IronyAbounds Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Well, as one of my legal eagle colleagues said to me, there is the issue of a defamation case. Brady is a public figure so the bar is extraordinarily high, but he could conceivably devise an argument based on a careless disregard for the facts (conclusions based on hearsay and strained inferences) that resulted in a monetarily quantifiable blow to his good name. A-Rod threatened to go to court based on far less (almost nothing, actually, given the ledgers with his name on it). There's a reason why there are so many weasel words in that report - I wouldn't be shocked if the league is concerned about that issue. Just playing devil's advocate here ... Strained inferences? Brady gave McNally autographed gifts and then denied knowing who the guy was. Brady was also uncooperative in the investigation. As your legal eagle colleague would also tell you, Brady would never sue because he would be subjected to a deposition and other forms of discovery that would require him to provide far more information than the NFL was requesting during its investigation. He would be subject to perjury charges if he wasn't honest. The only thing strained is your continued defense of Brady. Edit: You mention A-Rod. Yes he "threatened" to go to court and guess what, he didn't because it was clear it would have been a foolish and self-destructive thing. Much like it would be for Brady to do so. Edited May 7, 2015 by IronyAbounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share Posted May 7, 2015 @sportspickle: Tom Brady Hopeful His Legacy as a Cheater Isn't Forever Tainted by Being a Liar - http://t.co/8mHwjPpgRIhttp://t.co/we7NcmlJhq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Why do people keep insisting on talking about reasonable doubt? All that is needed to conclude guilt here is preponderance of evidence. Only criminal proceedings deal with reasonable doubt. So yes, since Wells concluded that there was a greater than 50% chance Brady did what he did, then he's considered to have committed a violation. frankly, none of us know what standard the nfl is looking for here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) this reminds me of the Roger Clemens thing. Everyone knew he was full of it and kept fighting and fighting and kept tarnishing his career. Brady and the Pats have handled this poorly from day 1 and continue to. ... and Clemens won in the end. Bonds just did too. Edited May 7, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 frankly, none of us know what standard the nfl is looking for here. Footnote 1, page 1: 1 Under the Policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred” is a “Preponderance of the Evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 ... and Clemens won in the end. Bonds just did too. I don't think he did win. He squandered any favorable public opinion he had. People rabidly defended him at the start, still continued to defended him when things werent looking good... then at the point he was trying to entrap McNemee or whatever his name was on the phone, even the most avid Yankees/Clemens fan was done with the guy. Fight and deny is a bad combo. Get caught, come clean, ask for forgiveness works better. look at Pettite and Giambi and the way they were able to get past the roids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Strained inferences? Brady gave McNally autographed gifts and then denied knowing who the guy was. Brady was also uncooperative in the investigation. As your legal eagle colleague would also tell you, Brady would never sue because he would be subjected to a deposition and other forms of discovery that would require him to provide far more information than the NFL was requesting during its investigation. He would be subject to perjury charges if he wasn't honest. The only thing strained is your continued defense of Brady. Edit: You mention A-Rod. Yes he "threatened" to go to court and guess what, he didn't because it was clear it would have been a foolish and self-destructive thing. Much like it would be for Brady to do so. I'm positing a possible argument that Brady would make. Personally, I think he's guilty. Why you think I'm defending him is beyond me. I just wish they had something more incontrovertible to nail him on (a la Gregg Williams). More broadly, I just think it's an interesting issue, and it's useful in these forums for someone to argue the other side. As for Brady having to provide evidence, of course. It wouldn't be an issue, though, if he could show he wasn't guilty or didn't have incriminating texts. We don't know whether he does or doesn't. If he doesn't, that particular issue goes away. I don't think he did win. He squandered any favorable public opinion he had. People rabidly defended him at the start, still continued to defended him when things werent looking good... then at the point he was trying to entrap McNemee or whatever his name was on the phone, even the most avid Yankees/Clemens fan was done with the guy. Fight and deny is a bad combo. Get caught, come clean, ask for forgiveness works better. look at Pettite and Giambi and the way they were able to get past the roids. Oh, I agree. I'm just talking about the court case itself, not the court of public opinion. Edited May 7, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Footnote 1, page 1: 1 Under the Policy, the standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred is a Preponderance of the Evidence, meaning that as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not. right, but i imagine that standard will vary widely based on severity of the incident, and corresponding punishment. theyve shown to be widely inconsistent too. so despite having that footnote, ill maintain we just dont know what they want/need to suspend Edited May 7, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronyAbounds Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I'm positing a possible argument that Brady would make. Personally, I think he's guilty. Why you think I'm defending him is beyond me. I just wish they had something more incontrovertible to nail him on (a la Gregg Williams). More broadly, I just think it's an interesting issue, and it's useful in these forums for someone to argue the other side. As for Brady having to provide evidence, of course. It wouldn't be an issue, though, if he could show he wasn't guilty or didn't have incriminating texts. We don't know whether he does or doesn't. If he doesn't, that particular issue goes away. Oh, I agree. I'm just talking about the court case itself, not the court of public opinion. Sorry, didn't mean to jump on you. I am just worked up about the spin Brady jock-sniffers are putting on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 right, but i imagine that standard will vary widely based on severity of the incident, and corresponding evidence. theyve shown to be widely inconsistent too. so despite having that footnote, ill maintain we just dont know what they want/need to suspend Yeah, I guess that's the standard to prove there was a violation, not necessarily to determine punishment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Sorry, didn't mean to jump on you. I am just worked up about the spin Brady jock-sniffers are putting on this. Bizarrely enough, I'm in the midst of real ones at work - a number of my colleagues are from the Boston area and are hardcore Pats fans. Ironically, I'm throwing the anti-Brady arguments made here back at them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Yeah, I guess that's the standard to prove there was a violation, not necessarily to determine punishment yup. i dont doubt that they accept that there is a violation, but do they suspend Tom Brady for an extended period based just on a preponderance of the evidence? i would guess no, but theyve been so all over the place that its hard to peg the nfls reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) yup. i dont doubt that they accept that there is a violation, but do they suspend Tom Brady for an extended period based just on a preponderance of the evidence? i would guess no, but theyve been so all over the place that its hard to peg the nfls reaction. My question is whether or not this would be considered similar to a player using PED's. I understand that that could be blowing it out of proportion but he is definitely providing himself with an edge over the teams he is playing against. Just a thought. Granted even if that's the case, the league usually only suspends for 1 game for "Violating the league's personal conduct policy". Edited May 7, 2015 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) My question is whether or not this would be considered similar to a player using PED's. I understand that that could be blowing it out of proportion but he is definitely providing himself with an edge over the teams he is playing against. Just a thought.drug policy is totally separate from conduct, which is separate from on field too i believe. i would be amazed if they use PEDs as the jumping off point, and would instead point to Atlanta this offseason as the closest recent comp for a team breaking the rules for potential on field advantage. but that was organizational and not a specific player implicated so the brady part is hard to project based off it. Edited May 7, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 drug policy is totally separate from conduct, which is separate from on field too i believe. i would be amazed if they use PEDs as the jumping off point, and would instead point to Atlanta this offseason as the closest recent comp for a team breaking the rules for potential on field advantage. but that was organizational and not a specific player implicated so the brady part is hard to project based off it. Yea I was just looking at some of the suspensions handed out in league history. I would think "Conduct detrimental to the team" and "conduct detrimental to the league" would likely be some of the phrases used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 reminds me a little of this... but the Indians came clean right away. http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/11/sports/yankee-ends-real-corker-of-a-mystery.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Did Brady know McNally? Of course he did but maybe not by name. As for the texting bit. Perhaps I failed to digest all of the report and missed it but I do not believe there are any records of text logs (of McNally and Jastremski) that shows texts between them and Brady. As for the balls. Officials could only measure 14 (of the 23 balls) at 1/2time and found it impossible to record the PSI of the suspected ball. Yet, these guys are believed to be competent by the Well's investigation? Please. The above are nothing more than inferences .... done to create a desired outcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Strained inferences? Brady gave McNally autographed gifts and then denied knowing who the guy was. Brady was also uncooperative in the investigation. As your legal eagle colleague would also tell you, Brady would never sue because he would be subjected to a deposition and other forms of discovery that would require him to provide far more information than the NFL was requesting during its investigation. He would be subject to perjury charges if he wasn't honest. The only thing strained is your continued defense of Brady. Edit: You mention A-Rod. Yes he "threatened" to go to court and guess what, he didn't because it was clear it would have been a foolish and self-destructive thing. Much like it would be for Brady to do so. This. Brady might threaten, but like A-Rod, wouldn't go through with it, for obvious reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ko12010 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 yup. i dont doubt that they accept that there is a violation, but do they suspend Tom Brady for an extended period based just on a preponderance of the evidence? i would guess no, but theyve been so all over the place that its hard to peg the nfls reaction. But that's all that's required in non criminal proceedings, so yeah, they should. If it's good enough for a civil lawsuit the size of OJ's it should be in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Yea I was just looking at some of the suspensions handed out in league history. I would think "Conduct detrimental to the team" and "conduct detrimental to the league" would likely be some of the phrases used.This is the statement that always blew my mind with bounty-gate and where things are interesting here. i thought it was a crazy discipline at the time and will stand by it now even with a rival team -- but this makes things really tough for how to go forward with brady without suspension. might be another reason a player might not want to talk to investigators. if they dont agree with what you say happened at the end, youve officially lied and can be suspended? http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d82a10471/article/anthony-hargrove-suspended-for-lying-says-nfl "I suppose you could watch anything enough times and come up with different conclusions, but we didn't discipline Anthony Hargrove for taking any money in the context of this program," Pash said. "What that videotape rather clearly demonstrates is two things: One, there was a program and it corroborates rather clearly that there was a program where a player could be rewarded for making a play that resulted in an injury to an opponent ... second, it demonstrates Mr. Hargrove's awareness of the program and his understanding that it existed, and it demonstrates that his statements to our investigators in early 2010 denying the program and saying there was nothing like that in existence were false. That is the basis on which the Commissioner imposed discipline on Mr. Hargrove." this regarding the sideline camera that heard a quote saying "gimme my money bobby" that they attributed to hargrove (despite it not making sense as coming from hargrove). they pretty clearly say they doled out 8 games for not admitting guilt. Edited May 7, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts