NFL: Brady suspension reinstated

[Gator Mike]

Wells found him more likely than not to have knowledge of the scheme and Goodell used that along with other information on the appeal.

So, since Wells made the determination, none of what you said makes sense because someone not named Goodell made the original determination.

It's cute how people still feel like Wells produced a report that said something different than what the NFL told him to produce.

I mean, even the NFL has stopped using the word "independent" to describe the Wells Report.

Did you not read the opinion? The court seems to think the precedent Goodell used to determine a suspension was more than enough.

My take was that the court ruled that the fact that Goodell had ANY reason to suspend him for four games was enough, regardless of whether the precedent was a good one or a bad one. That's a pretty low hurdle to clear. I guess you could technically say that this means Goodell had a legal precedent to suspend Brady for four game. But in a practical sense, the ruling essentially gives Goodell carte blanche to suspend anyone for any reason for any length of time.

 

[Gator Mike]

Actually, no. The CBA gives the Commissioner the power to investigate and dispense punishment in "special circumstances" as he sees fit.

Whether Goddell was allowed by the CBA to suspend Brady based on what we know was never in question....I don't think even Berman directly challenged that.

Right. I understand that Goodell can legally suspend Aaron Rogers a year for not saying "Bless You" after he sneezes.

But if you're going to spout nonsense about how you're protecting "The Integrity of the Game", how can you suspend a team's quarterback for four games without being able to explain with a fairly high degree of certainty exactly what he did to earn the suspension?

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

Right. I understand that Goodell can legally suspend Aaron Rogers a year for not saying "Bless You" after he sneezes.

If it's in the CBA that Aaron Rodgers has to say "Bless You" after sneezing.

But if you're going to spout nonsense about how you're protecting "The Integrity of the Game", how can you suspend a team's quarterback for four games without being able to explain with a fairly high degree of certainty exactly what he did to earn the suspension?

They accused him of: tampering, non-cooperation and being "generally aware" of the deflated footballs.

 

[Dominator13]

Thank god. There's a gap between innocent till proven guilty and destroyer of all evidence of something obvious. Innocent in court or not, he's a cheater at hearth, gladness paying for it.

 

[missingmika]

It's cute how people still feel like Wells produced a report that said something different than what the NFL told him to produce.

I mean, even the NFL has stopped using the word "independent" to describe the Wells Report.


My take was that the court ruled that the fact that Goodell had ANY reason to suspend him for four games was enough, regardless of whether the precedent was a good one or a bad one. That's a pretty low hurdle to clear. I guess you could technically say that this means Goodell had a legal precedent to suspend Brady for four game. But in a practical sense, the ruling essentially gives Goodell carte blanche to suspend anyone for any reason for any length of time.

You can't act like the Wells report didn't happen. Wells found Best guilty to the NFLs standard of review.

On appeal, the NFL confirmed Wells opinion and pointed out other issues such as the destroyed cell phone.

Brady used his rights to appeal and won with Berman on a technicality.

The NFL used their rights to appeal and won saying Brady's technicality wasn't even an issue.

Brady's guilt or innocence was decided a long time ago. This decision and the decision before that only dealt with procedure.

 

[missingmika]

Right. I understand that Goodell can legally suspend Aaron Rogers a year for not saying "Bless You" after he sneezes.

But if you're going to spout nonsense about how you're protecting "The Integrity of the Game", how can you suspend a team's quarterback for four games without being able to explain with a fairly high degree of certainty exactly what he did to earn the suspension?

They do explain it to the NFLs standard of review. The court even kind of laughs at Brady for destroying his phone.

Last I checked, saying bless you doesn't affect the outcome of a game. Could be a good Pats argument that Rodgers loves over inflated balls and had his worse season with regular balls this year.

 

[Gator Mike]

They accused him of: tampering, non-cooperation and being "generally aware" of the deflated footballs.

That's pretty general stuff. I'd really prefer a much higher degree of specificity.

For instance, how much air did Brady want taken out of the footballs?

When did the Patriots start taking air out of footballs?

What was up with the game in October when the Patriots were playing with footballs at 16 PSI?

The Wells Report suggested that the Patriots were able to deflate balls in road games at Indianapolis and Green Bay. McNally didn't travel with the team, and the Patriots didn't have control of the balls after they were turned in for official inspection. How did they manage to deflate them?

Why are there so many respected physicists that say the science in the Wells Report is garbage?

 

[mouser]

You can't act like the Wells report didn't happen. Wells found Best guilty to the NFLs standard of review.

On appeal, the NFL confirmed Wells opinion and pointed out other issues such as the destroyed cell phone.

Brady used his rights to appeal and won with Berman on a technicality.

The NFL used their rights to appeal and won saying Brady's technicality wasn't even an issue.

Brady's guilt or innocence was decided a long time ago. This decision and the decision before that only dealt with procedure.

If you want to get into the details, Goodell's arbitration ruling went above and beyond what the Wells report concluded. That's one of the key elements in the legal dispute.

 

[missingmika]

That's pretty general stuff. I'd really prefer a much higher degree of specificity.

For instance, how much air did Brady want taken out of the footballs?

When did the Patriots start taking air out of footballs?

What was up with the game in October when the Patriots were playing with footballs at 16 PSI?

The Wells Report suggested that the Patriots were able to deflate balls in road games at Indianapolis and Green Bay. McNally didn't travel with the team, and the Patriots didn't have control of the balls after they were turned in for official inspection. How did they manage to deflate them?

Why are there so many respected physicists that say the science in the Wells Report is garbage?

That's nice that you want more specifics, but that's not what's required.

Like OJ being not guilty in a criminal murder case but having liabilty in a civil case. There are different standards on judgement and the NFL met their standard.

 

[missingmika]

If you want to get into the details, Goodell's arbitration ruling went above and beyond what the Wells report concluded. That's one of the key elements in the legal dispute.

Goodell did...and the court did a great job of pointing that out in this opinion. The cell phone destruction was a really great point by the court this time around.

But even without Goodell going past Wells, there's enough there to justify a suspension and if there's a suspension, enough to justify Goodell setting the length.

 

[Finlandia WOAT]

That's pretty general stuff. I'd really prefer a much higher degree of specificity.

You may prefer that: but the CBA does not specify how much "evidence" is required for the arbitrator to rule in a case, or how "specific" the accusations need to be.

Now, the court could rule that the arbitrator didn't have enough evidence to punish Brady: but courts are extremely antithetical to such a thing that they only do so in extreme situations. Neither Berman nor the Appeals Court nor the Dissent claimed that the NFL was in the wrong for punishing Brady because of the lack of evidence.

If you want to get into the details, Goodell's arbitration ruling went above and beyond what the Wells report concluded. That's one of the key elements in the legal dispute.

The Appeals ruling says that the NFL is not restricted to merely the Wells Report (not agreeing or disagreeing: just saying what was written).

 

[Gator Mike]

Brady's guilt or innocence was decided a long time ago. This decision and the decision before that only dealt with procedure.

Understood. But in a practical sense, I'm saying that the Wells Report said exactly what the NFL wanted it to say, just like the Bullygate, Bountygate, and Ricegate reports said exactly what the NFL wanted them to say.

For all intents and purposes, Roger Goodell is Investigator, Judge, Jury, and Executioner. He doesn't have to have evidence or allow for any kind of due process. That's my only point in that regard. Shame on the NFLPA for allowing this, and shame on Roger Goodell for abusing it.

Last I checked, saying bless you doesn't affect the outcome of a game.

Neither does dog fighting or beating the crap out of your kid. And yet, Michael Vick and Adrian Peterson were both suspended for Conduct Detrimental under Article 46.

 

[misterchainsaw]

That's pretty general stuff. I'd really prefer a much higher degree of specificity.

For instance, how much air did Brady want taken out of the footballs?

When did the Patriots start taking air out of footballs?

What was up with the game in October when the Patriots were playing with footballs at 16 PSI?

The Wells Report suggested that the Patriots were able to deflate balls in road games at Indianapolis and Green Bay. McNally didn't travel with the team, and the Patriots didn't have control of the balls after they were turned in for official inspection. How did they manage to deflate them?

Why are there so many respected physicists that say the science in the Wells Report is garbage?

Two reasons.

The more accurate and understandable one is that there is an error in the comparative tests between the Patriots and the Colts footballs. The Wells Report did not take into account that the Colts footballs had been inside longer than the Patriots footballs when they were measured. However, while these physicists are correct that there is an error, you'll notice that they do not say that the error would change the conclusion. In fact, a couple of people who have pointed out the error have said that there is still a .3-.4 PSI discrepancy (on average) between what the Colts footballs deflated and what the Patriots footballs deflated that can not be explained by the mistake, and that it is still a statistically significant difference in deflation.

The less accurate ones come from physicists who didn't read the context that the measurements were made under. Yes, the Patriots footballs will read lower than when they were originally inflated, but these physicists didn't pick up that the New England footballs had been inside for an average of 3 minutes before measurement, thus re-inflating to a value above what they actually were on the football field. These physicists have tried to used those values as "outside values" which is incorrect and leads to faulty conclusions. A great example of this are the people who "ran experiments" that showed that not only were the Patriots' footballs at the correct inflation level for the weather, but that the Colts' balls were actually over-inflated from what they should have been.

 

[Gator Mike]

That's nice that you want more specifics, but that's not what's required.

You may prefer that: but the CBA does not specify how much "evidence" is required for the arbitrator to rule in a case, or how "specific" the accusations need to be.

Understood.

But does the suspension of a player without being able to provide specifics on why the player was suspended not damage the Integrity of the Game?

 

[mouser]

Goodell did...and the court did a great job of pointing that out in this opinion. The cell phone destruction was a really great point by the court this time around.

But even without Goodell going past Wells, there's enough there to justify a suspension and if there's a suspension, enough to justify Goodell setting the length.

This is where we get into a lot of the legal dispute over Goodell in the role of commissioner vs Goodell in the role of arbitrator hearing disciplinary appeals.

 

[Sports Enthusiast]

What did he know? What was going on?

Because, if you're going to suspend someone, shouldn't you have a pretty clear idea of what happened with at least some degree of specificity?

Hard to know when evidence that may have existed was destroyed, no?

 

[Gator Mike]

Hard to know when evidence that may have existed was destroyed, no?

What evidence? The NFL already had McNally and Jastremski's phones.

 

[missingmika]

What evidence? The NFL already had McNally and Jastremski's phones.

Brady's phone that was requested and destroyed is pretty good evidence. The court hits on it pretty hard:

Finally, any reasonable litigant would understand that the destruction of evidence, revealed just days before the start of arbitration proceedings, would be an important issue.
It is well established that the law permits a trier of fact to infer that a party who deliberately destroys relevant evidence the party had an obligation to produce did so in order to conceal damaging information from the adjudicator.

Boston Globe hits the Pats pretty hard too:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/p...NJ/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed

Bottom line: The Patriots were doing it. They had a system of deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials. Any agenda-less person who reads the Wells Report would come away with no other conclusion. The texts were unexplainable.

 

[Ozamataz Buckshank]

Brady's phone that was requested and destroyed is pretty good evidence. The court hits on it pretty hard:

Finally, any reasonable litigant would understand that the destruction of evidence, revealed just days before the start of arbitration proceedings, would be an important issue.
It is well established that the law permits a trier of fact to infer that a party who deliberately destroys relevant evidence the party had an obligation to produce did so in order to conceal damaging information from the adjudicator.

Boston Globe hits the Pats pretty hard too:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/p...NJ/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed

Bottom line: The Patriots were doing it. They had a system of deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials. Any agenda-less person who reads the Wells Report would come away with no other conclusion. The texts were unexplainable.

That's not the Boston Globe, that's Dan Shaughnessy who is a professional troll who enjoys annoying Boston fans

 

[CDJ]

Brady's phone that was requested and destroyed is pretty good evidence. The court hits on it pretty hard:

Finally, any reasonable litigant would understand that the destruction of evidence, revealed just days before the start of arbitration proceedings, would be an important issue.
It is well established that the law permits a trier of fact to infer that a party who deliberately destroys relevant evidence the party had an obligation to produce did so in order to conceal damaging information from the adjudicator.

Boston Globe hits the Pats pretty hard too:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/p...NJ/story.html?p1=Article_Trending_Most_Viewed

Bottom line: The Patriots were doing it. They had a system of deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials. Any agenda-less person who reads the Wells Report would come away with no other conclusion. The texts were unexplainable.

A shaugnessy article

You realize he has been a troll for like 3 decades if not more, right?


The cell phone was a misdirection the entire time, they had all of his communications with Jastremski and McNally. But whatever, I'm not going down this road again.


Also the texts were explainable, Ted Wells just opted to leave their explanation out of his report. Probably didn't mesh well. It's funny, they were mad at first that the patriots didn't give them McNally enough (when they gave him to them plenty of times) but when push came to shove they pretended he didn't exist and his side of things doesn't exist. It's funny how that works.

Edit: this level of shadiness is why Wells currently has a lawsuit against him from the old Fins coach Turner. He leaves out testimony that doesn't paint the picture he wants to paint.

 

[Gator Mike]

Bottom line: The Patriots were doing it. They had a system of deflating footballs after the balls were inspected by officials.

Explain the October 2014 game against the Jets where the Patriots played the game with footballs inflated up to 16 PSI.

Any agenda-less person who reads the Wells Report would come away with no other conclusion.

Agreed. Any agenda-less person who reads a well-written, agenda-driven investigative report could very easily agree with the findings of the investigation. It's how innocent people end up in prison sometimes.

The texts were unexplainable.

So, Jim McNally is sitting at home watching the Patriots on TV, and he sees his pal on TV wearing a puffy jacket, and tells him to "deflate".

Somehow, this has been used as evidence against the Patriots. How does McNally know the PSI in the balls? How is Jastremski supposed to "deflate" when his "deflator" is sitting at home on the couch? Unless the Patriots had a system to deflate balls on the road, as well. And if they did, isn't that something the NFL should have investigated? If nothing happens without Brady's approval, why is McNally - the lowest guy on the totem pole - giving the order to deflate?

And if McNally is "The Deflator" in that text in early 2014, how the heck does he let the Patriots play an entire game with footballs at 16 PSI? Did he just forget to do it? And why does Jastremski blame the 16 PSI footballs on the referees, and not mention a word about "The Deflator" not doing his job? And if Brady's so worried about taking 0.3-0.4 PSI out of a football... if it makes that much of a difference to him, how did he not realize that the footballs in the Jets game were at 16 PSI until Jastremski told him the next day?

I mean, from an "Integrity of the Game" standpoint, shouldn't you know the answer to at least some of these questions before you start handing out punishments?

 

[missingmika]

Explain the October 2014 game against the Jets where the Patriots played the game with footballs inflated up to 16 PSI.


Agreed. Any agenda-less person who reads a well-written, agenda-driven investigative report could very easily agree with the findings of the investigation. It's how innocent people end up in prison sometimes.


So, Jim McNally is sitting at home watching the Patriots on TV, and he sees his pal on TV wearing a puffy jacket, and tells him to "deflate".

Somehow, this has been used as evidence against the Patriots. How does McNally know the PSI in the balls? How is Jastremski supposed to "deflate" when his "deflator" is sitting at home on the couch? Unless the Patriots had a system to deflate balls on the road, as well. And if they did, isn't that something the NFL should have investigated? If nothing happens without Brady's approval, why is McNally - the lowest guy on the totem pole - giving the order to deflate?

And if McNally is "The Deflator" in that text in early 2014, how the heck does he let the Patriots play an entire game with footballs at 16 PSI? Did he just forget to do it? And why does Jastremski blame the 16 PSI footballs on the referees, and not mention a word about "The Deflator" not doing his job? And if Brady's so worried about taking 0.3-0.4 PSI out of a football... if it makes that much of a difference to him, how did he not realize that the footballs in the Jets game were at 16 PSI until Jastremski told him the next day?

I mean, from an "Integrity of the Game" standpoint, shouldn't you know the answer to at least some of these questions before you start handing out punishments?

I'm not sure where the sitting at home thing came from... here are some of the more damaging texts:

McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a ***** balloon
----
McNally: *** tom....make sure the pump is attached to the needle.....****in watermelons coming
----
Jastremski: I have a big needle for u this week
McNally: Better be surrounded by cash and newkicks....or its a rugby sunday
McNally: **** tom
Jastremski: Maybe u will have some nice size 11s in ur locker
McNally: Tom must really be working your balls hard this week
----
McNally: The only thing deflating sun..is his passing rating
----
McNally: You working
Jastremski: Yup
McNally: Nice dude....jimmy needs some kicks....lets make a deal.....come on help the deflator
----
McNally: Chill buddy im just ***** with you ....im not going to espn........yet

The ESPN one is the most ridiculous one. It's not like he's going to ESPN to discuss his weight loss.

 

[Voight]

EDIT: Besides, it's clear what the NFL accused him of: tampering with evidence, holding up the investigation and being generally aware of a scheme to deflate footballs.

None of which has actual proof and evidence behind it.

"Oh no he threw away his old phone......" much like a lot of rich/famous people do

I don't think that's fair, saying "only" people who dislike Brady think he's a cheater. I have nothing against Brady personally, think he's a great QB, yadda yadda....pretty clear he knew.

Pretty clear doesn't mean he actually knew. It was never proven and likely never will.

This is exceptionally stupid. I hate the Pats, but just let it go. He's always going to be known as a cheater, the organization is going to be known for cheating, there's no need to keep bringing this stupid **** up.

Weird, cause he's never actually cheated.

 

[Voight]

Thank god. There's a gap between innocent till proven guilty and destroyer of all evidence of something obvious. Innocent in court or not, he's a cheater at hearth, gladness paying for it.

Again.... when has he ever cheated????????????????????????????

Its funny, cause none of this would have ever happened iif crybaby sore losers Grigson & Irsay were ******** their team was so ****. Everybody forgets the Pats scored most of their points in the second half with perfectly legal inflated footballs.

 

[Scandale du Jour]

Again.... when has he ever cheated????????????????????????????

People are gonna think what they are gonna think. Rational arguments unfortunately won't change that.