#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[knuckleballer]

I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense. 

Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.

Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.

  The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.

You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it.  That would be responsible and rational.

  His lawyer would have told him from day one that he didn't need to hand over his phone. They wouldn't have just decided that the week of his interview.

So then why didn't he just get rid of the phone on day one? 

And when did the NFLPA get involved who was very vocal about not handing over the phone?

[Vermont Green]

  Good info.

  So I'm guessing you'd probably agree with my claim that the keystone kops weren't able to show whether the balls were doctored or not?

  I can only imagine what my chem 101 professor would have said if I'd turned in a lab that was done that sloppily.

I don't agree.  If the balls were doctored in a manner that actually resulted in air being removed from them, you would have been able to tell.  If it was something in the range of 1 psi, you could measure that.  Maybe not the NFL I guess.  The only case where you would not be able to would be if the amount of air released was very small.

So yes, you could argue that "see you can't prove they didn't release a tiny amount of air from the balls", an amount that is so small that a simplistic instrument couldn't detect it but it would help Tom throw the ball better.

And I also remember a lot of talk (mostly Felger and Mazz I think) that the whole point of letting the air out of the balls was because of fumbles and that it was going to be a big story when the Pats start fumbling more now that their evil ball doctoring plot has been exposed.  Of course this whole theory would exonerate Brady because if it was about fumbles and not the QB's grip, he would have nothing to do with it.

The reason that the NFL botched this whole thing so much is that they got intoxicated by the thought that they finally had caught the Pats and I guess Tom Brady (though Lord only knows why they would have it in for Brady) that they didn't wait until they were actually sure about the evidence before they let it out.  They have been desperately covering their tracks ever since.

[colincb]

I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense. 

Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.

Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.

  The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.

You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it.  That would be responsible and rational.

  His lawyer would have told him from day one that he didn't need to hand over his phone. They wouldn't have just decided that the week of his interview.

So then why didn't he just get rid of the phone on day one? 

And when did the NFLPA get involved who was very vocal about not handing over the phone?

Reading the briefs, it's pretty clear that lawyers told him not to give his phone over. It would have established a precedent according to the briefs and you can assume they're not going to lie about something that could easily disproved. The union is actively involved in this case and likely has been from the start. They want to reign in the arbitrary governance of this commissioner. It doesn't matter if Brady kept the phone or not. It wasn't going to get to the NFL and the NFL knew it. Not day 1. Not day 10,000.

It's all NFL spin.

[Fan from VT]

  Good info.

  So I'm guessing you'd probably agree with my claim that the keystone kops weren't able to show whether the balls were doctored or not?

  I can only imagine what my chem 101 professor would have said if I'd turned in a lab that was done that sloppily.

I don't agree.  If the balls were doctored in a manner that actually resulted in air being removed from them, you would have been able to tell.  If it was something in the range of 1 psi, you could measure that.  Maybe not the NFL I guess.  The only case where you would not be able to would be if the amount of air released was very small.

So yes, you could argue that "see you can't prove they didn't release a tiny amount of air from the balls", an amount that is so small that a simplistic instrument couldn't detect it but it would help Tom throw the ball better.

And I also remember a lot of talk (mostly Felger and Mazz I think) that the whole point of letting the air out of the balls was because of fumbles and that it was going to be a big story when the Pats start fumbling more now that their evil ball doctoring plot has been exposed.  Of course this whole theory would exonerate Brady because if it was about fumbles and not the QB's grip, he would have nothing to do with it.

The reason that the NFL botched this whole thing so much is that they got intoxicated by the thought that they finally had caught the Pats and I guess Tom Brady (though Lord only knows why they would have it in for Brady) that they didn't wait until they were actually sure about the evidence before they let it out.  They have been desperately covering their tracks ever since.

This part didnt fit for me either, until i was recently reminded that Mike Kensil was likely the 11/12 and 2 psi leak as well as the one overseeing the inflation check, instructing the refs to check, and spearheading the drive to investigate.

http://heavy.com/sports/2015/07/mike-kensil-nfl-deflategate-football-new-england-patriots-tom-brady-roger-goodell/

[colincb]

I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.

Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.

My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.

  I started to read some of it, but I'm buried right now. Please do a short summary if you can.

BTW, the bolded section above hits one of the four arguments that Kessler is using in last Friday's filing. You can't create a violation after the fact.

[cometboy]

I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.

Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.

My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.

  I started to read some of it, but I'm buried right now. Please do a short summary if you can.

BTW, the bolded section above hits one of the four arguments that Kessler is using in last Friday's filing. You can't create a violation after the fact.

Aside for Evantime34:

Sorry buddy, I read your comment above and said whoa, isn't that Jets theory what I just proposed before. I went back and saw you made almost the same comment as me, but 20 minutes earlier than me! Thought I read the whole thread, but must have run out of gas before reading your comment. Sorry, wasn't trying to ride your coattails.

Guess great minds DO think alike! haha

CB

[colincb]

https://twitter.com/BillSimmons

Simmons is hammering away.

[Evantime34]

I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.

Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.

My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.

  I started to read some of it, but I'm buried right now. Please do a short summary if you can.

BTW, the bolded section above hits one of the four arguments that Kessler is using in last Friday's filing. You can't create a violation after the fact.

Aside for Evantime34:

Sorry buddy, I read your comment above and said whoa, isn't that Jets theory what I just proposed before. I went back and saw you made almost the same comment as me, but 20 minutes earlier than me! Thought I read the whole thread, but must have run out of gas before reading your comment. Sorry, wasn't trying to ride your coattails.

Guess great minds DO think alike! haha

CB

TP! that we came of it independently makes it more of plausible theory in my mind.

[BballTim]

  Good info.

  So I'm guessing you'd probably agree with my claim that the keystone kops weren't able to show whether the balls were doctored or not?

  I can only imagine what my chem 101 professor would have said if I'd turned in a lab that was done that sloppily.

I don't agree.  If the balls were doctored in a manner that actually resulted in air being removed from them, you would have been able to tell.  If it was something in the range of 1 psi, you could measure that.  Maybe not the NFL I guess.  The only case where you would not be able to would be if the amount of air released was very small.

So yes, you could argue that "see you can't prove they didn't release a tiny amount of air from the balls", an amount that is so small that a simplistic instrument couldn't detect it but it would help Tom throw the ball better.

  I wasn't really asking whether I could detect it or you could detect it, more whether they could definitively detect it with the error-prone methodology they employed.

And I also remember a lot of talk (mostly Felger and Mazz I think) that the whole point of letting the air out of the balls was because of fumbles and that it was going to be a big story when the Pats start fumbling more now that their evil ball doctoring plot has been exposed.  Of course this whole theory would exonerate Brady because if it was about fumbles and not the QB's grip, he would have nothing to do with it.

  I think the fumbles would be a by-product of using a less inflated ball.

[colincb]

http://nesn.com/2015/08/roger-goodell-falsely-made-tom-brady-seem-dishonest-in-appeal-decision/

Maybe Roger Goodell should have read through the transcripts of Tom Brady’s suspension appeal a little closer before the commissioner submitted his decision.

Goodell states in his appeal decision “In response to the question, ‘Why were you talking to Mr. (John) Jastremski in those two weeks?,’ Mr. Brady responsed, in sum: ‘I think most of the conversations centered around breaking in the balls.'”

Goodell also wrote: “The sharp contrast between the almost complete absence of communications through the AFC Championship Game and the extraordinary volume of communications during the three days following the AFC Championship Game undermines the suggestion that the communications addressed only preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than the tampering allegations and their anticipated responses to inquiries about the tampering.”

Goodell is implying that Brady lied about why he and Jastremski communicated so frequently after the AFC Championship Game.

Brady readily admitted, multiple times, however, in his appeal to Goodell that he and Jastremski could have been discussing the Deflategate allegations against the Patriots and not only football preparation for the Super Bowl.

As demonstrated amply in the transcripts that follow in the article. IOW more NFL spin.

[Donoghus]

I think the fumbles would be a by-product of using a less inflated ball.

The opposite. Less inflation gives you a better grip.

[cometboy]

I'm reading the transcript of the appeal hearing now (regardless of whether you believed Brady did it or not) the suspension is too harsh. It has little basis when compared to previous cases in the NFL and does not go along with the CBA. The closest comparable violations in the CBA are punished by suspending the ball boy (without punishment to the player) or fining the player, a suspension for this is ridiculous.

Goodell can not be allowed to make up punishment as he goes along with a disregard for consistency and fairness when it comes to judging players. Past impartial arbiters in cases said as much, which is why Goodell heard the appeal himself.

My theory is that after the Jets game, Brady really laid into the ball boy. Saying something to the effect of if I ever find the balls not how I like them again (after oking them during pregame) I'll make sure you are fired. The ball boy then felt that the balls were not right due to temperature change before the game and was scared to the point that he tried to fix the situation.

  I started to read some of it, but I'm buried right now. Please do a short summary if you can.

BTW, the bolded section above hits one of the four arguments that Kessler is using in last Friday's filing. You can't create a violation after the fact.

Aside for Evantime34:

Sorry buddy, I read your comment above and said whoa, isn't that Jets theory what I just proposed before. I went back and saw you made almost the same comment as me, but 20 minutes earlier than me! Thought I read the whole thread, but must have run out of gas before reading your comment. Sorry, wasn't trying to ride your coattails.

Guess great minds DO think alike! haha

CB

TP! that we came of it independently makes it more of plausible theory in my mind.

hah - TP right back at ya

CB

[BudweiserCeltic]

I think the fumbles would be a by-product of using a less inflated ball.

The opposite. Less inflation gives you a better grip.

And less bounce off pads.

[BballTim]

I think Brady's explanation for why he had the phone destroyed makes perfect sense. 

Of course, if his attorney had fed him that answer beforehand, it would make perfect sense.

Still, it rings of truth to me regardless.

  The timing's a little fishy, as is the (supposed) fact that he never had the phone he used before that one destroyed.

You could also say he waited until his lawyers told him he did not need to hand over his phone before he replaced it.  That would be responsible and rational.

  His lawyer would have told him from day one that he didn't need to hand over his phone. They wouldn't have just decided that the week of his interview.

So then why didn't he just get rid of the phone on day one? 

And when did the NFLPA get involved who was very vocal about not handing over the phone?

  This conversation's starting to take on a "who's on first" quality.

[colincb]

BTW, one item being reported is Brady's testimony was made under oath.