Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[Kelly the Dog]

i think the reasoning there is that he didnt care 12.5 vs 12.7, but that 16 is very noticeable. which of his testimony on the topic is just about the least noteworthy thing.

Not really at least to me. His answer there was so preposterous that it completely defied rational thought and increased the belief he was lying. Not to mention directly contradicts direct testimony from McNally.

[Peter]

For the past week or so, I have had a number of posts that I have posted on PFT deleted. The only ones that have been deleted were ones questioning Brady's case and/or PFT's coverage of it (PFT has a habit of drawing every inference in favor of Brady).

 

A few days ago, I started to take screen shots of these posts. I have tried to contact Florio to find out whether I am violating some policy of theirs.

 

Very odd.

 

Have any of you had this problem?

[l< j]

Again, Brady isn't really the issue here. He's not the one on trial

That sums up my issues with your involve not in this thread. I'm surprised you were so direct, really. You don't really want Brady on trial, and you think the perfect time to expose the supposed imbalance in the league's disciplinary system is right when Brady is exposed to be a cheat. And a bum. If a cheater gets away with cheating, small price to pay for correcting the real injustice here, that Goodell can hear appeals.

 

To heck with that. There is no injustice done to Brady. Cuz he's a bum. And a cheat. There is plenty of time to fix the CBA. Later. Right now we have a cheater to try. And a bum.

 

Of course he is on trial here. That is the whole point.

 

kj

[SRQ_BillsFan]

I'd like to know more about this game against the Jets? Were the balls 15.1, 15.5 and exaggerated to 16 or were they actually 16?

 

I think this could relate, was there any testimony about any of this, because I think this relates?

 

Marcia is a cry baby and I find it hard to believe he played the entire game with the ball inflated to 16 lbs, the entire game without complaining? Certainly if they lost or the game was close there would have been some comment to the press after the game.

 

Because Marcia is a crybaby and he helped with the rules in 2006, I don't think he would have just accepted it. Did he complain to the refs who had the ball adjusted at some point? Did he simply have his ball boys remove some air on the sidelines? Again I just can't believe he played the entire game that way and past actions may apply.

Edited August 5, 2015 by SRQ_BillsFan

[dave mcbride]

That sums up my issues with your involve not in this thread. I'm surprised you were so direct, really. You don't really want Brady on trial, and you think the perfect time to expose the supposed imbalance in the league's disciplinary system is right when Brady is exposed to be a cheat. And a bum. If a cheater gets away with cheating, small price to pay for correcting the real injustice here, that Goodell can hear appeals.

 

To heck with that. There is no injustice done to Brady. Cuz he's a bum. And a cheat. There is plenty of time to fix the CBA. Later. Right now we have a cheater to try. And a bum.

 

Of course he is on trial here. That is the whole point.

 

kj

That sums up my issues with your involve not in this thread. I'm surprised you were so direct, really. You don't really want Brady on trial, and you think the perfect time to expose the supposed imbalance in the league's disciplinary system is right when Brady is exposed to be a cheat. And a bum. If a cheater gets away with cheating, small price to pay for correcting the real injustice here, that Goodell can hear appeals.

To heck with that. There is no injustice done to Brady. Cuz he's a bum. And a cheat. There is plenty of time to fix the CBA. Later. Right now we have a cheater to try. And a bum.

Of course he is on trial here. That is the whole point.

kj

I really think you're missing my point. I would be very happy if Brady did not suit up against the Bills in game 2. However -- and I'm trying to be dispassionate here -- I think the case put together by the league has too many farcical elements and too much built-in bias against him to hold up as a fair decision process. I definitely think he's guilty, but not really because of the evidence laid out against him. I think he's guilty because of his prior activity in spygate. That is, he has proven that he can't be trusted. And a lot of others probably feel that way too. in fact, the only reason many people care or support a strong penalty against Brady is because of his prior sins (and he was definitely knowledgeable about spygate). Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the new case against him has some fundamental problems that can't be overlooked (unlike spygate). But he shouldn't be punished for spygate, much as he deserves it--it's settled, over and done with. And at the end of the day, i think a lot of the anger directed at him derives from that. I guarantee you that without spygate, this would have been treated as a minor -- i.e., fineable -- transgression, by both the league and the public.

 

I realize you don't like my posts in this thread, and that's cool. But I have some serious problems with the nfl's penalty against him, and much as i dislike him, i'm simply not going to join the tbd lynch mob and advocate for frontier justice.

Edited August 5, 2015 by dave mcbride

[ThurmasThoman]

As I said, minute.

Tell me what you think of this. On the surface, it makes Goodell look very disingenuous (i.e., a liar), but I know the original source is NE-based and possibly biased. I also don't know if this is an accurate interpretation of the situation, but on my reading the league comes off poorly. If you think it is reasonably accurate based on what you know, how do you think it reflects on the league's process and MO? http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/04/ruling-mischaracterizes-bradys-testimony-about-communications-with-jastremski/

 

I have not been following this case as closely as Kelly the Dog, but I could field this question for him, if he hasn't already responded.

 

And that is because

 

Florio is arguing that Goodell made the assumption that Brady called Jastremski on January 19th to get their ducks in a row, so to speak, about the illegal proceedings they had engaged in. Brady testified that he "does not remember" exactly what he talked about with Jastremski on the 19th, and that it was probably something to do with prep for the Super Bowl.

 

Despite the fact that Brady had never called this guy before any other game to discuss prep, Florio wants the reader to suppose that Brady and Jastremski were having a phone conversation "to try to figure out how someone could have taken so much air out of the footballs."

 

So, I think that article could be summed up as: Not only is Brady innocent, but he's trying to solve the case too!

[Go Kiko go]

Exhibit 6 is the supplemental declaration of Brad Maryman. With any luck, that attaches the report or sets forth the pertinent information. Presumably, there is an original declaration. I have not seen the exhibit number yet.

 

I found his original declaration (exhibit 3) and his credentials (exhibit 4).

 

His original declaration appears to just pertain to Brady's email account. He states that his firm was retained in May 2015, and on June 3, 2015, he performed a search of Brady's email account for certain keywords. His declaration is dated June 15, 2015.

 

The supplemental declaration (exhibit 6), which pertains to the forensic examination of Brady's phones, provides the same dates for his retention and examination of the two phones (May 2015 and June 3, 2015, respectively). That declaration is dated June 19, 2015.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[NoSaint]

Not really at least to me. His answer there was so preposterous that it completely defied rational thought and increased the belief he was lying. Not to mention directly contradicts direct testimony from McNally.

And that he notes that 12.5 vs 16 registers but 12.5 vs 12.7 doesn't is not the reason it was so far fetched. The rest of it was way worse. That was my point, not that the entire segment was reasonable. If listing the top ten things that raised your eye brow reading that section, acknowledging the jets at 16 psi was noticeably significantly high but being in the ballpark at 12.5 is fine wouldn't make your top ten issues.

 

For the past week or so, I have had a number of posts that I have posted on PFT deleted. The only ones that have been deleted were ones questioning Brady's case and/or PFT's coverage of it (PFT has a habit of drawing every inference in favor of Brady).

 

A few days ago, I started to take screen shots of these posts. I have tried to contact Florio to find out whether I am violating some policy of theirs.

 

Very odd.

 

Have any of you had this problem?

You are crazy to wade into PFT comments thinking its a rational place to chatter, even ignoring this trouble Edited August 5, 2015 by NoSaint

[Kelly the Dog]

And that he notes that 12.5 vs 16 registers but 12.5 vs 12.7 doesn't is not the reason it was so far fetched. The rest of it was way worse. That was my point, not that the entire segment was reasonable.

He said he didn't know why they chose the number 12.5, and that it could have been 12.7 or 12.8 or whatever. He specifically and intentionally did not want to say he wanted the balls at the lowest amount, 12.5, that they could be. That was a big part of what was so preposterous about the entire segment. Of course he knew that and he specifically demanded they be set at 12,5 because it is the lowest they can be. That is McNally's direct testimony, and that is even what Belichick said was the team's policy.

[Peter]

 

I found his original declaration (exhibit 3) and his credentials (exhibit 4).

 

His original declaration appears to just pertain to Brady's email account. He states that his firm was retained in May 2015, and on June 3, 2015, he performed a search of Brady's email account for certain keywords. His declaration is dated June 15, 2015.

 

The supplemental declaration (exhibit 6), which pertains to the forensic examination of Brady's phones, provides the same dates for his retention and examination of the two phones (May 2015 and June 3, 2015, respectively). That declaration is dated June 19, 2015.

Thanks. Did you get this on Pacer or is it linked anywhere?

 

It is interesting. If Brady and his attorneys really were interested in not providing his phone to Wells, they could have hired this guy to do this search before March 6 (the date of the interview and destruction of the phone).

And that he notes that 12.5 vs 16 registers but 12.5 vs 12.7 doesn't is not the reason it was so far fetched. The rest of it was way worse. That was my point, not that the entire segment was reasonable. If listing the top ten things that raised your eye brow reading that section, acknowledging the jets at 16 psi was noticeably significantly high but being in the ballpark at 12.5 is fine wouldn't make your top ten issues.

 

You are crazy to wade into PFT comments thinking its a rational place to chatter, even ignoring this trouble

Yes, I am crazy.

 

I always have enjoyed PFT and have read it even before he aligned with NBC. I have noticed that Florio seems to be carrying Brady's water - he seems to draw every inference in favor of Brady. I noticed that some of my posts pointing out discrepancies etc. started to disappear. I have no idea why Florio (or whoever is in charge of monitoring the comments) would care. I started taking screen shots of my comments before they had time to remove them. Somebody over at PFT has got a serious man crush on Tom Brady.

He said he didn't know why they chose the number 12.5, and that it could have been 12.7 or 12.8 or whatever. He specifically and intentionally did not want to say he wanted the balls at the lowest amount, 12.5, that they could be. That was a big part of what was so preposterous about the entire segment. Of course he knew that and he specifically demanded they be set at 12,5 because it is the lowest they can be. That is McNally's direct testimony, and that is even what Belichick said was the team's policy.

There is no doubt that Tom Brady and Bill Belichick know every rule in the rule book.

 

In Tom Brady's own words (after the Ravens game):

 

“I don’t know,” Brady said. “Who knows? 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.”

[Go Kiko go]

Thanks. Did you get this on Pacer or is it linked anywhere?

 

It is interesting. If Brady and his attorneys really were interested in not providing his phone to Wells, they could have hired this guy to do this search before March 6 (the date of the interview and destruction of the phone).

 

No problem. I grabbed it from Pacer, so unfortunately there isn't any public link.

 

But isn't Brady's contention that he didn't believe he was required to provide his phone, so, according to him, he believed he could destroy his phone at that time without repercussions? As I understand it, the need for the forensic analyst only arose after, according to him, he learned that he may be punished for failing to turn over the contents of his phone and attempted to salvage whatever data could be recovered.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[4merper4mer]

I really think you're missing my point. I would be very happy if Brady did not suit up against the Bills in game 2. However -- and I'm trying to be dispassionate here -- I think the case put together by the league has too many farcical elements and too much built-in bias against him to hold up as a fair decision process. I definitely think he's guilty, but not really because of the evidence laid out against him. I think he's guilty because of his prior activity in spygate. That is, he has proven that he can't be trusted. And a lot of others probably feel that way too. in fact, the only reason many people care or support a strong penalty against Brady is because of his prior sins (and he was definitely knowledgeable about spygate). Maybe I'm missing something, but I think the new case against him has some fundamental problems that can't be overlooked (unlike spygate). But he shouldn't be punished for spygate, much as he deserves it--it's settled, over and done with. And at the end of the day, i think a lot of the anger directed at him derives from that. I guarantee you that without spygate, this would have been treated as a minor -- i.e., fineable -- transgression, by both the league and the public.

 

I realize you don't like my posts in this thread, and that's cool. But I have some serious problems with the nfl's penalty against him, and much as i dislike him, i'm simply not going to join the tbd lynch mob and advocate for frontier justice.

 

Listen to yourself. The league is biased against a guy that they have allowed to call his own penalties for a decade? They're biased against cheaters, as they should be, and they caught him cheating. End of story.

 

I don't care if he plays in week 2 or not. I'd like them to stop cheating with or without Brady. I also want Brady to be remembered as a cheater whether he plays against the Bills or not......because he is a cheater.

[MattM]

For the past week or so, I have had a number of posts that I have posted on PFT deleted. The only ones that have been deleted were ones questioning Brady's case and/or PFT's coverage of it (PFT has a habit of drawing every inference in favor of Brady).

 

A few days ago, I started to take screen shots of these posts. I have tried to contact Florio to find out whether I am violating some policy of theirs.

 

Very odd.

 

Have any of you had this problem?

I've had the same problem a few times there, under the same circumstances.

 

I've really lost all respect for Florio over this matter. He repeatedly gets down in the weeds to argue every stupid pro-Patriots* point he can find and even his word choices belie an antagonism to the League here.

 

My personal favorite is his pinning the whole thing on Mortensen's 2 pounds under Tweets, totally ignoring, for example, the amazingly incriminating texts between the ballboys (which, to me personally is all a rational person needs to see here) or the gifts Brady lavished on McNally. BTW, I have yet to see a story on how Brady did that for all the low level staff--I'm sure if he had we'd have heard all about that by now, so you draw your own conclusions.

 

Goodell's report lays this all out nicely along Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is probably correct. Here, as Kelly has noted repeatedly, a whole bunch of preposterous coincidenced must all occur at once for Brady's story to hold any water.

[NoSaint]

He said he didn't know why they chose the number 12.5, and that it could have been 12.7 or 12.8 or whatever. He specifically and intentionally did not want to say he wanted the balls at the lowest amount, 12.5, that they could be. That was a big part of what was so preposterous about the entire segment. Of course he knew that and he specifically demanded they be set at 12,5 because it is the lowest they can be. That is McNally's direct testimony, and that is even what Belichick said was the team's policy.

Which clearly isn't what I was addressing about DC toms post, if you can step back from needing to find the worst Brady angle possible to advance here. I'm agreeing that your points here are worse than toms example. That's in fact my point.

Edited August 5, 2015 by NoSaint

[MattM]

BTW, it also looks to me (based on voting and commenting on PFT) that there may be sock puppets at work here, too. Just about everyone I know other than Pats* fans think he's guilty and the Pats/* deserve punishment, yet the votes on the comments often (but not always) are heavily pro-Pats*. The "not always" part is key to that suspicion--sock puppets may miss an article entirely, meaning normal voting takes place, which would explain the odd discrepancies on votes.

[Peter]

I've had the same problem a few times there, under the same circumstances.

 

I've really lost all respect for Florio over this matter. He repeatedly gets down in the weeds to argue every stupid pro-Patriots* point he can find and even his word choices belie an antagonism to the League here.

 

My personal favorite is his pinning the whole thing on Mortensen's 2 pounds under Tweets, totally ignoring, for example, the amazingly incriminating texts between the ballboys (which, to me personally is all a rational person needs to see here) or the gifts Brady lavished on McNally. BTW, I have yet to see a story on how Brady did that for all the low level staff--I'm sure if he had we'd have heard all about that by now, so you draw your own conclusions.

 

Goodell's report lays this all out nicely along Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is probably correct. Here, as Kelly has noted repeatedly, a whole bunch of preposterous coincidenced must all occur at once for Brady's story to hold any water.

I am glad that I am not imagining this. The whole thing is very, very odd.

 

I also commented on his article about Mort. I think that one was removed as well. It is funny how Florio suggests that all of this resulted from Mort's report and then spun out of control. I never had that sense at all.

 

As an aside, I printed the transcript of the hearing. I have only read bits and pieces thus far, but Brady's testimony makes for entertaining reading. I also enjoyed the cross-examination of Brady's expert. He was particularly testy.

[NoSaint]

I've had the same problem a few times there, under the same circumstances.

 

I've really lost all respect for Florio over this matter. He repeatedly gets down in the weeds to argue every stupid pro-Patriots* point he can find and even his word choices belie an antagonism to the League here.

 

My personal favorite is his pinning the whole thing on Mortensen's 2 pounds under Tweets, totally ignoring, for example, the amazingly incriminating texts between the ballboys (which, to me personally is all a rational person needs to see here) or the gifts Brady lavished on McNally. BTW, I have yet to see a story on how Brady did that for all the low level staff--I'm sure if he had we'd have heard all about that by now, so you draw your own conclusions.

 

Goodell's report lays this all out nicely along Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is probably correct. Here, as Kelly has noted repeatedly, a whole bunch of preposterous coincidenced must all occur at once for Brady's story to hold any water.

You seem to not acknowledge the difference between finding out if he's guilty and finding out if the nfl properly followed protocol. Two separate but both important discussions

[Peter]

BTW, it also looks to me (based on voting and commenting on PFT) that there may be sock puppets at work here, too. Just about everyone I know other than Pats* fans think he's guilty and the Pats/* deserve punishment, yet the votes on the comments often (but not always) are heavily pro-Pats*. The "not always" part is key to that suspicion--sock puppets may miss an article entirely, meaning normal voting takes place, which would explain the odd discrepancies on votes.

True. It is like they have an army of Patriot fans assigned to PFT.

 

It reminds me of an article I read a few months ago in the NYT about how the Russians have a team of people assigned to adding their (pro Putin/Russian) comments etc. to Western media websites.

 

Maybe this is what Robert Kraft got from Putin in return for the Super Bowl ring.

[4merper4mer]

You seem to not acknowledge the difference between finding out if he's guilty and finding out if the nfl properly followed protocol. Two separate but both important discussions

[NoSaint]

BTW, it also looks to me (based on voting and commenting on PFT) that there may be sock puppets at work here, too. Just about everyone I know other than Pats* fans think he's guilty and the Pats/* deserve punishment, yet the votes on the comments often (but not always) are heavily pro-Pats*. The "not always" part is key to that suspicion--sock puppets may miss an article entirely, meaning normal voting takes place, which would explain the odd discrepancies on votes.

Reading other boards I find it much more split- the take that Brady acted inappropriate but that the league did as well seems very common but I'm in a particularly nfl-skeptical market

Again thinking Brady is wrong but the NFL may also be hardly seems pro-Brady Edited August 5, 2015 by NoSaint