Tom Brady suspension upheld by court
- Thread starter newAD
- Start date
Joke! Really NO PROOF against Brady. This decision just affirms that the "commissioner" has the right to pretty much do anything.
http://www.businessinsider.com/brady-patriots-employee-texts-deflategate-2015-5
Fortunately, the court wasn't deciding whether Brady committed a crime, so proof isn't necessary. It's clear to me at least, that there was a cover-up going on. With New England's penchant for cheating, it doesn't surprise me that Goodell wants to send a message, as he should.
Fortunately, the court wasn't deciding whether Brady committed a crime, so proof isn't necessary. It's clear to me at least, that there was a cover-up going on. With New England's penchant for cheating, it doesn't surprise me that Goodell wants to send a message, as he should.
"With New England's penchant for cheating, it doesn't surprise me that Goodell wants to send a message, as he should."
My sentiments exactly. It doesn't help Tommy's case when they called the ball guy "The Deflator' because he's supposedly losing weight, then can him, then Tommy's phone is destroyed. New England's "penchant for cheating" means that any benefit of the doubt given to them is greatly diminished. Serve your time, Tommy, and quit your cheating ways New England.
My sentiments exactly. It doesn't help Tommy's case when they called the ball guy "The Deflator' because he's supposedly losing weight, then can him, then Tommy's phone is destroyed. New England's "penchant for cheating" means that any benefit of the doubt given to them is greatly diminished. Serve your time, Tommy, and quit your cheating ways New England.
No reasonable person who read the text message exchanged between Brady and the equipment guy wouldn't come to the reasonable conclusion that Brady cheated. Just because there wasn't a video of the act itself or a confession from somebody doesn't mean there wasn't some pretty strong circumstantial evidence. You'd have to be a New England fan to think Brady and the equipment guy were really talking about weight loss. Having said all that, this story needs to go away.
This ruling was not about whether Tom Brady did it or not...it was about whether the NFL has the right to discipline an employee for a violation of the rules in a manner that it sees fit. The federal judge with his decision, just basically affirmed the fact that the NFL as Tom Brady's employer does have the right to discipline him as they see fit.
Here we go again. Seriously, the NFL is really going to deprive its millions of fans from watching Brady for 4 games? One of the best NFL QBs to ever play? Maybe their focus should turn to actual criminals...
Don't follow this logic at all. You are saying if a player is popular enough that he should be able to get away with cheating.
NFL will be totally fine without Brady for a month, they don't need him. Everyone retires or goes away eventually, and the NFL has always stood tall. This will be no exception.
Honestly, if this is such a non-issue why were the balls deflated in the first place? Think about it.
The NFL is also rewarding the rest of the league for not cheating, then covering it up. Anyway, I hope all the poor Tom Brady fans make it through a whole month of fall Sundays without him. Good luck!
Apparently you are following the logic. You just explained to me what I said. This is one of the dumbest controversies in NFL history.
I'm not a "poor" Tom Brady fan. Where is the proof he cheated?
Last edited:
No proof is needed to hand out a suspension, according to the court's interpretation of the NFLPA agreement. That's the beauty of it.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
This thread title and discussion about politics has no room on this board. Serious sports topics only please.
You are stuck on "proof" when none is required. The investigation by Ted Wells (right or wrong) determined that Tom Brady was guilty. Based on the findings of the report, Roger Gooddell imposed the suspension. Tom Brady appealed his suspension to a court that would rule favorably for him and his suspension was overturned. The NFL then appealed that decision to a higher court, one that can overturn the decision that Tom Brady got from the lower court and this court basically overturned the lower court's ruling. So you see no proof required!!!
Last edited:
Where is the proof he cheated?
Where is the proof he didn't?
Why did he destroy his phone?
http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
Why was he willing to accept a reduced suspension for failure to cooperate with the investigation?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-reduced-suspension-for-failure-to-cooperate/
This was an NFL internal investigation. This was not a criminal investigation. The levels of the burden of proof are completely different. If this were a criminal investigation, authorities could have sought a court order for his phone records. Since this was an internal investigation, it had to be requested. It was denied.
If the burden of proof to the NFL is like a lot of internal investigations, the level is 'Preponderance of the Evidence' or 'More Likely Than Not'. Is the evidence in this investigation 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?' Nope. Was that level of proof needed? Nope.
Can you refuse to cooperate in a criminal case, where you are the focus of the investigation? Yep. Can that decision be used against you in court? Not really, at least in regards to incriminating yourself. Can you refuse to cooperate in an internal investigation. Yep. Can that decision be used against you by your employer? HELL YES.
Obstruct, deny, refuse to cooperate, and play the 'I'm being picked on card.' Do that and you force Goodell to take why they know and combine it with Brady's actions during the investigation, and ask the question, what is more likely?
Goodell made his decision, and it stands.
This whole thing was NOT just about deflated footballs despite what the Patriot fans and Brady apologists want people to believe . It was about a RULE, and if that rule was being broken because someone felt there would be a potential competitive advantage to doing so? Had Brady cooperated, hell had he admitted, I wouldn't be surprised if he got 1 maybe 2 games. But when you make it more difficult on your employer investigating the potential rule violation (especially when your business is about athletic competition), then you have just upped the ante, as you have now made it, 'is there a rule being broken, AND are you trying to cover it up? That is playing with fire. Tommy Boy decided to play with fire, and he got burned.
Where is the proof he didn't?
Why did he destroy his phone?
http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
Why was he willing to accept a reduced suspension for failure to cooperate with the investigation?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-reduced-suspension-for-failure-to-cooperate/
This was an NFL internal investigation. This was not a criminal investigation. The levels of the burden of proof are completely different. If this were a criminal investigation, authorities could have sought a court order for his phone records. Since this was an internal investigation, it had to be requested. It was denied.
If the burden of proof to the NFL is like a lot of internal investigations, the level is 'Preponderance of the Evidence' or 'More Likely Than Not'. Is the evidence in this investigation 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?' Nope. Was that level of proof needed? Nope.
Can you refuse to cooperate in a criminal case, where you are the focus of the investigation? Yep. Can that decision be used against you in court? Not really, at least in regards to incriminating yourself. Can you refuse to cooperate in an internal investigation. Yep. Can that decision be used against you by your employer? HELL YES.
Obstruct, deny, refuse to cooperate, and play the 'I'm being picked on card.' Do that and you force Goodell to take why they know and combine it with Brady's actions during the investigation, and ask the question, what is more likely?
Goodell made his decision, and it stands.
This whole thing was NOT just about deflated footballs despite what the Patriot fans and Brady apologists want people to believe . It was about a RULE, and if that rule was being broken because someone felt there would be a potential competitive advantage to doing so? Had Brady cooperated, hell had he admitted, I wouldn't be surprised if he got 1 maybe 2 games. But when you make it more difficult on your employer investigating the potential rule violation (especially when your business is about athletic competition), then you have just upped the ante, as you have now made it, 'is there a rule being broken, AND are you trying to cover it up? That is playing with fire. Tommy Boy decided to play with fire, and he got burned.
I was listening to local sports talk on way into work. Back in March, there was a session in which the judge(s) provided some insight into their thought process. The judge basically said that destruction of the cellphone constituted willful obstruction of the commissioner's investigation that he had every right to convene, and the commissioner had every right to suspend him for that reason alone.
Okay. I'm not a Brady worshipper or a Patriots fan. After reading more, I understand that there is writing on the wall for TB in this case. I do. He confiscated the phone. Destroyed it. The higher court's ruling beat the lower court's ruling. I do see the evidence to suspend him in the case of law.
However, my main point is that even if he did have the footballs deflated, why his activity warrants a 4-game suspension while plenty of other NFL players and even franchises should be getting more than even just a 1-game suspension for the use of drugs, alcohol, and other forms of cheating? It's also not a secret that NFL teams cheat in some way, shape or form. So if nearly these NFL teams do cheat, why don't they give the same suspension or large fine instead of a wrist slap? Why doesn't Goodell look into other franchises and other players who have the same type of behavior?
However, my main point is that even if he did have the footballs deflated, why his activity warrants a 4-game suspension while plenty of other NFL players and even franchises should be getting more than even just a 1-game suspension for the use of drugs, alcohol, and other forms of cheating? It's also not a secret that NFL teams cheat in some way, shape or form. So if nearly these NFL teams do cheat, why don't they give the same suspension or large fine instead of a wrist slap? Why doesn't Goodell look into other franchises and other players who have the same type of behavior?
You're making the mistake of looking at this incident in isolation. There have been multiple past violations, and they've been warned the penalties will escalate. Plenty of precedence for that. In NFL discipline policy. In the legal system. In inter-personal relations.
The judge basically ruled that the league has a right to punish its employees. The judge was not ruling on the fairness of the punishments imposed on varying employees.
It doesn't make a whole ton of sense that some employers are really strict on time, unless you smoke and take a number of smoke breaks during the day, but that's the lay of the land for some non-smokers in those companies. This would be relatively analogous situation.
If fans feel that beating a woman isn't being treated as seriously as deflating a ball, fans have every right to protest and boycott and all those types of things. It has and does work. Most people are willing to put moral stances to the side, to veg on the couch all Sunday and be entertained though.
He is still probably the best QB ever, and he has great taste in underwear models, so him and I are good.
OK. If it IS a major issue then where is the NFL and it's officiating to end cheating by equipment personnel for all NFL teams? Who else is doing this? A team absolutely skunked on the playing field brought up the case and the NFL reacted by suspending a player rather than addressing an issue of what rules should be enforced by actions of the NFL. If a deflated ball can give a QB a 3 score advantage over opposing DB's then monitoring the balls used in a game should be no more difficult for the NFL than monitoring the chain gang.
This is a good point. The NFL probably needs to enforce this regularly. As far as how much of an advantage it gave Brady, it's impossible to say, but anybody who has tried throwing a football on a cold, windy day in February knows even a slightly deflated ball helps.
Blame deflection.
A team brought this up, because they had suspicions about the Patriots based on prior games against them.
After an investigation, the NFL suspended a player who appeared to knowingly be involved in breaking a rule, and refused to cooperate with the investigation into if the rule was broken. This wasn't knee jerk.
So you are saying the NFL should just forget about a potential violation and see if others are doing the same thing first? Ok got it.
Last year when the suspension was nullified, I said this was not over. Now it's back to where it should have been. Four games felt right last year, and it still feels right today.
Last edited:
Not excusing anything here, but Frank Broyles' comment at the 21:20 mark is pretty amusing.