BRADY/PATS PUNISHMENT OVER TURNED BY JUDGE. (Updated 9/3/15)

[athanas]

You and every other Deflatriot fan ignores the fact that your team has changed it's story at every new level of this entire ordeal.
It went from "NOTHING HAPPENED!" to "Well, we can PROVE that this was a natural phenomenon", to when Brady's defense team went in front of a judge and said, "well, if it happened, they totally did it alone". Doesn't sound like they're too convinced in their own science that would prove it was all natural.
Come on, man, pull your head from Brady's chin dimple.
SOMETHING went down and people in the organization knew about it.

NE never said Nothing Happened to my recollection, they said they didn't know what happened, which was understandable given that they didn't do anything yet the league office had written them a letter saying that all the balls were way under. Once the ball inflations were published (not until the Wells report) and the scientists started looking at it, they realized this was nothing more than normal deflation.

As far as "the ball boys did it on their own", Kessler was defending Brady from the charge that he was guilty from having been "generally aware that others did something", which was a complete joke of a charge. How can you be guilty of being generally aware that somebody else did something? Kessler was making that point that if the ball boys did something, it's got nothing to do with Brady, and there was no proof that Brady conspired with them to do anything. In this trial it was about defending Brady, not any Patriots employees.

They said on NUMEROUS times that the ideal gas law proved their innocence. They claimed no one EVER did anything to the balls and went so far as to have their own "independent source", (who works for an entity that Mac 'n Cheese himself has a stake in,) release a report showing how it was natural for the balls to lose that much air.
Then, when more and more questionable things came to light, they lumped the weight loss comment on us all.
Then Brady broke the phone they were interested like he always does with old phones except the two before that one.
And let's not forget the biggest 10 point BS spike from Brady himself when asked point blank if he was a cheater: **long pause** "...I don't BELEIVE I am".
Not No. Not Hell No. Not (insert profanity of choice here) No!
Just...I don't believe I am. Priceless.

 

[RichNhansom]

The equipment guys not suing the NFL is a real red flag to me.

Think about it for a second. Even you Pats fan. If you were released from employment for this and there really was no proof of it happening, wouldn't you sue the pants off all parties involved?

The fact these guys have pretty much just disappeared with out speaking out or fighting this individually is way to suspicious. In the real world it doesn't work like that. Wrongful dismissal is a big no no. If they were wrongfully dismissed they could get back pay and their jobs back or at minimum a nice fat settlement.

Unless they already got a nice fat settlement which would be equally suspicious.

 

[Threedee]

This whole issue was due to Goodell wanting to be the headpiece and run everything, the Wells Report was not considered an arbitrary investigative agent, if the NFL had a committee and a disciplinary person other then Goodell that had a NFLPA person as a representative as well rather then a hodgepodge process and unclear chain of command things may have went faster and different in all the cases. Goodell should over see the process not make determinations. The inconsistencies in all the cases over the last year of how things were handled made the whole process easy to poke holes in.

I bet Goodell wishes Tom Brady really were innocent. Then he wouldn't have to make a huge enemy out of his most vital ownership ally.

I think Goodell, like the rest of us, was 100% convinced that Brady cheat and lied, and simply didn't want to be embarrassed by a truly neutral investigator letting Brady wiggle off the hook on account of not having a smoking gun. And he didn't want to be embarrassed by a truly neutral arbitrator over-ruling his investigator's decision. But now, he's been embarrassed by a judge who (IMO) showed clear signs of bias / incompetence.

As much as I hate Goodell, I actually feel sorry for him on this one. This is the one time he got hammered when maybe he shouldn't have been.

While I think the appeals process is favorable to Goodell's position, I think his decision to appeal is based more upon his ego and narcissism than on the efficacy of the appeals courts to his cause.

I have to say that for all of the contempt that Goodell racked-up from NFL fans as commissioner between 2002 and 2014, the last year-and-a-half has been absolutely eye-opening. Even if you liked him before, and thought he was the next Pete Rozelle, you have to really just see him as a joke, now.

 

[50yrpatsfan]

This whole issue was due to Goodell wanting to be the headpiece and run everything, the Wells Report was not considered an arbitrary investigative agent, if the NFL had a committee and a disciplinary person other then Goodell that had a NFLPA person as a representative as well rather then a hodgepodge process and unclear chain of command things may have went faster and different in all the cases. Goodell should over see the process not make determinations. The inconsistencies in all the cases over the last year of how things were handled made the whole process easy to poke holes in.

I bet Goodell wishes Tom Brady really were innocent. Then he wouldn't have to make a huge enemy out of his most vital ownership ally.

I think Goodell, like the rest of us, was 100% convinced that Brady cheat and lied, and simply didn't want to be embarrassed by a truly neutral investigator letting Brady wiggle off the hook on account of not having a smoking gun. And he didn't want to be embarrassed by a truly neutral arbitrator over-ruling his investigator's decision. But now, he's been embarrassed by a judge who (IMO) showed clear signs of bias / incompetence.

As much as I hate Goodell, I actually feel sorry for him on this one. This is the one time he got hammered when maybe he shouldn't have been.

While I think the appeals process is favorable to Goodell's position, I think his decision to appeal is based more upon his ego and narcissism than on the efficacy of the appeals courts to his cause.

I have to say that for all of the contempt that Goodell racked-up from NFL fans as commissioner between 2002 and 2014, the last year-and-a-half has been absolutely eye-opening. Even if you liked him before, and thought he was the next Pete Rozelle, you have to really just see him as a joke, now.

Totally agree. Here's a good article from today about that from the Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/r ... orts_pop_b

 

[50yrpatsfan]

The equipment guys not suing the NFL is a real red flag to me.

Think about it for a second. Even you Pats fan. If you were released from employment for this and there really was no proof of it happening, wouldn't you sue the pants off all parties involved?

The fact these guys have pretty much just disappeared with out speaking out or fighting this individually is way to suspicious. In the real world it doesn't work like that. Wrongful dismissal is a big no no. If they were wrongfully dismissed they could get back pay and their jobs back or at minimum a nice fat settlement.

Unless they already got a nice fat settlement which would be equally suspicious.

I'm not sure about their status except that there's been rumors that they'll be back. They weren't fired, just suspended at the NFL's order. Not sure where it's going. McNally also was disrespectful to Brady in some of those texts, so not sure if he faces some blowback about that. McNally to me seems numb as a hake and mentally incapable of doing what he's been accused of. He was a gameday-only employee who had the job cause his father had been an equipment manager.

I could see them suing the NFL for defamation, as they were dragged through the mud for doing absolutely nothing. And not being public figures, a suit could be successful. They met with Wells 3 or 4 times apiece and he couldn't crack their stories at all. In a 240 page report, Wells didn't include 1 quote from either of them after grilling them for 6-8 hours each.

 

[Anonymous]

Brady has got to be paying some hush-money to these dudes.

I would be.

 

[NJSeahawk]

Brady has got to be paying some hush-money to these dudes.

I would be.

:13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13: :13:

 

[hawknation2015]

Money + enforceable non-disclosure agreement.

 

[50yrpatsfan]

You and every other Deflatriot fan ignores the fact that your team has changed it's story at every new level of this entire ordeal.
It went from "NOTHING HAPPENED!" to "Well, we can PROVE that this was a natural phenomenon", to when Brady's defense team went in front of a judge and said, "well, if it happened, they totally did it alone". Doesn't sound like they're too convinced in their own science that would prove it was all natural.
Come on, man, pull your head from Brady's chin dimple.
SOMETHING went down and people in the organization knew about it.

NE never said Nothing Happened to my recollection, they said they didn't know what happened, which was understandable given that they didn't do anything yet the league office had written them a letter saying that all the balls were way under. Once the ball inflations were published (not until the Wells report) and the scientists started looking at it, they realized this was nothing more than normal deflation.

As far as "the ball boys did it on their own", Kessler was defending Brady from the charge that he was guilty from having been "generally aware that others did something", which was a complete joke of a charge. How can you be guilty of being generally aware that somebody else did something? Kessler was making that point that if the ball boys did something, it's got nothing to do with Brady, and there was no proof that Brady conspired with them to do anything. In this trial it was about defending Brady, not any Patriots employees.

They said on NUMEROUS times that the ideal gas law proved their innocence. They claimed no one EVER did anything to the balls and went so far as to have their own "independent source", (who works for an entity that Mac 'n Cheese himself has a stake in,) release a report showing how it was natural for the balls to lose that much air.
Then, when more and more questionable things came to light, they lumped the weight loss comment on us all.
Then Brady broke the phone they were interested like he always does with old phones except the two before that one.
And let's not forget the biggest 10 point BS spike from Brady himself when asked point blank if he was a cheater: **long pause** "...I don't BELEIVE I am".
Not No. Not Hell No. Not (insert profanity of choice here) No!
Just...I don't believe I am. Priceless.

The Ideal Gas Law does prove their innocence, a plain fact though with 1 caveat - that we use the gauge that Walt Anderson said he used. If you substitute in the other gauge that he didn't recall using, as Wells did, the one that measured .4 psi the wrong way for the Pats, then I give up. This whole freakin' case turns on which gauge is assumed. That's how stupid this all was, and when the NFL realized they had 2 conflicting gauges and no way to say for certain which was used pre-game, then like any decent prosecutor they should have folded their tent and picked another fight.

As far as Brady's press conference quote way back at the beginning of this, his full answer to that bs question was "I don't believe I am. I would never do anything to break the rules. I believe in fair play...I respect the league...I have no knowledge of any wrongdoing. I am very comfortable saying that".

 

[kearly]

It really depends on the jury, but the standard is the standard. A criminal defendant can also waive his right to a jury trial in favor of a bench trial if he wanted to . . . the Seventh Amendment also guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases with remedies under the common law, and most states guarantee a jury trial in some civil cases.

All that said, it would be a little tough to convict Brady under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. There is nothing right now directly trying him to the deflation. There are the suspicious text messages related to autographed memorabilia. There are the suspicious number of phone calls between Brady and the equipment manager. There are the suspicious explanations for the text messages from those staff members. There are Brady's suspicious explanations during his press conference. And there is the suspicious destruction of his cell phone. That is enough for reasonable suspicion, but I am not so sure there would be a clear absence of "reasonable doubt."

Under the much lower civil standard, however, I don't think there is any question that it is more likely than not that Brady was involved in the cheating. The evidence points in that direction.

Fair points. The sad thing is, that's exactly what the Wells report concluded. The judge overturned it anyway even though the report was completely reasonable.

 

[kearly]

While I think the appeals process is favorable to Goodell's position, I think his decision to appeal is based more upon his ego and narcissism than on the efficacy of the appeals courts to his cause.

I have to say that for all of the contempt that Goodell racked-up from NFL fans as commissioner between 2002 and 2014, the last year-and-a-half has been absolutely eye-opening. Even if you liked him before, and thought he was the next Pete Rozelle, you have to really just see him as a joke, now.

I've been calling for Goodell's job for years, but...

I don't blame him for how he handled deflate-gate, as outlined previously.

I don't blame him as much as most do for underestimating the power of SJW's with regards to Ray Rice. That issue was WAY more complicated than the reactionary masses made it out to be.

Imagine if you commit a crime that normally carries a 3 month sentence, but during your trial the government decided to make that crime a 3 year sentence, it would be unfair to you because you had no concept of those repercussions when you committed the crime. Which is why there are laws in place to prevent that kind of goal post moving. You would have to be punished with the punishment as it existed at the time and not based on how it is changed after the fact.

It's similar for how Goodell was forced to handle the Ray Rice crisis. According to precedent (something bargained with the players union in the CBA), Ray Rice was only supposed to be suspended two games. When Goodell backtracked and banned Rice for life, he was met by stiff opposition by the Players Union, and they beat him in court. Goodell of course knew he would lose in court, but did it anyway because the public was DEMANDING dramatic actions. The Ray Rice situation was lose-lose all around. There is literally nothing he could have done, aside from changing the rules, with Union approval, BEFORE Rice's incident occurred, which would have required a crystal ball and being the most progressive sports commissioner in America.

Goodell was simply following established precedent, not only for the NFL, but for American sports in general. I think 99.9% of commissioners would have handled the Ray Rice thing exactly the same way he did. It was total uncharted territory, and there were legal (Union, CBA) obstacles in Goodell's way. And that's not even getting into the case by case nature of DV cases and why no other sports commissioner was pushing for harsh minimum penalties. I'm not trying to exonerate Goodell, I just think his hands were tied and it's telling how no other sports league was proactive before the Rice blowup.

And in the end, it all worked out. DV offenders got punished massively (winning in court was a hollow victory), and a new DV policy was crafted and agreed to by Goodell and the Players Union during the following offseason.

Really the only thing he's done that strikes me as grossly incompetent lately are his constant efforts to change the game. Rules that lead to way too many penalties, long extra points, fewer kickoffs being returned, etc. He's done a lot of PR stuff on the concussion front that has nearly zero impact on reducing concussions but does actively make the game worse.

I will confess though, I was calling for his job harder than ever last year, even though the Ray Rice debacle basically felt like entrapment. I'd be overjoyed if he was fired tomorrow.

 

[Cartire]

While I think the appeals process is favorable to Goodell's position, I think his decision to appeal is based more upon his ego and narcissism than on the efficacy of the appeals courts to his cause.

I have to say that for all of the contempt that Goodell racked-up from NFL fans as commissioner between 2002 and 2014, the last year-and-a-half has been absolutely eye-opening. Even if you liked him before, and thought he was the next Pete Rozelle, you have to really just see him as a joke, now.

I've been calling for Goodell's job for years, but...

I don't blame him for how he handled deflate-gate, as outlined previously.

I don't blame him as much as most do for underestimating the power of SJW's with regards to Ray Rice. That issue was WAY more complicated than the reactionary masses made it out to be.

Imagine if you commit a crime that normally carries a 3 month sentence, but during your trial the government decided to make that crime a 3 year sentence, it would be unfair to you because you had no concept of those repercussions when you committed the crime. Which is why there are laws in place to prevent that kind of goal post moving. You would have to be punished with the punishment as it existed at the time and not based on how it is changed after the fact.

It's similar for how Goodell was forced to handle the Ray Rice crisis. According to precedent (something bargained with the players union in the CBA), Ray Rice was only supposed to be suspended two games. When Goodell backtracked and banned Rice for life, he was met by stiff opposition by the Players Union, and they beat him in court. Goodell of course knew he would lose in court, but did it anyway because the public was DEMANDING dramatic actions. The Ray Rice situation was lose-lose all around. There is literally nothing he could have done, aside from changing the rules, with Union approval, BEFORE Rice's incident occurred, which would have required a crystal ball and being the most progressive sports commissioner in America.

Goodell was simply following established precedent, not only for the NFL, but for American sports in general. I think 99.9% of commissioners would have handled the Ray Rice thing exactly the same way he did. It was total uncharted territory, and there were legal (Union, CBA) obstacles in Goodell's way. And that's not even getting into the case by case nature of DV cases and why no other sports commissioner was pushing for harsh minimum penalties. I'm not trying to exonerate Goodell, I just think his hands were tied and it's telling how no other sports league was proactive before the Rice blowup.

And in the end, it all worked out. DV offenders got punished massively (winning in court was a hollow victory), and a new DV policy was crafted and agreed to by Goodell and the Players Union during the following offseason.

Really the only thing he's done that strikes me as grossly incompetent lately are his constant efforts to change the game. Rules that lead to way too many penalties, long extra points, fewer kickoffs being returned, etc. He's done a lot of PR stuff on the concussion front that has nearly zero impact on reducing concussions but does actively make the game worse.

I will confess though, I was calling for his job harder than ever last year, even though the Ray Rice debacle basically felt like entrapment. I'd be overjoyed if he was fired tomorrow.

My next question would be... Who would you prefer to take the mantle of one of the most lucrative positions in the industry. Driving a game that has, (maybe naturally), grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade. For as much BS as Goodell spews, he has one of the most difficult jobs, and not just anyone can step in and keep it running at its current rpm.

I would be all for a massive upgrade, but I do fear what could possibly happen. Its also a position ripe for corruption, and there are worse people out there than Goodell.

 

[kearly]

My next question would be... Who would you prefer to take the mantle of one of the most lucrative positions in the industry. Driving a game that has, (maybe naturally), grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade. For as much BS as Goodell spews, he has one of the most difficult jobs, and not just anyone can step in and keep it running at its current rpm.

I would be all for a massive upgrade, but I do fear what could possibly happen. Its also a position ripe for corruption, and there are worse people out there than Goodell.

I'll admit, there is a part of me that wonders if Goodell might have a Richard Nixon type legacy that is far rosier in retrospect than at the time of his rule. As far as who might replace him, I have no idea.

Personally, I do think Goodell deserves a modicum of credit for the league's exploding popularity. He has pushed the NFL product internationally, reached out to female fans, and during his time the NFL has fully embraced fantasy football which has been a huge driver of popularity.

Can you please elaborate a bit more on the corruption angle and explain what a corrupt NFL commissioner might look like?

 

[Cartire]

My next question would be... Who would you prefer to take the mantle of one of the most lucrative positions in the industry. Driving a game that has, (maybe naturally), grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade. For as much BS as Goodell spews, he has one of the most difficult jobs, and not just anyone can step in and keep it running at its current rpm.

I would be all for a massive upgrade, but I do fear what could possibly happen. Its also a position ripe for corruption, and there are worse people out there than Goodell.

I'll admit, there is a part of me that wonders if Goodell might have a Richard Nixon type legacy that is far rosier in retrospect than at the time of his rule. As far as who might replace him, I have no idea.

Can you please elaborate a bit more on the corruption angle and explain what a worse commissioner than Goodell might look like?

I mean purely money wise corruption, and not power corruption through CBA legislation like Goodell displays. Sepp Blatter comes to mind. I dont think someone could ever reach that level in the NFL. But you can guarantee that there will be a lot of interested parties to get a guy they like in there. For.... reasons...

 

[kearly]

I mean purely money wise corruption, and not power corruption through CBA legislation like Goodell displays. Sepp Blatter comes to mind. I dont think someone could ever reach that level in the NFL. But you can guarantee that there will be a lot of interested parties to get a guy they like in there. For.... reasons...

For sure there would never be anything like the FIFA scandals in America, that's more a testament to how commonplace low level corruption is in the rest of the world.

Still curious what you are hinting at in the end of the paragraph. Not being a cynic, I just haven't heard the corruption angle brought up before.

 

[chris98251]

Tod Lieweke would not be a bad Commissioner.

 

[Sports Hernia]

Tod Lieweke would not be a bad Commissioner.

I'd be cool with that. :th2thumbs:

 

[Seahawkfan80]

I mean purely money wise corruption, and not power corruption through CBA legislation like Goodell displays. Sepp Blatter comes to mind. I dont think someone could ever reach that level in the NFL. But you can guarantee that there will be a lot of interested parties to get a guy they like in there. For.... reasons...

For sure there would never be anything like the FIFA scandals in America, that's more a testament to how commonplace low level corruption is in the rest of the world.

Still curious what you are hinting at in the end of the paragraph. Not being a cynic, I just haven't heard the corruption angle brought up before.

I believe it would be very easy to corrupt the game if you let the shield control the Refs. You could then tell the refs what team will win and how it will be done. Point spreads controlled by the refs. SB48, they did not have a chance with the style of our play, they could not control what we did. We dominated like no other and would not be denied. But that would be a starter. Some I have heard think the refs should be full time jobs by the Shield. I say no way. The shield would have too much power and presence to control the outcomes. This would be just one example.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[50yrpatsfan]

It really depends on the jury, but the standard is the standard. A criminal defendant can also waive his right to a jury trial in favor of a bench trial if he wanted to . . . the Seventh Amendment also guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases with remedies under the common law, and most states guarantee a jury trial in some civil cases.

All that said, it would be a little tough to convict Brady under a beyond a reasonable doubt standard. There is nothing right now directly trying him to the deflation. There are the suspicious text messages related to autographed memorabilia. There are the suspicious number of phone calls between Brady and the equipment manager. There are the suspicious explanations for the text messages from those staff members. There are Brady's suspicious explanations during his press conference. And there is the suspicious destruction of his cell phone. That is enough for reasonable suspicion, but I am not so sure there would be a clear absence of "reasonable doubt."

Under the much lower civil standard, however, I don't think there is any question that it is more likely than not that Brady was involved in the cheating. The evidence points in that direction.

Fair points. The sad thing is, that's exactly what the Wells report concluded. The judge overturned it anyway even though the report was completely reasonable.

Reasonable? Here's one of those "reasonable" statements from the Wells report:

"our scientific consultants informed us that the data alone did not provide a basis for them to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering, as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is uncertain."

So that is saying that it's a coin flip whether ANY tampering occurred, as opposed to just natural deflation at work.

Also, if Wells accepted Walt Anderson's testimony about which gauge he used to measure balls pre-game, this prosecution would have had to stop right there, as the readings from that gauge exonerated NE. However, he chose to go with the reading of the other gauge which Anderson recalled NOT using and which measured .4 psi higher, putting NE slightly in the red zone so to speak. Wells provides no justification for why he did this.

So that is saying that he intentionally used the wrong readings in order to further his prosecution.

Just wondering if the definition of reasonable is a little different in the great Northwest.

 

[Laloosh]

"our scientific consultants informed us that the data alone did not provide a basis for them to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering, as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is uncertain."

So that is saying that it's a coin flip whether ANY tampering occurred, as opposed to just natural deflation at work.

Uncertain does not equal "coin flip". It means, not certain. If I am 80% certain, I am not 100% certain but I am still a hell of a lot more certain than 50%, which would equate to a coin flip, no?