Brady 4 Game Suspension Upheld

[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]

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]

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.

[smuggler]

Brady's looking guilty, but nothing that can be proven. That's why destroying the phone was s good call. Other than two singular lies in his interview, the NFL can't prove he's done anything to break any of their rules.

[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?

[Zool]

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?

Tom Brady is an employee of the NFLPA which is governed by the NFL right? If they want to suspend him, they can. The NFLPA can appeal, which they did. They lost the appeal. The reasoning behind why they are suspending an employee is at the discretion of the NFL I assume?

[Guiness]

Tom Brady is an employee of the NFLPA which is governed by the NFL right? If they want to suspend him, they can. The NFLPA can appeal, which they did. They lost the appeal. The reasoning behind why they are suspending an employee is at the discretion of the NFL I assume?

I think the latest bit that I posted about is going to hold water, and it's something I'm sure the NFL would prefer not be looked at - the employee didn't have knowledge of the rule that he broke, and couldn't obtain it if he tried. That breaks some labour laws; I don't know if the anti-trust stuff will trump that.

[Rutnstrut]

I will once again go back to the point I always do in all of this, WHO CARES? Even had the footballs been fully inflated, assuming they weren't. the outcome would have been the same for Brady and the Pats. Would anyone give a shit, including the NFL had the Patriots went 2-14 last year?

[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.

[Zool]

It's a rules violation, not a crime. The only crime is the time wasted talking about it.

[pbmax]

Tom Brady is an employee of the NFLPA which is governed by the NFL right? If they want to suspend him, they can. The NFLPA can appeal, which they did. They lost the appeal. The reasoning behind why they are suspending an employee is at the discretion of the NFL I assume?

In general, private employers don't need to follow exact strictures of the court system, but the spirit of the law. One example is deference to due process. The other is having an actual rule violation occur.

Since the only rule violation that has occurred has been the failure to turn over cell phone records, Roger has not made the case that Brady should be suspended when Brett "Houndley" Favre was fined for failing to comply with the Great Masseuse Investigation of 2013.

From earlier this thread:

Brady's case, as argued by the NFLPA, is being contested on five points:http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...-in-minnesota/

1. Players advance notice of potential discipline. “Brady had no notice of the disciplinary standards that would be applied,” the petition says at page 3, “and no notice of the potential penalties.” Covers phone cooperation.

2. The league and the NFLPA collectively bargained the punishment for “alleged equipment tampering by players,” and that the NFL was not permitted to disregard those provisions without advance notice.

3. The petition likewise explains that the “Competitive Integrity Policy” was “never given” to players, and that it specifically applies only to teams, not to players.

4. A fine is the only penalty that has ever been upheld in such circumstances.” (In 2010, Brett Favre was fined $50,000 for failing to cooperate with an investigation regarding allegations that he texted inappropriate photos to a Jets employee.)

5. The petition claims that the discipline violates the “law of the shop” that requires fair and consistent treatment of players by basing Brady’s discipline on air-pressure tests that “did not generate reliable information,” and that the arbitrator (Commissioner Roger Goodell) was “evidently partial.”

Regarding #3, a Jets player, a kicker, was not subject to punishment despite being generally aware of tampering with the K balls by the Jets equipment staff in 2009.

[pbmax]

It's a rules violation, not a crime. The only crime is the time wasted talking about it.

You're just avoiding the question. What rule did Brady violate?

Wow, almost went full internet there, misspelling the contraction of you are. Might need to do some work now.