eball Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 I'm surrounded by a couple of very smart (and basically rational) Pats fans at work who argue the opposite of what you're saying, and while I challenge them, their arguments aren't poor ones. They assume it's a given that Brady would go to trial given an adverse ruling, and think that he'd win based on Goodell's ill-considered assumption of the decision-making role alone. They might be right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the only issue a court would consider in this matter -- because they absolutely don't want to be involved in labor matters in which a CBA was negotiated -- is whether Goodell made an obvious error in his ruling. I don't see how Brady* and his pack of lawyers win that case, under any circumstances. There is circumstantial evidence out the wazoo to support a finding that Brady* was more likely involved than not. Find the obvious error by Goodell if he upholds the suspension. Just because two people assign different weight to different pieces of evidence doesn't make one judgment an obvious error.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 They were rushing to flesh out their conclusion. But if they had done a more thorough inspection of what they already had in hand, they could have asked him when he was sitting in front of them and then NE wouldn't have been penalized for not allowing him a second interview. Turns out they were right--Wells shouldn't have needed one and Kraft wasn't going to help Wells with the report. I bet NE's lawyers knew that Wells screwed up the first interview and said "no way" when Wells wanted a do over. Wells is either lying or somehow didn't know his team already had in their possession texts where McNally labels himself Deflator before the first interview. The investigation lasted seven months or something. McNally was the second guy they'd interviewed. They were not rushing to flesh out their conclusion. It's extremely common to have a second interview in an investigation when new information has been turned up. Wells is not blameless, of course. He did have possession of them. It doesn't mean anything though as far as guilt, as far as a trial goes, or really as far as the Pats allowing him to be interviewed goes.
LeGOATski Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Find the obvious error by Goodell if he upholds the suspension. This is what I want to know. I remember a report about Goodell not following proper procedure. I can't even remember if it had to do with this case or another like the Rice case. It would be unfortunate if his ruling can be thrown out because of a technicality, though. However, reports of the Brady exoneration testimony didn't sound like they were focusing on any error made by Goodell. It lasted 10 hours, so I suppose they could've covered a million things...
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 This is what I want to know. I remember a report about Goodell not following proper procedure. I can't even remember if it had to do with this case or another like the Rice case. It would be unfortunate if his ruling can be thrown out because of a technicality, though. However, reports of the Brady exoneration testimony didn't sound like they were focusing on any error made by Goodell. It lasted 10 hours, so I suppose they could've covered a million things... Most of the legal experts that have chimed in have said that the not following procedure or the fact he cannot arbitrate his own case have said that has no legal standing. That it may not really be fair but that the NFLPA agreed to just that in exchange for more money in the last CBA.
Mr. WEO Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The investigation lasted seven months or something. McNally was the second guy they'd interviewed. They were not rushing to flesh out their conclusion. It's extremely common to have a second interview in an investigation when new information has been turned up. Wells is not blameless, of course. He did have possession of them. It doesn't mean anything though as far as guilt, as far as a trial goes, or really as far as the Pats allowing him to be interviewed goes. I agree with the bolded. But that obviously wasn't the case. And the investigation lasted just 3 1/2 months (late January, reported beginning of May). Other than "the science" (such as it is) of the matter, this entire case turns on the on the texts between these three guys. If you and your entire staff (padding their billables out at an incredible $5 million in work product) can't review this relatively small amount of evidence to prepare for interviewing the principles, you don't get a second bite at the apple. It's sloppy work--almost comically so, especially when trying to cover for it by blaming the team for "noncooperation".
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) I agree with the bolded. But that obviously wasn't the case. And the investigation lasted just 3 1/2 months (late January, reported beginning of May). Other than "the science" (such as it is) of the matter, this entire case turns on the on the texts between these three guys. If you and your entire staff (padding their billables out at an incredible $5 million in work product) can't review this relatively small amount of evidence to prepare for interviewing the principles, you don't get a second bite at the apple. It's sloppy work--almost comically so, especially when trying to cover for it by blaming the team for "noncooperation". You have zero idea what the circumstances were concerning the undiscovered texts. And there is more than the entire case in the texts. There are the conversations with Brady and Jastremski on the phone. There were the three different answers McNally gave to NFL security about stealing the balls. There were the conversations with Brady in the QB room Jastremski was never let in before after the story came out. If Jastremski has to take the stand and explain under threat of jail what was said in this meeting, after being fired by the Patriots, and with no NDA protection, Brady's entire career has a very good chance of getting a giant Scarlett letter. Edited June 30, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
plenzmd1 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the only issue a court would consider in this matter -- because they absolutely don't want to be involved in labor matters in which a CBA was negotiated -- is whether Goodell made an obvious error in his ruling. I don't see how Brady* and his pack of lawyers win that case, under any circumstances. There is circumstantial evidence out the wazoo to support a finding that Brady* was more likely involved than not. Find the obvious error by Goodell if he upholds the suspension. Just because two people assign different weight to different pieces of evidence doesn't make one judgment an obvious error. My question is this" if you cannot prove the balls were deflated, can the circumstantial evidence still hold up in court" . In other words, if you can't prove an act occurred , can you use circumstantial evidence to assume it did?
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 My question is this" if you cannot prove the balls were deflated, can the circumstantial evidence still hold up in court" . In other words, if you can't prove an act occurred , can you use circumstantial evidence to assume it did? Ask Aaron Hernandez.
eball Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Most of the legal experts that have chimed in have said that the not following procedure or the fact he cannot arbitrate his own case have said that has no legal standing. That it may not really be fair but that the NFLPA agreed to just that in exchange for more money in the last CBA. Exactly. The courts won't alter the terms of the CBA. I believe that in order to win Brady* would have to show that evidence clearly exonerating him was presented and Goodell ignored it. My question is this" if you cannot prove the balls were deflated, can the circumstantial evidence still hold up in court" . In other words, if you can't prove an act occurred , can you use circumstantial evidence to assume it did? Yes and yes. Additionally, proof of Brady*'s refusal to cooperate isn't circumstantial.
LeGOATski Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 My question is this" if you cannot prove the balls were deflated, can the circumstantial evidence still hold up in court" . In other words, if you can't prove an act occurred , can you use circumstantial evidence to assume it did? You're confusing the act with the results. I believe Doug Marrone warned us about doing that.... They know the act occurred (taking balls into the bathroom/locker-room which had already been inspected and should've been on the field, per the rules). The results are in question, but don't dissolve the act. Like a kidnapping victim who hasn't been found.
Doc Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Exactly. The courts won't alter the terms of the CBA. I believe that in order to win Brady* would have to show that evidence clearly exonerating him was presented and Goodell ignored it. Yes and yes. Additionally, proof of Brady*'s refusal to cooperate isn't circumstantial. Yup. And all Brady had to do was turn over the texts, not his phone.
Mr. WEO Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 You have zero idea what the circumstances were concerning the undiscovered texts. And there is more than the entire case in the texts. There are the conversations with Brady and Jastremski on the phone. There were the three different answers McNally gave to NFL security about stealing the balls. There were the conversations with Brady in the QB room Jastremski was never let in before after the story came out. If Jastremski has to take the stand and explain under threat of jail what was said in this meeting, after being fired by the Patriots, and with no NDA protection, Brady's entire career has a very good chance of getting a giant Scarlett letter. Come on---what would be the circumstances where they didn't know what they had in hand? Yup. And all Brady had to do was turn over the texts, not his phone. Wells already had any texts that Brady was likely to volunteer, so this is a red herring.
The Wiz Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Wells already had any texts that Brady was likely to volunteer, so this is a red herring. I guess you missed this part: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/07/don-yee-explains-bradys-refusal-to-provide-texts-and-email/ Or are you saying that Wells didn't need Brady's texts because there was nothing to find.
thebandit27 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Wells already had any texts that Brady was likely to volunteer, so this is a red herring. How so? You really think that Brady didn't communicate about the subject with anyone other than Jastremski?
NoSaint Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 How so? You really think that Brady didn't communicate about the subject with anyone other than Jastremski? do you think hed turn in a text to BB reading "i had the guys illegally deflate the balls, as per usual since 2009" or do you think he would have held that one back, even if you assume it exists and he participated in the investigation?
The Wiz Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) do you think hed turn in a text to BB reading "i had the guys illegally deflate the balls, as per usual since 2009" or do you think he would have held that one back, even if you assume it exists and he participated in the investigation? Turning over that "smoking gun" is one thing, turning over nothing shows he had something to hide (kind of how innocent people don't run from the cops). I'm sure Wells had everything from Brady's end from Jastremsky and McNally's phones but getting Tom's phone is makes their evidence more damning. Is it possible that BB was told by Brady, absolutely, but without Brady's phone no one knows how many people knew about the balls being altered. Edited June 30, 2015 by The Wiz
Doc Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Wells already had any texts that Brady was likely to volunteer, so this is a red herring. Hardly. If there was nothing to hide, why hide it anyway?
K-9 Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Come on---what would be the circumstances where they didn't know what they had in hand? Perhaps a review of the material? Or a re-review? By different sets of eyes and interpretive analyses? Are you really that dismissive in your efforts to paint Wells as a bungling, over-charging idiot? You'd make a fine addition to Brady's team. GO BILLS!!!
DC Tom Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 Come on---what would be the circumstances where they didn't know what they had in hand? Wells already had any texts that Brady was likely to volunteer, so this is a red herring. The investigation is invalid because it's incomplete...but the incomplete evidence wouldn't have changed the outcome. That is ridiculous logic.
Kelly the Dog Posted June 30, 2015 Posted June 30, 2015 The investigation is invalid because it's incomplete...but the incomplete evidence wouldn't have changed the outcome. That is ridiculous logic. Welcome to WeoWorld.
Recommended Posts