Brady to be suspended

[TheDouglas78]

I'm not and haven't used that term or argument. My point above (post #89) is that I don't see where they've shown any evidence that the QB had something to do with this. So for them to just come out and WHAM give the QB 4 games is ludicrous.

You didn't say that phrase, but that is the argument you are using. Did they have a text message or electronic message they were told to do it, No. But they do have the gifts from Brady for services rendered, the sudden meeting the qb room once the balls were discovered, after said meeting Brady didn't know who he was to investigators (seems odd), and then all the other incidental stuff since October?

The penality isn't about the balls being deflated, it's the cover-up (ie lying to league officials, which was before Wells got involved). Aaron Rodger's admitted to wanting his balls overinflated, got a don't do it again.

 

[Jand3k]

You didn't say that phrase, but that is the argument you are using. Did they have a text message or electronic message they were told to do it, No. But they do have the gifts from Brady for services rendered, the sudden meeting the qb room once the balls were discovered, after said meeting Brady didn't know who he was to investigators (seems odd), and then all the other incidental stuff since October?

The penality isn't about the balls being deflated, it's the cover-up (ie lying to league officials, which was before Wells got involved). Aaron Rodger's admitted to wanting his balls overinflated, got a don't do it again.

Please don't tell me what I'm saying. When I typed post #89 I intentionally tried to NOT mix a legal term like "burden of proof" w/the point I intended to make because I know there are lawyers on this board. Just because you think that is what I'm trying to say doesn't mean it is.

So again, regardless of having the burden to prove something like in a court, as this doesn't apply because it isn't a court case, it appears the NFL had zero proof and went on mere speculation on their decision to hand out a sever punishment on whoever they felt deserved it. Post #89 alluded the the fact the the NFL showed zero reason to do what they did.

I think that is unfair and hope the players take note of this action and that the Player's Union is successful in Brady's appeal.

 

[GatorJB]

Didn't the team refuse to have the ball boys available for a 2nd interview?

No. They refused to have them available for a 5th interview. Reason is because these guys work other jobs, and these interviews are very time consuming.

Not sure if it was posted but there is a good article on yahoo on how the NFL really screwed the pooch with the investigation and the punishment. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...233900364.html

 

[WobbleGator]

the NFL really screwed the pooch with the investigation and the punishment.

 

[TheDouglas78]

It has everything to do with the integrity of the game. Allowing convicted felons to participate in the game at the highest level makes a complete joke of the NFL. Its nothing more than big business. The "sport" and "integrity" of it died years ago.

So the game isn't played if the players are criminals, or have been criminals. If a convicted felon does his time, isn't he supposed to be given the opportunities afforded to him. If they do their time or are not charged at all, then they have paid their dues to society. Don't we live in a society of people allowed to having second chances after they serve their time.

There is nothing about those crimes that stop the game from being the game. It's not the NFL's job to enforce criminal laws.

 

[TheDouglas78]

Please don't tell me what I'm saying. When I typed post #89 I intentionally tried to NOT mix a legal term like "burden of proof" w/the point I intended to make because I know there are lawyers on this board. Just because you think that is what I'm trying to say doesn't mean it is.

So again, regardless of having the burden to prove something like in a court, as this doesn't apply because it isn't a court case, it appears the NFL had zero proof and went on mere speculation on their decision to hand out a sever punishment on whoever they felt deserved it. Post #89 alluded the the fact the the NFL showed zero reason to do what they did.

I think that is unfair and hope the players take note of this action and that the Player's Union is successful in Brady's appeal.

But you want their to be proof... enough Proof for you. But as we both said earlier their doesn't have to be, this isn't a court case. But you keep wanting it.... you are looking for it.

We are not talking about the legal burden, that is something for people with a higher legal mind can talk about and this isn't a court case.

We are talking about the latin version of burden of proof which the legal definition is based on (ie evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position). You are looking for some proof, hard evidence, which by definition you are making your own assertion of a "Burden of proof" to define to you that they have it.

The NFL does have a reason, if their is any public thought that there was cheating, and there is evidence that it may have happened. To protect the "integrity of the game" there should be consequences.

You have already said that it should be on the organization and not Brady. But if the communication was from Brady to the Field Manager (which is what the testimony says). Why penalize the organization when their is no evidence as you keep saying that it was an organizational control issue.

Your stance in POST #89 is contradictory to the rest of your argument.

 

[T REX]

No. They refused to have them available for a 5th interview. Reason is because these guys work other jobs, and these interviews are very time consuming.

Not sure if it was posted but there is a good article on yahoo on how the NFL really screwed the pooch with the investigation and the punishment. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nfl-sh...233900364.html

The article asks us as readers if we want to connect a millions dots we can...like it is some far fetched conclusion.

Fifth interview is a joke. I still say there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to conclude Brady liked his balls deflated and had them done specially for him.

 

[Jand3k]

But you want their to be proof... enough Proof for you. But as we both said earlier their doesn't have to be, this isn't a court case. But you keep wanting it.... you are looking for it.

We are not talking about the legal burden, that is something for people with a higher legal mind can talk about and this isn't a court case.

We are talking about the latin version of burden of proof which the legal definition is based on (ie evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position). You are looking for some proof, hard evidence, which by definition you are making your own assertion of a "Burden of proof" to define to you that they have it.

The NFL does have a reason, if their is any public thought that there was cheating, and there is evidence that it may have happened. To protect the "integrity of the game" there should be consequences.

You have already said that it should be on the organization and not Brady. But if the communication was from Brady to the Field Manager (which is what the testimony says). Why penalize the organization when their is no evidence as you keep saying that it was an organizational control issue.

Your stance in POST #89 is contradictory to the rest of your argument.

You're trying to argue again counsel as that's what lawyers do I suppose.

but you're way ahead of yourself.

You probably get warned by many a judge don't you?

And you want to speak of image? The NFL may be trying to protect the integrity of the game but by these actions they simply have produced another image problem...one of uber control and knee jerk, reactionary types that the typical jock/fan-middle-american-blue-collar-worker is apt to be annoyed by and scared of. They've already pushed most of that type out of the stadium w/their ticket pricing now they're going to push them off their channel by their policy enforcement as more and more feel dis-associated.

And they've changed/diluted the game to a little more than 3 seconds of "tag" in each play in an attempt to protect the QBs yet have completely thrown Brady and Brees under a bus.

But back on topic, the initial point is that the punishment doesn't fit the offense and is too harsh. That's my opinion. If the NFL wants Jand3K to appreciate their decision then they owe at least a semblance of suspected guilt to be displayed solely by a QB. Without it they are just doing this because they can and I hope the players fight back.

You trying to tell me what I mean and meant to say is typical of your on-line persona but in this your just wrong. Had you just said you disagree with my point then this would be over pages ago. I get the sense that you somehow think you can make me see it your way or that this is somehow a case you're arguing to win.

You can't and you won't.

Post #89 makes sense to me. It appears it doesn't to you...got it. I think you didn't like it when I pointed out you were mixing your analogies (apples vs oranges) and you tried to use my post #89 to show that I was also doing that. That's where you messed up, because you're wrong, and you've been trying to shape your argument around that the whole time since.

It's ok, you like to argue. I understand.

 

[TheDouglas78]

You're trying to argue again counsel as that's what lawyers do I suppose.

but you're way ahead of yourself.

You probably get warned by many a judge don't you?

What the **** are you talking about... having issues keeping your argument straight...

And you want to speak of image? The NFL may be trying to protect the integrity of the game but by these actions they simply have produced another image problem...one of uber control and knee jerk, reactionary types that the typical jock/fan-middle-american-blue-collar-worker is apt to be annoyed by and scared of. They've already pushed most of that type out of the stadium w/their ticket pricing now they're going to push them off their channel by their policy enforcement as more and more feel dis-associated.

And they've changed/diluted the game to a little more than 3 seconds of "tag" in each play in an attempt to protect the QBs yet have completely thrown Brady and Brees under a bus.

How exactly have they thrown two of their most profitable players under the bus... I don't believe Brees has been suspended for anything?

But back on topic, the initial point is that the punishment doesn't fit the offense and is too harsh. That's my opinion. If the NFL wants Jand3K to appreciate their decision then they owe at least a semblance of suspected guilt to be displayed solely by a QB. Without it they are just doing this because they can and I hope the players fight back.

I believe the player and owner in question have been fighting back since super bowl week, do you not remember the Bob Kraft press conference.

You trying to tell me what I mean and meant to say is typical of your on-line persona but in this your just wrong. Had you just said you disagree with my point then this would be over pages ago. I get the sense that you somehow think you can make me see it your way or that this is somehow a case you're arguing to win.

Being that you are being inconsistent in your argument, it appears I have to interpret. You are ok, with circumstantial evidence against a team, but not a player.

You can't and you won't.

Don't care, what your opinion is.

Post #89 makes sense to me. It appears it doesn't to you...got it. I think you didn't like it when I pointed out you were mixing your analogies (apples vs oranges) and you tried to use my post #89 to show that I was also doing that. That's where you messed up, because you're wrong, and you've been trying to shape your argument around that the whole time since.

I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong, but yet you are inconsistent and contradict your own argument. It's ok, to cheat and have testimony and circumstantial evidence that you were a part of it, and that you lied about it. That's ok to you. contradiction.

It's ok, you like to argue. I understand.

And obviously you do too

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Is this squabble over 1 psi on a ball, or am I in the wrong thread?

For a while there I thought we were debating someone who shot two guys in the face in Gainesville, one guy in the face in South Florida, killed two guys outside a bar in Mass, and then killed another dude in Conn.... and is linked to murders in HS.

 

[lagator]

Is this squabble over 1 psi on a ball, or am I in the wrong thread?

For a while there I thought we were debating someone who shot two guys in the face in Gainesville, one guy in the face in South Florida, killed two guys outside a bar in Mass, and then killed another dude in Conn.... and is linked to murders in HS.

So are they really that different? One likes to deflate footballs, the other eyeballs.

 

[Swamp Donkey]

Good point.

 

[Jand3k]

And obviously you do too

Do not.

 

[Jand3k]

What the **** are you talking about... having issues keeping your argument straight...

How exactly have they thrown two of their most profitable players under the bus... I don't believe Brees has been suspended for anything? [not this year]

Being that you are being inconsistent in your argument, it appears I have to interpret. You are ok, with circumstantial evidence against a team, but not a player.

I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong, but yet you are inconsistent and contradict your own argument. It's ok, to cheat and have testimony and circumstantial evidence that you were a part of it, and that you lied about it. That's ok to you. contradiction.

What year of school do they teach lawyers to throw the bolded above into an argument they're losing?

 

[TheDouglas78]

What year of school do they teach lawyers to throw the bolded above into an argument they're losing?

So instead of addressing the argument, you address your circular logic.

 

[Jand3k]

You sure about that counselor?

And when did this become an argument?

I actually value you as a Gatorchatter member and your opinion on most topics that you're not wrong in...like this one. :wink:

 

[Jand3k]

See y'all in the a.m.

 

[oxrageous]

I think Brady probably had the footballs deflated 1 or 2 PSI to get a better grip. The question is, who the eff cares? It's an 80 year old rule that should have been revisited decades ago. Instead, they decided to protect the kicking balls but not the throwing balls. Why? Because it isn't a big deal and isn't a significant advantage, that's why. I think it's likely every other QB in the NFL probably does the same damn thing.

The NFL could have privately dealt with the situation and instead voluntarily paid a ton of money for an embarrassing public investigation. It's like they are deliberately trying to tarnish their own image. Heads need to roll in the NFL offices.

 

[deuce]

I think Brady probably had the footballs deflated 1 or 2 PSI to get a better grip. The question is, who the eff cares? It's an 80 year old rule that should have been revisited decades ago. Instead, they decided to protect the kicking balls but not the throwing balls. Why? Because it isn't a big deal and isn't a significant advantage, that's why. I think it's likely every other QB in the NFL probably does the same damn thing.

The NFL could have privately dealt with the situation and instead voluntarily paid a ton of money for an embarrassing public investigation. It's like they are deliberately trying to tarnish their own image. Heads need to roll in the NFL offices.

Agree in principle.......


It's a useless rule and if broken should be a 15 yard penalty.... That's all.....

As far as Brady not taking part in the
'"Witch Hunt", there is nothing in the CBA that forces him to turn over his phone records or emails....

I think the PA has plenty of Ammo if Brady wants to pursue damages against the NFL... But, I think Brady will just go along with the Parade.

I predict the Pats will win 3 out of the 4 games Brady sits........ Why? Because they have the best Cheater (Coach) in the game!

 

[MidwestChomp]

Wells response to the questioning of his report.

Link went to the cbs sport home page. Think this is it.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...o-personal-attacks-defends-deflategate-report