The charge against Brady is involvement/knowledge/complicity. His destruction of a source of potential evidence can be interpreted if not presumed to be an act to conceal damning evidence against him. He can weaken that by explaining the destruction as "in the course" of standard activity, but the existence of the earlier phone pretty much negates that argument.
If he has destroyed all other phones and that phone belonged to one of his kids, it doesn't tell you much. I haven't gone through the entire transcript but I have not seen if he was asked or offered a reason for that phone's continued existence.Originally Posted by Patler
They have no evidence of involvement, knowledge or complicity. All they have on Brady is a _possible_ cover up. The physical evidence doesn't add up to a violation. The only direct piece of evidence of tampering is the guy in the bathroom for 90 seconds.
The cover up violation, or more properly, failure to cooperate, has been adjudicated in the past with fines.
Roger has constructed a casserole in order to cover up the weakness of the ingredients.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
In preparation for an interview he knew was coming Brady had a forensic examiner look at his phones before he destroyed the missing phone -- but he never gave that phone to the examiner. Then, on the day of the interview, he destroys the phone.
It makes no sense.
As for there not being "direct evidence," I think "direct" vs. "indirect" is a meaningless distinction. They have enough to support a conclusion that there probably was tampering going on, not absolute, but probable. They have enough to support a conclusion that it was probably that Brady knew about it. I think that's really all they need.
Direct means you do not need to infer motive. Video of the attendant in the restroom/utility room (did they ever establish what that room was?) is direct evidence of a single person's access to the balls without supervision. Its not direct evidence of deflation. Its direct evidence of opportunity.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I think I am not explaining myself properly. Why does it matter that the evidence is indirect, so long as it is sufficient?
Indirect, or circumstantial evidence never completes the circle that a crime was committed and you know who did it.
At best, it gives you a probability. In some cases, say a murder or robbery, you have physical evidence, method and a time frame for the crime. Process of elimination with indirect or circumstantial evidence can get you close to certain. Maybe enough to overcome reasonable doubt.
In this case, the complete lack of direct evidence of tampering, including what should have been regarded as less than compelling physical evidence of the balls in use, is being used in connection with direct evidence of opportunity (guy in room with balls) and possibly incriminating conduct (destroy cell phone) to imagine a crime that there is LITTLE TO NO evidence has occurred.
So it SEEMS like Brady is guilty of something. But no one can say with any sense of certainty what he did, or knew about.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
All you ever have is a probability. Sometimes, the probability is so large that we pretend it is absolute, but it never is. Philosophical point aside, the issue is not whether there is direct or indirect evidence, it is what the evidence suggests happened. I believe the relevant standard is more likely than not. If you look at all the data and it suggests that they were more likely than not deflating the balls, then it doesn't matter if the evidence is direct or indirect.
The science doesn't prove tampering, but it doesn't rule it out either.
Let's look at a few other indirect things.
McNally's official job responsibilities did not include preparing, inflating or deflating footballs. It was that of another guy. McNally took the balls without permission of the referees, which allowed him to have access without an official nearby. What was he doing? He should not have had the balls at all.
McNally lied about going to the bathroom when questioned.
McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about Brady being unhappy about the PSI in the game balls.
McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about providing a "needle" and about how there better be "cash" or he would overinflate.
McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how Brady felt McNally "must have a lot of stress trying to get them done."
McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how the refs "fucked us" by inflating them.
McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about "not going to ESPN, yet"
The Wells report simulated the conditions and could not repeat the pressure difference.
At this point I truly feel the main thing Brady is guilty of is telling the High King to fuck off.
I'm trying to think of any other instance in which an employer could demand their employees hand over personal property. It would be different if the phone was provided by, or issued by the team or the NFL, but it wasn't. As I've said before, I think the CBA specifically says they have to, but I'm not sure.
What are the odds Brady says enough is enough, and throws in the towel? Not significant, but I'd guess not 0 either. Is he chasing any other significant records? He's got most SB wins by a QB, that would be the big one for him. His statistics were never great, he's not going to run down any of Manning or Favre's records. He's got his health, wife, family and is set for money for life. Shit, he could be in Brazil with Giselle right now, but had to go to New York for the hearing.
Can you imagine the shit storm Goodell would face if he publicly said he was retiring, and this was part of the reason?
edit: he has tied the wins record. I bet he'd like to own that one, and it would stand a while.
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
Word through the grapevine is that the league is getting shitty because they specifically asked the Pats to stop doing it and they basically refused.
I couldn't see Bellechick ever doing that.
Last edited by sharpe1027; 08-07-2015 at 03:23 PM.
Reporters were all over this angle too about a week ago, but the Ravens publicly stated they had not been in contact with Goodell and SalPal on ESPN backtracked his remark.
Neither of those things is dispositive, but have you heard of other instances?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
conduct detrimental versus equipment tampering
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-brady-vs-nfl/
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
What's this about 16psi? Did I miss a story? Did a team of officials turn them into cannonballs at some point?
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
At some point, I do not remember which season it referred to, Brady claimed the game balls they used were way over-inflated. He mentioned 16 PSI, but whether that was an exaggeration or actual measurement, I don't know. The refs had, for this game anyway, been the last to inspect or prep the footballs, and they went overboard according to Tom.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
He better claim it was an exaggeration for effect - "what are those things, like 16psi?". lol, like anyone would say that.
If he'd checked them, that be tampering. A system's state is altered when measured, if he measured the psi of the balls he tampered with the pressure the referees worked so diligently to attain!
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
PB, after reading the text messages and in view of the odd behavior before the game, do you think it is more likely that McNally tampered with the balls, or do you think it was more likely that there was no tampering?
The thing I can't work out is the disappearance of the balls before the refs would normally take them out. The Head Ref (Walt Anderson) said he had never seen them disappear early before. If the Patriots regularly did this, you would have had more reports of that because you can bet they asked around.
So disappearing into that closet looks suspicious. But it also doesn't make sense that it was the first time.
I almost want to say they were tampering to get a 12.5 reading after ref inspection, but this wasn't when they did it. This was just a weird deal. I would bet they were leaking air on the sidelines.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
And the NFL just keeps looking worse
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...en-to-players/
It appears that Brady (actually, all NFL players) are not given the copy of the rules that lay out what they can be punished for. A big no-no under labour law.
So, 'conduct detrimental' be dammed, he never should've been charged and put in that position in the first place.
--
Imagine for a moment a world without hypothetical situations...
Oops. They need a better HR department.
It's gotta be tough, however, to sit there and say with a straight face that you didn't now messing with equipment was a no-no.
Well, that is one set of rules the team and owners agree to, that includes the integrity of the game clause. The players do get other rules.
It can get quite esoteric, which is why the judge wants a settlement, because the ruling can come down under equipment, failure to cooperate, or conduct detrimental.
For Sharpe, did any of their discussions indicate tampering after approval? Wasn't most of it Brady being mad if things weren't right? Couldn't a reasonable person infer that they were trying to get inflation levels correct for his approval prior to handover?
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote