What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Patriots being investigated after Colts game (3 Viewers)

Percent of NFL teams actively trying to steal play sheets?

  • 0%

    Votes: 90 33.0%
  • 25%

    Votes: 91 33.3%
  • 50%

    Votes: 19 7.0%
  • 75%

    Votes: 16 5.9%
  • 100%

    Votes: 57 20.9%

  • Total voters
    273
At least some of the Court proceedings are open to the media. So I'm thinking we will hear a lot. Normally settlement talks are held privately, and since the hearing is supposed to be on progress on a settlement, I am not sure how the judge lets the media in for that part.

 
Run It Up said:
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
Thread classic right there
Pretty accurate representation of this whole #### show.

Taken out of context and people just eat it up. Ignore the entire conversation Bayhawks and I had.

Goodell lied, people hold him to a different standard while at the same time believing everything he says.

 
Run It Up said:
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
Thread classic right there
Pretty accurate representation of this whole #### show.Taken out of context and people just eat it up. Ignore the entire conversation Bayhawks and I had.

Goodell lied, people hold him to a different standard while at the same time believing everything he says.
How is it out if context? Our entire conversation was about you/NE fans being outraged by Goodell's lies, but ignoring Brady's. You then post that it doesn't matter if Brady lied, because you feel Goodell misrepresented what Brady testified.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Run It Up said:
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
Thread classic right there
Pretty accurate representation of this whole #### show.Taken out of context and people just eat it up. Ignore the entire conversation Bayhawks and I had.

Goodell lied, people hold him to a different standard while at the same time believing everything he says.
How is it out if context? Our entire conversation was about you/NE fans being outraged by Goodell's lies, but ignoring Brady's. You then post that it doesn't matter if Brady lied, because you feel Goodell misrepresented what Brady testified.Then when presented with PROOF (not speculation or conjecture about how Goodell interpreted what Brady said) of a Brady lie, you just vanish from that conversation.

Seems like he took the quote exactly in the context in which it was made, and your response to Brady's proven lie just reinforced that NE fans will ignore Bradys lies & jump on Goodells.
We were talking about specifically whether Goodell lied, and again if you believe Brady lied, thats fine. To speed this along, lets say Brady lied - great. So wtf does that have to do with Goodell lying?

My original post, the one quoted above and taken out of context, the one you have twice now acted like you didn't understand it is clear. Goodell lied, period. Brady lying or not has no impact on whether Goodell lied...

 
Run It Up said:
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
Thread classic right there
Pretty accurate representation of this whole #### show.Taken out of context and people just eat it up. Ignore the entire conversation Bayhawks and I had.

Goodell lied, people hold him to a different standard while at the same time believing everything he says.
How is it out if context? Our entire conversation was about you/NE fans being outraged by Goodell's lies, but ignoring Brady's. You then post that it doesn't matter if Brady lied, because you feel Goodell misrepresented what Brady testified.Then when presented with PROOF (not speculation or conjecture about how Goodell interpreted what Brady said) of a Brady lie, you just vanish from that conversation.

Seems like he took the quote exactly in the context in which it was made, and your response to Brady's proven lie just reinforced that NE fans will ignore Bradys lies & jump on Goodells.
We were talking about specifically whether Goodell lied, and again if you believe Brady lied, thats fine. To speed this along, lets say Brady lied - great. So wtf does that have to do with Goodell lying?

My original post, the one quoted above and taken out of context, the one you have twice now acted like you didn't understand it is clear. Goodell lied, period. Brady lying or not has no impact on whether Goodell lied...
WE weren't talking about ONLY if Goodell lied, you were (because you and other NE fans ignore Brady's lies-which was my point).

You don't have to "say" Brady lied; he did, I provided PROOF of one of his lies, and (again proving my point), you vanished from the conversation rather than acknowledge that fact.

WTF it has to do with Goodell lying is the point-Brady is just as bad as Goodell in this situation. He cheated & is lying about it. Goodell was determined (it seems) to catch the Patriots, and is playing fast & loose with the truth to do so.

 
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 15m15 minutes ago

Former Dolphins OL coach Jim Turner is filing a defamation lawsuit in Florida against Ted Wells for Wells Report in Feb 2014, per source.
Waste of time and money on his part. Defamation lawsuits are incredibly hard to win.
Hopefully he can get the documentation that was created during this investigation and get it released. I would like to see these "independent investigations" looked at again.

 
HobbesAB said:
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter 15m15 minutes ago

Former Dolphins OL coach Jim Turner is filing a defamation lawsuit in Florida against Ted Wells for Wells Report in Feb 2014, per source.
Waste of time and money on his part. Defamation lawsuits are incredibly hard to win.
Hopefully he can get the documentation that was created during this investigation and get it released. I would like to see these "independent investigations" looked at again.
Agreed, I've heard him talk in interviews, super passionate dude - hes absolutely convinced he got railroaded. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Ted Wells comments at the Brady appeal that brought legal action. Hard to impossible to prove, but I think he could make his case and at least drag some people out.

 
GOODELL: "Okay, I'm willing to concede a bit here.... I'm a reasonable guy. Admit you are 100% guilty, take full responsibility for the entire scandal, tell everyone you're a pathological liar, declare me supreme ruler of the NFL Universe, and pledge your unwavering support and allegiance to me while on your knees on a prime time broadcast on the NFL network... and we'll knock it down to 3 games."

 
GOODELL: "Okay, I'm willing to concede a bit here.... I'm a reasonable guy. Admit you are 100% guilty, take full responsibility for the entire scandal, tell everyone you're a pathological liar, declare me supreme ruler of the NFL Universe, and pledge your unwavering support and allegiance to me while on your knees on a prime time broadcast on the NFL network... and we'll knock it down to 3 games."
What the rest of the country actually wants: Brady and the Patriots to just have a little bit of accountability.

 
GOODELL: "Okay, I'm willing to concede a bit here.... I'm a reasonable guy. Admit you are 100% guilty, take full responsibility for the entire scandal, tell everyone you're a pathological liar, declare me supreme ruler of the NFL Universe, and pledge your unwavering support and allegiance to me while on your knees on a prime time broadcast on the NFL network... and we'll knock it down to 3 games."
What the rest of the country actually wants: Brady and the Patriots to just have a little bit of accountability.
For?

 
GOODELL: "Okay, I'm willing to concede a bit here.... I'm a reasonable guy. Admit you are 100% guilty, take full responsibility for the entire scandal, tell everyone you're a pathological liar, declare me supreme ruler of the NFL Universe, and pledge your unwavering support and allegiance to me while on your knees on a prime time broadcast on the NFL network... and we'll knock it down to 3 games."
What the rest of the country actually wants: Brady and the Patriots to just have a little bit of accountability.
For?
:lol:

 
GOODELL: "Okay, I'm willing to concede a bit here.... I'm a reasonable guy. Admit you are 100% guilty, take full responsibility for the entire scandal, tell everyone you're a pathological liar, declare me supreme ruler of the NFL Universe, and pledge your unwavering support and allegiance to me while on your knees on a prime time broadcast on the NFL network... and we'll knock it down to 3 games."
What the rest of the country actually wants: Brady and the Patriots to just have a little bit of accountability.
For?
:lol:
Someone's gotta whip 'em back into a lather :shrug:

 
Dear Bayhawks,

As I understand it, your central point is that Brady said ALWAYS, ergo he is a liar, ergo he destroyed the phones the NFL said they did not need for nefarious purposes.

Are you open to the notion that a person might say always when they mean usually or typically? Or would you prefer to hang on to the technicality argument in your strawman?

Also, while I have your attention, could you point me to the sources which "debunk" the notion that he didn't want his personal information floating around, therefore his general practice was to destroy old phones? You mentioned these explanations have been debunked....link?

 
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
Thread classic right there
Pretty accurate representation of this whole #### show.Taken out of context and people just eat it up. Ignore the entire conversation Bayhawks and I had.

Goodell lied, people hold him to a different standard while at the same time believing everything he says.
How is it out if context? Our entire conversation was about you/NE fans being outraged by Goodell's lies, but ignoring Brady's. You then post that it doesn't matter if Brady lied, because you feel Goodell misrepresented what Brady testified.Then when presented with PROOF (not speculation or conjecture about how Goodell interpreted what Brady said) of a Brady lie, you just vanish from that conversation.

Seems like he took the quote exactly in the context in which it was made, and your response to Brady's proven lie just reinforced that NE fans will ignore Bradys lies & jump on Goodells.
We were talking about specifically whether Goodell lied, and again if you believe Brady lied, thats fine. To speed this along, lets say Brady lied - great. So wtf does that have to do with Goodell lying?My original post, the one quoted above and taken out of context, the one you have twice now acted like you didn't understand it is clear. Goodell lied, period. Brady lying or not has no impact on whether Goodell lied...
Goodell lying means he was trying to pressure Brady (no appeal, come clean etc.)

Brady lying means he actually did cheat.

You're straining at a gnat while swallowing an elephant.

 
I've read and consumed more information about this ridiculous thing than I care to admit. I still don't really see any proof that the balls were actually deflated, and even assuming they were, virtually no evidence that Brady was involved other than the "well he must be" logic, which I get, but don't think should be sufficient to slap this kind of penalty on someone.

More than anything, I'm just so freaking over hearing about this.

 
Dear Bayhawks,

As I understand it, your central point is that Brady said ALWAYS, ergo he is a liar, ergo he destroyed the phones the NFL said they did not need for nefarious purposes.

Are you open to the notion that a person might say always when they mean usually or typically? Or would you prefer to hang on to the technicality argument in your strawman?

Also, while I have your attention, could you point me to the sources which "debunk" the notion that he didn't want his personal information floating around, therefore his general practice was to destroy old phones? You mentioned these explanations have been debunked....link?
Dear SeniorVBDStudent,

I've posted it twice now. If that isn't adequate, read the transcript of his appeal. I've posted that link twice, as well.

He was asked how long it has been his policy to destroy his cell phone when he replaces it. He said ever since he has had a cell phone. He, WITHOUT being asked a question, went back to this topic, and reiterated, that he always tells the guy to destroy his phone. He didn't say it once, but twice. He wasn't tricked into saying it, it wasn't the NFL lawyers manipulating his words. HE SAID, TWICE, that he ALWAYS destroys his cell phone when he replaces it (to prevent the contents from becoming public). This is a lie, because the phone he had prior to the one he destroyed to keep it from the NFL had not been destroyed, despite being replaced months earlier.

With regards to the "debunking," you are confused. The idea that has been debunked is that the reason he didn't let the NFL have his phone is because he was worried about personal info getting leaked. This has been debunked by the fact that the NFL NEVER ASKED FOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF HIS PHONE. They wanted him (or his laywer) to provide copies of electronic communications off the phone. The pics/emails/contacts he was worried about leaking couldn't have leaked, unless he or his lawyer leaked them. It has been discussed countless times in this thread. If you don't want to read the thread, google "Wells never asked for Brady's phone."

When Brady destroyed his phone, he made those electronic communications the NFL was interested in irretrievable (according to his cell phone carrier).

 
GOODELL: "Okay, I'm willing to concede a bit here.... I'm a reasonable guy. Admit you are 100% guilty, take full responsibility for the entire scandal, tell everyone you're a pathological liar, declare me supreme ruler of the NFL Universe, and pledge your unwavering support and allegiance to me while on your knees on a prime time broadcast on the NFL network... and we'll knock it down to 3 games."
What the rest of the country actually wants: Brady and the Patriots to just have a little bit of accountability.
Would $1 million and two draft picks, a first-rounder in 2016 and a fourth-rounder in 2017 suffice? Because Robert Kraft and the Patriots have already accepted that punishment from the league for this violation.

 
Dear SeniorVBDStudent,

I've posted it twice now. If that isn't adequate, read the transcript of his appeal. I've posted that link twice, as well.

I've read your posts including the excerpts from the appeal. Your posts were not adequate, so I asked you the questions I asked you.

He was asked how long it has been his policy to destroy his cell phone when he replaces it. He said ever since he has had a cell phone.

Actually, as you posted, he said "I think for as long as I have had a cell phone". The inference of course is that he does not have perfect recall as to something as trivial as used phone disposition.

He, WITHOUT being asked a question, went back to this topic, and reiterated, that he always tells the guy to destroy his phone. He didn't say it once, but twice. He wasn't tricked into saying it, it wasn't the NFL lawyers manipulating his words. HE SAID, TWICE, that he ALWAYS destroys his cell phone when he replaces it (to prevent the contents from becoming public).

I always have a bowel movement in the morning after I have a cup of coffee. No, seriously, always. Well, perhaps there have been one or two occasions when I had some Mexican food and took a nap and ate again later where I pooped in the afternoon. but for the most part its always in the morning.

Similarly, most normal people have regular habits and practices that they use the word always to describe, when in fact always is not technically correct. This does not mean that when I have a bowel movement in the afternoon and then tell people that I always have same in the morning after coffee that I am a liar and attempting to hide the truth about why I pooped in the afternoon.

This is a lie, because the phone he had prior to the one he destroyed to keep it from the NFL had not been destroyed, despite being replaced months earlier.

See above.

Additionally, let's imagine for a moment that the construct was a lie. I've never met Tom Brady but I'm going to go ahead and guess that he's not going to intentially lie about an issue like this knowing in fact he has phone(s) laying around that are inconsistent with the "always" statement. If you choose to believe he is stupid and accidentally stepped in it, good on you.

With regards to the "debunking," you are confused. The idea that has been debunked is that the reason he didn't let the NFL have his phone is because he was worried about personal info getting leaked. This has been debunked by the fact that the NFL NEVER ASKED FOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF HIS PHONE. They wanted him (or his laywer) to provide copies of electronic communications off the phone. The pics/emails/contacts he was worried about leaking couldn't have leaked, unless he or his lawyer leaked them. It has been discussed countless times in this thread. If you don't want to read the thread, google "Wells never asked for Brady's phone."

Now I fear you are really confused. His personal practice of destroying old phones pre-dates this incident (note that he states he's been doing it ever since he had his first cell phone) and has to do with personal information security. He destroys old phones because he doesn't know whether they will fall into the wrong hands. The argument that he had no reason to destroy old phones because the NFL didn't ask for them is specious on its face.

When Brady destroyed his phone, he made those electronic communications the NFL was interested in irretrievable (according to his cell phone carrier).
Gee, that's a shame. Too bad that's what he does with used phones. Not every single one (sometimes I poop in the afternoon), but that's his stated policy.

Now go prove intent.

 
Dear SeniorVBDStudent,

I've posted it twice now. If that isn't adequate, read the transcript of his appeal. I've posted that link twice, as well.

I've read your posts including the excerpts from the appeal. Your posts were not adequate, so I asked you the questions I asked you.

He was asked how long it has been his policy to destroy his cell phone when he replaces it. He said ever since he has had a cell phone.

Actually, as you posted, he said "I think for as long as I have had a cell phone". The inference of course is that he does not have perfect recall as to something as trivial as used phone disposition.

Again, try reading the appeal. Right after he said "I think for as long as I have had a cell phone," he reinforced that answer with "ever since I have been in the NFL." Correct me if I'm wrong, but he was in the NFL all of 2014 right? You know when he replaced the phone he didn't destroy, like he "always" does? Besides that, the origin of this supposed practice of his isn't in question, it's the application of it. There's no reason to debate whether he started this policy when he was a junior in college, when he was a rookie in the NFL, or in 2006. There's no debating that he claims this policy was in place when the phones in question were in use.

He, WITHOUT being asked a question, went back to this topic, and reiterated, that he always tells the guy to destroy his phone. He didn't say it once, but twice. He wasn't tricked into saying it, it wasn't the NFL lawyers manipulating his words. HE SAID, TWICE, that he ALWAYS destroys his cell phone when he replaces it (to prevent the contents from becoming public).

I always have a bowel movement in the morning after I have a cup of coffee. No, seriously, always. Well, perhaps there have been one or two occasions when I had some Mexican food and took a nap and ate again later where I pooped in the afternoon. but for the most part its always in the morning.

Similarly, most normal people have regular habits and practices that they use the word always to describe, when in fact always is not technically correct. This does not mean that when I have a bowel movement in the afternoon and then tell people that I always have same in the morning after coffee that I am a liar and attempting to hide the truth about why I pooped in the afternoon.

Thanks for sharing your ####ting habits. If you were under oath, and said you always pooped in the morning, and then it could be proven that you don't always poop in the morning, you'd have committed perjury, which means you'd have lied.

This is a lie, because the phone he had prior to the one he destroyed to keep it from the NFL had not been destroyed, despite being replaced months earlier.

See above.

See above.

Additionally, let's imagine for a moment that the construct was a lie. I've never met Tom Brady but I'm going to go ahead and guess that he's not going to intentially lie about an issue like this knowing in fact he has phone(s) laying around that are inconsistent with the "always" statement. If you choose to believe he is stupid and accidentally stepped in it, good on you.

I've never met Tom Brady, either. That doesn't change the fact that there is proof that he lied, under oath. If you choose to ignore that fact, good on you.

With regards to the "debunking," you are confused. The idea that has been debunked is that the reason he didn't let the NFL have his phone is because he was worried about personal info getting leaked. This has been debunked by the fact that the NFL NEVER ASKED FOR PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF HIS PHONE. They wanted him (or his laywer) to provide copies of electronic communications off the phone. The pics/emails/contacts he was worried about leaking couldn't have leaked, unless he or his lawyer leaked them. It has been discussed countless times in this thread. If you don't want to read the thread, google "Wells never asked for Brady's phone."

Now I fear you are really confused. His personal practice of destroying old phones pre-dates this incident (note that he states he's been doing it ever since he had his first cell phone) and has to do with personal information security. He destroys old phones because he doesn't know whether they will fall into the wrong hands. The argument that he had no reason to destroy old phones because the NFL didn't ask for them is specious on its face.

Again, you are confused. What I said has been debunked is the claim (not by Brady, but by posters in this thread) that Brady didn't turn his phone over b/c he was worried (due to the other leaks in this whole debacle) about his personal info getting leaked. Since the NFL never asked for physical possession of the phone, that fear of an NFL leak as the reason for not sharing the info with the NFL has been debunked.

When Brady destroyed his phone, he made those electronic communications the NFL was interested in irretrievable (according to his cell phone carrier).
Gee, that's a shame. Too bad that's what he does with used phones. Not every single one (sometimes I poop in the afternoon), but that's his stated policy.

No, his stated policy is that he ALWAYS destroys his used phones. There is no proof that he actually practices this policy; but there is proof that he doesn't.

Now go prove intent.

I don't need to, nor does the NFL, or the judge deciding this court case. Why Brady lied is irrelevant; the fact that Brady lied, under oath, brings his credibility & his entire testimony into question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
I'll explain this post just in case English isn't everyone's first language.

"Run It Up" feels that the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, misrepresented Brady's testimony. I happen to agree and feel uncomfortable with the league as judge and jury when they pick and choose this way...

The truth (or lack of) of Brady's testimony is not relevant to the discussion of this misrepresentation. True to form, many posters here cannot debate a topic independently of their rooting interests or positions on the deflation controversy.

 
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
I'll explain this post just in case English isn't everyone's first language.

"Run It Up" feels that the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, misrepresented Brady's testimony. I happen to agree and feel uncomfortable with the league as judge and jury when they pick and choose this way...

The truth (or lack of) of Brady's testimony is not relevant to the discussion of this misrepresentation. True to form, many posters here cannot debate a topic independently of their rooting interests or positions on the deflation controversy.
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
I'll explain this post just in case English isn't everyone's first language.

"Run It Up" feels that the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, misrepresented Brady's testimony. I happen to agree and feel uncomfortable with the league as judge and jury when they pick and choose this way...

The truth (or lack of) of Brady's testimony is not relevant to the discussion of this misrepresentation. True to form, many posters here cannot debate a topic independently of their rooting interests or positions on the deflation controversy.
Nice job confirming your preposition.

 
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
I'll explain this post just in case English isn't everyone's first language.

"Run It Up" feels that the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, misrepresented Brady's testimony. I happen to agree and feel uncomfortable with the league as judge and jury when they pick and choose this way...

The truth (or lack of) of Brady's testimony is not relevant to the discussion of this misrepresentation. True to form, many posters here cannot debate a topic independently of their rooting interests or positions on the deflation controversy.
You may feel uncomfortable with the NFL as judge and jury but players from 31 teams didn't seem to care when they signed the CBA.
 
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
I'll explain this post just in case English isn't everyone's first language.

"Run It Up" feels that the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, misrepresented Brady's testimony. I happen to agree and feel uncomfortable with the league as judge and jury when they pick and choose this way...

The truth (or lack of) of Brady's testimony is not relevant to the discussion of this misrepresentation. True to form, many posters here cannot debate a topic independently of their rooting interests or positions on the deflation controversy.
You may feel uncomfortable with the NFL as judge and jury but players from 31 teams didn't seem to care when they signed the CBA.
Which team was the exception?

I was comfortable until I saw some of the discrepancies between the testimony and the conclusions. Combine that with all the misinformation right after the AFCCG... This isn't what the NFL does best.

 
Can we get this level of breakdown for "the deflator" texts?
Can we get all of the texts or only specific ones taken out context?
How is it out of context? They gave their explanation which was ridiculous.
Cause its a handful of texts between two people who are very apparently man-children, that were cherry picked specifically because they could make them fit the narrative. We can laugh about all the #### they jokingly talk about but as soon as someone says deflator (months before this is even reasonably suspicious activity) thats all you need to condemn them, and Brady, and the Patriots.

 
Can we get this level of breakdown for "the deflator" texts?
Can we get all of the texts or only specific ones taken out context?
How is it out of context? They gave their explanation which was ridiculous.
Can I get an explanation as to why that explanation was ridiculous? There was another text in which he was called the Deflator when it was clearly related to weight loss. Literally. There was. Do I think that's where the nickname or whatever it was came from? No. But the term was used, by the same two people, in reference to losing weight.

Throwing that out, here's my thing with the "Deflator" text:

1) How does this text prove that the balls were deflated after the refs inspected the balls? We know now that Brady flipped out after the Jets game about the balls being too big. That's from both Brady and from other text messages between the Dorito dinks. Brady said he gave the rules to McNally to bring with him to show the refs when they looked at the balls to ensure that the balls were not inflated that high again. Is it not possible that the nickname comes from that whole situation? People who hold this text message are basically like "Oh - he referred to himself as the Deflator, clearly that means he is systematically deflating footballs between the ref inspection and game time!" Jumping to that conclusion and being as certain of it as some are is no more ridiculous than the weight loss explanation IMO, especially considering that we don't even know that the balls were actually deflated.

2) How does a text message between two people with one calling the other Deflator show that Brady orchestrated anything in any way?

I'm sure this has been gone over a thousand times, I have not been following this thread. But people hold up this text message like it's the Ray Rice video. AH-HA! OBVIOUSLY Brady orchestrated this whole thing because two other guys in a private exchange used a nickname with the word 'deflate" in it!

Yeah yeah, homer, etc. But it makes no sense.

 
Can we get this level of breakdown for "the deflator" texts?
Can we get all of the texts or only specific ones taken out context?
How is it out of context? They gave their explanation which was ridiculous.
Cause its a handful of texts between two people who are very apparently man-children, that were cherry picked specifically because they could make them fit the narrative. We can laugh about all the #### they jokingly talk about but as soon as someone says deflator (months before this is even reasonably suspicious activity) thats all you need to condemn them, and Brady, and the Patriots.
They fit a narrative because they are ####### talking about deflating balls. Among the ridiculous reasons they gave for their exchanges was that one loses weight so he is called the deflater :lol:

Who cares if they are man children? They are equipment guys not heart surgeons.

Months before suspicious activity? What does that even mean - they were deflating the balls for a long time and some butthurt teams finally #####ed about it?

There are plenty of reasons to "condemn" the Pats/Brady for this whole stupid thing. The thing is most can see that and most can also say that Goodell ####ed this whole mess up as well.

 
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
I'll explain this post just in case English isn't everyone's first language.

"Run It Up" feels that the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, misrepresented Brady's testimony. I happen to agree and feel uncomfortable with the league as judge and jury when they pick and choose this way...

The truth (or lack of) of Brady's testimony is not relevant to the discussion of this misrepresentation. True to form, many posters here cannot debate a topic independently of their rooting interests or positions on the deflation controversy.
You may feel uncomfortable with the NFL as judge and jury but players from 31 teams didn't seem to care when they signed the CBA.
Which team was the exception?

I was comfortable until I saw some of the discrepancies between the testimony and the conclusions. Combine that with all the misinformation right after the AFCCG... This isn't what the NFL does best.
The Steelers felt the commissioner shouldn't hear appeals but were the only team that voted against it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ben Volin: Why didn’t the NFL correct the false report from ESPN that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were two pounds under the 12.5 PSI minimum at halftime of the AFC Championship Game?

Goodell: Ben as you know, first and foremost we went to an independent investigation that week following the AFC Championship Game. All of that focus was put to Ted Wells at that point in time — supporting him and cooperating with him fully, making sure he had any information he had. There was no more discussion about a public discussion. It was Ted Wells’ investigation. He had complete discretion on the time, scope, the amount of time that was necessary for him, who he spoke to, and we fully supported that. So we went along with that, and that was ultimately the decision we made, and we issued our discipline shortly thereafter. And we’re in the middle of a CBA process now, and now litigation.

I'm tearing up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ben Volin: Why didnt the NFL correct the false report from ESPN that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were two pounds under the 12.5 PSI minimum at halftime of the AFC Championship Game?

Goodell: Ben as you know, first and foremost we went to an independent investigation that week following the AFC Championship Game. All of that focus was put to Ted Wells at that point in time supporting him and cooperating with him fully, making sure he had any information he had. There was no more discussion about a public discussion. It was Ted Wells investigation. He had complete discretion on the time, scope, the amount of time that was necessary for him, who he spoke to, and we fully supported that. So we went along with that, and that was ultimately the decision we made, and we issued our discipline shortly thereafter. And were in the middle of a CBA process now, and now litigation.

I'm tearing up.
A pretty straightforward question should get a straight answer and thus ginger clown still can't do it. Also like how he mentions "Independent" again after they said in court last week that it doesn't matter.

Goodell is a dimwitted liar.

 
Months before suspicious activity? What does that even mean
Well, its been six months, there is a lot of information that you are clearly unaware of, but the good news is you have all the time in the world to go over it.

Or you can keep posting here and continue to choose not be aware of any of it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its not debatable, Goodell did misrepresent Brady's testimony.

Whether Brady's testimony is true or not is irrelevant.
I'll explain this post just in case English isn't everyone's first language.

"Run It Up" feels that the Commissioner, Roger Goodell, misrepresented Brady's testimony. I happen to agree and feel uncomfortable with the league as judge and jury when they pick and choose this way...

The truth (or lack of) of Brady's testimony is not relevant to the discussion of this misrepresentation. True to form, many posters here cannot debate a topic independently of their rooting interests or positions on the deflation controversy.
You may feel uncomfortable with the NFL as judge and jury but players from 31 teams didn't seem to care when they signed the CBA.
Perhaps this is true, but I bet the players care now.

 
FYI,

http://espn.go.com/blog/new-england-patriots/post/_/id/4783542/setting-the-stage-for-tom-bradynfl-conference-in-new-york-court

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- Reviewing the key points of what is scheduled to unfold today in U.S. District Court in New York with New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady:

Starts at 11 a.m. The settlement conference, led by Judge Richard Berman, is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. ET. The conference is public, although there is a possibility the sides could relocate to a private setting at some point. Among those who will be present include Brady, his counsel, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and the league's counsel.

"Good faith efforts" ordered by judge. On Tuesday, Berman ordered both sides to engage in "further good faith settlement" efforts. Berman scheduled a 10:30 a.m. ET meeting Wednesday to be briefed on any progress in those efforts before the official settlement conference begins.

Where things stand. Mark Maske, who covers the NFL for the Washington Post, cited a source with knowledge of the sport's inner workings saying it's "very doubtful" there will be a settlement.

Who is Richard Berman? The 71-year-old judge was appointed by Bill Clinton in 1998, and took senior status in 2011. On Aug. 8, the New York Times published an Associated Press piece with the headline, "Brady-Goodell case gets a judge who is capable of resolving it quickly." Judge William H. Pauley III is quoted in the piece, saying, "If there’s anybody on our bench who can resolve a case, it’s Richard." Berman was randomly assigned the case after the NFL's initial filing to confirm Brady's suspension.

Anticipating the next step. If the sides do not reach a settlement Wednesday, they will file briefs by Friday, similar to the 15-page briefs from last week that stated each of their positions. The sides have scheduled Aug. 19 for a second conference with Berman, who has been asked by all involved to make a decision by Sept. 4 if a settlement can't be reached.

 
For those who are actually looking to read real information on this topic, rather than the same tired back and forth from posters who have already dug their feet (or heads) in the sand:

An interesting series of blog posts from a Houston Texans (not Patriots) beat writer / attorney who gives her own legal analysis of the case at hand:

Deflategate questions:
http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-questions/

Deflategate Q&A and FAQs:
http://www.stradleylaw.com/deflategate-legal-faqs-settlement/

Legal thoughts on issues with he deflate-gate transcript:
http://www.stradleylaw.com/nfl-brady-deflategate-transcript/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
States the NFL changes its settlement offer but doesn't stimpulate how many games they reduced, it is all contingent on Brady accepting the findings of the Wells Report so a dead issue regardless but I would be interested to know if they went down to 1, 2 or 3 games.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13422433/nfl-settle-new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-accept-findings-ted-wells-report
According to the article, Brady is also refusing to budge; he will accept a fine, but no suspension.With neither side willing to compromise, the judge will have to resolve the issue. I don't see how either side can feel comfortable with that. The NFL has the CBA on its side, but in court, the judge could go either way.

 
So the NFL is demanding that Tom Brady admit that it is more probable than not that he had at least general awareness of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls.

Okie dokie.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top