Tired of Deflategate

[Rocky Landing]

A ruling is probably going to happen this week or next. What is telling is that there hasn't been a ruling already. The reason to me is that Goodell is aware that after he makes his ruling, assuming there is going to be some sort of suspension, he will have to base his appeal judgment to issues that will follow, such as prior ball incidents and how they were handled compared to how this case is handled.

 

There are people arguing that the San Diego ball stickem incidents and the Atlanta ball warming cases have no relevancy. That is not only aninconsistent position to take but also perplexing position when addressing the inflategate situation. All these cases relate to tampering with the balls.

 

What the anti-Brady crowd doesn't understand is that the inflation issue is not the most significant issue when looking at the issue in its totality. It's about the league disciplinary office and how disciplinary decisions are made and applied.

 

Most often when outside authorities review Goodell's disciplinary decisions they are either thrown out or adjusted. Ultimately, I see the same thing happening here when it gets to a more competent and objective judicial source.

 

Goodell handled a case that should have been easily and quickly resolved. He could have immediately ruled that league officials and not team staffs would control the balss prior and during the games. Instead we have a year long saga and extended legal wrangling because the commissioner is inept and makes decisions based on his self-serving needs.

Are you suggesting that Goodell should have ignored the Wells report? Or, never commissioned it? Should Brady's actions be ignored? I'm not sure what you think Goodell should have done differently. Also, are you aware that Brady was one of the most outspoken proponents of the rule change that allowed teams to handle their own balls?

[Tuco]

New guy chiming in here, FWIW.

 

 

As many others here keep trying to point out, when it comes to court, Brady (and the union) have to challenge that actions of the league were not in compliance with the CBA, not the findings of the report. Then if the court decides the league acted improperly they will force both sides to do something different. It's not likely the court is going to allow a whole new Wells type investigation simply because Brady doesn't like the findings of the first one - especially since Brady was clearly non-cooperative during the first one. So about the only thing left is for Brady to convince the court that the appeal was tainted by having Goodell hear it. That's an uphill climb for several reasons, the first of which is the CBA clearly states the commissioner will hear any appeal.

 

Now, this is where Vilma won in court by saying Goodell was so involved with the investigation and since Goodell handed down the punishment he couldn't possibly be unbiased during an appeal. But this time around Goodell has been more careful about all this. He hired Wells do do his thing and then, more importantly but we're all ignoring it, he actually had Troy Vincent hand out the punishment to Brady. This is going to be a whole extra wall for Brady to climb when arguing that Goodell could be impartial and shouldn't have heard the appeal. We like to say Goodell gave the suspension but technically it was handed out by Vincent and then appealed to Goodell.

 

But even if Brady wins the right to a new arbitrator, there's no guarantee he will be exonerated. The letter from Vincent states 3 different reasons for his suspension. The first is that it's rather obvious Brady was aware of the actions of McNally. The second was his refusal to cooperate and the third was the fact that Brady was caught lying during his interview but then refused any more interviews in order to clear things up (non-cooperation when caught lying).

 

These are the reasons given by Troy Vincent for Brady's suspension. It's about a lot more than just the lack of 100% scientific proof, and who's going to convince, firstly, the court, and secondly a third party arbitrator, that the decision by Vincent to suspend 4 games and the upholding (possibly) by Goodell upon appeal was done improperly based on their reasoning above?

 

The only thing Brady is going to win in court is a new appeal to a different arbitrator and a delay to his suspension. History says he may have good luck with that, but as many have mentioned, that could also result in him missing games late in the season instead of at the start. And if he somehow does win the right to a trial of any kind then yes, the league can subpeona all sorts of things as well as get McNally and Jastremski on the stand. I don't see that happening.

 

And my final thought requires a certain amount of conspiracy theory but I suppose there is some possibility of it happening.

 

The only other thing I can think of that Brady could have up his sleeve is if he threatens, as Belichick did with Spygate, to expose all of the cheating that goes on in the league. Depending on just how much that is it could be a serious nightmare for the NFL. it wouldn't do Brady any good but if he threatened and actually went through with it he could always retire to the Galapagos or someplace with his and her millions without ever looking back. So it could be a semi-bluff of sorts, especially if there's any truth to the supposedly covered up elements of Spygate that were never made public.

 

League: Look, we know cheating happened and we have to protect the integrity in the public's eye. We have to give you some kind of suspension.

 

Brady: If you suspend me I'll tell the whole world everything I know about Spygate and everything else you covered up. That will cost you billions and I'll just disappear.

 

League: No, don't do that. Let's meet again tomorrow . . .

 

Yeah, that's out there. But then again if the reports that the two sides are having meetings is what the delay is all about, but Brady is dead set on total exoneration, then what do they have to meet about? Hmmm . . . . I wonder.

 

And that's my new guy $.02.

[NoSaint]

Are you suggesting that Goodell should have ignored the Wells report? Or, never commissioned it? Should Brady's actions be ignored? I'm not sure what you think Goodell should have done differently. Also, are you aware that Brady was one of the most outspoken proponents of the rule change that allowed teams to handle their own balls?

He could've issued a stern final warning beforehand and then changed the process for this year? Avoiding the situation completely by preventing it seems ideal

Edited July 21, 2015 by NoSaint

[JohnC]

Are you suggesting that Goodell should have ignored the Wells report? Or, never commissioned it? Should Brady's actions be ignored? I'm not sure what you think Goodell should have done differently. Also, are you aware that Brady was one of the most outspoken proponents of the rule change that allowed teams to handle their own balls?

Absolutely! The commissioner should have peremptorily changed the ball protocol whereby league officials controlled the balls prior and during the games. Then there are no more issues related to ball security for all teams.

 

Let's put this insignificant transgression in perspective. The questionable PSI levels had absolutely no bearing on the game. That is indisputable. Brady performed better with a higher inflation rate.

 

What did Goodell do when it was discovered that San Diego tampered with their game balls by putting stickem on them? He fined the team $25,000. What did Goodell do when it was discovered that Atlanta heated the balls in a cold weather game? He fined the organization a miniscule amount.

 

If ball security was such an important league issue then it should have been addressed with the prior ball tampering by other teams. Goodell did not treat the matter as if it was a serious issue.

 

As I stated in the prior post this issue could have been handled with better judgment and proportionality by the commissioner who has a disturbing habit of making things up as he goes along.

[K-9]

If Brady is contesting the conclusions of the Wells report, how could the league argue that it had reached the correct conclusion based on evidence that Wells didn't have?

 

And if Jastremsky, and McNally are called to testify, the defendant would only be allowed to ask questions that specifically pertained to the Wells report, the statements they made, and their relationship with that committee. The civil trial will have nothing to do with whether or not Brady is actually guilty. Brady won't be the one on trial. It will only pertain to the conclusions of the Well report based on the evidence that it had at the time-- assuming that Brady is contesting the validity of that report.

 

The only things that will be allowed in a civil are those things that pertain directly to the damages being claimed. If no one involved with creating the damages (Wells, and the NFL) ever saw the texts, how could they be relevant to those damages?

The league wouldn't argue it reached it's conclusion based on evidence it didn't have; it would maintain its position that a preponderance led them to that conclusion. Brady would argue the league reached the wrong conclusion based on the circumstantial evidence by attacking that circumstantial evidence. The league would have the right to defend that by calling Jastremski and McNally and subpoenaing the phone records that served as a basis for their conclusion.

 

The league's defense of its findings isn't limited to what's in the report.

 

As for the "damages being claimed", what do you imagine Brady would base his case on? What specific harm would he cite? I think that might have some bearing on how much latitude the league has in defense of its findings, too. I'm interested to see what that might be.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

Absolutely! The commissioner should have peremptorily changed the ball protocol whereby league officials controlled the balls prior and during the games. Then there are no more issues related to ball security for all teams.

 

Let's put this insignificant transgression in perspective. The questionable PSI levels had absolutely no bearing on the game. That is indisputable. Brady performed better with a higher inflation rate. ...

I'd hardly call violating the league's mandate to cooperate in an investigation "insignificant." Nor is an organizational history of rules infractions.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[machine gun kelly]

New guy chiming in here, FWIW.

 

 

As many others here keep trying to point out, when it comes to court, Brady (and the union) have to challenge that actions of the league were not in compliance with the CBA, not the findings of the report. Then if the court decides the league acted improperly they will force both sides to do something different. It's not likely the court is going to allow a whole new Wells type investigation simply because Brady doesn't like the findings of the first one - especially since Brady was clearly non-cooperative during the first one. So about the only thing left is for Brady to convince the court that the appeal was tainted by having Goodell hear it. That's an uphill climb for several reasons, the first of which is the CBA clearly states the commissioner will hear any appeal.

 

Now, this is where Vilma won in court by saying Goodell was so involved with the investigation and since Goodell handed down the punishment he couldn't possibly be unbiased during an appeal. But this time around Goodell has been more careful about all this. He hired Wells do do his thing and then, more importantly but we're all ignoring it, he actually had Troy Vincent hand out the punishment to Brady. This is going to be a whole extra wall for Brady to climb when arguing that Goodell could be impartial and shouldn't have heard the appeal. We like to say Goodell gave the suspension but technically it was handed out by Vincent and then appealed to Goodell.

 

But even if Brady wins the right to a new arbitrator, there's no guarantee he will be exonerated. The letter from Vincent states 3 different reasons for his suspension. The first is that it's rather obvious Brady was aware of the actions of McNally. The second was his refusal to cooperate and the third was the fact that Brady was caught lying during his interview but then refused any more interviews in order to clear things up (non-cooperation when caught lying).

 

These are the reasons given by Troy Vincent for Brady's suspension. It's about a lot more than just the lack of 100% scientific proof, and who's going to convince, firstly, the court, and secondly a third party arbitrator, that the decision by Vincent to suspend 4 games and the upholding (possibly) by Goodell upon appeal was done improperly based on their reasoning above?

 

The only thing Brady is going to win in court is a new appeal to a different arbitrator and a delay to his suspension. History says he may have good luck with that, but as many have mentioned, that could also result in him missing games late in the season instead of at the start. And if he somehow does win the right to a trial of any kind then yes, the league can subpeona all sorts of things as well as get McNally and Jastremski on the stand. I don't see that happening.

 

And my final thought requires a certain amount of conspiracy theory but I suppose there is some possibility of it happening.

 

The only other thing I can think of that Brady could have up his sleeve is if he threatens, as Belichick did with Spygate, to expose all of the cheating that goes on in the league. Depending on just how much that is it could be a serious nightmare for the NFL. it wouldn't do Brady any good but if he threatened and actually went through with it he could always retire to the Galapagos or someplace with his and her millions without ever looking back. So it could be a semi-bluff of sorts, especially if there's any truth to the supposedly covered up elements of Spygate that were never made public.

 

League: Look, we know cheating happened and we have to protect the integrity in the public's eye. We have to give you some kind of suspension.

 

Brady: If you suspend me I'll tell the whole world everything I know about Spygate and everything else you covered up. That will cost you billions and I'll just disappear.

 

League: No, don't do that. Let's meet again tomorrow . . .

 

Yeah, that's out there. But then again if the reports that the two sides are having meetings is what the delay is all about, but Brady is dead set on total exoneration, then what do they have to meet about? Hmmm . . . . I wonder.

 

And that's my new guy $.02.

Note to new guy.

 

No one is reading this long response. Keep it short and to the point bud. I'm sure you had good points, but after 13 hours of work and finally relaxing in front of the toob, and checking in daily to the TBD, I'm not reading this long response.

 

Brother, I'm truly not banging on you. Just giving you friendly advice I received a long time ago from another friend on the board.

[Rocky Landing]

The league wouldn't argue it reached it's conclusion based on evidence it didn't have; it would maintain its position that a preponderance led them to that conclusion. Brady would argue the league reached the wrong conclusion based on the circumstantial evidence by attacking that circumstantial evidence. The league would have the right to defend that by calling Jastremski and McNally and subpoenaing the phone records that served as a basis for their conclusion.

 

The league's defense of its findings isn't limited to what's in the report.

 

As for the "damages being claimed", what do you imagine Brady would base his case on? What specific harm would he cite? I think that might have some bearing on how much latitude the league has in defense of its findings, too. I'm interested to see what that might be.

 

GO BILLS!!!

I didn't say that the league's defense would be limited to what's in the report. I said that they would only be allowed to ask questions that specifically pertained to the Wells report, the statements they made during their depositions to Wells, and their relationship with that committee. (And, that is assuming that as part of Brady's suit, he was challenging the findings of the Wells report.) Anything beyond that would be immediately challenged, and ruled inadmissible. That would certainly include any text messages that the Wells committee didn't get to see.

 

Be that as it may, I have a hard time finding any leg for Brady to stand on. Prejudice based on a disproportionate punishment compared to other cases? Something procedural relating to due process? Some violation of the CBA that I haven't heard about? I honestly don't know. But, I also can't imagine a scenario where a civil suit brought by Brady would result in any new information about Brady. The only things that could be challenged are the things that are already there-- the pressure tests, or the interviews with people like Jastremsky, and McNally. I suppose Brady could challenge the legality of Wells' questioning of himself, Jastremsky, or McNally, or his methods of acquiring information. Or Goodell's methods, for that matter. That would likely be a due process issue. But, I don't see how Brady wins on any issue.

 

Sorry about the long post, machine gun.

[K-9]

I didn't say that the league's defense would be limited to what's in the report. I said that they would only be allowed to ask questions that specifically pertained to the Wells report, the statements they made during their depositions to Wells, and their relationship with that committee. (And, that is assuming that as part of Brady's suit, he was challenging the findings of the Wells report.) Anything beyond that would be immediately challenged, and ruled inadmissible. That would certainly include any text messages that the Wells committee didn't get to see.

 

Be that as it may, I have a hard time finding any leg for Brady to stand on. Prejudice based on a disproportionate punishment compared to other cases? Something procedural relating to due process? Some violation of the CBA that I haven't heard about? I honestly don't know. But, I also can't imagine a scenario where a civil suit brought by Brady would result in any new information about Brady. The only things that could be challenged are the things that are already there-- the pressure tests, or the interviews with people like Jastremsky, and McNally. I suppose Brady could challenge the legality of Wells' questioning of himself, Jastremsky, or McNally, or his methods of acquiring information. Or Goodell's methods, for that matter. That would likely be a due process issue. But, I don't see how Brady wins on any issue.

 

Sorry about the long post, machine gun.

We'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to the league having a wide latitude to defend it's findings when challenged. Again, suffice to say that latitude is NOT limited to what's already in the report. Not by a long shot.

 

My only point when I chimed in originally is that by NOT challenging the Wells findings, Brady is tacitly accepting those findings. Which goes directly to the integrity of the game. Which is the single most important directive of the commissioner. Which gives him a WIDE latitude in issuing punishments in that regard. Which makes it difficult to argue that the punishment was excessive.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Tuco]

Note to new guy.

 

No one is reading this long response. Keep it short and to the point bud. I'm sure you had good points, but after 13 hours of work and finally relaxing in front of the toob, and checking in daily to the TBD, I'm not reading this long response.

 

Brother, I'm truly not banging on you. Just giving you friendly advice I received a long time ago from another friend on the board.

 

 

Thanks.

[JohnC]

I'd hardly call violating the league's mandate to cooperate in an investigation "insignificant." Nor is an organizational history of rules infractions.

 

GO BILLS!!!

It's repeated that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation but that isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal. He met with Wells and his committee with his attorney. He didn't necessarily provide all the material that Wells wanted but under the guidance of his attorney he provided whatever information his attorney advised him to give.

 

Brady is not naive. This was an adversarial process. Wells and his staff were well resourced and represented the interest of Goodell and his office. His high powered attorney was interested in protecting the in his client's interest. His attorney, who has a history of successfully challenging the league, was not going to allow his client to be stampeded.

 

You keep bringing up the scenario that Brady didn't fully cooperate in the investigation regarding ball tampering. What was the league's response when San Diego's staff didn't fully cooperate with league regarding stickim on the balls? How did the league handle that ball issue?

 

Brady and his attorney met with Goodell and his bulked up legal staff in an all day affair for the appeal hearing. I don't recall any complaints regarding how Brady didn't answer any questions put to him.

 

One of my primary complaints on this exaggerated issue is the proportionality of the response by the league. There were prior ball handling issues with other teams that drew weak responses. If the issue rose to such a crisis level then the league should have put an immediate stop to the mishandling of balls by changing the protocols in the way the ball were to be handled in the games.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-07/sports/sns-rt-us-nfl-chargers-finebre8a705v-20121107_1_towels-san-diego-chargers-nfl

[K-9]

It's repeated that Brady didn't cooperate with the investigation but that isn't necessarily an accurate portrayal. He met with Wells and his committee with his attorney. He didn't necessarily provide all the material that Wells wanted but under the guidance of his attorney he provided whatever information his attorney advised him to give.

 

Brady is not naive. This was an adversarial process. Wells and his staff were well resourced and represented the interest of Goodell and his office. His high powered attorney was interested in protecting the in his client's interest. His attorney, who has a history of successfully challenging the league, was not going to allow his client to be stampeded.

 

You keep bringing up the scenario that Brady didn't fully cooperate in the investigation regarding ball tampering. What was the league's response when San Diego's staff didn't fully cooperate with league regarding stickim on the balls? How did the league handle that ball issue?

 

Brady and his attorney met with Goodell and his bulked up legal staff in an all day affair for the appeal hearing. I don't recall any complaints regarding how Brady didn't answer any questions put to him.

 

One of my primary complaints on this exaggerated issue is the proportionality of the response by the league. There were prior ball handling issues with other teams that drew weak responses. If the issue rose to such a crisis level then the league should have put an immediate stop to the mishandling of balls by changing the protocols in the way the ball were to be handled in the games.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-11-07/sports/sns-rt-us-nfl-chargers-finebre8a705v-20121107_1_towels-san-diego-chargers-nfl

We've already hashed this out previously.

 

The prior ball handling issues by other teams ARE NOT RELEVANT.

 

You can pooh-pooh the rest of us citing Brady's lack of cooperation, but it's cited by Vincent in weighing his punishment. It's a huge component.

 

Oh, and there's the repeat offender status of an organization that engages in a pattern of rules violations.

 

When it comes to this issue, we are at an impasse.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[YoloinOhio]

Note to new guy.

 

No one is reading this long response. Keep it short and to the point bud. I'm sure you had good points, but after 13 hours of work and finally relaxing in front of the toob, and checking in daily to the TBD, I'm not reading this long response.

 

Brother, I'm truly not banging on you. Just giving you friendly advice I received a long time ago from another friend on the board.

i don't read a lot of long posts but I did read that one. It was very good. Edited July 21, 2015 by YoloinOhio

[Yard Monkey]

i don't read a lot of long posts but I did read that one. It was very good.

agreed...great post

[NoSaint]

I'd hardly call violating the league's mandate to cooperate in an investigation "insignificant."

GO BILLS!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't only 1 player faced penalty for this (minus auto-failing a drug test) and that penalty was overturned?

 

Other than it really upsetting you, realistically, is it that significant? It hasn't been in the past, that I know of.

Note to new guy.

 

No one is reading this long response. Keep it short and to the point bud. I'm sure you had good points, but after 13 hours of work and finally relaxing in front of the toob, and checking in daily to the TBD, I'm not reading this long response.

 

Brother, I'm truly not banging on you. Just giving you friendly advice I received a long time ago from another friend on the board.

Note to new guy:

 

if you continue to write coherent and thoughtful posts, I'll read them whether extended or brief. There are some of us with attention spans longer than 140 characters, if you keep up with good contributions.

[Matt in KC]

New guy chiming in here, FWIW.

 

 

As many others here keep trying to point out, when it comes to court, Brady (and the union) have to challenge that actions of the league were not in compliance with the CBA, not the findings of the report. Then if the court decides the league acted improperly they will force both sides to do something different. It's not likely the court is going to allow a whole new Wells type investigation simply because Brady doesn't like the findings of the first one - especially since Brady was clearly non-cooperative during the first one. So about the only thing left is for Brady to convince the court that the appeal was tainted by having Goodell hear it. That's an uphill climb for several reasons, the first of which is the CBA clearly states the commissioner will hear any appeal.

 

Now, this is where Vilma won in court by saying Goodell was so involved with the investigation and since Goodell handed down the punishment he couldn't possibly be unbiased during an appeal. But this time around Goodell has been more careful about all this. He hired Wells do do his thing and then, more importantly but we're all ignoring it, he actually had Troy Vincent hand out the punishment to Brady. This is going to be a whole extra wall for Brady to climb when arguing that Goodell could be impartial and shouldn't have heard the appeal. We like to say Goodell gave the suspension but technically it was handed out by Vincent and then appealed to Goodell.

 

But even if Brady wins the right to a new arbitrator, there's no guarantee he will be exonerated. The letter from Vincent states 3 different reasons for his suspension. The first is that it's rather obvious Brady was aware of the actions of McNally. The second was his refusal to cooperate and the third was the fact that Brady was caught lying during his interview but then refused any more interviews in order to clear things up (non-cooperation when caught lying).

 

These are the reasons given by Troy Vincent for Brady's suspension. It's about a lot more than just the lack of 100% scientific proof, and who's going to convince, firstly, the court, and secondly a third party arbitrator, that the decision by Vincent to suspend 4 games and the upholding (possibly) by Goodell upon appeal was done improperly based on their reasoning above?

 

The only thing Brady is going to win in court is a new appeal to a different arbitrator and a delay to his suspension. History says he may have good luck with that, but as many have mentioned, that could also result in him missing games late in the season instead of at the start. And if he somehow does win the right to a trial of any kind then yes, the league can subpeona all sorts of things as well as get McNally and Jastremski on the stand. I don't see that happening.

 

And my final thought requires a certain amount of conspiracy theory but I suppose there is some possibility of it happening.

 

The only other thing I can think of that Brady could have up his sleeve is if he threatens, as Belichick did with Spygate, to expose all of the cheating that goes on in the league. Depending on just how much that is it could be a serious nightmare for the NFL. it wouldn't do Brady any good but if he threatened and actually went through with it he could always retire to the Galapagos or someplace with his and her millions without ever looking back. So it could be a semi-bluff of sorts, especially if there's any truth to the supposedly covered up elements of Spygate that were never made public.

 

League: Look, we know cheating happened and we have to protect the integrity in the public's eye. We have to give you some kind of suspension.

 

Brady: If you suspend me I'll tell the whole world everything I know about Spygate and everything else you covered up. That will cost you billions and I'll just disappear.

 

League: No, don't do that. Let's meet again tomorrow . . .

 

Yeah, that's out there. But then again if the reports that the two sides are having meetings is what the delay is all about, but Brady is dead set on total exoneration, then what do they have to meet about? Hmmm . . . . I wonder.

 

And that's my new guy $.02.

I read it and appreciated it.

 

I don't believe the blackmailing speculated about at the end of your post though. The bluster about litigation has been very public wouldn't be the vehicle for such a message IMO.

 

I do believe however that the Golden boy is outraged. My guess is he was told to clam up and he wouldn't get more than a game suspension if the league stood up to him, and now is pissed. like he was wronged.

[K-9]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't only 1 player faced penalty for this (minus auto-failing a drug test) and that penalty was overturned?

Other than it really upsetting you, realistically, is it that significant? It hasn't been in the past, that I know of.

LOL! Nothing about any of this has upset me in least.

 

Most reasonable people would consider it signíficant because Vincent cites the non-cooperation by Brady as a key contributor to the weight of the penalty.

 

I get that the Bounty-gate outcome made it forever impossible for you to accept anything the league does. And for good reason. But this case is nothing like it in any way, shape, or form.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Rocky Landing]

 

The only thing Brady is going to win in court is a new appeal to a different arbitrator and a delay to his suspension. History says he may have good luck with that, but as many have mentioned, that could also result in him missing games late in the season instead of at the start. And if he somehow does win the right to a trial of any kind then yes, the league can subpeona all sorts of things as well as get McNally and Jastremski on the stand. I don't see that happening.

 

 

Please describe any civil suit that Brady could bring against the NFL that would allow the NFL to subpoena something from Brady?

[Tuco]

Please describe any civil suit that Brady could bring against the NFL that would allow the NFL to subpoena something from Brady?

I can't. Nor did I specifically say they could. I freely admit my phrase "all sorts of things" is wide open and ambiguous. You've got me nailed

[NoSaint]

LOL! Nothing about any of this has upset me in least.

 

Most reasonable people would consider it signíficant because Vincent cites the non-cooperation by Brady as a key contributor to the weight of the penalty.

 

I get that the Bounty-gate outcome made it forever impossible for you to accept anything the league does. And for good reason. But this case is nothing like it in any way, shape, or form.

 

GO BILLS!!!

You've done a really consistent job of deflecting anyone pulling comparables to past punishments doled out and pretending this is totally unique and can't be looked at through any historical context (except for other members of the franchise having an incident 10 years ago being a major escalator) Edited July 21, 2015 by NoSaint