Brady Did It-Deflategate

[BrendanP]

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.

[DallasLJ]

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.

[BrendanP]

  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."

[Johnponz]

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.

[AlUpstateNY]

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?

[Johnponz]

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.

[Rulesman]

I'm a... politician at heart.

Now THAT explains a lot. 

[Ralph Damren]

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...

[TXMike]

http://offthemonstersports.com/2016/04/tom-bradys-attorney-fires-back-at-the-nfl/

It ain't gonna be over anytime soon

[TxSkyBolt]

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.

[DallasLJ]

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.

[hefnerjm]

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.   

[hefnerjm]

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 

[AlUpstateNY]

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.

[hefnerjm]

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.

[AlUpstateNY]

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.   

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

[HLinNC]

Much like Nixon, its not the crime, its the cover-up.

[TxSkyBolt]

Much like Nixon, its not the crime, its the cover-up.

Meh. Much ado about nothing

[hefnerjm]

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.

[DallasLJ]

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.

[DallasLJ]

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.

[AlUpstateNY]

  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.

[AlUpstateNY]

  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.

[Johnponz]

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.

[Johnponz]

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.