#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[GratefulCs]

This looks like this is going to get ugly.  Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death.  And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.

The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".

 

Scenario #1 - There is this giant conspiracy against the Patriots in the NFL.

Scenario #2 - Goodell thinks there is proof that Patriots cheated and that it helped them win a Super Bowl. Punishment ensues that is entirely consistent with other high profile cases.

While I'm sure #1 is the preferred way of thinking among certain deluded Patriots fans who refuse to face reality, it's #2 that is the truth.

consistent with other high profile cases, huh


Sure......



This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime


What's your favorite nfl team, granath?

[GratefulCs]

This looks like this is going to get ugly.  Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death.  And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.

The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".

 

Scenario #1 - There is this giant conspiracy against the Patriots in the NFL.

Scenario #2 - Goodell thinks there is proof that Patriots cheated and that it helped them win a Super Bowl. Punishment ensues that is entirely consistent with other high profile cases.

While I'm sure #1 is the preferred way of thinking among certain deluded Patriots fans who refuse to face reality, it's #2 that is the truth.

whoops, double post

[knuckleballer]

This looks like this is going to get ugly.  Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death.  And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.

The message clearly isn't "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".

I honestly don't think the majority of this punishment is for the actual equipment violations.  It seems to me like they decided to really come down hard because Brady or the team "didn't full cooperate with the investigation", plus it seems as though both Brady and McNally were caught in lies during the investigation...Brady saying he has no idea who McNally is, McNally saying he never stopped in the bathroom.  It's not a good look.  It still doesn't mean he's not innocent, but I really think this where the massive punishment comes from

From what I understand, Brady did not deny knowing McNally.  He just only knew him by his nickname "Bird".  The guy only works home game days afterall.  Does that really constitute as a lie?

I know Tedy Bruschi brought up the whole "Bird" nickname...but I'm pretty sure when Brady was first asked about it in this investigation, he said he had never heard of or seen him ever before in his life...and worded that way, boldfaced lie.

Here's the quote:  When asked specifically whether he had spoken with Jastremski about McNally on the night of the Jets game, he stated: “I didn?t know who Jim McNally was so I find it hard to believe I could bring that up.”

Brady was the last interview and Wells points out that it contradicted Jastremski's statement and Wells used this as major evidence of guilt.  Well, wouldn't it be natural for the investigators to then point out this contradiction to Brady (Don Yee has even acknowledged that Brady knew him) and get his response?  That part of the conversation was suspiciously missing from the report.

From the Boston Globe on this exact issue:

Christoher Grasper asks Yee "What about the testimony in the report where Tom says he doesn’t know Patriots officials locker room attendant Jim McNally and both equipment assistant John Jastremski said Tom knew him and what his job was? How do you explain that?

Yee answers "Again, if the Wells report would have put the precise testimony into the report I think that apparent contradiction could have been cleared up."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/08/don-yee-discusses-tom-brady-and-wells-report/0meCGwAz3Le60yf9q6IjKP/story.html

Are you sure that is a bold faced lie?

[kozlodoev]

This looks like this is going to get ugly.  Clearly the team and Brady are gonna fight this to the death.  And considering how they're going about this, either they're reaching Roger Clemens status where Brady is just straight-up delusional and is unwilling to admit to himself or anyone else that he did cheat...or he's innocent.

The message clearly isn't, "Don't cheat and you won't get punished". The message is "Don't be the Patriots, and you won't pay an arm and a leg for equipment violations that are otherwise routinely treated with a slap on the wrist".

 

Scenario #1 - There is this giant conspiracy against the Patriots in the NFL.

Scenario #2 - Goodell thinks there is proof that Patriots cheated and that it helped them win a Super Bowl. Punishment ensues that is entirely consistent with other high profile cases.

While I'm sure #1 is the preferred way of thinking among certain deluded Patriots fans who refuse to face reality, it's #2 that is the truth.

That's very nice. I'm sure the preferred way of thinking among certain fans is that everything is just black and white. Which I'm sure works great for them -- no thinking required.

Out in the real world, however, we have some other options available. Like for example, the possibility of the presence of some sort of transgression of unknown severity, as well as the allocation of discipline that completely doesn't fit the crime.

[Granath]

consistent with other high profile cases, huh


Sure......



This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime


What's your favorite nfl team, granath?

I've already mentioned that I no longer watch the NFL, in large part due to Goodell's rulings in the NFL. But yes, go back a couple of pages and you'll see my post which details that this is entirely consistent with other high profile cases in the NFL.

Note, I am not saying the punishment fit the crime. It does not. Neither did the punishment for the Saints (incredibly overboard and unjustly accused some players of participating). Or for Ben Roethlisberger (zero proof, no probable cause, no charges). Or Goodell's second try at Ray Rice (outside the boundaries of the CBA to punish someone twice). Or Adrian Peterson (again, outside the CBA). So on and so forth. What is the commonality of these cases? The Saints case was right in the middle of the concussion debacle. Big Ben is a high profile player. Ray Rice's TMZ video tape and the backlash against the paltry two game suspension. Peterson's abuse case coming on the heels of the Rice debacle. In short, the commonality is that all of these hit mainstream media.

Essentially, there's two tiers of punishment for Goodell. There's the normal suspensions and fines - the everyday comings and goings in the NFL. Then there's the ones with a lot of media scrutiny and Roger's MO is to go overboard on these to show everyone how tough he is. It makes for a very uneven system of punishment.

While we will never know whether this is true or not, I believe that if the Patriots lost the Super Bowl the punishment would have far less severe. But the "appearance" is that the Patriots cheated their way to a Super Bowl win and thus you have what was handed down yesterday. Remember when the Steelers had that coach that accidentally stepped on to the field and impacted the game. The rumor was that the Steelers were going to fined a draft pick. Only after they failed to make the playoffs was it leaked that there would be no further punishment. Had the Steelers made the playoffs, I would place a bet that they would have lost that draft pick. Why? Because the incident would have had a higher profile.

So the narrative that the NFL has two sets of rules - one for the Patriots and one for everyone else - is laughable. It's simply not the case. There ARE two sets of rules - one for high-profile media cases and one for those that aren't. It's just Roger being Roger.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

consistent with other high profile cases, huh


Sure......



This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime


What's your favorite nfl team, granath?

I've already mentioned that I no longer watch the NFL, in large part due to Goodell's rulings in the NFL. But yes, go back a couple of pages and you'll see my post which details that this is entirely consistent with other high profile cases in the NFL.

Note, I am not saying the punishment fit the crime. It does not. Neither did the punishment for the Saints (incredibly overboard and unjustly accused some players of participating). Or for Ben Roethlisberger (zero proof, no probable cause, no charges). Or Goodell's second try at Ray Rice (outside the boundaries of the CBA to punish someone twice). Or Adrian Peterson (again, outside the CBA). So on and so forth. What is the commonality of these cases? The Saints case was right in the middle of the concussion debacle. Big Ben is a high profile player. Ray Rice's TMZ video tape and the backlash against the paltry two game suspension. Peterson's abuse case coming on the heels of the Rice debacle. In short, the commonality is that all of these hit mainstream media.

Essentially, there's two tiers of punishment for Goodell. There's the normal suspensions and fines - the everyday comings and goings in the NFL. Then there's the ones with a lot of media scrutiny and Roger's MO is to go overboard on these to show everyone how tough he is. It makes for a very uneven system of punishment.

While we will never know whether this is true or not, I believe that if the Patriots lost the Super Bowl the punishment would have far less severe. But the "appearance" is that the Patriots cheated their way to a Super Bowl win and thus you have what was handed down yesterday. Remember when the Steelers had that coach that accidentally stepped on to the field and impacted the game. The rumor was that the Steelers were going to fined a draft pick. Only after they failed to make the playoffs was it leaked that there would be no further punishment. Had the Steelers made the playoffs, I would place a bet that they would have lost that draft pick. Why? Because the incident would have had a higher profile.

So the narrative that the NFL has two sets of rules - one for the Patriots and one for everyone else - is laughable. It's simply not the case. There ARE two sets of rules - one for high-profile media cases and one for those that aren't. It's just Roger being Roger.

So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.

[Evantime34]

My opinion (disclaimer: I'm a huge Pats homer)

All the fines and suspensions the NFL has handed out in the past year are PR moves. The NFL does not really care about the players doing illegal things in any capacity other than the way in which it effects how their brand is viewed.

The NFL was viewed as weak in the discipline department so they needed to make an example of the next offender, to change Goodell's public opinion as lenient.

When the Colts (and potentially the Ravens too) complained of ball deflating, the NFL saw an opportunity to correct the negative view of their integrity among fans.

The NFL commissioned Ted Wells to find the Pats guilty. Even if he wasn't able to prove anything, his job was to make a case for the Patriots cheating. The Patriots didn't comply with all his requests because they knew he was unable to prove anything and thought that without concrete proof that the NFL would not be able to sanction them.

As a Patriots fan i feel that everyone who isn't a Patriots fan is anti patriots. In coming away with the most severe ruling possible on the Patriots, Goodell is able to satisfy the publics cry for blood and distract them from his failings during the Ray Rice incident (The NFL purposely ignored evidence after suspending Sean Peyton the year before because ignorance is not an excuse).

As a Pats fan I feel that the NFL should have to prove what the Pats have done in order to sanction them. More probable than not, as well as ignoring a lot of the science shouldn't be enough imo and I would feel that way if it was any team in the league under the microscope.

Goodell better not make a mistake going forward, since his biggest ally in the league is now one of his biggest enemies.

[Granath]

consistent with other high profile cases, huh


Sure......



This punishment TOTALLY fits the crime


What's your favorite nfl team, granath?

I've already mentioned that I no longer watch the NFL, in large part due to Goodell's rulings in the NFL. But yes, go back a couple of pages and you'll see my post which details that this is entirely consistent with other high profile cases in the NFL.

Note, I am not saying the punishment fit the crime. It does not. Neither did the punishment for the Saints (incredibly overboard and unjustly accused some players of participating). Or for Ben Roethlisberger (zero proof, no probable cause, no charges). Or Goodell's second try at Ray Rice (outside the boundaries of the CBA to punish someone twice). Or Adrian Peterson (again, outside the CBA). So on and so forth. What is the commonality of these cases? The Saints case was right in the middle of the concussion debacle. Big Ben is a high profile player. Ray Rice's TMZ video tape and the backlash against the paltry two game suspension. Peterson's abuse case coming on the heels of the Rice debacle. In short, the commonality is that all of these hit mainstream media.

Essentially, there's two tiers of punishment for Goodell. There's the normal suspensions and fines - the everyday comings and goings in the NFL. Then there's the ones with a lot of media scrutiny and Roger's MO is to go overboard on these to show everyone how tough he is. It makes for a very uneven system of punishment.

While we will never know whether this is true or not, I believe that if the Patriots lost the Super Bowl the punishment would have far less severe. But the "appearance" is that the Patriots cheated their way to a Super Bowl win and thus you have what was handed down yesterday. Remember when the Steelers had that coach that accidentally stepped on to the field and impacted the game. The rumor was that the Steelers were going to fined a draft pick. Only after they failed to make the playoffs was it leaked that there would be no further punishment. Had the Steelers made the playoffs, I would place a bet that they would have lost that draft pick. Why? Because the incident would have had a higher profile.

So the narrative that the NFL has two sets of rules - one for the Patriots and one for everyone else - is laughable. It's simply not the case. There ARE two sets of rules - one for high-profile media cases and one for those that aren't. It's just Roger being Roger.

So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.

Your very question is further evidence for the point I made.

Not to mention there's a big difference between unknowingly breaking a rule and purposely breaking one (and hiding it and lying about it).

[Roy H.]

So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.

I think that there's a difference between ignorance of a rule, and knowing a rule and then taking steps to break it, while hiding it from detection.

The Vikings were heating their footballs up out in the open, where the officials and everyone else could see what they were doing.  They probably had no intent to cheat, and it was a one time thing.

What the Patriots were found to have done is different.  They surreptitiously broke the rules, and then lied about it.  I think it's a different type of violation.

That said, that doesn't mean the penalty is appropriate.  However, I think that intent plays a big role here.

[Donoghus]

Christopher Price has a really good article up on WEEI.com right now.  This part stuck out at me & sorta sums up how I feel about the league office.  The way the league handles things is just so arbitrary & reactionary.  It's a joke.

The league dropped the report last Wednesday, and then it proceeded to stick its finger in the air and test public sentiment. When the national mob cried for blood, the NFL hit the Patriots with the biggest fine in NFL history, and Brady was hit with four games. And when the rubber hit the road, Goodell was nowhere to be found. Vincent was the one who wrote the letter.

[D Dub]

you guys see this website?  LOL

http://yourteamcheats.com/

[D.o.s.]

Granath is making a pretty good point, though. A similar sentiment went up on deadspin a little while ago:

Bob Kraft has stood behind Roger Goodell through everything, even rolled over for hisSpygate punishment. (Kraft reportedly apologized to the league’s coaches and owners for how the Patriots’ actions had affected public perception of the league, which says everything.) But this appears to be the hill he will die on.

Of course Kraft, one of Goodell’s strongest allies, could have smothered this in the crib years ago. Starting from Spygate, Goodell has been allowed to wield disciplinary powers like his big swinging dick, with only the ineffectual NFLPA opposing his arbitrary and publicity-driven punishments. And not one owner has publicly stood up for another. Not when Tom Benson lost coaches, players, money, and draft picks for a ginned up bounty scandal. Not when Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder were docked $46 million in cap space for spending “too much” in a year without a salary cap. Those were apparently acceptable to Kraft—or not worth weakening the commissioner—because they didn’t concern him. (“First they came for the Saints, and I did not speak out...”) Now the chickens are roosting, and they’re here for Tom Brady, and only now does Kraft apparently see a problem with having empowered the commissioner to be judge, jury, and executioner.

http://deadspin.com/the-patriots-war-against-the-nfl-has-spilled-online-1703915895

[kozlodoev]

So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.

I think that there's a difference between ignorance of a rule, and knowing a rule and then taking steps to break it, while hiding it from detection.

The Vikings were heating their footballs up out in the open, where the officials and everyone else could see what they were doing.  They probably had no intent to cheat, and it was a one time thing.

What the Patriots were found to have done is different.  They surreptitiously broke the rules, and then lied about it.  I think it's a different type of violation.

That said, that doesn't mean the penalty is appropriate.  However, I think that intent plays a big role here.

So when the Kansas City Chiefs used a towel laced with a sticky substance and then refused to hand it over to a league official, that's still a different type of violation? Of course, we can't say whether there was the same level of "intent", since there was no investigation determining whether their equipment managers should be thrown out of the game; the team got a $20,000 slap on the wrist, which is suspiciously similar in scale with the $25,000 that the rules prescribe as the baseline for tampering with footballs.

[kozlodoev]

shalise manza youngVerified account
?@shalisemyoung
Wells basically saying he would have taken printouts of pertinent texts b/t Brady & Jastremski; didn't have to take possession of TB phone

Interesting. My guess is that this is related to the fact that Jastremski's phone didn't retain any messages prior to mid-2014 -- otherwise all of Brady's texts would have been seen.

[kraidstar]

So how did the Vikings heating up footballs on the sidelines, on national TV, not become a high-profile case of cheating? Doesn't get more blatant than that.

I think that there's a difference between ignorance of a rule, and knowing a rule and then taking steps to break it, while hiding it from detection.

The Vikings were heating their footballs up out in the open, where the officials and everyone else could see what they were doing.  They probably had no intent to cheat, and it was a one time thing.

What the Patriots were found to have done is different.  They surreptitiously broke the rules, and then lied about it.  I think it's a different type of violation.

That said, that doesn't mean the penalty is appropriate.  However, I think that intent plays a big role here.

So when the Kansas City Chiefs used a towel laced with a sticky substance and then refused to hand it over to a league official, that's still a different type of violation? Of course, we can't say whether there was the same level of "intent", since there was no investigation determining whether their equipment managers should be thrown out of the game; the team got a $20,000 slap on the wrist, which is suspiciously similar in scale with the $25,000 that the rules prescribe as the baseline for tampering with footballs.

this is what i've been saying all along.

the chargers (not the chiefs BTW) refused to hand over the evidence in question. they didn't cooperate. and all they got was a fine. compare that to the patriots, who cooperated during spygate and got a first-rounder taken away, as well as a huge fine, and an evisceration by the media. that's a huge gulf in consistency there.

this time the patriots knew special punishment was coming no matter what they said or did. so why cooperate and potentially make the league's case easier? without those texts, the league had almost nothing.

if the pats had been confident that they'd receive fair punishment, i think their reaction might have been different. but they knew the league would react to the media outrage, and they'd get hammered by a desperate commissioner no matter what.