Pneumonic Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Which was not the question he was asked to rule on. It was an answer to your specific question however.
PromoTheRobot Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) It was an answer to your specific question however. My question was about what the court case was about. You answered that the judge is just doing what he feels like. That is my complaint: a judge who doesn't understand the law. By the way, I read that the Patriots hire social media companies to troll websites to make pro-Patriot comments. I was wondering what they pay you? Edited August 20, 2015 by PromoTheRobot
Pete Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Aren't our courts backed up enough with legitimate cases, then burdoning the judicial system with a frivolous, micromanaging, NFL case?
Pneumonic Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 My question was about what the court case was about. You answered that the judge is just doing what he feels like. That is my complaint: a judge who doesn't understand the law. By the way, I read that the Patriots hire social media companies to troll websites to make pro-Patriot comments. I was wondering what they pay you? Maybe I misread what you asked but I thought you were wondering if the judge was ruling on if Goodell has the authority to suspend Brady as per the CBA. The answer, I suspect is, yes he does .... provided the process followed, to arrive at suspension/arbitration, was done in a fair manner. If the judge doesn't believe it was done in a fair manner, than I suppose he can vacate the suspension.
eball Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 If there is any truth to the story laid out by JohnnyGold, my biggest question is why the league wouldn't be satisfied with punishing Brady* for non-compliance with a reduced suspension and fine? If the league "knows" it was Belichick and not Brady* why insist on an admission from Brady*? For the record, I never for one moment believed Belichick had no idea the balls were being deflated. It's ludicrous to believe that with the way he is involved in every detail of that organization. He and that "man behind the curtain" up there are devious, cheating f***ks. Does anyone think the league is currently conducting a separate, secret investigation into Pats** games since 2007 (or whatever year the rule changed for inflation/deflation), similar to that unofficial study we've all seen that shows the Pats** fumbling at a ridiculously lower rate than the rest of the league?
MattM Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 While I don't necessarily believe JG's source above, I do think it likely that there's more going on here than meets the eye. My guess is that the League may know about (or suspect) more shenanigans than is publicly known and the other owners are sick and tired of it being "just one team, really, over and over" (to paraphrase the NYT quoting of an NFL Competition Committee member after Spygate) and are demanding that something be done about it.
Beerball Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Which was not the question he was asked to rule on. He's "grandstanding," trying to get the NFL to budge by publicly calling them out a bit. He's prodding the bear.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 So he's willing to sign away game checks huh? Ok, tell him to sign away his 2015 season and he can play all year. I like it. The need to just agree to settle for two games for not complying with the investigation and call it a day. From the mediots this AM I heard this ..... The judge can say that the Wells report is pure BS and 4 games is overreaching and yet still say Roger has the power to suspend people and let it stand @ 4 games.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 So there are parts of Johnny's rumor that are a bit confusing if true. - If the league was worried about getting egg on it's face from Belichick cheating again, why allow him to coach another year? Why not just say, "Bill after your Super Bowl win, it might be time to ride off into the sunset"? If anyone ever found out, which apparently someone has, the league would be left with even more egg on their face after they KNEW Belichick cheated again but allowed him to coach another season. That just seems a bit ridiculous. Also it doesn't invalidate the past 10 years of football, maybe it invalidates the Patriots** SB wins, but there were 7 other teams who won SB's. - Also, why choose Brady as the fall guy? Why not just pin it on the two idiots? Instead they pick one of the most popular athletes in the game, seems odd? This is not to say that Belichick knew nothing of what was going on, it wouldn't surprise me if he did. I just don't think there is some huge cover up and league conspiracy to let Bill !@#$ing Belichick coach one last season of football.
JohnC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Which was not the question he was asked to rule on. Determining if the league abided by a process that it was supposed to follow is a relevant issue. Having an authority to act does't equate with doing whatever you want regardless of the facts and regardless of the established guidelines. What you and many others are essentially saying is that having an authority to rule allows you to do whatever you want without challenge. The judge isn't buying that reasoning. There is no doubt that the boundaries of the law favor the league. But what the judge has to decide is did the league go beyond the expansive boundaries to nullify its own ruling. He's "grandstanding," trying to get the NFL to budge by publicly calling them out a bit. He's prodding the bear. What questions is the judge asking that you find troublesome? He is asking pointed questions to the league about their conduct and their prior standard of discipline. The league's responses are very unimpressive. This judge is a tough no-nonsense judge. He is not going to be stampeded by a hack commissioner and his high priced army of attorneys in such a stupid case. Without a doubt this is a high profile case. Without a doubt from a legal standpoint it is a waste of his time. That's why he is exhibiting so much irritability.
Beerball Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 What questions is the judge asking that you find troublesome? I don't find anything about this entire story troublesome. Tiresome perhaps.
K-9 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Determining if the league abided by a process that it was supposed to follow is a relevant issue. Having an authority to act does't equate with doing whatever you want regardless of the facts and regardless of the established guidelines. What you and many others are essentially saying is that having an authority to rule allows you to do whatever you want without challenge. The judge isn't buying that reasoning. There is no doubt that the boundaries of the law favor the league. But what the judge has to decide is did the league go beyond the expansive boundaries to nullify its own ruling. What questions is the judge asking that you find troublesome? He is asking pointed questions to the league about their conduct and their prior standard of discipline. The league's responses are very unimpressive. This judge is a tough no-nonsense judge. He is not going to be stampeded by a hack commissioner and his high priced army of attorneys in such a stupid case. Without a doubt this is a high profile case. Without a doubt from a legal standpoint it is a waste of his time. That's why he is exhibiting so much irritability. In your opinion, does the judge have the responsibility to determine what constitutes conduct detrimental? GO BILLS!!!
NoSaint Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 In your opinion, does the judge have the responsibility to determine what constitutes conduct detrimental? GO BILLS!!! at this point, is that what the nfl has even filed this under officially? I obviously am familiar with the nuts and bolts of this whole process, but did they simply say a rough "2 games for an equipment violation/competitive balance issue and 2 for impeding an investigation," or "4 games for conduct detrimental including......"
Mr. WEO Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Wasn't this case supposed to be about whether Goodell had the authority to suspend Brady? (Which he does, per NFLPA agreement) So why on earth is this judge ruling on the suspension itself? No it isn't about that.
JohnC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 In your opinion, does the judge have the responsibility to determine what constitutes conduct detrimental? GO BILLS!!! Of course he does. But in determining that issue it is intertwined with the process in which the determination is made. The judge is directly asking the league what is your standard and what is your process. Their response can be boiled down to we have the authority in disciplinary matters to do whatever we want regardless of the facts and regardless of how prior cases were handled. The judge seems uncomfortable with their arrogant stance.
Matt in KC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 The investigation has not met the threshold. (That's my opinion.) The league has made the argument that the Wells investigation was independent. When it was demonstrated that it wasn't true the league's position changed to it is irrelevant whether it was independent or not. The judge has basically discredited not only the basis of the Wells report but also the conclusion of the report. When the judge asked the league attorneys what direct evidence did they have regarding Brady's participation in the alleged conspiracy in the deflation of the balls their response was that they had none. The league has reduced their argument to this: We have the authority to make a determination regardless of the facts and the guidelines used in prior cases. In the San Diego "stickum" ball case no player was fined. The franchise was fined $25,000. In a cold weather game in Minnesota where the balls were heated (against the rules) the team was fined $25,000. No player was held accountable. Let's put things in perspective: the alleged ball tampering had no bearing on the game and no bearing on anyone's performance. The league has spent reportedly $5 million for an investigation that was a sham and it has dragged out this moronic case for more than half a year and still counting. Whatever happened wasn't worthy of the league's incredibly disproportionate response compared to the level of the alleged transgression. The only smart thing that the league has done on this issue is to standardize how the balls are now inflated and now maintain control of the balls instead of allowing teams to handle the balls. In other words the problem has simply been resolved on this inconsequential issue that has distracted the public from the game. Thanks for the response. I didn't hear the judge discredit the Wells report, just ask some tough questions in the limited public period, the theater of which I believe was to put pressure on the league to settle. Direct evidence is not required. Circumstantial evidence abounds. Given the "preponderance" threshold to find guilt is rather low, and their investigation was obstructed, I think they clearly succeeded. The main points related to Brady: > Texts, video (of the bathroom), air pressure readings, and McNally interviews all pointing to ongoing ball tampering ongoing, and in this case > Texts referencing Tom, Brady's calls and his testimony about them; destruction of only the critical phone; unbelievable testimony about pressure preference and the "two stooges," the autographed swag all point to Brady's involvement. It's enough for me (and most reasonable people I think), but I can agree we disagree.
JohnC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) I don't find anything about this entire story troublesome. Tiresome perhaps. You made the point that you believed the judge was grandstanding. How so? What questions has he asked (mostly to the league) that you find problematic and make you believe that the judge is behaving inappropriately. Thanks for the response. I didn't hear the judge discredit the Wells report, just ask some tough questions in the limited public period, the theater of which I believe was to put pressure on the league to settle. Direct evidence is not required. Circumstantial evidence abounds. Given the "preponderance" threshold to find guilt is rather low, and their investigation was obstructed, I think they clearly succeeded. The main points related to Brady: > Texts, video (of the bathroom), air pressure readings, and McNally interviews all pointing to ongoing ball tampering ongoing, and in this case > Texts referencing Tom, Brady's calls and his testimony about them; destruction of only the critical phone; unbelievable testimony about pressure preference and the "two stooges," the autographed swag all point to Brady's involvement. t's enough for me (and most reasonable people I think), but I can agree we disagree. We respectfully disagree. Edited August 20, 2015 by JohnC
SRQ_BillsFan Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I believe something happen d and nothing would without the quarterback. His answers were elusive at the trial and polished at his appeal. However he was simply not a creditable witness, he destroyed evidence. A jury, a judge or an arbitrator are allowed to take this into account to question the totality of his answers. In the end this is what the NFL will argue got them from point A to B. You may not agree, but the NFL believes this is solid. Given that and previous standards for arbitration cases the NFL is not worried. What may happen who knows, but I believe this and the CBA are the NFL's position. No matter what else happened.
Matt in KC Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I wanted to fill you in on an interesting insight I heard from someone whom I consider to be fairly reliable (he also knows some of the dealings with the PR firm the Patriots outsourced for the social media flood that you guys bang your head against in every comment section on PFT and ESPN, and quite frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if they're using dummy accounts here that were activated long ago, but I digress): Essentially, the league knows that Bill Beliceck is behind this entire process, and was the main party responsible for instructing the ball boys in how to do what they do by way of stealing and deflating balls to a specific PSI. Believe it or not, Brady is actually innocent, to the extent that he did not command his underlings, OR orchestrate this operation. Because of Spygate, the league was faced with the prospect of essentially banning Beliceck for life, which would have invalidated the last decade and a half of NFL football. So, the ball boys were gagged and fired (that's what she said), Kraft paid a fine, and this now public debacle was heaped on Brady, because the public smelled blood in the water, and the Patriots absolutely CAN NOT walk away from this with no penalty after Spygate. HOWEVER, there IS no evidence that pins it on Brady, and he DID destroy his phone because him and Giselle have been on the rocks for months and he gets a new phone every 3 months. Beliceck, Goodell, and Kraft (who are still very much buddy buddy), assumed Brady would gladly be "the fall guy", and cooperate, and take a game or 2 suspension. Apparently Brady balked at this notion (which actually makes me respect him), and the league was painted into a corner. The word is: win lose or draw this is Belicecks last season coaching and Brady is moving on from New England after this season because he is disgusted by how it went down, but because the league writes his paycheck, he cant turn state. Take it for what it's worth, but I believe it. This sounds too conveniently configured to make us feel bad for Tom and think he should not be punished. You know, the kind of thing a PR firm might come up with.... Because the Pats have already accepted their punishment without appeal, they have admitted guilt as far as most fans understand. The above story does not hurt them more; it just helps Brady's legacy. But I don't buy it. There is a lot tying Brady to this still, and any Gazelle concerns wouldn't have impacted Brady's ability to turn over carefully selected and reviewed text messages like was requested. I don't doubt, however, that Belichick knew about the deflation in general, if not the details. We respectfully disagree. Thanks for the civil discourse!
Recommended Posts