BTW, even if you think I am off my rocker, remember this:
Ian Rapoport @RapSheet 19m19 minutes ago
Interesting. @judybattista says the sides were moving close to a 1-game suspension settlement. But Brady wanted records sealed. NFL wouldn’t
Judy Battista is a stenographer for the NFL, as the transcripts indicate the NFL wanted the records sealed.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
"Since the only rule violation that has occurred has been the failure to turn over cell phone records..."Originally Posted by pbmax
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Its like getting Capone over his tax records.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Sometimes, Florio reminds me of why I read him in the first place:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...al-settlement/
A long time ago, when I was only practicing law and hadn’t practiced law for very long, a judge asked in a pretrial conference if my client would keep a settlement offer on the table for 24 hours, no matter how he ruled on a pending issue that could have delivered an outright victory to my client. I said, “But, Your Honor, if you rule in my favor, my client won’t want to settle at that point.”
The judge then shot me a glance that carried this message: Hey dumbass, that’s my message to the other guy that he’d better take the offer while he can.
So I agreed, and the other lawyer quickly took the offer.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Those two studies do not prove or disprove anything. As I have said, natural reasons for the loss of pressure was within the realm of possibility, if you make some assumptions that line up for the Pats; however, the results are also consistent with deflation.
My point is not to say I am right 100%, but merely offer up that the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that they likely let air out of the balls. For the reasons I noted before, I think it is perfectly reasonable to come to that conclusion. Different people will place different weight on different evidence and reach different conclusions. That's the way this works.
Those two studies are enough to conclude that the NFL has no idea if anyone tampered with the ball. Any evidence that the Patriots were prepared to do so, withers on the vine of uncertainty.
You cannot claim there has been a homicide, investigate, find many circumstantially interesting pieces of evidence (gun, missing gun, ammo, shells, opportunity, motive) and then convict for murder if the forensic examiners cannot prove the deceased died because of a bullet.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
For PB, the HSL report needed to wet the balls before getting in the realm of possibility; however, nothing in their report mentions the humidity of the rooms in question. It is likely that they completely over looked this aspect and that the balls were cooled below the desired temperature through evaporative cooling. Accordingly, it is quite possible that the HSL results support tampering.
The AEI report made a number of assumptions as to the order of the testing, the timing of the testing and the amount of warming up, but even then they could not rule out deflation. They were successful, to me, in refuting the strong inference in the Wells report, but not in establishing that there was NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR DEFLATION. They offered a plausible theory that was consistent with there being no deflation.
This isn't a criminal proceeding.
The burden of proof has to rest on the party making the charge, at least in regard to the nature of the crime. The lack of records (no numbering on balls, no pre-game inflation recorded), no record of the order in which the balls were measured and re-inflated at halftime, should reflect on the uncertainty of the underlying charge.
Not the weakness of the arguments mustered against it.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I agree. Because in both cases they know the party in question violated rules/laws.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I rest my case on the totality of the evidence, not the weakness of the arguments against it. That is a self-serving mischaracterization of what we have been discussing. The burden of proof is meaningless here because we are not parties free to enter additional evidence in rebuttal. We have the evidence and facts from which we can make an informed decision on the ultimate issue. Burden means little in this context.
I have acknowledged that others may reach a different conclusion, is it so hard for you to do the same?
Was asked to turn over things, did not comply in full. Unless I am wrong about that. Frankly I'm just tired of hearing about the whole thing. I stopped watching any sort of sports news because this has sucked away a good deal of my interest in professional football.
That I agree with. But then it should be a fine. In Roger's appeal ruling, he now says Brady “‘knew about, approved of, consented to, and provided inducements’ in support of a scheme to tamper with the game balls used in the AFC Championship Game.”
So we are on the conspiracy phase of the charges, having let the physical evidence slide by.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
This.
As a sad commentary on the media and my own state of mental health, PR is my primary source of Packers and NFL news.
There is evidence that Brady knew about it, approved of it, consented to it and provided inducements -- even if it didn't happen (which seems unlikely given mysterious disappearance of the balls and the trip off camera). Is it enough evidence? I think so.
If you read the texts in plain context, and avoid conjuring up strange hypotheticals about deflating a person by losing weight, etc., the most logical thing to me is that Brady was offering signed merchandise, if not cash, in exchange for the use of a needle to deflate balls in a manner that was not within the rules (hence the need to provide compensation at all and the reference about not going to ESPN, yet...). In that context, does it really matter if the balls were actually deflated by a meaningful amount on that day?
This is where the NFL gets tied up in its own laundry. Players are essentially employees at-will, albeit of the teams, not the league. But the teams have ceded certain disciplinary functions over to the league, and have complicated it further by addressing some disciplinary features in the CBA, which is league based and team applicable.
That said, this is not a criminal or civil action, and traditional burden of proof requirements should not be the standard. The league should be able to discipline without meeting prosecutorial standards for a criminal conviction. It happens all the time in the regular workplaces, or at least it did when I had reason to keep track of those types of situations.
I think the NFL was right to take a stance that if it looks like blatant cheating and smells like blatant cheating they will address it as blatant cheating; and anyone who does not cooperate completely will be caught up in it. The league has nothing if it loses it's integrity (not saying that they always address the issue correctly); so they had to take a stance that cheating will not be tolerated. In that regard, they win even if they lose the eventual lawsuit that comes from this. If a court decides there is insufficient evidence of cheating, the league has still stood tall in the eyes of those who think it was cheating, because the league tried. For those who think it wasn't cheating, what the league did might be an annoyance, but in the end it doesn't really matter.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I can't handle all of this.....
The League has to have the CBA to avoid anti-monopoly regulations. In no sense are the players employed at-will. Other club employees, managers and administration are. Except for those high up who have individually negotiated contracts.
The League simply has to recognize when it doesn't have a case against the player. The fact that we are now on reason #3 for the player suspension tells you all you need to know about the strength of the case.
If Goodell had any idea how to do his job, he would have sanctioned player and team at the existing low end, thereby lowering the risk of the punishment being overturned or even appealed. He would them have the competition committee write up new rules regarding the balls. The League office would draw up new procedures over how to handle them on Game Day after they are inspected. He then issues an updated Policy on Game Integrity that includes the players and enhanced punishments for violations.
Problem solved. The game did not turn on ball inflation, punishments were applied, procedures and sanctions will be reviewed.
The only thing it doesn't do is let you look like a public Get Tough guy. It simply functions.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
The players very much are employees at will. The team can fire a player at any time for any reason, or no reason. The player can quit at any time, even mid-season like the former Badger guard did a few years ago. Neither needs to develop justification. The players are more like employees at will than they are like any other employee type that I can think of.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote