Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[NoSaint]

 

Isn't the real question; Did the NFL have the authority to call the "Goon Squad" as witnesses? Or was it a case of that being entirely the NFLPA's decision?

they couldnt force them, but they surely could have asked from what i have read.

[thebandit27]

Gathering up ALL of the evidence, it is pretty obvious to me what transpired here.

 

Goodell took the gamble that he could:

1. Disregard collectively bargained policies in issuing his initial discipline.
2. Short circuit an independent appeals process in order to gain support for his discipline, despite it being handed out based on assumptions and non proven truths.
3. Forever seal off evidence of this malfeasance from the public.
4. Convince Brady to accept the punishment or win in court on a technicality focusing on the limited scope of appeals when it comes to arbitration awards.

 

What Goodell didn’t anticipate was that Brady would be unwaveringly in his innocence and would not settle under the NFL’s pressure tactics. Nor did he expect that a federal judge would not obfuscate the truth to the public in order to fight the NFL's PR battle for them.

 

And this is the post of a person that is not a Patriots** shill attempting to smear the league?

 

Really curious why, once again, you've ignored my question?

[Kelly the Dog]

were discussing a legal situation here, you act like those nits have no bearing on the outcome of the case and are just a distraction when its actually the core of what the judge is reviewing. it may be minutia in your moral judgement of brady but in evaluating the NFLs discipline system, roger goodell, and the final outcome of the case the decisions made regarding the "minutia" could be very important.

 

i feel like you completely side stepped my point that it would have been really easy for the NFL to send a letter to the goon squad and say "hey could you show up and talk to us" instead of simply chalking it up as "the nflpa didnt want them to speak so we are counting them as supporting our side" without even asking if they would come. you can pick at whether it would be goodell or pash that should send the letter, or that the nflpa didnt invite them.... but isnt it easier to just be able to say "yea the nfl probably shouldve done that" instead of going full on "firechan in support of johnny manziel" in how you discuss this? admitting that the nfl wasnt perfect isnt conceding that the whole thing was a sham.

I'm not saying the NFL is perfect in any way. They made a bunch of what I would consider small mistakes. Most of the outrageous claims by how crooked the NFL in this thing is just stupid. I followed this closer than anyone here. I fully admit and make no bones about my bias towards his guilt, but that came after seeing stuff. And again, I am not at all anti all things Patriots. I thought spy gate is overblown, I think the fumble thing is a total non issue, I don't think Kraft or Belichick had anything whatsoever to do with this Brady thing specifically, I don't think it Helps Brady much if anything at all, and I think he is still one of the 2-3 best QBs ever. That's a very reasonable and fair stance IMO of this. I think it's 100% chance he cheated and he lied about it.

 

I'm often found defending Goodell and Wells because when you actually look at what happened and actually read all of the reports - I read the Wells report, I read the whole Goodell report a few times, I read the whole appeal transcript - the attacks against what they did are often flat wrong and as big a lie as Brady has told.

 

People are going batshit crazy over Goodell being judge, jury and executioner. This was the appeal hearing. The NFL,didn't call any witnesses other than guys talking about the report, not the occurrence or any events. I'm sure Goodell wanted to talk to Jastrmeski and McNally. They were not made available. He can't demand they come in. Who knows what actually happened about wanting to talk to them. But I'm absolutely sure that Brady's team would have had a brain aneurysm if he demanded they appear and there would have been 100 more obscene articles written about now the judge, jury, executioner and arbitrator is demanding witnesses.

[Pneumonic]

 

And this is the post of a person that is not a Patriots** shill attempting to smear the league?

 

Really curious why, once again, you've ignored my question?

 

How is this smearing? I simply summarized what my beliefs of what happened and drew no conclusions on guilt/innocence in either case.

 

I will have to go back and see what ? you asked earlier.

 

Edit: I grew up in Toronto amidst a family of Bills fans and so was a Bills fan for the better part of my life. After the OJ incident my NFL/Bills fandom wavered and I considered supporting an alternate team. I had a good friend (a Bills fan) whose nephew tried out for the Patriots, so he and I adopted the Pats as a 2nd team. I still root for both but it's been much easier to root for the Patriots of late.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Pneumonic

[Beerball]

were discussing a legal situation here, you act like those nits have no bearing on the outcome of the case and are just a distraction when its actually the core of what the judge is reviewing. it may be minutia in your moral judgement of brady but in evaluating the NFLs discipline system, roger goodell, and the final outcome of the case the decisions made regarding the "minutia" could be very important.

how so?

[thebandit27]

 

How is this smearing? I simply summarized what my beliefs of what happened and drew no conclusions on guilt/innocence in either case.

 

I will have to go back and see what ? you asked earlier.

 

You and Brady must be related:

 

Gathering up ALL of the evidence, it is pretty obvious to me what transpired here.

 

Goodell took the gamble that he could:

1. Disregard collectively bargained policies in issuing his initial discipline. No, he has the power to suspend him based on the personal conduct policy and not cooperating with the investigation.
2. Short circuit an independent appeals process in order to gain support for his discipline, despite it being handed out based on assumptions and non proven truths. That same CBA you are referencing in point 1 gives him jurisdiction over the appeal. You know this for a fact.
3. Forever seal off evidence of this malfeasance from the public. Both sides have tried to garner favor in the court of public opinion; why blame only Goodell?
4. Convince Brady to accept the punishment or win in court on a technicality focusing on the limited scope of appeals when it comes to arbitration awards. Meanwhile, the Patriots** owner admits to paying the fine thinking it would get Brady out of a punishment. Nice dichotomy.

 

What Goodell didn’t anticipate was that Brady would be unwaveringly in his innocence and would not settle under the NFL’s pressure tactics. Nor did he expect that a federal judge would not obfuscate the truth to the public in order to fight the NFL's PR battle for them.

 

You assume Brady's innocence--something you're saying you didn't do.

[Kelly the Dog]

The NFL would have been fine with, and actually preferred, no appeal . The point of an appeal is not to do the investigation again, but to hear and respond to the punished player's arguments that it was flawed. Brady apparently did not want to contest the McNally and Jastremski testimony and evidence.

 

What I don't understand is how Brady can be punished, if he is, with not making those two available to the initial investigation. That is not his responsibility, is it?

 

The Patriots themselves were the ones that prevented McNally and Jastremski from being interviewed a second time by Wells. Brady wasn't specifically punished by that, but indirectly suffered a lot from that because the first testimony that Jastremki and McNally provided to Wells directly contradicts Brady's testimony. So part of the conclusion that Brady was lying was the fact McNally said something different (as well as new texts discovered by Wells they previously had not gone far enough back on Wells wanted to know the answers to, like why he was called "The Deflator."). It was a confluence of a lot of factors that led to Brady's punishment, but the fact that Wells wasn't allowed to talk to them again made him believe that Brady and the Patriots didn't want that information out, the same way they didn't want his texts out.

 

Just another piece of a 100 piece puzzle of guilt.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[thebandit27]

As to the question, it's the same one I've asked you at least 3 times (and you've ignored each time): which NFL team do you cheer for?

[Matt in KC]

The Patriots themselves were the ones that prevented McNally and Jastremski from being interviewed a second time by Wells. Brady wasn't specifically punished by that, but indirectly suffered a lot from that because the first testimony that Jastremki and McNally provided to Wells directly contradicts Brady's testimony. So part of the conclusion that Brady was lying was the fact McNally said something different (as well as new texts discovered by Wells they previously had not gone far enough back on Wells wanted to know the answers to, like why he was called "The Deflator."). It was a confluence of a lot of factors that led to Brady's punishment, but the fact that Wells wasn't allowed to talk to them again made him believe that Brady and the Patriots didn't want that information out, the same way they didn't want his texts out.

 

Just another piece of a 100 piece puzzle of guilt.

I agree. I guess I'm surprised Brady hasn't said clearly "please go talk to them; I can't tell you what they were doing or saying, or why!" Of course I really don't think he wants them to, and that is a part of how Brady comes off as guilty to me.

[Pneumonic]

 

You and Brady must be related:

 

 

You assume Brady's innocence--something you're saying you didn't do.

 

While I do see Brady as more innocent than guilty (60-40 in favour of innocence based almost entirely on suspect science) the reference to innocence you speak of is how Brady, himself, views things, not I.

 

I simply summarized how I see how things unfolded.

 

Now, it's up to the judge to rule on pts 1 and 2.

[Beerball]

 

 

Well... this is the entire bassis of the appeal. What else should we be talking about? We have conceded he cheated. Now he is appealing the procedural process by which he was punished and the appeal of the punishement.

 

I don't understand your criticism.

i don't know that I was criticizing, just giving an opinion. For me it's all been said and all the talking in the world won't affect the outcome.

[Pneumonic]

 

I think the more I read about Deflategate, the less faith I have in the NFL. I’m not saying Tom Brady and the Patriots are totally innocent, but no sensible person would describe the league’s proof as being anything close to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And just because the CBA doesn’t say it has to be doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. I’m not big on calling for someone’s firing, but Roger Goodell went after the sport’s grandest star (maybe ever) and this decade’s most accomplished franchise. In doing so, he created a gargantuan distraction for both during Super Bowl week. Then he allowed the misinformation from that distraction to percolate for many months, damaging the brand of all parties involved (including, indirectly, the league’s). This is the antithesis of “protecting The Shield.” Barring a turn of events in this Deflategate saga—and with the way things have gone, there very well could be another turn of events—Goodell should lose his job.

 

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/08/06/roger-goodell-nfl-deflategate-dez-bryant-fight-chip-kelly

[Mr. WEO]

i don't know that I was criticizing, just giving an opinion. For me it's all been said and all the talking in the world won't affect the outcome.

 

The point is that this is where the story is now. I agree that debating guilt is meaningless at this time. But since we know the basis of the appeal, is it not appropriate to comment on what we feel are the merits and weaknesses of each side of the case, such as it is now (which is not "did he cheat?")?

 

All the talking in the world is the bassis of this and other such sites---none of any such talk has ever affected outcomes. I don't think that's a reasonable standard for what should be discussed.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[thebandit27]

 

While I do see Brady as more innocent than guilty (60-40 in favour of innocence based almost entirely on suspect science) the reference to innocence you speak of is how Brady, himself, views things, not I.

 

I simply summarized how I see how things unfolded.

 

Now, it's up to the judge to rule on pts 1 and 2.

 

So yes, you have drawn conclusions regarding innocence.

 

And, by the way:

 

As to the question, it's the same one I've asked you at least 3 times (and you've ignored each time): which NFL team do you cheer for?

[Beerball]

The point is that this is where the story is now. I agree that debating guilt is meaningless at this time. But since we know the basis of the appeal, is it not appropriate to comment on what we feel are the merits and weaknesses of each side of the case, such as it is now (which is not "did he cheat?")?

then consider me a bottom line guy. Bottom line is he cheated. Bottom line is the CBA gives Goodell the power he wanted (& most here, myself most likely included cheered the get tough commissioner). Bottom line Goodell has repeatedly screwed the pooch.

 

The outcome of the case (if it comes to that point) won't change any of that.

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree. I guess I'm surprised Brady hasn't said clearly "please go talk to them; I can't tell you what they were doing or saying, or why!" Of course I really don't think he wants them to, and that is a part of how Brady comes off as guilty to me.

Because he knows what happened. One of the craziest things of all the crazy things said was that he had never talked to McNally. Didn't ever remember talking to him once. Doesn't know who he is or what he does, other than recognizes his face. And McNally's testimony is "Tom told me personally." And one of the Jastremski texts was "Tom brought you up last night."

 

But Wells and Goodell are not supposed to conclude that Brady is lying or did anything wrong.

[starrymessenger]

Because he knows what happened. One of the craziest things of all the crazy things said was that he had never talked to McNally. Didn't ever remember talking to him once. Doesn't know who he is or what he does, other than recognizes his face. And McNally's testimony is "Tom told me personally." And one of the Jastremski texts was "Tom brought you up last night."

But Wells and Goodell are not supposed to conclude that Brady is lying or did anything wrong.

That's right. Wells and Goodell are not supposed to think Tom did anything wrong.

Jastremski specifically told Tom in his text message that it was "unrealistic" to believe that Tom actually did it himself.

Edited August 6, 2015 by starrymessenger

[Mr. WEO]

then consider me a bottom line guy. Bottom line is he cheated. Bottom line is the CBA gives Goodell the power he wanted (& most here, myself most likely included cheered the get tough commissioner). Bottom line Goodell has repeatedly screwed the pooch.

 

The outcome of the case (if it comes to that point) won't change any of that.

 

Yet Goodell's power has been smacked down again and again in the past several off seasons, by Tags and by Federal judges.

[GG]

 

Yet Goodell's power has been smacked down again and again in the past several off seasons, by Tags and by Federal judges.

 

Which all predated Dec 2014. But you knew that.

[NoSaint]

then consider me a bottom line guy. Bottom line is he cheated. Bottom line is the CBA gives Goodell the power he wanted (& most here, myself most likely included cheered the get tough commissioner). Bottom line Goodell has repeatedly screwed the pooch.

 

The outcome of the case (if it comes to that point) won't change any of that.

if you have already made your judgements on both sides, and dont care about the case, why continue to return to the thread to make comments about people discussing the potential outcomes of the case?