NoSaint Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 They don't have access to them because they destroyed the phone. Or they could ask Jastremski to provide the three. Or they could say what those three were or ask Jastremski what they were. It's just a stupid thing to say, don't you think? Either they are saying they turned in all, or not all. They were honest and said not all. I think you are pushing a bit much on this particular point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Yeah. They're going to say that the NFL ignored all of the new excuses/evidence at the appeal hearing because they are biased. Evidence that was supposed to be available before the hearing and could have been made available during the investigation. Everything they're doing is to try to make Goodell look incompetent and unable to do his job, get him fired, hire a new commissioner, and negotiate a new CBA. When one reads the Goodell report, it's amazing how much of the Wells report is NOT in dispute by Brady's team. It's incredible really. I'm anxious to see what Kessler has up his sleeve moving forward because I get the impression he just used the appeal hearing as a sounding board to gauge his case. But when I look at what's been said about the requirement Brady has to show irreparable harm, a victory on merits, or bias by the commissioner as arbitrator, I have to wonder where the strength lies. I would never presume to know how a judge would rule, but I just can't see what area of Goodell's report can be attacked on the grounds required. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) For you Bills-Fan-4-Ever CBF cool thanks CBF damn too large (and I'm too lazy to edit it) Edited July 29, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Either they are saying they turned in all, or not all. They were honest and said not all. I think you are pushing a bit much on this particular point. Maybe. But don't you think that saying we produced not all, or we kept three to ourselves, or we lost three or we don't know what happened to three, but we are not going to tell you what is on them is suspect and further incriminating, versus forthright and convincing of innocence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) BillsFan-4-Ever, on 29 Jul 2015 - 1:10 PM, said: yet they were not sternly warned because of repeated violations If memory serves, the Pats were never warned once about improper ball deflation. Correct me if I'm wrong. a) repeated violations meaning past. b) Ignorance of the rules is no excuse c) Tom** knows all and should practice what he preaches. His comment to the Ravens - learn the rules “Maybe those guys gotta study the rule book and figure it out. We obviously knew what we were doing and we made some pretty important plays. It was a real good weapon for us. Maybe we’ll have something in store next week.” 2 links same story http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000456427/article/tom-brady-on-ravens-complaints-study-the-rules http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/tom-brady-ravens-study-the-rule-book Edited July 29, 2015 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Maybe. But don't you think that saying we produced not all, or we kept three to ourselves, or we lost three or we don't know what happened to three, but we are not going to tell you what is on them is suspect and further incriminating, versus forthright and convincing of innocence? Further incriminating? No. Less definitive? Sure. worth arguing over? Probably not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 @ProFootballTalk: Per source, NFLPA will ask judge to either rule by September 4 or to issue an injunction allowing Brady to play pending a ruling. so there's still hope he sits before the court date? woo hoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) so there's still hope he sits before the court date? woo hoo There's almost no shot it's heard before then but the injunction is likely to be decided by then. If denied, it's speak loudly to the judges lack of interest in the arguments. Edited July 29, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 (edited) Further incriminating? No. Less definitive? Sure. worth arguing over? Probably not.Fair enough. We will just have to disagree. I see your point, just think of stuff like that a lot differently. Oh, btw, I meant to tell you. When we were talking about that case last week everything I said was true, except for three things. Cop: Mr. Kromer, these kids said you punched them and threatened to kill their family. We need to know the ENTIRE story. Are you sure you told us the whole story? Aaron Kromer: I swear, Officer. I told you everything that happened. Except for three things. Edited July 29, 2015 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 @MikeGarafolo: 4 allegations of Brady suit 1. No advance notice of punishment 2. Not fair and consistent punishment 3. Unfair appeal 4. Goodell partial Advance notice of punishment? What the !@#$ is that? His punishment is a suspension that starts in September, which he was notified of in April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Advance notice of punishment? What the !@#$ is that? His punishment is a suspension that starts in September, which he was notified of in April.Brady is saying that he didn't know he would be punished in advance for not handing over his phone. That's what he was referring to. Which he should have known, because he was supposed to, you know, cooperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Brady is saying that he didn't know he would be punished in advance for not handing over his phone. That's what he was referring to. Which he should have known, because he was supposed to, you know, cooperate. Brady didn't know that he would be punished for not cooperating as he is required to do? What am I missing? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Brady is saying that he didn't know he would be punished in advance for not handing over his phone. That's what he was referring to. Which he should have known, because he was supposed to, you know, cooperate. Tom Brady is gatorman, isn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Brady is saying that he didn't know he would be punished in advance for not handing over his phone. That's what he was referring to. Which he should have known, because he was supposed to, you know, cooperate. But if he can show that others have declined without penalty, I get there may be some arguments there that he was under the impression he was satisfying the requirement. As the nflpa should have access to requests like that, I'd venture there might be some meat there. Not sure it'll matter but there's the possibility of an angle to work, and resources to support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 But if he can show that others have declined without penalty, I get there may be some arguments there that he was under the impression he was satisfying the requirement. As the nflpa should have access to requests like that, I'd venture there might be some meat there. Not sure it'll matter but there's the possibility of an angle to work, and resources to support it. That's reasonable. Any cases come to mind? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
negativo Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I have no doubt in my mind that Brady will be standing when the dust settles in this war. The bell tolls for thee, Roger. You overplayed your hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 I have no doubt in my mind that Brady will be standing when the dust settles in this war. The bell tolls for thee, Roger. You overplayed your hand. Please feel free to enumerate. Specifically, what would you pick apart in the report he filed in federal court yesterday. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) That's reasonable. Any cases come to mind? GO BILLS!!! As they don't make investigative process public, no. But if there are, the nflpa would in theory have an idea. Which is why I framed it as I don't know but the team filing might. Hargrove being suspended for noncooperation then being overturned is the only public example of anyone ever being suspended for non cooperation that I can think of (and have been asking for months). I can't imagine every player fully cooperates with all investigations but am at a loss for it being cited before. Have you ever seen someone hit by an incriminating text turned into the nfl? Surely one of these idiots has texted about stuff they've done and the nfl could have asked for those records. Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) Brady didn't know that he would be punished for not cooperating as he is required to do? What am I missing? GO BILLS!!! His argument was he was being punished a couple games for destroying his phone, and he wasn't told in advance, since it wasn't a legal proceeding, and had told them he wasn't going to hand over his phone, that it would be held against him. It's a ridiculous stance but that is basically what they are arguing. That he was not told of the punishment for doing something he wasn't required to do. But if he can show that others have declined without penalty, I get there may be some arguments there that he was under the impression he was satisfying the requirement. As the nflpa should have access to requests like that, I'd venture there might be some meat there. Not sure it'll matter but there's the possibility of an angle to work, and resources to support it.But they didn't really punish him for that. They said that he didn't cooperate, and that was one of the several reasons that they figured he was uncooperative. Didn't punish him for that specifically. As they don't make investigative process public, no. But if there are, the nflpa would in theory have an idea. Which is why I framed it as I don't know but the team filing might. Hargrove being suspended for noncooperation then being overturned is the only public example of anyone ever being suspended for non cooperation that I can think of (and have been asking for months). I can't imagine every player fully cooperates with all investigations but am at a loss for it being cited before. Have you ever seen someone hit by an incriminating text turned into the nfl? Surely one of these idiots has texted about stuff they've done and the nfl could have asked for those records. The NFL is saying that he didn't cooperate. That he lied to them. That he wouldn't let them talk to people who knew things. That they requested his phone and they day he was supposed to give them information about it he destroyed it. That his answers were implausible. Etc. His side is saying just because he didn't give over his phone he is being punished for it. But that is not true. That is just their argument. Edited July 30, 2015 by Kelly the Dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 And people that talk during movies! No no, that's the special hell. Brady isn't good enough for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts