And you know that for a fact how?
You're saying that if the league decided the Wells report was bogus, or if they decided they didn't want to punish the team, or Brady, they couldn't because they had to go along with the Wells report?
Deflate-Gate
- Thread starter StillShaving
- Start date
And you know that for a fact how?
You're saying that if the league decided the Wells report was bogus, or if they decided they didn't want to punish the team, or Brady, they couldn't because they had to go along with the Wells report?
Nope.
Then what does this mean?
The NFL might as well come out and make it official and say the rules apply to all BUT the Patriots. Is anyone going to be surprised when this happens again? This time they got what a fine and a 4 game suspension? Sounds like a hell of a deal to me!
Well, I don't know if Tom orchestrated this whole ball deflation thing, but destroying the phone doesn't seem imply innocence.
Pish posh. Everyone does that. Everyone!
Saw this on another forum 
- Thread starter
- #408
Guilty.
Get the asterisk ready!
He should be suspended for a whole year. He would have been banned if this happened in college
Interesting. The last time there was a lot of activity on this story, which I think is when Goodell first handed down the four-game suspension, the consensus seemed to be that Goodell would compromise by reducing the suspension on appeal rather than risk being reversed by a federal judge, like he was (or I guess, the "independent arbitrator" was) in the Adrian Peterson case. Now, the prevailing wisdom seems to be that Goodell is on solid ground, even if Brady challenges the decision in court. Curious to see how that plays out.
I read somewhere that the NFL has preemptively filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York to have Goodell's decision declared valid. I think the point of this maneuver is to prevent Brady's lawyers from filing their suit in federal court in Minnesota (where the judge who overturned the Peterson suspension presides) or, worse yet, in Massachusetts.
As a neutral fan, I'm skeptical that some underinflated footballs gave Brady a big competitive advantage. I just don't think it was THAT big a deal to begin with. But Brady and to some extent the Pats shot themselves in the foot by stonewalling the Wells investigation. In hindsight, had Brady come clean rather than refusing to cooperate, destroying the cellphone, etc. (who knows what was on that phone, but there's no good way to explain it away now), he would probably not be sitting on the sidelines for the first month of the season. And I have a heck of a lot of respect for him as a competitor, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that he's permanently tarnished his legacy.
I read somewhere that the NFL has preemptively filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York to have Goodell's decision declared valid. I think the point of this maneuver is to prevent Brady's lawyers from filing their suit in federal court in Minnesota (where the judge who overturned the Peterson suspension presides) or, worse yet, in Massachusetts.
As a neutral fan, I'm skeptical that some underinflated footballs gave Brady a big competitive advantage. I just don't think it was THAT big a deal to begin with. But Brady and to some extent the Pats shot themselves in the foot by stonewalling the Wells investigation. In hindsight, had Brady come clean rather than refusing to cooperate, destroying the cellphone, etc. (who knows what was on that phone, but there's no good way to explain it away now), he would probably not be sitting on the sidelines for the first month of the season. And I have a heck of a lot of respect for him as a competitor, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that he's permanently tarnished his legacy.
I love Tom Brady, but he went so wrong on this whole thing. I would fire all of his lawyers because the way the Pats went about this was all wrong, and you know they didnt do anything without the lawyers OKing everything. If they just admitted to the equipment violation in the first place, this would have gone away in a week and there would be some dumb *** 50k fine or something. Being in New England, all i hear about is this crap 24/7.
That being said, 4 games for some footballs losing air is insane. Especially when the ravens were pumping game noise into their stadium for years lmao. That is where i lose it on this whole thing. Talk about integrity.
That being said, 4 games for some footballs losing air is insane. Especially when the ravens were pumping game noise into their stadium for years lmao. That is where i lose it on this whole thing. Talk about integrity.
I just read that Gisele was getting an, ahem, enhancement. I suppose they're trying to keep family's aggregate inflation level a constant.
Try finding that line on Kimmel.
Try finding that line on Kimmel.
If that's true, it's a shame. That woman doesn't need any alterations.
I just hope the Pats equipment guys aren't in charge of it.
Amen!!
garyg
B&B membership has its percs
Funny stuff that makes up "news" these days. Wonder how the lawyers for Brady can argue for an injunction - "Irreparable harm" if a sports team doesn't have it's regular QB, even if he is forced to play with hard balls? Or can they run up some fees arguing he's PSI disabled, and deserves an accommodation under ADA?
Look Tom Brady is just going to take a 1 month vacation with a super model wife next to him. How is he being punished?
I feel bad for the ball boys. They all got fired and have no other jobs. No one is backing them up. They were just following orders.
I feel bad for the ball boys. They all got fired and have no other jobs. No one is backing them up. They were just following orders.
Guilty.
Of what?
Of destruction of evidence that was directed for an investigation. Brady could have said no to the request but preserved the cell phone. But destroying the cell phone raises the presumption that something there was against his interests. From uslegal:
If a person negligently or intentionally withholds or destroys relevant information that will be required in an action is liable for spoliation of evidence.When a crucial document is lost by spoliation, the courts may try to infer the original information by applying spoliation inference rule. Spoliation inference rule is a negative evidentiary inference. When applying the rule, courts will review the altered document with inference against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party. The theory behind spoliation inference is that when a party has destroyed evidence, it shows that the party had consciousness of guilt or other reasons to avoid evidence. Hence, the court will conclude that the evidence was not in spoliators favor.- See more at: http://civilprocedure.uslegal.com/discovery/spoliation-of-evidence/#sthash.6pk7GGAR.dpuf
Last edited:
Similar threads
