Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[NoSaint]

 

So let me get this straight - just because the NFL didn't proactively stop an employee of one of its franchises from breaking the rules, that absolves the franchise of breaking the rules?

i think what hes getting at, and not to speak for him to directly, is that carrying the balls was some common practice type of stuff -- so it seems extreme to be up in arms about his behavior after the fact if no one cared before (potentially for years, including after being warned of the issue)

[Kelly the Dog]

i think what hes getting at, and not to speak for him to directly, is that carrying the balls was some common practice type of stuff -- so it seems extreme to be up in arms about his behavior after the fact if no one cared before (potentially for years, including after being warned of the issue)

They are up in arms because he took them to a bathroom and altered them. Anderson threw a fit when he found out McNally had taken them. Officials interviewed said he was swearing and he never swore. He said in all his 19 years no one stole the balls and walked to the field without an official in the games he refereed. But to blame OTHER officials because McNally was carrying the bag of balls, which he had done many times before, is just ridiculous. How would they know he was stealing them?

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

Hey, honest question:

 

Has there been any actual development in the case or are we all just still bickering?

[Matt in KC]

Hey, honest question:

 

Has there been any actual development in the case or are we all just still bickering?

Bickering. Radio silence on any new developments. I suspect the next thing of note will be a settlement, or news a settlement could not be reached.

[GG]

i think what hes getting at, and not to speak for him to directly, is that carrying the balls was some common practice type of stuff -- so it seems extreme to be up in arms about his behavior after the fact if no one cared before (potentially for years, including after being warned of the issue)

 

Because nobody stole the balls before? Do you blame the burglar or the spouse for the missing TV when the front door wasn't locked?

Bickering. Radio silence on any new developments. I suspect the next thing of note will be a settlement, or news a settlement could not be reached.

 

Tomorrow is day one of court mandated settlement talks.

[thebandit27]

Hey, honest question:

 

Has there been any actual development in the case or are we all just still bickering?

 

Unlikely for their to be any development until tomorrow--which (I believe) is the first day that the two sides were to meet with the specially-appointed arbitration judge.

[NoSaint]

 

Because nobody stole the balls before? Do you blame the burglar or the spouse for the missing TV when the front door wasn't locked?

 

 

so we have some arguing that he did it since 2007, some just a couple years, some that its the first time theyve been stolen but that hes stolen them every time hes done it for years presumably?

 

i think for both sides its a silly point to hang up on. the deflation itself seems like plenty to focus punishment on, without trying to spin more of the moral outrage into the act. suddenly it makes you have to tie in brady as knowledgeable of the act, that it wasnt common practice, etc....

Edited August 11, 2015 by NoSaint

[GG]

so we have some arguing that he did it since 2007, some just a couple years, some that its the first time theyve been stolen but that hes stolen them every time hes done it for years presumably?

 

i think for both sides its a silly point to hang up on. the deflation itself seems like plenty to focus punishment on, without trying to spin more of the moral outrage into the act.

 

I'm just trying to get a clarification from WEO on why he's holding the officials to blame for something that a Pats * employee did.

 

But to me the issue again is that this is a pattern of unethical and uncompetitive behavior by a repeat offender, who had been warned previously. Just because the NFL didn't specifically say, "Tom, you are not allowed to instruct your ball boys to steal and deflate game balls, and then lie about it" does not absolve them of blame, nor severe punishment.

[eball]

Judge has ordered the parties to engage in "good faith settlement discussions" today, in preparation for a meeting tomorrow to discuss progress.

[Kelly the Dog]

Judge has ordered the parties to engage in "good faith settlement discussions" today, in preparation for a meeting tomorrow to discuss progress.

9am...

 

NFL: Tom, we will gladly cut your suspension in half if you just meet us halfway and admit some responsibility for it.

TOM: Never. I never did anything wrong. Ever. I don't know anything. I don't know McNally.

NFL: Should we break for lunch and pick this up again this afternoon?

[NoSaint]

 

I'm just trying to get a clarification from WEO on why he's holding the officials to blame for something that a Pats * employee did.

 

But to me the issue again is that this is a pattern of unethical and uncompetitive behavior by a repeat offender, who had been warned previously. Just because the NFL didn't specifically say, "Tom, you are not allowed to instruct your ball boys to steal and deflate game balls, and then lie about it" does not absolve them of blame, nor severe punishment.

right, but the issue may be that there is already punishment in place, not that they didnt tell them its against the rules. I think a lot of you are mixing those two issues up. the arguement regarding the notification of punishment would be notification that they are CHANGING the policy, according to the nflpa, not that because no one has done this very precise thing that it has no penalty.

[Mr. WEO]

You clearly don't know the rules or what happened. No one was told there was any problem with deflated balls. Anderson had left the room. NO ONE would have thought anything was wrong if McNally walked past them and said Look at me, I have the balls. You're looking at something in retrospect and assuming these people are on the lookout. I just told you, and it's in the report, that McNally has taken the bag of balls out of the room several times before. Why would anyone think that was wrong?

 

No one there knew anything was wrong. I guess if you stretched it, you could say that Anderson could have or should have worried more in the ten minutes the balls were missing that they were altered. I very much doubt it ever crossed his mind. He's hurrying to start the Championship Game. He was pissed the balls were missing and even started swearing, but I doubt it occurred to him that McNally would have taken the balls to a bathroom and let air out of them. That's really stretching it.

 

In fact, after the fact during the investigation, Anderson said he didn't really worry about the allegation because he knew he would be measuring them. Again, I guess you could say in retrospect that he should have known the patriots were theives and cheaters more than he did. But what does that really change? If he would have measured them before the game he would have found out they cheated.

 

 

If it was no big deal that McNAlly was walking out off with the balls because he had doen it several times before, why did Anderson get so upset that he had done that?

 

The point is the "stealing" issue is overblown, unless you have a new definition for the term (and based on your upstream thread regarding this particular employess mere touching of his team's equipment--it seems clear you do.).

 

So let me get this straight - just because the NFL didn't proactively stop an employee of one of its franchises from breaking the rules, that absolves the franchise of breaking the rules?

 

 

No. But you already knew the answer before you posted the question. No one stole anything.

 

I'm just trying to get a clarification from WEO on why he's holding the officials to blame for something that a Pats * employee did.

 

But to me the issue again is that this is a pattern of unethical and uncompetitive behavior by a repeat offender, who had been warned previously. Just because the NFL didn't specifically say, "Tom, you are not allowed to instruct your ball boys to steal and deflate game balls, and then lie about it" does not absolve them of blame, nor severe punishment.

 

I'm not blaing the officials for anything except maybe a sense of sudden urgency about the security of the balls after the Colts equipment manager noted something fishy.

 

I haven't said he or anyone should be absolved or not punished--you simply made that up.

i think what hes getting at, and not to speak for him to directly, is that carrying the balls was some common practice type of stuff -- so it seems extreme to be up in arms about his behavior after the fact if no one cared before (potentially for years, including after being warned of the issue)

 

Thanks Saint, these guys can't get past "he's guilty!" to even discuss anything else about this case.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Kelly the Dog]

If it was no big deal that McNAlly was walking out off with the balls because he had doen it several times before, why did Anderson get so upset that he had done that?

 

The point is the "stealing" issue is overblown, unless you have a new definition for the term (and based on your upstream thread regarding this particular employess mere touching of his team's equipment--it seems clear you do.

You asked four times and I told you four times and you just ignore it. McNally CAN AND HAS TAKEN THE BAG OF BALLS BEFORE IF HE SPECIFICIALLY ASKS THE HEAD OFFICIAL AND IS ESCORTED WITH SAID BALLS TO THE FIELD BY AN OFFICIAL. Anderson had never seen any officials locker room attendant steal the balls and take them by themselves without asking before to the field. MCNally had not asked him, he waited until Anderson left for a few minutes to perform other pregame duties and then stole them. So Anderson was livid that someone would steal the balls and walk unescorted to the stadium with them.

 

Other officials in the room who were ten minutes from game time and getting ready themselves would not have thought twice to see him with the balls because they would have thought he had already asked and had already gotten permission because he has done that several times before in Gillete Stadium. It's very simple.

[Pneumonic]

You can't trust anything that the NFL, nor anything in the Wells report, to be accurate and true. Both have been shown (not presumed) to have lied throughout this entire process.

 

Here's the latest proof:

 

[thebandit27]

You can't trust anything that the NFL, nor anything in the Wells report, to be accurate and true. Both have been shown (not presumed) to have lied throughout this entire process.

 

Here's the latest proof:

 

 

Actually, those two statements don't directly conflict with each other.

 

Had Goodell, or Wells, said now that the investigation wasn't independent, then yes, that would mean that--at some point--someone lied.

 

Saying it's irrelevant isn't lying.

 

An example of unquestioned lying would be saying that--for instance--it's your regular practice to destroy your cellphone, when in actuality you haven't destroyed either of your previous two cellphones.

[Kelly the Dog]

You can't trust anything that the NFL, nor anything in the Wells report, to be accurate and true. Both have been shown (not presumed) to have lied throughout this entire process.

 

Here's the latest proof:

 

I'll give you a little movie watching tip from someone that works in the industry. Whenever you see a movie ad, they always use superlatives like "this was sensational!" or "The Best movie since ___!!!" or "The Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies!!!"

 

And then they put the source of that quote, like LA Times, or Boston Globe, or Time Magazine or whatever.

 

Whenever you see them take a quote from the local affiliate of a TV station like "CBS Boston" like you just did, it means they couldn't find one single good quote from a legitimate source for that movie, and it's 99.99% chance that movie has no redeeming value whatsoever and sucks ass.

 

Like yours.

Actually, those two statements don't directly conflict with each other.

 

Had Goodell, or Wells, said now that the investigation wasn't independent, then yes, that would mean that--at some point--someone lied.

 

Saying it's irrelevant isn't lying.

 

An example of unquestioned lying would be saying that--for instance--it's your regular practice to destroy your cellphone, when in actuality you haven't destroyed either of your previous two cellphones.

Actually it was likely from so many people lying and saying you were not independent and fed up, the NFL said, it doesn't even matter if we were or weren't you idiots, it's irrelevant, he did it.

[K-9]

Thanks Saint, these guys can't get past "he's guilty!" to even discuss anything else about this case.

And you can't get past "Goodell's an idiot who overstepped his bounds" to see things rationally here.

 

GO BILLS!!!

You can't trust anything that the NFL, nor anything in the Wells report, to be accurate and true. Both have been shown (not presumed) to have lied throughout this entire process.

 

Here's the latest proof:

 

Is your wall big enough for the Tom Brady Phathead or do you mount it on your ceiling so his image is the first thing you see each morning?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[JohnC]

 

Actually, those two statements don't directly conflict with each other.

 

Had Goodell, or Wells, said now that the investigation wasn't independent, then yes, that would mean that--at some point--someone lied.

 

Saying it's irrelevant isn't lying.

 

An example of unquestioned lying would be saying that--for instance--it's your regular practice to destroy your cellphone, when in actuality you haven't destroyed either of your previous two cellphones.

Goodell claimed that the investigation was independent when he received the report. The NFLPA challenged that claim in its legal briefs to the court. They documented that there was an intermingling between Wells's staff and the commissioner's office during the investigation to the extent that the league office and Wells''s team were both involved with the writing and editing of the report. When Wells was asked about his communication with the commissioner and his office he invoked the lawyer-client priviledged relationship in order not to comment on that issue. So much for independence!

 

Roger Goodell is now changing the argument that the relationship between the two entities that he previously claimed were independent, now demonstrated not to be true, is irrelevant. Of course it is relevant because it makes no sense that if he was to an extent involved in the report's creation he is not going to rule against his own report.

 

Maybe the best approach to this manufactured and extended fiasco is to have the court have the parties agree to have a respected arbitrator review all the evidence and handling of the case (process) and then make a binding judgment. The process is so tarnished that someone with more neutrality and credibility other than the erratic Goodell should take control of this monstrosity.

[Mr. WEO]

I'll give you a little movie watching tip from someone that works in the industry. Whenever you see a movie ad, they always use superlatives like "this was sensational!" or "The Best movie since ___!!!" or "The Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies!!!"

 

And then they put the source of that quote, like LA Times, or Boston Globe, or Time Magazine or whatever.

 

Whenever you see them take a quote from the local affiliate of a TV station like "CBS Boston" like you just did, it means they couldn't find one single good quote from a legitimate source for that movie, and it's 99.99% chance that movie has no redeeming value whatsoever and sucks ass.

 

Like yours.

Actually it was likely from so many people lying and saying you were not independent and fed up, the NFL said, it doesn't even matter if we were or weren't you idiots, it's irrelevant, he did it.

 

 

Except that the "CBS Boston is qouting what individuals actually said, not movie blurbs. Why does it matter who is quoting them? The source is the individual being quoted.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Kelly the Dog]

 

 

Except that the "CBS Boston is qouting what individuals actually said, not movie blurbs. Why does it matter who is quoting them? The source is the individual being quoted.

They took it out of context. The NFL is not saying at all that independence is irrelevant the way that blurb and the way the poster was using it. The NFL says whether it is independent, which we believe it is, or not independent, which you claim, it's IRRELEVANT, because of the facts of the case that are known that have nothing to do with independence or non independence. Every conclusion that Wells wrote in the report was the exactly the same before he gave it to Pash. Nothing the NFL did to the report or said to Wells had anything whatsoever to do with the findings of the report. It's irrelevant. They are not saying independence is irrelevant.