Brady 4 Game Suspension Upheld

[sharpe1027]

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?

You could infer that, but that's not what I saw. I think the inference is pretty strong the other way, but again, we can disagree.

If all they were doing is prior to handover, it was as simple as setting them all to 12.5 prior to hand over. Moreover, they expressly told the refs they wanted them at 12.5 and the refs agreed. It was probably as simple as that in each case.

Why would McNally expect anything from Brady for setting the balls at the proscribed 12.5 minimum? How is that any different than setting them at 13, or 13.5?

Why would Brady think McNally was under a lot of pressure for simply setting the balls at 12.5?

Why would they refer to their jobs as "deflation" and providing a "needle" (also joking about a pump not being attached) when all they had to do was inflate to the correct amount in the first instance?

Why would a guy who isn't even in charge of equipment go into the equipment room and take the balls while the referees were absent?

Why would an equipment manager in charge of ball care defer the duties to a part-time guy?

Why would Brady turn over two phones to a forensic examiner, but hold back a third?

Why would Brady destroy the third phone on the same day he is interviewed, knowing they wanted the texts from that phone and he did not turn it over previously?

[pbmax]

Because the refs are under orders to correct balls that are outside the parameters of 12.5 to 13.5. Even before the new rules, they were expected to fix the situation if they found something out of spec. You talk to the refs to ask them, if they need to fix one, please make it 12.5 not 13.2.

So there is pressure to have the balls be low, but not low enough to risk the refs inflating them on their own. There is enough room for fluctuation here that I am sure the 16 PSI ball wasn't the only time Brady was mad. In fact, Brady might be more interested in feel than pressure levels. In this way, haphazard draining air from a ball seems like a bad solution.

However, I do agree, though am not convinced the evidence proves this, that the level of concern seems to indicate a desire to "correct" anything the refs do to the team approved balls. In fact, I find a 90 second trip to the closet more likely indicative of checking than deflating. While testers found it possible to deflate 12 in that time, checking twelve seems more likely. Still have doubts on this one though as they League could not come up with another single instance of the balls moving before ref's walked them out to the field. Just as likely the guy was stealing away for a gulp from his flask.

So as I said earlier, it makes more sense for this to happen on the sideline when the QB is warming up and can comment on them.

As for turning over evidence, he turned over two phones to his examiner after he was punished and failure to cooperate was part of the suspension. Since Wells never asked for physical possession of the phone, the date is less glaring to me. He wasn't going to produce records until that lack of cooperation cost him 4 games, so destruction anytime before the edict was handed down seems to me small potatoes. A better question is why one phone and not the other.

[sharpe1027]

Deflation on the sidelines would be in the presence of a lot of people. It would be possible, but I am not so sure it is the option that makes the most sense. It is the first time I have heard that theory, so I would again suggest that how you might approach the situation may not be how most others would approach it.

The same goes for your theory on measuring vs deflating. Also, there are clear references to a needle and deflation in the text messages.

As to the phones, it seems to me that Brady submitted the old phone in the hopes that the NFL would not realize that there was a missing phone. I think the timeline is such that he only owned up to the missing phone (and excuse) after he was caught because the examiner discovered the time gap.

[pbmax]

Deflation on the sidelines would be in the presence of a lot of people. It would be possible, but I am not so sure it is the option that makes the most sense. It is the first time I have heard that theory, so I would again suggest that how you might approach the situation may not be how most others would approach it.

The same goes for your theory on measuring vs deflating. Also, there are clear references to a needle and deflation in the text messages.

As to the phones, it seems to me that Brady submitted the old phone in the hopes that the NFL would not realize that there was a missing phone. I think the timeline is such that he only owned up to the missing phone (and excuse) after he was caught because the examiner discovered the time gap.

He didn't submit the phone. His lawyers gave the phones to their own forensic examiners. But he wasn't going to do that, to avoid a precedent setting issue, until the ruling came down. That is why I look less critically at the possible date of the destruction.

[sharpe1027]

He didn't submit the phone. His lawyers gave the phones to their own forensic examiners. But he wasn't going to do that, to avoid a precedent setting issue, until the ruling came down. That is why I look less critically at the possible date of the destruction.

He submitted it to forensic examiners. He new damn well that the relevant time period was on the phone he didn't submit. I don't see the relevance of your distinction on who actually looked at the phones.

[pbmax]

He submitted it to forensic examiners. He new damn well that the relevant time period was on the phone he didn't submit. I don't see the relevance of your distinction on who actually looked at the phones.

The question relates to what he feared by turning over evidence.

If he knew Wells wasn't going to demand possession of the phone, then destruction of phone is completely unnecessary. Even to withhold evidence. If he destroys it during this time frame, its possibly benign.

However, after he learns that the absence of phone records is part of what is costing him 4 games (remember Favre withheld his phone records and was fined), he then turned over what was left - which were calling and texting records that would have required reconstruction from the other end.

So the destruction of the phone gains him little, except that, as part of the pissing match, neither side is willing to do the reconstruction.

The only scenario this doesn't possibly hold true for is the missing texts. PFT has detailed there are three texts on Brady's phone records that they are not in possession of from the Patriot phones.

[red]

this is a battle of 2 things i hate

i hate goodell and wish he would die in a fiery car crash because i think he's a douchebag and is trying his best to make the game look like a joke. plus he makes like twice as much as any of the guys, that you know, actually play the game and make it great.

on the other hand, i really hate brady and the patriots. they are IMO a bunch of cheats willing to do whatever it takes to win (even if it is cheating) plus brady seems like a massive frat boy dickhead.

best case for me, would be to have the two sides duel, with each, shooting the other in the stomach and suffering horrible deaths

[sharpe1027]

PB. Brady had no reason to destroy the phone unless he was guilty AND thought he would end up having to turn it over. So, why does he get a pass? Cause he thought the penalty would be less? I call bullshit to that. He knew damn well what he was doing. That they threw the book at him just means he miscalculated. No points for being a sleeze.

[pbmax]

PB. Brady had no reason to destroy the phone unless he was guilty AND thought he would end up having to turn it over. So, why does he get a pass? Cause he thought the penalty would be less? I call bullshit to that. He knew damn well what he was doing. That they threw the book at him just means he miscalculated. No points for being a sleeze.

You can charge him with the private contract version of obstruction of justice. You can't charge him with football deflation because you *think* the incriminating texts are in there. That is especially true for me because I do not believe they have the physical evidence at all on deflation.

Also remember, he has successfully recovered all the email.

[Guiness]

PB. Brady had no reason to destroy the phone unless he was guilty AND thought he would end up having to turn it over. So, why does he get a pass? Cause he thought the penalty would be less? I call bullshit to that. He knew damn well what he was doing. That they threw the book at him just means he miscalculated. No points for being a sleeze.

You lost me with your first sentence. He destroyed the phone because that's what he does, and in his position, I can't say I blame him. Do you know what the tabloids would pay to get their hands on the messages between him and Gisele? He doesn't want to chance it falling into the wrong hands and having someone roll back a factory wipe?

Granted, having the phone from last fall makes the story a little shaky, but there could be a pile of reasons for that, like he gave it to one of his kids.

And sweet jesus, I agree with Red.

[sharpe1027]

Guiness, he didn't destroy his other phone, so it is not his normal procedure. I can almost guarantee his kid has his own phone and it is the latest and greatest model. Regardless, he destroyed it the day of the interview. I think your really reaching for excuses here. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.

So, absent an extraordinary set of coincidences, he destroyed the phone to keep it from the NFL. He would only do that if there were damning texts and he thought they might get their hands on it. And, I only mean the NFL gets the relevant texts through a third party examiner.

[sharpe1027]

You can punish him for deflation based on the text messages they had plus the inference drawn against him for destroying his phone.

[pbmax]

I do not agree.

[red]

didn't he destoy the phone on the EXACT same day that they requested the phone?

thats a little sketchy IMO. even if he does destroy all his old phones

"league whats to see your phone"

brady- " i need to go buy a new phone ASAP"

[pbmax]

didn't he destoy the phone on the EXACT same day that they requested the phone?

thats a little sketchy IMO. even if he does destroy all his old phones

"league whats to see your phone"

brady- " i need to go buy a new phone ASAP"

They never requested the phone itself. Just a catalog of messages. They could have simply kept declining to provide them. The NFL doesn't have subpoena power. So he gains nothing but an excuse by destroying the phone if he truly never intended on turning over the messages.

Once he changed his mind, then he was up a creek on the 3 missing text messages.

[sharpe1027]

Plus, the "give it too his kid" excuse doesn't seem likely since it wasn't being used once he got his new phone.

To be clear, I am not saying he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. However, simply coming up with plausible excuses is not enough. What is most likely? Is that more likely than not what happened? I think there is an enough to show that, and frankly so did a group of experts paid to form an opinion.

[ThunderDan]

Plus, the "give it too his kid" excuse doesn't seem likely since it wasn't being used once he got his new phone.

To be clear, I am not saying he did it beyond a reasonable doubt. However, simply coming up with plausible excuses is not enough. What is most likely? Is that more likely than not what happened? I think there is an enough to show that, and frankly so did a group of experts paid to form an opinion.

I agree with Mr. sharpe. This isn't a criminal case so you don't have to prove reasonable doubt to get a conviction all you need is the preponderance of the evidence(which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way).

[pbmax]

I agree with Mr. sharpe. This isn't a criminal case so you don't have to prove reasonable doubt to get a conviction all you need is the preponderance of the evidence(which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way).

What occurred that you have a preponderance of evidence about? Not what you can infer from each shaky detail, but what was the crime versus the Colts on Game Day?

[ThunderDan]

What occurred that you have a preponderance of evidence about? Not what you can infer from each shaky detail, but what was the crime versus the Colts on Game Day?

Deflating Footballs!?! Was that a trick question PB?

[pbmax]

Deflating Footballs!?! Was that a trick question PB?

There is no evidence that they did. Even the Colts footballs that started the game at 13.x PSI were below tolerance at halftime (3 of 4 measured).

Two studies, Head Start Labs, an offshoot of Carnegie Mellon (video here, report here) and AEI found there to be NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR DEFLATION.

Smart Labs found that a wet ball plus colder conditions easily accommodate the pressure differential in the Patriots footballs. AEI found that tortured mathematics aside, the measurements taken at halftime (if you account for warming that occurred while they were measuring and re-inflating, 13 minutes in a room 20+ degrees warmer than outside) show that the Patriots and Colts balls experienced the same effects from the wet and cold conditions and that the loss of pressure, applied in reverse, was consistent with pregame measurements that showed the Pats footballs at 12.5 and the Colts at just over 13.0.

There is no physical evidence of a crime.