|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Aug 4, 2015 20:56:02 GMT -5
So basically, the one thing the NFL and Wells had that basically painted Brady as the bad guy, was something they basically set him up on (in that they never warned him about). That is a lot of egg on the NFL's face today. Unless the NFL can prove that Brady just lied under oath, the NFL is probably not going to be happy with the decision and I think Goodell might want to start thinking exit strategy for himself as commissioner.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 4, 2015 22:29:55 GMT -5
So basically, the one thing the NFL and Wells had that basically painted Brady as the bad guy, was something they basically set him up on (in that they never warned him about). That is a lot of egg on the NFL's face today. Unless the NFL can prove that Brady just lied under oath, the NFL is probably not going to be happy with the decision and I think Goodell might want to start thinking exit strategy for himself as commissioner. No they still have all the other things they had before concerning the balls and who did what. Same things they had before, that never changed. I mean if you read the whole thing....(and I did, omg it was terrible) the "expert" Brady's side called in to dispute the report had no background nor degree in mathematics but tried to refute the math. NFL also brought in people to refute his rebuttals. Concerning the warning him? That's not the NFL's job to warn a player what could happen, that's what they have a union for. He was suspended for his, what appears to be, role in the deflation of footballs during the AFC Championship game. He was well aware of his penalties before the issue of the cell phone was even entered into the equation. The NFLPA's recent filing tries to establish that the phone was the reason for the suspension and as he wasn't warned it shouldn't be a valid penalty. That wasn't why he was suspended though. The whole not turning over the cell phone, while described by some as a red herring, actual leads towards his credibility. Not in terms of destroying it (even though the timing of it sure smells), but his whole "the NFLPA would never let me do that" excuse. If that was the case why did he turn in the cell phone for forensics he used before the "destroyed" one and the one that was used after the destroyed one. If his normal procedure is "new cell phone destroy old one" why do the ones before and after still exist. The cell phone thing is just an addon on to the original charge and shows willful non cooperation on his part, which is absolutely punishable under the CBA, and falls under the catagory of "other" in terms of penalties that could be levied. I tried to read this with as neutral a slant to it that I could, and honestly, there's really nothing in there that would make me say "overturn the suspension". Just like I could read it and say that I wouldn't suspend anyone based off the testimony in there either. Was kind of apx. 175 pages of he said she said nonsense. About the only interesting part of it was Brady's lawyer twice had to be told to knock it off, in terms him being a bit of a smartass....other than that...bleh.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Aug 4, 2015 22:46:49 GMT -5
So basically, the one thing the NFL and Wells had that basically painted Brady as the bad guy, was something they basically set him up on (in that they never warned him about). That is a lot of egg on the NFL's face today. Unless the NFL can prove that Brady just lied under oath, the NFL is probably not going to be happy with the decision and I think Goodell might want to start thinking exit strategy for himself as commissioner. No they still have all the other things they had before concerning the balls and who did what. Same things they had before, that never changed. I mean if you read the whole thing....(and I did, omg it was terrible) the "expert" Brady's side called in to dispute the report had no background nor degree in mathematics but tried to refute the math. NFL also brought in people to refute his rebuttals. Concerning the warning him? That's not the NFL's job to warn a player what could happen, that's what they have a union for. He was suspended for his, what appears to be, role in the deflation of footballs during the AFC Championship game. He was well aware of his penalties before the issue of the cell phone was even entered into the equation. The NFLPA's recent filing tries to establish that the phone was the reason for the suspension and as he wasn't warned it shouldn't be a valid penalty. That wasn't why he was suspended though. The whole not turning over the cell phone, while described by some as a red herring, actual leads towards his credibility. Not in terms of destroying it (even though the timing of it sure smells), but his whole "the NFLPA would never let me do that" excuse. If that was the case why did he turn in the cell phone for forensics he used before the "destroyed" one and the one that was used after the destroyed one. If his normal procedure is "new cell phone destroy old one" why do the ones before and after still exist. The cell phone thing is just an addon on to the original charge and shows willful non cooperation on his part, which is absolutely punishable under the CBA, and falls under the catagory of "other" in terms of penalties that could be levied. I tried to read this with as neutral a slant to it that I could, and honestly, there's really nothing in there that would make me say "overturn the suspension". Just like I could read it and say that I wouldn't suspend anyone based off the testimony in there either. Was kind of apx. 175 pages of he said she said nonsense. About the only interesting part of it was Brady's lawyer twice had to be told to knock it off, in terms him being a bit of a smartass....other than that...bleh. Yeah, but the NFL and its supporters tried to use this cell phone distruction as evidence to his guilt when in all reality, it shouldn't have been used since they did not tell him this would be an issue, but they lied. I mean, when the upholding of the suspension was announced, what did they come out with to put as their case? This whole cell phone thing. For that, this whole cell phone thing should have been stricken as evidence and shouldn't have even been reported on. What I'm saying is they have egg on his face for trying to use this as evidence of his guilt when they themselves could have you know, told him they will need it.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 4, 2015 22:58:48 GMT -5
No they still have all the other things they had before concerning the balls and who did what. Same things they had before, that never changed. I mean if you read the whole thing....(and I did, omg it was terrible) the "expert" Brady's side called in to dispute the report had no background nor degree in mathematics but tried to refute the math. NFL also brought in people to refute his rebuttals. Concerning the warning him? That's not the NFL's job to warn a player what could happen, that's what they have a union for. He was suspended for his, what appears to be, role in the deflation of footballs during the AFC Championship game. He was well aware of his penalties before the issue of the cell phone was even entered into the equation. The NFLPA's recent filing tries to establish that the phone was the reason for the suspension and as he wasn't warned it shouldn't be a valid penalty. That wasn't why he was suspended though. The whole not turning over the cell phone, while described by some as a red herring, actual leads towards his credibility. Not in terms of destroying it (even though the timing of it sure smells), but his whole "the NFLPA would never let me do that" excuse. If that was the case why did he turn in the cell phone for forensics he used before the "destroyed" one and the one that was used after the destroyed one. If his normal procedure is "new cell phone destroy old one" why do the ones before and after still exist. The cell phone thing is just an addon on to the original charge and shows willful non cooperation on his part, which is absolutely punishable under the CBA, and falls under the catagory of "other" in terms of penalties that could be levied. I tried to read this with as neutral a slant to it that I could, and honestly, there's really nothing in there that would make me say "overturn the suspension". Just like I could read it and say that I wouldn't suspend anyone based off the testimony in there either. Was kind of apx. 175 pages of he said she said nonsense. About the only interesting part of it was Brady's lawyer twice had to be told to knock it off, in terms him being a bit of a smartass....other than that...bleh. Yeah, but the NFL and its supporters tried to use this cell phone distruction as evidence to his guilt when in all reality, it shouldn't have been used since they did not tell him this would be an issue, but they lied. I mean, when the upholding of the suspension was announced, what did they come out with to put as their case? This whole cell phone thing. For that, this whole cell phone thing should have been stricken as evidence and shouldn't have even been reported on. Actually no, no one lied. Here's the relevant testimony concerning the non submission of the cell phone directly from Mr. Wells, and remember he was just an investigator, he in no way had any say about the penalties that could or would be levied for non compliance. *spoiler tagged for length {Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}{Spoiler}NFL attorney Jeff Nash asking Ted Wells about why Brady declined to give him documents and Wells admitting he did not tell him he would be subject to punishment. That's important because Wells is just the investigator, not the one handing out punishment:
NASH: Did Mr. Brady or his agents give you any other reason for that, for not giving you the texts?
WELLS: No, at no time. Then what happens if you go, stay with the e-mail chain, so that's March 2nd. Then March 3rd, I write back, and I respond to the request why I think I want to -- why I want to interview him. And then I say, "Finally, we encourage you to reconsider your decision to decline our request for relevant e-mails, text messages and other material. Our request is narrowly tailored to the subject of our investigation and we would rely on you to perform the requested searches and produce only responsive material. We are hopeful that you will reconsider our request." So they have turned me down. I have now the next day I have written back and I said please reconsider. And then when they came to the interview on March 6th, I asked them had they reconsidered and they said, "We respectfully decline." And they did not give me any reason. And then I repeated the whole request in front of Mr. Brady, because I did not want Mr. Brady to be in a spot where later on he might say he didn't understand what we were asking for.
NASH: When you said you repeated it, you are talking about the March 6th interview?
WELLS: The request what I asked for, I made clear I didn't want to take access to your phone. Mr. Yee can do it. I did not, as Mr. Kessler said -- I want 20 to be clear -- I did not tell Mr. Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving -- not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that.
*also another exerpt concerning how the phone issue hurt Brady's credibility with investigators
Jeffrey Kessler, Tom Brady's lawyer, asking investigator Ted Wells about whether Brady knew about the deflated footballs:
KESSLER: You rejected the testimony of Mr. Brady that he knew nothing about the ball deflation in the AFC Championship Game, right? You rejected that?
WELLS: I did reject it based on my assessment of his credibility and his refusal or decision not to give me what I requested in terms of responsive documents. And that decision, so we can all be clear and I will say it to Mr. Brady, in my almost 40 years of practice, I think that was one of the most ill-advised decisions I have ever seen because it hurt how I viewed his credibility.
KESSLER: If he had given you that, you would have accepted his statement?
WELLS: I do not know. I can't go back in a time machine, but I will say this. It hurt my assessment of his credibility for him to begin his interview by telling me he declined to give me the documents. And I want to say this. At that time, neither his lawyer nor Mr. Brady gave me any reason other than to say, "We respectfully." They were respectful. They said, "We respectfully decline." There wasn't anything about the Union or it wasn't anything, this was what my lawyer told me and I am going to follow my lawyer's advice. I was given no explanation other than, "We respectfully decline." And I did, I walked Mr. Brady through this request in front of his agents and lawyers. So I understood that he understood what I was asking for and they were declining.
So again no one lied, nor was it the only reason the suspension was upheld. Was just said that it was "the most significant new information" that came out in the appeal hearing. Doesn't change any of the earlier evidence in the hearing.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Mungus on Aug 4, 2015 23:02:41 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that there are no real winners in Deflategate, other than ESPN?
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 4, 2015 23:04:07 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that there are no real winners in Deflategate, other than ESPN? Pretty much. Well think about it this way. If this was over it would be Tim Tebow updates every hour then.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Aug 4, 2015 23:04:30 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that there are no real winners in Deflategate, other than ESPN? No....I don't think anyone will win in the end. Both sides will try to claim victory, but neither side will get full victory.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh Carlson on Aug 5, 2015 0:04:50 GMT -5
At this point, really, to argue that Brady knew nothing about the footballs being deflated and that he's squeaky clean in this defies all logic and reason. When ever other QB in the NFL specifies to a ridiculously detailed degree how they want their footballs, to think that Brady didn't say specifically that he wanted them deflated and that he's the exception that doesn't care is ludicrous. To "respectfully decline" his cell phone absolutely hurts his credibility. If he has nothing to hide, he shows his phone. Simple as that. If showing his phone exonerates him, he shows his phone. And if he's innocent and showing his cell phone would've shown that he isn't guilty, and his lawyers told him not to show it, he's got terrible lawyers.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,507
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Aug 5, 2015 3:10:13 GMT -5
I know anything I say will get dismissed because I'm a Pats fan, but I'm not sure how anyone could read the trascripts and say that the league doesn't come out looking worse than they did going in.
|
|
|
Post by kingoftheindies on Aug 5, 2015 6:36:59 GMT -5
Personally there are things on both sides. League looks very incompetent and Brady contradicts himself a bit
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,507
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Aug 5, 2015 6:54:16 GMT -5
I don't think Brady has looked prefect during this whole thing, but there's no way that a reasonable person could read the stuff released yesterday and think that *he* comes out looking worse for wear here. The league contradicted themselves more than just a little bit, though. You read the Wells report and the appeal transcripts and a clear issue of procees and credibility jump right out at you.
The League wanted the transcripts sealed. The NFLPA did not. It seems pretty clear why after reading through it
|
|
Push R Truth
Patti Mayonnaise
Unique and Special Snowflake, and a pants-less heathen.
Perpetually Constipated
Posts: 39,293
|
Post by Push R Truth on Aug 5, 2015 9:57:14 GMT -5
Everybody looks shitty.
I don't wear Pats underoos, I wear Vikings undies. So trust me, I know what shitty looks like.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 5, 2015 10:32:50 GMT -5
I don't think Brady has looked prefect during this whole thing, but there's no way that a reasonable person could read the stuff released yesterday and think that *he* comes out looking worse for wear here. The league contradicted themselves more than just a little bit, though. You read the Wells report and the appeal transcripts and a clear issue of procees and credibility jump right out at you. The League wanted the transcripts sealed. The NFLPA did not. It seems pretty clear why after reading through it I understood that Brady wanted the transcripts sealed also as part of the pre verdict negotiations they had. That, if I recall, was reported as one of the major sticking points (along with publicly saying I did it) that kept a one game suspension from happening. Been over all this already, but both sides in my eyes have zero creditability after reading all this. Both sides contradict things that are said. Still does not change the fact, that was corroborated by the "expert" the Brady side called in, that there was a 92.3 percent chance or likelihood that chance does not explain the outcome of the psi readings being out of range. To me, and I'm not speaking for everyone, it just simply boils down to something probably happened and he probably knew. There's enough evidence there that I can say my beliefs hold to that standard. In this case that's all that's necessary for punishment. Conspiracy theories, hidden agendas, any other nonsense is just crap thrown on top of a giant shit sundae of subterfuge and deflection. Ultimately there is no guilty or innocent in this case, therefore you are going to have NFL fans on both sides adamant in their beliefs, and you know what, ain't nothing wrong with that. With that, the federal court cases aren't even about guilt or innocence. They are simply procedural hearings related to the CBA? At this point, whether anyone likes it or not, Brady was found, for lack of a better term, guilty and suspended. He's just at the point of the Ryan Braun defense and trying to get off on a technicality. One side will always see him as guilty, one side innocent. That is NEVER going to change.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,507
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Aug 5, 2015 10:55:33 GMT -5
The reality is, what really happened that night may never be 100% known. Brady looks bad, the NFLPA looks bad and the league itself looks bad.
Now, Let me ask an open qestion to the "Brady is guilty" crowd: Why is the behavior of the league/Goodell not a really serious issue here? Put aside your thoughts on Brady/The Patriots for a minute. This league has an absolutely abysmal recent history of scandals and covering up (read: blatantly lying) about said scandals. They botched and lied about Bountygate. They lied *many* times over during the Rice fiasco. The screwed up with Petersen. The Hardy mess. And guilty or not, the league is absolutely full of shit in many aspects of Brady and deflategate. I know this perhaps comes off as sour grapes, but I just hope people are alright with "probably" when the league comes after your favorite team.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 5, 2015 11:15:59 GMT -5
The reality is, what really happened that night may never be 100% known. Brady looks bad, the NFLPA looks bad and the league itself looks bad. Now, Let me ask an open qestion to the "Brady is guilty" crowd: Why is the behavior of the league/Goodell not a really serious issue here? Put aside your thoughts on Brady/The Patriots for a minute. This league has an absolutely abysmal recent history of scandals and covering up (read: blatantly lying) about said scandals. They botched and lied about Bountygate. They lied *many* times over during the Rice fiasco. The screwed up with Petersen. The Hardy mess. And guilty or not, the league is absolutely full of shit in many aspects of Brady and deflategate. I know this perhaps comes off as sour grapes, but I just hope people are alright with "probably" when the league comes after your favorite team. I'll answer for myself. Simply comes down to the rules as they are written at this time and the facts as they are laid out. I think most would say the league is about as shady as it gets when it comes to CYA, but from everything I have read in the actual documents during this whole thing, I still say it's more than likely something happened and he more than likely knew. Brady's team really hasn't done anything to prove otherwise. Under league policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred” is a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not,”. So yeah as much as it might suck, if my team got caught doing something that was in violation of competitive rules, probably would be good enough. Those quotes are taken right from the handbook that all teams get. If this were a criminal case with that burden of proof, of course I'd say he's innocent and be as vehement in stating why. Just simply comes down to the NFL meeting the standard of proof required in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Aug 5, 2015 11:21:34 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that there are no real winners in Deflategate, other than ESPN? Yeah, ESPN certainly got a lot of material for the slow spring and summer months. If not for Deflategate, they would've had to cover other sports!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2015 11:35:16 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks that there are no real winners in Deflategate, other than ESPN? No. People will look at the Colts as whiners, the Patriots as cheaters, and the NFL brass as idiots.
|
|
Ben Wyatt
Crow T. Robot
Are You Gonna Go My Way?
I don't get it. At all. It's kind of a small horse, I mean what am I missing? Am I crazy?
Posts: 41,507
|
Post by Ben Wyatt on Aug 5, 2015 11:35:39 GMT -5
The reality is, what really happened that night may never be 100% known. Brady looks bad, the NFLPA looks bad and the league itself looks bad. Now, Let me ask an open qestion to the "Brady is guilty" crowd: Why is the behavior of the league/Goodell not a really serious issue here? Put aside your thoughts on Brady/The Patriots for a minute. This league has an absolutely abysmal recent history of scandals and covering up (read: blatantly lying) about said scandals. They botched and lied about Bountygate. They lied *many* times over during the Rice fiasco. The screwed up with Petersen. The Hardy mess. And guilty or not, the league is absolutely full of shit in many aspects of Brady and deflategate. I know this perhaps comes off as sour grapes, but I just hope people are alright with "probably" when the league comes after your favorite team. I'll answer for myself. Simply comes down to the rules as they are written at this time and the facts as they are laid out. I think most would say the league is about as shady as it gets when it comes to CYA, but from everything I have read in the actual documents during this whole thing, I still say it's more than likely something happened and he more than likely knew. Brady's team really hasn't done anything to prove otherwise. Under league policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred” is a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not,”. So yeah as much as it might suck, if my team got caught doing something that was in violation of competitive rules, probably would be good enough. Those quotes are taken right from the handbook that all teams get. If this were a criminal case with that burden of proof, of course I'd say he's innocent and be as vehement in stating why. Just simply comes down to the NFL meeting the standard of proof required in my eyes. I'm glad you mentioned the "more probable that not" aspect. Because it's also worth asking if that conclusion is completely just given the multitude of flaws discovered in the Wells report. The science has been largely questioned (and debunked in some instances) and based on the transcripts, the procedures that the report used to arrive at the conclusion have been called into question. Hell, looking at the transcripts,some league officials contradict themselves on several occasions. The whole process has been a mess, how do you look at that and hold up a 4 game suspension if you're the judge?
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 5, 2015 12:16:16 GMT -5
I'll answer for myself. Simply comes down to the rules as they are written at this time and the facts as they are laid out. I think most would say the league is about as shady as it gets when it comes to CYA, but from everything I have read in the actual documents during this whole thing, I still say it's more than likely something happened and he more than likely knew. Brady's team really hasn't done anything to prove otherwise. Under league policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred” is a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not,”. So yeah as much as it might suck, if my team got caught doing something that was in violation of competitive rules, probably would be good enough. Those quotes are taken right from the handbook that all teams get. If this were a criminal case with that burden of proof, of course I'd say he's innocent and be as vehement in stating why. Just simply comes down to the NFL meeting the standard of proof required in my eyes. I'm glad you mentioned the "more probable that not" aspect. Because it's also worth asking if that conclusion is completely just given the multitude of flaws discovered in the Wells report. The science has been largely questioned (and debunked in some instances) and based on the transcripts, the procedures that the report used to arrive at the conclusion have been called into question. Hell, looking at the transcripts,some league officials contradict themselves on several occasions. The whole process has been a mess, how do you look at that and hold up a 4 game suspension if you're the judge? Thing is I read the transcripts and they weren't debunked. Called into question, of course they were, they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't. Mr. Snyder, who was called in by Brady's team to try to discredit the Wells report, who was continually clinging to timing as his reason for invalidating the entire report, went into "I don't understand the question" mode as soon as it was pointed out that it was factored in and shown so on page 75 of the 3rd party analysis by Exponent. That's to say nothing of the fact that actual mathematicians with actual degrees in math were called in bring doubt to Mr. Snyder teams' findings and corroborate the original report and it's formulas. Along with the fact that Mr. Snyder (who again was Brady's team only witness to refute the Exponent report) is a Dean of Business schools who described himself as an economist, imo not the person I would have had up there trying to refute any of the scientific data. Concerning the actual science. I've seen just as many reports that say the science was spot on. Problem is all of those reports on either side don't matter if they weren't introduced, and nothing I read in any transcripts proved that there was anything wrong with the scientific conclusions in the initial report. Lastly concerning the judge, he's not there to decide if Brady did it or not. If you look at the filing, it's completely procedural relating to the CBA, which is what the league and it's team has been carefully wording their statements and testimony around. The court doesn't care about whether he did it or not. To them it's already been established he did. This hearing is just about was the CBA followed, and it's why the court wants nothing to do with it. They don't want to start setting precedent on disagreements between a union and it's employers on things that are collectively bargained.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Aug 5, 2015 12:33:43 GMT -5
The only people questioning the science have been paid by Brady/the Patriots to say so along with the people gullible enough to believe them, like Tony Kornheiser. Real scientists and mathematicians without a financial incentive to say otherwise have all said the science was spot on.
|
|