Sports: Deflate-Gate

[GAN]

Hey, I only came on here to see why an old dead thread was resurrected, but I can't stand bad intel being perpetuated! LOL!

Id call it more like ....un-intel

 

[kimmar067]

It doesn't really matter. In the end, the Patriots will be in the playoffs again with Brady as their QB. What happens in this case, or the first 4-games is of no consequence. Now, let's figure out why Peyton Manning thinks it's alright to sexually assault women.....

...I think some guy named Ben told him it was okay....

 

[GAN]

...I think some guy named Ben told him it was okay....

Ooohhhhh.....

 

[kimmar067]

 

[robinb]

*snicker*

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/04/25/report-tom-bradys-suspension-reinstated-by-second-circuit/

 

[TAX GUY]

Meh...... Just serve it, be done with it and finally move on. Opinions won't change either way. Those that hate him will and those that don't, won't.

 

[wvjules]

Agreed ^

 

[Oreo Cookie]

Here's a link to the ruling;

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/nfl_ca2_20160425.pdf

 

[GrnMtnMan]

Meh...... Just serve it, be done with it and finally move on. Opinions won't change either way. Those that hate him will and those that don't, won't.

This is going to go on until an appellate court declines to hear an appeal. The NFL does not want the commissioner to lose some broad powers to discipline players, and the players want the commish's power limited. Its pretty much that simple at this point, and has nothing to do with McNally's actions and how involved TB was in those actions.

 

[asta]

I could be wrong but isn't this ruling and last year's ruling by Berman really just a labor ruling about the ability to impose a penalty. And whether the penalty was too severe. Nothing in either of these rulings addresses the judgement that Brady cheated.

 

[wvjules]

Yes, this is just a judgment saying that the NFL does have the power to impose punishments. Nothing at all about guilt or innocence.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

I've just read today's decision.

I could be wrong but isn't this ruling and last year's ruling by Berman really just a labor ruling about the ability to impose a penalty.

Sort-of. The appeals aren't about the *ability* to impose a penalty. The CBA has many specified penalties. They're about whether or not the commissioner had the authority for this type of infraction, if he properly classified the infraction, and if he used his authority fairly, among other issues.

Nothing in either of these rulings addresses the judgement that Brady cheated.

Right, though both the first appeal and this one specifically mention taking the findings of the Wells report as settled facts.

 

[disney4us2002]

The actual legal language of the decision doesn't address whether the judges believed TB was involved or not, but their statements following the arguments in March definitely give an opinion....

At oral arguments in March, appeals judges seemed skeptical of arguments on Brady's behalf by the NFL Players Association.

Circuit Judge Denny Chin said evidence of ball tampering was "compelling, if not overwhelming" and there was evidence that Brady "knew about it, consented to it, encouraged it."

The league argued that it was fair for Goodell to severely penalize Brady after he concluded the prize quarterback tarnished the game by impeding the NFL's investigation by destroying a cellphone containing nearly 10,000 messages.

(Circuit Judge Barrington) Parker said the cellphone destruction raised the stakes "from air in a football to compromising the integrity of a proceeding that the commissioner had convened."

 

[maxiesmom]

I could be wrong but isn't this ruling and last year's ruling by Berman really just a labor ruling about the ability to impose a penalty. And whether the penalty was too severe. Nothing in either of these rulings addresses the judgement that Brady cheated.

Well they really didn't decide he cheated. They decided it was more likely than not likely, which is not a ringing endorsement for either side. Sooo, they kind of think he cheated, so they decided to punish him. Other teams should be fearful for the precedent this sets.

 

[disney4us2002]

Funny, I think the precedent is, if you are under investigation, do not destroy evidence. But then, I thought that was a given in any investigation.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

Well they really didn't decide he cheated. They decided it was more likely than not likely, which is not a ringing endorsement for either side. Sooo, they kind of think he cheated, so they decided to punish him.

That's not really the right way to look at this. There aren't different stages of 'guilt' the investigator could have declared. Once 'more likely than not' is established, you're done. You don't get to declare he's 'guilty' to an even higher (undefined) threshold. I put it this way last year:

You're putting too much emphasis on some sort-of meaningless words.

In the context of this investigation the words "more probable is than not" is equal to "guilty''. This is the standard of proof the players agreed to in their collective bargaining agreement. The investigator couldn't choose to call Tom 'guilty', 'super-guilty', or 'super-guilty-with-a-cherry-on top'. The investigation was charged with finding out if the allegations were deemed to be true based on the 'preponderance of the evidence'. The investigator found enough evidence to declare that the allegations were true, based on this standard. Diminishing this finding because the words used are not sensational is pointless.

 

[maxiesmom]

I think they should all be worried if the standard is to hand over your phone the minute they assume you've done something wrong. I'm sure most of the have things on them they wouldn't like made public.

 

[mom2rtk]

I think they should all be worried if the standard is to hand over your phone the minute they assume you've done something wrong. I'm sure most of the have things on them they wouldn't like made public.

So it's ok to destroy evidence then?

 

[GrnMtnMan]

I think they should all be worried if the standard is to hand over your phone the minute they assume you've done something wrong. I'm sure most of the have things on them they wouldn't like made public.

In my workplace, my employer can see all my emails and IMs on employer maintained/provided systems. That's pretty normal. Using non-company systems to discuss work related matters would be a violation of my workplace's code of conduct. That would be grounds for many punishments, including being fired.

These were certainly workplace discussions for TB, McNally, and Jastremski. TB circumventing the Pats' corporate communication systems to have a discussion is intrinsically suspect.

 

[TAX GUY]

In my workplace, my employer can see all my emails and IMs on employer maintained/provided systems. That's pretty normal. Using non-company systems to discuss work related matters would be a violation of my workplace's code of conduct. That would be grounds for many punishments, including being fired.

These were certainly workplace discussions for TB, McNally, and Jastremski. TB circumventing the Pats' corporate communication systems to have a discussion is intrinsically suspect.

And wouldn't the company issued phones to McNally and Jastremski have been subject to review? And I believe they were? So would those phones be on the receiving end of TB's communication? If I remember correctly, TB was told his phone was not needed. It was further detailed he typically destroys his phones when being replaced.

I don't know, I still feel its bogus but at the same time, I just want it to end. They went to court, had it overturned then reinstated. Just be done with it now. Serve the stupid suspension and put it in the past.