eball Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I feel like you just completely ignored my last post for the sake of talking down to me in scientific terms. I'm not acluistic; I took thermodynamics just like every other engineering student. I'll admit it; I just had to look up acluistic. Nice job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRQ_BillsFan Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 What I don't understand about the court part of all of this is that the players agreed to arbitration with an appeals process in the CBA. And this may be where I'm off: my understanding is that the courts don't like to get to involved in arbitration cases because of the fear in opening all arbitration cases (outside of the NFL) back into the court system. Which makes arbitration useless. I have heard they may send something back procedurally that forces a do over of the arbitration. Given that I don't understand how this end up as a new trial in a court and was really confused with the Hardy and GelCap decisions (Vikings). But I am not a lawyer, I do however stay at Holiday Inn Express. Is there a laywer here that can explain how they go to court after agreeing to arbitration for more than a procedural violation in the arbitration process. Or is this simply not binding arbitration, and if not why bother at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I feel like this discussion has established that the tests aren't 100% accurate and also that it doesn't matter that they weren't 100% accurate. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Ah, sorry. I misquoted you and meant my summary science response for Kelly the Dog's post. Apologies. I think it is possible to prove that tampering occurred; just not via the establishment of the original PSI methodology which seems to be the basis for the entire Wells report. I have no opinion on the "more probable than not" point as it's an exercise in futility to try and figure out what Goodell might do. That makes sense...thanks for the clarification, and no harm/no foul as far as the misquote goes. I'll admit it; I just had to look up acluistic. Nice job. Hey, that UB education has to be worth something, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 While the gauges were not callibrated, and therefore might have given invalid readings, they did seem to have very reliable (repeatable) results. The measurements showed that whatever gauge was used at first, the pressure dropped too much, and too inconsistently -- just in the NE balls -- to be explained by temperature or other considered factors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 ... that the science test performed on the balls was 100% flawed. Repeating it doesn't give it meaning. What does it MEAN that "science" is "100% flawed?" As opposed to, say, 80%? Or 90%? What if I say it were 33% flawed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I'll admit it; I just had to look up acluistic. Nice job. I just assumed it was a typo...slippery rock education Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I feel like this discussion has established that the tests aren't 100% accurate and also that it doesn't matter that they weren't 100% accurate. Certainly at the NFL appeals level this is likely the case. All that is needed is a "more likely than not" outcome. I think things becomes much cloudier should this end up in court over a labour law issue. I would imagine (guess?) that the burden of proof for denying Brady employment opportunity would rest with the NFL. I can't see where simple suspicion of guilt would cut it. But, I'm no lawyer. So, what might be the proof if not the science? Electronic communication certainly. Admission by Jastermski/McNally. A "not as yet revealed" smoking gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Best Player Available Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Repeating it doesn't give it meaning. What does it MEAN that "science" is "100% flawed?" As opposed to, say, 80%? Or 90%? What if I say it were 33% flawed? Well, it's obvious you would be off by 67%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Certainly at the NFL appeals level this is likely the case. All that is needed is a "more likely than not" outcome. I think things becomes much cloudier should this end up in court over a labour law issue. I would imagine (guess?) that the burden of proof for denying Brady employment opportunity would rest with the NFL. I can't see where simple suspicion of guilt would cut it. But, I'm no lawyer. So, what might be the proof if not the science? Electronic communication certainly. Admission by Jastermski/McNally. A "not as yet revealed" smoking gun? Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 While the gauges were not callibrated, and therefore might have given invalid readings, they did seem to have very reliable (repeatable) results. The measurements showed that whatever gauge was used at first, the pressure dropped too much, and too inconsistently -- just in the NE balls -- to be explained by temperature or other considered factors. The pt that would certainly be countered is that without any R&R protocol, there is no assurance that the "tolerance" isn't consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. Repeating it doesn't give it meaning. What does it MEAN that "science" is "100% flawed?" As opposed to, say, 80%? Or 90%? What if I say it were 33% flawed? This is an either (100%) or not (100%) situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted June 25, 2015 Author Share Posted June 25, 2015 I just assumed it was a typo...slippery rock educationi thought he was talking about his dislike for MTV unplugged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Certainly at the NFL appeals level this is likely the case. All that is needed is a "more likely than not" outcome. I think things becomes much cloudier should this end up in court over a labour law issue. I would imagine (guess?) that the burden of proof for denying Brady employment opportunity would rest with the NFL. I can't see where simple suspicion of guilt would cut it. But, I'm no lawyer. So, what might be the proof if not the science? Electronic communication certainly. Admission by Jastermski/McNally. A "not as yet revealed" smoking gun? I think you're looking at individual pieces as a whole. Yes, the suspension is 4 games. But take in to account this is based on a few things science(which you think is completely wrong), confessions from McNally/Jastremsky, failure to cooperate with the investigation by Brady, failure to cooperate with the investigation by the Pats*. Even if you rule out the science portion of it there is still a large amount of evidence, as stated in the report, that Brady likely had knowledge of what the other two were doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Certainly at the NFL appeals level this is likely the case. All that is needed is a "more likely than not" outcome. I think things becomes much cloudier should this end up in court over a labour law issue. I would imagine (guess?) that the burden of proof for denying Brady employment opportunity would rest with the NFL. I can't see where simple suspicion of guilt would cut it. But, I'm no lawyer. So, what might be the proof if not the science? Electronic communication certainly. Admission by Jastermski/McNally. A "not as yet revealed" smoking gun? It wouldn't be a criminal case, so if it ends up in court, the standard of civil proof will likely apply (more probable than not/preponderance of the evidence). The texts between McNally/Jastremski combined with the anomalies in the ball pressures and the video of McNally disappearing with the footballs will be enough to establish a preponderance that says that tampering took place. Brady's culpability is implicit in the texts, along with his refusal to turn over his communication despite being allowed to filter according to the discretion of he and his lawyer (setting aside the likelihood of a subpoena of his phone communication). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I think you're looking at individual pieces as a whole. Yes, the suspension is 4 games. But take in to account this is based on a few things science(which you think is completely wrong), confessions from McNally/Jastremsky, failure to cooperate with the investigation by Brady, failure to cooperate with the investigation by the Pats*. Even if you rule out the science portion of it there is still a large amount of evidence, as stated in the report, that Brady likely had knowledge of what the other two were doing. The science only determines the results of the actions. It's like the difference between murder and attempted murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Guys, the case wouldn't go to court on the merits of whether or not Brady* and the Pats** cheated...it would go to court solely on the issue of whether Goodell made an "obvious" error in his discretion as arbitrator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The pt that would certainly be countered is that without any R&R protocol, there is no assurance that the "tolerance" isn't consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. I'm not sure I get it. Are you saying ~2 psi variability on a 12.5 psi reading might be normal variation (that only happened to manifest on the NE balls)? I doubt it. I don't think it is 100% impossible, and neither did the Wells report. Fortunately there was a much lower threshold of proof being considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 While Brady can use the team facility, I don't think he can practice with the team during his suspension. Brady was slow to warm up last year. Hopefully the suspension messes with team chemistry and extends that warm-up period. If the suspension really is 4 games, that is long enough it may really affect the offense, and WRs especially, after his return. One or two games would be much less impact. Personally, I think Tom is likely to do some kind of practicing with the team/teammates beyond what the league dictates. I very much want someone get a movie of that. What would the punishment be for not following the prescribed punishment? Does anyone know if Tom can attend team meetings during his suspension or be on the sidelines during those games? I know it won't happen, but it would be poetic justice for Brady to get Wally Pipped by Garafalo. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Batting his eyes at the Commish better not have any influence at all. @SportsRadio610 Tom Brady is attempting to charm his way out of a suspension, and it might be working http://cbsloc.al/1Nku6ph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Batting his eyes at the Commish better not have any influence at all. @SportsRadio610 Tom Brady is attempting to charm his way out of a suspension, and it might be working http://cbsloc.al/1Nku6ph "Brady is smart. He knows what works on people." How much of that knowledge came from illegal video-taping?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts