Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[Tuco]

In general we are in accord. The case in front of the judge mostly deals with the process.

 

It may seem to many that I believe that only one side acted inappropriately. That's not the case. I believe that Brady should have been more cooperative right from the start. But I understand why he didn't trust RG and the league to manage a fair investigation. After examining how it was conducted it is obvious (at least to me) that not trusting the league was a reasonable position to take.

 

My position from the start is that this was a trivial issue that should have been handled with a greater degree of proportion and common sense. The level of response with its multi-million $$$ investigation was ridiculous and absurd.

 

RG turned a jay walking case into manslaughter case. This is a manufactured fiasco caused by a commissioner who has demonstrated time and time again that he lacks good judgment when involved in disciplinary actions. In my view the problem with RG is that he mistakenly believes that he is the law instead of he represents the law. That is a very destructive difference.

Yes in general. But I do disagree. If it was just the Colts game I could buy the argument that it's no big deal. But when evidence of it happening further back (I believe the "deflator" text was from before the season) was then combined with all the lying and stonewalling, I can totally understand the league's desire to see it through.

 

I also want to mention one more thing that could be in play but none of us has any information at all on. It goes to Goodell not recusing himself. I believe if he recuses himself every time there's an appeal - or if a judge rules him recused - then the league will have lost a very important part of what they bargained for. The judge also has to be mindful of that. We all know the NFLPA agreed to let the commissioner be the arbitrator in the CBA. But we don't know just how much the league already gave up in order to keep that position.

 

A lot of meetings have been behind closed doors. If it was revealed to the judge that while bargaining the league agreed to giving the players, say, an extra 1% of league revenues on top of everything just to keep the commish in that position, that would mean roughly an extra $1.3 million in payroll to every team each year. This is something that's enjoyed by around 1,700 players each year who don't have a problem with the commissioner. I think this fact has to be seriously considered when the judge rules on how widespread Goodell's authority can be.

 

Anyway, thanks to all for having me here on your board.

Edited August 30, 2015 by Tuco

[l< j]

He surely has to face those questions, but in being the judicial organization here, the nfl is facing a different standard/expectations. It's totally possible they are both in the wrong and the punishment will still be wiped. I know the CBA is separate from our legal system but in general our foundations are lined to giving accused a fair process and holding the side with the power to a high standard.

 

But my understanding of how this lines up is different than yours, in terms of the weight of the transgressions of each side.

 

The NFL and its players, coaches, etc. have to promote fairness on the field. It is clear (perfectly clear to me, and certainly beyond the legal standard required in this setting) that Brady subverted that fairness. I want him punished, not in a pitchforks-and-torches way, but in the interest of fairness. The NFL caught him in this, and would have been able to prove this had Brady turned over his cell, and if the 2 employees were made available. But they have enough direct and circumstantial evidence to prove it.

 

Now it is being proposed that the NFL acted out of bias in its investigations, and that its in-house lawyer played an inappropriate role in the drafting of the Wells report. Note that the level of certainty of these accusations is far, far lower than that for the Brady accusations. They could have been acting out of bias, and they could have re-written the report in-house. And those things might be bad, ergo Brady deserves to be exonerated.

 

I say might, because no one has really shown me anything that comes close to a procedural violation that would outweigh Brady's offenses. Was the NFL biased? Well, when they have evidence of cheating they should do everything possible to root that out and punish it. Maybe to some that looks like bias. To me that looks like promoting fairness on the field. Maybe they re-wrote the definition of "everything possible," although that has only been suggested in the vaguest of terms and not proven. Did Pash re-write the report? Maybe, maybe not. It's still not clear to me that I should care, unless what was in the report was false. And no one is making that claim anymore in any convincing way. In short, I don't think any of these concerns, even if proven, show evidence that the process wasn't fair.

 

What is clear is that Brady cheated. That cheating is a concern to me that far, far outweighs the stuff about Goodell's overreaching, real or imagined. You simply can't have a league that allows players to do this kind of thing. You can, however, have a league that allows the in-house lawyer to edit the reports of outside investigators. That doesn't pose anywhere near the threat to the game we follow that the cheating does.

 

kj

[dave mcbride]

I understand this. If you look at my original post it was in response to a post that was insinuating the league couldn't punish for previous games without smoking gun PSI measurements. They can. And I was pointing out in my post not only why they can but because of the actions of Brady and the league they pretty much had to do it that way. But for some reason you have decided I think it's a cut and dried case in favor of the league. The poster I was responding to seemed to think the suspension was too harsh because there's no documented PSI levels from previous games. I fully understand the suspension could be vacated. But if so it won't be because there wasn't smoking gun evidence of deflation earlier in the season. It will be because the judge ruled the league acted outside the CBA. The CBA requires investigation and cooperation, and specifies who handles what, including appeals. It doesn't require evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

The ruling is all about the process. I get that. The league acted capriciously. Okay. So did the plaintiff, and a lot of what the league did was because of that. I agree the judge will be ruling on whether the CBA was followed. He has to. And my response to your judge and his questions still doesn't mean I think it's a clear cut case, I just don't think the asking of those questions means anything more significant than the judge doing his job. The plaintiff has a list of reasons why he feels he was wronged. The judge asks pointed questions that deal with those reasons. If your landlord brings you into small claims court because he says your cat stunk the place up and you tell the judge the landlord never said you couldn't have a cat, the place wasn't very clean when you moved in and the smell is coming from the place next door, the judge is going to ask the landlord if he said you couldn't have a cat, was the place a dump before and is the smell possibly coming from next door. The questions are specific because the appeal points are specific, not because the judge thinks the defendant is wrong.

 

If the judge doesn't like the answers and vacates the suspension, it's not because of a lack of deflated footballs in previous games. That was my original point.

I didn't insinuate "couldn't;" what I really meant to indicate is that they shouldn't. At least in my opinion. I think that it's unfair and capricious to base the size of the suspension (at least in part) on this supposition without any evidence that balls were under 12.5. The NFL clearly disagrees with me,, and so do most of the other posters here. So be it.

[Tuco]

I didn't insinuate "couldn't;" what I really meant to indicate is that they shouldn't. At least in my opinion. I think that it's unfair and capricious to base the size of the suspension (at least in part) on this supposition without any evidence that balls were under 12.5. The NFL clearly disagrees with me,, and so do most of the other posters here. So be it.

Fair enough.

[Kelly the Dog]

I didn't insinuate "couldn't;" what I really meant to indicate is that they shouldn't. At least in my opinion. I think that it's unfair and capricious to base the size of the suspension (at least in part) on this supposition without any evidence that balls were under 12.5. The NFL clearly disagrees with me,, and so do most of the other posters here. So be it.

Put like that, and looking at it black and white, you are correct.

 

But that is not what happened or what they based it on.

 

They had evidence that the balls were deflated in the championship game. Hard evidence.

They have video of McNally taking the balls to the bathroom.

They have testimony that completely contradicts each other as to reasons.

THEN they have circumstantial evidence in the form of several texts and calls and testimony and unexplained behavior that all but assures that this happened before, too.

 

That last one plays a MAJOR ROLE in the suspension because of the first three things. By itself you wouldn't have a case. The other three above is not half as good a case without the fourth. But put together they make an almost inarguable case that something was done by all three participants.

 

Just saying there is no proof of games before is true. But they are not making the suspension based on just the Championship Game or just the previous games they are making it based on the totality of the investigation.

[JohnC]

It was a jaywalking case until the evidence suggested something far more serious was occurring inside an organization previously found guilty.

 

GO BILLS!!!

What the facts of the case have demonstrated to this judge is that there is scant evidence to prove that their imaginary conspiracy case exists. I recognize that is not the focus of his attention in the case before him.

 

The judge asked Wells if there was direct evidence that Brady was involved in the ball issue. Wells said no. Believing that your sloppily accumulated evidence indicates what you want it to indicate is far different from an objective set of eyes intrepreting what the evidence actually indicates.

[Kelly the Dog]

What the facts of the case have demonstrated to this judge is that there is scant evidence to prove that their imaginary conspiracy case exists. I recognize that is not the focus of his attention in the case before him.

 

The judge asked Wells if there was direct evidence that Brady was involved in the ball issue. Wells said no. Believing that your sloppily accumulated evidence indicates what you want it to indicate is far different from an objective set of eyes intrepreting what the evidence actually indicates.

But again, the judge asked that because of the Vincent letter. The league decided on the suspension because of the Wells Report. Two very different things. One had no evidence of Bradys direct involvement. The other did.

[TSOL]

Kelly, you are more up on this case than anyone, whats your gut feeling? Is Brady gonna get off?

[Kelly the Dog]

Kelly, you are more up on this case than anyone, whats your gut feeling? Is Brady gonna get off?

No. Not at all. He's probably going to get all four games. Perhaps cut to two but I think that's less than 50-50.

 

There is a decent chance however that the judge upholds the suspension completely, it stays at four games, but Brady's team appeals again to a different court and the judge allows an injunction to the suspension until the appeal is heard. Then he would play against the Steelerrs and Bills awaiting the new appeal hearings.

 

The Pats may not want that. Brady surely will. What we don't know is if 1) the new judge would allow Brady to delay the case if it came up in October or November or December, etc. if he or she indicated he or she doesn't give a crap about the NFL schedule then Brady is in trouble. But the judge could well allow that so the case could be heard in the off season and then he would miss his games next year.

 

Or 2) that the judge rules there is no actual harm to you missing these games right now. There are good arguments both ways on that.

[K-9]

What the facts of the case have demonstrated to this judge is that there is scant evidence to prove that their imaginary conspiracy case exists. I recognize that is not the focus of his attention in the case before him.

 

The judge asked Wells if there was direct evidence that Brady was involved in the ball issue. Wells said no. Believing that your sloppily accumulated evidence indicates what you want it to indicate is far different from an objective set of eyes intrepreting what the evidence actually indicates.

 

The circumstantial evidence didn't tell Wells and Co. anything they "wanted" to hear. Any reasonable person could conclude with 51% certainty that it indicated exactly what they concluded; a pattern of behavior by certain individuals engaging in the altering of game balls and, in McNally's case, for compensation from Brady.

 

Most of us can appreciate none of that is the question before the judge at this time. Whether the award is vacated or not should not detract from what the evidence indicated. Especially as it pertains to an organization previously found guilty of and punished for other rules violations.

 

I am sickened by the fact that some are so willing to simply forget all that because Roger Goodell is an ass.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[TSOL]

No. Not at all. He's probably going to get all four games. Perhaps cut to two but I think that's less than 50-50.

There is a decent chance however that the judge upholds the suspension completely, it stays at four games, but Brady's team appeals again to a different court and the judge allows an injunction to the suspension until the appeal is heard. Then he would play against the Steelerrs and Bills awaiting the new appeal hearings.

The Pats may not want that. Brady surely will. What we don't know is if 1) the new judge would allow Brady to delay the case if it came up in October or November or December, etc. if he or she indicated he or she doesn't give a crap about the NFL schedule then Brady is in trouble. But the judge could well allow that so the case could be heard in the off season and then he would miss his games next year.

Or 2) that the judge rules there is no actual harm to you missing these games right now. There are good arguments both ways on that.

Thanks, I was starting to get the impression he was above it all. Such an unprecedented procedure its hard to follow.

[3rdand12]

Yes in general. But I do disagree. If it was just the Colts game I could buy the argument that it's no big deal. But when evidence of it happening further back (I believe the "deflator" text was from before the season) was then combined with all the lying and stonewalling, I can totally understand the league's desire to see it through.

 

I also want to mention one more thing that could be in play but none of us has any information at all on. It goes to Goodell not recusing himself. I believe if he recuses himself every time there's an appeal - or if a judge rules him recused - then the league will have lost a very important part of what they bargained for. The judge also has to be mindful of that. We all know the NFLPA agreed to let the commissioner be the arbitrator in the CBA. But we don't know just how much the league already gave up in order to keep that position.

 

A lot of meetings have been behind closed doors. If it was revealed to the judge that while bargaining the league agreed to giving the players, say, an extra 1% of league revenues on top of everything just to keep the commish in that position, that would mean roughly an extra $1.3 million in payroll to every team each year. This is something that's enjoyed by around 1,700 players each year who don't have a problem with the commissioner. I think this fact has to be seriously considered when the judge rules on how widespread Goodell's authority can be.

 

Anyway, thanks to all for having me here on your board.

Its a pleasure to have you Sir.

Btw awesome avatar, i keep hearing a themed song when i see the Tuco. and have a yearning to watch a spaghetti western film again.

seriously, well posted.

The circumstantial evidence didn't tell Wells and Co. anything they "wanted" to hear. Any reasonable person could conclude with 51% certainty that it indicated exactly what they concluded; a pattern of behavior by certain individuals engaging in the altering of game balls and, in McNally's case, for compensation from Brady.

 

Most of us can appreciate none of that is the question before the judge at this time. Whether the award is vacated or not should not detract from what the evidence indicated. Especially as it pertains to an organization previously found guilty of and punished for other rules violations.

 

I am sickened by the fact that some are so willing to simply forget all that because Roger Goodell is an ass.

 

GO BILLS!!!

and thats the rub isn't it ?

[TSOL]

Its a pleasure to have you Sir.

Btw awesome avatar, i keep hearing a themed song when i see the Tuco. and have a yearning to watch a spaghetti western film again.

seriously, well posted.

and thats the rub isn't it ?

Tuco was also the real bad dude from Breaking Bad

 

Edited August 30, 2015 by mastershake

[3rdand12]

Tuco was also the real bad dude from Breaking Bad

 

tuco~01.jpg

I am going with the avatar, it speaks to my generation.

[TSOL]

I am going with the avatar, it speaks to my generation.

Was just sayin'

You know, for anyone under 70.

[K-9]

I am going with the avatar, it speaks to my generation.

Hey, I loved Eli Wallach as well. But even this old fart referred to 'Breaking Bad' in reference to Tuco in a previous post up thread.

 

GO BILLS!!!

and thats the rub isn't it ?

For some, yeah.

 

But it shouldn't be. Brady and the Patriots* having evidence of cheating against them and Roger Goodell's assholiness are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[3rdand12]

Was just sayin'

You know, for anyone under 70.

HEY!

Hey, I loved Eli Wallach as well. But even this old fart referred to 'Breaking Bad' in reference to Tuco in a previous post up thread.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

For some, yeah.

 

But it shouldn't be. Brady and the Patriots* having evidence of cheating against them and Roger Goodell's assholiness are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Hey, I loved Eli Wallach as well. But even this old fart referred to 'Breaking Bad' in reference to Tuco in a previous post up thread.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

For some, yeah.

 

But it shouldn't be. Brady and the Patriots* having evidence of cheating against them and Roger Goodell's assholiness are mutually exclusive concepts.

 

GO BILLS!!!

agreed 100% sorry for the lack of clarity. When you are over 70 these things happen.

[TSOL]

HEY!

 

 

agreed 100% sorry for the lack of clarity. When you are over 70 these things happen.

Just messin' Third! This thread could use some brevity!

 

Not to show my age too much, but i love "The man with no name" series as well!

[3rdand12]

Just messin' Third! This thread could use some brevity!

 

Not to show my age too much, but i love "The man with no name" series as well!

I got ya Kid! all good ; )

[Nanker]

I think all suspensions should be served at the end of the season. Games are a bit more intense at that time. It would give me great satisfaction to have B*R*A*D*Y* serve his four games during the entire month of December. &#33;@#&#036; you NE* Cheaters***