Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[Alaska Darin]

He danced around it a lot saying things like "it was an embarrassing blunder" and "as a coach I'm held to a higher standard and based on that I was below the line" but never really apologized and never claimed it anything but clumsy. Which it was. But it was also on purpose I think.

I remember one interview early on where he kinda smirked but he wasn't going to outright admit it. He's a good coach and a smart dude. He knew what he did was over the top but he wasn't losing his job over it and I think the Steelers would have canned him if he had.

[Kelly the Dog]

He danced around it a lot saying things like "it was an embarrassing blunder" and "as a coach I'm held to a higher standard and based on that I was below the line" but never really apologized and never claimed it anything but clumsy. Which it was. But it was also on purpose I think.

If it was intentional, which it appears to be, it was a terrible thing to do. As I said above if it affected the game at all I think he should have been suspended, which is a huge penalty for a head coach. I don't think it comes close however, to what Brady did.

[Alaska Darin]

I believe that, but there weren't several people involved and it wasn't a pre-game decision. An oppornunity to do something stupid presented itself, and apparently he just couldn't help himself. But then he took his medicine like a man.

I think the league should have suspended Brady for the season for not having the nuts to admit he was in on it. He's guilty as hell, period and anyone who really thinks otherwise is a fool and a Pats' fan.

[3rdand12]

I remember one interview early on where he kinda smirked but he wasn't going to outright admit it. He's a good coach and a smart dude. He knew what he did was over the top but he wasn't losing his job over it and I think the Steelers would have canned him if he had.

The thing is. he wont keep doing it. he acknowledged it and he knew they knew that he knew>

Brady

has some mental complex going on he actually thinks he is in the right. Thats the weirdo feature here. Mike was having some 100k fun. Brady is just messed up in the head.

 

If IK drives Brady into the dirt and breaks Tommies nail, sure there will be a suspension and fines and i am okay with that . but will there be a criminal charge? Because if not...

We may have just scored a AFC East hitman.

Edited August 14, 2015 by 3rdand12

[Mr. WEO]

The thing is. he wont keep doing it. he acknowledged it and he knew they knew that he knew>

Brady

has some mental complex going on he actually thinks he is in the right. Thats the weirdo feature here. Mike was having some 100k fun. Brady is just messed up in the head.

 

If IK drives Brady into the dirt and breaks Tommies nail, sure there will be a suspension and fines and i am okay with that . but will there be a criminal charge? Because if not...

We may have just scored a AAFC East hitman.

 

 

Don't get your hopes up. Rex had no use for him last year....

[Tuco]

One carries premeditation and malice aforethought. The other is a "heat of passion" type crime that wasn't premeditated, it just sort of happened on the spot as the circumstances presented themselves.

 

If this were a murder one would be 1st degree murder and one would be voluntary manslaughter. A conviction of 1st degree murder carries a stiffer penalty than manslaughter. And Brady's crime is worse because of the foreknowledge and should carry a stiffer penalty.

 

Also, there's a rule in place for unfair acts on the field which gives the referee the power to enforce any penalty he decides the unfair act warrants, up to and including a touchdown. So no matter how severe we think Tomlin's act was the officials have the power to undo any harm it may have caused the opponent.

[Mr. WEO]

Nope. Since it was 2000 times worse when I thought it was unintentional, Brady's became only about 10 times worse if it was indeed intentional. If I thought Tomlin actually affected the return, which I don't, I think he should have been suspended.

 

This is pure art...

[NoSaint]

So let's spin back to Brady being suspended 16 quarters for 32 infractions instead of Tomlins offense that's, roughly speaking, 3.5% as bad.

 

I'm glad the team didn't move to Toronto just to avoid metric conversions and exchange rate in this stuff.

[Chilly]

 

 

[Alaska Darin]

 

 

[3rdand12]

So let's spin back to Brady being suspended 16 quarters for 32 infractions instead of Tomlins offense that's, roughly speaking, 3.5% as bad.

 

I'm glad the team didn't move to Toronto just to avoid metric conversions and exchange rate in this stuff.

https://www.google.com/search?q=metric+conversion+chart&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB4QsARqFQoTCOLhjMamp8cCFUIrHgodY6sBnQ&biw=1360&bih=651#imgrc=gnxiDR4uftaBiM%3A

[NoSaint]

https://www.google.com/search?q=metric+conversion+chart&es_sm=122&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB4QsARqFQoTCOLhjMamp8cCFUIrHgodY6sBnQ&biw=1360&bih=651#imgrc=gnxiDR4uftaBiM%3A

I wish I had this when we had that border crossing incident with Merriman and Moran. Better late than never though - THANKS!

[Kelly the Dog]

So let's spin back to Brady being suspended 16 quarters for 32 infractions instead of Tomlins offense that's, roughly speaking, 3.5% as bad.

I'm glad the team didn't move to Toronto just to avoid metric conversions and exchange rate in this stuff.

Brady's offense in the game was approximately four quarters. His offense over several games was approximately four quarters. His denial and causing the unnecessary investigation was approximately four quarters. And his lying and obstruction repeatedly was approximately four quarters. I'm beginning to think he got off way too lightly for this ****, and you should, too.

[NoSaint]

Brady's offense in the game was approximately four quarters. His offense over several games was approximately four quarters. His denial and causing the unnecessary investigation was approximately four quarters. And his lying and obstruction repeatedly was approximately four quarters. I'm beginning to think he got off way too lightly for this ****, and you should, too.

do we get one full game or a quarter of each offense earmarked for week 2? If the full game, which offense do we celebrate?

 

I personally like 1 quarter dedicated to each. The crowd could coordinate chants of cheater in the first, liar in the second, denier in the third, and then cheater again in the 4th.

 

(Give this a shot john, Dave and Weo- it's waaaay easier)

Edited August 14, 2015 by NoSaint

[Mr. WEO]

do we get one full game or a quarter of each offense earmarked for week 2? If the full game, which offense do we celebrate?

 

I personally like 1 quarter dedicated to each. The crowd could coordinate chants of cheater in the first, liar in the second, denier in the third, and then cheater again in the 4th.

 

(Give this a shot john, Dave and Weo- it's waaaay easier)

 

I know! It's becoming self caricature..

[Kelly the Dog]

do we get one full game or a quarter of each offense earmarked for week 2? If the full game, which offense do we celebrate?

I personally like 1 quarter dedicated to each. The crowd could coordinate chants of cheater in the first, liar in the second, denier in the third, and then cheater again in the 4th.

(Give this a shot john, Dave and Weo- it's waaaay easier)

Boy, this is not a good look for you, my friend. You're turning into WEO. He should be proud.

[timtebow15]

This is an important point. Unless some legal expert says I'm wrong here's how I think it goes. For starters I think a lot of people who say the Wells report is crap and doesn't prove anything forget that a big reason the Wells report seems so underwhelming is because of the stonewalling by the parties involved. But we have to remember neither the NFL or Wells has the power of subpoena during their original investigation, since it's not involved with any court. So they are limited in scope to only what they can get from the parties involved who are supposed to be cooperative. In the end, if evidence is limited because of non-cooperation the league has the authority and the justification to make their decision based on what they do have, and also to punish parties for their non-cooperation.

 

In regards to Brady, people like to point to his cell phone and say he shouldn't have had to turn over anything from it. Even if that's the case, there's still the matter of Brady not only lied during his interview, but also refused a follow up interview. This is important but largely forgotten. Follow up questions regarding already told lies could have gone a long way towards getting to the truth, but Wells was denied.

 

Now throw in our two favorite whipping boys, who no doubt thought they were doing great things by helping Brady and the Pats. As employees of the Pats they were to be made available for interviews and cell phone records, which they were. But the same problem exists. Wells discovered things that led him to want to ask more questions. Not only did the Pats say no but once they fired them the league could not touch them. Again, the league has no power of subpoena, and once their employment with the Pats ended, technically the Pats no longer had any authority to compel them to meet with Wells further in the name of cooperation. Here again Wells was limited by the inability to follow up important information.

 

So yes, the Wells report is limited. Mostly due to non-cooperation. As to why we haven't heard from Frick and Frack, it's simply because the NFL has no power to compel them to do anything. I'm sure the NFL would have loved to question them during Brady's appeal, but the NFL didn't have any power to bring them in during the appeal. The appeal wasn't a "retrial" or a new investigation. The appeal was Brady's chance to say, "I believe you're wrong, here's why and here are my witnesses." If Brady doesn't bring them in for the appeal then the NFL's hands are still tied in that regard. The NFL can question Brady's witnesses but not bring in their own,

 

And as far as why don't we hear from them now, despite the Judge's recent questions concerning guilt, etc., the judge and the court's position in this case is not one of finding a verdict of guilty or innocent. The judge will ultimately have to rule on the procedures that were followed and the fairness of punishment as it relates to the CBA and the powers granted to Goodell therein. Frick and Frack would probably have loads of info. But at this point, since, as I said before, the judge's final ruling isn't concerned with guilt or innocence, there really isn't any reason to bring Frick and Frack in. Nor do I think he could force them into his court through a subpoena unless he can somehow show their testimony would have a relevance, not towards guilt or innocence, but in regards to the CBA procedures.

 

And while I do think getting them to testify under oath would be very revealing, the current court procedure is not a trial or a new investigation. Unfortunately, the court's ultimate concern here is with what has already happened, and whether or not it was legal according to labor law.

Very helpful analysis. I still think the judge should easily see that the reason for the NFL's lack of evidence is that they did not have the power to force certain people to testify and provide information. The obstruction alone should be severely punished otherwise everyone's MO will just to be uncooperative and worse in the future. Since the union agreed to the CBA procedures and the Pats did not cooperate in the investigation the judge should support whatever decision has been made. If the Pats and Brady wanted a different outcome they should have cooperated fully.

[NoSaint]

Boy, this is not a good look for you, my friend. You're turning into WEO. He should be proud.

I had to joke a little, things got a bit ridiculous for a minute there

[BillnutinHouston]

[quote name="JohnC" post="3627409" timestamp="1439472315"

 

The problem that the league has is that they "over punished" (in my opinion) for a transgression involving his participation that has not been clearly proven. If the league would have punished Brady for two games, with a possible reduction to one game under appeal, their position would have been much stronger.

 

Question: why is the league's inability to "prove" guilt a fatal weakness in their position, when they have no subpoena power by which to obtain the proof, and when the "defendant" destroys evidence with impunity, explaining it away with a far-fetched explanation? Let's keep this matter on a level playing field.

[Dan]

Just throwing this out there: who thinks what Brady apparently did in the Colts game is worse than this deliberate form of cheating -- http://gamedayrcom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/mike-tomlin-jacoby-jones1.png-- which generated a $100K fine and 0 lost draft picks? Forget about history for a second (and evidence-free suppositions about deflation below 12.5 in prior games, for that matter). One to one: which is worse?

Not even in the same ball park. One is a premeditated act involving multiple people that occurred over multiple games, if not multiple years in an effort to deliberately circumvent league rules for the sole purpose of gaining an unfair advantage. The other was a one time in-game infraction against the rules, akin to a deliberate face mask penalty or Deacon Jones head slap. One is cheating, one is a dirty player.