Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[4merper4mer]

Reading other boards I find it much more split- the take that Brady acted inappropriate but that the league did as well seems very common but I'm in a particularly nfl-skeptical market

Again thinking Brady is wrong but the NFL may also be hardly seems pro-Brady

You want him to get off on some sort of weird technicality?

 

If a guy gets caught cheating in a way that has never been discovered before, it is the league's fault for not imagining the specific way the cheater would cheat? BS. The league is the boss. Brady should shut up and take his punishment.

 

You him.

[Pneumonic]

 

What we’re looking at, in the absence of red-handed guilt, is the NFL, its investigatory arm, and that arm’s hired experts railroading an investigation with shoddy, biased works of bad science, and then holding up their homework to Roger Goodell, who sticks a gold star on it and calls it “highly credible."

 

http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-dumbass-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874

[Go Kiko go]

You want him to get off on some sort of weird technicality?

 

If a guy gets caught cheating in a way that has never been discovered before, it is the league's fault for not imagining the specific way the cheater would cheat? BS. The league is the boss. Brady should shut up and take his punishment.

 

You him.

 

That's a far too narrow view of Brady's argument.

 

His argument is that the punishment he received--in type and scope--is outside the bounds of the type of punishment a player could reasonably anticipate receiving for this kind of rule violation, regardless of whether this particular rule violation had ever occurred before.

 

Do you think the league could have elected to ban Brady from the National Football League for life if they had elected to, simply because the NFL is writing on a blank slate?

 

I would say "of course not", which suggests that there is some range of punishments that would be reasonable, based on prior, analogous rule violations. Brady's claim is that this punishment is so far removed from types of punishments a player could reasonably expect to receive for this kind of rule violation--based on the CBA itself and prior rule violations--that the NFL has exceeded its authority under the CBA.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Go Kiko go

[3rdand12]

I've had the same problem a few times there, under the same circumstances.

 

I've really lost all respect for Florio over this matter. He repeatedly gets down in the weeds to argue every stupid pro-Patriots* point he can find and even his word choices belie an antagonism to the League here.

 

My personal favorite is his pinning the whole thing on Mortensen's 2 pounds under Tweets, totally ignoring, for example, the amazingly incriminating texts between the ballboys (which, to me personally is all a rational person needs to see here) or the gifts Brady lavished on McNally. BTW, I have yet to see a story on how Brady did that for all the low level staff--I'm sure if he had we'd have heard all about that by now, so you draw your own conclusions.

 

Goodell's report lays this all out nicely along Occam's razor-the simplest explanation is probably correct. Here, as Kelly has noted repeatedly, a whole bunch of preposterous coincidenced must all occur at once for Brady's story to hold any water.

Florio is a bad trip. He gets weirder all the time. Maybe he has been drinking with Sully

[DC Tom]

 

http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-nfls-dumbass-science-report-is-a-feature-not-a-bug-1722289874

 

Really definitive refutation of the report, when it consists of statements saying "this COULD have happened."

[SRQ_BillsFan]

The next CBA will be interesting to say the least and could end up causing a lot of people to lose a lot of time and money while it drags out.

 

All to protect 5-6 scumbags who were guilty but slightly to moderately over punished in situations where you or I would have lost our jobs with little to no recourse.

 

Then again most of us couldn't make this up none the less commit these offenses.

 

I say the punishment fits. This isn't a sock violation unless the NFL confiscated the socks and locked them up and they were then stolen by the player wearing them. And that still doesn't get into the potential competitive advantage part.

[3rdand12]

is it just me ? and yes probably so, but has the train gone so far off the track the issue is no longer Brady exerted some control over ball pressures?

[Go Kiko go]

is it just me ? and yes probably so, but has the train gone so far off the track the issue is no longer Brady exerted some control over ball pressures?

 

In a way. The focus now is whether the NFL had the authority to give Brady the discipline they gave him, and whether it was appropriate for Goodell to be the person to hear Brady's appeal of his punishment.

[Mr. WEO]

some good points:

 

http://deadspin.com/5-thoughts-on-tom-bradys-case-from-a-guy-who-read-the-w-1722183616?utm_source=recirculation&utm_medium=recirculation&utm_campaign=wednesdayPM#_ga=1.64181990.895586437.1438821060

[3rdand12]

 

In a way. The focus now is whether the NFL had the authority to give Brady the discipline they gave him, and whether it was appropriate for Goodell to be the person to hear Brady's appeal of his punishment.

Yes, i think that is how i perceived it. TY.

Its funny because everyone knew who was going to run the show. Now the decision is made, they want to argue the system is wrong?

This is one of my issues with the right to argue a verdict.

wait til AFTER you dont like the decision.

and then file, and then perhaps file again to a higher court. talk about dysfunction and waste..

Just hang the man and be done. no more arguments.

[Kelly the Dog]

Which clearly isn't what I was addressing about DC toms post, if you can step back from needing to find the worst Brady angle possible to advance here. I'm agreeing that your points here are worse than toms example. That's in fact my point.

My bad. I misread your post to Tom. You're right on all accounts. Reading your post I thought you were saying something different.

[NoSaint]

My bad. I misread your post to Tom. You're right on all accounts. Reading your post I thought you were saying something different.

No prob - happens to the best of us.

[Beerball]

Again thinking Brady is wrong but the NFL may also be hardly seems pro-Brady

The main distinction being that Goodell is an idiot & brady is a cheater.

[NoSaint]

The main distinction being that Goodell is an idiot & brady is a cheater.

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.

[dave mcbride]

Listen to yourself. The league is biased against a guy that they have allowed to call his own penalties for a decade? They're biased against cheaters, as they should be, and they caught him cheating. End of story.

 

I don't care if he plays in week 2 or not. I'd like them to stop cheating with or without Brady. I also want Brady to be remembered as a cheater whether he plays against the Bills or not......because he is a cheater.

Please. The spygate penalty was what it was, and the nfl doesn't have an escalatable scale for offenses like this. It's not PEDs. There is no 3 strikes and you're out policy for bizarre rule infractions. Keep that in mind. The fact that you hate brady and want to see him (figuratively) fry for things he and his team have done the past decade and a half is irrelevant.

Of course it looks bad for the league because they know Pats* cheated again, and Brady orchestrated it, but they don't have a video of the guy in the bathroom deflating the balls. So the league looks bad, just like Marcia Clark looked bad when the glove didn't fit. So in the end, even if Pats* & Brady* win the appeal on a technicality, they will have zero credibility with everyone outside New England.

GG -- enjoy: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/fashion/assessing-tom-bradys-stock-in-the-fashion-world.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0 Edited August 6, 2015 by dave mcbride

[MattM]

Please. The spygate penalty was what it was, and the nfl doesn't have an escalatable scale for offenses like this. It's not PEDs. There is no 3 strikes and you're out policy for bizarre rule infractions. Keep that in mind. The fact that you hate brady and want to see him (figuratively) fry for things he and his team have done the past decade and a half is irrelevantr=0[/url]

Actually, I'm not sure you're right on that--apparently Goodell told the Pats* after Spygate that Belicheat would next be suspended if anything similar occurred. That may explain both his running away from Brady in January and Brady's destruction of his phone.....

[dave mcbride]

Actually, I'm not sure you're right on that--apparently Goodell told the Pats* after Spygate that Belicheat would next be suspended if anything similar occurred. That may explain both his running away from Brady in January and Brady's destruction of his phone.....

But there's nothing in the cba about that, right? And the infactions are both from bizarro land and unprecedented, and it's not as if one is like the other. Also, he never penalized brady the last time around, so there is no record, so to speak, for brady. Now that I think about it, a stiffer team penalty may well have been the best way to go.

Edited August 6, 2015 by dave mcbride

[Kelly the Dog]

But there's nothing in the cba about that, right? And the infactions are both from bizarro land and unprecedented, and it's not as if one is like the other. Also, he never penalized brady the last time around, so there is no record, so to speak, for brady. Now that I think about it, a stiffer team penalty may well have been the best way to go.

Except the team didn't cause the problem, Brady did himself. He started it and he made it explode by flat denying everything, unless you want to believe that Jastremski and McNally did it on their own before an AFC Championship Game, and their texts about Tom were completely fabricated.

Edited August 6, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[Pneumonic]

 

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

[4merper4mer]

Please. The spygate penalty was what it was, and the nfl doesn't have an escalatable scale for offenses like this. It's not PEDs. There is no 3 strikes and you're out policy for bizarre rule infractions. Keep that in mind. The fact that you hate brady and want to see him (figuratively) fry for things he and his team have done the past decade and a half is irrelevant.

 

 

 

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?