Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 McNally mentioned "16" in one text--pretty much the highest number you can go to (kinda like Nigel Tufnel saying his goes to 11). If you think he was measuring the balls beforehand and afterward on even a semi-regular basis, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd be happy to sell you. Regardless, the league will not arrive with convincing evidence, and without evidence the two guys just don't matter. A good legal team will shred the Wells report. McNally doesn't measure the balls. Did you even read the entire Wells report?
dave mcbride Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 McNally doesn't measure the balls. Did you even read the entire Wells report? Did I "even" read the entire thing? OF COURSE not - and I don't plan to. I simply don't have the time and there are far better things to read. But I read a fair amount of it along with the critiques. Someone said 16 in a text; I can't recall who. The fact that you do recall is worrying .
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 Did I "even" read the entire thing? OF COURSE not - and I don't plan to. I simply don't have the time and there are far better things to read. But I read a fair amount of it along with the critiques. Someone said 16 in a text; I can't recall who. The fact that you do recall is worrying . I don't remember it, unless it was when he seemed to be joking that he would blow the ball up like a balloon, to like 16. McNally doesn't measure the balls at all. He sticks the needle into them and deflates them a little bit. It probably takes one second for each ball. He doesn't use a gauge or anything. The officials are the ones that measure the balls. I believe Jastremski is the one that would originally set them at 12.5 or close to it beforehand but it doesn't really matter if he does or he doesn't.
JohnC Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 This isn't a criminal case. As I asked JC above, what do you think that Brady would take the NFL to court over? I don't think very many people here realize what is actually going on. Nor are some of you taking a step back and realizing what happened. Yes, I'm being so self-assured. But it's really basic common sense. Sure the NFL is run by buffoons. Sure they are incompetent. Sure you can poke reasonable doubt into a ton of the Wells report and earlier trials. That is glaringly obvious. Though not as glaringly obvious as 20 things in a row that point to the balls being deflated, and Jastremski and McNally playing a part in it, REGARDLESS of all else. This is not a murder case. They don't have to have a murder weapon. There is 0.000000% chance this is all total coincidence. And since that is inarguable, someone did something to the balls. The Vilma case wasn't a criminal case. He took his case to court over a Goodell league ruling and won his case. The same process certainly can apply to Brady who is using the same attorney to handle his case.
BuffaloFan68 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 I'd love to hear, "after thorough review & consideration, we agree that the punishment doesn't match the issues at hand so we are changing the 4 week suspension from 4 weeks to......... 8! Send a message to cheaters that if they appeal, it can go either way.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 The Vilma case wasn't a criminal case. He took his case to court over a Goodell league ruling and won his case. The same process certainly can apply to Brady who is using the same attorney to handle his case. The Vilma case and Bountygate was a whole different ballgame. If you want to equate what happened to Vilma, how he was singled out, how much he was suspended for, what he did about it, and the court's decisions, to say the same thing will or could happen to Brady, fine. It's laughable but fine. The people defending the chances of this going to court are just ignoring the elephant in the room.
BuffaloFan68 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 If Brady doesn't like the appeal result & wants to take it to court then I would suspend him until the trail is complete or indefinitely based on the court ruling.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 If Brady doesn't like the appeal result & wants to take it to court then I would suspend him until the trail is complete or indefinitely based on the court ruling. That would not be fair to him at all.
NoSaint Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 If Brady doesn't like the appeal result & wants to take it to court then I would suspend him until the trail is complete or indefinitely based on the court ruling. It would be a real shame if a player was being railroaded by the league and had to face extended punishment to even have a chance to defend himself
JohnC Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 The Vilma case and Bountygate was a whole different ballgame. If you want to equate what happened to Vilma, how he was singled out, how much he was suspended for, what he did about it, and the court's decisions, to say the same thing will or could happen to Brady, fine. It's laughable but fine. The people defending the chances of this going to court are just ignoring the elephant in the room. The Vilma case is the template. The process was so corrupted and the punishment so arbitrary that it was easily overturned when it went to an outside review. Similarly, the Brady investigation was so flawed and the punishment was so arbitrary that it won't be much of a challenge to get the league ruling overturned when a neutral party handles the case. Where you and I fundamentally disagree is that I don't believe that because someone is in a position of authority (Goodell) it means that one is not accountable for the incompetent and capricious manner in which cases are investigated and adjudicated. For me the more substative and critical issue relates to the way this case was handled moreso than the inconsequential transgression under scrutiny.
ko12010 Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 The Vilma case is the template. The process was so corrupted and the punishment so arbitrary that it was easily overturned when it went to an outside review. Similarly, the Brady investigation was so flawed and the punishment was so arbitrary that it won't be much of a challenge to get the league ruling overturned when a neutral party handles the case. Where you and I fundamentally disagree is that I don't believe that because someone is in a position of authority (Goodell) it means that one is not accountable for the incompetent and capricious manner in which cases are investigated and adjudicated. For me the more substative and critical issue relates to the way this case was handled moreso than the inconsequential transgression under scrutiny. How is it inconsequential? Tired of hearing that. Brady wouldn't have done it if he didn't feel it gave him the advantage he was looking for. He's not an idiot. He weighed the risks vs rewards and thought it was worth it.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 The Vilma case is the template. The process was so corrupted and the punishment so arbitrary that it was easily overturned when it went to an outside review. Similarly, the Brady investigation was so flawed and the punishment was so arbitrary that it won't be much of a challenge to get the league ruling overturned when a neutral party handles the case. Where you and I fundamentally disagree is that I don't believe that because someone is in a position of authority (Goodell) it means that one is not accountable for the incompetent and capricious manner in which cases are investigated and adjudicated. For me the more substative and critical issue relates to the way this case was handled moreso than the inconsequential transgression under scrutiny. No. A thousand times no. The issue is blatantly cheating and then lying and obstructing. Goodell had nothing to do with that. Two games for cheating and two games for not cooperating are not outrageous whatsoever. The court is never going to rule two games, one each, would be more fair. That is not what they are going to look at. There is also nothing nefarious in the investigation whatsoever. There is only some possible sloppiness. That doesn't negate anything nor would it be any concern of the court. They are not going to rule on whether or not the nfl can suspend players.
DC Tom Posted July 2, 2015 Posted July 2, 2015 The Vilma case is the template. The process was so corrupted and the punishment so arbitrary that it was easily overturned when it went to an outside review. Similarly, the Brady investigation was so flawed and the punishment was so arbitrary that it won't be much of a challenge to get the league ruling overturned when a neutral party handles the case. Where you and I fundamentally disagree is that I don't believe that because someone is in a position of authority (Goodell) it means that one is not accountable for the incompetent and capricious manner in which cases are investigated and adjudicated. For me the more substative and critical issue relates to the way this case was handled moreso than the inconsequential transgression under scrutiny. Of course, between those is the Ray Rice case...where the process was so corrupted and the punishment so arbitrary that...everyone supported it, even though it was expressly against league rules. And you're an awfully big fool if you think anyone supports Goodell's capricious and half-assed disciplinary system.
JohnC Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Of course, between those is the Ray Rice case...where the process was so corrupted and the punishment so arbitrary that...everyone supported it, even though it was expressly against league rules. And you're an awfully big fool if you think anyone supports Goodell's capricious and half-assed disciplinary syleaguestem. If you acknowledge (as you apparently do) that Goodell and his office acted in a very capricious and incompetent manner then how is his determination in this case acceptable. In my view the league adjudication process is so lacking credibility that the indiscretion under review is not the central issue.
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 If you acknowledge (as you apparently do) that Goodell and his office acted in a very capricious and incompetent manner then how is his determination in this case acceptable. In my view the league adjudication process is so lacking credibility that the indiscretion under review is not the central issue. His determination is acceptable because it meets the requirements for discipline agreed upon by the NFL and the NFLPA. Unlike Vilma's and Rice's, which didn't.
JohnC Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 His determination is acceptable because it meets the requirements for discipline agreed upon by the NFL and the NFLPA. Unlike Vilma's and Rice's, which didn't. Vilma took his case to court and won his case against the league and Goodell. Rice had an outside arbitrator rule in his favor against the Goodell ruling. Brady can also exercise his legal prerogative in this contaminated league disciplinary process.
Kelly the Dog Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Vilma took his case to court and won his case against the league and Goodell. Rice had an outside arbitrator rule in his favor against the Goodell ruling. Brady can also exercise his legal prerogative in this contaminated league disciplinary process. What exactly did the league do wrong in this case? Or since they are so inept they are automatically guilty of corruption no matter what they do or rule?
Green Lightning Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Vilma took his case to court and won his case against the league and Goodell. Rice had an outside arbitrator rule in his favor against the Goodell ruling. Brady can also exercise his legal prerogative in this contaminated league disciplinary process. The report was conclusive and Brady uncooperative and devious. Brady's guilt is evident to all save for his groupies. The texts, lies and video of his lame press conferences has informed the vast majority of people of what we always suspected since the first Patriot cheating caper - that Brady is a liar and a cheater. Deal with it.
JohnC Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) The report was conclusive and Brady uncooperative and devious./b] Brady's guilt is evident to all save for his groupies. The texts, lies and video of his lame press conferences has informed the vast majority of people of what we always suspected since the first Patriot cheating caper - that Brady is a liar and a cheater. Deal with it.Do you know the meaning of the word conclusive? Even the writers of the report would admit that there is not much conclusive about their finding. If Goodell lowers the punishment would it be because the report replete with flaws is conclusive? I think not. If Brady, after Goodell makes his soon to be ruling, takes the league to court and quickly and decisivelyl wins his case it certainly won't be due to what you believe to be a conclusive finding. What you and many others fail to realize is that the deflategate issue is inconsequential compared to the flawed process in which it was examined by. When the adjudicating process is so tainted then the resulting ruling should be overturned. Edited July 3, 2015 by JohnC
DC Tom Posted July 3, 2015 Posted July 3, 2015 Vilma took his case to court and won his case against the league and Goodell. Rice had an outside arbitrator rule in his favor against the Goodell ruling. Brady can also exercise his legal prerogative in this contaminated league disciplinary process. Vilma took his case to court and won because it DIDN'T meet the requirements for discipline agreed on by the NFL and NFLPA (specifically, he argued that he was suspended for a compensation-based violation, which Goodell is not allowed to make.) The Rice ruling was in Rice's favor because his punishment DIDN'T meet the requirements for discipline agreed on by the NFL and NFLPA (specifically, he was punished twice for the same offense, which isn't allowed by the CBA.) Brady's punishment, on the other hand, meets the requirements for discipline agreed on by the NFL and NFLPA.
Recommended Posts