Brady to be SUSPENDED next week according to report

[Lurker]

There are always leaks. What's your point?

Exactly. Name an organiztion that doesn't leak. It's human nature...

[papazoid]

put him on the commissioners exempt list indefinitely

[ko12010]

 

this is a great point, but (being a conspiracy theorist) it makes me wonder: has the league, since then, paid hargrove an excessive amount of money to keep silent? because if I was hargrove, and brady got anything less than a year, i would sue the league into oblivion for all maters of lost wages, lost endorsements, defamation of character, racism(?), etc. etc. etc. it doesnt matter if theyre part of a players union... there is not a court in the world that would throw that case out. hargrove WOULD win, so the only reason hes not pursuing litigation in this case would have to be because of a payoff... right?

I checked and I guess Hargrove got 8 games, which was eventually reduced to 2. The other players were reduced too on appeal. However, it ended up being a full year out of football for Hargrove who had trouble catching onto a team because of this situation. He is quoted as saying the whole thing "took away my earning power." Ended up out of football for a full year and eventually out of football. So one could say Bountygate sped up the end of his career significantly, all because it was supposedly his voice on a tape (which he denied) and Goodell felt he was lying.

 

As for why he's not pursuing litigation, you may be right. He does have grounds, as the evidence of his voice being the one on tape was hardly conclusive. But Goodell felt the preponderance of evidence had been met. It's easy to say oh Hargrove got 8 and reduced to 2, but it was way worse. He became blacklisted almost, had trouble catching onto a squad, not really given a fair shake, and essentially lost his career. I'd be livid if I were him and Brady gets less than 8 pre-appeal. But like others have said, what does he have to appeal? Hargrove at least had some ground to stand on with asking Goodell how he proved it was his voice on the tape.

Edited May 8, 2015 by ko12010

[ThurmasThoman]

The NFL would look way worse if they suspended him, it was appealed, and they reversed the suspension to no games than they would if they didnt suspend him at all. That ain't gonna happen IMO.

right. and this line of thinking is asinine anyways. to "appeal" the suspension, you would need either

*contradictory evidence: which in this case, literally the ONLY thing that could contradict the wells report that the pats/brady could have would be bradys texts, which he didnt turn over in the first place, so if they could exhonerate him, why wouldnt he have turned them over anyways?

 

and/or

 

* precedent that had been set but not recognized, which, in this case, the precedent seems to be season long suspensions (hargrove, payton), so if he got 8, there is no precedent he could really appeal on... definitely not 4 or 2 game suspension.

 

SO, with that taken into account.

 

If the league hit him with 8 he would have nothing to appeal. if it hit him with 16, MAYBE he could appeal to 8. but the thought that he can just magically "appeal" a 4 game suspension down to 2 is ridiculous. any appeal WOULD still involve a representative from both sides (league and pats) AS WELL AS a likely representative from the wells firm AND MOST IMPORTANTLY an independent arbitrator like tagliabue ala bountygate. this is not to mention representatives from the competition committee (which may include the colts and/or jets--both teams that have ratted out the pats).

 

AND

 

in both statements from bradys agent and kraft, neither has denied guilt OR said they were going to fight the punishment.

 

people keep saying brady is going to appeal from 4 to 2, or 8 to 4. i just dont see it. the initial ruling will likely stick, and i expect it to be heavy since the league is in a tight spot. 16 games would put the league in a tighter spot, as they would be suspending the league championship game mvp for the entire next season for cheating, but 4 would be seen as weak by fanbases of other teams.

 

8 games, no appeal, brady comes back in week 9.

[/dev/null]

If he's suspended they should enforce it Week 1 for their hoist the trophy TNF season opener

[dwight in philly]

trade cassel back to them for gronk.

[Kirby Jackson]

Plus I'm sure some players and the whole Saints organization will be pissed if nothing happens.

Yep, there are a lot of people standing there saying, "you better do to the Pats as you would to the rest of us." That's part of the reason that they have to come down hard on them.

[BillsInMaine]

I don't want any suspensions for Brady. I want no excuses for the Cheats when we beat them. I don't want to hear any yea buts when we take the division and last I want no fuel for Brady.

[Kirby Jackson]

I don't want any suspensions for Brady. I want no excuses for the Cheats when we beat them. I don't want to hear any yea buts when we take the division and last I want no fuel for Brady.

Really? We aren't putting them on the table and measuring (sorry for the crude analogy but it's all that I could think of). You don't need to prove your manhood in this league. Guys miss games all of the time. The goal is to win as many games as you can. It doesn't matter against who.

[bills_fan]

If you use baseball as a guide (the only other sport where the bats/balls can be tinkered with to gain an advantage), he should be suspended. Pitchers are suspended all the time for doctoring baseballs, similarly hitters with corked bats. Most suspensions for this sort of thing in baseball is 8-10 games....not much considering the season is 162 games. Now the NFL doesn't want to look soft here and the Pats* are repeat offenders in rule bending, so I think Brady gets 4 games with it being reduced on appeal to 2 games. Just my gut feeling.

[ko12010]

Really? We aren't putting them on the table and measuring (sorry for the crude analogy but it's all that I could think of). You don't need to prove your manhood in this league. Guys miss games all of the time. The goal is to win as many games as you can. It doesn't matter against who.

Yeah I'm starting to see it this way too. Plus the guy is 38 going on 39. Pretty soon Garrapolo will be their starter anyway, so that will be the Pats at full strength. And Brady cheated and lied. He deserves to be suspended. If he hurts his team it's only his fault. How about the Garrapolo era against the Bills is the opposite of Brady against the Bills. 2-24 or whatever.

If you use baseball as a guide (the only other sport where the bats/balls can be tinkered with to gain an advantage), he should be suspended. Pitchers are suspended all the time for doctoring baseballs, similarly hitters with corked bats. Most suspensions for this sort of thing in baseball is 8-10 games....not much considering the season is 162 games. Now the NFL doesn't want to look soft here and the Pats* are repeat offenders in rule bending, so I think Brady gets 4 games with it being reduced on appeal to 2 games. Just my gut feeling.

I'm changing my prediction to 8 and upheld on appeal. He really has no grounds for appeal.

[Roger Goodell]

While the NFL takes all investigations very seriously, I think fans would rather see Tom Brady on the field.

[Solomon Grundy]

Another Patriot found guilty on circumstantial evidence!

[The Wiz]

Are appeals always allowed? Like has there ever been an incident where an appeal wasn't allowed? Kind of like "no parole"

Edited May 9, 2015 by The Wiz

[DC Tom]

Don't suspend him. Suspend his entire offensive line.

[snafu]

I'd like the suspension to be something along the lines of not being able to participate in any team activities from now through the first game. No TC, no preseason games, no meetings.

[DC Tom]

Are appeals always allowed? Like has there ever been an incident where an appeal wasn't allowed? Kind of like "no parole"

 

I've never heard of an appeal not being allowed. I suspect it's part of the CBA.

[Rob's House]

Oh my goodness, for the last time, PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. That's the standard used here. It literally means if it's at all over a 50% chance he's guilty, then he's GUILTY. A standard is a standard. It was met and then some, I don't anyone can disagree based on this particular standard.

Pretty crappy standard when determining guilt, IMO, but at least in this instance it's related to something that actually impacts the game, so I find it more acceptable than when King Goodell uses this chicken **** standard to determine guilt and punishment for conduct unrelated to league activities.

[Mark Vader]

No sh--!

 

I remain skeptical, but that would be something.

 

That said, cheat, win SB, lose a couple game checks? Big deal in the grand scheme.

 

I want to see this guy's reputation forever tarnished.

Me too.

 

No access into the Hall of Fame for him or any Patriots member involved in all of this going back to Spygate.

 

Seems a proper punishment to me.

[Rob's House]

 

this is a great point, but (being a conspiracy theorist) it makes me wonder: has the league, since then, paid hargrove an excessive amount of money to keep silent? because if I was hargrove, and brady got anything less than a year, i would sue the league into oblivion for all maters of lost wages, lost endorsements, defamation of character, racism(?), etc. etc. etc. it doesnt matter if theyre part of a players union... there is not a court in the world that would throw that case out. hargrove WOULD win, so the only reason hes not pursuing litigation in this case would have to be because of a payoff... right?

On what theory could Hargrove recover?

[ko12010]

Pretty crappy standard when determining guilt, IMO, but at least in this instance it's related to something that actually impacts the game, so I find it more acceptable than when King Goodell uses this chicken **** standard to determine guilt and punishment for conduct unrelated to league activities.

Well the thing is, this is same standard used in civil lawsuits. I mean, OJ Simpson was convicted of murder using these standards! It's simply how it is when it comes to non-criminal proceedings. If it's good enough to convict someone of murder, I think it's good enough to convict a peckerhead like Brady of cheating in the court of law that is the NFL.

[Kelly the Dog]

Pretty crappy standard when determining guilt, IMO, but at least in this instance it's related to something that actually impacts the game, so I find it more acceptable than when King Goodell uses this chicken **** standard to determine guilt and punishment for conduct unrelated to league activities.

I forgot who said it, maybe Polian, but the specific words used by Wells were NFL speak for "he's guilty" - not even likely guilty - and not the standard preponderance of evidence it might mean elsewhere.

[DC Tom]

There is really zero reason he should win any appeal. He has no legitimate defense. There is a decent possibility that the NFL would prefer that so it looks like they were hard on him, and yet only lose him for awhile. I now think he gets 8 games, appeals, and it is cut in half to four, even though that is a stupid way to dole out punishment.

 

I'm pretty sure that's how it'll go down. Basically, "suspended sentence," as long as Brady shows appropriate contrition (e.g. "I didn't know it was illegal, my lawyer misspoke, the ball boys misled me, there was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!")

 

 

"Oh Tom...oh Tommy..."

[Rob's House]

Well the thing is, this is same standard used in civil lawsuits. I mean, OJ Simpson was convicted of murder using these standards! It's simply how it is when it comes to non-criminal proceedings. If it's good enough to convict someone of murder, I think it's good enough to convict a peckerhead like Brady of cheating in the court of law that is the NFL.

I'm fully aware of the burden of proof in civil cases (and being found liable for wrongful death is not the same thing as being found guilty of murder). I just don't think that's an appropriate standard for imposing punishments regardless of whether the law allows it.

[What a Tuel]

Really? We aren't putting them on the table and measuring (sorry for the crude analogy but it's all that I could think of). You don't need to prove your manhood in this league. Guys miss games all of the time. The goal is to win as many games as you can. It doesn't matter against who.

 

It matters when you are 3-21 against them and they have 11/12 division championships. Your team is about to turn it over and finally compete, and the NFL handicaps the pats. I don't know, it feels wrong, and I have no doubt that will be the talk of the NFL rather than what it should be - The Bills finally bring down the Patriots and take the AFC East back.

[Captain Caveman]

throw away the key needle.

[May Day 10]

Really? We aren't putting them on the table and measuring (sorry for the crude analogy but it's all that I could think of). You don't need to prove your manhood in this league. Guys miss games all of the time. The goal is to win as many games as you can. It doesn't matter against who.

I agree. It would be sweet to humble brady but a division win is a division Win. How many Sub par bills quarterbacks have they beaten?

[Rob's House]

I forgot who said it, maybe Polian, but the specific words used by Wells were NFL speak for "he's guilty" - not even likely guilty - and not the standard preponderance of evidence it might mean elsewhere.

I think he's guilty and it looks like the evidence shows it by more than a preponderance. I'm just criticizing the use of that standard for punishment generally, not because I think Brady's being judged unfairly.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Are appeals always allowed? Like has there ever been an incident where an appeal wasn't allowed? Kind of like "no parole"

If he appeals I hope the NFL just asks for his phone right off the bat

[ko12010]

I'm fully aware of the burden of proof in civil cases (and being found liable for wrongful death is not the same thing as being found guilty of murder). I just don't think that's an appropriate standard for imposing punishments regardless of whether the law allows it.

I'm just curious--do you think the NFL should strive for beyond reasonable doubt to determine rules violations in a sport? Seems extreme, no? I view preponderance of evidence as basically common sense. We know it's likely he did it. To get an ironclad 100% accurate verdict is unreasonable imo

[Mark Vader]

 

I'm pretty sure that's how it'll go down. Basically, "suspended sentence," as long as Brady shows appropriate contrition (e.g. "I didn't know it was illegal, my lawyer misspoke, the ball boys misled me, there was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T MY FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD!")

 

 

"Oh Tom...oh Tommy..."

[Reed83HOF]

 

.. and the NFL handicaps the pats. I don't know, it feels wrong...

Does it feel wrong to know they cheated a zillion times against us (& everyone else) and didn't give a Sh!t?

 

Granted we had some lousy teams, but how did they cheat against us to get wins? F'um

[Rob's House]

I'm just curious--do you think the NFL should strive for beyond reasonable doubt to determine rules violations in a sport? Seems extreme, no? I view preponderance of evidence as basically common sense. We know it's likely he did it. To get an ironclad 100% accurate verdict is unreasonable imo

I don't know if they should hold themselves to beyond a reasonable doubt, but clear and convincing evidence at a minimum would be more appropriate IMO.

[Kelly the Dog]

I think he's guilty and it looks like the evidence shows it by more than a preponderance. I'm just criticizing the use of that standard for punishment generally, not because I think Brady's being judged unfairly.

Oh I know, but I don't that is what is happening here. Fans and blogs are using that term as it is used in other places. But the NFL is not using it as a 50-50 proposition, they have their own definition for it, and it means "he's guilty we just can't prove it with a smoking gun." They are not actually saying it is 51-49 that he did it. They are saying it is 99-1 he did it. That is what Polian was talking about, that for the last five years or so the NFL has used that term to say "he's guilty."

 

Edit. I should correct myself. Polian has said this in a few different places in a few different ways. Here he says the NFL has been using that standard for the last six years. But by saying that they are saying that a violation clearly occurred, not that it probably occurred.

 

 

Former NFL executive Bill Polian, familiar with the league's crime-and-punishment procedures after spending 19 years on the powerful competition committee, said the term Wells used -- "more probable than not" -- has been the standard of proof the NFL has used for competitive violations over the last six years.

"In short, he is finding there was a violation," Polian said. "In many ways I think this report is as important as the discipline. It clearly says a violation occurred."

Edited May 9, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[3rdand12]

I have mixed emotions about this whole.

i want all the witches burned. all the way up to Kraft and Goodell gets singed a bit because its been ongoing envelope pushing for as long as i can recall by those Satan worshipping deflaters.

But Brady almost retired. the only hurt you can put on him is take away stuff.

Hell he got his superbowl win! why would he care about a fine or multi game suspensions?

money means little and if he can save his arm for the final run to yet another SB run what has the league gained.

 

geez this stuff pisses me off. Take away the ring. suspend Belicheat for a season. fine Kraftwerks not that he cares but still its a statement.

 

But let Brady play. this is the year the Bills defense gives him the Wedgie that keeps on giving. Bills defense should have him in tears screaming at Refs and coming unglued by halftime. I cant think of a better punishment than Hughes in his facemask and the Refs laughing at him

[The Wiz]

If he appeals I hope the NFL just asks for his phone right off the bat

That's pretty much where I'm at too. If he says no, appeal denied.

[ALF]

Brady not turning over his cell phone looks very bad

[Augie]

Brady not turning over his cell phone looks very bad

That says "screw you, I'm above this". The only other explanation is the contents are worse than saying screw you, I'm above this. Refuse to cooperate in an investigation? For this he should get crushed. Time will tell. Roger, are you listening?

[mikemac2001]

Brady not turning over his cell phone looks very bad

When u think about it.....it's insane

 

He has nothing to lose and

Everything to gain

 

By giving up the phone ..........unless he did something

 

If he is innocent u hand that over right away to show u didn't do anything

Edited May 9, 2015 by mikemac2001

[Rob's House]

When u think about it.....it's insane

 

He has nothing to lose and

Everything to gain

 

By giving up the phone ..........unless he did something

 

If he is innocent u hand that over right away to show u didn't do anything

You have no idea what's in his phone. There are very good reasons why someone wouldn't hand over his phone regardless of whether it implicated him in the immediate investigation. Edited May 9, 2015 by Rob's House