Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[NoSaint]

 

Some of whom--if they aren't employed by the NFL or the team--have no obligation to cooperate with the investigation.

Short of spontaneous confession for the sake of having something to talk to, is the any concern about anyone outside the team numbers anyway? Seems an unneeded qualifier

[K-9]

 

Some of whom--if they aren't employed by the NFL or the team--have no obligation to cooperate with the investigation.

Well, since we are being asked to compare this to real criminal charges and courtrooms proceedings like selling drugs, can you imagine if Brady did something like that in the real world? Some judges would have gone ballistic and tacked on more time just for that kind of contempt.

 

Roger Goodell had no responsibility to do anything other than listen to Brady's appeal. Brady's day late and dollar short attempt at cooperating was as transparent as his lies and coverup about being involved at all. It's mind boggling that people can just let that aspect of it mean so little.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thebandit27]

Short of spontaneous confession for the sake of having something to talk to, is the any concern about anyone outside the team numbers anyway? Seems an unneeded qualifier

 

I would say that Brady communicating with family etc. could easily have made some kind of "I'm in real trouble for this" type of remark that would be fairly incriminating.

[Dorkington]

Well, since we are being asked to compare this to real criminal charges and courtrooms proceedings like selling drugs, can you imagine if Brady did something like that in the real world? Some judges would have gone ballistic and tacked on more time just for that kind of contempt.

 

Roger Goodell had no responsibility to do anything other than listen to Brady's appeal. Brady's day late and dollar short attempt at cooperating was as transparent as his lies and coverup about being involved at all. It's mind boggling that people can just let that aspect of it mean so little.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Dunno, Brady being rich, he'd probably find a way to make it go away in the "real world".

[dave mcbride]

I obviously do not think Brady's punishment is remotely close to the equivalent of 10 years for an ounce of weed. You do. That's cool.

 

And the judge, whether he thought the original penalty for the ounce of weed is fair or not, if he was inclined to give him a more lenient sentence but the guy did that the day of court, the judge is not going to be lenient.

 

But that is not the argument here. Your argument is the whole thing and whole penalty is a sham. That's fine and your right but a separate issue. The phone is not a MacGuffin at all and believe me, I know what one is and use them all the time in work. In this case the phone is real evidence, and it's the one thing that actually has the answers to a lot of the questions in it. It's both real, and symbolic, of Goodell and the league's problem with what Brady did. The phone is Brady spitting in the league's face.

Please. I was trying to make a point about unfair penalties.

 

The penalty should be based primarily on the infraction -- not on the accused's unwillingness to share evidence in a workplace rules hearing. It appears highly likely that most of the penalty is based on the accused's unwillingness to hand over phone messages, not on what he actually is accused of doing.

 

On a sidenote, people keep saying that the coverup is always worse than the crime (i.e., Cuban) and then unthinkingly apply it to this case. Of course, the model is Watergate, but the reasoning is shoddy. The Watergate coverup related to a relatively minor crime, but what the investigation ultimately unveiled was a massive and complex dirty tricks operation that went after dissenters, Vietnam War critics (Ellsberg), and Democrats as well as a highly illegal campaign funding operation. No similar slew of crimes that were worse than the original here have turned up, so it would be nice if people stopped relying on that truism. (This isn't directed at you, btw.)

[PromoTheRobot]

Brady isn't a repeat offender per se but it's not exactly like he didn't benefit from spygate. The organization was punished as a whole instead of individuals (unless that camera man was fired).

 

I didn't see this but posted but you gotta give them Chowder heads credit for being creative. http://nesn.com/2015/07/dont-forget-roger-goodell-also-destroyed-evidence-in-spygate-fiasco/

Actually the Pats** destroyed the videos before the NFL saw them. Goodell said the NFL did it to cover for them.

[K-9]

Please. I was trying to make a point about unfair penalties.

 

The penalty should be based primarily on the infraction -- not on the accused's unwillingness to share evidence in a workplace rules hearing. It appears highly likely that most of the penalty is based on the accused's unwillingness to hand over phone messages, not on what he actually is accused of doing.

 

I suggest you read the entire Goodell report again.

 

The phone messages are only a contributing factor among several.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

Please. I was trying to make a point about unfair penalties.

 

The penalty should be based primarily on the infraction -- not on the accused's unwillingness to share evidence in a workplace rules hearing. It appears highly likely that most of the penalty is based on the accused's unwillingness to hand over phone messages, not on what he actually is accused of doing.

 

On a sidenote, people keep saying that the coverup is always worse than the crime (i.e., Cuban) and then unthinkingly apply it to this case. Of course, the model is Watergate, but the reasoning is shoddy. The Watergate coverup related to a relatively minor crime, but what the investigation ultimately unveiled was a massive and complex dirty tricks operation that went after dissenters, Vietnam War critics (Ellsberg), and Democrats as well as a highly illegal campaign funding operation. No similar slew of crimes that were worse than the original here have turned up, so it would be nice if people stopped relying on that truism. (This isn't directed at you, btw.)

I understand the last part. I don't think I have ever used the concept of the coverup is worse than the crime in this fiasco, and wouldn't equate it to the Watergate situation, which you are very right about.

 

The original penalty of four games was CLEARLY not for the infraction only. Half of it was. The other half was for Brady's non cooperation. Vincent made this abundantly clear. Well made it abundantly clear that Brady's answers to his questions were simply not plausible. It wasn't really not turning over his phone in the original penalty. They caught him lying. They knew he had some part in this. And he flat denied everything right to their face. They said this. That is why he got two games for it.

 

And he got two games for the original infraction. You could argue, rightfully so, that letting the air out of the ball is a small thing and minor advantage and doesn't warrant two game suspension. But that is not at all what he got two games for. He got two games for being the overseer of two other guys, employees of the team, working with him to take all of the balls, over several games in all likelihood, and maybe more (the Deflator goes back to last year), plus stealing the balls from the referees, taking them to a bathroom, etc. In the Championship Game no less.

 

That is what he got two games for. he never would have got two games if he was caught sticking a needle into the ball on the sidelines one time. He wouldn't have got one game for that. It would have been a small fine. You just seem to ignore that major element of this and say it's the equivalent of letting a little air out one time on the sidelines. It's not at all.

[K-9]

I understand the last part. I don't think I have ever used the concept of the coverup is worse than the crime in this fiasco, and wouldn't equate it to the Watergate situation, which you are very right about.

 

The original penalty of four games was CLEARLY not for the infraction only. Half of it was. The other half was for Brady's non cooperation. Vincent made this abundantly clear. Well made it abundantly clear that Brady's answers to his questions were simply not plausible. It wasn't really not turning over his phone in the original penalty. They caught him lying. They knew he had some part in this. And he flat denied everything right to their face. They said this. That is why he got two games for it.

 

And he got two games for the original infraction. You could argue, rightfully so, that letting the air out of the ball is a small thing and minor advantage and doesn't warrant two game suspension. But that is not at all what he got two games for. He got two games for being the overseer of two other guys, employees of the team, working with him to take all of the balls, over several games in all likelihood, and maybe more (the Deflator goes back to last year), plus stealing the balls from the referees, taking them to a bathroom, etc. In the Championship Game no less.

 

That is what he got two games for. he never would have got two games if he was caught sticking a needle into the ball on the sidelines one time. He wouldn't have got one game for that. It would have been a small fine. You just seem to ignore that major element of this and say it's the equivalent of letting a little air out one time on the sidelines. It's not at all.

This stopped being about letting a little air out of balls as soon as the activities and conspiratorial behaviors of Jastremski, McNally, and Brady were discovered and Brady chose to lie about them and then refuse to cooperate. Goodell would have been derelict in his duties to 31 other owners and fans of 31 other teams if he simply chose to ignore that aspect of it. Brady gave Goodell no other option, really.

 

And even still, Goodell was offering a deal and a reduced penalty. Brady's hubris ensured the suspension remained at four games. Not Goodell's intractability.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

I understand the last part. I don't think I have ever used the concept of the coverup is worse than the crime in this fiasco, and wouldn't equate it to the Watergate situation, which you are very right about.

 

The original penalty of four games was CLEARLY not for the infraction only. Half of it was. The other half was for Brady's non cooperation. Vincent made this abundantly clear. Well made it abundantly clear that Brady's answers to his questions were simply not plausible. It wasn't really not turning over his phone in the original penalty. They caught him lying. They knew he had some part in this. And he flat denied everything right to their face. They said this. That is why he got two games for it.

 

And he got two games for the original infraction. You could argue, rightfully so, that letting the air out of the ball is a small thing and minor advantage and doesn't warrant two game suspension. But that is not at all what he got two games for. He got two games for being the overseer of two other guys, employees of the team, working with him to take all of the balls, over several games in all likelihood, and maybe more (the Deflator goes back to last year), plus stealing the balls from the referees, taking them to a bathroom, etc. In the Championship Game no less.

 

That is what he got two games for. he never would have got two games if he was caught sticking a needle into the ball on the sidelines one time. He wouldn't have got one game for that. It would have been a small fine. You just seem to ignore that major element of this and say it's the equivalent of letting a little air out one time on the sidelines. It's not at all.

what makes it hard to discuss from this side, and im sure Dave will agree, is that every time we address one of the issues we get told "but thats not the issue" it seems like. yes, there are several things in play here, but if none of them are ever suspended, saying that he got 2 games for this and 2 games for that isnt all that much better. One largely over the top punishment vs two moderately over the top punishments doesnt make a substantial difference to our discussion points. its not like either of them when broken down becoming a situation where DM or i can say "oh that half is normal, so the other is only a little extreme, whatever."

 

so while you get a relatively static target to poke holes in, i feel like i am spinning in circles discussing it with a lot of the people here. maybe on the pro-4 game side there is a more cohesive way of constructing that the sum is greater than the parts, but as is its tough to really talk about your points when theres never an actual goal line to reach to make a persuasive point.

Edited July 30, 2015 by NoSaint

[dave mcbride]

Wired Magazine on the destruction of the phone: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/even-tom-brady-smash-phone-itd-make-zero-sense/

what makes it hard to discuss from this side, and im sure Dave will agree, is that every time we address one of the issues we get told "but thats not the issue" it seems like. yes, there are several things in play here, but if none of them are ever suspended, so saying that he got 2 games for this and 2 games for that isnt all that much better. One largely over the top punishment vs two moderately over the top punishments doesnt make a substantial difference to our discussion points. its not like either of them when broken down becoming a situation where DM or i can say "oh that half is normal, so the other is only a little extreme, whatever."

so while you get a relatively static target to poke holes in, i feel like i am spinning in circles discussing it with a lot of the people here. maybe on the pro-4 game side there is a more cohesive way of constructing that the sum is greater than the parts, but as is its tough to really talk about your points when theres never an actual goal line to reach to make a persuasive point.

You are right - I do agree!

[NoSaint]

Wired Magazine on the destruction of the phone: http://www.wired.com/2015/07/even-tom-brady-smash-phone-itd-make-zero-sense/

 

You are right - I do agree!

 

heck, we address equipment tampering and it swaps to PED use, and then we address impeding an investigation and get told its conduct detrimental to the league even. it just feels like a game of pin the tail on the donkey to get to addressing the issues presented.

[JohnC]

Please. I was trying to make a point about unfair penalties.

 

The penalty should be based primarily on the infraction -- not on the accused's unwillingness to share evidence in a workplace rules hearing. It appears highly likely that most of the penalty is based on the accused's unwillingness to hand over phone messages, not on what he actually is accused of doing.

 

On a sidenote, people keep saying that the coverup is always worse than the crime (i.e., Cuban) and then unthinkingly apply it to this case. Of course, the model is Watergate, but the reasoning is shoddy. The Watergate coverup related to a relatively minor crime, but what the investigation ultimately unveiled was a massive and complex dirty tricks operation that went after dissenters, Vietnam War critics (Ellsberg), and Democrats as well as a highly illegal campaign funding operation. No similar slew of crimes that were worse than the original here have turned up, so it would be nice if people stopped relying on that truism. (This isn't directed at you, btw.)

In the CBA it is spelled out that organizations, not players, are penalized for equipment infranctions. So if it is determined that a player or players have vaseline on their jerseys the organization and not the players would be held responsible.

 

The rule infraction that was alledgely breached had to do with equipment tampering. The entity responsible for those types of infractions are the teams, not the players involved. When it was learned that there was "stickum" on the balls in a San Diego game the organizatiion was held responsible and fined $25,000, with no penalty for the players involved, most noteworthy the qb. When Atlanta was found to heat balls in a cold weather game the organization was penalized (I believe) $25,000. No players were penalized.

 

You and No Saint have exhibited a great deal of wisdom and good judgment in this manufactured fiasco. In my view the source of the excessive and irrational response to the ball issue is the collective resentment by the other organizations towards the Patriots. Tom Brady is being steamrolled not for what he did or didn't do but because he is associated with the most successful franchise in the league.

 

You , No Saint and I have repeatedly made the point that Goodell is egregeously acting outside the norm for handling this type of infraction with his multi-million $$$ flawed investigation and with his excessive punishment that doesn't come close to matching the nature of the infraction.

[NoSaint]

In the CBA it is spelled out that organizations, not players, are penalized for equipment infranctions. So if it is determined that a player or players have vaseline on their jerseys the organization and not the players would be held responsible.

 

The rule infraction that was alledgely breached had to do with equipment tampering. The entity responsible for those types of infractions are the teams, not the players involved. When it was learned that there was "stickum" on the balls in a San Diego game the organizatiion was held responsible and fined $25,000, with no penalty for the players involved, most noteworthy the qb. When Atlanta was found to heat balls in a cold weather game the organization was penalized (I believe) $25,000. No players were penalized.

 

You and No Saint have exhibited a great deal of wisdom and good judgment in this manufactured fiasco. In my view the source of the excessive and irrational response to the ball issue is the collective resentment by the other organizations towards the Patriots. Tom Brady is being steamrolled not for what he did or didn't do but because he is associated with the most successful franchise in the league.

 

You , No Saint and I have repeatedly made the point that Goodell is egregeously acting outside the norm for handling this type of infraction with his multi-million $$$ flawed investigation and with his excessive punishment that doesn't come close to matching the nature of the infraction.

and i think all 3 of us agree that he likely, if not certainly, partook in direction to mess with the balls, and did not cooperate to the fullest of his abilities..... but also that things kind of spiraled out of control on the side of what was supposed to be the level headed, neutral party judging it, for whatever reason.

[Kelly the Dog]

what makes it hard to discuss from this side, and im sure Dave will agree, is that every time we address one of the issues we get told "but thats not the issue" it seems like. yes, there are several things in play here, but if none of them are ever suspended, saying that he got 2 games for this and 2 games for that isnt all that much better. One largely over the top punishment vs two moderately over the top punishments doesnt make a substantial difference to our discussion points. its not like either of them when broken down becoming a situation where DM or i can say "oh that half is normal, so the other is only a little extreme, whatever."

 

so while you get a relatively static target to poke holes in, i feel like i am spinning in circles discussing it with a lot of the people here. maybe on the pro-4 game side there is a more cohesive way of constructing that the sum is greater than the parts, but as is its tough to really talk about your points when theres never an actual goal line to reach to make a persuasive point.

What I think you're missing from my POV and apparently from the league's, is that you are saying this is WAY too much for letting air out of a ball. But I agree with you, and the league agrees with you IMO. That is why I said if he just let air out of a ball, he would have just got a $50K fine or whatever.

 

But that is not what he did. At all. So how can you argue that point. It's not about letting air out of a ball on the sidelines. The stuff you guys are equating his penalty to, and former fines and suspensions to. I think Roger Goodell would agree with you 100% on that. I do myself. But that is not at all what happened here.

Goodell equated an element of PED use very eloquently. When a guy does a little thing wrong a few times, he is suspended for a few games. If he tries to MASK the pee in a cup NFL procedure, he gets suspended for it.

[NoSaint]

It's also spelled out that players are penalized for conduct detrimental, which is what Brady is being punished for.

 

He had a choice and he screwed the pooch.

 

GO BILLS!!!

if asked that last week, i think nearly 100% of this board wouldve said it was obviously equipment tampering and nonparticipation in the investigation. now suddenly we have PEDs and conduct detrimental to the league as regular talking points.

[thebandit27]

and i think all 3 of us agree that he likely, if not certainly, partook in direction to mess with the balls, and did not cooperate to the fullest of his abilities..... but also that things kind of spiraled out of control on the side of what was supposed to be the level headed, neutral party judging it, for whatever reason.

 

And that, alone, is in violation of the NFL's policy on issues affecting the integrity of the game.

[GG]

if asked that last week, i think nearly 100% of this board wouldve said it was obviously equipment tampering and nonparticipation in the investigation. now suddenly we have PEDs and conduct detrimental to the league as regular talking points.

 

I'm just guessing, but the reason that PEDs are being talked about, is that was the equivalent standard Goodell used in his appeal denial, which wasn't available for us to discuss last week.

[Kelly the Dog]

if asked that last week, i think nearly 100% of this board wouldve said it was obviously equipment tampering and nonparticipation in the investigation. now suddenly we have PEDs and conduct detrimental to the league as regular talking points.

Because that is how Goodell explained ONE element of his reasoning on why he did what he did. Please read the last five pages of his report. It will take five minutes.

You guys arguing this should read the whole thing and then draw conclusions and make your points.

[NoSaint]

 

And that, alone, is in violation of the NFL's policy on issues affecting the integrity of the game.

and ill reiterate again, the flip side of that coin is that it hasnt ever been suspended for.