Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[boyst]

 

I've been doing this for years in my summary tab online when doing transfers. These are just a few I found when I looked at account activity. They pretty much say this over and over again and stuff like "tom brady likes men" "tom brady married a horse" "tom brady sleeps with goats" etc.

 

I don't like Tom Brady. The last few months I have been using he theme of him going from girl to cheating girl to cheating little girl.

Edited July 30, 2015 by jboyst62

[The Wiz]

oh lord! pats fans.....

 

to the individual aspect, ill give a few devils advocate questions - does that follow all players that were on the roster? or just brady? like if wilfork gets in trouble in houston, is spygate a strike for him? and the whole coaching staff? if one of the assistants is a coach elsewhere is that a risk to them? or is that just a pats/BB issue strike? not sure how youd draw the line if you open it up.

Well I think it would apply to the coaching staff mostly. Wouldn't impact Wilfork since they said they were only recording the Jets defensive coaches signals. I think GOAT said it best that they all might have been generally aware of the recording. Even though it would likely only be used by the coaches to read their signals, they could then change the plays to give the offense a competitive advantage.

 

It would be hard to put anything on an individual player for spygate.

[dave mcbride]

He's saying it doesn't apply because the NFL changed the rules in the Peterson case, the egregious error he mentioned. They didn't here. Then he says as a second point that even that will be overturned. The first point is the salient one.

It's the second point that makes me question his overall judgment.

[Kelly the Dog]

It's also pretty funny that Brady and his camp and his fanatics are arguing that he wasn't told he would be punished for not producing his phone.

 

Well, Tom, here is a refresher course in your own case: You were suspended for four games. You appealed it. At your appeal you didn't give your phone. Then they kept it at four games. You remember, the same amount you got before the phone.

 

Sure, there are other elements involved because they expected it to be reduced and perhaps it wasn't because of the phone. But no one is owed a reduction of a fine even if there is great precedence for getting one, not to mention that at the appeal there were plenty of other things that happened there that made Goodell not reduce your suspension. Like, um, lying to his face. And saying you don't want McNally and Jastremski there to answer Goodells questions, the only guys that can exonerate you, because you'd rather face your accusers than your friends. The most stupid of stupid arguments.

 

Tom Brady is loses and lie and cheat and dumb.

[MattM]

and to be honest, thats one of the other common things ive seen argued that im not sure is strong footing. brady isnt a repeat offender, is he? was he ever mentioned in the spygate issues (genuinely i dont recall, but i dont think so)? i see that being a good argument for penalizing the pats strongly, but is it for an individual player?

I recall seeing something stating that the system initially involved a backup QB relaying the D signals in and that this started when Bledsoe was QB. If true (I have a vague recollection that it may have been the HBO special on Matt Walsh or the Spygate book), then it would have either been Tommy Boy or Rohan Davy perhaps, but my memory is hazy on this. Anyone else recall this?

[NoSaint]

Well I think it would apply to the coaching staff mostly. Wouldn't impact Wilfork since they said they were only recording the Jets defensive coaches signals. I think GOAT said it best that they all might have been generally aware of the recording. Even though it would likely only be used by the coaches to read their signals, they could then change the plays to give the offense a competitive advantage.

 

It would be hard to put anything on an individual player for spygate.

thats kind of how i feel about it being a strike on brady. i dont like him, i think he knew about it, but if he wasnt expressly named in it, its hard to retroactively place it on his record now.

 

honestly, i only chose wilfork because it was a player i knew was still in the league without pulling up the roster.

I recall seeing something stating that the system initially involved a backup QB relaying the D signals in and that this started when Bledsoe was QB. If true (I have a vague recollection that it may have been the HBO special on Matt Walsh or the Spygate book), then it would have either been Tommy Boy or Rohan Davy perhaps, but my memory is hazy on this. Anyone else recall this?

could be - i genuinely dont remember the finer details of the punishment.

[dave mcbride]

It's also pretty funny that Brady and his camp and his fanatics are arguing that he wasn't told he would be punished for not producing his phone.

 

Well, Tom, here is a refresher course in your own case: You were suspended for four games. You appealed it. At your appeal you didn't give your phone. Then they kept it at four games. You remember, the same amount you got before the phone.

 

Sure, there are other elements involved because they expected it to be reduced and perhaps it wasn't because of the phone. But no one is owed a reduction of a fine even if there is great precedence for getting one, not to mention that at the appeal there were plenty of other things that happened there that made Goodell not reduce your suspension. Like, um, lying to his face. And saying you don't want McNally and Jastremski there to answer Goodells questions, the only guys that can exonerate you, because you'd rather face your accusers than your friends. The most stupid of stupid arguments.

 

Tom Brady is loses and lie and cheat and dumb.

I continue to believe that the original penalty was ridiculously punitive (no one will ever change my mind about that), and as far as that goes, the cell phone's destruction is something of a canard. The infraction should have merited a fine, in my opinion (and a one-game suspension AT MOST). Following that logic, failing to turn over the phone ended up tacking 3 or 3+ games onto his suspension. I think it's ridiculous. Goodell should have just lowered the suspension to make it a relatively fair punishment (1-2 games) and said that's that. He ended up being a d**k about it, and while that plays well to the peanut gallery, it doesn't mean it's fair. Just my two cents.

Edited July 30, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Kelly the Dog]

It's the second point that makes me question his overall judgment.

 

That's a well informed argument and piece overall. He really knows the law and sports. I have been watching that guy for like twenty years and I assume you have seen him a lot, too. I've always thought he's really good at the core legal points and breaking them down into stuff fans understand and usually been very rational.

[dave mcbride]

That's a well informed argument and piece overall. He really knows the law and sports. I have been watching that guy for like twenty years and I assume you have seen him a lot, too. I've always thought he's really good at the core legal points and breaking them down into stuff fans understand and usually been very rational.

Much of the piece was fine, but I thought his point about the probability of Doty being overturned displayed bias. What is Doty's overall overturn rate? What is it in labor cases? What's the relevant circuit's record in this regard? All of that matters when one makes predictions of this sort, and he just threw out a guess and tried to sound authoritative.

[Kelly the Dog]

I continue to believe that the original penalty was ridiculously punitive (no one will ever change my mind about that), and as far as that goes, the cell phone's destruction is something of a canard. The infraction should have merited a fine, in my opinion (and a one-game suspension AT MOST). Following that logic, failing to turn over the phone ended up tacking 3 or 3+ games onto his suspension. I think it's ridiculous. Goodell should have just lowered the suspension to make it a fair punishment and said that's that. He ended up being a d**k about it, and while that plays well to the peanut gallery, it doesn't mean it's fair. Just my two cents.

If it was a court, or a high school tribunal, and someone was accused of something, and the day of the tribunal you learned they destroyed the one thing that could exonerate them or show their guilt, you don't think that should have any affect whatsoever on people on the tribunal or in a court or anywhere?

 

People always say stuff about why would Tom do that?! Innocent people don't do that! That phone is where all the bodies are buried. But it's also the one thing that could totally exonerate him. Those texts could almost prove his innocence. But he destroyed it.

Much of the piece was fine, but I thought his point about the probability of Doty being overturned displayed bias. What is Doty's overall overturn rate? What is it in labor cases? What's the relevant circuit's record in this regard? All of that matters when one makes predictions of this sort, and he just threw out a guess and tried to sound authoritative.

How do you know that at all? This is his job. He's been following that case since it started. I don't know if his conclusion is right or wrong but he knows a ton about it. Edited July 30, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[NoSaint]

If it was a court, or a high school tribunal, and someone was accused of something, and the day of the tribunal you learned they destroyed the one thing that could exonerate them or show their guilt, you don't think that should have any affect whatsoever on people on the tribunal or in a court or anywhere?

 

People always say stuff about why would Tom do that?! Innocent people don't do that! That phone is where all the bodies are buried. But it's also the one thing that could totally exonerate him. Those texts could almost prove his innocence. But he destroyed it.

if he turns in those last 3 texts, i dont think you are arguing that he is practically proven innocent at this point. im pretty sure you would just declare it proof he used another method, and might even have a secret cellphone.

[Kelly the Dog]

if he turns in those last 3 texts, i dont think you are arguing that he is practically proven innocent at this point. im pretty sure you would just declare it proof he used another method, and might even have a secret cellphone.

No. I meant that if he was innocent and didn't know anything about it like he claims, the text exchanges he had with Jastremki and other people and his lawyers would all but prove that innocence.

[NoSaint]

No. I meant that if he was innocent and didn't know anything about it like he claims, the text exchanges he had with Jastremki and other people and his lawyers would all but prove that innocence.

ah - admittedly misunderstood.

[dave mcbride]

If it was a court, or a high school tribunal, and someone was accused of something, and the day of the tribunal you learned they destroyed the one thing that could exonerate them or show their guilt, you don't think that should have any affect whatsoever on people on the tribunal or in a court or anywhere?

 

People always say stuff about why would Tom do that?! Innocent people don't do that! That phone is where all the bodies are buried. But it's also the one thing that could totally exonerate him. Those texts could almost prove his innocence. But he destroyed it.

How do you know that at all? This is his job. He's been following that case since it started. I don't know if his conclusion is right or wrong but he knows a ton about it.

If someone gets nailed for selling an ounce of weed and gets 10 years, and then in their appeal admit that they destroyed evidence that may or may not be incriminating, does that make a 10-year sentence fair? No. The phone stuff is a bit of a MacGuffin with regard to the punishment levied relative to the seriousness of the infraction. Invoking the phone -- which makes Brady look bad -- allows the league to capture the moral high ground in this debate, albeit speciously. Suspending someone for 25 percent of the season over this is patently unfair compared to previous punishments for relatively similar infractions. Again: it's unfair, and Goodell didn't grab hold of the opportunity to issue a fairer decision in this second go-round. That's on him. I'm not saying Brady isn't guilty, btw - just that the punishment is BS.

[Mr. WEO]

If someone gets nailed for selling an ounce of weed and gets 10 years, and then in their appeal admit that they destroyed evidence that may or may not be incriminating, does that make a 10-year sentence fair? No. The phone stuff is a bit of a MacGuffin with regard to the punishment levied relative to the seriousness of the infraction. Invoking the phone -- which makes Brady look bad -- allows the league to capture the moral high ground in this debate, albeit speciously. Suspending someone for 25 percent of the season over this is patently unfair compared to previous punishments for relatively similar infractions. Again: it's unfair, and Goodell didn't grab hold of the opportunity to issue a fairer decision in this second go-round. That's on him. I'm not saying Brady isn't guilty, btw - just that the punishment is BS.

 

This is the red meat phase of the discussion, Dave. Certain questions can't be asked and finer points can't be discussed. Stick to the script they have provided us!

Edited July 30, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

You know with Brady's attitude, the opening of Burn Notice suddenly makes a lot of sense, delivered by Mr. Bruce Campbell: "You know spies...bunch of bitchy little girls."

[The Wiz]

If someone gets nailed for selling an ounce of weed and gets 10 years, and then in their appeal admit that they destroyed evidence that may or may not be incriminating, does that make a 10-year sentence fair? No. The phone stuff is a bit of a MacGuffin with regard to the punishment levied relative to the seriousness of the infraction. Invoking the phone -- which makes Brady look bad -- allows the league to capture the moral high ground in this debate, albeit speciously. Suspending someone for 25 percent of the season over this is patently unfair compared to previous punishments for relatively similar infractions. Again: it's unfair, and Goodell didn't grab hold of the opportunity to issue a fairer decision in this second go-round. That's on him. I'm not saying Brady isn't guilty, btw - just that the punishment is BS.

You're looking at the phone as the total reason for the suspension. There's the phone, not cooperating with the investigation, Jastremsky and McNally's interviews, the Pats failing to provide a second interview and not even notifying McNally about it, repeat offenders (Pats, not Brady per se) and I would personally give him at least another game for all the stuff Yee has been chirping.

 

I think a big thing that went into the suspension is the fact that Brady was instructing(allegedly) Pats staff members to do something detrimental to the integrity of the game.

Edited July 30, 2015 by The Wiz

[K-9]

If someone gets nailed for selling an ounce of weed and gets 10 years, and then in their appeal admit that they destroyed evidence that may or may not be incriminating, does that make a 10-year sentence fair? No. The phone stuff is a bit of a MacGuffin with regard to the punishment levied relative to the seriousness of the infraction. Invoking the phone -- which makes Brady look bad -- allows the league to capture the moral high ground in this debate, albeit speciously. Suspending someone for 25 percent of the season over this is patently unfair compared to previous punishments for relatively similar infractions. Again: it's unfair, and Goodell didn't grab hold of the opportunity to issue a fairer decision in this second go-round. That's on him. I'm not saying Brady isn't guilty, btw - just that the punishment is BS.

I would argue Brady didn't grab hold of the opportunity to change the commissioner's mind.

 

I'm surprised at your lack of appreciation for Brady's recklessness, here. Forget the stupid destroyed phone as that was nothing more than the last straw. What about Brady's behavior during the investigation? What about the contemptuous act of saying to the league, "here's 10,000 messages from Brady's phone. Why don't you guys take the trouble to contact all of the people on this list?"

 

Brady screwed his own pooch at that appeal hearing. Mark Cuban was right.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Edited July 30, 2015 by K-9

[Kelly the Dog]

If someone gets nailed for selling an ounce of weed and gets 10 years, and then in their appeal admit that they destroyed evidence that may or may not be incriminating, does that make a 10-year sentence fair? No. The phone stuff is a bit of a MacGuffin with regard to the punishment levied relative to the seriousness of the infraction. Invoking the phone -- which makes Brady look bad -- allows the league to capture the moral high ground in this debate, albeit speciously. Suspending someone for 25 percent of the season over this is patently unfair compared to previous punishments for relatively similar infractions. Again: it's unfair, and Goodell didn't grab hold of the opportunity to issue a fairer decision in this second go-round. That's on him. I'm not saying Brady isn't guilty, btw - just that the punishment is BS.

I obviously do not think Brady's punishment is remotely close to the equivalent of 10 years for an ounce of weed. You do. That's cool.

 

And the judge, whether he thought the original penalty for the ounce of weed is fair or not, if he was inclined to give him a more lenient sentence but the guy did that the day of court, the judge is not going to be lenient.

 

But that is not the argument here. Your argument is the whole thing and whole penalty is a sham. That's fine and your right but a separate issue. The phone is not a MacGuffin at all and believe me, I know what one is and use them all the time in work. In this case the phone is real evidence, and it's the one thing that actually has the answers to a lot of the questions in it. It's both real, and symbolic, of Goodell and the league's problem with what Brady did. The phone is Brady spitting in the league's face.

[thebandit27]

I would argue Brady didn't grab hold of the opportunity to change the commissioner's mind.

 

I'm surprised at your lack of appreciation for Brady's recklessness, here. Forget the stupid destroyed phone as that was nothing more than the last straw. What about Brady's behavior during the investigation? What about the contemptuous act of saying to the league, "here's 10,000 messages from Brady's phone. Why don't you guys take the trouble to contact all of the people on this list?"

 

Brady screwed his own pooch at that appeal hearing. Mark Cuban was right.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Some of whom--if they aren't employed by the NFL or the team--have no obligation to cooperate with the investigation.