Nor is it our role to second‐guess the arbitrator’s procedural rulings. Our obligation is limited to determining whether the arbitration proceedings and award met the minimum legal standards established by the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 141 et seq. (the “LMRA”). We must simply ensure that the arbitrator was “even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority” and did not “ignore the plain language of the contract.” United Paperworks Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987). These standards do not require perfection in arbitration awards. Rather, they dictate that even if an arbitrator makes mistakes of fact or law, we may not
disturb an award so long as he acted within the bounds of his bargained‐for authority.
-
Well his suspension is reinstated. Goodell acted within his rights
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tom-bradys-deflategate-suspension-reinstated-153310809.html;_ylt=A0LEVxkwOh5XcXsAp7hXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--
You are correct, Mr. Goodell apparently ' acted within HIS rights", which lends itself to the importance of being sure of the consequences of what you agree to and sign, as it may come back to bite you, when you least expect it.
Being declared right, and being right are not always the same thing.
-
The court ruling does not change the fact that this is about nothing more than jealousy of the fact that he didn't get to play professional football and enjoy the success that Mr. Brady has in his career. There was absolutely no evidence to show that even if the team had deflated footballs that it would have had any impact outcome on the game. The final score of that game was 45-7, and you could have played indoors and measured the psi of every ball on every play and got the same result.
The Commissioner has lost all credibility by pursuing this witch hunt and should have been removed from his post by the owners long ago. Even if you hate the Patriots, it's hard to see anything other than jealousy and envy as the reasons why the league has developed a manic obsession with the air pressure in a football rather than the problem of rapists and wife beaters being given a slap on the wrist for their bad conduct.
-A press release from my future law firm ;)
2016 will be Revenge Tour 2.0, as the best way to really stick it to Goodell is to make him hand Robert Kraft the Lombardi Trophy.
-
The court ruling does not change the fact that this is about nothing more than jealousy of the fact that he didn't get to play professional football and enjoy the success that Mr. Brady has in his career. There was absolutely no evidence to show that even if the team had deflated footballs that it would have had any impact outcome on the game. The final score of that game was 45-7, and you could have played indoors and measured the psi of every ball on every play and got the same result.
The Commissioner has lost all credibility by pursuing this witch hunt and should have been removed from his post by the owners long ago. Even if you hate the Patriots, it's hard to see anything other than jealousy and envy as the reasons why Mr. Goodell has developed a manic obsession with the air pressure in a football rather than the problem of rapists and wife beaters being given a slap on the wrist for their bad conduct.
-A press release from my future law firm ;)
2016 will be Revenge Tour 2.0, as the best way to really stick it to Goodell is to make him hand Robert Kraft the Lombardi Trophy.
Brendon
I am a trial attorney for nearly 30 years. I can only assume that you will never be a DA. Did you read the opinion? Did you see the evidence against Brady? It is not about the score of the game. It is about the principle involved -- that Brady was involved, even if on the edges, of conspiring to cheat the game. Personally, I would have suspended Brady for an entire season. As I have said before, there are 2 things, and 2 things only, that officials check every game. The ball and the sticks. If Brady had conspired to shorten the chains by 4 inches -- even though it did not effect the score of that game -- would you be similarly inclined to give him a pass? In deciding the issue here, it is not about the result of a particular game, it is the behavior and pattern of behavior in trying to gain an edge. Under your line of thinking, if the Pats had won the game by only 2 points because they never fumbled, and the Colts fumbled 3 times because the ball was properly inflated, then Brady should be suspended for life?
Cheating is cheating. The jury has issued the liability finding. Now, reasonable minds can differ on the punishment -- but that should not be based on the outcome of the game.
-
Brendon
I am a trial attorney for nearly 30 years. I can only assume that you will never be a DA. Did you read the opinion? Did you see the evidence against Brady? It is not about the score of the game. It is about the principle involved -- that Brady was involved, even if on the edges, of conspiring to cheat the game. Personally, I would have suspended Brady for an entire season. As I have said before, there are 2 things, and 2 things only, that officials check every game. The ball and the sticks. If Brady had conspired to shorten the chains by 4 inches -- even though it did not effect the score of that game -- would you be similarly inclined to give him a pass? In deciding the issue here, it is not about the result of a particular game, it is the behavior and pattern of behavior in trying to gain an edge. Under your line of thinking, if the Pats had won the game by only 2 points because they never fumbled, and the Colts fumbled 3 times because the ball was properly inflated, then Brady should be suspended for life?
Cheating is cheating. The jury has issued the liability finding. Now, reasonable minds can differ on the punishment -- but that should not be based on the outcome of the game.
Never in a million years would I ever want to be a prosecutor for this very reason. I'm a defense attorney and politician at heart. Maybe one day I should move home (Canada) and run for Parliament.
As for the task at hand, it has been pointed out above many many times just in this thread that there are a million plausible explanations as to how some air might have leaked out of a few balls. The media and the commissioner have been on a witch hunt from day one against the Patriots because of their success in the last several years. This idea that Tom Brady conspired with the entire Patriots equipment staff fails the Occam's Razor test. As the late great Johnnie Cochran famously said, "It doesn't make sense and it doesn't fit, and if it doesn't fit, then you must acquit."
-
John, you DON"T KNOW Tom Brady had ANYTHING to do with the pressure in those balls, and it sounds like your conclusion that "thus he cheated" is based on pure speculation and what you've read in the tabloids.
I had no expectation that the game officials should have "noticed the fact", other than to suggest that if "the fact" was so obvious that the air pressure would make a difference and create an unfair advantage, they would have DARN sure done something about it. The fact that they didn't suggests the differences were negligible, and just maybe this whole "scandal" is "much ado about nothing".
Setting the record straight is always a good idea, but you suggesting, "EVERYONE realize that Brady apparently purposely cheated." is a ridiculous exaggeration. If Brady (himself) did what you believe he did, he should be disciplined, but ONLY when his accusers PROVE he did, not speculate, surmise, guess because it's what they might be likely to do or just imagine. What does the "protests of the Team's management", or anyone else's previous conduct have to do with this allegation?
Tom Brady is a public figure, and sadly like other successful sports public figures who have stayed out of trouble, he has become a prime target for the "Investigative Sports Reporters" of ESPN, Sports Illustrated, & others to find something dirty they can manufacture a scandal around.
Perhaps the one thing worse than 24/7 news reporting, 24/7 Sports Reporting.
Looks like the judges in the appeal pretty much believe that he did it. I stand by all of my previous comments. At the end of the day the available evidence shows that Brady cheated, and the Commissioner as the "finder of fact" has every right to make that determination, and it is binding. Everything else is speculation and "sour grapes" at this point.
-
Looks like the judges in the appeal pretty much believe that he did it. I stand by all of my previous comments. At the end of the day the available evidence shows that Brady cheated, and the Commissioner as the "finder of fact" has every right to make that determination, and it is binding. Everything else is speculation and "sour grapes" at this point.
As for "sour grapes", did I misunderstand that this court decision affirmed that the Commissioner had the right to render a decision, based on the prior acceptance language in the player's contract, giving him the right to mark such decisions, but HAD ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION MADE, as being right to wrong?
-
As for "sour grapes", did I misunderstand that this court decision affirmed that the Commissioner had the right to render a decision, based on the prior acceptance language in the player's contract, giving him the right to mark such decisions, but HAD ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION MADE, as being right to wrong?
Much like a jury, in the labor arbitration context, the arbitrator is the finder of fact. What that means is legally what he finds regarding the facts is considered true. So by saying he had the right to render the decision the court found that he was the finder of fact, and thus adopted his decision as correct with regard to the facts of this case. It is a "red herring" logical fallacy to say the Court did not rule on the facts as it is not an appeals courts job to rule on the facts of the case. They will defer to the "finder of fact" to determine the facts. In this case they affirmed that the Commissioner was the correct person for this role.
-
I'm a... politician at heart.
Now THAT explains a lot. ::)
-
VIVA LA POMME D'TERRE (LONG LIVE THE POTATO)
VIVA LES MONTREAL/MAINE ALLOUETTES (LONG LIVE THE MAINE ALLOUETTES)
43 MILES LONGER ,BUT WITH THE LOONIE EXCHANGE RATE,ONE CAN PURCHASE 3 LA BATTS FOR THE COST OF 1 PBR WITH AMERICAN DOLLAR...
-
http://offthemonstersports.com/2016/04/tom-bradys-attorney-fires-back-at-the-nfl/
It ain't gonna be over anytime soon
-
Seems like the league has spent an inordinate amount of time and money on this minor equipment violation. They should have just fined him and moved on.
-
Seems like the league has spent an inordinate amount of time and money on this minor equipment violation. They should have just fined him and moved on.
Sky -- this is where I would have to disagree with you. This is not an equipment violation. The NFL equipment violations are not having hips pads, or extra logos on your shoes, or a towel, or face mask. That is not the same thing as THE BALL. At lease in my opinion.
-
it became about more than equipment or air pressure when the investigation was impeded. This is an integrity issue.
Also, there is a huge value to the league on protecting the commissioner's final authority.
Anyone who pretends this is about ball inflation is just trying to distract for the real power play at hand.
That said...Brady is a cheater. :sTiR:
-
As the late great Johnnie Cochran famously said, "It doesn't make sense and it doesn't fit, and if it doesn't fit, then you must acquit."
Did you just compare Tom Brady to OJ? I think you did nAnA
-
Much like a jury, in the labor arbitration context, the arbitrator is the finder of fact. What that means is legally what he finds regarding the facts is considered true. So by saying he had the right to render the decision the court found that he was the finder of fact, and thus adopted his decision as correct with regard to the facts of this case. It is a "red herring" logical fallacy to say the Court did not rule on the facts as it is not an appeals courts job to rule on the facts of the case. They will defer to the "finder of fact" to determine the facts. In this case they affirmed that the Commissioner was the correct person for this role.
John, I'm not competent o argue with your legal expertise and get into the round robin legalease quibble, that at times, seems to override common sense. Other barristers, explaining the decision, suggested the issue at hand was whether the Commissioner exceeded his authority in this circumstance, and were quite specific that what they decided was that BECAUSE of the acceptance of the language in the League's player contract, the Commissioner was, in fact, empowered to render such decisions, so his doing so was appropriate.
They further suggested their decision DID NOT concern whether the decision rendered was right, or wrong, ONLY that the Commissioner was authorized to make it, which apparently was the question raised by the appeal.
-
Not the player's contract so much as the CBA.
It was collectively bargained to place the arbitration authority with the commish. As such, the appeals court found that legal precedence was to give broad deference to the arbitrator, reversing the ruling of the lower court.
Each players contract is subject to the terms of the CBA, so its kind of chicken/egg...but to be precise, the arbitration rules were from the CBA and not the contract that Brady has with the Patriots.
-
it became about more than equipment or air pressure when the investigation was impeded. This is an integrity issue.
Also, there is a huge value to the league on protecting the commissioner's final authority.
Anyone who pretends this is about ball inflation is just trying to distract for the real power play at hand.
That said...Brady is a cheater. :sTiR:
On this, you are correct, the issue is about INTEGRITY, which should supersede who has more power over whom, or who has the bigger.....hands. Labeling someone as careless, or inattentive to the rules, is considerably different and far less destructive than labeling him a "cheater", especially for an accomplished professional athlete.
It would seem appropriate, if not NECESSARY, before throwing that accusation about, the accuser had HARD PROOF, rather than simple conjecture and personal opinion based on little more than," by guess and by golly" to casually tarnish, if not destroy, a hard earned and laudable career.
We, in a business of unreasonable expectations of absolute perfection in an environment of almost constant judgment of the significance, or insignificance of almost unending missteps of varying degrees have a special opportunity to consider actual violations of integrity as opposed to relatively common oversights.
Once INTEGRITY is recognized as the issue, it would seem a burden of ABSOLUTE PROOF (should) become necessary
-
Much like Nixon, its not the crime, its the cover-up.
-
Much like Nixon, its not the crime, its the cover-up.
Meh. Much ado about nothing
-
Is integrity not impugned at the point when Brady stopped cooperating and started destroying evidence? In a criminal case, that in itself would be sufficient grounds for imprisonment...in a civil case, the burden of proof is much lower (more probably than not vs. beyond the shadow of a doubt).
And in this case, it is neither criminal or civil...it is private. A private organization (NFL) with well established rules and policies which were collectively bargained. It never would have made it to the court system if Brady hadnt taken it there, and the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
To require a "smoking gun" is excessive, and those advocating for it say that anything short of a smoking gun equates to no evidence at all is equally fallacious.
-
Is integrity not impugned at the point when Brady stopped cooperating and started destroying evidence? In a criminal case, that in itself would be sufficient grounds for imprisonment...in a civil case, the burden of proof is much lower (more probably than not vs. beyond the shadow of a doubt).
And in this case, it is neither criminal or civil...it is private. A private organization (NFL) with well established rules and policies which were collectively bargained. It never would have made it to the court system if Brady hadnt taken it there, and the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
To require a "smoking gun" is excessive, and those advocating for it say that anything short of a smoking gun equates to no evidence at all is equally fallacious.
Nailed it.
-
Meh. Much ado about nothing
Would you feel the same way if the Pat's personnel shorted the chain by 6 inches after they were checked? Also an equipment violation that did not affect the game.
-
Would you feel the same way if the Pat's personnel shorted the chain by 6 inches after they were checked? Also an equipment violation that did not affect the game.
I don't know why you're focused on either chains, or ball pressure. If there is some hard evidence directly connecting Tom Brady to an overt act of tampering, then he is guilty. Until that evidence is provided he is entitled to and deserves a presumption of evidence.
As for tampering with the chains, unless and until there was some solid evidence that the team ordered the chains to be tampered with, rather than the employee acting on his own (like deciding to clear a path for a place kick), I'd cut the team some slack.
-
Nailed it.
"Nailed it" like to a cross, where there was a decided lack of EVIDENCE that was over ruled by a lot of mob initiated public OPINION.
You have a lot more confidence in how the NFL may have protected unrelated private matters, that MAY have existed on his personal phone than Tom Brady (to rational people) do.
-
At the end of the day the person who had the authority to decide the facts decided that Brady "did it." That is what matters. Much as during a football game the "officials have spoken." Some people do not know when the game is over.
-
I don't know why you're focused on either chains, or ball pressure. If there is some hard evidence directly connecting Tom Brady to an overt act of tampering, then he is guilty. Until that evidence is provided he is entitled to and deserves a presumption of evidence.
As for tampering with the chains, unless and until there was some solid evidence that the team ordered the chains to be tampered with, rather than the employee acting on his own (like deciding to clear a path for a place kick), I'd cut the team some slack.
He (Brady) was entitled to a "presumption of innocence" until the person with the authority to say he was "guilty" said he was. Now he will be punished, and we can all talk about how he cheated, and apparently has little integrity. Just like in a criminal case the court/arbitrator has spoken.
-
At the end of the day the person who had the authority to decide the facts decided that Brady "did it." That is what matters. Much as during a football game the "officials have spoken." Some people do not know when the game is over.
Problem is that sorry excuse for an "investigation" was one-sided, biased, and fueled by the 24 hour news cycle and envy of the Patriots' success. Your football analogy is more like the white hat having a $500 bet on the game he's working. Sure he's got the authority to make the call, but if he's doing it to further his own agenda, that is a reflection on the referee's integrity, not the players'.
The NFL never even tried to hide the fact that they were out to get the Pats from day one. Sensationalist media reports whipped people up into a lather, and we all know that in the court of public opinion, there's never a tall enough tree.
-
Problem is that sorry excuse for an "investigation" was one-sided, biased, and fueled by the 24 hour news cycle and envy of the Patriots' success. Your football analogy is more like the white hat having a $500 bet on the game he's working. Sure he's got the authority to make the call, but if he's doing it to further his own agenda, that is a reflection on the referee's integrity, not the players'.
The NFL never even tried to hide the fact that they were out to get the Pats from day one. Sensationalist media reports whipped people up into a lather, and we all know that in the court of public opinion, there's never a tall enough tree.
So, now Brendan you are impuning your own profession. The League did not conduct the investigation. Instead they hired outside counsel to conduct the investigation. Which, by the way, is pretty standard for corporate America. Bring in an outside entity to do the investigation. There is no one that has accused Ted Well, or his firm of any bias. They do not get paid any more or any less depending on the outcome. They complied a report from investigating the facts, interviewing the witnesses, getting expert opinion. If you believe that the law firm went into the investigation with an objective in mind I would suggest that you know nothing of how the law works -- and you should drop out of law school now.
Edit: Fixed the quote function
-
Multiple threads on this topic have been merged into a single thread.
-
THE BRILLIANCE OF OUR FEARLESS LEADER IS ONCE AGAIN EXIBITED!!! THANKS, RULESMAN, NOW I'LL HAVE ONLY ONE TOPIC TO SKIP OVER....
tiphat: tiphat: tiphat: tiphat: tiphat: tiphat: tiphat: tiphat:
-
Problem is that sorry excuse for an "investigation" was one-sided, biased, and fueled by the 24 hour news cycle and envy of the Patriots' success. Your football analogy is more like the white hat having a $500 bet on the game he's working. Sure he's got the authority to make the call, but if he's doing it to further his own agenda, that is a reflection on the referee's integrity, not the players'.
The NFL never even tried to hide the fact that they were out to get the Pats from day one. Sensationalist media reports whipped people up into a lather, and we all know that in the court of public opinion, there's never a tall enough tree.
Your homer is showing
-
So, now Brendan you are impuning your own profession. The League did not conduct the investigation. Instead they hired outside counsel to conduct the investigation. Which, by the way, is pretty standard for corporate America. Bring in an outside entity to do the investigation. There is no one that has accused Ted Well, or his firm of any bias. They do not get paid any more or any less depending on the outcome. They complied a report from investigating the facts, interviewing the witnesses, getting expert opinion. If you believe that the law firm went into the investigation with an objective in mind I would suggest that you know nothing of how the law works -- and you should drop out of law school now.
Why would the NFL refuse to allow Wells to be questioned, citing attorney-client privilege?
-
Why would the NFL refuse to allow Wells to be questioned, citing attorney-client privilege?
Questioned by who? And about what? The report itself was produced. It was a through report -- it said who they interviewed, when, what they provided, the experts consulted. Brady and the NFLPA could have interviewed each of these people and otherwise had ample opportunity to discredit the Report. The Report drew a conclusion based on the investigation. The conclusion was, in part, that there was a 51% probability that Brady was involved in the deflation of the balls. The NFLPA was free to argue why the conclusion was wrong. They failed to convince the arbitrator -- Goodell. Court of Appeals said Goodell had authority to make the finding and issue the punishment. Wells was not part of that process.
-
::) Equating Goodell with Hitler is a bit of a stretch. Goodell hasn't killed millions, yet. Care to ratchet it back a bit?