NoSaint Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 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. I've been saying for quite some time that, barring something huge lurking behind the curtain on either side, that this is the common sense answer. Nfl doesn't look weak giving in, Brady doesn't admit guilt.... But here we are in August still debating....in pushing the settlement, this seems the only way to get everyone to agree short of no suspension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 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. Right. It is preposterous to think that Goodell and the NFL manufactured all this evidence to support a preconceived belief in Brady's guilt because of a predetermined desire by the league to punish one of its most visible and successful players. "Independent" or not, the facts presented themselves as laid out. How could ANY investigation and report satisfy this absurd notion of "independence" when it was the league that commissioned and paid for it to begin with? Was this investigation going to be conducted by the Patriots? By a some third party benefactor? It's amazing how naive people are. Let the Brady spin machine keep working its magic. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 I've been saying for quite some time that, barring something huge lurking behind the curtain on either side, that this is the common sense answer. Nfl doesn't look weak giving in, Brady doesn't admit guilt.... But here we are in August still debating....in pushing the settlement, this seems the only way to get everyone to agree short of no suspension. Very often when an objective set of eyes review facts and process issues related to Goodell rulings his rulings get altered. You and I both have the same perspective that the disciplinary process and how it adjudicates cases is even more important than the infraction. In this case a probable infraction that had zero impact not only on the game but on the performance. It's my view that Wells is far from being a neutral investigator. He is blatanting working on behalf of the commissioner and doing its bidding at the expense of carrying out his responsibilities in a fair and measured way. Incognito's claim that Wells left out a lot of supporting material for him because it didn't comport with the narrative that the commissioner's office wanted. He felt that the determination of what happened was determined prior to the investigation. There is merit to his position. He should know because he was victimized by it. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13409212/jim-turner-former-miami-dolphins-ol-coach-file-defamation-lawsuit-attorney-ted-wells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 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. You make a distinction that is without a difference. You just said that the NFL says even if others believe it's not independent and we disagree, "it's (independence) is irrelevant". Ok.... Independence isn't really subjective. Wells was the least independent investigator they could have come up with who does not work for the NFL full time. I don't know what discussions he had with PAsh or others in the NFL before he wrote his report. I don't know what PAsh edited out of it or what direction he gave Wells in writing it. I've been saying for quite some time that, barring something huge lurking behind the curtain on either side, that this is the common sense answer. Nfl doesn't look weak giving in, Brady doesn't admit guilt.... But here we are in August still debating....in pushing the settlement, this seems the only way to get everyone to agree short of no suspension. My real goal for weeks has been....to get this anemic thread to 100 pages. It's proving a lot easier than I thought.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Very often when an objective set of eyes review facts and process issues related to Goodell rulings his rulings get altered. You and I both have the same perspective that the disciplinary process and how it adjudicates cases is even more important than the infraction. In this case a probable infraction that had zero impact not only on the game but on the performance. It's my view that Wells is far from being a neutral investigator. He is blatanting working on behalf of the commissioner and doing its bidding at the expense of carrying out his responsibilities in a fair and measured way. Incognito's claim that Wells left out a lot of supporting material for him because it didn't comport with the narrative that the commissioner's office wanted. He felt that the determination of what happened was determined prior to the investigation. There is merit to his position. He should know because he was victimized by it. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13409212/jim-turner-former-miami-dolphins-ol-coach-file-defamation-lawsuit-attorney-ted-wells Are you making the same claim here; that the NFL left out supporting material favoring Brady and the Patriots? Why didn't Icognito appeal if he felt that way nearly two years ago now? What happened to his grievance against the Dolphins? GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 My real goal for weeks has been....to get this anemic thread to 100 pages. It's proving a lot easier than I thought.. I'm exhausted! I need a break holding the fort. There are more of them than us. Stop poking the already antagonizedf bear. It's already aggravated and wanting to do damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 My real goal for weeks has been....to get this anemic thread to 100 pages. It's proving a lot easier than I thought.. Glad we could help your trolling efforts. GO BILLS!!! I'm exhausted! I need a break holding the fort. There are more of them than us. Stop poking the already antagonizedf bear. It's already aggravated and wanting to do damage. I know. It's frustrating to argue in the face of the facts, rationality, and common sense. I can see why you're exhausted. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Are you making the same claim here; that the NFL left out supporting material favoring Brady and the Patriots? Why didn't Icognito appeal if he felt that way nearly two years ago now? What happened to his grievance against the Dolphins? GO BILLS!!! Who is Incognito going to appeal to? Goodell. Let's get serious. You know my position on this issue. I don't give a dam what Brady did or did not do because that is not the primary issue for me. The disciplinary process directed by Goodell is a flawed/tainted process. He has a tendency to make erratic rulings not based on facts and the degree of the transgression (in this case I consider it inconsequential) but makes predetermined judgments based on how he will be perceived. The Ray Rice case is a good example of my point that Goodell makes disciplinary decisions based on the perception of how he is going to be perceived. He raised the punishment level for Rice because there was a public outcry over his leniency. So he raised the punishment based on the claim he now had additional information. When the arbitrator reviewed the case it was determined that Goodell had no new evidence to justify altering his original punishment. In other words Goodell lied at the expense of the easy target, the vilified Ray Rice, in order to make himself look better. Are you making the same claim here; that the NFL left out supporting material favoring Brady and the Patriots? The problem isn't that they left out material so much as that the material they had was not solid in telling them what really happened. Why do you think that the report was replete with qualifying language? They made questionable assumptions based on their preconceived notions. There is nothing wrong in conducting a highly resourced and high profile investigation and determing that what happened can not be conclusively determined. It is not unusual for that to happen. But in this case it wasn't going to happen because Wells was very attuned to the outcome that Goodell wanted. I know. It's frustrating to argue in the face of the facts, rationality, and common sense. I can see why you're exhausted. GO BILLS!!! You said it very succinctly before: Impasse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) Who is Incognito going to appeal to? Goodell. Let's get serious. You know my position on this issue. I don't give a dam what Brady did or did not do because that is not the primary issue for me. The disciplinary process directed by Goodell is a flawed/tainted process. He has a tendency to make erratic rulings not based on facts and the degree of the transgression (in this case I consider it inconsequential) but makes predetermined judgments based on how he will be perceived. The Ray Rice case is a good example of my point that Goodell makes disciplinary decisions based on the perception of how he is going to be perceived. He raised the punishment level for Rice because there was a public outcry over his leniency. So he raised the punishment based on the claim he now had additional information. When the arbitrator reviewed the case it was determined that Goodell had no new evidence to justify altering his original punishment. In other words Goodell lied at the expense of the easy target, the vilified Ray Rice, in order to make himself look better. The problem isn't that they left out material so much as that the material they had was not solid in telling them what really happened. Why do you think that the report was replete with qualifying language? They made questionable assumptions based on their preconceived notions. There is nothing wrong in conducting a highly resourced and high profile investigation and determing that what happened can not be conclusively determined. It is not unusual for that to happen. But in this case it wasn't going to happen because Wells was very attuned to the outcome that Goodell wanted. You said it very succinctly before: Impasse. So because it was Goodell, Incognito shouldn't have filed an appeal? Brady and others have, some with success, why not Richie? What was the outcome of Incognito's grievance against the Dolphins? Last I remember, he agreed to postpone it. I know you don't give a damn about Brady, but your argument should be with the NFLPA. Yeah, you're right about the impasse. Between the trollers and others, I've lost track. I'll try not to reply to your posts. GO BILLS!!! Edited August 11, 2015 by K-9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 You make a distinction that is without a difference. You just said that the NFL says even if others believe it's not independent and we disagree, "it's (independence) is irrelevant". Ok.... Independence isn't really subjective. Wells was the least independent investigator they could have come up with who does not work for the NFL full time. I don't know what discussions he had with PAsh or others in the NFL before he wrote his report. I don't know what PAsh edited out of it or what direction he gave Wells in writing it. My real goal for weeks has been....to get this anemic thread to 100 pages. It's proving a lot easier than I thought.. There is an enormous difference. One is smart and true. That it doesn't matter how you look it it. One is stupid and untrue. That it's actually irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Who is Incognito going to appeal to? Goodell. Let's get serious. what may have been particularly tough, if i recall correct, is RI was in the sticky spot where he had to be granted reinstatement, right? i know among many in that spot there seems to be an underlying sentiment of "i better not argue, or it might get worse" unlike brady who is simply appealing and it is what it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Tom doesn't appear to be stressing much... http://pagesix.com/2015/08/11/ex-affleck-nanny-took-private-jet-to-vegas-with-ben-and-tom-brady/?_ga=1.25999293.1256400624.1439317948 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 There is an enormous difference. One is smart and true. That it doesn't matter how you look it it. One is stupid and untrue. That it's actually irrelevant. What was altered/edited in the Wells report by Pash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 What was altered/edited in the Wells report by Pash? Who knows. I guarantee it was nothing of consequence because Wells would have thrown a hissy fit. It's already been reported that it was no substance. That is why the NFL is saying it doesn't matter what you guys (erroneously ) think, UT doesn't change the case one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 Who knows. I guarantee it was nothing of consequence because Wells would have thrown a hissy fit. It's already been reported that it was no substance. That is why the NFL is saying it doesn't matter what you guys (erroneously ) think, UT doesn't change the case one bit. why even open the door to the questions of what was edited if it wasnt anything noteworthy? (mostly just being a pain to you on that one, but probably a fair question even if i wasnt trying to irk you) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 why even open the door to the questions of what was edited if it wasnt anything noteworthy? (mostly just being a pain to you on that one, but probably a fair question even if i wasnt trying to irk you)I have no idea how it happened that this was outed. I think it came out in one of the made-public transcripts that Pash "wordsmithed" the document. I know what that word means. That's my job on a lot of projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) I have no idea how it happened that this was outed. I think it came out in one of the made-public transcripts that Pash "wordsmithed" the document. I know what that word means. That's my job on a lot of projects. well, i dont care how it became public, moreso the fact that the nfl said "probably a good idea we touch this up." it just seems no one had the good sense to realize that they should treat it as an outside document presented as evidence, instead of like a press release supporting their conclusions. that doesnt mean anything substantive was edited, but just the lack of awareness is a head scratcher at this point (unless something semi-relevant was edited) Edited August 11, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 well, i dont care how it became public, moreso the fact that the nfl said "probably a good idea we touch this up." it just seems no one had the good sense to realize that they should treat it as an outside document presented as evidence, instead of like a press release supporting their conclusions. that doesnt mean anything substantive was edited, but just the lack of awareness is a head scratcher at this point (unless something semi-relevant was edited) I agree with that, only because they are going against other lawyers who constantly say untruths and mischaracterize more than the people they accuse of mischaracterizing. The point is plain, however. Pash didn't change the evidence or any of the findings. He's just another arrogant lawyer who couldn't help himself from sticking his snoot in. I deal with that all the time. The NFL shouldn't have done it and didn't need to do it. But it changed nothing and had nothing to do with impartiality or independence either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 well, i dont care how it became public, moreso the fact that the nfl said "probably a good idea we touch this up." it just seems no one had the good sense to realize that they should treat it as an outside document presented as evidence, instead of like a press release supporting their conclusions. that doesnt mean anything substantive was edited, but just the lack of awareness is a head scratcher at this point (unless something semi-relevant was edited) Then let the NFLPA make the case that Pash's wordsmithing altered the report. That his editing changed all the facts that Wells investigation uncovered. DAs and other lawyers constantly do the exact same thing that Pash did. This is just more crap to throw against the wall of public opinion. Again, there is no there there. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted August 11, 2015 Share Posted August 11, 2015 (edited) The NFL shouldn't have done it and didn't need to do it. But it changed nothing and had nothing to do with impartiality or independence either. atleast we are both assuming that (and i have operated on that assumption). ive followed, but not near as close as you (seriously, what else are you doing?) -- has Wells/the NFL turned over to brady/the nflpa the full unedited documents that they built the report on? I know that has not happened in the past and has become an issue before, as things progressed legally. Edited August 11, 2015 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts