#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[cometboy]

Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:

Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs?  This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.

correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.

CB

Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.

he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?

CB

edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"

He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to. 

Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have.  He could have avoided this whole thing.

Moranis -

I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.

As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.

CB

In hindsight, the Patriots could have handled it better, but let's not forget that they were working off lies told by the NFL.

My one, big regret is Kraft's strong stance when the story first broke, demanding an apology from the league. I think it just hardened Goodell's position and lessened any chance for a reasonable settlement. As bad as Brady's punishment is, the Pat's is really a joke. I know they are responsible for their employees, but the league's position appears to be Brady in cahoots with the equipment guys. Seems like you either go after the the team and the two lacky's, or Brady and the two lacky's, but not both to such an extreme. The general consensus seems to be the punishment is out of line compared to previous, similar cases, even if guilty. While Goodell was having dinner with Kraft, I believe the hypocrite was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this. He keeps trying to make up for all his poor decisions by making even poorer ones, trying to save face and his job.

CB

[colincb]

Added observation:

The story about Brady not recalling any discussion with the equipment guys post AFC championship game other than the future issue of ball preparation  for the SB was a flat out lie by the NFL. Made Brady look disingenuous, turns out it was more blatant spin. He readily admitted he talked to them about Deflategate, says they told him they did nothing, and he reassured them.  What else would people expect an innocent guy to do in those circumstances? Could be a flat out lie by Brady. Definitely a flat out lie by Goodell.


These two attorneys have followed the case closely and the transcripts:
https://twitter.com/StephStradley
https://twitter.com/McCannSportsLaw

[BudweiserCeltic]

Whether you believe Brady is lying or not, what the NFL is doing is complete crap.

This is a good read for those who don't want to read the full transcript, particularly about how the PSI rules aren't handed to Players:
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/8/5/9099339/deflategate-highlights-and-summary-of-the-tom-brady-appeal-transcript

[D.o.s.]

\ While Goodell was having dinner with Kraft, I believe the hypocrite was just waiting for an opportunity to do something like this. He keeps trying to make up for all his poor decisions by making even poorer ones, trying to save face and his job.

CB

Is this in reference to Kraft or TGH?

[D.o.s.]

Whether you believe Brady is lying or not, what the NFL is doing is complete crap.

This is a good read for those who don't want to read the full transcript, particularly about how the PSI rules aren't handed to Players:
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/8/5/9099339/deflategate-highlights-and-summary-of-the-tom-brady-appeal-transcript

I am sure that PatsPulpit will provide an even-keeled look at the preceedings. 

[Roy H.]

"Close to 10,000 texts, but three are missing? From Tom Brady to Jastremski, okay. And these guys are the ones that handle the footballs," said a fired up Tanguay. "You can't tell me that those texts were not eliminated for the purpose of not being discovered."

What is Tanguay referring to here? I really need to read the transcripts.

[Moranis]

Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:

Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs?  This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.

correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.

CB

Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.

he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?

CB

edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"

He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to. 

Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have.  He could have avoided this whole thing.

Moranis -

I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.

As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.

CB

I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide.  Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it.  It isn't a double standard at all.  Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.

[Donoghus]

"Close to 10,000 texts, but three are missing? From Tom Brady to Jastremski, okay. And these guys are the ones that handle the footballs," said a fired up Tanguay. "You can't tell me that those texts were not eliminated for the purpose of not being discovered."

What is Tanguay referring to here? I really need to read the transcripts.

Tanguay as in Gary Tanguay?  The raving lunatic?

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

From where I sit, nothing's changed:

• Yes, Brady, Kraft, & Co. could've handled things better

• But ultimately this was a botched PR move by Goodell to make himself look better

• And this is all over a rule that is arbitrary and virtually pointless

[BudweiserCeltic]

Whether you believe Brady is lying or not, what the NFL is doing is complete crap.

This is a good read for those who don't want to read the full transcript, particularly about how the PSI rules aren't handed to Players:
http://www.patspulpit.com/2015/8/5/9099339/deflategate-highlights-and-summary-of-the-tom-brady-appeal-transcript

I am sure that PatsPulpit will provide an even-keeled look at the preceedings. 

Didn't notice the website source was on my phone, but even then all they're doing is providing snips from the transcript (colored with their opinion of course).

But yeah, agreed.

[D.o.s.]

Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:

Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs?  This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.

correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.

CB

Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.

he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?

CB

edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"

He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to. 

Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have.  He could have avoided this whole thing.

Moranis -

I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.

As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.

CB

I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide.  Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it.  It isn't a double standard at all.  Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.

When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.

The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.

[D.o.s.]

From where I sit, nothing's changed:

• Yes, Brady, Kraft, & Co. could've handled things better

• But ultimately this was a botched PR move by Goodell to make himself look better

• And this is all over a rule that is arbitrary and virtually pointless

Um all rules are abritrary and virtually pointless. Why is a touchdown worth 6 points and not 2 or 50 or a million? Because reasons.

[Moranis]

Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:

Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs?  This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.

correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.

CB

Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.

he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?

CB

edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"

He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to. 

Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have.  He could have avoided this whole thing.

Moranis -

I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.

As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.

CB

I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide.  Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it.  It isn't a double standard at all.  Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.

When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.

The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.

Are transcripts of a text message personal belongings?  Because that is what Wells requested.  He didn't ask for the phone, just the transcript of the relevant text messages.  Even would have let Brady's attorney determine what is relevant. 

I get why the NFLPA would have an issue with it, and if that is why Brady didn't turn them over he should have just said it or made the NFLPA fall on the sword. 

[BudweiserCeltic]

Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:

Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs?  This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.

correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.

CB

Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.

he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?

CB

edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"

He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to. 

Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have.  He could have avoided this whole thing.

Moranis -

I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.

As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.

CB

I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide.  Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it.  It isn't a double standard at all.  Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.

When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.

The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.

Are transcripts of a text message personal belongings?  Because that is what Wells requested.  He didn't ask for the phone, just the transcript of the relevant text messages.  Even would have let Brady's attorney determine what is relevant. 

I get why the NFLPA would have an issue with it, and if that is why Brady didn't turn them over he should have just said it or made the NFLPA fall on the sword. 

Umm... yes of course that's personal belongings...

Not sure why anyone would consider them not to be.

[D.o.s.]

Here's a snippet from the summary of Brady's testimony:

Wasn't it Brady -- along with Manning -- that lobbied the league to allow QBs to break in footballs?  This is the most important tool in his craft; I just flat out don't believe that he had no idea about ball pressure for the first dozen years of his career.

correct - this is also one of the circumstantial pieces of evidence against him that leads the NFL to believe he is guilty in the absence of any reliable hard evidence - i must admit it's all pretty fishy, but the NFL just does't have a strong enough evidential case to drop the hammer on Brady and the Pats.

CB

Right because Brady wouldn't give it to them.

he was under no legal or contractual obligation to provide anything else - the league conclusions may be right, but they are over reaching due to the lack of evidence and just plain shoddy/sloppy investigating. Why do you think Goodell didn't appoint a true independent arbitrator?

CB

edit: replace "true independent arbitrator" with "impartial arbitrator"

He didn't appoint one because he isn't required to. 

Here is the thing, even if Brady didn't have to turn the texts and emails over if they didn't show anything, he should have.  He could have avoided this whole thing.

Moranis -

I'm sympathetic and largely agree with your position. Both the Pats and Brady could have handled this much, much better, especially if they are innocent, just as the league could have. However, it's my understanding the league was provided all team cells or cell records. If there was anything that incriminated Brady within the team (minus other players), it would have showed up there. It's difficult for me to believe there was nothing in those records, but Brady was sloppy enough to incriminate himself with other players, friends, or family. That's just not credible, IMO.

As far as your first point goes, why the double standard? Why is ok to dismiss the commissioners flawed decision to appoint himself as an "impartial" arbitrator to rule on his own decision because he not required to do anything else, but not ok to dismiss Brady's actions to not provide information he is not required to provide, which IMO probably doesn't offer anything new? However, one-liners like "Brady destroys cell phone" do provide the league with great soundbites to help sway public opinion.

CB

I'm not saying there is a double standard, I'm saying that Brady appeared less than truthful at times in his testimony and when coupled with his refusal to provide transcripts of text messages, makes it seem like he has something to hide.  Gives the impression to the league there is something there, which easily could have been refuted by providing the information to refute it.  It isn't a double standard at all.  Just because you don't have to do something, doesn't mean you shouldn't.

When what you do has direct impact on what other players in your union might have to do in the future, this is a little less cut-and-dry.

The NFLPA absolutely does not want a situation where the players are compelled to give their personal belongings to the league when they don't have to. I imagine you'd feel similarly about your current employer asking for the same thing, regardless of whether you were or were not doing anything wrong.

Are transcripts of a text message personal belongings?  Because that is what Wells requested.  He didn't ask for the phone, just the transcript of the relevant text messages.  Even would have let Brady's attorney determine what is relevant. 

I get why the NFLPA would have an issue with it, and if that is why Brady didn't turn them over he should have just said it or made the NFLPA fall on the sword.

He did say it, in so many words. I even quoted it a couple pages back:

Reading through the transcript now. Here's one relevant bit:

Now, did there come a time after February 28th, so now we are well past the Super Bowl, when you learned from your lawyers or your agents that there had been some request made for e-mails and texts that you might have?"

"Yes."

"Okay. Now, we know that those were — nothing was turned over or the request was not responded to. How did you make the decision about that? What were you relying upon? How did you decide that?"

"Well, I was relying on their advice as my lawyers and what they basically said, There’s been a request, but we don’t think it’s proper for you to turn your phone over, so you don’t need to do that."

If anyone wants to take their own crack at it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/273547523/Tom-Brady-Appeal-Hearing

Also there is a sick burn (relatively speaking) that starts on page 25 . I enjoyed it.