Tuco

I understand this. If you look at my original post it was in response to a post that was insinuating the league couldn't punish for previous games without smoking gun PSI measurements. They can. And I was pointing out in my post not only why they can but because of the actions of Brady and the league they pretty much had to do it that way. But for some reason you have decided I think it's a cut and dried case in favor of the league. The poster I was responding to seemed to think the suspension was too harsh because there's no documented PSI levels from previous games. I fully understand the suspension could be vacated. But if so it won't be because there wasn't smoking gun evidence of deflation earlier in the season. It will be because the judge ruled the league acted outside the CBA. The CBA requires investigation and cooperation, and specifies who handles what, including appeals. It doesn't require evidence beyond all reasonable doubt. The ruling is all about the process. I get that. The league acted capriciously. Okay. So did the plaintiff, and a lot of what the league did was because of that. I agree the judge will be ruling on whether the CBA was followed. He has to. And my response to your judge and his questions still doesn't mean I think it's a clear cut case, I just don't think the asking of those questions means anything more significant than the judge doing his job. The plaintiff has a list of reasons why he feels he was wronged. The judge asks pointed questions that deal with those reasons. If your landlord brings you into small claims court because he says your cat stunk the place up and you tell the judge the landlord never said you couldn't have a cat, the place wasn't very clean when you moved in and the smell is coming from the place next door, the judge is going to ask the landlord if he said you couldn't have a cat, was the place a dump before and is the smell possibly coming from next door. The questions are specific because the appeal points are specific, not because the judge thinks the defendant is wrong. If the judge doesn't like the answers and vacates the suspension, it's not because of a lack of deflated footballs in previous games. That was my original point.

I didn't say it's clear cut. I was responding to a post which was basically saying the league couldn't punish anybody for other games because there was no smoking gun evidence that there were balls from those games under 12.5 psi. They certainly can if evidence combined with resistance gives them enough reason to do so. The post I responded to was insinuating they needed 100% forensic proof. I am saying that's not so. As far as the questions the judge asks, well, that's his job. He's charged with the duty of figuring out if the correct process was followed. He asks a question and sees what kind of answer he gets. Every question the judge asks isn't necessarily an accusation.

That's true. But there doesn't need to be. If this were a criminal trial where proof beyond reasonable doubt was required then it would matter. But if it were a criminal trial a lot of other things would have happened, like forcing McNally and Jastremski to testify under oath. But what happened instead, the league questioned everybody, then they decided to start fresh with Wells, etc. with the blessing of the Patriots*. They began their questioning of Brady and the Bobsy Twins with the Colts game in mind. All questions were answered more or less While Brady declined to turn over his phone records while his agent cites precedent and privacy clauses. After the initial interview the league discovers texts that clearly show shenanigans was going on long before the Colts game. Of course they're not going to find balls from a month earlier that are deflated. But that doesn't matter. If they find evidence that Brady conspired with the Bobsy Twins to lower the inflation levels after the balls were officially inspected, that is a serious violation of the rules regardless of whether the balls went below 12.5 psi. During this time they also discovered that many of Brady's answers in his original interview were not plausible (lies). Now, not being a court of law the league doesn't have power of subpoena, so they can only go back to the Bobsy Twins if the Patriots* let them - which they not only didn't let them, they terminated them so the league couldn't even leverage another meeting via "full cooperation" reasons. Once they were terminated the Patriots and league can't make those guys do anything. And let's face it, getting those guys under oath would have blown this thing wide open, but the league was denied. They also requested to interview Brady again but were denied. Then on top of all the lies and other obfuscation, two and a half months after the investigation, and just 6 days before the appeal, Brady comes along and says here's some messages from a couple of my phones I didn't destroy. That other phone I had destroyed because I always destroy my phones (?). Now that 10 weeks have gone by we decided to ask AT&T if they could recover any messages and they said no. Here's a letter from them that says so. Oh by the way here's a list of the people the 10,000 messages went to feel free to look them up - oops, there's 3 messages missing from that report but they weren't important. Now let's remember once again, this isn't a criminal trial. Not only does the league have the right to make their decision based on certain assumptions combined with evidence, the Patriots* and Brady forced them into having to do so. The league took everything they had available, combined it with the different avenues of obfuscation, and came to their conclusion. And since it's not a criminal case with power of discovery and subpoena, they are allowed to reach that decision while under no obligation to provide absolute proof in the form of under inflated footballs from prior games.

Any deal right now would only be for the 7 years left on the Bills lease. It's not likely any big corporation is going to want to enter a big money agreement until a new stadium with a new, longer lease is in effect.

This is it. The players agreed to the system, however lopsided it seems. We can't know how much the league gives the players in order to keep the commissioner's power in place every time there's a new CBA, but we do know from reports it's argued about every time around. Does the league give the players a bigger percentage of revenue for it? Something else? That's outside ours, and even the court's domain to know. But the issue should be resolved during negotiations. It may seem unfair, but that's how CBA sometimes work. Generally, there's over 1800 players who don't have a problem with the current discipline system. And if they agree to it in the name of more money, well the select few are stuck with it. Some players hate the franchise tag too, but they're stuck with it because the majority rules and they don't care. The NFL's issue now that this case is in court is to stand their ground to protect their bargained for position on discipline. If a player can demand a 3rd party every time there's a problem, then the league has lost a very important part of their side of the CBA regardless of what they gave up to keep it in place. Yes, if it goes far enough the court has to see that the league doesn't overstep their bounds. And that's what Brady is arguing because he doesn't have anything else to argue. The NFLPA would love to have a 3rd party come in and settle this, but that's not how they agreed to do it. And the NFL has a lot to lose by setting that precedent over and over. Reaching a settlement via 3rd party or by letting Brady off the "blame" hook sets a future precedent. But if the NFL loses because the court says Goodell overstepped, they may have lost a battle, but their bargained for position of commissioner imposed discipline will still be in place. For the league that's what this has become. They're not going to agree to a 3rd party unless it's court imposed. And, since the commissioner decided Brady guilty, they're not going to reach any settlement without Brady admitting guilt.

AS I remember it wasn't very close. Pretty much everything that was said in that article is about as far as it went. I don't believe he ever actually went there and worked out.

One carries premeditation and malice aforethought. The other is a "heat of passion" type crime that wasn't premeditated, it just sort of happened on the spot as the circumstances presented themselves. If this were a murder one would be 1st degree murder and one would be voluntary manslaughter. A conviction of 1st degree murder carries a stiffer penalty than manslaughter. And Brady's crime is worse because of the foreknowledge and should carry a stiffer penalty. Also, there's a rule in place for unfair acts on the field which gives the referee the power to enforce any penalty he decides the unfair act warrants, up to and including a touchdown. So no matter how severe we think Tomlin's act was the officials have the power to undo any harm it may have caused the opponent.

But how many other equipment tampering cases are there? And how many of those involve denial and lying followed by complete silence in the face of the lies? It's easy to say just handle it like any other, but when you know it happened but the involved parties lie and refuse to cooperate, without the power of subpoena you're left with either spending a lot of time and money (and publicity - blowing up) to get answers or just letting things slide with minimum sanctions (not desirable - the league is very unhappy with this). I have to believe once the league and Wells discovered the older texts they had to believe it's more than just a one time thing, and they had every reason to request second interviews. Yes, their proof is lacking. But the biggest reason it's lacking is non-cooperation by Brady and the Pats.* And if they have reason to believe it was more than just a one time thing (it quacks like a duck on numerous levels), which by default increases the severity of non-compliance, shouldn't the punishment be increased to reflect that?

This is an important point. Unless some legal expert says I'm wrong here's how I think it goes. For starters I think a lot of people who say the Wells report is crap and doesn't prove anything forget that a big reason the Wells report seems so underwhelming is because of the stonewalling by the parties involved. But we have to remember neither the NFL or Wells has the power of subpoena during their original investigation, since it's not involved with any court. So they are limited in scope to only what they can get from the parties involved who are supposed to be cooperative. In the end, if evidence is limited because of non-cooperation the league has the authority and the justification to make their decision based on what they do have, and also to punish parties for their non-cooperation. In regards to Brady, people like to point to his cell phone and say he shouldn't have had to turn over anything from it. Even if that's the case, there's still the matter of Brady not only lied during his interview, but also refused a follow up interview. This is important but largely forgotten. Follow up questions regarding already told lies could have gone a long way towards getting to the truth, but Wells was denied. Now throw in our two favorite whipping boys, who no doubt thought they were doing great things by helping Brady and the Pats. As employees of the Pats they were to be made available for interviews and cell phone records, which they were. But the same problem exists. Wells discovered things that led him to want to ask more questions. Not only did the Pats say no but once they fired them the league could not touch them. Again, the league has no power of subpoena, and once their employment with the Pats ended, technically the Pats no longer had any authority to compel them to meet with Wells further in the name of cooperation. Here again Wells was limited by the inability to follow up important information. So yes, the Wells report is limited. Mostly due to non-cooperation. As to why we haven't heard from Frick and Frack, it's simply because the NFL has no power to compel them to do anything. I'm sure the NFL would have loved to question them during Brady's appeal, but the NFL didn't have any power to bring them in during the appeal. The appeal wasn't a "retrial" or a new investigation. The appeal was Brady's chance to say, "I believe you're wrong, here's why and here are my witnesses." If Brady doesn't bring them in for the appeal then the NFL's hands are still tied in that regard. The NFL can question Brady's witnesses but not bring in their own, And as far as why don't we hear from them now, despite the Judge's recent questions concerning guilt, etc., the judge and the court's position in this case is not one of finding a verdict of guilty or innocent. The judge will ultimately have to rule on the procedures that were followed and the fairness of punishment as it relates to the CBA and the powers granted to Goodell therein. Frick and Frack would probably have loads of info. But at this point, since, as I said before, the judge's final ruling isn't concerned with guilt or innocence, there really isn't any reason to bring Frick and Frack in. Nor do I think he could force them into his court through a subpoena unless he can somehow show their testimony would have a relevance, not towards guilt or innocence, but in regards to the CBA procedures. And while I do think getting them to testify under oath would be very revealing, the current court procedure is not a trial or a new investigation. Unfortunately, the court's ultimate concern here is with what has already happened, and whether or not it was legal according to labor law.

Here's my biggest issue with the Brady camp and people who like to argue the Wells report didn't prove anything and the penalty is too severe. Wells, or anyone else the league may have appointed, does not have the power of subpoena during the investigation. They can only rely on the mandatory cooperation of the parties involved. That makes cooperation (and non cooperation) a very big deal. So if I slim the timeline down to it's bones I think it goes something like this. The league appointed Wells. Wells began doing his thing (with the blessing of the Pats* by the way). While doing his thing he discovered a few things. One was that there is evidence this has been going on for longer than one game. Another is that during his first interview, Mr. Brady lied. So being the thorough investigator he is, Mr. Wells goes back to sort these findings out, but is suddenly met with resistance. "We'd like to talk to Jastremski and McNally again." "Nope." "Nope? We'll even travel to meet with them." Nope." "Hmm. Well in any event we'd like to interview you again Mr. Brady. A lot of your previous answers don't add up. And we'd like you to give us any pertinent cell phone transmissions. Being mindful of your privacy we'll let you filter them of course, but we know being the good, honest role model you are we trust you will comply under the mandatory cooperation clause." "Nope." "Nope?" Nope." We need your cooperation in order to investigate and find out how extensive this all is. You are required to cooperate via the CBA since we don't have the power of subpoena." "Nope." "Nope?" "Nope. "Well, we know you were involved so there's that. Now since you won't assist us in getting to the bottom of this we'll have to also mete out punishment for failing to cooperate. Here you go." "Waaahhhh. We're going to appeal!" "Okay." "We don't want the commissioner to hear the appeal." "Too bad. It clearly says in the CBA the commissioner will hear the appeal." "Waaahhh! You don't have any proof. Your investigation was a sham. You didn't go by the CBA. You didn't investigate anything. We gave you all the text records just 6 days before the appeal, and only 3 1/2 months after you asked for them. How dare you claim we didn't cooperate? I destroyed my phone the day I met with you, but not to hide anything. I always have my phones destroyed. Besides, we let you inspect the two phones I had before that one, which I didn't destroy even though I always destroy them. And besides, you didn't tell us we could get in trouble for not cooperating. We just thought is would be like, you know, some guy putting stickum on his gloves." "I've heard the appeal. You're still guilty of cheating and not cooperating." "Waaahhh! We'll see you in court." "Okay, but it won't be that Minnesota court you always run to." "Waaahhh! You don't have any proof. Your investigation was a sham. You didn't go by the CBA. You didn't investigate anything. We gave you all the text records just 6 days before the appeal, and only 3 1/2 months after you asked for them. How dare you claim we didn't cooperate? I destroyed my phone the day I met with you, but not to hide anything. I always have my phones destroyed. Besides, we let you inspect the two phones I had before that one, which I didn't destroy even though I always destroy them. And besides, you didn't tell us we could get in trouble for not cooperating. We just thought is would be like, you know, some guy putting stickum on his gloves."(this argument is repeated as it's pretty much all there is) "Nope"

SECTION 1 DIMENSIONS The Ball must be a “Wilson,” hand selected, bearing the signature of the Commissioner of the League, Roger Goodell. The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12½ to 13½ pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind. It shall have the form of a prolate spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis, 11 to 11¼ inches; long circumference, 28 to 28½ inches; short circumference, 21 to 21¼ inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces. The Referee shall be the sole judge as to whether all balls offered for play comply with these specifications. A pump is to be furnished by the home club, and the balls shall remain under the supervision of the Referee until they are delivered to the ball attendant just prior to the start of the game.

Kickers used to be allowed to break in their own balls too. It got so out of hand the league decided to make all kickers use the same balls. Why is that if it doesn't change anything? QBs should all use the same balls too, for the same reason. The 12.5-13.5 range was never intended to be a preference range. It was supposed to ensure that the balls were very close to 13 psi. And for 70 years it never became an issue until Brady and company decided to use the rules to their advantage. When everybody played with the same ball we never had an issue with balls being stolen and deflated. The most logical remedy would be to go back to that system.

Seventy years ago the manufacturer decided their ball should be inflated to 13 lbs. The league adopted that football and that figure. Now if you want to say that's arbitrary I guess you can. But the point is, even if it was arbitrary 70 years ago, that's the number that was used by all players on all teams for all those years due to the fact that the league laid down that rule 70 years ago. But the fact remains, regardless of how Tom Brady or Brett Favre say they like them, the given range of 12.5-13.5 was put in place for a reason. And that reason was never intended to be a preference range for quarterbacks. Nor was it ever okay for a player to conspire to put them outside that range after they had been tested. They test them before the game for a reason. You can't just ignore that and say it's not a big deal. As far as changing the rule to let teams set their own psi, fine, if that's what they do I'm okay with it. But ignoring a rule just because you don't like it doesn't fly, even if they change the rule later.

I'm curious how you've decided 12.5 psi is an arbitrary minimum. There's nothing arbitrary about it. The rule, written long ago when both teams used the same balls and officials didn't have digital gauges, was set down to ensure the balls used in games were standardized for all games. Other than the writing on them, the NFL game ball hasn't changed in something like 70 years. But there was a time when the ball said right on it, "inflate to 13 lbs." This is the number used when writing the rule book. Only since they knew gauges could be off by a slight amount they decided it was impractical to make the rule state exactly 13.0 psi so they included a bit of wiggle room. But the point is, they did write the rule, and they expected that the officials should set the psi within that range for a very specific purpose - to ensure fairness and conformity throughout the league. The range given from 12.5 psi to 13.5 psi was never arbitrary, nor was it intended to be a preference range for quarterbacks to use to their advantage. That only came about after the rule change in 2007 allowing teams to bring their own balls. But to say the 12.5 psi minimum is arbitrary and to pretend it isn't important to the integrity of the game, well, I have to disagree. If, when the rule was written it said 13.0 lbs (like it says on the ball) and didn't give a range, would you still consider it arbitrary and would it be okay to deflate them just by a couple psi?

NEW GUY ALERT!---------- NEW GUY POSTING!---------- NEW GUY ALERT! Very good point. "The Patriots urged me when I got to the case to start fresh, not to pay any attention to what NFL security had done. In fact they thought the people at NFL Security were biased. They applauded when I said I wanted to start fresh. And for them to later say I couldn’t have a second interview with the most important person in the case was a lack of cooperation.” -- Ted Wells

Seems funny that if everybody was so innocent then the Brady camp should have had Jastremski and McNally come to the appeal and tell everybody how Tommy didn't do anything wrong, and how they got fired for acting completely on their own. Although I guess when asked the NFLPA said no, there was no reason for those two to appear. Sure seems like they could have cleared this whole mess up just by telling the truth. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

The answer can be found in the 20 page decision starting on page 11. It states that on the eve of the appeal hearing (months after the items were requested and long after the suspension was handed down) the NFLPA submitted a very limited number of phone numbers said to be relevant, but only from the phone used before the phone Brady destroyed. After the appeal hearing (and still months after the information was requested) and after each side's final arguments were submitted, Brady's representatives offered to give a list of names for the 10,000+ texts and emails.

. . . Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months . . . I like this wording. They don't say it was his cell phone or that he destroyed it. I've been wondering for a while now since Verizon is a corporate partner with the Patriots*, if cell phones for all the players and employees were provided (and I'll bet they were), and, therefore, not Brady's personal property at all but simply a company phone. That would have technically made it the team's responsibility to turn it over, no? But of course they couldn't because it was gone, so instead we got a lot of lawyerly baloney from Brady's counsel. Of course I kept these thoughts to my self as I'm the new guy here and am still trying to get a feel for the place. And I guess we'll never know now anyway. Oh well. Glad we've gotten through this phase and now it will be interesting to see if he really goes to court.

Not telling the truth in one interview is only part of the whole. I never said they suspended him for the singular act of lying in his lone interview. They suspended him for several things, part of which was failing to answer follow up questions once the original answers were found to be false. That constitutes failure to cooperate, which is one of the reasons given for suspension.

This right here. Vincent's letter to Brady spells this out- ". . . and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence." Yes he answered all the questions. After speaking with McNally and Jastremski and uncovering other evidence it was clear some of Brady's answers were not true (lies). Not turning over relevant texts is only part of the non-cooperation. Failing to give a follow up interview after initially giving implausible and contradictory answers in the original interview is a very good reason to discipline a player. I'd be very interested in how his lawyers would argue against this.

I can't. Nor did I specifically say they could. I freely admit my phrase "all sorts of things" is wide open and ambiguous. You've got me nailed

New guy chiming in here, FWIW. As many others here keep trying to point out, when it comes to court, Brady (and the union) have to challenge that actions of the league were not in compliance with the CBA, not the findings of the report. Then if the court decides the league acted improperly they will force both sides to do something different. It's not likely the court is going to allow a whole new Wells type investigation simply because Brady doesn't like the findings of the first one - especially since Brady was clearly non-cooperative during the first one. So about the only thing left is for Brady to convince the court that the appeal was tainted by having Goodell hear it. That's an uphill climb for several reasons, the first of which is the CBA clearly states the commissioner will hear any appeal. Now, this is where Vilma won in court by saying Goodell was so involved with the investigation and since Goodell handed down the punishment he couldn't possibly be unbiased during an appeal. But this time around Goodell has been more careful about all this. He hired Wells do do his thing and then, more importantly but we're all ignoring it, he actually had Troy Vincent hand out the punishment to Brady. This is going to be a whole extra wall for Brady to climb when arguing that Goodell could be impartial and shouldn't have heard the appeal. We like to say Goodell gave the suspension but technically it was handed out by Vincent and then appealed to Goodell. But even if Brady wins the right to a new arbitrator, there's no guarantee he will be exonerated. The letter from Vincent states 3 different reasons for his suspension. The first is that it's rather obvious Brady was aware of the actions of McNally. The second was his refusal to cooperate and the third was the fact that Brady was caught lying during his interview but then refused any more interviews in order to clear things up (non-cooperation when caught lying). These are the reasons given by Troy Vincent for Brady's suspension. It's about a lot more than just the lack of 100% scientific proof, and who's going to convince, firstly, the court, and secondly a third party arbitrator, that the decision by Vincent to suspend 4 games and the upholding (possibly) by Goodell upon appeal was done improperly based on their reasoning above? The only thing Brady is going to win in court is a new appeal to a different arbitrator and a delay to his suspension. History says he may have good luck with that, but as many have mentioned, that could also result in him missing games late in the season instead of at the start. And if he somehow does win the right to a trial of any kind then yes, the league can subpeona all sorts of things as well as get McNally and Jastremski on the stand. I don't see that happening. And my final thought requires a certain amount of conspiracy theory but I suppose there is some possibility of it happening. The only other thing I can think of that Brady could have up his sleeve is if he threatens, as Belichick did with Spygate, to expose all of the cheating that goes on in the league. Depending on just how much that is it could be a serious nightmare for the NFL. it wouldn't do Brady any good but if he threatened and actually went through with it he could always retire to the Galapagos or someplace with his and her millions without ever looking back. So it could be a semi-bluff of sorts, especially if there's any truth to the supposedly covered up elements of Spygate that were never made public. League: Look, we know cheating happened and we have to protect the integrity in the public's eye. We have to give you some kind of suspension. Brady: If you suspend me I'll tell the whole world everything I know about Spygate and everything else you covered up. That will cost you billions and I'll just disappear. League: No, don't do that. Let's meet again tomorrow . . . Yeah, that's out there. But then again if the reports that the two sides are having meetings is what the delay is all about, but Brady is dead set on total exoneration, then what do they have to meet about? Hmmm . . . . I wonder. And that's my new guy $.02.

They did have control over what was released. They said we're not releasing anything. It could be a matter of principle. It could also be to hide evidence. The point being, not turning it over even in light of being offered to filter out only what was relevent is still violating the CBA by not co-operating. Whether it's driven by principle or guilt it's still a punishable violation.

Not sure what you're asking me here. Of course I don't think I could get off from a ticket simply by saying I was going the speed limit. Especially in light of an officers testimony and evidence. I also don't think Mr. Brady should or would get completely off for not turning over the requested info. But there's a big difference. I'm not required to answer the judge or provide the police officer with information. The CBA is not a court of law. In the case of the speeding ticket there has to be testimony that the officer tailed me at a certain speed or recorded my speed via radar or something. Nobody's saying I was probably speeding because it was Monday morning and not admitting to it makes me guilty. The CBA specifically says you must co-operate in an investigation or suffer consequences. The CBA says you were probably cheating, we know you have texts and emails and if you don't share them with us you will be punished. The kicker also refused to turn over his phone but I'm not so sure he was given the same offer as Brady, as Wells said they didn't persue the kicker's phone because the evidence led them to persue Brady's. Personally I'm of the opinion Brady knew he would suffer a nominal punishment for not co-operating but in his eyes that's better than what he would have gotten if he had complied. I can't prove it and neither can Goodell. But then again we're not in a court of law so he doesn't have to. But he can prove Brady didn't co-operate. That part is certain and is punishable according to the CBA. I guess I should have pointed out my original response was mostly to another poster who was minimizing the claims by others that part of the punishment was for failure to co-operate.