The Wiz Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I don't think it was some crazy smoking gun and unbelievable moment or discovery, no. I would imagine that the texts they found were pretty shocking to them as far as evidence. I think the halftime thing needs more investigation. I didn't know that McNally wasn't supposed to have the balls so that surprised me a lot that he stole them in a championship game. The fact they threatened to go to ESPN was fairly shocking. The fact they hated Brady was a big surprise. Well no you just sound dumb. Everyone loves Brady in NE. I'm kind of surprised that wasn't in the statement from the Pats** with all the other stuff they were saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 According to the Pats which is "meh" on the scale of believe-ability. Why wouldn't he is a better question if they already had all electronic communication between him and the other two when the request was only asking for "things pertaining to the investigation"? Maybe because there were more people involved other than McNally/Jastremski that would have been brought to light? Do you really think Brady would have turned over anything other than what he assumed Wells already had? Of course not. Wells said that Brady could turn over whatever he wanted and he would take him at his word that that was all there was. So why make such a big deal about Brady's "refusal to cooperate"? It would have changed nothing if he complied as allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Do you really think Brady would have turned over anything other than what he assumed Wells already had? Of course not. Wells said that Brady could turn over whatever he wanted and he would take him at his word that that was all there was. So why make such a big deal about Brady's "refusal to cooperate"? It would have changed nothing if he complied as allowed. Again, If that were the case, why not just comply? What does he have to hide if Wells already knew all the info he needed? That's the part that doesn't make sense. Wells could have said, "hey, these are the texts that we have and we know you might be involved so can you give me your texts from them as well to confirm it was you they were texting/calling?" Of course he would say no to not implicate himself in the investigation even though he already was. Edited May 16, 2015 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I don't think it was some crazy smoking gun and unbelievable moment or discovery, no. I would imagine that the texts they found were pretty shocking to them as far as evidence. I think the halftime thing needs more investigation. I didn't know that McNally wasn't supposed to have the balls so that surprised me a lot that he stole them in a championship game. The fact they threatened to go to ESPN was fairly shocking. The fact they hated Brady was a big surprise. Really I wasn't trying to knock the nickname as a smoking gun- it's a great piece of evidence in weaving a story that I buy. It's the type of glue that brings it from cold science that people struggle with to a real human act. But that phrases like "worse than investigators feared" are better saved for when they start digging in a guys back yard and find a bunch of bodies instead of the one they are looking for. It just reads as over the top as the pats fans trying to pretend it's fabricated. The guy broke the rules playing a game. odds are it wasn't totally unique or incredibly impactful. But got caught, very probably he did it and it probably wasn't the first time he did it that he got caught either. And crazy enough, he didn't admit to it. I know it's shady and not ok, but it doesn't have to turn into something the investigators feared.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Again, If that were the case, why not just comply? What does he have to hide if Wells already knew all the info he needed? That's the part that doesn't make sense. Wells could have said, "hey, these are the texts that we have and we know you might be involved so can you give me your texts from them as well to confirm it was you they were texting/calling?" Of course he would say no to no implicate himself in the investigation even though he already was. Wells didn't need to confirm it was Brady texting--it was obviously his phone number. I don't know why he didn't comply, but it would have yielded no new info for Wells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Wells didn't need to confirm it was Brady texting--it was obviously his phone number. I don't know why he didn't comply, but it would have yielded no new info for Wells. Yet Brady and the Pats** are still lying about knowing anything about it. Why lie if that's the case? He got caught red handed and he and the Pats** are still trying to make it seem like he just played with the balls that were given to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Again, If that were the case, why not just comply? What does he have to hide if Wells already knew all the info he needed? That's the part that doesn't make sense. Wells could have said, "hey, these are the texts that we have and we know you might be involved so can you give me your texts from them as well to confirm it was you they were texting/calling?" Of course he would say no to not implicate himself in the investigation even though he already was. It's either Brady is very sensitive about that, or there's more to this part than the league is letting on. If taken on face value, there is no reason to even ask for them yet alone be upset if declined if it's just "turn in whatever you want" like the NFL is framing it. Brady's lawyer mentioned the NFLs request was far more intensive than let on in their statements but that kind of fell quiet. I'm also curious why gostkowski got to decline without punishment and how common the people declining is (and if they are punished since this story is 50-50 on that point) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Yet Brady and the Pats** are still lying about knowing anything about it. Why lie if that's the case? He got caught red handed and he and the Pats** are still trying to make it seem like he just played with the balls that were given to him. Well, sometimes people keep digging in deeper. Once they came out with the initial narrative, they figure they can't go back, no matter how ridiculous it looks/sounds. My point was that Wells making hay of noncompliance is relative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) It's either Brady is very sensitive about that, or there's more to this part than the league is letting on. If taken on face value, there is no reason to even ask for them yet alone be upset if declined if it's just "turn in whatever you want" like the NFL is framing it. Brady's lawyer mentioned the NFLs request was far more intensive than let on in their statements but that kind of fell quiet. I'm also curious why gostkowski got to decline without punishment and how common the people declining is (and if they are punished since this story is 50-50 on that point) From reports, it was "anything related to investigation could be sent via email in the presence of Brady's lawyer". So that implies anything that doesn't include the two ball boys. That's the reason I think it was declined. Well, sometimes people keep digging in deeper. Once they came out with the initial narrative, they figure they can't go back, no matter how ridiculous it looks/sounds. My point was that Wells making hay of noncompliance is relative. He never said, they weren't compliant so they are guilty, just the rest of the free thinking world outside of Boston said that. He pieced it together from the other two that Brady was involved without his text messages. Pretty sure you said that also. And to be honest, if they just owned it, he probably wouldn't be suspended and more people would have respect for him instead of lying and then lying again and then having people below you take the blame. Edited May 16, 2015 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 From reports, it was "anything related to investigation could be sent via email in the presence of Brady's lawyer". So that implies anything that doesn't include the two ball boys. That's the reason I think it was declined. He never said, they weren't compliant so they are guilty, just the rest of the free thinking world outside of Boston said that. He pieced it together from the other two that Brady was involved without his text messages. Pretty sure you said that also. And to be honest, if they just owned it, he probably wouldn't be suspended and more people would have respect for him instead of lying and then lying again and then having people below you take the blame. All he had to say from day one was "some guys like them hard, I like them soft, so I ask the boys to take a little out and I give it a feel. I never figured it was much lower PSI--figured it was still in the allowed range. My mistake." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) All he had to say from day one was "some guys like them hard, I like them soft, so I ask the boys to take a little out and I give it a feel. I never figured it was much lower PSI--figured it was still in the allowed range. My mistake." You're right. That's all he had to say. But he didn't. He said they do a great job at prepping the game balls and he didn't know the difference between a ball that was within regulation and one that wasn't. If he did say that everyone would blame the ball boys and there would be a few that wore their tinfoil hats proudly. When the report came out I was about 5% concerned about the integrity of the game and the rest that they cheated by deflating the ball. Now it's the fact that they lied and were caught in the lie and are now trying to lie about the lie. Edited May 16, 2015 by The Wiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 All he had to say from day one was "some guys like them hard, I like them soft, so I ask the boys to take a little out and I give it a feel. I never figured it was much lower PSI--figured it was still in the allowed range. My mistake." Yup. That first week wasn't their finest work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 You're right. That's all he had to say. But he didn't. He said they do a great job at prepping the game balls and he didn't know the difference between a ball that was within regulation and one that wasn't. If he did say that everyone would blame the ball boys and there would be a few that wore their tinfoil hats proudly. When the report came out I was about 5% concerned about the integrity of the game and the rest that they cheated by deflating the ball. Now it's the fact that they lied and were caught in the lie and are now trying to lie about the lie. The tinfoil crew here lives for this stuff. Yup. That first week wasn't their finest work. Yeah, all of this could have easily been mitigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timtebow15 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Brady had his reasons to not relinquish any additional text messages which, absent a subpoena, was his right. The million $ question is whether or not he has incriminating info on his phone? If they do indeed proceed ahead with a lawsuit, I think it is safe to say, he isn't worried about being subpoenaed for it. And why would he? It has be thoroughly documented that Wells had all of the electronics communication between Brady and McNally/Jamstsremski. As far as McNally .... the team made it known in their rebuttal the reasons why they refused additional access in their rebuttal .... as follows: "That agreement was based on an explicit understanding reached with the Wells investigators: barring unanticipated circumstances, individuals would only be interviewed by the Wells investigators one time. While the report states that certain of Mr. Jastremski’s texts were not “discovered” until after this interview (pg. 75, footnote 47), there is no question that the investigators had all such texts in their possession and available for the questioning. They apparently just overlooked them, identifying them now as a matter they wanted to cover in yet another interview Although asked numerous times for the reason for their request for yet another interview with Mr. McNally, the Wells investigators never stated the reason that now appears evident from the Report: They had overlooked texts in their earlier interviews and wanted the opportunity to ask about them. This information would have confirmed what is now clear. The request was inconsistent with the interview protocol agreed to at the outset. TLDR: The Wells team NEVER TOLD THE PATRIOTS OR MCNALLY why they wanted the 5th interview, which is against the protocol THE WELLS TEAM ESTABLISHED" I can't believe you are buying this crap. Anyone who is neutral can see the Pats**** are the dishonest ones in this whole affair. How can you defend them? I don't care if they ask to talk to McNally or anyone else 20 times. Or if Brady has a reason not to turn over texts (perhaps he shouldn't have been texting/meeting/calling a person he stood up in front of the media and claimed to not know). Let's see, the Pats relieve two supposedly innocent people from their duties to take the fall who we are expected to believe were texting about weight loss even though they referred to inflating balls to the size of watermelons? If you are innocent you don't play these games and anyone who defends them is showing a lack of integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Wells didn't need to confirm it was Brady texting--it was obviously his phone number. I don't know why he didn't comply, but it would have yielded no new info for Wells. You, me, Wells and others have zero idea what is on his phone. Brady also answered a lot of questions. There could be stuff on his texts that likely contradict his testimony. Like he said he didn't really know McNally, but his texts could very well have proven he did, which Jastremski proved that he did. But that is just someone saying he knew him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 (edited) Wells didn't need to confirm it was Brady texting--it was obviously his phone number. I don't know why he didn't comply, but it would have yielded no new info for Wells. Yes, you do know why. You just can't bear to bring yourself to say it. If this were any other team, even the Bills, you'd be sardonically laughing at Brady's refusal to produce his phone and the lies being tossed out by them. However as is your wont, because you've spend the better part of the last 15 years telling yourself and everyone else that the Cheatriots are a model organization, you make excuse after excuse for them that would make the most ardent Lance Armstrong fanboy envious. Edited May 16, 2015 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Because Wells wasn't bound by restriction to tell Brady or the Pats why he needed to do another interview or see his phone other than it was required as part of the interview and NFLPA. Interrogation skills 101. It's the one night stand theory. Just because I slept with someone doesn't mean I "know" them. I would imagine Brady's team will argue the same point that the Pats lawyers brought up in their rebuttal, and which I pointed out above, .... which is as follows: "The Wells team NEVER TOLD THE PATRIOTS OR MCNALLY why they wanted the 5th interview, which is against the protocol THE WELLS TEAM ESTABLISHED" Do you really think Brady would have turned over anything other than what he assumed Wells already had? Of course not. Wells said that Brady could turn over whatever he wanted and he would take him at his word that that was all there was. So why make such a big deal about Brady's "refusal to cooperate"? . .... because it helped their narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 I would imagine Brady's team will argue the same point that the Pats lawyers brought up in their rebuttal, and which I pointed out above, .... which is as follows: "The Wells team NEVER TOLD THE PATRIOTS OR MCNALLY why they wanted the 5th interview, which is against the protocol THE WELLS TEAM ESTABLISHED" Considering the Patriots* didn't even inform McNally of the 2nd interview request I am not surprised Wells didn't request a 5th one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pneumonic Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Again, If that were the case, why not just comply? What does he have to hide if Wells already knew all the info he needed? That's the part that doesn't make sense. Wells could have said, "hey, these are the texts that we have and we know you might be involved so can you give me your texts from them as well to confirm it was you they were texting/calling?" Of course he would say no to not implicate himself in the investigation even though he already was. Maybe Brady knew, by this time, that this was nothing more than a witchhunt and, absent a subpoena, was done with it all. Or, maybe he simply didn't trust handing over his text's to them for fear that some of it might find its way into the public and be misconstrued. Kinda like what actually happened. Considering the Patriots* didn't even inform McNally of the 2nd interview request I am not surprised Wells didn't request a 5th one... The 5th interview (the Pats reference) is the 2nd one (that Wells asked for). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wiz Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Maybe Brady knew, by this time, that this was nothing more than a witchhunt and, absent a subpoena, was done with it all. Or, maybe he simply didn't trust handing over his text's to them for fear that some of it might find its way into the public and be misconstrued. Kinda like what actually happened. The 5th interview (the Pats reference) is the 2nd one (that Wells asked for). Misconstrued? So saying !@#$ tom and he's going to be throwing watermelons is misconstrued as the guy being on a diet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts