Tired of Deflategate

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Who decides if the suspension gets reduced?

 

Goodell?

 

 

CBF

I believe so

[papazoid]

IMO, Mike Florio has been biased - most of his Deflategate articles have been exceedingly Pro TB. I usually can guess before reading the byline, who has written

an article (Florio or anyone else). I have been mostly dismissing his views and his articles when it has anything to do with New England.

 

mostly florio is anti goodell being judge, jury and executioner.......which makes it appear he is pro nflpa.

[Canadian Bills Fan]

I cant see Goodell going back on his own decision especially after all the other erratic rulings he has handed down this past year.

 

It will be another blow to his already fragile reputation

 

 

CBF

[Tuco]

Yes I'm new here and this is my first post. Thanks for having me and I realize being new my opinion doesn't count for squat right now. So I'll limit my comment to just saying the quote below by Wells certainly looks like failure by Brady to co-operate - which is punishable.

 

 

"And I want to be crystal clear," Wells continued. "I told Mr. Brady and his agents that I was willing not to take possession of his phone. I said, 'I don't want to see any private information.' I said, 'You keep the phone. You're the agent. Mr. (Don) Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you are giving me what's responsive. And they still refused."

[BuffaloHokie13]

Yes I'm new here and this is my first post. Thanks for having me and I realize being new my opinion doesn't count for squat right now. So I'll limit my comment to just saying the quote below by Wells certainly looks like failure by Brady to co-operate - which is punishable.

 

 

"And I want to be crystal clear," Wells continued. "I told Mr. Brady and his agents that I was willing not to take possession of his phone. I said, 'I don't want to see any private information.' I said, 'You keep the phone. You're the agent. Mr. (Don) Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you are giving me what's responsive. And they still refused."

Welcome

[dave mcbride]

You have to look at the totality of everything that happened. McNally was asked at three different times by three different NFL investigators why he took the balls to the bathroom and he gave three different answers. He stole the balls from the officials. Brady started calling Jastremski over and over at 7 in the morning right after it happened. McNally texted Jastremski at halftime in the middle of a game they were losing and told him to "Deflate." All of the balls were under inflated. Wells used two separate independent experts to examine what happened. They both came to the same conclusion.

 

EVERY SINGLE THING, dozens of them, make sense in the he knew about it scenario. Everything. Nothing makes sense in this was total coincidence scenario. Nothing. Holes can be poked in some of the science and things like Brady not turning over his phone. But those are all based on "I suppose it's possible that this was a coincidence or non factor." But as I have said before, in order for Brady's story to be believed, a dozen 100-1 shots have to come in in a row.

Yes.

What are you referring to specifically here?

[papazoid]

Yes I'm new here and this is my first post. Thanks for having me and I realize being new my opinion doesn't count for squat right now. So I'll limit my comment to just saying the quote below by Wells certainly looks like failure by Brady to co-operate - which is punishable.

 

 

"And I want to be crystal clear," Wells continued. "I told Mr. Brady and his agents that I was willing not to take possession of his phone. I said, 'I don't want to see any private information.' I said, 'You keep the phone. You're the agent. Mr. (Don) Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you are giving me what's responsive. And they still refused."

 

 

welcome

 

and if someone says something that has two meanings and one of them offends you.......they meant the other one.

[dave mcbride]

 

mostly florio is anti goodell being judge, jury and executioner.......which makes it appear he is pro nflpa.

That is correct -- pro-player here. I'd hesitate to call him pro-NFLPA because the NFLPA is so weak compared to the players' organizations in other leagues ...

[Tuco]

Welcome

Thanks. I've adopted a self imposed time limit before I begin to dazzle you all with my football brilliance! LOL

 

Been reading a lot on here and it looks like you have a lot of good posters. Looking forward to spending too much time here when I should be doing something else.

 

 

welcome

 

and if someone says something that has two meanings and one of them offends you.......they meant the other one.

[NoSaint]

Yes I'm new here and this is my first post. Thanks for having me and I realize being new my opinion doesn't count for squat right now. So I'll limit my comment to just saying the quote below by Wells certainly looks like failure by Brady to co-operate - which is punishable.

 

 

"And I want to be crystal clear," Wells continued. "I told Mr. Brady and his agents that I was willing not to take possession of his phone. I said, 'I don't want to see any private information.' I said, 'You keep the phone. You're the agent. Mr. (Don) Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you are giving me what's responsive. And they still refused."

do you think that the flipside of "if they are going on the honor system here its silly to have consequence for non-participation" is semi-valid? if you go in for a speeding ticket and the judge says "how fast were you going?" and the answer of "the speed limit" gets you completely off, why even have the ticket in the first place?

 

then additionally, even in this investigation the pats kicker also declined and he received no punishment.

[Kelly the Dog]

What are you referring to specifically here?

Although he did in some previous years, last year McNally did not travel to away games in 2014. Which didn't matter all that much because the home team is responsible for bringing the balls to the field so he wouldn't be in the officials locker room like he is at Gillette Stadium.

 

Mid season the Patriots were losing at halftime to the Packers. One of the texts that was found on Jastremskis or McNallys phone in the investigation was McNally texted Jastremski at halftime of the game. He said "Deflate and give somebody that jkt." Wells wanted to know what that meant when he found it but that is when the Pats refused to let them meet McNally again. So Wells never found out what that meant.

[eball]

Yes I'm new here and this is my first post. Thanks for having me and I realize being new my opinion doesn't count for squat right now. So I'll limit my comment to just saying the quote below by Wells certainly looks like failure by Brady to co-operate - which is punishable.

 

 

"And I want to be crystal clear," Wells continued. "I told Mr. Brady and his agents that I was willing not to take possession of his phone. I said, 'I don't want to see any private information.' I said, 'You keep the phone. You're the agent. Mr. (Don) Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you are giving me what's responsive. And they still refused."

 

Welcome. This is the sort of post that will ingratiate you with (most of) the active participants.

[Kelly the Dog]

do you think that the flipside of "if they are going on the honor system here its silly to have consequence for non-participation" is semi-valid? if you go in for a speeding ticket and the judge says "how fast were you going?" and the answer of "the speed limit" gets you completely off, why even have the ticket in the first place?

then additionally, even in this investigation the pats kicker also declined and he received no punishment.

They had already determined that nothing was afoul with the kicking balls. They were not going to suspend or punish him for not cooperating with something he knew nothing about that didn't exist.

[NoSaint]

They had already determined that nothing was afoul with the kicking balls. They were not going to suspend or punish him for not cooperating with something he knew nothing about that didn't exist.

if the suspension is partially for non-compliance, you dont think its a little uneven to not suspend all noncompliance in identical requests? i wouldnt doubt thats atleast mentioned in the hearing/future grievances. theres no reason it shouldnt be a bright line rule, with an automatic consequence. theres no need for subtly or nuance to "i request your phone records" and the answer being "no"

Edited June 22, 2015 by NoSaint

[dave mcbride]

Yes I'm new here and this is my first post. Thanks for having me and I realize being new my opinion doesn't count for squat right now. So I'll limit my comment to just saying the quote below by Wells certainly looks like failure by Brady to co-operate - which is punishable.

 

 

"And I want to be crystal clear," Wells continued. "I told Mr. Brady and his agents that I was willing not to take possession of his phone. I said, 'I don't want to see any private information.' I said, 'You keep the phone. You're the agent. Mr. (Don) Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you are giving me what's responsive. And they still refused."

Then refusing to hand anything over was more a matter of principle than a decision to hide evidence, right? It could certainly be interpreted that way if Brady and Yee had control over what was released.

[richNjoisy]

FYI: Wells to attend hearing

 

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13129871/ted-wells-attend-tom-brady-suspension-appeal-hearing-nfl

Edited June 22, 2015 by richNjoisy

[Kelly the Dog]

if the suspension is partially for non-compliance, you dont think its a little uneven to not suspend all noncompliance in identical requests? i wouldnt doubt thats atleast mentioned in the hearing/future grievances.

No. It's the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. It would be way overboard IMO to punish Gostowski. I'm not sure what they asked him to produce, and I do think he may have obstructed the investigation to some degree, but he clearly didn't affect the outcome. I'm not condoning it, I just don't think he should get suspended for it. I also don't know what they asked him for and when they asked him though. I do know they investigated him and the kicking balls and immediately determined there was no foul play at all.

Then refusing to hand anything over was more a matter of principle than a decision to hide evidence, right? It could certainly be interpreted that way if Brady and Yee had control over what was released.

 

You think they would stand on that principle if it was just that, and accept a four game suspension because of the principal. Ha. Not a chance.

[Tuco]

do you think that the flipside of "if they are going on the honor system here its silly to have consequence for non-participation" is semi-valid? if you go in for a speeding ticket and the judge says "how fast were you going?" and the answer of "the speed limit" gets you completely off, why even have the ticket in the first place?

 

then additionally, even in this investigation the pats kicker also declined and he received no punishment.

Not sure what you're asking me here. Of course I don't think I could get off from a ticket simply by saying I was going the speed limit. Especially in light of an officers testimony and evidence. I also don't think Mr. Brady should or would get completely off for not turning over the requested info.

 

But there's a big difference. I'm not required to answer the judge or provide the police officer with information. The CBA is not a court of law. In the case of the speeding ticket there has to be testimony that the officer tailed me at a certain speed or recorded my speed via radar or something. Nobody's saying I was probably speeding because it was Monday morning and not admitting to it makes me guilty. The CBA specifically says you must co-operate in an investigation or suffer consequences. The CBA says you were probably cheating, we know you have texts and emails and if you don't share them with us you will be punished.

 

The kicker also refused to turn over his phone but I'm not so sure he was given the same offer as Brady, as Wells said they didn't persue the kicker's phone because the evidence led them to persue Brady's. Personally I'm of the opinion Brady knew he would suffer a nominal punishment for not co-operating but in his eyes that's better than what he would have gotten if he had complied. I can't prove it and neither can Goodell. But then again we're not in a court of law so he doesn't have to. But he can prove Brady didn't co-operate. That part is certain and is punishable according to the CBA. I guess I should have pointed out my original response was mostly to another poster who was minimizing the claims by others that part of the punishment was for failure to co-operate.

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Look, I am all for presumption of innocence before being proven guilty in criminal law. But this ain't criminal law. It's not even civil. It's a rules decision in a game.

 

Not turning over evidence which might incriminate yourself is one thing, when you have to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Stubbornly refusing to when the standard is "He's probably guilty" is less effective.

[Tuco]

Then refusing to hand anything over was more a matter of principle than a decision to hide evidence, right? It could certainly be interpreted that way if Brady and Yee had control over what was released.

They did have control over what was released. They said we're not releasing anything. It could be a matter of principle. It could also be to hide evidence. The point being, not turning it over even in light of being offered to filter out only what was relevent is still violating the CBA by not co-operating. Whether it's driven by principle or guilt it's still a punishable violation.