The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 This is the statement that always blew my mind with bounty-gate and where things are interesting here. i thought it was a crazy discipline at the time and will stand by it now even with a rival team -- but this makes things really tough for how to go forward with brady without suspension. might be another reason a player might not want to talk to investigators. if they dont agree with what you say happened at the end, youve officially lied and can be suspended? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a10471/article/anthony-hargrove-suspended-for-lying-says-nfl So Brady should get a lifetime ban for knowing about "the deflator" and lying to the world then. I'll take it.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Did Brady know McNally? Of course he did but maybe not by name. As for the texting bit. Perhaps I failed to digest all of the report and missed it but I do not believe there are any records of text logs (of McNally and Jastremski) that shows texts between them and Brady. As for the balls. Officials could only measure 14 (of the 23 balls) at 1/2time and found it impossible to record the PSI of the suspected ball. Yet, these guys are believed to be competent by the Well's investigation? Please. The above are nothing more than inferences .... done to create a desired outcome. No texts shown between McNally and Brady, but there are a few between Brady and Jastremski.
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 drug policy is totally separate from conduct, which is separate from on field too i believe. i would be amazed if they use PEDs as the jumping off point, and would instead point to Atlanta this offseason as the closest recent comp for a team breaking the rules for potential on field advantage. but that was organizational and not a specific player implicated so the brady part is hard to project based off it. One could argue that Pineda using Pine Tar or Buchholz using sunblock or the legions of corked bat cases are the best precedents. Baseball is apparently more forgiving of this sort of gamesmanship, though, so who knows?
IronyAbounds Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Did Brady know McNally? Of course he did but maybe not by name. As for the texting bit. Perhaps I failed to digest all of the report and missed it but I do not believe there are any records of text logs (of McNally and Jastremski) that shows texts between them and Brady. As for the balls. Officials could only measure 14 (of the 23 balls) at 1/2time and found it impossible to record the PSI of the suspected ball. Yet, these guys are believed to be competent by the Well's investigation? Please. The above are nothing more than inferences .... done to create a desired outcome. Hmmmmmm, what does one infer from the fact that McNally was called "the deflator" months before deflategate became an issue. I think I infer that McNally was given that moniker because his efforts were to create a desired outcome: the deflation of the Pats' balls.
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Hmmmmmm, what does one infer from the fact that McNally was called "the deflator" months before deflategate became an issue. I think I infer that McNally was given that moniker because his efforts were to create a desired outcome: the deflation of the Pats' balls. Maybe he was just a really depressing guy to be around and brought everyone down. Pats Fan logic Edited May 7, 2015 by The Wiz
JohnC Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 ... and Clemens won in the end. Bonds just did too. They (Clemens and Bonds) won in a legal setting. This investigation was not a legal investigation. It was an investigation to determine what happened from a reporting standard and not a more rigorous legal standard. The cautious and qualifying language and the less than conclusive determination made by the report is an obvious demonstration that it was not a meant to be used as a legal determining document. If this report was used to make a legal case it would be quickly dismissed. But that is not the setting here. The setting and purpose for this report is to determine what happened with respect to the balls and who was involved and to what extent. Without making an absolute claim as to what happened it does make a persuasive case as to what probably happened. What it boils down to is using common sense as a standard (non-legal standard) It is apparent that the balls were tampered with and it describes the circle of people involved. Anyone who has any common sense can make a reasonable and fair judgment simply based on the texts from Brady and the locker room attendants. From a courtroom standard this is a non-case. From a stardard that would allow Goodell to make a determnation on discipline there is more than enough evidence/material to make a fair judment. I have stated from the start that this particular transgression was an inconsequential transgressiion that had no impact on the outcome of any games. But that doesn't mean that people didn't violate some rules or the spirit of the rules. When Cleveland's GM was using the phone to communicate with the coaches on the field it had no material impact on the game. The GM was still punished for violating a rule and most definitely the spirit of the rules.
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 They (Clemens and Bonds) won in a legal setting. This investigation was not a legal investigation. It was an investigation to determine what happened from a reporting standard and not a more rigorous legal standard. The cautious and qualifying language and the less than conclusive determination made by the report is an obvious demonstration that it was not a meant to be used as a legal determining document. If this report was used to make a legal case it would be quickly dismissed. But that is not the setting here. The setting and purpose for this report is to determine what happened with respect to the balls and who was involved and to what extent. Without making an absolute claim as to what happened it does make a persuasive case as to what probably happened. What it boils down to is using common sense as a standard (non-legal standard) It is apparent that the balls were tampered with and it describes the circle of people involved. Anyone who has any common sense can make a reasonable and fair judgment simply based on the texts from Brady and the locker room attendants. From a courtroom standard this is a non-case. From a stardard that would allow Goodell to make a determnation on discipline there is more than enough evidence/material to make a fair judment. I have stated from the start that this particular transgression was an inconsequential transgressiion that had no impact on the outcome of any games. But that doesn't mean that people didn't violate some rules or the spirit of the rules. When Cleveland's GM was using the phone to communicate with the coaches on the field it had no material impact on the game. The GM was still punished for violating a rule and most definitely the spirit of the rules. I agree completely with everything you say. I didn't mean to imply that the cases were comparable; it was more about what could happen if in the off chance this particular case ended up in court as a defamation charge (again, unlikely). Famous athletes often get off, it seems, although recently the Pats have been batting .000 in that regard ...
Pneumonic Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) No texts shown between McNally and Brady, but there are a few between Brady and Jastremski. Which means that Brady knew Jastremski but not necessarily McNally (at least by name). Much like I know the gal who bags my groceries; just not by name. Hmmmmmm, what does one infer from the fact that McNally was called "the deflator" months before deflategate became an issue. I think I infer that McNally was given that moniker because his efforts were to create a desired outcome: the deflation of the Pats' balls. I don't think anyone is saying that Brady doesn't use ballboys to deflate the balls to his liking. The issue is if he directed them to deflate them to UNDER legal PSI values. The report doesn't conclude this to have happened. Any conclusion that it did is purely speculative. Edited May 7, 2015 by Pneumonic
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Which means that Brady knew Jastremski but not necessarily McNally (at least by name). Much like I know the gal who bags my groceries; just not by name. It would be more like you telling the shift supervisor to tell the gal who bags your groceries to double bag them when she sees you checking out.
Go Kiko go Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) From a courtroom standard this is a non-case. From a stardard that would allow Goodell to make a determnation on discipline there is more than enough evidence/material to make a fair judment. Why would this be a non-case? Is it possible that a reasonable person could conclude from the evidence in the report that, more likely than not, the locker room attendants violated a league rule, and that, more likely than not, Brady was aware of what they were doing? If so, this would be sufficient for a case to proceed (in some mythical land where violations of NFL rules could be tried in court). Edited May 7, 2015 by Go Kiko go
Captain Hindsight Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Which means that Brady knew Jastremski but not necessarily McNally (at least by name). Much like I know the gal who bags my groceries; just not by name. I don't think anyone is saying that Brady doesn't use ballboys to deflate the balls to his liking. The issue is if he directed them to deflate them to UNDER legal PSI values. The report doesn't conclude this to have happened. Any conclusion that it did is purely speculative. You really should just go read the report
Go Kiko go Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 I don't think anyone is saying that Brady doesn't use ballboys to deflate the balls to his liking. The issue is if he directed them to deflate them to UNDER legal PSI values. The report doesn't conclude this to have happened. Any conclusion that it did is purely speculative. While the report doesn't conclude that Brady directed anyone to do anything, the report does conclude that he was aware that the balls were being deflated below the required PSI values: "Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls."
Gugny Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 While the report doesn't conclude that Brady directed anyone to do anything, the report does conclude that he was aware that the balls were being deflated below the required PSI values: "Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls." "More probable than not" is another way of saying, "we're guessing."
JohnC Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Why would this be a non-case? Is it possible that a reasonable person could conclude from the evidence in the report that, more likely than not, the locker room attendants violated a league rule, and that, more likely than not, Brady was aware of what they were doing? If so, this would be sufficient for a case to proceed (in some mythical land where violations of NFL rules could be tried in court). From a legal standpoint the evidence doesn't meet the standard. It's not solid enough. If this case was examined by a supervising prosocutor who made the determination to formally procede with this case based on the evidence (very much of which is qualified) I'm very confident that it would not go any farther. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is more rigorous than what a reasonable person could conclude.
Go Kiko go Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) "More probable than not" is another way of saying, "we're guessing." That couldn't be more incorrect. "More probable than not" means exactly what it sounds like it means: from the evidence the investigators collected, is it more likely that Brady was aware of the inappropriate activities than it is that Brady was not aware of the inappropriate activities? That is not guessing. Edited May 7, 2015 by Go Kiko go
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 "More probable than not" is another way of saying, "we're guessing." Not really: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Not really: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/ Was about to post the same thing.
thebandit27 Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 From a legal standpoint the evidence doesn't meet the standard. It's not solid enough. If this case was examined by a supervising prosocutor who made the determination to formally procede with this case based on the evidence (very much of which is qualified) I'm very confident that it would not go any farther. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is more rigorous than what a reasonable person could conclude. I thought that reasonable doubt doesn't come into play until the actual trial, and that prior to that, as long as a judge concludes that there's a reasonable possibility that a jury could find someone guilty, the case will go to trial? What am I missing?
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 I thought that reasonable doubt doesn't come into play until the actual trial, and that prior to that, as long as a judge concludes that there's a reasonable possibility that a jury could find someone guilty, the case will go to trial? What am I missing? I think he's saying that while a grand jury may have enough to indict, a prosecutor won't take the case on because it's so thin and easy to undercut, which I think is true - at least in its current rendering. It would become a different animal if Brady's phone etc. were subpoenaed.
Go Kiko go Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) From a legal standpoint the evidence doesn't meet the standard. It's not solid enough. If this case was examined by a supervising prosocutor who made the determination to formally procede with this case based on the evidence (very much of which is qualified) I'm very confident that it would not go any farther. The standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is more rigorous than what a reasonable person could conclude. Again, assuming (in this mythical world where NFL rule violations could go to trial), this would be in the nature of a civil trial, since no one would be threatened with a criminal conviction or jail time. As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, the standard that would apply in such a proceeding is the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, which is the standard that the report applied: is it more likely than not that something did or did not occur? To determine whether there would be enough evidence for the case to get to a jury, the court would ask whether a reasonable jury could conclude that it was more likely than not that the rules were violated. Here, it appears that it a reasonable jury could so conclude (as the report so concluded). Edited May 7, 2015 by Go Kiko go
Recommended Posts