Tired of Deflategate

[K-9]

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)

What can I say, I'm consistent. So what? Perhaps if I come across an argument that that convinces me otherwise, I'll be persuaded to see it differently. But other than Goodell being the only common thread, I don't see any commonalities. That doesn't mean a court won't.

 

I don't dismiss historical context entirely, though. The unprecedented penalty levied against the Pats* organization speaks to that importance.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

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!!!

Finally there is something we can agree on: We are at an impasse. Your focus is on Brady and the balls while my attention is on Goodell and the process. We'll just respectfully disagree and see how this plays out. In my mind a situation that could have been handled more simply and fairly will turn out to be an extended legal entanglement.

Edited July 21, 2015 by JohnC

[K-9]

Finally there is something we can agree on: We are at an impasse. Your focus is on Brady and the balls while my attention is on Goodell and the process. We'll just respectfully disagree and see how this plays out. In my mind a situation that could have been handled more simply and fairly will turn out to be an extended legal entanglement.

My focus is on Brady and the Pats* organization. I couldn't care less about under- inflated footballs. Neither can the league, really. Players have been doctoring footballs, greasing their uniforms, applying stickum, etc., since the game started in order to gain a competitive edge. Not really a big deal.

 

I can think of one way for a drawn out legal battle to be avoided. But we might be getting ahead of ourselves. Like you say, lets see how it plays out.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

It is not about ALL teams doing it.

 

It is about stopping the cheating IMO especially those who throw it in the face of all NFL fans.

 

what was the quote from Cheating Brady***????

 

You should learn the rules! ??

 

Well he "knew"the rules and disregarded them.

he got caught and now should face punishment.

[Go Kiko go]

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

 

I think there's some room for creativity here. One of the grounds on which Brady would likely challenge his discipline is whether the league had sufficient factual basis to support the punishment, is it not? Take a moment to follow me down this inferential path...

 

(1) Troy Vincent stated that an "important consideration" in Brady's punishment was Brady's failure to comply with the league's Integrity of the Game Policy by "fail[ing] to produce any electronic evidence."

 

(2) Brady's agent suggested that the reason he failed to turn over the evidence was because "the scope that they asked for was actually very, very wide"; in effect, that some of the information the league sought was not relevant to the investigation.

 

(3) Brady could argue that he did not in fact violate the league's Policy by withholding information because the league's request for information was overly broad and improper under the Policy, and he only withheld information the league sought that was not relevant to the investigation. In effect, he lodged a meritorious objection to the discovery the league sought during the disciplinary proceeding, meaning that he did not "fail to cooperate."

 

(4) If so, Brady could effectively put the content of his messages into issue. In other words, if Brady argues that the part of his punishment that was based on his failure to cooperate was not justifiable because the only information he withheld from the league was information that had no relevance to the investigation, the content of those messages now becomes relevant to his claim.

 

I say all that on pure speculation having no familiarity with the CBA or league policies.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Thoughts from you two on the musings of the esteemed Missouri Supreme Court?

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/178360-nflpa-files-appeal-of-bradys-4-game-suspension/?view=findpost&p=3567418

Edited July 21, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[K-9]

... (3) Brady could argue that he did not in fact violate the league's Policy by withholding information because the league's request for information was overly broad and improper under the Policy, and he only withheld information the league sought that was not relevant to the investigation. In effect, he lodged a meritorious objection to the discovery the league sought during the disciplinary proceeding, meaning that he did not "fail to cooperate." ...

 

 

Wells gave full control over the aspect of Brady's texts to him and his lawyer. I can't see how that was overly broad and improper in the least. Seeing as how they were interested in seeing if Brady had communication with Jastremski/McNally ONLY, I don't see how it could be any narrower.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

Wells gave full control over the aspect of Brady's texts to him and his lawyer. I can't see how that was overly broad and improper in the least. Seeing as how they were interested in seeing if Brady had communication with Jastremski/McNally ONLY, I don't see how it could be any narrower.

 

GO BILLS!!!

has either side provided the actual requests? their characterizations of the document dont seem to match based on statements, but i dont think either has actually shown the paper provided.

[Rocky Landing]

 

I think there's some room for creativity here. One of the grounds on which Brady would likely challenge his discipline is whether the league had sufficient factual basis to support the punishment, is it not? Take a moment to follow me down this inferential path...

 

(1) Troy Vincent stated that an "important consideration" in Brady's punishment was Brady's failure to comply with the league's Integrity of the Game Policy by "fail[ing] to produce any electronic evidence."

 

(2) Brady's agent suggested that the reason he failed to turn over the evidence was because "the scope that they asked for was actually very, very wide"; in effect, that some of the information the league sought was not relevant to the investigation.

 

(3) Brady could argue that he did not in fact violate the league's Policy by withholding information because the league's request for information was overly broad and improper under the Policy, and he only withheld information the league sought that was not relevant to the investigation. In effect, he lodged a meritorious objection to the discovery the league sought during the disciplinary proceeding, meaning that he did not "fail to cooperate."

 

(4) If so, Brady could effectively put the content of his messages into issue. In other words, if Brady argues that the part of his punishment that was based on his failure to cooperate was not justifiable because the only information he withheld from the league was information that had no relevance to the investigation, the content of those messages now becomes relevant to his claim.

 

I say all that on pure speculation having no familiarity with the CBA or league policies.

 

 

I think there's a big gap in that path. Really, you're bringing up two different issues:

1) Was it reasonable for Wells to ask for the texts that he did? And,

2) Was there sufficient evidence for the punishment?

 

If the defendant (NFL) petitions for a subpoena for the text records, the court will want to know why they are relevant to the civil case. If the answer is, "we believe there is relevant evidence that would have helped the investigation," the actual content would not have any relevance for the civil case. Why they thought the texts would have helped the investigation would be the point of contention-- not what is contained in them, after the fact. That same point also applies to the question of sufficient evidence. If Wells never saw them, then they weren't part of the evidence. The question in the civil trial is not whether or not Brady is guilty-- he won't be the one on trial-- it's whether the NFL had sufficient evidence at the time to reach their conclusions, and mete out their punishment. Any evidence that has been, or could be uncovered, after the fact, is irrelevant to those questions. The only ruling the court could make regarding the texts is whether Wells was reasonable in his attempts to see them, and if it was reasonable to assume, at the time, that Brady was withholding information.

 

That's my take, anyway. But, you may be onto something in terms of there being room for creativity. But, Brady's team would have to seriously screw up to somehow open the door for the actual contents of those texts to become relevant, imo.

[NoSaint]

I think there's a big gap in that path. Really, you're bringing up two different issues:

1) Was it reasonable for Wells to ask for the texts that he did? And,

2) Was there sufficient evidence for the punishment?

 

If the defendant (NFL) petitions for a subpoena for the text records, the court will want to know why they are relevant to the civil case. If the answer is, "we believe there is relevant evidence that would have helped the investigation," the actual content would not have any relevance for the civil case. Why they thought the texts would have helped the investigation would be the point of contention-- not what is contained in them, after the fact. That same point also applies to the question of sufficient evidence. If Wells never saw them, then they weren't part of the evidence. The question in the civil trial is not whether or not Brady is guilty-- he won't be the one on trial-- it's whether the NFL had sufficient evidence at the time to reach their conclusions, and mete out their punishment. Any evidence that has been, or could be uncovered, after the fact, is irrelevant to those questions. The only ruling the court could make regarding the texts is whether Wells was reasonable in his attempts to see them, and if it was reasonable to assume, at the time, that Brady was withholding information.

 

That's my take, anyway. But, you may be onto something in terms of there being room for creativity. But, Brady's team would have to seriously screw up to somehow open the door for the actual contents of those texts to become relevant, imo.

that was closer to what i thought, but im no legal expert -- simply second hand info from watching a few of these kind of closely

[dave mcbride]

An important new development: http://www.boston.com/entertainment/celebrity/2015/07/20/the-finer-points-gisele-bundchen-many-philosophies-life/ofJvNBag8wfuyLSNsY3beJ/story.html?p1=Must_Reads

[Go Kiko go]

I think there's a big gap in that path. Really, you're bringing up two different issues:

1) Was it reasonable for Wells to ask for the texts that he did? And,

2) Was there sufficient evidence for the punishment?

 

If the defendant (NFL) petitions for a subpoena for the text records, the court will want to know why they are relevant to the civil case. If the answer is, "we believe there is relevant evidence that would have helped the investigation," the actual content would not have any relevance for the civil case. Why they thought the texts would have helped the investigation would be the point of contention-- not what is contained in them, after the fact. That same point also applies to the question of sufficient evidence. If Wells never saw them, then they weren't part of the evidence. The question in the civil trial is not whether or not Brady is guilty-- he won't be the one on trial-- it's whether the NFL had sufficient evidence at the time to reach their conclusions, and mete out their punishment. Any evidence that has been, or could be uncovered, after the fact, is irrelevant to those questions. The only ruling the court could make regarding the texts is whether Wells was reasonable in his attempts to see them, and if it was reasonable to assume, at the time, that Brady was withholding information.

 

That's my take, anyway. But, you may be onto something in terms of there being room for creativity. But, Brady's team would have to seriously screw up to somehow open the door for the actual contents of those texts to become relevant, imo.

 

I think the key thing to remember is that there were two, independent bases for Brady's punishment: (1) Brady's role in the deflation of the footballs, and (2) Brady's violation of league policy by failing to turn over electronic evidence. Brady could contest the factual sufficiency of either of the league's conclusions.

 

If Brady solely contests (1), that is, whether the league had a sufficient factual basis to conclude that Brady violated the inflation rules, then I agree with everything you wrote.

 

But if Brady contests (2), that is, whether the league had a sufficient basis to conclude that Brady violated the league policy's related to cooperating with a league investigation investigation, Brady could make the content of the messages relevant by claiming that he only withheld messages that had nothing to do with the investigation. In other words, his claim would be: "the league's request for messages from me encompassed messages far beyond the scope of the investigation. My withholding of those messages doesn't constitute a failure to cooperate, because the league couldn't properly request messages that had nothing to do with the investigation." From the statements of Brady's agent, it seems like this was at least part of the reason Brady didn't turn those messages over. If Brady advances this argument, the content of the messages he withheld are relevant to determining whether Brady sufficiently engaged in the cooperation the league requires of its players.

 

I guess the one-sentence version is: if Brady claims that he shouldn't be punished for failing to cooperate because the texts he withheld were irrelevant to the investigation and therefore couldn't properly be requested from him, we have to see the content of those messages to evaluate Brady's claim.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[Kelly the Dog]

A major part, if not the major part, of Brady refusing to cooperate was not the texts and not turning over his phone, it was his total denial of knowing anything, including knowing who McNally was. That is what pissed off Wells and his investigators. They knew he was lying to them after speaking to McNally and Jastremski. It was impossible these guys did it on their own. When Brady and his lawyers are saying, technically true, that he answered every question and cooperated, they meant he answered "I don't know" to every question, not that he was honest about it.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

An important new development: http://www.boston.com/entertainment/celebrity/2015/07/20/the-finer-points-gisele-bundchen-many-philosophies-life/ofJvNBag8wfuyLSNsY3beJ/story.html?p1=Must_Reads

Does it say Tom* is really a tinker bell?

[YoloinOhio]

@ProFootballTalk: Goodell: "There is no timeline" on Brady's appeal http://t.co/MEU4QDDASa

[dave mcbride]

A major part, if not the major part, of Brady refusing to cooperate was not the texts and not turning over his phone, it was his total denial of knowing anything, including knowing who McNally was. That is what pissed off Wells and his investigators. They knew he was lying to them after speaking to McNally and Jastremski. It was impossible these guys did it on their own. When Brady and his lawyers are saying, technically true, that he answered every question and cooperated, they meant he answered "I don't know" to every question, not that he was honest about it.

Correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that with regard to McNally, he said he didn't recognize the name. That's very different than denying knowing who he was. As I've mentioned previously, it's very common for senior managers to not know the names of every employee in a relatively complex organization.

[NoSaint]

Correct if I'm wrong, but I thought that with regard to McNally, he said he didn't recognize the name. That's very different than denying knowing who he was. As I've mentioned previously, it's very common for senior managers to not know the names of every employee in a relatively complex organization.

that feels like a stretch to me...

 

but regardless, "pissing off wells" shouldnt really have an effect here.

[Tuco]

A major part, if not the major part, of Brady refusing to cooperate was not the texts and not turning over his phone, it was his total denial of knowing anything, including knowing who McNally was. That is what pissed off Wells and his investigators. They knew he was lying to them after speaking to McNally and Jastremski. It was impossible these guys did it on their own. When Brady and his lawyers are saying, technically true, that he answered every question and cooperated, they meant he answered "I don't know" to every question, not that he was honest about it.

This right here. Vincent's letter to Brady spells this out-

 

". . . and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."

 

Yes he answered all the questions. After speaking with McNally and Jastremski and uncovering other evidence it was clear some of Brady's answers were not true (lies). Not turning over relevant texts is only part of the non-cooperation. Failing to give a follow up interview after initially giving implausible and contradictory answers in the original interview is a very good reason to discipline a player. I'd be very interested in how his lawyers would argue against this.

[NoSaint]

Yes he answered all the questions. After speaking with McNally and Jastremski and uncovering other evidence it was clear some of Brady's answers were not true (lies). Not turning over relevant texts is only part of the non-cooperation. Failing to give a follow up interview after initially giving implausible and contradictory answers in the original interview is a very good reason to discipline a player. I'd be very interested in how his lawyers would argue against this.

since when did the league actually suspend players for not telling the truth?

 

realistically, you see some slippery slope there, no?

[Mr. WEO]

Wells gave full control over the aspect of Brady's texts to him and his lawyer. I can't see how that was overly broad and improper in the least. Seeing as how they were interested in seeing if Brady had communication with Jastremski/McNally ONLY, I don't see how it could be any narrower.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

I think there's a big gap in that path. Really, you're bringing up two different issues:

1) Was it reasonable for Wells to ask for the texts that he did? And,

2) Was there sufficient evidence for the punishment?

 

If the defendant (NFL) petitions for a subpoena for the text records, the court will want to know why they are relevant to the civil case. If the answer is, "we believe there is relevant evidence that would have helped the investigation," the actual content would not have any relevance for the civil case. Why they thought the texts would have helped the investigation would be the point of contention-- not what is contained in them, after the fact. That same point also applies to the question of sufficient evidence. If Wells never saw them, then they weren't part of the evidence. The question in the civil trial is not whether or not Brady is guilty-- he won't be the one on trial-- it's whether the NFL had sufficient evidence at the time to reach their conclusions, and mete out their punishment. Any evidence that has been, or could be uncovered, after the fact, is irrelevant to those questions. The only ruling the court could make regarding the texts is whether Wells was reasonable in his attempts to see them, and if it was reasonable to assume, at the time, that Brady was withholding information.

 

That's my take, anyway. But, you may be onto something in terms of there being room for creativity. But, Brady's team would have to seriously screw up to somehow open the door for the actual contents of those texts to become relevant, imo.

 

Wells had the texts between Brady and the deflators. Since Wells was allowing Brady to chose what to turn over, and Brady and his lawyer knew that Wells already had the texts, and we can assume that Brady would never hand over any more than Wells already had....can Brady be punished for not providing to Wells evidence that Wells already had in hand?

Edited July 21, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[thebandit27]

 

 

 

Wells had the texts between Brady and the deflators. Since Wells was allowing Brady to chose what to turn over, and Brady and his lawyer knew that Wells already had the texts, and we can assume that Brady would never hand over any more than Wells already had....can Brady be punished for not providing to Wells evidence that Wells already had in hand?

 

 

You're missing a gigantic piece of the communication puzzle: are we to also assume that Brady did not discuss the issue/case with anyone other than Jastremski via electronic communication? Not his family, coach, owner, etc.?