dave mcbride Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) My guess is that he gets suspended for 4 games. Maybe 8, but I think 4 is likely given the Browns and Falcons cases. People can raise 2007 all they want, but Brady wasn't found culpable for that - Belichik and the organization were. As far the league is concerned, he has a clean record up until now. But this is interesting: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/dolphins_in_depth/2015/05/tom-brady-discipline-everything-is-being-considered.html Edited May 7, 2015 by dave mcbride Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 The Patriots had ample opportunity to prove otherwise. Apparently Brady hasn't, at least according his lawyer who condemned the report as omitting key facts and lines of inquiry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Apparently Brady hasn't, at least according his lawyer who condemned the report as omitting key facts and lines of inquiry. And you accept that as fact, but dismiss much of the Wells' report (which you admit to not reading) as speculation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 The texts weren't admissible because they didn't mention anyone by name. They said "NFL" and "you saw who I was with". The texts in this case specifically mentioned Brady. Also, if Brady's phone were subpoenaed, there'd be zero speculation about whether or not he'd had contact with the two ball handlers (which he claimed he hadn't). That strikes to the heart of why this discussion is something of a non-sequitur: this isn't a crime, and thus the courts aren't involved. The guilt or innocence in this instance is determined with regard to the NFL's definition, which is a preponderance of evidence. I don't see how anyone can deny that such a preponderance exists (not saying that you did). Thanks for clarifying the Lloyd matter. I actually have my suspicions that the investigation was conducted fairly and in an objective way. Not that that matters as the league got what they wanted in all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Kiko go Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) And, in the end, this is all the league needs to potentially bury the man it seems; a more probable than not verdict culled from a firm that is a significant client of the judge, juror and executioner. I've seen this allegation that the law firm was biased in media reports as well, but I don't understand the inference. Wouldn't the fact that the law firm was hired by the league, which, presumably, does not want to have to discipline the quarterback of the team that just won the Super Bowl for cheating, indicate that the law firm would have an incentive for the report to not implicate Brady? Not the other way around? You make excellent points. I was referring more to the criminal side of the system. I still believe even in a civil forum that there are too many qualifying descriptions to the evidence that can be reasonably challenged or undercut. We don't know what Brady's side of the story is. You may not give it much credibility but others may after hearing his explanation. Without a doubt the texts were very damning (as I see it). But it has to be acknowledged that much of the language of the report is very qualifying and cautious. I think that's a good point to keep in mind--because this was not a judicial proceeding, we don't have all the relevant evidence before us (any of Brady's texts that were relevant to this matter would have had to be turned over, for example), and this wasn't an adversarial proceeding. But, I don't think the report's language indicates that the evidence we do have, if this was all the evidence that exists, is deficient. The report uses words such as "likely" and "probable" because in all matters like this, we don't deal in certainties. It is a rare case indeed where evidence is so overwhelming that more definitive language is appropriate. Edited May 7, 2015 by Go Kiko go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Apparently Brady hasn't, at least according his lawyer who condemned the report as omitting key facts and lines of inquiry. That'd be an easier pill to swallow if, I don't know, Brady actually cooperated with the investigation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 And you accept that as fact, but dismiss much of the Wells' report (which you admit to not reading) as speculation? I accept it as factual as the Wells report which, I have read BTW. I've seen this allegation that the law firm was biased in media reports as well, but I don't understand the inference. Wouldn't the fact that the law firm was hired by the league, which, presumably, does not want to have to discipline the quarterback of the team that just won the Super Bowl for cheating, indicate that the law firm would have an incentive for the report to not implicate Brady? Not the other way around? One would think but, after reading Brady's lawyer's response, I am not so sure. That'd be an easier pill to swallow if, I don't know, Brady actually cooperated with the investigation According to his lawyer he did co-operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I accept it as factual as the Wells report which, I have read BTW. One would think but, after reading Brady's lawyer's response, I am not so sure. According to his lawyer he did co-operate. Co-operated with the interviewing process but not handing over "evidence" (his phone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 I accept it as factual as the Wells report which, I have read BTW. That makes zero sense. For some reason, Ted Wells decided to simply omit parts of Brady's story (whilst including others), but decided to put in the fumbling and bumbling of the ball handlers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 That strikes to the heart of why this discussion is something of a non-sequitur: this isn't a crime, and thus the courts aren't involved. The guilt or innocence in this instance is determined with regard to the NFL's definition, which is a preponderance of evidence. I don't see how anyone can deny that such a preponderance exists (not saying that you did). Right, the whole "if it was the legal system" conversation jumps into this hypothetical scenario where cheating at football is a legal offense. What matters here is the NFL's standard, which is why I get a good laugh at all the stuff floating around from Pats fans trying to draw that legal system comparison. The league has gone against the results of the legal system countless times at this point, so I don't understand why people seem to think that this whole process will be bound by the rules of that same legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 According to his lawyer he did co-operate. He didn't turn over relevant text and email correspondence. He did not fully cooperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Thanks for clarifying the Lloyd matter. I actually have my suspicions that the investigation was conducted fairly and in an objective way. Not that that matters as the league got what they wanted in all of this. Why do you believe that the league wants a tainted Superbowl champion more than they'd like to exonerate one of this generations elite icons? He didn't turn over relevant text and email correspondence. He did not fully cooperate. Despite his attorneys being offered the opportunity to parse through his phone and offer only those communications that are relevant to the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 i dont get why the NFL would want to bring Brady and the Pats down. In fact I would think it is the last thing they wanted. If nothing else, the Oilers winning the lottery and this investigation has restored my waning faith in these sports leagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Kiko go Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) One would think but, after reading Brady's lawyer's response, I am not so sure. We should probably be clear, this appears to be Brady's agent, not his lawyer. Regardless, Brady's agent asserts that the law firm was biased in favor of its client, which is a reasonable inference to make (the idea that one of the most prominent law firms in the world publicly presented a biased report in a high-profile matter is a bit far-fetched, but not unreasonable). But Brady's agent never explains why the league would have wanted the report to conclude that Brady cheated. Brady's agent writes, "it is common knowledge in the legal industry that reports like this generally are written for the benefit of the purchaser," but Brady's agent fails to explain why a finding that Brady cheated would benefit the league. Edited May 7, 2015 by Go Kiko go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 He didn't turn over relevant text and email correspondence. He did not fully cooperate. Was he obligated to turn them over? Not that it matters as what would having Brady's text give them that they already didn't have with McNally and Jastremski's text histories; Brady's texts to them would show up, no?. i dont get why the NFL would want to bring Brady and the Pats down. In fact I would think it is the last thing they wanted. That's the million $ question. We should probably be clear, this appears to be Brady's agent, not his lawyer. Regardless, Brady's agent asserts that the law firm was biased in favor of its client, which is a reasonable inference to make (the idea that one of the most prominent law firms in the world publicly presented a biased report in a high-profile matter is a bit far-fetched, but not unreasonable). But Brady's agent never explains why the league would have wanted the report to conclude that Brady cheated. Brady's agent writes, "it is common knowledge in the legal industry that reports like this generally are written for the benefit of the purchaser," but Brady's agent fails to explain why a finding that Brady cheated would benefit the league. I believe Yee is also one of the Brady's lawyers as well. My guess is there is more to come on this matter. Perhaps then we'll find out some answers to your questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Is it possible/likely that this could be dragged into next offseason? I'm not sure how the appeals process would work in this case after (if) any suspensions are given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Is it possible/likely that this could be dragged into next offseason? I'm not sure how the appeals process would work in this case after (if) any suspensions are given. Nah, the penalties will come out soon and the appeals process is pretty speedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Is it possible/likely that this could be dragged into next offseason? I'm not sure how the appeals process would work in this case after (if) any suspensions are given. very unlikely. I think the suspension is determined and carried out while the appeal is being conducted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 Was he obligated to turn them over? Not that it matters as what would having Brady's text give them that they already didn't have with McNally and Jastremski's text histories; Brady's texts to them would show up, no?. From my understanding he was obligated to turn them over, per the CBA, once they were requested by the investigator. Brady may have sent a text to anyone that could have implicated him. Remember, It had to be relevant to the investigation, not just relevant to the other 2 stooges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 7, 2015 Share Posted May 7, 2015 From my understanding he was obligated to turn them over, per the CBA, once they were requested by the investigator. Brady may have sent a text to anyone that could have implicated him. Remember, It had to be relevant to the investigation, not just relevant to the other 2 stooges. I hadn't heard the bit about the CBA. Good point about other text activity though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts