Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Patriots being investigated after Colts game (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter HobbesAB
- Start date
GoBirds
Footballguy
Khy
Footballguy
Uhh, hardly? +/- 0.5 would be an acceptable range of error. So 12 PSI on the low range or 14 PSI on the high range. The colts balls all tested either higher or within that level. The Patriots only had 1 ball come within that acceptable range. And had several balls fall over 1 PSI below that range. Some even as low as 1.5 PSI below at 10.5 PSI. Which means there balls were all 1.5-2 PSI under the legal range. That's not a acceptable range of error, that's just blatant. The colts 3 balls that fell under the range only fell that far on one of the 2 tests, the Patriots balls ALL fell under the 12.50 PSI range. Not a single one even accidentally tested higher than that.
The only one uninformed, arrogant, and ignorant here is you. See, the dictionary disagrees with your definition of "probable" = no doubt.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/probable
The change in the Pats balls were greater than the change in the Colts balls. If the reason for the deflation was natural causes then it should be the same for both teams, which it wasn't. Meaning the Pats balls had some other factor at play or the laws of physics cease to exist for the Pats.
Last edited by a moderator:
BustedKnuckles
Footballguy
Hangin`s too good fer them thar varmints
Khy
Footballguy
Are you illterite?
having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
Where does that say "no doubt" probable literally means that there is more evidence for than against an argument. They're saying that the evidence shows it's very likely that Brady knew but there's a small chance he didn't.
The Wells report says "probable". You think "probable" means "for sure" or "as guilty as OJ". That is your reading comprehension problem.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
Thunderlips
Footballguy
No real surprise that they did it. Hopefully, the ESPN and the rest of the sports media stops lapping BB and Brady's beanbags' and starts looking at them as the cheaters they are.
Khy
Footballguy
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/The Wells report says "probable". You think "probable" means "for sure" or "as guilty as OJ". That is your reading comprehension problem.
More probable than not is about as close to "guilty" as you can get in a situation that's hard to prove such as this one. Without video evidence or recordings of Brady telling them to deflate the balls, more probable than not is the very best you'll ever get. And in a court of law, that's MORE than enough to satisfy a judgment.
GoBirds
Footballguy
The thread you are clinging to is about the same as a Probable on the injury report not playing. Good luck in your bubble.The Wells report says "probable". You think "probable" means "for sure" or "as guilty as OJ". That is your reading comprehension problem.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Actually, they did have the chance to present their side but they stonewalled the investigators every step of the way - even after they promised "full" cooperation.
Run It Up
Footballguy
They interviewed Mcnally four separate times. When they asked to interview him a fifth time, Kraft declined.
Last edited by a moderator:
Khy
Footballguy
Illterite is "unable to read or write". Spelling has nothing to do with your ability to articulate thoughts onto paper or read. It's just spelling, I'm sure you and everyone here has misspelt a word or two in their life. But I'm glad I gave you an out to continue being as blind and ignorant as alwaysHaha, you call someone illiterate, and you completely misspelled it as "illterite".
Thanks for proving how ignorant and uninformed you are.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry, but the Wells Report isn't equivalent to a court of law. Not sure why you keep comparing it to a court of law. It's apples and oranges.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/The Wells report says "probable". You think "probable" means "for sure" or "as guilty as OJ". That is your reading comprehension problem.
More probable than not is about as close to "guilty" as you can get in a situation that's hard to prove such as this one. Without video evidence or recordings of Brady telling them to deflate the balls, more probable than not is the very best you'll ever get. And in a court of law, that's MORE than enough to satisfy a judgment.
No one had a chance to challenge the Wells Report claims and assumptions. Like the huge assumption that the Patriots balls started at 12.5 PSI, when it was not recorded, and there is video proof/other refs saying that they normally don't check ball PSI too carefully before games.
Yes, I'm sure he typoed the word he meant in 2 different places.Illterite is "unable to read or write". Spelling has nothing to do with your ability to articulate thoughts onto paper or read. It's just spelling, I'm sure you and everyone here has misspelt a word or two in their life. But I'm glad I gave you an out to continue being as blind and ignorant as alwaysHaha, you call someone illiterate, and you completely misspelled it as "illterite".
Thanks for proving how ignorant and uninformed you are.
Btw, I called him ignorant and uninformed (in response to him calling me that first), not illiterate -- he called me illiterate. As usual, you get your facts completely wrong.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoBirds
Footballguy
You pull for cheaters, sorry bud. Caught with the hand in the cookie jar again. Barry Bonds of football.Sorry, but the Wells Report isn't equivalent to a court of law. Not sure why you keep comparing it to a court of law. It's apples and oranges.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/The Wells report says "probable". You think "probable" means "for sure" or "as guilty as OJ". That is your reading comprehension problem.
More probable than not is about as close to "guilty" as you can get in a situation that's hard to prove such as this one. Without video evidence or recordings of Brady telling them to deflate the balls, more probable than not is the very best you'll ever get. And in a court of law, that's MORE than enough to satisfy a judgment.
No one had a chance to challenge the Wells Report claims and assumptions. Like the huge assumption that the Patriots balls started at 12.5 PSI, when it was not recorded, and there is video proof/other refs saying that they normally don't check ball PSI too carefully before games.
Khy
Footballguy
Uhh, arbitration is a vital part of our legal system. And in certain situations (like the NFL) a optional alternative dispute resolution to a court of law. The same rules however, still apply.Sorry, but the Wells Report isn't equivalent to a court of law. Not sure why you keep comparing it to a court of law. It's apples and oranges.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/The Wells report says "probable". You think "probable" means "for sure" or "as guilty as OJ". That is your reading comprehension problem.
More probable than not is about as close to "guilty" as you can get in a situation that's hard to prove such as this one. Without video evidence or recordings of Brady telling them to deflate the balls, more probable than not is the very best you'll ever get. And in a court of law, that's MORE than enough to satisfy a judgment.
No one had a chance to challenge the Wells Report claims and assumptions. Like the huge assumption that the Patriots balls started at 12.5 PSI, when it was not recorded, and there is video proof/other refs saying that they normally don't check ball PSI too carefully before games.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
You are correct.
But they did have the opportunity to present their side which was the real point.
Khy
Footballguy
See you're responding to me as if I'm someone else. The word you're looking for here is "you" not "he". Further proof of your inability to read.Yes, I'm sure he typoed the word he meant in 2 different places.Illterite is "unable to read or write". Spelling has nothing to do with your ability to articulate thoughts onto paper or read. It's just spelling, I'm sure you and everyone here has misspelt a word or two in their life. But I'm glad I gave you an out to continue being as blind and ignorant as alwaysHaha, you call someone illiterate, and you completely misspelled it as "illterite".
Thanks for proving how ignorant and uninformed you are.
Btw, I called him ignorant and uninformed (in response to him calling me that first), not illiterate -- he called me illiterate. As usual, you get your facts completely wrong.
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
I would hate to see any penalties massively effect the competitive balance of the league. A long suspension of the Liar Tom Brady would do that. His suspension would inure to the unearned benefit of the Teams the Patriots face during that time. Let's pretend, for instance that Pittsburgh and the Ravens are each expected to tie, at 9-7 for the last wild card place before this happens. Now the Steelers get to face the Pats w/o Brady, while hypothetically the Ravens do not. Suddenly the Steelers are likely one game improved, and they improve the tiebreaker of conference record. That's huge. Given this I believe Brady should be suspended for the first quarter of each of the Pats home games this year. That would amount to 8 quarters, a relatively minor amount, but would be more evenly distributed. I also like this because Pat apologists have been saying any advantage was minimal while others have argued its cumulative and substantial over time. This remedy would help with understanding that dynamic.
Next, fines, schmines. Do it if you must, but it does not hurt the Pats and does not address competitive balance.
As to draft choices, I hate wiping out a choice, or choices. That is too substantial. Instead, going with our established principle of minimalism, but real consequences I say that next year the Patriots have their starting draft position, whatever it is moved down two places. If they would have drafted 1st, they now draft 3rd, if 20th then 22nd, and if 32 then 34th. Throughout the remainder of the draft they do not get the next pick at an interval of 32, but rather at an interval of 34. This is a small, but real punishment.
As to other penalties, I believe they should be dinged in the salary cap for the next three years, nothing substantial, say they should have their cap reduced by a mere 1%. Again, since small advantages or disadvantages are irrelevant according to some this should be of no concern. It should also not concern anyone if they lose any compensatory picks they might have received over the next two years. Finally, they have offended against every team in the league, not much, but some. Given this, the first time they play any team from now on, until they have played each team once, they will have their game day roster reduced by 1 player for that first, post deflate-gate, meeting. It is a small, insignificant thing, but is symbolic and perhaps is some form of restorative justice.
Any Pats fans who have previously argued the cheating was insignificant surely cannot object to this well retrained approach, much more restrained than some I have seen.
Next, fines, schmines. Do it if you must, but it does not hurt the Pats and does not address competitive balance.
As to draft choices, I hate wiping out a choice, or choices. That is too substantial. Instead, going with our established principle of minimalism, but real consequences I say that next year the Patriots have their starting draft position, whatever it is moved down two places. If they would have drafted 1st, they now draft 3rd, if 20th then 22nd, and if 32 then 34th. Throughout the remainder of the draft they do not get the next pick at an interval of 32, but rather at an interval of 34. This is a small, but real punishment.
As to other penalties, I believe they should be dinged in the salary cap for the next three years, nothing substantial, say they should have their cap reduced by a mere 1%. Again, since small advantages or disadvantages are irrelevant according to some this should be of no concern. It should also not concern anyone if they lose any compensatory picks they might have received over the next two years. Finally, they have offended against every team in the league, not much, but some. Given this, the first time they play any team from now on, until they have played each team once, they will have their game day roster reduced by 1 player for that first, post deflate-gate, meeting. It is a small, insignificant thing, but is symbolic and perhaps is some form of restorative justice.
Any Pats fans who have previously argued the cheating was insignificant surely cannot object to this well retrained approach, much more restrained than some I have seen.
bicycle_seat_sniffer
Smells like chicken
They should be stripped of all wins
You responded to me first. Sorry if cross conversations confuse you so much.See you're responding to me as if I'm someone else. The word you're looking for here is "you" not "he". Further proof of your inability to read.Yes, I'm sure he typoed the word he meant in 2 different places.Illterite is "unable to read or write". Spelling has nothing to do with your ability to articulate thoughts onto paper or read. It's just spelling, I'm sure you and everyone here has misspelt a word or two in their life. But I'm glad I gave you an out to continue being as blind and ignorant as alwaysHaha, you call someone illiterate, and you completely misspelled it as "illterite".
Thanks for proving how ignorant and uninformed you are.
Btw, I called him ignorant and uninformed (in response to him calling me that first), not illiterate -- he called me illiterate. As usual, you get your facts completely wrong.
Maybe you can go back to studying your online law classes, since you have no idea about the law.
Yeesh, you are completely clueless. The Wells Report reports the results of an investigation, not an arbitration. Please stop embarrassing yourself.Uhh, arbitration is a vital part of our legal system. And in certain situations (like the NFL) a optional alternative dispute resolution to a court of law. The same rules however, still apply.Sorry, but the Wells Report isn't equivalent to a court of law. Not sure why you keep comparing it to a court of law. It's apples and oranges.http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/The Wells report says "probable". You think "probable" means "for sure" or "as guilty as OJ". That is your reading comprehension problem.
More probable than not is about as close to "guilty" as you can get in a situation that's hard to prove such as this one. Without video evidence or recordings of Brady telling them to deflate the balls, more probable than not is the very best you'll ever get. And in a court of law, that's MORE than enough to satisfy a judgment.
No one had a chance to challenge the Wells Report claims and assumptions. Like the huge assumption that the Patriots balls started at 12.5 PSI, when it was not recorded, and there is video proof/other refs saying that they normally don't check ball PSI too carefully before games.
Native
Footballguy
FWIW, the report itself is far more damning to Brady and the Patriots than the news headlines. For those on the fence, I encourage you to read it. The report clearly reads that the Patriots have been caught in a web of lies. Its also abundantly clear from the report thay they have not been forthcoming sharing information (despite the comments of some on this board)
Given the tenor of their findings, I think its unfortunate that they sugarcoat the conclusion by using flimsy allegations such as "it is more probable than not" and "at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities". Those are the soundbytes that the media picks up but they dont even begin to accurately describe the mountans of evidence of wrong-doings and contradictions captured in the report itself.
A conspiracy theorist would sugest that this is the back-room compromise between the NFL and the Patriots legal team - be as damning as you want in the report, but do not declaritively state that the team/player is guilty.
Given the tenor of their findings, I think its unfortunate that they sugarcoat the conclusion by using flimsy allegations such as "it is more probable than not" and "at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities". Those are the soundbytes that the media picks up but they dont even begin to accurately describe the mountans of evidence of wrong-doings and contradictions captured in the report itself.
A conspiracy theorist would sugest that this is the back-room compromise between the NFL and the Patriots legal team - be as damning as you want in the report, but do not declaritively state that the team/player is guilty.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
David Dodds
Administrator
Ditkaless Wonders
Footballguy
Wells charge was to determine whether by a preponderance of evidence, more probable than not, something occurred. He said that it did. He did not get asked, nor did he opine, whether he found evidence to satisfy a clear and convincing standard, or the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. As to Belichick and Kraft, Wells did not exonerate them, he merely stated that he found no evidence to implicate them. This is not the same thing, tough in fairness proving exoneration is next to impossible in most instances even where persons are without any blame.
Well, that's not "FULL" cooperation, then is it? Full cooperation would be they asked for 5 interviews, and the Patriots allowed 5 interviews.
That aside, the more damning information from the report is that Brady refused to give access to his cell phone records. If he had nothing to hide, why wouldn't he allow it?
Now obviously, he's not required to give that over, but the fact that he refused to provide the records could be viewed by the NFL as "obstructing the investigation," and when coupled with the texts/records from the other two NE employees, looks bad for Brady.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
Run It Up
Footballguy
So for those of us who have read it, would you care to share some examples of the bolded above.
They quite often in the report say such and such is implausible. I assume these are what you're referring to, and if so - do you have any instances by Brady and/or the Patriots organization?
99% of the damning evidence in the report is about Mcnally and Jastremski.
Native
Footballguy
You couldnt sound more like a lawyer of you tried.
That he didnt get asked "whether he found evidence to satisfy a clear and convincing standard" is part of the problem. Who is going to take this evidence and determine guilt or innocence? Is it Roger Goodlell and the NFL lawyers? Or are they going to snap back and state that they cannot punish Brady and the Pats given that the report didnt clearly indict them?
Knowing the particiants here, and being overly cynical, I can see this turning into a circular argument that lets the team/player get off with a slap on the wrist.
I wouldn't be surprised if there were a back-room agreement for the punishment already. I don't think Kraft would have announced today that the Patriots wouldn't fight the punishment, unless he already knew it would be light.
Native
Footballguy
Some snippets from the report:
Enitre document can be seen here -----> https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2073728-ted-wells-report-deflategate.html
During his interview, Brady denied any knowledge of or involvement in any efforts to deflate game balls after the pre-game inspection by the game officials. He claimed that prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any role relating to game balls or the game officials. We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. In fact, during his interview, Jastremski acknowledged that Brady knew McNally and McNally‟s role as Officials Locker Room attendant.
-----
Tom Brady...declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady‟s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady‟s telephone or other electronic devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in Brady‟s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation.
-------
McNally‟s responsibilities with the Patriots previously came under review by the NFL in connection with an incident involving game balls in 2004. According to a letter dated November 2, 2004, from then-NFL Director of Game Operations Peter Hadhazy and a memorandum dated October 25, 2004, from Richard Farley, the NFL Security Representative assigned to New England, that incident involved Patriots ball boys relaying supposed “approved” game balls that actually were non-approved practice balls to a game official during an October 25, 2004 regular season game.
-------
As noted, there was a significant exception to the cooperation provided by the Patriots. Although we requested a follow-up interview of Jim McNally after our initial interview, counsel for the Patriots refused our request. We offered to conduct the interview at any time or location that would be convenient for McNally, and explained—both in writing and in-person during other meetings—that our follow-up questions would be limited to subject matter directly relevant to the investigation that was developed following our initial interview with McNally.
McNally was one of the earliest Patriots personnel interviewed by our investigative team and a number of important follow-up questions had arisen based on subsequent interviews and information discovered after our initial interview of McNally. Counsel for the Patriots, however, declined to produce McNally, and communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview. We do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request. The investigative process would have benefited from further questioning of McNally on certain topics, and we believe that the actions of the Patriots and their counsel in this regard are inconsistent both with the club‟s public pronouncements of full cooperation with the investigation and its obligations under Section 2 of the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules.
We made written requests to counsel for the Patriots on February 28, March 2, 3, 9 and 17 for a follow-up interview with McNally. Counsel for the Patriots repeatedly refused to make McNally available for a reinterview claiming, among other things, that McNally lived more than an hour away and already had missed work at his full-time job to attend earlier interviews. In addition, counsel for the Patriots asked that we provide in advance the subjects we proposed to cover, submit written interrogatories, and stated that “you have given me very little incentive or basis to try to get him back once more.” As noted above, we offered to meet with McNally at any time and any location that was convenient and explained that it would not be appropriate from an investigative standpoint to disclose in advance the specific subjects we intended to cover. Wecautioned counsel for the Patriots in writing that: the “refusal to make Mr. McNally available for a brief follow-up interview raises serious concerns and is inconsistent with the obligations of the Patriots under the League Rules to provide „full support and cooperation‟ in the investigation. We also believe it is inconsistent with the public expressions of cooperation by the Patriots.” Counsel for the Patriots continued to refuse to make McNally available as requested.
Patriots personnel explained that the footage captured by security cameras in Gillette Stadium isoverwritten every 10 days as a regular practice. We were, therefore, unable to review footage filmed during prior Patriots home games, which may have proved useful.
---------
Based on prior experiences at Gillette Stadium, it was the expectation of Anderson and other members of the officiating crew that the bags of game balls would remain in the Officials Locker Room until shortly before kickoff, when Anderson, as referee, would walk with them to the field.
At approximately 6:25 p.m., Anderson announced that kickoff for the AFC Championship Game was being delayed 10 minutes, from 6:40 to 6:50 p.m., to allow for the conclusion of the NFC Championship Game, and that the rest of the pre-game schedule would be adjusted accordingly.
According to Richard Farley, the NFL Security Representative assigned to New England, at the time of Anderson‟s announcement, Jim McNally was sitting on a trunk pushed against the back wall of the sitting room of the Officials Locker Room, with the bags of game balls in close proximity. Farley recalls seeing the bags in the dressing room area earlier in the afternoon, and understood that at some point they must have been moved to the front sitting room. Anderson also recalls that McNally, with Anderson‟s permission, had moved the ball bags from the dressing room area towards the sitting room area shortly after the officials returned from the players‟ walk-through. Anderson understood that McNally was moving the balls to the sitting room area of the locker room, so that it would be more convenient for the officials to pick them up on their way out to the field. Anderson said that it is typical for locker room attendants throughout the League to help move the game balls towards the front of the locker room, but that the footballs do not leave the locker room until the officials give express permission for them to be brought to the field at or near the time the officials also walk to the field.
By 6:35 p.m., all of the members of the officiating crew other than Anderson, Veteri, Blakeman and Yette had left the Officials Locker Room. When the remaining officials walked into the sitting room area on their way to the field, all four were surprised to find that the ball bags were not there. Both Anderson and Veteri immediately asked Farley where the footballs were. Farley checked for the ball bags in the back part of the locker room (where he saw the bags of back-up balls) and in the adjacent Chain Gang Locker Room, but could not find them. When it was suggested that McNally had or may have taken them to the field, Anderson responded that “he‟s not supposed to do that.” Anderson also stated that “we have to find the footballs.” Blakeman recalls that although Anderson is usually calm and composed leading up to a game, Anderson was visibly concerned and uncharacteristically used an expletive when the game balls could not be located. The other officials were similarly surprised and concerned. None of the officials in the locker room at the time realized that the game balls had been removed from the locker room until they were ready to go to the field for the start of the game, and all expected that the balls would not leave the locker room until it was time for them to take the field.
Although the officials were concerned about the situation, with kickoff approaching, they decided to take the field. Farley and the officials left the Officials Locker Room and walked to the field at approximately 6:36 p.m. As seen on the security footage, Farley walked approximately 10 seconds ahead of the officials because, as he explained, he was in a hurry to reach the field to look for the footballs. As soon as he reached the field, Farley looked for McNally by the instant replay booth, where McNally regularly arrives with the game balls, but did not see him. He did, however, see John Raucci, Director of Investigative Services at the NFL, shortly after stepping onto the field and asked if Raucci had seen either McNally or the game balls. Raucci said that he had seen neither. In an effort to ensure that the teams had footballs on the field for the start of the game, Farley headed back toward the Officials Locker Room to get the back-up balls. He is seen on the security footage at approximately 6:42 p.m. walking back down the tunnel leading to the field with the bags of back-up balls. Farley reported that prior to the AFC Championship Game, he has never been in a situation where the game balls could not be located or where he had to retrieve the back-up balls from the Officials Locker Room prior to kickoff.
Shortly after taking the field, after Farley had returned to the Officials Locker Room for the back-up balls, Anderson and the other officials noticed that McNally and the game balls were on the field. When Farley returned to the field with the back-up balls, he learned the same thing. He returned the back-up balls to the Officials Locker Room shortly before kickoff, and the game began at approximately 6:50 p.m. with the proper set of game balls
------------
What the officials and Farley did not realize at the time was that at approximately 6:30 p.m.—twenty minutes prior to kickoff—Jim McNally removed the two bags of game balls from the Officials Locker Room. He is seen on the security footage at 6:30:35 p.m. walking away from the locker room and turning left into the center tunnel that leads towards the field. At the end of that tunnel on the left-hand side, just before reaching the doors that lead to the field, is a relatively large, single-toilet bathroom that locks from the inside. McNally entered that athroom with the game balls, locked the door, and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds. He exited the bathroom at approximately 6:32:27 p.m., and took the bags of game balls to the field. McNally did all of this without the knowledge or permission of Walt Anderson or the other members of the officiating crew.
According to Anderson, other members of the officiating crew for the AFC Championship Game, and other game officials interviewed during the investigation, the removal of the game balls from the Officials Locker Room by McNally without the permission of the referee or another game official was a breach of the standard operating pre-game procedure. No official could recall another time that McNally had removed game balls from the Officials Locker Room and taken them to the field without either receiving permission from a game official or being accompanied by one or more game officials.
Following the AFC Championship Game, McNally was asked to explain his actions on a number of occasions, including during three interviews with NFL Security. McNally told NFL Security representatives that he “decided to walk the balls out to the field,” and was “not certain why [he] chose to go out to the field at this time or without an escort.” McNally also told NFL Security during this interview that he walked directly to the field and that nothing unusual occurred during the walk from the locker room to the field. According to the interview report from a telephone interview with NFL Security on January 19, McNally stated that he stopped to use the bathroom on the way to the field and took the game balls with him into the bathroom.
Last edited by a moderator:
How about the part where Brady says he doesn't know Jastremski personally and then after 6 months of no contact calls the guy up and spends almost an hour on the phone with him over several phone calls at the exact time deflate gate breaks? Pg. 18 of the report for reference.
Khy
Footballguy
Uhh, lets see. First of all, McNally and Jastremski are still part of the Patriots organization. Secondly, if you don't see the lies you CLEARLY didn't read the document.
1) Brady stated publically that he had no knowledge of McNally's name nor his position with the organization. This is proven to be a lie in the document.
2) McNally claimed he didn't deflate the balls in the bathroom but that he just walked in there and pee'd in a urinal. Which was provne to be a lie because the bathroom he was seen on camera entering doesn't have a urinal.
3) Brady was asked to turn over his phone and denied. His council was notified that they would have full control of what information was provided and that they only wanted access to the information pertinent to the case. He still denied it. So it had nothing to do with not wanting his personal information to leak, it's likely he was trying to hide something.
4) Brady denied any involvement yet for some reason called Jastremski on multiple occasions right after deflategate broke as a news story and had several conversations with him. After not having a conversation with him for at least 6 months prior to the incident. This include text messages sent from Brady to Jastremski asking "Hey, are you okay?" and messages from Jastremski to Brady saying "Yeah, they can't claim you did it yourself". Which, given the situation SURE sounds like Jastremski is stating "Yeah, we're good. They have no proof you deflated the balls yourself".
I can keep going if you'd like
Still nothing?Huh? Please name what Super Bowl winners have been as tainted as the Pats.As often? You mean twice at the most? Thats gotta be below the average compared to the rest of the league right?Also, 29 of the 49 superbowls belong to the same few teams. All have been caught cheating. This doesn't change how their fan bases feel about their teams
You are a Pats fan, you are biased. And if it were my Giants, I'd probably fight for their honor as well - even if it was so utterly undeserving.
I am not a Pats fan. Not a Jets fan, nor a Pats hater. I used to be envious of their success, sure. But they had my respect. Since we beat you twice in the SB, the envy is gone.
Since you have been caught cheating so repeatedly, so is the respect. Just understand that most of the world recognizes that the Pats are cheaters and all of their accomplishments are at least somewhat tainted. That's reality.
Bigboy10182000
Footballguy
Raise your hand if you wish your team cheated but had all those rings.
Run It Up
Footballguy
Make some popcorn, pour yourself a drink and enjoy yourself.Still nothing?Huh? Please name what Super Bowl winners have been as tainted as the Pats.As often? You mean twice at the most? Thats gotta be below the average compared to the rest of the league right?Also, 29 of the 49 superbowls belong to the same few teams. All have been caught cheating. This doesn't change how their fan bases feel about their teams
You are a Pats fan, you are biased. And if it were my Giants, I'd probably fight for their honor as well - even if it was so utterly undeserving.
I am not a Pats fan. Not a Jets fan, nor a Pats hater. I used to be envious of their success, sure. But they had my respect. Since we beat you twice in the SB, the envy is gone.
Since you have been caught cheating so repeatedly, so is the respect. Just understand that most of the world recognizes that the Pats are cheaters and all of their accomplishments are at least somewhat tainted. That's reality.
Raise your hand if you wish your team probably cheated but had all those rings. The Wells Report says probably, not for sure.
The General
Footballguy
the more I read the worse it is for Brady. Guy is completely busted.Going to be hard for even Pats homers to believe otherwise.
So now it shifts to everyone cheats, it's a stupid rule, it doesn't matter anyway or some other variation of this.
cstu
Footballguy
Anyone have a link to his Deflategate press conference?
Going to be hard for even Pats homers to believe otherwise.
So now it shifts to everyone cheats, it's a stupid rule, it doesn't matter anyway or some other variation of this.
NM: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD7i5hQYHZs
"The equipment guys do a great job of breaking the balls in"
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Use the asterisk as an apostrophe at the end of Patriot followed by the "s' and I'll buy.proninja said:
The General
Footballguy
McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a fin balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs fed us...a few of then were at almost 16
Jastremski: They didnt recheck then after they put air in them
McNally: F tom ...16 is nothing...wait till next sunday
Jastremski: Omg! Spaz
Run It Up
Footballguy
This is a 35 year old man talking to an even older man.
McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a fin balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs fed us...a few of then were at almost 16
Jastremski: They didnt recheck then after they put air in them
McNally: F tom ...16 is nothing...wait till next sunday
Jastremski: Omg! Spaz
Yeah, because a QB who has (had?) a legitimate claim to be the greatest NFL QB ever would jeopardize that so no one finds out that he talks dirty...........TO HIS WIFE!!!!!!! Oh, the scandal!!
They have kids, I think everyone knows they have the sex.
No matter how you (or other Pats fans) want to spin it, his refusal to allow the NFL to see the phone records makes him look guilty. Just like when a person who is charged with a crime invokes his 5th amendment right to remain silent, people think "what is he hiding." That's what Brady's refusal makes people think.
Khy
Footballguy
Please, this site considered just about everything cheating. It also somehow has the Pats ranked 18th overall as 'average cheaters'. This site his actually hilarious. As it ranks the Jets "spygate" where they recorded from the end zone during a game as the same severty level of the Patriots "spygate" where they recorded from behind the Jets sideline so they could pick up on defensive signals. Those two are CLEARLY the same thing. It also gave the Patriots 1.5 cameras for PEDsGate while giving almost every other team 4 or 5. This site is a joke.Make some popcorn, pour yourself a drink and enjoy yourself.Still nothing?Huh? Please name what Super Bowl winners have been as tainted as the Pats.As often? You mean twice at the most? Thats gotta be below the average compared to the rest of the league right?Also, 29 of the 49 superbowls belong to the same few teams. All have been caught cheating. This doesn't change how their fan bases feel about their teams
You are a Pats fan, you are biased. And if it were my Giants, I'd probably fight for their honor as well - even if it was so utterly undeserving.
I am not a Pats fan. Not a Jets fan, nor a Pats hater. I used to be envious of their success, sure. But they had my respect. Since we beat you twice in the SB, the envy is gone.
Since you have been caught cheating so repeatedly, so is the respect. Just understand that most of the world recognizes that the Pats are cheaters and all of their accomplishments are at least somewhat tainted. That's reality.
GoBirds
Footballguy
LOL.This is a 35 year old man talking to an even older man.
McNally: Tom sucks...im going make that next ball a fin balloon
Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done...
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though...
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn... The refs fed us...a few of then were at almost 16
Jastremski: They didnt recheck then after they put air in them
McNally: F tom ...16 is nothing...wait till next sunday
Jastremski: Omg! Spaz
F Tom is pretty great though from the ball boy.
