Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[NoSaint]

 

 

I said nothing about Spygate.

 

He is a cheater in this, it is obvious and it is the first time someone has been caught cheating like this. You love him and want him to get off on a technicality. That's wonderful.

 

I prefer a league that has some authority over the players. I don't think they can write specific penalties for every possible offense. If the Jags were to infiltrate the Cowboys locker room before a game and poor acid on all their cleats so the Cowboys had poor footing I would be for punishing the Jags and any specific player involved harshly. Would you be taking the same "I think the league looks bad approach" because there is no penalty spelled out in detail for cleat melting?

While I hate to get into it with what's literally a troll account, I'll simply leave the distinction that we are saying a bunch of comps and rules exist so you should follow those instead of saying "this is totally unique roger should have free reign to do anything he wants"

 

It's weird how you've twisted that around

[dave mcbride]

I said nothing about Spygate.

 

He is a cheater in this, it is obvious and it is the first time someone has been caught cheating like this. You love him and want him to get off on a technicality. That's wonderful.

 

I prefer a league that has some authority over the players. I don't think they can write specific penalties for every possible offense. If the Jags were to infiltrate the Cowboys locker room before a game and poor acid on all their cleats so the Cowboys had poor footing I would be for punishing the Jags and any specific player involved harshly. Would you be taking the same "I think the league looks bad approach" because there is no penalty spelled out in detail for cleat melting?

 

You make some decent points here, but you lose me when you make inflammatory and baseless accusations about me loving him (not to mention the inane emoticons you ceaselessly post in response to No Saint). Seriously, can you lay off that unproductive line of attack?

[Mr. WEO]

You make some decent points here, but you lose me when you make inflammatory and baseless accusations about me loving him (not to mention the inane emoticons you ceaselessly post in response to No Saint). Seriously, can you lay off that unproductive line of attack?

 

That's all this kid has---except for his Luck sucks threads.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html

That article is flat wrong on so many levels I stopped reading halfway through.

 

Brady and Jastremski had no idea how much air was let out of the footballs that McNally deflated. He just stuck a needle in them all and let some out. McNally himself had no idea whether he let out 1 PSI or two PSI. The ONE BALL IN QUESTION WAS 2 POUNDS UNDER. So what the hell difference does it make to Brady or Jastremski hearing that 10 of 12 balls were two pounds under or that one was 10.1 when it was really 10.5. They had no idea what the numbers were, only that they were deflated.

 

That argument is ludicrous.

 

Then he says that Goodell assumed that Brady and Jastremski must be lying about their conversations after the story came out and that is how Goodell determined Brady's guilt. NO. That is not at all what happened. It was the overall combination of what Jastremski and McNally and Brady at different times and about that specific time that PUT TOGETHER made Goodell decide he was not telling the truth about those conversations, NOT just because they had them at that time and hadn't spoke before.

 

That argument is ludicrous.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[4merper4mer]

You make some decent points here, but you lose me when you make inflammatory and baseless accusations about me loving him (not to mention the inane emoticons you ceaselessly post in response to No Saint). Seriously, can you lay off that unproductive line of attack?

It seems that you consistently bash Bills fans for being fans. Aren't you one? I'm fine with it when you simply think someone is being a homer but to take it to the point of taking Brady's side over and over is aggravating, even if it is more anti-league than pro-Brady. You seem to demand that the league execute flawless punishment and have everything tied up nice and neat in a bow while Brady is clearly lying and sticking it in their face at every opportunity. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt from anyone at this point. If you're waiting for the league, or MLB, NHL, NBA to be perfect and demanding that or everyone gets off scot free then there will be a lot of scot free people running around and a lot of broken rules.

 

A lot of bad crap goes on off the football field with these guys in all the leagues. Half off the field and half on PEDs give players an edge over other players. Blatant on field CHEATING by any player, much less a superstar is always going to be BAAAAAAAD for a league. Honestly I don't see how people can miss that unless that have some weird worship for the player....in this case Brady. Any league needs to put their foot down and make it stop pronto. It's bad enough that he calls roughing the passer and holding and whatnot. That's something that goes with the territory of being a superstar. Michael Jordan got this treatment and many others too. I don't like it but it is far different than looking the other way at altering the game balls, cleary lying about it, destroying a phone, and all the other crap.

 

I'm just giving No Saint grief because he is repeating the same faulty logic over and over. WEO is clearly a Pats fan troll.

While I hate to get into it with what's literally a troll account, I'll simply leave the distinction that we are saying a bunch of comps and rules exist so you should follow those instead of saying "this is totally unique roger should have free reign to do anything he wants"

 

It's weird how you've twisted that around

 

 

What is the spelled out rule for stealing game balls and having them deflated? Oh, there isn't one? Why? Could it be that it is such a grotesque violation against the spirit of competition that nobody could have envisioned it ever happening?

[Pneumonic]

 

At this point, it’s borderline obvious that the NFL was working backwards from a predetermined conclusion. That’s not to say Brady did nothing wrong, but the way Goodell and the league have framed certain information is pathetic

 

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/sports/nfl/roger-goodell-blatantly-lied-to-make-tom-brady-look-dishonest/ar-BBlqeSi

[Go Kiko go]

So the league created fake duress for Brady via false evidence and then found him guilty for reacting to it in an understandable fashion. This is a rather aggressive interrogation tactic generally reserved for murder investigations, terrorist questionings and "Law & Order" reruns. It isn't how anyone would normally expect the league office to act when trying to determine the inflation levels of footballs.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html

 

Did you bother to read the basis for the quote that you posted?

 

The author claims that it was "understandable" for Brady to contact Jastremski after the deflation story broke, because, according to the author, "of course Brady would want to find out what the heck was going on and talk to Jastremski" and, after news broke about the extent to which the Patriots balls were deflated, "Brady would reasonably want to ask more questions" of Jastremski.

 

Except that Brady testified that he "was unable to recall any specifics of [his] discussions" with Jastremski and Brady "suggested that their principal subject was preparation of game balls for the Super Bowl." (those quotes are from Goodell's recent decision on Brady's appeal).

 

So, contrary to this author's contention, Brady claims that these discussions were not about the news that was breaking about the deflated footballs.

 

Nonetheless, the author claims that "the NFL . . . said the daily discussions [between Brady and Jastremski] were proof of guilt" and that the NFL thus found Brady guilty for "reacting in an understandable fashion."

 

Except that's not what the NFL concluded.

 

The conclusion the NFL reached was that Brady was being untruthful, because the "extraordinary volume of communications during the three days following the AFC Championship game undermines any suggestion that the communications addressed only preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than tampering allegations." Thus, it was not the fact that Brady and Jastremski spoke frequently after the deflation story broke; instead, it was the fact that Brady appeared to have been untruthful by claiming that their conversations were about preparing balls for the Super Bowl, rather than discussing the deflation story. It was just more support for the NFL's conclusion that Brady was being evasive and uncooperative.

[eball]

No prob - happens to the best of us.

And, apparently, KTD.

[JohnC]

I don't think you'd find much argument from myself or most of the accused "Brady lovers" here.

 

Unfortunately with Goodell being entrusted with authority here, his arrogance might trump Brady's.

 

If nothing else there were some easy actions that would've gone a long way in avoiding this situation. If he was confident in his actions, it seems the third party hearing the appeal would've been a no brainer, as an example.

Goodell has a history of mischaracterizing the testimoney of others and then basing his judgment on the distortion. His decision to uphold the suspension was more based on his perception of Brady's communication than it was on the flimsy and confusing facts associated with the balls.

 

A simple solution (as you noted) was to have an impartial arbitrator handle this case. But RG wasn't going to do that because if he did an arbitrator who wasn't invested in a particular outcome could possibly come up with a different conclusion. Roger was not going to allow that to happen.

 

There is a more over-arching storyline than the deflategate issue. It is the unhealthy aspect of the combination of an excessive amount of arrogance and power held by one self-inflated man. That's what has caused this league's self-immolation over something that was trivial and could have been easily handled with a little common sense.

 

The below link from the Washington Post comes from a column by Dan Steinberg. He makes the point that Goodell has mischaracterized Brady's testimoney to advance his position. Steinberg no longer trusts Goodell in his manufactured fiasco.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/

[papazoid]

Why didn’t Goodell call Jastremski and McNally?

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/04/why-didnt-goodell-call-jastremski-and-mcnally/

[thebandit27]

 

Did you bother to read the basis for the quote that you posted?

 

The author claims that it was "understandable" for Brady to contact Jastremski after the deflation story broke, because, according to the author, "of course Brady would want to find out what the heck was going on and talk to Jastremski" and, after news broke about the extent to which the Patriots balls were deflated, "Brady would reasonably want to ask more questions" of Jastremski.

 

Except that Brady testified that he "was unable to recall any specifics of [his] discussions" with Jastremski and Brady "suggested that their principal subject was preparation of game balls for the Super Bowl." (those quotes are from Goodell's recent decision on Brady's appeal).

 

So, contrary to this author's contention, Brady claims that these discussions were not about the news that was breaking about the deflated footballs.

 

Nonetheless, the author claims that "the NFL . . . said the daily discussions [between Brady and Jastremski] were proof of guilt" and that the NFL thus found Brady guilty for "reacting in an understandable fashion."

 

Except that's not what the NFL concluded.

 

The conclusion the NFL reached was that Brady was being untruthful, because the "extraordinary volume of communications during the three days following the AFC Championship game undermines any suggestion that the communications addressed only preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than tampering allegations." Thus, it was not the fact that Brady and Jastremski spoke frequently after the deflation story broke; instead, it was the fact that Brady appeared to have been untruthful by claiming that their conversations were about preparing balls for the Super Bowl, rather than discussing the deflation story. It was just more support for the NFL's conclusion that Brady was being evasive and uncooperative.

 

 

 

You're wasting your time responsing to Pneumonic. He/she is a Patriots** shill that is on this board for the sole purpose of defending their actions on this subject.

 

They cheated, Brady lied, it's obvious to anyone that has followed the story with any level of detail and attempted to remain unbiased.

[dave mcbride]

It seems that you consistently bash Bills fans for being fans. Aren't you one? I'm fine with it when you simply think someone is being a homer but to take it to the point of taking Brady's side over and over is aggravating, even if it is more anti-league than pro-Brady. You seem to demand that the league execute flawless punishment and have everything tied up nice and neat in a bow while Brady is clearly lying and sticking it in their face at every opportunity. He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt from anyone at this point. If you're waiting for the league, or MLB, NHL, NBA to be perfect and demanding that or everyone gets off scot free then there will be a lot of scot free people running around and a lot of broken rules.

 

A lot of bad crap goes on off the football field with these guys in all the leagues. Half off the field and half on PEDs give players an edge over other players. Blatant on field CHEATING by any player, much less a superstar is always going to be BAAAAAAAD for a league. Honestly I don't see how people can miss that unless that have some weird worship for the player....in this case Brady. Any league needs to put their foot down and make it stop pronto. It's bad enough that he calls roughing the passer and holding and whatnot. That's something that goes with the territory of being a superstar. Michael Jordan got this treatment and many others too. I don't like it but it is far different than looking the other way at altering the game balls, cleary lying about it, destroying a phone, and all the other crap.

 

I'm just giving No Saint grief because he is repeating the same faulty logic over and over. WEO is clearly a Pats fan troll.

 

 

What is the spelled out rule for stealing game balls and having them deflated? Oh, there isn't one? Why? Could it be that it is such a grotesque violation against the spirit of competition that nobody could have envisioned it ever happening?

If you read one of my posts a couple of pages back, you'll see that I support the more poetically just suspension (functionally speaking) of a six-games-out stress fracture inflicted by Jerry Hughes on Brady in game 2 of this season.

That article is flat wrong on so many levels I stopped reading halfway through.

 

Brady and Jastremski had no idea how much air was let out of the footballs that McNally deflated. He just stuck a needle in them all and let some out. McNally himself had no idea whether he let out 1 PSI or two PSI. The ONE BALL IN QUESTION WAS 2 POUNDS UNDER. So what the hell difference does it make to Brady or Jastremski hearing that 10 of 12 balls were two pounds under or that one was 10.1 when it was really 10.5. They had no idea what the numbers were, only that they were deflated.

 

That argument is ludicrous.

 

Then he says that Goodell assumed that Brady and Jastremski must be lying about their conversations after the story came out and that is how Goodell determined Brady's guilt. NO. That is not at all what happened. It was the overall combination of what Jastremski and McNally and Brady at different times and about that specific time that PUT TOGETHER made Goodell decide he was not telling the truth about those conversations, NOT just because they had them at that time and hadn't spoke before.

 

That argument is ludicrous.

 

It's possible to believe that the overall case is overwhelmingly against Brady and also to believe that Goodell wilfully mischaracterized the nature of this particular communication between Brady and Jastremski. Take your prosecutorial hat off for a moment and think about it in another light--a non-prosecutorial, plain English interpretation light. He CLEARLY mischaracterized what Brady said, but the defense of Goodell seems to be boiling down to "that's just his opinon, man." I mentioned earlier that this was an unforced error, and it really is--he didn't have to do this, and doing so didn't make his case stronger. Rather, it ended up being the basis of a highly critical lead story in the Washington Post. Knowing this outcome, in what world was this a smart thing for Goodell to write? Think about the real-world ramifications of this (in truth) penny-ante misrepresentation here and try not to drag this down into the case-logic rabbit hole. It's a classic example of Goodell making a stupid decision because he opted for scorched earth tactics rather than a more modest approach based in reality (which would have been plenty powerful in and of itself). Edited August 6, 2015 by dave mcbride

[JohnC]

That article is flat wrong on so many levels I stopped reading halfway through.

 

Brady and Jastremski had no idea how much air was let out of the footballs that McNally deflated. He just stuck a needle in them all and let some out. McNally himself had no idea whether he let out 1 PSI or two PSI. The ONE BALL IN QUESTION WAS 2 POUNDS UNDER. So what the hell difference does it make to Brady or Jastremski hearing that 10 of 12 balls were two pounds under or that one was 10.1 when it was really 10.5. They had no idea what the numbers were, only that they were deflated.

 

That argument is ludicrous.

 

Then he says that Goodell assumed that Brady and Jastremski must be lying about their conversations after the story came out and that is how Goodell determined Brady's guilt. NO. That is not at all what happened. It was the overall combination of what Jastremski and McNally and Brady at different times and about that specific time that PUT TOGETHER made Goodell decide he was not telling the truth about those conversations, NOT just because they had them at that time and hadn't spoke before.

 

That argument is ludicrous.

If Jastremski and NcNally's conversations with Brady were so crucial then why didn't Goodell interview them when he was hearing the appeal?

[GG]

Goodell has a history of mischaracterizing the testimoney of others and then basing his judgment on the distortion. His decision to uphold the suspension was more based on his perception of Brady's communication than it was on the flimsy and confusing facts associated with the balls.

 

A simple solution (as you noted) was to have an impartial arbitrator handle this case. But RG wasn't going to do that because if he did an arbitrator who wasn't invested in a particular outcome could possibly come up with a different conclusion. Roger was not going to allow that to happen.

 

There is a more over-arching storyline than the deflategate issue. It is the unhealthy aspect of the combination of an excessive amount of arrogance and power held by one self-inflated man. That's what has caused this league's self-immolation over something that was trivial and could have been easily handled with a little common sense.

 

The below link from the Washington Post comes from a column by Dan Steinberg. He makes the point that Goodell has mischaracterized Brady's testimoney to advance his position. Steinberg no longer trusts Goodell in his manufactured fiasco.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/

 

And most * defenders, including many die-hards in my office, do not dispute the highly likely, near-certain, 99.99% probability that Brady had a big hand in altering the conditions of the footballs after they were ok'd by the officials. And it's also in little dispute that the league knew that the * cheated, yet again.

 

But there's no shortage of defenders who think, that just because the NFL didn't have video footage of McNally deflating the balls in the bathroom, that the Commissioner is overstepping his boundaries (which he is not under the CBA) to protect the integrity of the league.

If Jastremski and NcNally's conversations with Brady were so crucial then why didn't Goodell interview them when he was hearing the appeal?

 

Perhaps a legal tactic? Why didn't NFLPA offer them up at the appeal if they were innocent?

[NoSaint]

Perhaps a legal tactic? Why didn't NFLPA offer them up at the appeal if they were innocent?

if the NFLs goal was accuracy and not guilt, youd think theyd err on the side of requesting more info, not assuming the worst there is kind of the whole point of the article. its another one of those "it wouldve been really easy to button up this loose thread and make the request, even if denied" situations.

Edited August 6, 2015 by NoSaint

[dave mcbride]

And most * defenders, including many die-hards in my office, do not dispute the highly likely, near-certain, 99.99% probability that Brady had a big hand in altering the conditions of the footballs after they were ok'd by the officials. And it's also in little dispute that the league knew that the * cheated, yet again.

 

But there's no shortage of defenders who think, that just because the NFL didn't have video footage of McNally deflating the balls in the bathroom, that the Commissioner is overstepping his boundaries (which he is not under the CBA) to protect the integrity of the league.

 

Perhaps a legal tactic? Why didn't NFLPA offer them up at the appeal if they were innocent?

Even if you're right about the degree of certainty of guilt, can you at least admit that Goodell committed an unforced error (see my post immediately above) that may weaken his case in the eyes of the judge?

[PromoTheRobot]

Even if you're right about the degree of certainty of guilt, can you at least admit that Goodell committed an unforced error (see my post immediately above) that may weaken his case in the eyes of the judge?

Okay, Goodell made errors. Happy? That doesn't make Brady less guilty.

[GG]

if the NFLs goal was accuracy and not guilt, youd think theyd err on the side of requesting more info, not assuming the worst there is kind of the whole point of the article. its another one of those "it wouldve been really easy to button up this loose thread and make the request, even if denied" situations.

 

NFL's ultimate goal is the integrity of the game, which underpins the $10 billion industry. If its star franchise and marquee player are still dabbling in activities that skirt the game's rules and then deny and stonewall, then you have to come down hard on them.

 

Again, what does the league have to gain in playing hardball with its most successful franchise if there was nothing there? Who in their right mind orchestrates a witch hunt that can undermine the league if * did absolutely nothing wrong?

[Matt in KC]

Why didn’t Goodell call Jastremski and McNally?

 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/04/why-didnt-goodell-call-jastremski-and-mcnally/

 

It's not a legal proceeding; Goodell couldn't supoena them. He said he wanted to talk to them in the appeal and Brady/NFLPA declined, saying they would not ask them to join.

Given that a significant amount of the penalty was hindering the investigation, including not making these two available for follow-up questioning, that approach amounts to a concession that nothing has changed on that point and the associated initial judgement was uncontested.

[JohnC]

 

And most * defenders, including many die-hards in my office, do not dispute the highly likely, near-certain, 99.99% probability that Brady had a big hand in altering the conditions of the footballs after they were ok'd by the officials. And it's also in little dispute that the league knew that the * cheated, yet again.

 

But there's no shortage of defenders who think, that just because the NFL didn't have video footage of McNally deflating the balls in the bathroom, that the Commissioner is overstepping his boundaries (which he is not under the CBA) to protect the integrity of the league.

 

Perhaps a legal tactic? Why didn't NFLPA offer them up at the appeal if they were innocent?

I don't believe that Brady told the staffers to lower the balls below the legal limit. You are making that assumption while I am not. It is well known that he wanted lower limit balls while qbs, such as Rodgers, wanted higher inflated balls. There is nothing unusual about the variation in ball preferences.

 

With respect to RG not interviewing the ball guys why didn't he interview them? What legal issue would preclude interviewing too crucial participants? With so much at stake the level of sloppiness is astounding.

 

Regardless whether anyone believes Brady is guilty of anything or not this case, especially the review, should have gone to an arbitrator. The Wells investigation was communicating with the commissioner's staff and they were also involved in the Wells investigation. There was a clear conflict of interest when Goodell was involved in the appeal.

 

The central issue isn't guilt or innocense (especially in this trivial act); the issue is the integrity of the quasi-judicial process. This process was irredeemably tainted, bordering on corruption. That is the point.