JohnC

It's repeated that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation but that isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal. He met with Wells and his committee with his attorney. He didn't necessarily provide all the material that Wells wanted but under the guidance of his attorney he provided whatever information his attorney advised him to give. Brady is not naive. This was an adversarial process. Wells and his staff were well resourced and represented the interest of Goodell and his office. His high powered attorney was interested in protecting the in his client's interest. His attorney, who has a history of successfully challenging the league, was not going to allow his client to be stampeded. You keep bringing up the scenario that Brady didn't fully cooperate in the investigation regarding ball tampering. What was the league's response when San Diego's staff didn't fully cooperate with league regarding stickim on the balls? How did the league handle that ball issue? Brady and his attorney met with Goodell and his bulked up legal staff in an all day affair for the appeal hearing. I don't recall any complaints regarding how Brady didn't answer any questions put to him. One of my primary complaints on this exaggerated issue is the proportionality of the response by the league. There were prior ball handling issues with other teams that drew weak responses. If the issue rose to such a crisis level then the league should have put an immediate stop to the mishandling of balls by changing the protocols in the way the ball were to be handled in the games. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-07/sports/sns-rt-us-nfl-chargers-finebre8a705v-20121107_1_towels-san-diego-chargers-nfl

Absolutely! The commissioner should have peremptorily changed the ball protocol whereby league officials controlled the balls prior and during the games. Then there are no more issues related to ball security for all teams. Let's put this insignificant transgression in perspective. The questionable PSI levels had absolutely no bearing on the game. That is indisputable. Brady performed better with a higher inflation rate. What did Goodell do when it was discovered that San Diego tampered with their game balls by putting stickem on them? He fined the team $25,000. What did Goodell do when it was discovered that Atlanta heated the balls in a cold weather game? He fined the organization a miniscule amount. If ball security was such an important league issue then it should have been addressed with the prior ball tampering by other teams. Goodell did not treat the matter as if it was a serious issue. As I stated in the prior post this issue could have been handled with better judgment and proportionality by the commissioner who has a disturbing habit of making things up as he goes along.

A ruling is probably going to happen this week or next. What is telling is that there hasn't been a ruling already. The reason to me is that Goodell is aware that after he makes his ruling, assuming there is going to be some sort of suspension, he will have to base his appeal judgment to issues that will follow, such as prior ball incidents and how they were handled compared to how this case is handled. There are people arguing that the San Diego ball stickem incidents and the Atlanta ball warming cases have no relevancy. That is not only aninconsistent position to take but also perplexing position when addressing the inflategate situation. All these cases relate to tampering with the balls. What the anti-Brady crowd doesn't understand is that the inflation issue is not the most significant issue when looking at the issue in its totality. It's about the league disciplinary office and how disciplinary decisions are made and applied. Most often when outside authorities review Goodell's disciplinary decisions they are either thrown out or adjusted. Ultimately, I see the same thing happening here when it gets to a more competent and objective judicial source. Goodell handled a case that should have been easily and quickly resolved. He could have immediately ruled that league officials and not team staffs would control the balss prior and during the games. Instead we have a year long saga and extended legal wrangling because the commissioner is inept and makes decisions based on his self-serving needs.

I called a couple of days ago and got no where. I got a retention staffer who offered only a small discount for the ST but nothing else. I will try again. If I don't get a better deal I will switch to Verizon Fios bundle and leave Directv. The retention rep I dealt with was polite but firm. What I was asking for was to get the ST for free. I was disappointed but I'm willing to exercise my options if need be.

No one questions the point that Goodell has the authority to rule on these cases. That is understood. But having that authority and making decisions that are erratic, inconsistent and are based on the perception of how he is perceived rather than on the facts and on established guidelines erodes his credibility. You and others keep bringing up the point that he didn't cooperate. That isn't necessarily true. He has a very talented attorney who is advising him. If the attorney tells him how he should or should not respond to the inquisitors then he would be a fool not to follow his counsel's advice. Brady and his legal representatives met with Goodell and his multitude of support staff under oath and responded to all questions in a full day of grilling. What more do you want? There have been issues regarding the treatment of balls with other teams, San Diego and Atlanta. It was clear that both teams mishandled the balls. Each team was subjected to a miniscule fine. Compare that with the New England fiasco? I have never said that something inappropriate didn't happen in the Colts game. What I have often stated is that this matter has been exaggerated beyond what it should have been and the saga has been an extended affair because of the incompetence of Goodell in executing his disciplinary responsibilities. The solution to this foolishness was for the commissioner to immediately order that league staff will now handle the balls prior and during the game. Simple solution to a simple problem!

The New Orleans case does demonstrate how an issue that could have been handled in a wiser way got blown out of proportion because the person adjudicating the case was more concerned with how he was perceived than with the totality of the situation. Vilma was punished over the New Orleans situation and he challenged the commissioner and his ruling. He won. Payton and Williams didn't legally challenge the league for fear that they would jeopardize their futures in the NFL. They made the calculation that it was better for them to take the hit and then get back in the game. I understand their reasoning and choice not to pursue the case. This saga is not going to be over when Goodell makes his ruling which should be very soon. In all probability he is going to keep the punishment as it is or reduce it. Then there will be a sequel legal challenge that will go to an outside authority. In that more neutral setting I believe (as opposed to most others) that Brady is in a better position to make his case and win against Goodell who has a history of losing cases when outside eyes examine the same facts that he has made his rulings on.

Any suspension given is going to be challenged in court. There is not going to be a quick resolution of the issue if that happens. If the league was confident that there wasn't gong to be a challenge to their followup ruling whatever it is (maintaining the four game suspension or even lessening the suspension} it would have already made its determination public. My position on this issue is obvious to most. It is a minority view. The issue for me is less about Brady and the condition of the balls and mostly about the erratic and political way in which Goodell manages his disciplinary responsibilities. The most egregiously inequitable behavior Goodell has exhibited was with New Orleans in the exaggerated bounty case. He not only damaged the careers of the obnoxious DC (Williams) and the HC (Payton) but he also sabotaged the season for the franchise. It was done not becasue the situation was investigated with fairness and common sense but it was done so that the commissioner wouldn't look bad. Again, for me the core issue isn't about this "inflation" issue; it is the extent to which the disciplinary process is corrupted by the commissioner who is the authority in that office.

You don't need a criminal conviction to apply a league standard for domestic abuse. There was more than enough evidence in the Hardy case to be confident that a domestic abuse incident occurred. There was a first legal action that convicted then followed by the second court appeal appearance where the victim didn't show. The issue in this case whereby the arbitrator lessened the punishment had to do with the fact that the commissioner didn't follow the punishment standard that was in place. The Hardy case is not necessarily over because the arbitrator's ruling of four games punishment is more than the standard punishment of two games for that category of offense. If Hardy decides to pursue the case he has a good chance to win and get the arbitrator's ruling lessened. In the Ray Rice case even if the legal authorities decided not pursue the assault case the league had more than enough evidence (film) and acknowledgement of the facts of the case by Rice and his mate to make a punishment ruling. The mistake the commissioner made was that he went beyond the established punishment guidelines for that category of offense when he increased the punishment with his followup action. In addition, to demonstrate how contaminated the process was in the Rice case the commissioner claimed that he had additional evidence after his initial ruling that justified his later more severe punishment. The arbitrator in the case concluded that Goodell was not truthful about that matter and maintained the original sentence instead of the more severe sentence.

The reduction in penalty by the arbitrator had nothing to do with Hardy sitting out the year with pay. In the Peterson case the same arbitrator didn't consider Peterson sitting out with pay as a punishment. The basis for his ruling is that the offense occurred under a prior disciplinary/punishment standard for that type of offensive. The arbitrator made the determination that the commissioner grossly over punished for that type of behavior under the standard that should have been applied at that time. http://espn.go.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/13238310/nfl-gets-discipline-wrong-again-greg-hardy-reduced-suspension I consider Hardy to be a menace to society. He should be in jail. He is a sick bastaard! The notion that Brady should be punished at the same level that this reprobate is reflects how irrational the the disciplinary system is. The commissioner again demonstrated in handling disciplinary issues that he is incompetent and unqualified in assuming that responsibility. When you have a standard you apply the standard. That isn't a difficult concept to grasp. His habit of making it up as he goes along is continuously reversed when it goes to an outside authority.

A response from a descendent of Jefferson Davis and an elected representative from South Carolina: http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/09/us/south-carolina-jenny-horne-speech/index.html

Many, if not most, of the players who make it to the NFL or NBA simply don't have the family stability and anchoring that would allow them to handle their dramatically changing circumstance. Very often they areeasy targets by blood-sucking preditors who simply rob them blind. Many of these newly enriched athletes don't have the sophistication to deal with the demands associated with their new found wealth. Compare how Rob Gronkowsk handles his finances with the way Haynesworth handled his. Rob Gronk is a party animal and for sure not an academic star. Yet because he grew up in a strong family setting he was instilled with the values that allowed him to smartly handle his finances. Gronk has pointed out to people that think he is just a party animal fool that he is smart enough to have not spent a penny of his NFL salary, living off of his endorsements. Look at how athletes such as Eichel in the NHL and Bryce Harper in MLB are comfortably handling their new celebrity status. Because they have had the strong family foundation they have comfortably made the transition into the world of money and fame. I am attaching a link of one of the worst cases of family predator behavior that is a source of unimaginable stress that can squander the financial gains made in a pro career. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000201145/article/dallas-cowboys-olineman-tyron-smiths-family-ordeal Compare Gradkowsi

The general theme that you got out of the story is the same as I got out of it. There are two two story lines to his story. One is that he has regrets on the way he conducted himself in his pro career and then the follow-up to his well publicized travails is a more fulfilling post athletic career where he finds a greater sense of satisfaction and personal growth. Especially after he got the giant contract that led him to leave a more comfortable setting I never got the sense that he had much passion for the game. Not only was it evident in his play but it was very evident in his preparation to play, especially in the off season. There is an irony to his story. When he had an abundance of money to luxuriate in he was very troubled. Now that he has less financial resources and less ability to coast he seems more focused and more interested in his new field of endeavor. This is a good story with a happy ending. I thought when he left the game he was on a path of personal and financial ruin. I am pleasantly surprised with the the way things turned out. He should be given credit for how he has responded to his post football life.

If Goodell's ruling is challenged in court the "science" and Goodell's rulings in this case and others will certainly come into play. You and most others are concentrating on a particular case. I'm not. The disciplinary process is very much a contaminated process because the commissioner has lost credibility in the manner he manages his disciplinary authority. Of course not. The drug rulings are consistent because the rules applying to that category of violations are straight forward and very consistently applied. In cases where there is public pressure RG has a tendency to act out of self-interest more so than act with objectivity. The Rice and Vilma are illustrations of that type of less than proper exercising of authority.

I agree with your concluding comment about what the court can compel or not. If he decides to challenge Goodell's appeal decision in court his attorney will have to make the calculation whether it is a smart move or not. Sometimes incriminating communications can be offset by the totality of the case.

The case with the stickem on the balls in San Diego and the heating of the balls in cold weather along with the lowering of the inflation all fall under the same category of tampering with the balls. Especially with the stickem situation it is obvious that the stickem was administered after the referees checked the balls prior to the game. How is that substantially less of a transgression of minimally lowering the inflation level of the balls after the referees checked the balls? The (assumed) infraction with the balls in New England had nothing to do with performance. In fact when the balls were reinflated after halftime Brady played better. Where I strenuously disagree with many commentators on this issue is that I strongly believe that the level of infraction by New England is trivial and inconsequential as far as impacting the outcome of a game. There are offensive linemen who smear themselves with vasoline (against the rules). It is wrong to do and should be sanctioned. The sanctiion should correspond to the level of the infraction. In the New England case the situation was allowed to get out of hand because of the incompetence of the commissioner and his inability to perform his judicial responsibilities in a fair and reasonable fashion.

The issue of personal preference regarding balls applies to all qbs. What do you expect qbs to do? Prefer a type of ball that they are less comfortable with? As WEO pointed just because a qb believes he has an advantage with a type of ball doesn't mean that it is so. Brady in the AFC playoff game against the Colts played demonstrably better with the more inflated ball.

He preferred lower filled balls just as Rodgers prefers higher filled balls. Some qbs like newer balls while others prefer used balls. It simply is a comfort level with the different feeling of the balls. That same type of issue applies to pitchers in baseball. Some pitchers work hard to rub the ball and some pictures don't like the feel of the protruding seams.

If Brady was communicating with his attorney his communications would not have to be shared. With respect to communicating with family and others for advice I wasn't referring to any legal procedures as much as I was referring to the fact that I would not share those types of communications with anyone else unless compelled to do so. I would say none. You can say otherwise.

How is the assumed level of ball tampering in New England different from the ball tampering in San Diego (stickem) and the heating of the balls during a game in cold weather by the Falcons? Compare how those cases were handled with the level of response with the deflategate issue. Where is the proportionality? Do I believe that some air was taken out of the Pats's balls? I wouldn't be surprised that it did happen. Did it affect the game? No. The score in the Colt game was 45-7. In the first half with the "adjusted" balls the score was 17-7 in New England's favor. In the second half with some inflation of the balls the score favored New England by 28-0. The point being that there was no impact on the game by the supposedly questionable balls. It was well known that Tom Brady favored less inflated balls compared to Aaron Rodgers who preferred maximum inflated balls. Different qbs have different preferences not only regarding level of inflation but also relating to the texture of the balls. Some liked newer balls while others liked used balls. The point being that it is not unusual for qbs to have different preferences with their respective equipment staffs doing their best to accommodate their preferences. Many people are making a big issue out of Brady's level of cooperation with the investigation, some would describe his behavior as being deceptive. There is another more benign manner in describing his response to the investigation. He was protecting his interest in this mushrooming situation. Tom Brady is not an inconsequential figure in the league. His attorney is a very accomplished attorney with a reputation for being aggressive. His attorney has represented other players against the league and has a record of defeating it. I am not going to criticize TB for aggressively pursuing his interest in this matter. As I have stated very often this issue is more about the process than it is about the transgression. The category of infraction relating to balls has been handled demonstrably different in this case compared to the other cases.

As I responded to MattM in a prior post if Brady texted or communicated with his attorney for advice he wouldn't be required to give his texts to the investigating committee. I will go even further: If Brady communicated with others such as family and people he trusted for advice as to how to proceed I would agree with the position that he shouldn't turn over that type of communication.

The problem I have with Goodell and his discplinary system is that there is no consistent system, except for drug issues. There were other cases of "ball" transgressions such as San Diego being penalized $25,000 for stickem on the balls and there was a minor fine against Atlanta for heating the balls in cold weather. Compare how the inflategate issue was handled to the other ball issues. In my view Goodell is making determinations not on the facts on cases but more on how he is perceived. In the Ray Rice case he punished him with a two game suspension. Although there was a torrent of criticism by the public there was a reasonableness/consistency to it because it followed the pattern of punishment for similar domestic cases. After receiving the criticism he elevated the Rice's punishment claiming that he found out new information that he didn't have with his original punishment. The arbitrator determined that was a falsehood. The punishment went back to first two game suspension. Is that integrity in the process? If RG wanted to more severely punish domestic abusers he should have changed the policy and then enforce the new rule. That would have been the right and fair approach to take. The New Orlean's bountygate saga is a demonstration of Goodell responding to a public outcry instead of objectively reviewing the issue. It was a ram-rod approach that affected the lives of players and coaches.Vilma stood up to Goodell and legally challenged him. He won. As compared to most others I'm not overly bothered by the possible deflation of the ball. For me it is a minor transgression that could have been handled more competently. What I find most egregeous is that RG and his league office have a tremendous amount of authority that they are wielding in an erratic and unfair manner for self-promotion reasons instead of presiding over a reasonably fair disciplinary process. There is no doubt that RG and the league have superior authority in these matters vis-a-vis the players. That is not the issue for me. That is what was negotiated. The issue is that RG has abused his authority for his own interest instead of conducting himself in a professional and competent manner. As I have stated on a number of occasions the issue is more about the process than it is the miniscule transgressions. It is not surprising that when an aggrieved party is able to get his case to an outside authority it usually turns out against the RG ruling. The link is a Washington Post column by Sally Jenkins. She seems to have a grasp on how RG has bungled this issue and how his actions are more self-serving than they are judicious. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/in-trying-to-restore-his-authority-goodell-undermined-his-credibility/2015/05/21/142c8d2c-ffd4-11e4-805c-c3f407e5a9e9_story.html

If Brady texted his attorney then it certainly is privileged conversation. I agree with you that the legal basis for court action is limited. The courts usually defer to arbitration agreements between parties. The basis for an appeal to an outside legal authority would have more to do with the process agreed to by the union and the NFL. All along that has been the primary focus of my comments, more so than the transgression. In the cases that have made it to an outside authority it has not turned out well for him and his rulings. In the Rice case the arbitrator determined that Goodell was not accurate (lied) when he said he had new information justifying added punishment. The New Orleans bountygate and the Ray Rice saga demonstrate that Roger Goodell is prone to making disciplinary decisions based on how he is perceived rather than on the facts of the cases he is ruling on.

What makes Wilson such an attractive qb is that his impressive production has been done in his first three years. He made an impact with the coaching staff right from the start. Without much challenge from the other more experienced qbs on the roster he very quickly took over the reigns as the starting qb. I have never seen a qb so young play with such maturity and presence. I would prefer Rodgers and Luck over Wilson. But without a doubt Wilson has outperformed (not saying he is better) those other qbs in his first few years in the league.

The text messages Brady sent were received by others who provided them to the Well investigators. If Brady and his legal team seek an injunction it will be followed up by a court action. There would be no basis for an injunction if there was no legal follow up. The reason why an injunction probably would be granted is because of the timing of the punitive action at the start of the season before a legal remedy can be pursued. Although I disagree with your belief that Brady would accept a reduced punishment it is very possible. Brady has hired an attorney who has a good record in challenging the rulings of Goodell. If Brady decides to take the legal route the process will be challenged as much as the facts will be. After witnessing what happened with Vilma and the Rice cases the manner in which disciplinary actions are investigated and determined is ripe with irregularities that the legal opposition can pounce on.

Whenever this inflategate issue is discussed it draws a lot of intense reaction. Putting aside the specifics of the case what is so very apparent is that the disciplinary process under Goodell lacks professionalism and credibility. It is not a surprise that when NFL disciplinary cases are taken to an outside authority the very erratic rulings are usually overturned. What is obvious to me as exemplified by the Rice and Vilma rulings is that the facts of the cases are not paramount to RG as much as the appearance of how he is perceived by the public. Looking back the New Orlean's bountygate rulings that had coaches and players suspended for a year were an astounding travesty of justice. It's my belief that if Goodell even lowers the punishment for Tom Brady he will seek an injunction and have the case reviewed in court. And then when the tainted disciplinary process is examined the ruling will be overturned.