Deflate-gate investigation complete

[GottaRun]

If only Marshawn had been given the ball. The Patriots losing the Superbowl and Brady being suspended would have been a beautiful thing. As it is I bet Brady will be given a fine - $500,000, enough to sound big but nothing significant to Tom, and the underlings will be fired.

[BuffaloRebound]

The more we learn the more I think anything less than an 8 game suspension for Brady and major fines for Patriots is a joke. They are basically daring the NFL to do it. Rogue organization.

[NoSaint]

 

Some good legal clarity from Florio (who I believe is still accredited as a lawyer).

 

There's no invasion of privacy involved here; just Brady and Gostkowski being uncooperative and violating league policy.

to say theres no invasion of privacy may be true legally, but any investigation is going to attempt to invade the privacy of the person being investigated. like i said upthread, i wouldnt want to turn over my own cell phone at work, so its hard for me to hate them and assume the worst as factual based on their unwillingness. the old i wouldnt want that logic used on me, so im not going to project it on others. i understand its leaves questions hanging... but ultimately i think we should stick to asking the questions not answering them ourselves too.

[BuffaloBaumer]

I'm more curious about how big the advantage was for non fumbling than it was for Brady's grip. Turnover ratio is such a huge factor and is really what taints that team the most in my eyes.

[papazoid]

 

That's debatable at best. Regardless, that somehow validates your assertion that this was a Gooddell-initiated sting operation?

 

 

I think you're looking at 2 weeks to the day...drop the punishment on the 22nd, and have a 3-day weekend to let things simmer down.

 

initiated ?....maybe not

 

approved ?....absolutely

[thebandit27]

to say theres no invasion of privacy may be true legally, but any investigation is going to attempt to invade the privacy of the person being investigated. like i said upthread, i wouldnt want to turn over my own cell phone at work, so its hard for me to hate them and assume the worst as factual based on their unwillingness. the old i wouldnt want that logic used on me, so im not going to project it on others. i understand its leaves questions hanging... but ultimately i think we should stick to asking the questions not answering them ourselves too.

 

I half understand that. Where I get stuck is that he and his lawyers were given the opportunity to comb through his correspondence and provide only those texts, emails, chats, etc. that held relevance to the investigation. According to the Wells' report, they were never asked to turn over the phone.

 

Still, I hear what you're saying.

[ko12010]

I'm more curious about how big the advantage was for non fumbling than it was for Brady's grip. Turnover ratio is such a huge factor and is really what taints that team the most in my eyes.

I really think the advantage to underinflated balls is quite large. It's hard to quantify, although the stats report about fumbling is convincing. Not sure why Rodgers likes his balls rock hard but most football players prefer them softer. Most anyone who has ever played football knows that. Makes everything easier.

[NoSaint]

 

That's debatable at best. Regardless, that somehow validates your assertion that this was a Gooddell-initiated sting operation?

 

 

I think you're looking at 2 weeks to the day...drop the punishment on the 22nd, and have a 3-day weekend to let things simmer down.

agreed. i mean, itll still be a hot issue if brady is suspended long term, but if its a short one, the 3 day weekend with people out grilling or on vacation instead of constantly on the computer is the time that would soften it most. it could be today, to try and take all the hit in one quick shot, but i tend to lean towards your take.

[thebandit27]

 

initiated ?....maybe not

 

approved ?....absolutely

 

Again I ask: why would they launch a sting operation that does NOT test the balls pre-game and record the pressures? They can't prove anything conclusively without that.

agreed. i mean, itll still be a hot issue if brady is suspended long term, but if its a short one, the 3 day weekend with people out grilling or on vacation instead of constantly on the computer is the time that would soften it most. it could be today, to try and take all the hit in one quick shot, but i tend to lean towards your take.

Plus the media can milk two weeks of stories out of it

[NoSaint]

 

I half understand that. Where I get stuck is that he and his lawyers were given the opportunity to comb through his correspondence and provide only those texts, emails, chats, etc. that held relevance to the investigation. According to the Wells' report, they were never asked to turn over the phone.

 

Still, I hear what you're saying.

yea - id be curious to hear more of the details of their offer. weve heard that, but i dont think weve seen full terms.

 

honestly, it was just the phrasing used in the last post of "theres no invasion of privacy" (or similar - dont have it in front of me now that im replying here) that made me squirm a little. no matter what there was an attempt to invade privacy - it just wasnt illegal, or against the CBA

[May Day 10]

my job runs a background check and credit report yearly on me. Also monitors my emails. Im cool with it.

 

Of course, I have nothing to hide

[NoSaint]

 

Of course, I have nothing to hide

that phrase is another that makes me squirm a bit when justifying that if someone doesnt cooperate they must be guilty. in this case hes guilty of not cooperating, and surely its fair to wonder what is in there but....

[thebandit27]

yea - id be curious to hear more of the details of their offer. weve heard that, but i dont think weve seen full terms.

 

honestly, it was just the phrasing used in the last post of "theres no invasion of privacy" (or similar - dont have it in front of me now that im replying here) that made me squirm a little. no matter what there was an attempt to invade privacy - it just wasnt illegal, or against the CBA

 

Yes, those were the exact words I used.

 

Perhaps a better way to phrase it is "no forced invasion of privacy"

[Dorkington]

"Nothing to hide" is always the slippery slope that leads to total loss of rights and invasion of privacy. I can understand being uncomfortable with handing things over, I know I would be. But at the same time, given the terms we know of (getting to filter what the investigators see), it seems like if he were innocent, he'd cooperate with them to make it all go away faster.

[NoSaint]

 

Yes, those were the exact words I used.

 

Perhaps a better way to phrase it is "no forced invasion of privacy"

or "no legal overstepping in the attempts to investigate"

 

because forced invasion of privacy is exactly what the CBA grants, and was being attempted.

[thebandit27]

that phrase is another that makes me squirm a bit when justifying that if someone doesnt cooperate they must be guilty. in this case hes guilty of not cooperating, and surely its fair to wonder what is in there but....

 

Now this I agree with...I have a number of friends that are criminal lawyers, and rule #1 is NEVER speak to any investigator until you've consulted with a lawyer, especially if you're innocent. There's a reason that the Miranda rights explicitly say "anything you say CAN and WILL be used AGAINST you"

or "no legal overstepping in the attempts to investigate"

 

because forced invasion of privacy is exactly what the CBA grants, and was being attempted.

 

Yeah, that'll work for what I was getting at.

[NoSaint]

"Nothing to hide" is always the slippery slope that leads to total loss of rights and invasion of privacy. I can understand being uncomfortable with handing things over, I know I would be. But at the same time, given the terms we know of (getting to filter what the investigators see), it seems like if he were innocent, he'd cooperate with them to make it all go away faster.

oh, i agree that it comes off that way. just was floating the reminder that we dont know the full terms, so perhaps there was something in that offer that made the lawyer still uncomfortable, or some non-related content they still didnt want to supply that would be required. was more about tempering the conversation slightly, then letting him off the hook, in making the last few posts.

 

i think the dude was fully involved and theres a great chance that theres a trail hes hiding -- but im still going with "very probably" and not "definitely" as the qualifiers and i think that makes a big difference in quality of the talk around issues like this sometimes. when using the accurate verbiage, it helps accurately weigh whats going on and have more meaningful talk about the process, projecting outcomes, etc.... instead of just burn the witches.

 

At a minimum, he (and the Pats) can't sit there and complain about the findings in the report, when he refused to turn over requested documents.

it certainly does damage to any attempts to publicly claim a moral high ground.

[Dorkington]

oh, i agree that it comes off that way. just was floating the reminder that we dont know the full terms, so perhaps there was something in that offer that made the lawyer still uncomfortable, or some non-related content they still didnt want to supply that would be required. was more about tempering the conversation slightly, then letting him off the hook, in making the last few posts.

 

i think the dude was fully involved and theres a great chance that theres a trail hes hiding -- but im still going with "very probably" and not "definitely" as the qualifiers and i think that makes a big difference in quality of the talk around issues like this sometimes. when using the accurate verbiage, it helps accurately weigh whats going on and have more meaningful talk about the process, projecting outcomes, etc.... instead of just burn the witches.

 

it certainly does damage to any attempts to publicly claim a moral high ground.

You and I are on the same page...

 

But uh...

 

It's Brady, so burn the !@#$er.

[eball]

I'll use another NCAA analogy here..."lack of institutional control." The Pats** can't sit back and say they knew nothing and it was a couple of rogue assistants and their high-strung QB -- particularly in light of the historical context surrounding that organization.

 

The NFL is going to come down pretty hard -- that's my opinion. 4 games for Brady, a stiff fine, and loss of a draft pick.

[NoSaint]

I'll use another NCAA analogy here..."lack of institutional control." The Pats** can't sit back and say they knew nothing and it was a couple of rogue assistants and their high-strung QB -- particularly in light of the historical context surrounding that organization.

 

The NFL is going to come down pretty hard -- that's my opinion. 4 games for Brady, a stiff fine, and loss of a draft pick.

stiff fine, and some draft pick seem like a "gimme" here. how high the pick, what brady gets, if gostkowski gets anything and if it extends into coach/GM getting punishment are the real questions. as i mentioned in another thread - payton got hit with "we think he knew, but if he didnt he should have" and so did the saints GM. also hargrove was suspended for "knowing about the program and not admitting it, not participation in the program" (which i think is way overstepping, but its something they did).