Brady's Defalte Gate appeal DENIED!

[tlongII]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/17045257/new-england-patriots-qb-tom-brady-deflategate-appeal-denied-2nd-us-circuit-court

Cheater.

[MultiTroll]

:lol WhinyPhuk and his Phans.
:lol Tried buying a judge and failed
:lol Will now whine to the Supreme Court

[Spur-Addict]

Cardinals (L), Dolphins (W), Texans(W), and Bills (L).

[Chris]

:lol WhinyPhuk and his Phans.
:lol Tried buying a judge and failed
:lol Will now whine to the Supreme Court

:lol

Mono and stretch get in here and :downspin: this shit! :lol

[Chris]

:cry "We are disappointed with the decision denying a rehearing, as there were clear violations of our collective bargaining agreement by the NFL and Commissioner Roger Goodell," the NFLPA said in a statement issued Wednesday. "Despite today's result, the track record of this League office when it comes to matters of player discipline is bad for our business and bad for our game. We have a broken system that must be fixed. :cry

[spurraider21]

Blake

[Avante]

NE will probably go 3-1 or 2-2 those first 4 weeks.

Buffalo....2-2
Miami 1-3
NYJ...0-4/1-3

So it really won't matter at all.

The Pats have gone 27-5 in the division the last 4 seasons, they own it. And will still own it in 2016. So they get to rest Brady.

[cjw]

On top of that, Brady gets to avoid injury /wear and tear the first four weeks of the season. I always look at four game suspensions this way in football - risk of injury is high every time you go out there, so as long as they get serviceable QB play for a few weeks, they'll be fine. Cardinals game is the only likely loss.

[FromWayDowntown]

Beat down a woman in an elevator? Two games.

Raise suspicions that you might have known that some dudes took some air out of the football (even though the Ideal Gas Law pegs the PSI of the ball at the time of measurement if it had been properly inflated before the game)? Four games.

Oh, and screw physics, I'm Roger F'n Goodell and this is the NF'nL.

[Ray Combs]

Beat down a woman in an elevator? Two games.

Raise suspicions that you might have known that some dudes took some air out of the football (even though the Ideal Gas Law pegs the PSI of the ball at the time of measurement if it had been properly inflated before the game)? Four games.

Oh, and screw physics, I'm Roger F'n Goodell and this is the NF'nL.

Please don't look at this case logically, it will hurt Cowboy fan's brains.

[Chinook]

Doing something illegal? Really doesn't apply to football.

Cheating? Totally applies to football.

It's not, or it least it wasn't, the NFL's job to be a court of law. They're only concerned about their game and their reputation. Rice before the video really didn't do anything to hurt either facet. After the video, he pretty much nuked the league. That's why you have the two different punishments, though the league couldn't say it that way. Brady in the very least was accused of shitting on the entire league and not doing his part in fixing the damages. It's very obvious why that is worse.

What's worse: Driving drunk or taking steroids? Obviously it's the first one. Which one gets the bigger suspension? The second one. Where's all the bitching about that?

[Ray Combs]

Doing something illegal? Really doesn't apply to football.

Cheating? Totally applies to football.

It's not, or it least it wasn't, the NFL's job to be a court of law. They're only concerned about their game and their reputation. Rice before the video really didn't do anything to hurt either facet. After the video, he pretty much nuked the league. That's why you have the two different punishments, though the league couldn't say it that way. Brady in the very least was accused of shitting on the entire league and not doing his part in fixing the damages. It's very obvious why that is worse.

What's worse: Driving drunk or taking steroids? Obviously it's the first one. Which one gets the bigger suspension? The second one. Where's all the bitching about that?

A four game suspension for the suspicion of cheating with zero actual proof. That's fucking insane.

[FromWayDowntown]

Brady in the very least was accused of shitting on the entire league and not doing his part in fixing the damages. It's very obvious why that is worse.

At best, the report that was intended to inculpate him didn't prove that he cheated; it suggested -- based on some pretty thin evidence -- that he likely knew about cheating. But, problematically, the science shows that what was interpreted to be cheating almost certainly wasn't actually cheating. Your response basically seems to suggest that Brady's decision to fight a very thinly-supported accusation, rather than just accepting the conclusions of a biased report that couldn't actually say that he cheated himself, is sufficient to cost him a quarter of a season? Okay, if you say so.

As it was, Goodell largely justified the ultimate decision on appeal on an entirely different basis, anyway (the phone nonsense), which suggests the bankruptcy of his original position and certainly justifies the belief by some that his real effort here wasn't to root out cheating in the league, but to put some sort of penalty on the Patriots.

I don't really care one way or the other, but Goodell seems to me to be a petty dictator without a modicum of common sense.

[Chinook]

As it was, Goodell largely justified the ultimate decision on appeal on an entirely different basis, anyway (the phone nonsense), which suggests the bankruptcy of his original position and certainly justifies the belief by some that his real effort here wasn't to root out cheating in the league, but to put some sort of penalty on the Patriots.

That was the matter I was talking about. I said, in the very least, he was accused of shitting on the league and not doing his part in fixing the damages. The phone thing was a big deal, because the bulk of the evidence comes from conversations where Brady is alleged to be involved. In knowingly cheating, even if the science said it didn't matter.

The greater point I was trying to make is that the league suspends people for making the NFL look bad. They always have, and they always will. A NFL player committing a crime doesn't make the league look as bad as a player cheating or destroying potential evidence to an investigation of cheating. Acting like the league should hand out suspensions for "worse crimes" misses the point that the legal system is supposed to punish those guys for that instead. There'd be no reason to suspend Rice for any games if he were in prison instead. (I'm putting aside how silly I think people are being about his incident for the time being.)

When a player pleads down, is acquittal or has yet to have his day in court, I don't think there's an issue with the NFL withholding any type of suspension. Yet they have and will continue to suspend players before or without a guilty verdict if they feel the player being arrested was a big enough embarrassment to the league. Look at what happened with Ben.

I don't have a problem with people saying Brady wasn't proven to have done anything. Frankly, I just don't care anymore about that. But I just think it's foolish to compare it to Rice's situation, because they're apples and oranges.

[Chris]

That was the matter I was talking about. I said, in the very least, he was accused of shitting on the league and not doing his part in fixing the damages. The phone thing was a big deal, because the bulk of the evidence comes from conversations where Brady is alleged to be involved. In knowingly cheating, even if the science said it didn't matter.

The greater point I was trying to make is that the league suspends people for making the NFL look bad. They always have, and they always will. A NFL player committing a crime doesn't make the league look as bad as a player cheating or destroying potential evidence to an investigation of cheating. Acting like the league should hand out suspensions for "worse crimes" misses the point that the legal system is supposed to punish those guys for that instead. There'd be no reason to suspend Rice for any games if he were in prison instead. (I'm putting aside how silly I think people are being about his incident for the time being.)

When a player pleads down, is acquittal or has yet to have his day in court, I don't think there's an issue with the NFL withholding any type of suspension. Yet they have and will continue to suspend players before or without a guilty verdict if they feel the player being arrested was a big enough embarrassment to the league. Look at what happened with Ben.

I don't have a problem with people saying Brady wasn't proven to have done anything. Frankly, I just don't care anymore about that. But I just think it's foolish to compare it to Rice's situation, because they're apples and oranges.

Chinook with the out of the ballpark goods

[Ray Combs]

Chinook with the out of the ballpark goods

:lmao did you even read what he said?

[FromWayDowntown]

in the very least, he was accused of shitting on the league and not doing his part in fixing the damages. The phone thing was a big deal, because the bulk of the evidence comes from conversations where Brady is alleged to be involved. In knowingly cheating, even if the science said it didn't matter.

But here's the problem with that position: your point would essentially say that once the league made an allegation against Brady, his only choice was really to lay down and not contest it - regardless of whether the allegation was true or not.

By all accounts, Brady didn't make this situation. He played a football game and won. After that game, the Colts got bent that they got blitzed again by Brady/Belichick and whined and moaned about the PSI of footballs, even though the science perfectly explained the observed PSI readings if the balls had been properly inflated at the relevant time. The league conducted a self-serving investigation -- and simultaneously planted completely false stories with prominent NFL media -- using an investigator whose law firm is on the league's payroll, and the best that guy could come up with was the possibility that Brady probably knew that people might have been adjusting the PSI of balls. But that investigatory report wholly discounted the science applicable to the situation. And the Commissioner used that thin reed of "evidence" to levy an unprecedented punishment.

Rather than beginning with a scientific investigation of the claims made by the Colts to see if they were remotely plausible (the objective way to begin solving a dispute like this one), the league began by assuming wrongdoing - and significantly exaggerating its extent publicly - and then tried to back-fit the evidence to support that view of the situation.

If I understand your reasoning, Brady's mistake was in challenging any of that -- by making the league look bad and by not doing his part in fixing the damages -- despite the fact that there weren't any real facts to support punishing him for anything (other than pissing off other owners by routinely beating their teams). Once he sought to defend himself, he was subject to a more draconian punishment than has ever been levied for "conduct" of this sort.

The phone, by the way, is a red herring. The league has no subpoena power over any player's phone -- and for good reason. As far as I know, nobody told Brady that he had to keep the phone (or ensure it remained intact) and Brady offered to provide copies of texts that were relevant to the investigation, which is all the league really had any right to see. Even if you assume that Brady refused to turn over that phone and destroyed it to ensure that he didn't have to, he had some justification in doing that to protect the privacy interests of his own family members and friends. The NFL has absolutely no justification for prying into Brady's life beyond football and into things that Brady and his friends share via their smartphones. Requiring an employee to jeopardize the privacy of family and friends by complying with an overly-broad investigatory request, and then punishing him when he refuses to simply accede to that request (particularly when he's made a reasonable offer to satisfy the needs of the investigation) is just proof to me that this had nothing to do with inflated footballs and everything to do with a Commissioner who took the completely wrong tack at the beginning and exacerbated a pretty pedestrian situation into one that required him to impose a ridiculous punishment just to cover his own ass.

And, frankly, while I get your point about the Rice situation, the truth is that the Rice case proved Goodell to be an incompetent fool. He truly believed he had done right with the initial Rice punishment and seemed so surprised that the broader world was so aghast by his relative indifference to it. I'm fairly convinced that there is a correlation between the minimal punishment imposed against Rice and the excessive punishment imposed against Brady and it lies in Goodell's embarrassment over having handled the Rice situation so poorly.

[Chinook]

But here's the problem with that position: your point would essentially say that once the league made an allegation against Brady, his only choice was really to lay down and not contest it - regardless of whether the allegation was true or not.

That's not really my point. That's both because I don't think cooperating and not contesting are the same thing, and it's because I don't think Brady's actual guilt matters here. I get that you want to debate that the league didn't have a case or that they botched the investigation, or that Brady was in his right to not hand over his phone. I get that. But I don't think that has anything to do with the comparison to Rice. The actual facts of the case stopped mattering the moment Brady's first appeal to Goodell was denied. After that, it was just a question of sentencing.


And, frankly, while I get your point about the Rice situation, the truth is that the Rice case proved Goodell to be an incompetent fool. He truly believed he had done right with the initial Rice punishment and seemed so surprised that the broader world was so aghast by his relative indifference to it.

I don't think he was the one who was tone-deaf at all. The biggest issue here is that people didn't care about NFL players and DV until the Rice video. At least not enough people spoke out against it to cause real damage to the league's reputation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_suspensions_in_the_National_Football_Leagu e

Can you even spot the pre-Rice DV incidents there? I see one game for Larry Johnson in 2008 for repeated assaults on women. Then you have Brandon Marshall's three-game suspension for DV and DUI that got reduced to one game. Chris Cook got a season in 2011 after he almost killed a woman, but the NFL dragged its feet on that and may have only done anything because he was barred from leaving the state and would have had trouble playing anyway. Brandon Underwood didn't actually do anything in 2011, but he got two games, which ended up getting waived after having an incident with his wife. And who knows what the hell happened with Terrell Suggs and his wife?

If you actually look at that list, you'll see that almost all suspensions for criminal, off-the-field acts (those under "Violation of the league's personal conduct policy") are extremely short (and quite a few more incidents don't get any suspension at all). And those for in-game or at least NFL-related incidents are longer. Most of those things where "worse" than taking PEDs, showing late to practices or even just being an asshole to coaches and teammates. Yet they aren't treated like that. The only times where they are is when there's a public outcry, like with Ben or Incognito.

And that's not an accident. The league only cares about it's appearance, and Goodell's main job is to protect the brand. Of course he's going to come down on people who teams that call the brand into question, whether it's petty or not. And of course he's going to be inconsistent if that's what the public wants from the league. There are people like you who may care primarily about the truth of the matter when it comes to suspensions, but Goodell is not paid to be one of them. And he certainly isn't paid to suspend players in proportion to the legal gravity of their infractions.

[FromWayDowntown]

That's not really my point. That's both because I don't think cooperating and not contesting are the same thing, and it's because I don't think Brady's actual guilt matters here. I get that you want to debate that the league didn't have a case or that they botched the investigation, or that Brady was in his right to not hand over his phone. I get that. But I don't think that has anything to do with the comparison to Rice. The actual facts of the case stopped mattering the moment Brady's first appeal to Goodell was denied. After that, it was just a question of sentencing.

Divorcing the Brady case from Rice is understandable and your argument on that point is cogent.

Suggesting that Brady's "actual guilt" has nothing to do with the validity of the punishment levied against him is difficult for a dullard like me to comprehend in any objective sense (I get that we're at a point where objective sensibility is long gone from this case and Goodell's status as jury, judge, and reviewing tribunal is cemented; the punishment is what it is). I'm not sure how the severity of Brady's punishment can be indexed to his refusal to cooperate in what appeared to have been a witch hunt against him from the jump, other than Goodell's choice to make that be so. I'm not sure who should ever be compelled to assist in his own prosecution at risk of facing even harsher punishments if he refuses, particularly when that prosecution lacks even a basic factual foundation, except where Goodell compels that. Basically, that view of things suggests that Brady was doomed from the start, no matter the revelations of the investigation, unless he gave the allegations some degree of credence by "assisting" in his own hanging, which is likely what Goodell intended anyway.

[Chinook]

Divorcing the Brady case from Rice is understandable and your argument on that point is cogent.

Suggesting that Brady's "actual guilt" has nothing to do with the validity of the punishment levied against him is difficult for a dullard like me to comprehend in any objective sense (I get that we're at a point where objective sensibility is long gone from this case and Goodell's status as jury, judge, and reviewing tribunal is cemented; the punishment is what it is). I'm not sure how the severity of Brady's punishment can be indexed to his refusal to cooperate in what appeared to have been a witch hunt against him from the jump, other than Goodell's choice to make that be so. I'm not sure who should ever be compelled to assist in his own prosecution at risk of facing even harsher punishments if he refuses, particularly when that prosecution lacks even a basic factual foundation, except where Goodell compels that. Basically, that view of things suggests that Brady was doomed from the start, no matter the revelations of the investigation, unless he gave the allegations some degree of credence by "assisting" in his own hanging, which is likely what Goodell intended anyway.

My point was that Brady is being punished for what he was accused of doing, and that it's understandable why that would be of a different nature compared to Rice. That he might be (or should be) considered innocent isn't a critique of the sentencing, but rather, it's a critique of the conviction. If Brady didn't do anything wrong, he shouldn't have been punished at all. I don't think it makes sense to feel better about it "only" being a game or two. If he did do something wrong (meaning that he did do what the NFL accused him of doing with no mitigating circumstances or justifications), it makes sense to me why that suspension would be more than Rice's initial ban.

[Fabbs]

The phone, by the way, is a red herring. The league has no subpoena power over any player's phone -- and for good reason. As far as I know, nobody told Brady that he had to keep the phone (or ensure it remained intact) and Brady offered to provide copies of texts that were relevant to the investigation, which is all the league really had any right to see. Even if you assume that Brady refused to turn over that phone and destroyed it to ensure that he didn't have to, he had some justification in doing that to protect the privacy interests of his own family members and friends. The NFL has absolutely no justification for prying into Brady's life beyond football and into things that Brady and his friends share via their smartphones. Requiring an employee to jeopardize the privacy of family and friends by complying with an overly-broad investigatory request, and then punishing him when he refuses to simply accede to that request (particularly when he's made a reasonable offer to satisfy the needs of the investigation) is just proof to me that this had nothing to do with inflated footballs and everything to do with a Commissioner who took the completely wrong tack at the beginning and exacerbated a pretty pedestrian situation into one that required him to impose a ridiculous punishment just to cover his own ass.
:lol ya texts where the equipment managers and Shady using the term "The Deflator" should not be admitted. :rolleyes

I agree that outside of the Deflation, example Bradys trips to the strip club should not have been public knowledge.
Yet my understanding is the NFL only wanted to see what texts applied to the deflation.
http://www.businessinsider.com/brady-patriots-employee-texts-deflategate-2015-5
http://deadspin.com/the-hilarious-brady-bashing-texts-sent-by-the-pats-bal-1702598756

[Fabbs]

Pattycake supporters should be slobbering over this:

What the 2015 fumble stats say about Deflategate

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/05/nfl-new-england-patriots-deflategate-fumbles-tom-brady-bill-belichick

[FromWayDowntown]

My point was that Brady is being punished for what he was accused of doing, and that it's understandable why that would be of a different nature compared to Rice. That he might be (or should be) considered innocent isn't a critique of the sentencing, but rather, it's a critique of the conviction. If Brady didn't do anything wrong, he shouldn't have been punished at all. I don't think it makes sense to feel better about it "only" being a game or two. If he did do something wrong (meaning that he did do what the NFL accused him of doing with no mitigating circumstances or justifications), it makes sense to me why that suspension would be more than Rice's initial ban.

Any punishment in this case was unjustified given the evidence.

But even if you assume that there was some evidence of guilt, the extent of the punishment is absurd.

But that's the NFL.

[Ray Combs]

Pattycake supporters should be slobbering over this:

What the 2015 fumble stats say about Deflategate

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2016/01/05/nfl-new-england-patriots-deflategate-fumbles-tom-brady-bill-belichick

Yeah Patriots fans are so happy that irrelevant bullshit like "physics" and "basic 3rd grade science" completely exonerate Brady.

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Cardinals (L), Dolphins (W), Texans(W), and Bills (L).
Houston could win that one, it's in Foxborough but who knows... Ozzy beat Brady last year, he could beat Garappolo too with better receivers

[Blake]

Blake

Downtown said what I would have liked to have said and more.

[Avante]

There is no team in their division the Pats have to worry about. So the 4 games suspension will mean...0.

The Jets will go 0-4.
Bills 2-2 maybe
Dolphins 1-3

No worries for the Pats at all.

[spurraider21]

only recent pats thread i could find but...

aaron dobson waived by patriots

:lol louis murphy
:lol both lasted exactly 3 seasons with original team
:lol not even as good as louis murphy
:lol monosylab1k (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=5048)
:lol DUNCANownsKOBE (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=26386)

[Monostradamus]

only recent pats thread i could find but...

aaron dobson waived by patriots

:lol louis murphy
:lol both lasted exactly 3 seasons with original team
:lol not even as good as louis murphy
:lol monosylab1k (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=5048)
:lol DUNCANownsKOBE (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=26386)
Boiled down, it's

Dobson: 1
Tired Old Shit Bag Murphy: 0

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Jimmy Chips time.

[Chris]

Gronk "injured". Probably will sit until Brady gets back :lol

[UNT Eagles 2016]

Gronk "injured". Probably will sit until Brady gets back :lol
nah, AZ away is a scheduled loss anyway so why risk anything... just punt and see what the young guns are made of.