ko12010 Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Pretty crappy standard when determining guilt, IMO, but at least in this instance it's related to something that actually impacts the game, so I find it more acceptable than when King Goodell uses this chicken **** standard to determine guilt and punishment for conduct unrelated to league activities. Well the thing is, this is same standard used in civil lawsuits. I mean, OJ Simpson was convicted of murder using these standards! It's simply how it is when it comes to non-criminal proceedings. If it's good enough to convict someone of murder, I think it's good enough to convict a peckerhead like Brady of cheating in the court of law that is the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Pretty crappy standard when determining guilt, IMO, but at least in this instance it's related to something that actually impacts the game, so I find it more acceptable than when King Goodell uses this chicken **** standard to determine guilt and punishment for conduct unrelated to league activities. I forgot who said it, maybe Polian, but the specific words used by Wells were NFL speak for "he's guilty" - not even likely guilty - and not the standard preponderance of evidence it might mean elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 There is really zero reason he should win any appeal. He has no legitimate defense. There is a decent possibility that the NFL would prefer that so it looks like they were hard on him, and yet only lose him for awhile. I now think he gets 8 games, appeals, and it is cut in half to four, even though that is a stupid way to dole out punishment. I'm pretty sure that's how it'll go down. Basically, "suspended sentence," as long as Brady shows appropriate contrition (e.g. "I didn't know it was illegal, my lawyer misspoke, the ball boys misled me, there was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!") "Oh Tom...oh Tommy..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Well the thing is, this is same standard used in civil lawsuits. I mean, OJ Simpson was convicted of murder using these standards! It's simply how it is when it comes to non-criminal proceedings. If it's good enough to convict someone of murder, I think it's good enough to convict a peckerhead like Brady of cheating in the court of law that is the NFL. I'm fully aware of the burden of proof in civil cases (and being found liable for wrongful death is not the same thing as being found guilty of murder). I just don't think that's an appropriate standard for imposing punishments regardless of whether the law allows it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Really? We aren't putting them on the table and measuring (sorry for the crude analogy but it's all that I could think of). You don't need to prove your manhood in this league. Guys miss games all of the time. The goal is to win as many games as you can. It doesn't matter against who. It matters when you are 3-21 against them and they have 11/12 division championships. Your team is about to turn it over and finally compete, and the NFL handicaps the pats. I don't know, it feels wrong, and I have no doubt that will be the talk of the NFL rather than what it should be - The Bills finally bring down the Patriots and take the AFC East back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 throw away the key needle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Really? We aren't putting them on the table and measuring (sorry for the crude analogy but it's all that I could think of). You don't need to prove your manhood in this league. Guys miss games all of the time. The goal is to win as many games as you can. It doesn't matter against who. I agree. It would be sweet to humble brady but a division win is a division Win. How many Sub par bills quarterbacks have they beaten? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I forgot who said it, maybe Polian, but the specific words used by Wells were NFL speak for "he's guilty" - not even likely guilty - and not the standard preponderance of evidence it might mean elsewhere. I think he's guilty and it looks like the evidence shows it by more than a preponderance. I'm just criticizing the use of that standard for punishment generally, not because I think Brady's being judged unfairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Are appeals always allowed? Like has there ever been an incident where an appeal wasn't allowed? Kind of like "no parole" If he appeals I hope the NFL just asks for his phone right off the bat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ko12010 Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I'm fully aware of the burden of proof in civil cases (and being found liable for wrongful death is not the same thing as being found guilty of murder). I just don't think that's an appropriate standard for imposing punishments regardless of whether the law allows it. I'm just curious--do you think the NFL should strive for beyond reasonable doubt to determine rules violations in a sport? Seems extreme, no? I view preponderance of evidence as basically common sense. We know it's likely he did it. To get an ironclad 100% accurate verdict is unreasonable imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I'm pretty sure that's how it'll go down. Basically, "suspended sentence," as long as Brady shows appropriate contrition (e.g. "I didn't know it was illegal, my lawyer misspoke, the ball boys misled me, there was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!") "Oh Tom...oh Tommy..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reed83HOF Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 .. and the NFL handicaps the pats. I don't know, it feels wrong... Does it feel wrong to know they cheated a zillion times against us (& everyone else) and didn't give a Sh!t? Granted we had some lousy teams, but how did they cheat against us to get wins? F'um Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I'm just curious--do you think the NFL should strive for beyond reasonable doubt to determine rules violations in a sport? Seems extreme, no? I view preponderance of evidence as basically common sense. We know it's likely he did it. To get an ironclad 100% accurate verdict is unreasonable imo I don't know if they should hold themselves to beyond a reasonable doubt, but clear and convincing evidence at a minimum would be more appropriate IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) I think he's guilty and it looks like the evidence shows it by more than a preponderance. I'm just criticizing the use of that standard for punishment generally, not because I think Brady's being judged unfairly. Oh I know, but I don't that is what is happening here. Fans and blogs are using that term as it is used in other places. But the NFL is not using it as a 50-50 proposition, they have their own definition for it, and it means "he's guilty we just can't prove it with a smoking gun." They are not actually saying it is 51-49 that he did it. They are saying it is 99-1 he did it. That is what Polian was talking about, that for the last five years or so the NFL has used that term to say "he's guilty." Edit. I should correct myself. Polian has said this in a few different places in a few different ways. Here he says the NFL has been using that standard for the last six years. But by saying that they are saying that a violation clearly occurred, not that it probably occurred. Former NFL executive Bill Polian, familiar with the league's crime-and-punishment procedures after spending 19 years on the powerful competition committee, said the term Wells used -- "more probable than not" -- has been the standard of proof the NFL has used for competitive violations over the last six years. "In short, he is finding there was a violation," Polian said. "In many ways I think this report is as important as the discipline. It clearly says a violation occurred." Edited May 9, 2015 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I have mixed emotions about this whole. i want all the witches burned. all the way up to Kraft and Goodell gets singed a bit because its been ongoing envelope pushing for as long as i can recall by those Satan worshipping deflaters. But Brady almost retired. the only hurt you can put on him is take away stuff. Hell he got his superbowl win! why would he care about a fine or multi game suspensions? money means little and if he can save his arm for the final run to yet another SB run what has the league gained. geez this stuff pisses me off. Take away the ring. suspend Belicheat for a season. fine Kraftwerks not that he cares but still its a statement. But let Brady play. this is the year the Bills defense gives him the Wedgie that keeps on giving. Bills defense should have him in tears screaming at Refs and coming unglued by halftime. I cant think of a better punishment than Hughes in his facemask and the Refs laughing at him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 If he appeals I hope the NFL just asks for his phone right off the bat That's pretty much where I'm at too. If he says no, appeal denied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Brady not turning over his cell phone looks very bad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augie Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Brady not turning over his cell phone looks very bad That says "screw you, I'm above this". The only other explanation is the contents are worse than saying screw you, I'm above this. Refuse to cooperate in an investigation? For this he should get crushed. Time will tell. Roger, are you listening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikemac2001 Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) Brady not turning over his cell phone looks very badWhen u think about it.....it's insane He has nothing to lose and Everything to gain By giving up the phone ..........unless he did something If he is innocent u hand that over right away to show u didn't do anything Edited May 9, 2015 by mikemac2001 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) When u think about it.....it's insane He has nothing to lose and Everything to gain By giving up the phone ..........unless he did something If he is innocent u hand that over right away to show u didn't do anything You have no idea what's in his phone. There are very good reasons why someone wouldn't hand over his phone regardless of whether it implicated him in the immediate investigation. Edited May 9, 2015 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts