thebandit27 Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 By the way, honest question: what football team do you cheer for?
eball Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Who even cares whether or not the suspension is vacated now? I don't. Brady's clearly a cheat and a liar, the NFL disciplinary arm is a modern day version of the Keystone Kops, and the Bills will beat Brady down in W2 regardless. Carry on.
dave mcbride Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) And Brady's obscenely obvious inability to construct a congruent story is...what?Again, Brady isn't really the issue here. He's not the one on trial -- the league is, for an alleged lack of impartiality in a process (arbitration) that is supposed to be as impartial as possible. The involvement of a lawyer from Wells's firm in the questioning simply doesn't look good. What's the league thinking when they do things like that? Who even cares whether or not the suspension is vacated now? I don't. Brady's clearly a cheat and a liar, the NFL disciplinary arm is a modern day version of the Keystone Kops, and the Bills will beat Brady down in W2 regardless. Carry on. Agreed. A bothersome stress fracture inflicted by a Hughes sack that sidelines him for 6 games and limits his mobility for the remainder of the season would be an appropriate substitute suspension. Edited August 5, 2015 by dave mcbride
thebandit27 Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Again, Brady isn't really the issue here. He's not the one on trial -- the league is, for an alleged lack of impartiality in a process (arbitration) that is supposed to be as impartial as possible. The involvement of a lawyer from Wells's firm in the questioning simply doesn't look good. Agreed. He most definitely was the guy on trial in his appeal--the transcript of which was the subject of the comment I responded to. He is clearly lying in that transcript; he can't stick to a single story or give any kind of definitive answer.
BuffaloBillsForever Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Again, Brady isn't really the issue here. He's not the one on trial -- the league is, for an alleged lack of impartiality in a process (arbitration) that is supposed to be as impartial as possible. The involvement of a lawyer from Wells's firm in the questioning simply doesn't look good. What's the league thinking when they do things like that? Agreed. It is what the NFLPA agreed to. They should blame themselves and NOT the league/commissioner about the process. Edited August 5, 2015 by BuffaloBillsForever
Kelly the Dog Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) I'm certainly not gonna say that, but that's not really the point now, sad to say. The league looks ridiculous in this transcript, regardless of Brady's guilt. That's the issue. The league looks bad. Brady looks worse. What the league did is not criminal. Nor did it effect what they found. The fact is the Ravens said it's well known around the league that the Patriots cheat and deflate balls on the sidelines, (and may or may not have said) watch out for it to the Colts. The Colts intercepted a ball that turned out to be two pounds under. Something the ideal gas law doesn't count for whatsoever. The refs took all of the balls out of the game and they were all under. But again the one in question was two pounds under. The league found that the Pats stole the balls and altered them. Tom Brady lied about 100 times under oath about it and wouldn't show anything that could prove his innocence. What the league did in all their stumbling and fake conspiracies has nothing to do with that, and that is worth two games each, which is what they ruled. Edited August 5, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
GG Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 That's not my point, and I agree with you about McNally. The issue is ... well, there are a lot of issues, all stemming from actions and decisions during the game and afterward that hinged on complete ignorance of the basic science. My point is that it looks bad for the league regardless of Brady's guilt (and I think he was involved). Of course it looks bad for the league because they know Pats* cheated again, and Brady orchestrated it, but they don't have a video of the guy in the bathroom deflating the balls. So the league looks bad, just like Marcia Clark looked bad when the glove didn't fit. So in the end, even if Pats* & Brady* win the appeal on a technicality, they will have zero credibility with everyone outside New England.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 That's not my point, and I agree with you about McNally. The issue is ... well, there are a lot of issues, all stemming from actions and decisions during the game and afterward that hinged on complete ignorance of the basic science. My point is that it looks bad for the league regardless of Brady's guilt (and I think he was involved).The Ideal Gas Law does not, does not, account for two pounds under the Psi limit. At all. And they know for a fact that it was two pounds under because they always knew, and we now know, what gauge was used.
Wayne Cubed Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 He most definitely was the guy on trial in his appeal--the transcript of which was the subject of the comment I responded to. He is clearly lying in that transcript; he can't stick to a single story or give any kind of definitive answer. Yea but he was "under oath". Ha, what a joke.
dave mcbride Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) The Ideal Gas Law does not, does not, account for two pounds under the Psi limit. At all. And they know for a fact that it was two pounds under because they always knew, and we now know, what gauge was used. I honestly don't know why you're arguing with me about this. I'm not arguing for his innocence, after all. This is now all about the proper boundaries and restrictions surrounding a punisher's processes when it decides to inflict punishment on an inferior. That's where we're at in the process now.Of course it looks bad for the league because they know Pats* cheated again, and Brady orchestrated it, but they don't have a video of the guy in the bathroom deflating the balls. So the league looks bad, just like Marcia Clark looked bad when the glove didn't fit. So in the end, even if Pats* & Brady* win the appeal on a technicality, they will have zero credibility with everyone outside New England. My thought about this is that he can live with this because they're hated so much already. Also, don't forget greater Ann Arbor. Edited August 5, 2015 by dave mcbride
Kelly the Dog Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 I honestly don't know why you're arguing with me about this. I'm not arguing for his innocence, after all. This is now all about the proper boundaries and restrictions surrounding a punisher's processes when it decides to inflict punishment on an inferior. That's where we're at in the process now. . Because the basic science you mentioned doesn't affect it. It's just people like Florio posting foolish reasons why the NFL appears to HIM and other clowns to be clowns. And you are responding to that saying you think it's now going to be thrown out.
Rocky Landing Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Again, Brady isn't really the issue here. He's not the one on trial -- the league is, for an alleged lack of impartiality in a process (arbitration) that is supposed to be as impartial as possible. The involvement of a lawyer from Wells's firm in the questioning simply doesn't look good. What's the league thinking when they do things like that? How so?
NoSaint Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 That's not my point, and I agree with you about McNally. The issue is ... well, there are a lot of issues, all stemming from actions and decisions during the game and afterward that hinged on complete ignorance of the basic science. My point is that it looks bad for the league regardless of Brady's guilt (and I think he was involved). i feel like a lot of the people that drift in and out of the thread are having a hard time reconciling the idea that you can think hes very much guilty, but that if the nfl didnt follow protocol he may still end up "winning" this appeal.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 How so? I don't understand why that looks bad either. They were questioning Brady again, they were questioning the Wells report over and over. Wells was there and lawyers from his firm were there. There were 40 freaking people there including a couple dozen lawyers.
DC Tom Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 Again, Brady isn't really the issue here. He's not the one on trial -- the league is, for an alleged lack of impartiality in a process (arbitration) that is supposed to be as impartial as possible. The involvement of a lawyer from Wells's firm in the questioning simply doesn't look good. What's the league thinking when they do things like that? Agreed. A bothersome stress fracture inflicted by a Hughes sack that sidelines him for 6 games and limits his mobility for the remainder of the season would be an appropriate substitute suspension. Well that's a load of horseshit. The league is supposed to be impartial? According to a CBA they signed along with the NFLPA that allows them to be as partial and unfair as they want? This is nothing more than the NFLPA arguing that the CBA they negotiated is unfair to the NFLPA. Which it is. But they !@#$ing agreed to it, so boo-!@#$ing-hoo you pansy-ass wankers. i feel like a lot of the people that drift in and out of the thread are having a hard time reconciling the idea that you can think hes very much guilty, but that if the nfl didnt follow protocol he may still end up "winning" this appeal. Anyone who's paid any attention at all to Dumbass Goodell should understand that and have no problem reconciling it.
NoSaint Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 How so? you dont see how having a firm conduct an "independent investigation" and create what should be an impartial report but having that firm be the NFL's chosen counsel gives some degree of at the very least the appearance of not being impartial? that very issue was often brought up in the bounty gate mess when the nfl hired someone from a firm often employed by the nfl for defense to independently review their findings as proof of impartiality.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) i feel like a lot of the people that drift in and out of the thread are having a hard time reconciling the idea that you can think hes very much guilty, but that if the nfl didnt follow protocol he may still end up "winning" this appeal.He is not going to get completely off on a technicality. There are some legitimate concerns over how the NFL ruled. But most of them being discussed are not going to be ruled on by the judge. And some posters are laughing at the extent some bloggers are going to to make the NFL look 100% incompetent, when even if they were it wouldn't matter to the case or even to the judge. He's going to rule on whether Goodell had power or not to rule, and nothing in yesterday's transcript is going to change that. you dont see how having a firm conduct an "independent investigation" and create what should be an impartial report but having that firm be the NFL's chosen counsel gives some degree of at the very least the appearance of not being impartial? that very issue was often brought up in the bounty gate mess when the nfl hired someone from a firm often employed by the nfl for defense to independently review their findings as proof of impartiality. They were not the chosen counsel. The NFL's chosen counsel was there en masse. Other lawyers from Wells team were there, too. There must have been 30 lawyers there. Edited August 5, 2015 by Kelly the Dog
NoSaint Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 He is not going to get completely off on a technicality. There are some legitimate concerns over how the NFL ruled. But most of them being discussed are not going to be ruled on by the judge. And some posters are laughing at the extent some bloggers are going to to make the NFL look 100% incompetent, when even if they were it wouldn't matter to the case or even to the judge. He's going to rule on whether Goodell had power or not to rule, and nothing in yesterday's transcript is going to change that. They were not the chosen counsel. The NFL's chosen counsel was there en masse. Other lawyers from Wells team were there, too. There must have been 30 lawyers there. I believe it's been reported that wells firm was actually representing the nfl in the appeal, in addition to being present to field questions and partake in discussions about the report as you'd expect
Rocky Landing Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 you dont see how having a firm conduct an "independent investigation" and create what should be an impartial report but having that firm be the NFL's chosen counsel gives some degree of at the very least the appearance of not being impartial? that very issue was often brought up in the bounty gate mess when the nfl hired someone from a firm often employed by the nfl for defense to independently review their findings as proof of impartiality. Were the contents of the Wells report not the main points of contention? And, is the league hiding, or denying the fact that they based their judgment on the findings of the Wells report? How could the league be expected to answer concerns regarding that investigation without having representation from that firm to answer those questions? And, how would the presence that firms' legal council, ipso facto, render its investigation impartial?
Pneumonic Posted August 5, 2015 Posted August 5, 2015 But Brady comes across legit and innocent, right? Well, I certainly don't see any evidence that proves he cheated. As for how I view his answers ..... can't say from simple text messages that lack context. I would probably rank it as 60:40 that he is not lying and telling the truth. I think this ends in a fine and no suspension but, realizing it's labor and CBA arbitration law, flip a coin.
Recommended Posts