Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Original happy Goat said:Correct. The only way Brady goes to court is if:
1) he's actually 100% innocent.
2) he can prove it. And,
3) he hasn't doesn't anything else wrong (like have an affair or something) that might come out in discovery (e.g., from phone records).
In a court of law, actual scientific facts cannot be ignored. Goodell could ignore any fact that he wanted to ignore.
Proving with 100% certainty that you are innocent may be the legal standard in Iraq, but not in the US. The relevant legal standard is a preponderance of the evidence. ALL EVIDENCE. This would include the actual pressure readings made, showing an average pressure drop completely consistent with a weather-related pressure drop.
When there is no clear evidence that footballs were tampered with, there is no case.
That's like continuing a murder investigation when you determine that there never was a dead body.
Why do you get to randomly decide that a word is profane if it is not?
Can I not say "witch" because it rhymes with a bad word?
Can I not say "truck" because it rhymes with a bad word?
It would be quite unfortunate, I'd think, to be an Indianapolis Kuntz. But maybe you can ask Bill's kids.
I refuse to answer your questions, even though you, in each case, referenced the exact source page in the Wells report for the data in question.
I expected no less...
Ha...might want to ask his baby mama if he cheats. He cheats in both interpretations of the meanings, in both his personal and his business life. Does that really surprise anyone but you?No, he's married and he doesn't CHEAT.
Legal Value: 12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds
All 12 defective.
$83,333.33 per ball.
You are mistaken. Brady does not have to prove in a court of law that he is innocent to any particular standard. He has to prove, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that the NFL has acted illegally in suspending him (whether by violating the CBA, labor law in Massachussetts, or some other law, or through the commission of a tort). If he can't prove his own innocence, however, he's probably not going to win that argument, which is one reason why, if he's not certain he can absolutely prove his own innocence, he's unlikely to actually go to court. He might convince the judge that he's probably innocent (preponderance of the evidence is generally taken to mean 51% in favor), but if the judge still believes that the NFL was reasonable in determining otherwise, he'll probably rule in favor of the NFL.In a court of law, actual scientific facts cannot be ignored. Goodell could ignore any fact that he wanted to ignore.
Proving with 100% certainty that you are innocent may be the legal standard in Iraq, but not in the US. The relevant legal standard is a preponderance of the evidence. ALL EVIDENCE. This would include the actual pressure readings made, showing an average pressure drop completely consistent with a weather-related pressure drop.
When there is no clear evidence that footballs were tampered with, there is no case.
That's like continuing a murder investigation when you determine that there never was a dead body.
There are essentially three words I can think of that are pretty much off-limits in almost any circumstance. Right or wrong, don't use the f-word, the c-word or the n-word. Any post with one of those words is likely to get deleted.seems arbitrary, as you've indicated that abbreviations to get words past the filter are perfectly fine...
You said that STFU is OK,
I guess so is
GFU,
ESAD,
SMD,
FOAD
WTF?
I am a normal Patriots fan and I really don't care about deflated balls at all. Spygate was 100% cheating and they got caught and had the biggest punishment in NFL history. For sure....that is cheating.
I cared little after the game about deflated balls, I cared about the lead up to the Superbowl as it was ruining the week.
People won't give the Patriots their due because of jealousy and Spygate.
...violating the CBA...
Mike Florio said:One of the biggest issues relates to the Commissioner’s decision to delegate the initial decision to executive V.P. of football operations Troy Vincent.
The May 11 letter from Vincent to Brady explains in the first sentence that Commissioner Roger Goodell “has authorized me to inform you of the discipline that, pursuant to his authority under Article 46 of the CBA, has been imposed on you.” Per a source with knowledge of the situation, Brady’s appeal will focus in part on the language of Article 46, which encompasses “[a]ll disputes involving . . . action taken against a player by the Commissioner for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of football.”
The language of Article 46 implies that the Commissioner will take the action against Brady, not Troy Vincent or anyone else. And it’s obvious that Vincent made the decision. Indeed, Goodell made it clear from the moment that Wells report was issued that “Troy Vincent and his team will consider what steps to take in light of the report.”...
Article 46 also requires that, for any discipline imposed for conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of football, the Commissioner “shall consult with the Executive Director of the NFLPA prior to issuing, for on-field conduct, any suspension or fine in excess of $50,000.” Assuming that Brady’s infraction involves on-field conduct because it relates to footballs used during games, Goodell was required to consult with DeMaurice Smith before issuing the discipline.
Americans love a good train wreck and all the drama that it causes. Especially when its about their favorite religion. This doesn't hurt business at all. It keeps people focused on the NFL even in the off season. This is now the TMZ NFL.. and this is just good marketing. Every NFL off season is filled with drama of some kind, and it hasn't hurt them a bit. If someone isn't killing someone, or abusing dogs, or raping, then cheating is the next best story.I guess the NFL is out to get their current champion because that is good for business.
I know! And Richard Nixon gets a bad rap over Watergate. It's unfair.
I think he will win based on the facts, but there are clear and specific CBA violations as well
I guess the NFL is out to get their current champion because that is good for business.
Again, it needs to be very, very clear, that, in the court case, whether or not he is guilty is a secondary issue. He cannot go to court to prove his innocence. If he does that, the judge will throw the case out for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b), which is probably the rule that gets non-lawyers representing themselves thrown out of court more than any other. Just because you are right about something doesn't mean you have a legal recourse.
If Brady wants to sue the NFL, he must assert that the NFL violated the law by suspending him. Proving his innocence may be a part of that. Or, he may go the procedural route you mentioned, and argue that the procedures themselves were a violation. But no matter how he does it, simply trying to prove that he is innocent of deflating the balls is not enough.
If this actually went to a court-appointed arbitrator (which I highly doubt), discovery would also mean Brady turning over all his phone records (i.e., not just the ones scrubbed by his lawyer) and so forth, just as if he tried to prove innocence at trial. There are a lot of reasons why he doesn't want that.I think we are in general agreement.
The court can vacate the suspension on the grounds that the procedures followed violated the CBA. This seems a pretty easy sell.
Then it will likely not be up to the court to issue an appropriate suspension. It would likely be up to a court-appointed and truly independent arbitrator, who would do a de novo review of all relevant information to see if the preponderance of the evidence does or does not implicate #12. With the suspension vacated, this would allow additional discovery, such as other scientific analyses of the data, prior to the arbitrator review.
Good gawd you are in denial. 2 things support the idea that the balls were being deflated.No, because they were ignorant of the basic fact that cooling lowers football pressure.
Then someone "with involved in the investigation" told Chris Mortensen that "11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi below specs". This was a lie, but was the match in the gas can. The actual pressure data consisted of 22 measurements. ONE was 10.5 psi. 21 were above that, most WELL above that.
The NFL stood by that lie for 3.5 months, never correcting it.
If being "out to get" somebody involves issuing a damaging lie and then refusing to correct it for more than 3 entire months, then "out to get them" fits this situation perfectly.
WARNING! WARNING! AOTF MEMBERS BEING SUCKED INTO "BRADYGATE" WORMHOLE!! I REPEAT, AOTF MEMBERS BEING SUCKED INTO "BRADYGATE" WORMHOLE!! DO NOT ATTEMPT RESCUE, TURN AROUND, DON'T POST, THE SANITY YOU SAVE COULD BE YOUR OWN!
the "deflator" moniker. And no, no rational, intelligent person believes that he was referring to weight loss...
Colts footballs, using the gauge that the ref say that he used in pregame (Wells report, page 8):
12.35 cheat!
12.30 cheat!
12.95* Wells report speculates that two readings were switched as they were written down, that this reading should be 12.50
12.15 cheat!
Legal Value: 12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds
3 of 4 defective.
no fine?
applying actual science:
Colts beginning value: 13.0 psi
expected value 13.00 - 1.13 = 11.87 at the beginning of halftime
Add 0.70 psi for 10 minutes of warming (for warming curve see fig 22 on page 204 of the Wells report, assume average of wet & dry curves)
11.87 + 0.70 = 12.57 psi predicted
found: 12.44 psi
conclusion: Colts footballs, like Patriots footballs, seem to obey the ideal gas law and become non-compliant with normal cooling.
Explain Robert Kraft refusing to fight....and that the Cheatriots have been caught cheating twice...Explain the text about needing to "deflate" in order to be able to wear a smaller jacket.
You won't.
He may well have used it in that context. But no one uses that term in that context unless it's an inside joke, i.e., he's already known for "deflating" things.Explain the text about needing to "deflate" in order to be able to wear a smaller jacket.
You won't.
Yep, you won't. You REFUSE.
That's all well and good, but the NFL has been aware of "deflation" issues with the Pats since 2003.I think we are in general agreement.
The court can vacate the suspension on the grounds that the procedures followed violated the CBA. This seems a pretty easy sell.
Then it will likely not be up to the court to issue an appropriate suspension. It would likely be up to a court-appointed and truly independent arbitrator, who would do a de novo review of all relevant information to see if the preponderance of the evidence does or does not implicate #12. With the suspension vacated, this would allow additional discovery, such as other scientific analyses of the data, prior to the arbitrator review.
By the way, I am still waiting for OS to apologize for disparaging the Vikings by falsely claiming they illegally heated balls last year. Knowaddimean?That's all well and good, but the NFL has been aware of "deflation" issues with the Pats since 2003.
Don't ask for a link - I'm not gonna reveal my source, other than to guarantee you it comes from someone "inside."
Brady's been deflating for a LOOOOOOONG time. The difference now is that the Colts called the NFL's bluff. That is what the NFL gets for letting Jim stick around. But the Pats, and specifically Brady, are guilty as shiznit. If he would've just owned up to this back in January, it would already be done, because mucho other QB's have done the same thing. But Brady couldn't show half a nut and say, "I screwed up." He's going to pay for that.
I wouldn't wait for OS to wipe my buttocks.By the way, I am still waiting for OS to apologize for disparaging the Vikings by falsely claiming they illegally heated balls last year. Knowaddimean?
By the way, I am still waiting for OS to apologize for disparaging the Vikings by falsely claiming they illegally heated balls last year. Knowaddimean?