https://twitter.com/AdamSchefter/status/597877343550595072
Thought I would create a place to discuss this (my first ever forum post, incidentally). At least to me, it seems as if this is too little, too late. It came after the draft, after the season ended, with New England as the defending champions of the league. But then again, I got absolutely zero love for the Patriots. For those of you who do, relax. Belichick emerged from this unscathed. As long as you got him, you're contenders.
What do the rest of you all think? Too harsh, too lenient, or something else?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
DISCLAIMER: I HAVE DONE LITTLE TO NO RESEARCH REGARDING THIS TOPIC
I don't know enough about this to really form an opinion one way or another. The Patriots are a polarizing organization. It seems that fans either love 'em or hate 'em. There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people in the gray area.
When they say "more probable than not" that language is pretty shaky to me. I lost interest pretty quickly after that. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the NFL is trying to protect itself with the way this has unfolded. First of all, it took them an awfully long time to reach a conclusion to the investigation. Then, from the outside looking in, that conclusion seems to be pretty suspect. The punishment seems pretty mundane to me as well. It sort of says "Well, we gotta punish him to maintain some semblance of authority, but we don't want to do too much damage to one of the faces of the league" Now, I'm not saying that the NFL isn't powerful. The league is, in fact, very powerful. What I'm saying, though, is that they just don't really care about this particular case. The NFL has to know that they have to take some sort of action to keep the fans happy, because ultimately, the fans are the source of income. Money talks. For all of the things Goodell is hated for (and they are numerous) he is one hell of a businessman. He knows how to make money.
Really, whether you're on the side that hates the Patriots or the side that loves them doesn't matter. In the long run the league gets what it wants. I don't think there are really any winners or losers here.
Totally agree. This is a "cover your ass" punishment that means absolutely nothing. And I am right there with you on the "more probable than not" language.
In the NFL, "more probably than not" means guilty. It's just the way they put it just in case more evidence to the contrary surfaces.
doesn't matter if it's in the NFL or not. It's written that way on purpose because a) they want to diminish the effects of the incident as much as possible and b) they want whatever punishment they will give out to be as little as possible so that it seems justifiable to something so vague.
The person that wrote the report is independent of the NFL so you would be incorrect on both accounts
He was paid a lot of money by the NFL so while he's technically independent....
If you believe that an organization like the NFL hired an investigator to be 100% impartial and not manage that report's findings, the timing of it's release or the punishment that it seems to equate to then you really have no idea how big business works.
I think I read that theory in the tabloids this morning
Not the tabaloids!
Rule #1 when demeaning someone: typos make you look like an asshat
/scours post for typos
Its okay I already know you are one even without any typos
Sorry. Couldn't resist
C'mon man
Well... They have to at least APPEAR to be impartial, and this guy's pretty good.
Slightly off topic - If Brady had just come out during Superbowl week and said something like, "I like to throw a squishy ball. I've stressed that to my equipment guys for years. They were just doing their job. We are all now completely aware of the rules regarding this, and will fully comply with any action taken by the league going forward. I apologize to the league for my failure to perform due diligence regarding this rule, and I apologize to my teammates for bringing negative attention to the Patriots organization."
If he says this back in January, are we even doing this today? LESSON - There is so much power in "I did it, and I'm sorry."
Maybe a few decades ago.... If Brady or the Pats said they did it or allowed it to happen Super Bowl week it would have turned out so much worse. People were already calling for them not to play, the media was running doomsday stories, and everyone was jumping to conclusions. Hell, I guarantee you that everyone would be calling for him not to play during the Super Bowl even more than they were already.
By not admitting to it they mitigated a lot of backlash since most 98% of people forgot about it until this report/punishment was released. And if my social media is any indication over half the people going crazy about this after the Colts game don't even give a shit anymore. The punishment would have probably been harsher back then due to backlash, but the NFL was never going to let that happen anyway.
The ESPN story says they used the more probably than not because they claim that there is no way he couldn't have known. In other words, by the weight of the ball, he would have known it was too light. Also by his previous requests to have the ball at 12.5 which is on the low end of the legal amount that he "must" have known they had been lightened more than that. It's a pretty big leap all things considered, and not enough to serve as any sort of proof or evidence to base a punishment on. Also Patriots were fined a million dollars and lost 2 draft picks
I think Brady lying is what pissed Goodel off. I could really care less about him and the patriots organization, what sucks is the two equipment managers that probably make less than $30k a year are being scapegoated. Hopefully they are taken care off in some way.
I'm sure that they were well compensated for not admitting to everything.
I am pretty sure that the report said there was actually zero evidence of Brady lying.
"More likely than not" wouldn't fly in a criminal court, it might not fly in a civil court "the greater weight of the evidence". Once again you have a one man Goodell as judge jury and executioner that doesn't feel like a good way to run an organization. It will be appealed and reduced to 2 more likely than not.
More likely than not = preponderance of evidence, which is the standard in civil court. It should hold up just fine on appeal.
maybe for NFL standards but I don't see how what is presented would meet preponderance of evidence in a civil court. It is too easy to explain
to prove reasonable doubt.see Hokie fireman below. He is correct about proof in civil case. but i still don't see anything in the report that shows anything that cannot be explained away easily.
In civil trial you only need 51 percent of the evidence to prove your point.
But their claim that the evidence they have is the greater weight, is from a commission that the NFL hired. I'm sure the Patriots could hire an "independent " commission that would reach a different conclusion
If Brady and the Patriots were willing to actually cooperate I'm willing to bet this would be a much smaller penalty.
You keep confusing the NFL with a public legal system. The NFL sets its own standards for proof and investigative rigor, and the Comissioner has a lot of leeway to mete out punishment that he deems appropriate for the situation.
and people wonder why Goodell is unpopular with his subjective dictatorhsip
The irony of this whole situation is that several years ago, the NFL updated their language concerning these types of competitive advantage issues to significantly lower the standard of proof that was necessary for the league to issue punishment.
This change in language was a direct result of their investigation into....Spygate.
Which all goes back to the fact that if the Patriots had not been quite so brazen over the last decade, I think the punishment would have been significantly lower. If they try to appeal in a court of law, then the Patriots will still have to submit some sort of compelling evidence to show that Brady did not know. If he could have done that by handing over his phone as the league requested, would he not have already done so?
I'm not a lawyer, but isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution? If this were a criminal matter, Brady is innocent until proven guilty, which this report did not do. None of that matters though, as Goodell runs a dictatorship.
Would you willingly hand over your phone for anybody to look through? Especially when there is a 99% chance the contents would mysteriously get leaked to TMZ?
It would be a civil matter not criminal. So the burden would be on the Patriots and Brady.
No the burden Is still on the plaintiff not the defendant it's just a lower standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt
No because the Patriots and Brady would have to take the NFL to court. Thus making the Patriots and Brady the plaintiff and the NFL the defendants.
I think I hear what you're saying. So, since the Patriots would be taking the NFL to court, they not only have to demonstrate that there isn't affirmative proof that they did something wrong, they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they did nothing wrong?
Yep, and in this case the NFL would be the defendant, so the burden of proof would be on the plaintiff, Brady and the Pats, to prove it didn't happen. And they have to do it knowing their phone records, which they refused to turn over in the past, would likely be subpoenaed and used in the proceedings.
Their best course of action right now is to allow the NFLPA to bargain down the fine and suspension. Not sure the Pats are going to be able to get their picks back, though.
Does not have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", that's the standard ONLY for criminal trials.
The Patriots case in civil court would just be that the NFL did not have cause of action for the punishment they meted out. It would then be on the NFL to support that their evidence supported the case of the punishment. The Patriots can't prove a negative.
Except in this case, the language the NFL uses to justify these actions (which was changed specifically because of previous cheating on the part of the Patriots) was put in place some time ago.
Reading through some of the comments from analysts on this, thats really the only reason they need. The standard for evidence was lowered significantly by the NFL. They are not a court of law, so they can set any requirement/standard of proof that they chose as long as the teams owners (and NFLPA in situations dealing with players) OK it.
The only thing the NFL would have to do would be to argue that the evidence they referenced met the standard that they themselves are within their power to set. Now whether they should have the discretion to police themselves in this manner is another issue of debate, and one that would be irrelevant in court proceedings as it pertains to any legal action on this case.
That's why Vilma and the Saints filed in federal court, later having arbitrated out and reduced, due to time constraints and costs. The NFL risks losing their antitrust exemption by arbitrarily doling out punishment whether it's in the collective bargaining agreement or not. All it takes is for someone to push it far enough
If the Patriots appealed to a civil court, they would be the plaintiffs.
People keep knocking the wording of the report, but as a lawyer Wells did his job correctly (in terms of drafting the report and the language used, I have no comment on the information contained within)
Especially as Wells did leak a heck of a lot of personal information from the two equipment managers that turned in their phones. Wells included txts that had nothing to do with the deflating balls in his report.
correct, but they are FAR from 51%
I don't think Goodell decided this punishment.
Yawn!
All I have to say to this is...
The comments section for every article covering this is pure gold.
you should follow @PFTcommenter on Twitter if you don't already
I don't think Goodell lasts much longer. He has done more harm to the integrity of the nfl than anybody. Brady deserves this for laughing in the face of the league. However, it shouldn't affect his legacy even though I'm sure it will to some degree. In the end Brady gets to rest that old arm and will likely be better for having to only play a 12 game season. A 1st round pick being stripped probably hurts the franchise the most.
I would say the same thing about Goodell until you remember who he in fact works for and what his job really is:
http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/story/2014-09-01/state-of-nfl-roger-good...
The owners don't care about this stuff.
In fact, most of the league is perfectly happy to see the Patriots called out for cheating a second time and this time legitimately getting hammered for it, after touting themselves as the NFL golden standard for the past 15 years.
Hear. Hear. As long as Goodell keeps printing the money, all is good.
Every time he makes up a rule against a franchise, he loses a vote. Teams like punishment until it affects them specifically.
Heh. Heh. TeeheeheehahahaAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Eat it New England
Here's an interesting article concerning NFL punishments:
Notable NFL Suspensions
It is notable from that link how many of those suspensions were reduced, unless they involved drug policy infractions. As others have stated, Brady will appeal and it will get reduced to one or two games.
Oh well I'm just glad it's not the full season.
< fart noise >
NFL made up their decision a long time ago. They are now delaying their decision to see how the media reacts to it to base how long/bad the punishment should be. A lot of if falls on how much they fucked up the Ray Rice case.
I have already seen the "ray rice got 2 games and brady got 4 games" debates, shenanigans are definitely ensuing...
Unfortunately Goodell keeps making the owners gobs of money so I don't see them getting rid of him anytime soon no matter how bad he screws up in the publics eye
Exactly. Goodell's job is to make the owners money and to take the heat for the league. People aren't griping about the owners if they're griping about Goodell. When you think of it that way, his massive salary makes sense. How much money would it take for you to stand up on a podium and make the world talk about how incompetent you are? Would $40 Million a year soften the blow?
I take pride in my reputation, but if dragging it in the dirt would set up me and my children and their children for life, I'd think about it.
And really, I would say ruining his reputation is a bit of a stretch. After collecting his $32 mil a year or whatever it is for a few more years, he can move on from the NFL. Sure the average fan may think he is incompetent. But you know who won't think he is incompetent? The kind of employer that can pay you $32 million a year.
The owners are making money hand over fist and their sheets are being kept pristine by Goodell and his "stumbling bumbling fumbling". Thats why he is being well compensated. It's not like he is ruining people's lives here or destroying families.
Unfortunately I don't think Goodell is going to be fired anytime soon, but you now have 2 owners in Kraft and Benson that don't like him, and I bet there are more if you dig hard enough
Edit to include this quote I just saw on Deadspin
Now he pissed off Kraft. He pissed off Benson. He pissed of Jerry Jones with the uncapped year nonsense (pissed off Snyder, too, but he only wishes he had the incfluence that Kraft and Jones have). As long as he doesn't piss off a Rooney or a Mara, then he should still be okay. Once he bites one of those hands that feed, he's done.
I love this last one....
still can't believe Wilson threw the ball from the one...
Not going to lie... the outrage stemming from the Northeast today has been glorious to behold
Don't really care, It'll be reduced to 2 games, moving on...
It would appear a fair amount of people do not wish to move on.
So what this means to me is that slightly deflating footballs is worse than beating your wife. Nice.
Keep in mind, the conduct policies were collectively bargained. Thats how a guy smoking weed can get an entire season suspension but a domestic violence issue is only 2 games (at the time before they updated the policy)
Sure the NFL botched the Ray Rice thing, by not realizing the tone and tenor of the conversation around that incident for starters. But there was a "by the book" way that situation was supposed to be handled per the existing CBA. When it comes to competitive issues, the NFL can pretty much hand down whatever it wants.
I would prefer there to be 0 games suspension for beating your wife and suspensions for cheating the game.
The NFL should not be in the business of doling out punishment for criminal activity. Leave that to the police.
I disagree, as long as it's in your contract an employer can discipline an employee for conduct outside the office especially of a criminal nature.
The problem is when you start punishing without due process. Right now, players will be punished for an accusation. That's dangerous in my opinion.
No different than me a firefighter, if I get arrested I'm off the rig and possible fired before any court decision. Plenty of jobs are like that.
An arrest is more than just an accusation. Police officer's don't generally just go around arresting people without some evidence. I don't know if the NFL has a policy that an arrest warrants termination. Companies are allowed to put that kind of stipulation in their contracts but the contract has to be signed by the employee. At that point, it's fair game to terminate someone for breach of contract regardless of whether they are convicted of breaking a law.
I suppose, except Rice eventually got a year suspension, and after the appeals I'm sure Brady's will be reduced to two...
This is the thing. The NFL really fucked up the Rice situation. Royally effed up. When EVERYONE learned about their mistake (2 game suspension only), they tried to correct it. He was immediately cut from the Raven's roster and handed a lifetime suspension by the NFL. However, that constituted double jeopardy and Rice was able to win his appeal because of it.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but here goes...
First, I do want to say that I absolutely do not condone misogyny of any kind.
That being said, I do not believe it is the NFL's responsibility to police domestic violence. To me, it is a legal issue and the NFL is not a legal entity. Without looking at the laws closely, I suspect that a company cannot fire a man from his job if he does everything the job description asks of him but is also a known wife-beater. Until convicted, companies do not have the legal right to terminate employees for alleged crimes committed outside of work. I do think in these scenarios the Company should be obligated to report the crimes to authorities and disclose all of the information they have. After that, I believe it is up to the appropriate legal entities to investigate, try, and sentence accordingly.
With all of this in mind, however, I think it's a very sticky situation for the NFL. They are a very publicly scrutinized organization and they were faced with a difficult decision. Do we overstep our bounds by punishing someone for doing something outside of work that we have no legal right to police? Or do we do our due-diligence and turn over the investigation to the proper authorities and let them handle the punishment? Which of those two is more closely in line with the legal obligations of the league? Which of those two has the largest impact on the league from a PR standpoint? From a strictly legal standpoint I don't think the league could really do anything. From a PR standpoint, the league HAD to do something to save face.
My personal opinion is that Ray Rice should have been tried, charged, and punished by the legal system. I want to see him behind bars. But that is not the responsibility of the NFL. Legally, the NFL has no right to punish Ray Rice for allegedly breaking a law outside of work until he is convicted. That is the duty of the legal system.
So they handed him a pretty mild punishment. They probably were skirting with punishing Ray Rice in such a way that they would avoid any lawsuits from his camp but to also send a message to the public that the NFL does not condone domestic violence. That's a pretty tight rope to walk.
On the other side of the same coin, the league sets up rules and if those rules are broken the league reserves every right to punish the offenders. So, Tom Brady was accused and found "more probable than not" to have broken the rules and thus a punishment was administered. Deflating footballs is not against the law, but it is against rules set by and enforceable by the league.
I don't think it is really fair to compare the two. Beating your SO is worse than deflating footballs. Domestic violence, however, is not within the Scope of the NFL's policy. Cheating is.
What I don't understand is why there isn't a "time served" aspect. Greg Hardy was made inactive for the last 15 games last year because he was accused of domestic violence. Then the NFL finished its investigation and decided to suspend him 10 games. Why should he miss 25 games in total when the suspension is only 10 games?
I think he should be punished; I just don't understand how it is being handled.
I don't understand it either.
I can't speak to what the NFL actually does. I'm just trying to set out what I think the NFL is legally bound to do. The inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary "justice system" that is the NFL is a big reason Roger Goodell is not popular with fans.
The catch in the Hardy case is that he was inactive but paid for all of last season. Therefore, he was not technically "suspended" by the league. So I guess its viewed as this 10 game suspension is the only one the league has handed down, although common sense would dictate that is not really the case.
Semantics really, but he kept receiving paychecks even though he couldn't play.
"Without looking at the laws closely, I suspect that a company cannot fire a man from his job if he does everything the job description asks of him but is also a known wife-beater."
As long as the employee doing the firing does not say "We are firing you because we think you beat your wife" and sticks to vague language like "We are going in a different direction" or "we feel that it would be best if you no longer worked here" then the company can fire away. HR people nowadays are taught not to explicitly say why someone is being let go, just that they are being let go/laid off/terminated in order to avoid wrongful termination suits.
Also, the NFL has a personal conduct policy that covers expected behavior in regards to outside of work scenarios. This is required since they are under so much public scrutiny. So an NFL team has every right to punish an employee for allegedly breaking a law outside of work, especially when there exists video evidence of the crime being commited, as is the case with Ray Rice.
The problem comes from Goodell handing down punishments from on high with little or no consistency with regards to the punishments and no real avenue for appeal.
Can't employers fire employees for any reason other than discrimination against a protected class (and a few other exceptions covered by laws such as FMLA)? An accusation of domestic violence wouldn't fall in that category. A firm could easily argue that the accusation is harmful to the firm's reputation.
I'm not a lawyer, much less an expert in employment law, but U understand that employers can fire employees at will, so long as the things I mentioned above don't apply.
Or drunk driving, etc.
So when does the NFL announce the suspension of Andrew Luck and the Colts million dollar fine and pick loss? The Wells report also indicated that three of the Colts balls from the game were under the correct pressure.
They're grooming Luck to be the next Peyton Manning, there's no way he's getting any punishment.
That was after the game and 4 quarters of play and time naturally reduced the PSI in the Colts balls. The Patriot's balls were re-inflated by the refs at halftime and then they had natural reduction in PSI after those final two quarters.
However, at halftime the Patriot's balls had unnatural reduction in PSI. There is no other way to reduce it that much in that time other than physically letting air out.
The report also said at half time "most" of the patriots balls had natural reduction in PSI that could be explained by play and the weather conditions.
I read the report and saw the PSI measurements. I understand that only a small sample (4 balls I believe) of Colts balls were inspected, however, it is clear that the PSI in the Colts balls changed only a small amount over 4 quarters and the PSI in the Patriot's balls changed dramatically over the first two quarters and only a small amount over the last two quarters. The weather was the same for both sets of balls. The science is not in the Patriots favor.
There were also 2 pressure gauges used by the ref to inspect the balls , each gauge showed different readings, and the ref doesn't remember which gauge he used in the pregame inspection. Also, the Pats' balls were inspected first, meaning the Colts' balls had about 10 minutes to sit inside and warm up.
This article by Mike Florio does a good job of describing the descrepency between the two pressure gauges and how important it is:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/10/pressure-gauge-discrepan...
The two gauges gave consistent measurements, but one read from 0.3-0.45psi higher than the other. The article points out that the Wells report relies soley on the memory of referee Walt Anderson in regards to the pre-game psi measurements of the Patriots' footballs, but simultaneously questions his memory of which pressure gauge he used, assuming that he used the gauge that would support the case of tampering, despite Anderson saying his "best recollection" is that he used the one that gave higher readings and that doesn't support the case for tampering.
"So, basically, the scientific proof of tampering hinges on a literal coin flip between the pressure gauge that generated a higher reading and the pressure gauge that generated a lower reading. Apart from the very real problems inherent to the NFL using pressure gauges that generate such dramatically different readings for a key postseason game, the justification used to assume that Walt Anderson used before kickoff the gauge that makes tampering more likely doesn't feel like the outcome of a scientific experiment. It feels like an effort to work backward to justify a predetermined conclusion."
Florio further expounds on that here:
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/10/wells-report-disregards-...
"The gauge with the logo and the longer needle generated higher measurements of the Patriots footballs at halftime, ranging from 0.3 PSI to 0.45 PSI higher for each of the 11 footballs. If that gauge — the one with the logo and the longer, crooked needle — were used to set the PSI for the balls before the game began, the measurements from that gauge are the right measurements to rely upon at halftime. And those measurements show that there was no tampering, because most of the footballs fell within the 11.52 to 11.32 PSI range for halftime, as predicted by the Ideal Gas Law.
Referee Walt Anderson didn't clearly recall which gauge he used to set the pressure in the Patriots balls at 12.5 PSI before the game. Page 52 of the Wells report reveals that it was Anderson's "best recollection" that he used before the game the gauge with the logo and the longer, crooked needle. In other words, Anderson recalls using the gauge before the game that, based on the halftime measurements, leads to a finding of no tampering.
So how did Ted Wells get around the "best recollection" of Walt Anderson? Wells persuaded Anderson to admit that it's "certainly possible" he used the other gauge. And the company hired to provide technical support for the Wells report concluded based on a convoluted explanation appearing at pages 116-17 of the report that it is "more probable than not" that Anderson used the other gauge.
In other words, the Wells report concludes on this critical point that it's "more probable than not" that Anderson's "best recollection" was wrong."
As a scientist, I am skeptical of the conclusions based on the evidence. It just looks a lot like someone cherry-picking evidence to support a foregone conclusion.
Geoff Peterson pretty well sums this whole thing up for me.
Geoff gets a leg everytime
I have pretty much lost all respect for the NFL and the Patriots. Not solely because of this, but as an accumulation of dumb shit like this. In the past the NFL at least pretended it wasn't totally about the cash grab - perhaps it always has been and I was just young. The Patriots seem like a great example of "[The lady]/thou doth protest too much" - playing the role of the golden franchise, but in the background shady.
In my case/opinion, the NFL is slowly doing to itself what seemed impossible just a few years ago - losing its grip as the most dominant league in the country (and really world). In the name of cash they're going to spread themselves too thin and ruin the game/experience. I'm already over it. The only advantage the NFL has is that the biggest idiots in sports are running the NCAA. Both are getting record revenues so I guess idiot is kind of subjective.
Gregg Easterbrook (does Tuesday Morning QB for ESPN and might be the only writer they have now worth a damn) has made the point years ago that the continued popularity of the NFL is not a universal inevitability. I agreed with him back then, and I agree with you now.
The NFL and Goodell have run themselves over the last few years as if nothing they do can cause the NFL to fall from being the biggest sports league in the US. I am not so sure thats true, and if they continue to keep doing dumb stuff like this...
Cheating with the Patriots has become a systemic issue. It wasn't just this one game, the report shows that. Strip them of all their wins since they have been proven to have been deflating footballs. There just won't be an AFC champion and Super Bowl winner this past year. That might get team's attention.
Yes because that has stopped cheating in the NCAA....
Let me start by saying that I have no love for the Pats. No hate, but no love.
IF the punishment is based on the report, than the punishment is ridiculous. The report says that the organization was not to blame, yet the punishment is on the organization. The report presents no conclusive evidence saying Brady was involved, and yet Brady was punished.
Here's where I'm going with this. Goodell just penalized a QB without substantial proof, and an organization which is being punished based on the actions of 2 ball boys. Now while I don't care that it happened to the Pats, lets extend this to other circumstances: What will keep Goodell from docking draft picks from YOUR team based on the actions of a few individuals? This isn't the first incident involving football tampering (Jags had an issue with heating up footballs). What will constitute an "integrity" violation in the future? What burden of proof will Goodell have to have to suspend you for said violations (in this case, very little)?
I find the ambiguity of all this suspect (and how the suspension HAPPENS to end right before the Colts game).
I'm pretty sure the majority of the punishment is a result of the Patriot's refusal to cooperate, not because they deflated footballs.
As a poster above said, I'm pretty sure if Tom Brady/the Patriots had come out originally and said "You know what, we made a mistake, deflated the balls a little too far past regulation, blah blah, won't do it again, we're sorry", there probably wouldn't have even been a suspension handed out. Just a fine or two, which means nothing to the people involved.
Instead, Brady and the Patriots have to make this whole mess into a bigger mess. Not pretty on anyone's account, if you ask me.
The sad part is the punishment according to the rules has to be based on the report. Therefore the Patriots have great grounds for their appeal. The Union also has to fight vigorously for Brady, he was suspended for "conduct unbecoming," that is about as arbitrary as anything out there. To prevent a precedent being established they NEED to fight this.
How is cheating not "conduct unbecoming"? I want cheating punished. Personally, I think the Atlanta Falcons should have received a stiffer penalty for piping-in artificial stadium noise.
Again no proof of Brady's involvement. The following article outlines why the appeal wins. There are already people out there saying that Brady should sue Wells and the NFL for defamation.
http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05/12/top-10-reasons-why-an-appeal-...
Just curious, who reads that website for sports info?
I'm not sure how he could sue Wells for defamation. He was very clear in his report of not accusing Brady. The language "more probably than not" would begin and end that claim almost immediately.
Now the NFL potentially, as their handing down of a punishment could be argued as verification of Brady's guilt without full proof.
see that's a tricky situation. I'm in agreement with you that Wells' language was carefully constructed so that he would not be liable for defamation. On the other hand, I don't think TB would have a case against the NFL for 'defamation' since all they did was hand down a punishment. And, let's be honest, the NFL has been handing out head-scratching punishments for years now, so if anything, at least they are consistently inconsistent. (kinda like VT offenses over the last decade....*ducks*)
The Falcons admitted it, apologized, and moved on. Their punishment was doled out.
The Patriots acted like children, threw a tantrum, and tried to prevent the investigation. Their punishment was therefore harsher.
They objected to a FIFTH interview of a part time employee who had a full time job 75 miles away from where they wanted to hold the interview.
And Mr. Brady refused to turn over his phone for investigation, Mr. Kraft made a very public statement demanding an apology from the league before the investigation, etc...
Did the Falcons do this? No. They owned up to it, and moved on. Let's face it, deflating footballs is at best a minor offense given the success the Patriots have had as a team. It most likely did not impact the outcomes of the vast majority of their games. So why not just cooperate and get it over with?
You realize that bringing in people for 3 and 4 interviews is cooperating right?
They had the phones of the people accused of being involved, there was nothing in them that indicated any Brady involvement. If you have 1 side of a text conversation, you have both sides.
Agreed. I'm not sure what the Pats did that would qualify as "not cooperating".
After the text was discovered that the ball boy self labeled himself as the deflator, the Pats threw a tantrum and said no more interviews. It was only the 2nd one, and it followed a significant discovery of evidence. That is definitely not cooperating.
I have seen in multiple places that they stopped cooperating after 4 interviews with the equipment manager.
The NFL did- Ted Wells was not allowed more than one interview with Jim McNally (one of the people involved). The Patriots denied his request for a second interview. This according to Ted Wells, as can be seen here, among other places.
Wells was acting on behalf of the NFL so in effect it was 4 interviews, but I get your point as well. But the equipment manager was having to make 150 mile round trips for these interviews while maintaining a separate full time job. Could not Wells have requested to interview him by phone?
He offered to come to him. Not an excuse.
I agree with RocketHokie13. The punishment of the Patriots weighed-in the past spygate infraction and their behaivor during this investigation (not fully cooperating and lying).
I found this break down of how "Fumble Proof" the Patriots became after the ball rule changed. Tom Brady lobbied hard to be able to control his balls.... After that, the Patriots became invincible in cold weather games.... It really makes you realize how much a few PSI can affect the turnover ratio.
http://www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-mysteriously-became-fumble-proof-in-2007
nice graph. Personally, I don't have any issue with the rule. Cold weather can change a game and not necessarily in a productive way. And this rule isn't Pats specific, every team can do it.
See this to me is really the smoking gun of the competitive advantage that can result from deflating footballs in this manner.
I have heard so many people say that "Oh thats easy to explain, its because Belichick focuses so much on ball security in practice, and if you fumble you are riding the pine, etc etc etc)"
That all may be true, but it begs the question of if that has been the MO of coaching and practice and benching guys all along, why were the Patriots so average (literally middle of the pack, if not a little below, in terms of plays per fumble from 2000-2005), and then became literally statistically unlikely to become so good at ball security the season immediately following the offseason in which guys like Brady and Manning successfully lobbied the league to allow teams to maintain the game balls before each game themselves.
Sure it can certainly be a coincidence. But unfortunately, thats what being caught cheating significantly in the past does to the benefit of the doubt you receive (and in this case, the punishment that comes down to you)
This data assumes a number of things that throw its relevance into question (not to mention the lack of explanation for the outlier in 2013). Among the assumptions:
1) It assumes that only one team was doctoring balls
2) It assumes that all teams fumble the ball at the same rate regardless of record or style of play
3) It assumes that there is no fumble rate variation even within the legal psi range
4) It assumes that the preference of some (if not most) QBs to have a more inflated ball (whether within the legal psi range or not) would not skew the fumble numbers in the opposite direction
Why should the Patriots bother to apologize? They have a ton of fans quite publicly doing that for them.
What would be the harm of having league controlled footballs? I've never really heard a good reason why the teams were given the benefit of preparing their own balls anyway.
Agreed. The fact that each team is allowed to play with their own balls is strange to me. I don't think there is another sport that does that.
lol. i should've read that over before posting
I saw this somewhere yesterday and I snorted heartily. This is awesome.
Kinda hoping they pick up Tommy Grady from the Jacksonville Sharks arena team.
I'm guessing that Kraft comparing Ballghazi to 9/11 on the podium after the Super Bowl while drunk as a skunk days after demanding an apology from the league for something they were inevitably found guilty of doing probably played a little bit into the punishment as well.
Apparently McNally called himself 'the deflator' because he was trying to lose weight? The Pats' are doubling-down!
Based on how badly written the Wells report is, there is a good chance the Patriots are going to win both appeals if they actually get the requested neutral party.
You realize who they appeal to right? They can't deny not cooperating, and that was the blunt of the reason for the punishment. If it gets to a he said he said argument, NFL will win.
Which they did.
Reports out now saying Goodell will personally handle Brady's appeal.
This whole thing has devolved into both sides flicking each other off.
And the NFL just upheld the 4 game suspension. There will be no reduction.
It's good the NFL stood their ground. This is not a court of law. The NFL does not have subpoena powers. The NFL does not have to prove beyond a reasonably doubt. It is obvious to non-Patriot fans that Tom Brady told the equipment guys to deflate the balls, they did, and then Tom Brady lied and destroyed his phone.
I don't think Brady was punished for deflating footballs. I think Brady was punished for not kowtowing to the commissioner's office. If he has said, "Yes, I told him to soften the balls, I figured he knew I meant as soft as you can without breaking the rules" and then cooperated with the "investigation" the whole thing would have blown over before the super bowl. Unfortunately for them, the Patriots organization has the attitude that they are above the rules and not accountable to the league. THAT's what they were punished for.
Not a Patriot fan. Not at all obvious to me that Brady told the eqpt guys to deflate the balls to an illegal psi.
I don't know how everyone is coming to the conclusion that it's obvious he told them to do that. The cell records show the equipment guy was fucking pissed and borderline hated Brady first off. Over deflating the balls because of being ridden to keep them at lowest regulation PSI doesn't seem too farfetched.
Oh and how Brady barely called him for months and then after the accusations called the equipment guy frequently... Just use common sense, wouldn't you want to talk to the person who handled the equipment as to why it was out of regulation during a game and you're being accused of doing it on purpose?
There was so much misinformation and outright lies published and taken as the gospel immediately after the game. Hell, one of the gauges was reading artificially high before the game and they don't know which one was used for which team, let alone which balls.
I'm not a Patriots fan but what happened here seems more like it was a convenient way for the public to take their anger out on a team that consistently wins and they don't like and say "see they win because they cheat." The NFL then jumped on board because they had so much bad press that year and could win back some public opinion and show they can exert control.
He's being punished for insubordination and I don't see any way he can get somebody to reverse that.
If the equipment people deflated the balls without Brady's approval, then why is Brady saying that the equipment people did nothing wrong. Brady is hoping that we are incapable of seeing the science involved. Science shows that there is no way the balls can lose that much PSI naturally by halftime and no way that only the Patriot's balls would be affected and not the Colts balls. The balls were definitely tampered with. It is no coincidence that the equipment guy was caught on film taking the balls out of the refs locker room (which he is not allowed to do) and taking them into a bathroom stall (where the cameras can't see). For Tom Brady to say nobody at all in the Patriots organization did anything wrong...is a crock.
first, Balls. Your post is full of balls. Like every other word is balls. Crap. now I'm doing it
second, isn't there some expectation of privacy when it comes to what you do with your balls in a bathroom stall? If not, then you gotta wonder what America is coming to.
Re-reading my post it does say "balls" way too often...lol.
High Five!
Sorry, but in light of this wonderful news I gotta bring this back
I'm not a patriots fan. I am a proponent of due process and consistency in the executions of judgements and punishments. Goodell is making unjustified calls that will negatively impact YOUR sports team soon. I also think that he has jeopardized all of the NFL's leverage in the next CBA.
Yep. This thing is headed to federal court. Brady will be granted an injunction and won't serve a single game suspension
Eh, the fact that he destroyed evidence after they asked for it will make it awfully hard for him to argue that he cooperated fully and they're just being mean.
The NFL has no right to his personal cell phone. He can do whatever he wants with his personal property.
I never said he couldn't, I'm just saying it's sketchy as hell and will not help his case moving forward.
Not to mention, the issue in question is not what he did with his own personal prop but with NFL property (balls).
you seem to be confusing the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise of the criminal justice system with the NFL's policy on breaking the rules. If the NFL suspects you of breaking the rules it's more of a 'guilty until proven innocent' situation. And yes they're allowed to do that - they are not the government.
Plus regardless of personal phone, team phone, NFL phone... if you are suspected of a crime (or in this case suspected of breaking the rules), and you destroy evidence; it is assumed to have been incriminating evidence rather than exculpatory.
You're conflating "it's not the legal system" and "it's this way in the legal system" to make your point...which is it?
Uh, that principle in the second paragraph of my post applies in both situations... note how both are mentioned. But let me spell it out for you more specifically.
In a criminal proceeding if you destroy evidence and get caught, you get charged with additional crimes (obstruction of justice and/or destruction of evidence) and if the prosecution is allowed to tell the jury about it you're more likely to be found guilty on your original charge.
In sports rules-breaking investigation with punishment meted out by a Commissioner, if you destroy potential evidence, you are quite likely to get punished as if the missing evidence proved your guilt, or receive an even stiffer penalty.
See Georgia Tech for another example... very minor NCAA athlete benefit infraction, but GT tampered with witnesses and stonewalled the NCAA investigation, so they were hit with some pretty hefty penalties. Had they cooperated the NCAA would've basically cleared them of the original charges and issued no punishment.
So when are the rules of criminal proceedings relevant and when are they not? It seems like you use them for comparative purposes when it's convenient, but not when they're not.
The single "rule of criminal proceedings" that I specified as not applicable to NFL disciplinary decisions is the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The NFL doesn't have to assume that an alleged rule breaker is innocent like the criminal court system does. That opens the door to the threshold of proof being much lower to deem Brady in violation of the rules / punishable.
That level of substantiation/proof and how it varies from venue to venue is a separate concept from destruction of evidence coming back to haunt you... something that applies not only in criminal court, but also civil court and in a private disciplinary or judicial process.
Okay, you realize that the other peoples phones were turned in right. If it was a text message back and forth, then the NFL had both sides of the conversation even without Brady's phone.
*sigh* I'm trying to keep this civil, but people are getting awfully salty.
You are correct that they should have records of Brady's texts with those two individuals. However, they do not have records of Brady's texts with anyone else.
So, while:
1) Brady is well within his legal right to not cooperate with the investigation
2) Some of the evidence was still recovered through other means
Neither statement addresses my points that destroying his phone (on the day they asked for it!) is
1) SKETCHY AS HELL
2) Unlikely to help his case when it DOES go to court
^^^^^ This
At this point, this whole ordeal is really not about the deflated footballs anymore. Its clear by the wording of Goodell's decision yesterday that the issue now is Brady's complete lack of cooperation with the NFL.
Part of that is not handing over the cell phone. Certainly Brady was within his rights to not do so. But if there is a possibility that this might go to a trial a trial situation or at the very least continue through an appeal process in which the phone recrod might be useful, having an assistant destroy it is not a good look.
If the NFL is moving towards citing "lack of cooperation" as their reasoning for the suspension, I really don't know how, in federal court, a judge would be convinced otherwise.
lol federal court
the punishment is allowed under the CBA, there will be no lawsuit.
Take it to the only judge I trust.
Brady just told the NFLPA to file the suit http://www.sbnation.com/2015/7/28/9060673/tom-brady-suspension-appeal-fe...
And it's incredibly likely he will lose and lose badly
http://www.atlredline.com/no-destroying-tom-bradys-cell-phone-was-not-okay-1720689663
Legal precedent had been set that you cannot and must not destroy evidence if you suspect a case will go to trial, even in situations when you are currently dealing with an entity that does not have subpoena power. The fact he did is damning and will likely be the biggest reason this case likely gets thrown out at best.
Even worse it sounds like he acted on the advice of his lawyers to do this and if the courts fund this to be the case they will likely be disbarred.
Translation
At the end of the day, I don't really give a shit but I don't under how Greg Hardy's suspension violence went from 10 to 4 for something the NFL is really trying to make a hard stance now, and Brady's was kept at 4. Again I dont care but to me, that doesnt really add up.
As far as I can tell, it's all about how it gets handled after the fact.
Kinda like getting pulled over. If you're polite and apologetic, you might get off with a warning, but if you mouth off to the cop, you're sure as hell getting a ticket and he might double check your registration, inspection sticker, headlights, etc.
Whether that's a fair way of doing things or not is open to debate, but I feel like it will happen whenever the punishment is at the discretion of a human.
No, it's more like if you commit armed robbery but surrender peacefully, you get a $1,000 fine and 4 weeks in jail. Or if you get caught 67 mph in a 55 mph, but proclaim your innocence and challenge the accuracy of the radar gun, you get $1,000 fine and 4 weeks in jail.
Someone clearly hasn't been to law school...
So Mr. Law School...explain to me how the analogy doesn't apply to the Hardy and Brady cases?
1. Because it's totally ludicrous. Armed robbery is a felony, speeding and arguing isn't even a misdemeanor. Yet you postulate the two could have similar outcomes as if your suggestions were based in reality. No municipality is gonna pay to house your ass for 4 weeks just because you got mouthy. No state is gonna let you off that light for committing a violent crime with a firearm.
2. You're neglecting the fact that Hardy was suspended all of last season. So really, his punishment is 5 times what Brady's is, and would've been longer if he hadn't paid the girl off.
It was an analogy, not reality. That was the point...it was intentionally absurd to show how ridiculous the Brady penalty is vis a vis Hardy.
You make a good point about Hardy getting "time served". However, if Goodell is going to penalize Brady because, at least in part, that his phone was destroyed, shouldn't the same logic apply to penalizing Hardy for essentially doing the same (and more) for a far worse (IMO) offense? If Goodell isn't bound by the rule of law with Brady, why should Goodell feel any constraint whatsoever with Hardy?
Then I apologize for misunderstanding, but the analogy was poorly phrased.
As far as comparing the two instances, I think we should recognize that one had to do solely with football, and as such, it only comes under the purview of the NFL, whereas the Hardy incident doesn't really impact the game on the field. The product the NFL sells is football. By cheating, Brady cheapened the product, and his company reprimanded him. Greg Hardy set a bad personal example, but didn't call in to question the quality of the game on the field. His actions did reflect negatively on the league though, and for that, he's being suspended 4 games. It's not the NFL's job to punish people for crimes. It's there to ensure the quality of the league as it relates to football. In that respect, Tom Brady should receive at least the same league punishment as Greg Hardy, though I'd argue they should be harder on Brady.
"General Knowledge of under-inflated footballs" which was never actually proven warrents a 4 game suspension? Tom Brady cheapened the product? oh give me a break. Let's actually talk about things that actually "cheapen the product":
1. Outrageous ticket prices
2. Outrageous licensing fees
3. Poor sportsmanship
4. The players beating the hell out of their gf's
5. The NFL not recognizing cheaters at the collegiate levels and letting them waltz into the league as a player or coach (I'm looking at you Pete Caroll)
6. Inconsistencies in the policies and judgements of the commish
7. Pro Bowl
8. Pre-season games (and the required purchase of these tickets by season ticket holders)
The "product" needs a lot of work. The ball psi isn't critical (and can easily be regulated by the NFL when they choose to enact those measures)
Lets also talk about ball PSI.
1. It's a RANGE, and the NFL let the teams self-regulate it. if it was important, the NFL would never put the responsibility in the hands of the teams (might I also add this has been an issue 2 previous times, once with the panthers and I forget the other team)
2. It doesn't really affect how the ball flies. If it's underinflated TOO much, then the profile will warp and will not maintain its proper aerodynamic shape (creating profile drag), and will probably fall short of the intended target.
1) I don't like your tone, go to your room.
2) I could pick apart your entire argument, but I don't feel like there is a point. What I will say is that rules are a part of the game for a reason. The PSI may not be "critical", but underinflated footballs are easier to throw and to tuck.
3)
None of your list tangibly affects the game being played. Brady getting caught cheating does. That was my point.
Greg Hardy's was affected by time served, basically. He sat the entire last season. Also Hardy's case was thrown out, so while the NFL can make their own conclusion about what happened, Hardy still hasn't been convicted of a crime.
To my knowledge, Brady hasnt been convicted in court of anything yet either
So why can't you understand how Hardy is serving 4 games now like Brady?
Bradys started at 4 and still 4. Hardys started at 10 and was reduced to 4
Hardy sat 18 last year.
I thought he played Week 1
But also was paid for all of last season, so I don't think the NFL views it as a suspension in some weird way.
Because Hardy had his hand wrapped around his girlfriend's throat while he threatened to kill her, and Brady may have been "generally aware" that balls were slightly under inflated?
So you follow that "innocent until proven guilty" thing only when it suits you, huh?
Conspiracy theory: Brady is happy with a 4 game suspension.
Pats will go 2-2 in his absence and they still walk away with an easy conference championship. The only difference is there are 4 less games on Brady's old ass body. He claims he will fight everything to the end to appear innocent and will soon RELUCTANTLY step away from any lawsuit knowing that he could lose and miss more critical games.
He didn't deflate the balls. He may have known about it, but he didn't do it. The organization got their punishment, and it wasn't contested. But in reality, Brady wasn't proven to actually DO anything against the rules. And they suspended him for 2 more games than Ray Rice was originally suspended for.
I'll sum it up:
1. This erratic system of punishment and proof will piss off a lot more teams in the future
2. After the next CBA, I highly doubt the NFLPA will allow Goodell this much power ever again.
Dude, just change 3 words and you are there with the rest of us. Even you know he knew that he was breaking the rules. Be happy with the 4 games, I thought Goodell would bring the hammer being that it is the second time the Pats and Brady have cheated.
EDIT: just saw the above post that you are not a Pats fan, but if it were my team I would take the 4 games and run.
How was it the second time Brady had cheated? The Spygate incident was on the coaches and was overblown. It was legal to tape the signals etc, just not from the location that the Patriots used.
I'll just leave this here
Sounds like he took his cell phone....
AND THREW IT ON THE GROUND!!
If there is one thing I know, it's that innocent people usually order the one piece of evidence that could unequivocally prove said innocence to be destroyed....
I never understood this logic at all. Why should I have to give up tons of personal information to authorities just because I'm accused of something. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't just hand over my phone full of personal messages, calls, emails, pictures, etc to authorities to do whatever they want with it. Especially when I had the cell company hand over everything they wanted.
This whole thing has started to reek of a NFL attempt to set precedent to erode player rights and due process for any reason the organization feels appropriate without any substantial evidence. Yes, it's not a government entity, but I doubt you'd want to have to turn over your personal computer, phone, or home records to your job just because they have a suspicion you might be implicated in something at work.
There a difference between not turning it over and actively destroying evidence that would have been needed when this eventually went to trial. If Brady had simply not complied and withheld the phone from the NFL he had a case, but the second he had it actively destroyed he was in the wrong. It is his legal responsibility to preserve anything that could be evidence if he even thought there was a reasonable chance this could have gone to trial, which would be hard for him to argue he didn't think it would when everyone was openly debating the possibility of a trial of he didn't get his way.
The legal case that can be made against him for this is not good. At best, the fact he destroyed the phone will be allowed into evidence in the trial and will be hard to argue against. At worst, the judge will instruct the jury (if this is a jury trial) to consider that anything on the phone was going to be damaging to his case, so they can infer the worst about what was on it. There is legal precedence for this, which is described in the link I posted to an earlier reply.
Brady likely screwed himself by destroying the phone. He has a very uphill battle ahead of him, and it doesn't look good. Legally, while he was in the right to not comply with the NFL, he went too far and overplayed his hand.
I'm assuming the court would have subpoena power to obtain the records. So, best case he is vindicated by new evidence while still guilty of destroying evidence and not cooperating with the due process at the nfl level. His punishment is based mostly on not cooperating. I don't see any way that the punishment is reduced. I'd be very surprised if this goes to trial. I think it is just Brady's way of screaming innocence until the very end.
I don't know, destroying stuff seemed to work for Lois Lerner (too political?)
We must have different definitions of "worked out".
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wasn't the NFL given access to the phones and texts of all of the other relevant parties...which would also have any texts sent to/from Brady?
You are making the dangerous assumption that all the people involved or who have useful information were already questioned.
Perhaps (although I'd argue that nothing at all in any of this is "dangerous"...). Nevertheless, by the same token, aren't you assuming they weren't?
All I know is that it was Brady's camp all along that was threatening court. The court will demand the information on the phone. If he was innocent he destroyed his own evidence and further cast doubt on an already subjective argument. A tie goes to the league I would think, so in a way, the burden of proof shifts to the player. If he had proof and didn't use it at the league's due process level, I would think the court would agree that they arrived at this situation due mostly to the lack of cooperation by Brady.
I agree that the burden of proof will be on Brady/NFLPA.
But again, if Brady/NFLPA files suit, can't the NFL subpoena any and all relevant phone records of any other parties relevant to the case that it doesn't already have? Or on the flip side, can't Brady/NFLPA subpoena any/all phone records that the NFL has in order to show that the destruction of his phone is irrelevant to the decision since they (presumably) already have all of the pertinent phone records?
I would assume all the cards would be on the table in court. I just don't see how Brady can possibly prove he was cooperative, which is the primary reason for the suspension. I can't believe that any federal judge is going to be happy to be hearing a case about ball pressure anyway.
Is it just me or does Kraft always sound drunk?