Deflategate Central (one thread, merged, moderated)

[Superman]

From your article :

"DeSarno pointed out that the data set is incomplete and flawed — what we’ve been saying for four months about referee Walt Anderson not recording the pregame data and all of the different gauge-switching scenarios — and that Wells cherry-picked results to fit the “Patriots are guilty” conclusion.

"

 

I read that. 

 

You gonna respond to the post about suspending Jastremski and McNally?

[SteelCityColt]

From your article :

"DeSarno pointed out that the data set is incomplete and flawed — what we’ve been saying for four months about referee Walt Anderson not recording the pregame data and all of the different gauge-switching scenarios — and that Wells cherry-picked results to fit the “Patriots are guilty” conclusion.

"

Much like how you cherry pick your replies and ignore posts that have caught out the statements you've been misrepresenting as factual.

[Girlzarefanstoo]

This articles states that the Chargers were fined 20K in part for their actions of trying to conceal the towels.  No its not a "formal investigation" after the game is over between investigators and lawyers, but it was a on field investigation by the refs to see what was up with the towels and the charger hindered that investigation by the refs.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000091683/article/san-diego-chargers-fined-20k-by-nfl-in-towel-case

 

As for the Saints suspensions they were vacated by former Commissioner Tagliabue and his findings are found in my prior post to Granz, post #1048, supra.  In short he stated as there never have been a suspension for obstructing a League investigation the instant suspensions need to be vacated.

 

And Farve was fined 50K for no cooperating with the investigation of him texting pictures of himself

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5965863

Your "facts" are dug up on google without following all the way through to see what the end result was...  so they are useless and irrelevent.  The Chargers were cleared of these charges and the fine reversed.   The Chargers completely complied with the investigation.  

[18Manning]

Tom Brady claims he didn't want to set a precedent by turning over his phone. Was that by advice of his lawyers, or his own decision? Was he claiming to do everyone else in the league a favor by not setting that precedent? I don't understand why someone would destroy the one and only thing that would have exonerated him (assuming he is innocent of all wrong doing). Is he out to prove a point? Potentially losing in court, even if he is innocent. Looking guilty, even if he's innocent, only to not set a precedent? It's ridiculous to assume there was nothing on the phone that would work against Tom.

[southwest1]

Goodell's camp points for why the 4 game suspension should be imposed & remain intact:

 

--Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the legal standard that the League must meet now in part due to SpyGate & the same organization, which is why this legal thresh hold was actually changed & modified. "More probable than not" is the new criteria legally. Think of it closer to a civil case as opposed to a criminal case with lower burdens or standards having to be met. 

 

--Name any other penalty the league has handed out where prior notification of a fine or a ruling was publicly disclosed to a player before they were handed a Fed Ex envelope with the penalty stipulated inside. Prior notification never typically transpires from the League office. 

 

--When the CBA was being negotiated player reps standing up for all 32 teams gave Goodell the authority or the discretion to more or less act as judge, jury, & executioner when it comes down to infractions & their corresponding fines & the number of missed games based on the scope & nature of the violation including hearing any players overall appeal requesting any form of a reduction. Instead of channeling that anger at Roger aim that frustration at the NFL Player's Association & when the CBA expires, strip Goodell of this absolute power & refuse to sign the document until he does. 

 

--I don't really know how Goodell can successfully argue that the 4 game suspension should stand when the CBA doesn't list what rule Brady actually violated warranting his suspension. It's a long shot, but he might make the argument that no one could anticipate that Brady would engage in text dialog with an equipment manager who calls himself the deflator & then refuse to cooperate with Ted Wells team acting as a representative of the NFL. An unprecedented offense warrants an unprecedented penalty even without a specific bylaw or rule spelled out in print.

 

Here's the problem though: If Brady had been charged with breaking the rules in SpyGate along with Belichick, you could make a continued conspiracy argument designed to show that Brady broke the rules twice ignoring your warning & believing he was above the rules that apply to Brady. 1 major problem: Brady wasn't convicted of SpyGate involvement nor was he punished so therefore a 1st offense can't be used to establish an intentional pattern of rule breaking more than once. 

 

--Brady's alleged destruction of his phone just looks horrible. People destroy phones typically to mask prior awareness of something they aren't particularly proud of. It means nothing legally I know, but a judge & a jury want to know why the central figure in a case demolishes a phone or orders someone else to smash & obliterate it especially when Brady knew that information on it obtained thru your attorney will ensure that Brady's privacy rights aren't violated. Destruction of phones typically means there is something incriminating you don't want the public to see. There's no way to soften this deliberate act of sabotage. No way. 

 

--Why should Brady's fame, popularity, & SB rings really matter? If Andy Dalton allegedly replicated all of Brady's actions before & after the SB regarding deflate gate, would NE fans be making the exact same arguments giving the Bengals QB the same benefit of the doubt? Hmmm....

 

--Brady put himself in the eye of this storm. No one else did that. At what point does unfair persecution victimization meet a bathroom mirror Tom? Do you seriously think that you did nothing to warrant the scrutiny you are receiving outside of say Massachusetts, Michigan, & California? Goodell didn't seek you out to tarnish your representation. You had a horrible press conference, you remained silent hiding behind the words of your father, former teammates, & current teammates. For someone who claimed you would address these unfounded accusations, you have an unorthodox method of defending yourself. Human family shields & 1 facebook post months after this scandal snowballed. It it were me, I'd go let's settle this right now. Tell me when & where the cameras & mic are. It's showtime baby. The dust will settle right here & now. I don't need weeks or months to break the cricket silence. 

 

--The best thing in Brady's favor is that NFL zebras never wrote down PSI measurements during the AFC Championship Game. There is no darn excuse for that ever. It ticks me off immensely. As an archivist myself, chain of custody protocols & through record keeping means everything for historical & posterity purposes. The NFL can never allow substandard record keeping on PSI measurements or gauges ever again.  

[csmopar]

I read that.

You gonna respond to the post about suspending Jastremski and McNally?

He will....give it time he's too busy racking his brain trying to come up with another "fact" about how it's a set up ot something....

[RockThatBlue]

You still haven't posted any sort of refute. You claim Yale and MIT have refuted the claims, but can you provide links?

I think he got the info from bullcrap.com

[RockThatBlue]

Proof?

He hasn't posted proof about anything in this thread so far. Asking for a link from him is like pulling teeth

[Cynjin]

Uh.

They haven't been fired. The NFL requested they be suspended.

 

You have proof of that?  Other than some anonymous report.

[csmopar]

He hasn't posted proof about anything in this thread so far. Asking for a link from him is like pulling teeth

I know.... like I said earlier, you could fill a port a potty in a bout 10 seconds with the amount of crap hes spewed in this thread

[Cynjin]

By the way, according to the NFLPA, based on the CBA, Brady cannot be suspended for being involved in deflating footballs, even if true.

 

Well as long as the NFLPA said it, it must be true.  Their lawyers wouldn't lie, only the lawyers that the NFL has hired would lie.

[Cynjin]

No worries...this flew over Jets camp at the same time...

 

 

That would be funny if it were true, but alas it is not true, just like many of the other posts by Patriots fans.

[csmopar]

That would be funny if it were true, but alas it is not true, just like many of the other posts by Patriots fans.

Like QB, like Fans. Tom Brady's storys haven't been true so why should we expect any different from their fans.....

[HORSEPOWER]

Hold on there little buddy, you are getting a tad excited. 

 

Obstruction is obstruction regardless of how you spin it.

 

Brady's position is that his phone broke and per his sop he destroyed the phone.  When he found he could not get the texts from his provider he provided the NFL this his phone records showing the time and dates of texts with the corresponding recipient phone number, of which there were about 28 recipients.

 

His records match up with the records of text of all the pats employee phones the NFL had in its possession and the other recipient phones can be subpoenaed.    

 

Lets not got to overboard here.

 

if he really wanted to go rogue, he would not have provided the above.

Why would Goodell want a list of numbers. That does'nt prove anything. I would think the contents of the text messages are why the phone was destroyed. Why was the previous phone not destroyed if this is "common practice"??

[HORSEPOWER]

I know.... like I said earlier, you could fill a port a potty in a bout 10 seconds with the amount of crap hes spewed in this thread

FACT: Something Pats fans confuse with fairytales

[jvan1973]

I find it amusing that all pats fans think an injunction is a sure thing. David Doty isn't presiding over this case. If an injunction isn't granted, the lawsuit is worthless

[Yehoodi]

Why would Goodell want a list of numbers. That does'nt prove anything. I would think the contents of the text messages are why the phone was destroyed. Why was the previous phone not destroyed if this is "common practice"??

 

Its not a list of numbers, its a list of texts made than can be matched up with the other phones which can be subpoenaed, the NFL is already in possession of at least three of these phones.  

 

As his second to last phone, not sure why he has the phone, maybe he wanted a second phone.  Unlike his phone in question it did not break and thus could still be used when he bought the replacement.

 

Also, it should be noted that the Wells report makes a big deal of the word "deflator" and meaning the person who call himself this as being is one who deflates balls and further states that the pats operation likely went back this far.  Well just to remind you and any other folks in the peanut gallery, that text occurred in May of 2014, indicating that Wells thinks this behavior is at least that old.  Well the phone Brady handed to the NFL ended in November 2014 and thus would of been in use at least 7 months after the earliest point in which the NFL felt the pats were involved in this behavior. 

 

If Brady was trying to hide something why would he turn over that phone?

[Yehoodi]

Your "facts" are dug up on google without following all the way through to see what the end result was...  so they are useless and irrelevent.  The Chargers were cleared of these charges and the fine reversed.   The Chargers completely complied with the investigation.  

 

Link please?

 

I had heard this before when I first looked into this matter a few months ago and heard that theirs chargers were exonerated, but I could not find a link to the successful appeal.    It would be nice to have a link to confirm that they were reversed and more importantly the reason for the reversal as that would be pertinent to whether the initial fine for obstruction the refs from gaining access to the towels was not finable.  

 

Until we see that clarification, we are left with the SD Chargers being another example that obstructing the NFL in some way is a finable offense.

[Yehoodi]

von miller swore that it was an accident when he dropped a urine sample.  he was suspended anyway

 

I thought von miller was caught getting a urine sample from a supplier that gave a sample that was not his?

[Girlzarefanstoo]

Yehoodi, you are not left with a false conclusion, you are choosing to make a false equivalence.  Yes, I am a Charger fan, however I followed this issue to its conclusion and am an honorable person - not a homey that twists facts.  I posted the link in an earlier thread.  I don't have time to search for it right now as we're heading out the door.

 

A quick retraction is here:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/chargers-ultimately-prevailed-in-appeal-of-towel-fine/

 

Details of what happened - at this point the fine was still in play though the Chargers had already been ruled innocent:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2012/nov/07/chargers-cleared-use-sticky-towels-still-face-fine/

 

Eventually the NFL overturned it's $20,000 fine as well.

 

Basic facts:

 

1.  Equipment manager didn't realize the ref wanted the towels.  Ref thought he was hiding them.

2.  Towels were not illegal.  Had no additional substances.  Were towels other teams were routinely using as well.

3.  Fine was for not moving fast enough to comply on the sidelines but the towels got to the refs before the end of the game if I recall correctly.

4.  Fine was overturned.  No cheating found.  No discipline of any kind.  Not guilty.

[Yehoodi]

He was not suspended for tampering (McNally did that!) nor obstructing the investigation! He was suspended for violating article 46 1a  Conduct Detrimental to the Integrity of the League and confidence in the game.   His awareness of Jastremski and McNally actions is a violation.  Wells report found him guilty by the preponderance of the evidence.  Appeal was upheld in Arbitration.  The NFLPA has to fight that, and the fact the US Supreme court has at least 3 rulings handed down that essentially tell district courts to stay out of the business of altering  the rulings of Arbitrated cases.

 

Has any player ever in the history of football been suspended for being "generally aware" that another employee of the team violated a league rule.

 

For example was Montana suspended when the NFL found out that his oline were using silicone on their jerseys?

 

If you can find me a player that was suspended for being generally aware that the staff, coaches, players around him violated a rule, then I am all ears.  And you and I both know that there are several hundred/thousand of league violation in the last 40 or so years of football, but now the NFL decides to break precedent? 

[Yehoodi]

Yehoodi, you are not left with a false conclusion, you are choosing to make a false equivalence.  Yes, I am a Charger fan, however I followed this issue to its conclusion and am an honorable person - not a homey that twists facts.  I posted the link in an earlier thread.  I don't have time to search for it right now as we're heading out the door.

 

A quick retraction is here:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/chargers-ultimately-prevailed-in-appeal-of-towel-fine/

 

Basic facts:

 

1.  Equipment manager didn't realize the ref wanted the towels.  Ref thought he was hiding them.

2.  Towels were not illegal.  Had no additional substances.  Were towels other teams were routinely using as well.

3.  Fine was for not moving fast enough to comply on the sidelines but the towels got to the refs before the end of the game if I recall correctly.

4.  Fine was overturned.  No cheating found.  No discipline of any kind.  Not guilty.

 

Girlarefanstoo, thanks a million , you provided me with exactly what I was looking for and what I was driving at in my last post to you.  thanks

 

The reason for lifting the fine was that upon reconsideration the NFL felt that the in the end the staff did not try to obstruct the refs.  

 

Initially, the fine was given for obstructing the refs (i.e. obstruction results in a fine), which we both know is a separate act from the underlying crime of towels or cameras or deflated balls, and if the later is found to be innocent, in the cast the towels were found to be innocent, the former is still a finable offense as it is separate act, but that too was found to be innocent.  

 

My only point early was merely to site examples of how obstruction results in fines not a suspension; that is, the NFL did not initially suspend the SD staff who had custody of the towels, they just merely fined the team.  Once they realized he was not obstructing and he did not know the refs wanted the towels, they found no obstruction and thus the fine is naturally vacated as there was nothing to fine.  

 

Had on the other hand the appeal stated "we still fine obstruction but find that an obstruction is not finable offense" then one could argue that in the past the NFL does not fine for obstruction in this particular case.    

 

But as the initially imposition of a fine was based on a belief, although mistaken at the time, obstruction occurred, it is an illustration that the NFL will fine players, teams, etc. for obstruction and not suspend them.   Which was the basis of my points, they fine and do not suspend for obstruction.

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to find this.      

[dw49]

Has any player ever in the history of football been suspended for being "generally aware" that another employee of the team violated a league rule.

 

For example was Montana suspended when the NFL found out that his oline were using silicone on their jerseys?

 

If you can find me a player that was suspended for being generally aware that the staff, coaches, players around him violated a rule, then I am all ears.  And you and I both know that there are several hundred/thousand of league violation in the last 40 or so years of football, but now the NFL decides to break precedent? 

 

 

1) You are a supposed law expert and either you are being disingenuous or you are not so expert . The "generally " and that type language is used by Wells as it coincides with the burden of proof he is being paid to use in judging the case. 

 

2) He isn't being suspended for being guilty of having knowledge of what an employee did. Let's not be children here. He's being suspended for having a part in making footballs more to his liking after they were tested by officials for game use. 

[Girlzarefanstoo]

Girlarefanstoo, thanks a million , you provided me with exactly what I was looking for and what I was driving at in my last post to you.  thanks

 

The reason for lifting the fine was that upon reconsideration the NFL felt that the in the end the staff did not try to obstruct the refs.  

 

Initially, the fine was given for obstructing the refs (i.e. obstruction results in a fine), which we both know is a separate act from the underlying crime of towels or cameras or deflated balls, and if the later is found to be innocent, in the towels were, the former is still a finable offense as it is separate act, but that too was found to be innocent.  

 

My only point early was merely to site examples of how obstruction results in fines not a suspension; that is, the NFL did not initially suspend the SD staff who had custody of the towels, they just merely fined the team.  Once they realized he was not obstructing and he did not know the refs wanted the towels, they found no obstruction and thus the fine is naturally vacated as there was nothing to fine.  

 

Had on the other hand the appeal stated "we still fine obstruction but find that an obstruction is not finable offense" then one could argue that in the past the NFL does not fine for obstruction in this particular case.    

 

But as the initially imposition of a fine was based on a belief, although mistaken at the time, obstruction occurred, it is an illustration that the NFL will fine players, teams, etc. for obstruction and not suspend them.   Which was the basis of my points, they fine and do not suspend for obstruction.

 

Thanks so much for taking the time to find this.      

There is a flaw in your reasoning however, just because they haven't had suspensions for obstruction does not mean that they cannot do so.  Especially if the obstruction is serious, prolonged and the offense deemed of such a magnitude to require it. 

 

The argument that "it's never been done before" means "it can never be done" is specious.  If a violation has never happened before it's corresponding punishment may never have happened either.

 

I probably won't be able to respond.  Will be gone in a few minutes :-)

[Yehoodi]

1) You are a supposed law expert and either you are being disingenuous or you are not so expert . The "generally " and that type language is used by Wells as it coincides with the burden of proof he is being paid to use in judging the case. 

 

2) He isn't being suspended for being guilty of having knowledge of what an employee did. Let's not be children here. He's being suspended for having a part in making footballs more to his liking after they were tested by officials for game use. 

 

First off my response was in response to ColtsblueFL post #1051, where he claimed the suspension was not based on acts to deflate balls or obstruction but based on his awareness of the acts.  So my post is in context of his post, so I was only addressing whether someone could be suspended for awareness only.

 

Second, we will set aside for a moment if "general" equals "more probable than not", and actually lets assume for the purposes of our conversation that they do equal.

 

It still gets back to my point that if someone is found to be aware of another illegal act, how is that an offense that can carry a suspension?

 

I can not think of many, if any, suspensions based on an NFL player being suspended for being aware that another employee (player, coach or staff member), was violating a rule.   Can you think of one? 

[Yehoodi]

Tagliabue's opinion in Bounty is not binding. He was the appeal officer, same as Goodell was the appeal officer of the Deflategate situation. Goodell's opinion in Deflategate isn't beholden to Tagliabue's previous opinion, as Tagliabue wasn't operating as a higher official than Goodell. Lower court is beholden to higher court; but one district court isn't beholden to another district court.

 

Not only that, but Tagliabue's Bounty decision was based on much more than the supposed unprecedented punishment of Hargrove for lack of cooperation. That was a side point more than a compelling factor. Tagliabue and even the investigation preceding the punishment found that Hargrove wasn't involved in the bounty actions.

 

it may not be binding but it does have influence and is a further data point of how the NFL can act in certain situations.

 

But regardless, it still gets back to my point that a player has never been suspended for obstructing an investigation. 

 

I was only bringing instances where players have only been fined or nothing at all when we are dealing with obstruction of an investigation. 

 

Now perhaps actually violations of league rules may sit on a different footing.  

[AndreRison]

Also, it should be noted that the Wells report makes a big deal of the word "deflator" and meaning the person who call himself this as being is one who deflates balls and further states that the pats operation likely went back this far. Well just to remind you and any other folks in the peanut gallery, that text occurred in May of 2014, indicating that Wells thinks this behavior is at least that old. Well the phone Brady handed to the NFL ended in November 2014 and thus would of been in use at least 7 months after the earliest point in which the NFL felt the pats were involved in this behavior.

If Brady was trying to hide something why would he turn over that phone?

I can think of one reason....He knew it wasn't his shady phone.

So,you're claiming the NFL got his old phone? How did they get that phone?

So the story is, the NFL has phone #1. Brady broke phone #2.

Why would the NFL have phone #1, if Brady is claiming privacy issues? This actually makes it more likely Tom "destroyed" phone #2 to hide something.

[AndreRison]

But regardless, it still gets back to my point that a player has never been suspended for obstructing an investigation.

I don't know how true your statement is, but I know Brady didn't get suspended for obstructing an investigation.

Brady got suspended for deflated football's.

The obstruction in the investigation allowed the investigators to consider that obstruction in the worst possible light. They could have concluded the obstruction wasn't obstruction at all, and instead concluding it was just a broken phone. The timing of when it was broke, the months it took to admit this, and the fact he didn't save the SD card led them to the logical conclusion that the phone was "destroyed" to cover up his involvement. They also found out he wanted to secretly meet with Jastremski in the QB room. He also claimed he didn't know McNally, a man who worked on the Patriots sidelines all the way back before Brady was even drafted. That also lends credence to the notion that he had something to hide. It's really not shocking that the suspension was upheld. What's shocking is that it wasn't longer.

In my opinion, the destruction of the phone should have added games to his suspension.

If he had held onto the phones, and stuck to his guns about not letting them read one iota of his texts, without destroying phone #2, he would've had a great chance of keeping his texts out of the investigation.

[GoColts8818]

I don't know how true your statement is, but I know Brady didn't get suspended for obstructing an investigation.

Brady got suspended for deflated football's.

The obstruction in the investigation allowed the investigators to consider that obstruction in the worst possible light. They could have concluded the obstruction wasn't obstruction at all, and instead concluding it was just a broken phone. The timing of when it was broke, the months it took to admit this, and the fact he didn't save the SD card led them to the logical conclusion that the phone was "destroyed" to cover up his involvement. They also found out he wanted to secretly meet with Jastremski in the QB room. He also claimed he didn't know McNally, a man who worked on the Patriots sidelines all the way back before Brady was even drafted. That also lends credence to the notion that he had something to hide. It's really not shocking that the suspension was upheld. What's shocking is that it wasn't longer.

In my opinion, the destruction of the phone should have added games to his suspension.

If he had held onto the phones, and stuck to his guns about not letting them read one iota of his texts, without destroying phone #2, he would've had a great chance of keeping his texts out of the investigation.

since it was an appeal I don't think they could tack more games on.

[dw49]

First off my response was in response to ColtsblueFL post #1051, where he claimed the suspension was not based on acts to deflate balls or obstruction but based on his awareness of the acts.  So my post is in context of his post, so I was only addressing whether someone could be suspended for awareness only.

 

Second, we will set aside for a moment if "general" equals "more probable than not", and actually lets assume for the purposes of our conversation that they do equal.

 

It still gets back to my point that if someone is found to be aware of another illegal act, how is that an offense that can carry a suspension?

 

I can not think of many, if any, suspensions based on an NFL player being suspended for being aware that another employee (player, coach or staff member), was violating a rule.   Can you think of one? 

 

 

Nope none at all. Brady was suspended because he knew they were deflating balls for his benefit . Please stop being silly and taking one line out of the report and trying to sell us that it's the only reason for the suspension. 

[crazycolt1]

The good news is apparently the NY judge was to expedite the case so perhaps a ruling will come before the season starts. One can only hope.

One question? When this thing first started you made a lot of predictions and claims of what was going to happen. You claimed that Brady was going to do this and Kraft was going to do that. The list is so long I will not even start one.  Please tell us how many of these claims or things you said was going to happen really happened? No debate, no argument, just a simple answer.  

[amfootball]

One question? When this thing first started you made a lot of predictions and claims of what was going to happen. You claimed that Brady was going to do this and Kraft was going to do that. The list is so long I will not even start one.  Please tell us how many of these claims or things you said was going to happen really happened? No debate, no argument, just a simple answer.  

Honestly, I don't remember everything as all of us, including the media experts have been wrong for the past six months and just guessing as this situation is so unprecedented on so many levels. And as you say, they were just predictions. The only two things I nailed were saying Roger would not reduce his suspension and that Brady would take the league to court if suspended. 

[HOZER]

One of my favorite Cash songs.....

Go tell that long tongue liar

Go and tell that midnight rider

Tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter,

sooner or later.......

(self edit to abide by forum rules, but most should know the rest )

[amfootball]

Nope none at all. Brady was suspended because he knew they were deflating balls for his benefit . Please stop being silly and taking one line out of the report and trying to sell us that it's the only reason for the suspension. 

The issue here though is this is where the league's case is the weakest as they have zero proof that Brady every told his guys to deflate the balls. This is why the league has made such a big deal about his phone after the appeal even though Wells never asked for the phone at the investigation and Brady did provide its records at the appeal.

[amfootball]

So here is the latest, http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13348224/judge-encourages-nfl-nflpa-settle-differences-tom-brady-case-litigation

 

Judge wants both parties to stop the rhetoric (love that)

Judge also wants both to work on a settlement (not happening IMO)

Kessler will file for injunction today in case verdict is not done by Sept 4; says he is not concerned about change of venue but happy to finally be in front of a neutral judge

A settlement still is possible. The next deadline in the case is Aug. 13, when the NFLPA is due to file its response to the NFL's request for the court to confirm Brady's suspension. (again not happening IMO)

[amfootball]

PFT confirms that the MN judge would not have been good for the PA.

 

Asked about the appointment of the New York case to Judge Richard M. Berman, Kessler said, “We’re very happy to have him.”

 

Perhaps the NFLPA should be very happy to not have Judge Richard H. Kyle, to whom the Minnesota case was assigned. His order sending the case to New York was worded somewhat strongly against the union, questioning among other things the decision to file in Minnesota in the first place.

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/30/kessler-it-doesnt-matter-to-us-where-the-case-is/

[Gramz]

Kessler was also very confident they'd win at the Appeal.  Not concerned.

[amfootball]

Kessler was also very confident they'd win at the Appeal.  Not concerned.

No he wasn't. He said they presented a compelling case at the appeal but as you can see from his comments now he is very happy to have a neutral venue/judge. The appeal was a sham once Roger assigned himself as the judge. Kessler knew that.

[Valpo2004]

Goodell's camp points for why the 4 game suspension should be imposed & remain intact:

 

--Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the legal standard that the League must meet now in part due to SpyGate & the same organization, which is why this legal thresh hold was actually changed & modified. "More probable than not" is the new criteria legally. Think of it closer to a civil case as opposed to a criminal case with lower burdens or standards having to be met. 

 

--Name any other penalty the league has handed out where prior notification of a fine or a ruling was publicly disclosed to a player before they were handed a Fed Ex envelope with the penalty stipulated inside. Prior notification never typically transpires from the League office. 

 

--When the CBA was being negotiated player reps standing up for all 32 teams gave Goodell the authority or the discretion to more or less act as judge, jury, & executioner when it comes down to infractions & their corresponding fines & the number of missed games based on the scope & nature of the violation including hearing any players overall appeal requesting any form of a reduction. Instead of channeling that anger at Roger aim that frustration at the NFL Player's Association & when the CBA expires, strip Goodell of this absolute power & refuse to sign the document until he does. 

 

--I don't really know how Goodell can successfully argue that the 4 game suspension should stand when the CBA doesn't list what rule Brady actually violated warranting his suspension. It's a long shot, but he might make the argument that no one could anticipate that Brady would engage in text dialog with an equipment manager who calls himself the deflator & then refuse to cooperate with Ted Wells team acting as a representative of the NFL. An unprecedented offense warrants an unprecedented penalty even without a specific bylaw or rule spelled out in print.

 

Here's the problem though: If Brady had been charged with breaking the rules in SpyGate along with Belichick, you could make a continued conspiracy argument designed to show that Brady broke the rules twice ignoring your warning & believing he was above the rules that apply to Brady. 1 major problem: Brady wasn't convicted of SpyGate involvement nor was he punished so therefore a 1st offense can't be used to establish an intentional pattern of rule breaking more than once. 

 

--Brady's alleged destruction of his phone just looks horrible. People destroy phones typically to mask prior awareness of something they aren't particularly proud of. It means nothing legally I know, but a judge & a jury want to know why the central figure in a case demolishes a phone or orders someone else to smash & obliterate it especially when Brady knew that information on it obtained thru your attorney will ensure that Brady's privacy rights aren't violated. Destruction of phones typically means there is something incriminating you don't want the public to see. There's no way to soften this deliberate act of sabotage. No way. 

 

--Why should Brady's fame, popularity, & SB rings really matter? If Andy Dalton allegedly replicated all of Brady's actions before & after the SB regarding deflate gate, would NE fans be making the exact same arguments giving the Bengals QB the same benefit of the doubt? Hmmm....

 

--Brady put himself in the eye of this storm. No one else did that. At what point does unfair persecution victimization meet a bathroom mirror Tom? Do you seriously think that you did nothing to warrant the scrutiny you are receiving outside of say Massachusetts, Michigan, & California? Goodell didn't seek you out to tarnish your representation. You had a horrible press conference, you remained silent hiding behind the words of your father, former teammates, & current teammates. For someone who claimed you would address these unfounded accusations, you have an unorthodox method of defending yourself. Human family shields & 1 facebook post months after this scandal snowballed. It it were me, I'd go let's settle this right now. Tell me when & where the cameras & mic are. It's showtime baby. The dust will settle right here & now. I don't need weeks or months to break the cricket silence. 

 

--The best thing in Brady's favor is that NFL zebras never wrote down PSI measurements during the AFC Championship Game. There is no darn excuse for that ever. It ticks me off immensely. As an archivist myself, chain of custody protocols & through record keeping means everything for historical & posterity purposes. The NFL can never allow substandard record keeping on PSI measurements or gauges ever again.  

 

I agree with the last part, I'm guessing that the zebras didn't have a full awareness of where this was all going and that there would be a huge investigation.  Otherwise I think they would have done more. . . recorded measurements, got the # of people in there to test all the Colts balls too and not just 4 of them.  Shoot even if they couldn't get that many people I find it hard to believe the ref couldn't postpone the start of the 2nd half by 5 minutes just to give him time to do all these tests.

 

This however isn't entirely destructive to the case.  There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to go on.  

 

Honestly I think the one thing that the new rules on the handling of the balls missed is they should have instituted a rule that if a bag of the game balls leaves the room outside of the supervision of the ref then those balls should be tossed out and just not used at all.  The ref noticed those balls left the room . . . the rule should have been that the ref just says "Ok we're using the Colt's balls for both teams because those balls never left my supervision."

[amfootball]

Yehoodi, you are not left with a false conclusion, you are choosing to make a false equivalence.  Yes, I am a Charger fan, however I followed this issue to its conclusion and am an honorable person - not a homey that twists facts.  I posted the link in an earlier thread.  I don't have time to search for it right now as we're heading out the door.

 

A quick retraction is here:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/04/chargers-ultimately-prevailed-in-appeal-of-towel-fine/

 

Details of what happened - at this point the fine was still in play though the Chargers had already been ruled innocent:

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2012/nov/07/chargers-cleared-use-sticky-towels-still-face-fine/

 

Eventually the NFL overturned it's $20,000 fine as well.

 

Basic facts:

 

1.  Equipment manager didn't realize the ref wanted the towels.  Ref thought he was hiding them.

2.  Towels were not illegal.  Had no additional substances.  Were towels other teams were routinely using as well.

3.  Fine was for not moving fast enough to comply on the sidelines but the towels got to the refs before the end of the game if I recall correctly.

4.  Fine was overturned.  No cheating found.  No discipline of any kind.  Not guilty.

If no cheating was found then why did the NFL competition committee issue this statement about the use of adhesive substances after the investigation:

 

"In order to ensure that products that may have a possible competitive effect are given appropriate review and testing, our office -- after consultation with the Competition Committee -- has advised all clubs that the use of towels or other products that contain any type of adhesive substance is now prohibited on game days until further notice."  http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/san-diego-chargers-2012-towel-violation-similar-to-patriots