Brady not going to settle

Share this page

HSanders said:
I find it really interesting that the ESPNs have gone from full metal outrage to "hmmm the punishment is extremely outsized even if he did it" (Greg Olsen today on NFL Live)
Where is Mort????
Click to expand...

Good question, HS. And where is his retraction to the story about the deflated 11 balls? Own it, Mort! And tell us who leaked that bogus lie to you.
 
TheBostonJay said:
Gotta make it interesting for ratings.

Suspension will be upheld because morons are in charge.
Click to expand...
The suspension will be upheld because the morons in charge have massive power. Goofy or insane or what, who ever has had more backing from his boss that Goodell. What makes it more powerful is that he has 32 bosses and they all recognize him as the absolute dictator who must never be questioned.

In the last months even ESPN is coming around that maybe the punishment was over the top IF Brady was guilty (of which there is no evidence).

Not the NFL. People think Goodell overstepped, but he didn't. He consolidated hi s power base. He acted irrationally and the arguably four most powerful owners gave him full support. Kraft, perhaps the owner with the most power and who was the victim of Goodell's draconian punishment, accepted it with thanks and praise for He Who Must Be Obeyed. The second most influential owner, Jerrah Jones, was effusive in his praise of Goodell. Mara and Rooney gave Goodell's actions their full approval.

Why the hell would Goodell back down now?

We all think because Goodell is the anti-Tagliabue and anti-rozelle and he has no credibility with fandom anywhere, that the owners will stand up and say, "You're hurting the shield."

Not going to happen because the owners don't care about the shield as much as they care about their income stream. If Kraft wouldn't stand up when he had a perfect storm of Goodell's incompetence and prejudgment in his arsenal, then what owner will ever stand up to Goodell?

The suspension will be reduced to two games because Goodell is smart enough to know that if he reduces the suspension, it is hard to argue that he wasn't impartial and set in his judgment. All he has to do is double the suspension he wants, and halve it on appeal, just like the furniture store that prices their $800 sofas and $1600 before their big 50% off sale.

The ONLY thing working against Goodell is the poor choice of player with whom to consolidate his power. Brady is one of two players (Peyton being the other) whose competitiveness and pride are so strong, with fiscal resources so large, who will likely fight to the end for vindication of their image.

That, and only that, will slow Goodell, and only IF he loses totally in federal court.

But even then Goodell will still have the solid, 100% support of the owners even if Brady gets this overturned, just as Goodell got stronger after Spygate and Bountygate. The owners desire money above all else, and as long as their income and assets keeping increasing, Goodell is doing exactly what they want.

Should Mark Cuban turn out to be right, and income stops improving or even declines, Goodell is in trouble.

Goodell will not be hurt if Brady overturns everything in court. He is more powerful than he was before Deflategate and will remain so even if Brady wins it all. If Brady doesn't get full exoneration which will include the removal of the penalties against the Pats, Goodell will actually gain still more power in hte appeals process.
 
Stan Veuger told WEEI that AEI will not be part of Brady's appeal hearing today although he said the science in the Wells Report has been adequately discredited by many scientists and Kessler shouldn't have any difficulty proving it.

I'm not sure if I want Brady's team to go all out to prove his innocence today if it means Brady won't take this to court. Selfish of me I know, but I want this to go to court to get the story of the conspiracy behind deflategate fleshed out. Grigson, Irsay, kensil and the refs have a lot to explain in my mind. Naive of me, yes, but the NFL has many questions to answer.
 
chevss454 said:
Stan Veuger told WEEI that AEI will not be part of Brady's appeal hearing today although he said the science in the Wells Report has been adequately discredited by many scientists and Kessler shouldn't have any difficulty proving it.

I'm not sure if I want Brady's team to go all out to prove his innocence today if it means Brady won't take this to court. Selfish of me I know, but I want this to go to court to get the story of the conspiracy behind deflategate fleshed out. Grigson, Irsay, kensil and the refs have a lot to explain in my mind. Naive of me, yes, but the NFL has many questions to answer.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%. The worst thing IMO is that Goodell can do is say that the charges are unprovable so he is vacating the Brady suspension. Brady now has nothing to go to court over, but the clear implication is that Brady got off on a technicality, AND the loss of draft picks remain in place.

Edit: I am also glad that addressing the AEI report is not part of Brady's plan. I think that Goodell has Wells there so that Brady/Kessler will attack the Wells report, thereby giving Goodell/Wells/Pash a look at the Brday strategy and have months to formulate a way to deflect it. Better to go in showing minimal cards, have Goodell retain some censure against Brady, and bring out the big guns only in court.

I recall in my former job (as an engineer, not a lawyer) preparing to push our process ahead of another's and spending a lot of time preparing to defend things that turned out not to be issues and getting blind-sided by issues that hadn't occurred to me. It wasn't a fun time to hear my boss growl to me, "Why didn't you prepare for this?"
 
Ryan Hannable ‏<s>@</s>RyanHannable <small class="time"> 4m4 minutes ago </small> Adam Schefter on <s>@</s>DandCShow: This is on a path to go to the courts and I don't think that will turn out well for the NFL
Schefter on <s>@</s>DandCShow also says he wouldn't be surprised if Tom Brady plays in the season opener against the Steelers


Schefter:

Brady has too much to gain not to go to court. His legacy is too important to him
If it's reduced to 1 game, Brady's historical mindset is that he's willing to see this through to the courts to fight the process.
 
PatsFanLisa said:
Nope, not me. The fact that Wells is going to be there to "answer" questions tells me that Goodell is (1) bolstering the fact that he, Goodell, needs not be a witness, and (2) placing the entire thing on Wells' shoulders, who is a very accomplished attorney and can deflect anything and everything and sound good doing it, and (3) defending the side of Goodell, whose mind is already made up, just by virtue of having him there. If he wanted this to be a fair hearing, he would have Vueger and the other reps of AEI, along with at least a half dozen other institutes of high repute who have written counter reports by virtue of their experiments and statistical analyses.

Not happening.

We're not going to know what's going down in there because although there is a court reporter there to record the proceedings, the transcript will be noted "Confidential - Attorneys Eyes Only" and we'll only get what the NFL decides to leak out, at which time De Smith will leak out what he wants to leak out, and on and on.

So, when Brady files for an injunction, the only argument that will work here is that if he misses games before the court actually hears the case, it will do irreparable harm. That is the only standard that will meet the reason for an injunction. He can't get those games back. Ever.

This could drag on and on, certainly more than a year. The trial or hearing in federal court will be lengthy. Every reputable scientist that has written a contradictory report to Exponent will be called, and their testimony alone will take weeks.

Honestly, Brady could be retired by the time a hearing is concluded, should he get the injunction to begin with.
Click to expand...
sorry but Wells is anything but deflective, listen to the interview he defended his work in this report.

A 5th grader in a debate with Einstein would be more convincing. He can question and spin but to answer and defend his own work is a different beast, especially one as blatantly twisted as his $5,000,000.00 baby

bmooney54 said:
Point of Order: I believe RG would be in the fridge that is pushed down the stairs. Duct tape is unnecessary, unless used to tape his mouth shut.
Click to expand...
I prefer to hear the screams

O_P_T said:
But will someone be on the verge of tears?

On camera?

That's what I want to know. :coffee:
Click to expand...
Peyton Manning who thinks if Tom is guilty he gets all the rings
 
Kessler will eat Wells' lunch.

I'd like to see someone hit that pornstash with a complaint to the NY bar over his purported "independence".

The hearing would be something like "Mr Wells were you independent?"

Wells says "Yes"

Hearing officer says "You know I read this, right?"

Wells says "Derp".
 
HSanders said:
I find it really interesting that the ESPNs have gone from full metal outrage to "hmmm the punishment is extremely outsized even if he did it" (Greg Olsen today on NFL Live)
Where is Mort????
Click to expand...

Where's Kravitz?

I find it amusing that the NFL contradicts the Wells report and none point it out. If Wells got something so simple, wrong and never checked (questioned) what else did they get wrong and not check. Well besides if the refs at half time switched gauges they assume they did but never actually asked them.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...uspension-appeal-whats-next-for-patriots-icon

How we got here
When Indianapolis columnist and television analyst Bob Kravitz first reported just hours after New England won the AFC title that the league was looking into the Patriots' use of underinflated footballs in the game, it was hard to imagine the issue would explode into a controversy that would have Belichick giving a detailed physics lesson a week before the Super Bowl, owner Robert Kraft demanding an apology from the league and Brady's reputation hanging in the balance as the story consumed the offseason.

https://wellsreportcontext.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/wells_report_full1.pdf

At 9:55 p.m. on January 18, mid-way through the second half of the AFC
Championship Game, Bob Kravitz, a columnist for the website for Indiana television station
WTHR, published the following on Twitter: “Breaking: A league source tells me the NFL is
investigating the possibility the Patriots deflated footballs Sunday night. More to come.” Two
minutes later, he wrote: “I‟m told at one point the officials took a ball out of play and weighed
it. Should hear more tomorrow on this subject.” At 11:22 p.m., Kravitz posted a link on Twitter
that directed viewers to an article on the WTHR website concerning the issue

Kravitz was all over saying how he got a text after the game didn't notice for an hour then contacted sources yada yada yada. He has never come out and pointed to the inaccuracy of the report claiming it was during the game.

~Dee~
 
Recently, I had reason to be in court to hear a motion to suppress a statement made to the police (I was not the one on trial.)

I was fascinated by the strategy that the defense attorney used. He just wanted to find out what was going to come out during the trial.

Of course everything that was learned by the defense attorney came out during the trial and he was able to blast holes in most every facet of the case.

I couldn't even believe that the prosecutor wanted to try this case with all the inconsistencies that were exposed.

I'm guessing that is what will happen today.

The motion to suppress the statement was denied. Unfortunately, the defense attorney wasn't able to convince the six people not smart enough to get out of jury duty of the accused's innocence. Don't see that happening with the Brady case.

Should be interesting.
 
Read a report that they're expecting at least 40 people in the room. 40.
 
Here is the mindset of Roger going into today's hearing:

Tom Brady has to PROVE his innocence, an impossible task. If he can't prove his innocence, his "sentence" and, yes, it is indeed a sentence, will not be changed. He will face a 4-game suspension, undoubtedly.

Incredible, isn't it? A court of law in a clear-cut murder case will tell you that a defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence and is innocent until proven guilty; yet, Goodell has leaked out that the punishment will remain UNLESS Brady can prove his innocence.

So how does an innocent man prove that he's innocent? I'm simply disgusted.
 
PatsFanLisa said:
Here is the mindset of Roger going into today's hearing:

Tom Brady has to PROVE his innocence, an impossible task. If he can't prove his innocence, his "sentence" and, yes, it is indeed a sentence, will not be changed. He will face a 4-game suspension, undoubtedly.

Incredible, isn't it? A court of law in a clear-cut murder case will tell you that a defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence and is innocent until proven guilty; yet, Goodell has leaked out that the punishment will remain UNLESS Brady can prove his innocence.

So how does an innocent man prove that he's innocent? I'm simply disgusted.
Click to expand...

I suggest he prove nothing, let them show their cards and attack in a court of law when you have a chance with the arbitrator.
 
Man, I would love to hear what's going on in there right now.
 
PatsFanLisa said:
Here is the mindset of Roger going into today's hearing:

Tom Brady has to PROVE his innocence, an impossible task. If he can't prove his innocence, his "sentence" and, yes, it is indeed a sentence, will not be changed. He will face a 4-game suspension, undoubtedly.

Incredible, isn't it? A court of law in a clear-cut murder case will tell you that a defendant doesn't have to prove his innocence and is innocent until proven guilty; yet, Goodell has leaked out that the punishment will remain UNLESS Brady can prove his innocence.

So how does an innocent man prove that he's innocent? I'm simply disgusted.
Click to expand...

Rog, science proves that the weather made the balls lose pressure. The only way Wells can make me 'more likely than not' have some 'general' sense of some kind of 'guilt' is to discredit the recollections of the ref and bend the science to this end.

Try it yourself.

All the rest of this bullshit is bullshit.

I am innocent and will win. Here or in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top