#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[Donoghus]

I assume everyone has seen the Post piece by now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html

I am curious about thit part:

Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cell phone, and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted that his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.

I know it's a perhaps a somewhat fictionalized account of the exchange, but where does the information that (1) Wells told Brady to keep his phone, and (2) the "Totally cooperative" comment come from? That's the first time I see these cited.

Finally got around to reading this.  Thought Sally Jenkins really nailed it (she's been doing some top notch stuff throughout Deflategate).

This part really rings with me and certainly agree with it.

There is another pattern here — a very unseemly pattern of unethical behavior by the league office under Goodell’s leadership. First, there is always a leak from the league that commands a big headline and gins up public indignation. Next comes a disciplinary hammer from Goodell that makes him look like a hero-protector. But when the excitement dies down and actual facts emerge, it all turns out to be a souped-up overreach.

[kozlodoev]

I assume everyone has seen the Post piece by now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html

I am curious about thit part:

Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cell phone, and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted that his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.

I know it's a perhaps a somewhat fictionalized account of the exchange, but where does the information that (1) Wells told Brady to keep his phone, and (2) the "Totally cooperative" comment come from? That's the first time I see these cited.

Finally got around to reading this.  Thought Sally Jenkins really nailed it (she's been doing some top notch stuff throughout Deflategate).

This part really rings with me and certainly agree with it.

There is another pattern here — a very unseemly pattern of unethical behavior by the league office under Goodell’s leadership. First, there is always a leak from the league that commands a big headline and gins up public indignation. Next comes a disciplinary hammer from Goodell that makes him look like a hero-protector. But when the excitement dies down and actual facts emerge, it all turns out to be a souped-up overreach.

I agree, I think it's a pretty good article. I'm just curious where she got some of her facts.

[Donoghus]

I assume everyone has seen the Post piece by now?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/the-nfls-basic-due-process-is-the-real-issue-in-the-deflategate-controversy/2015/07/30/ebda3b02-3666-11e5-9d0f-7865a67390ee_story.html

I am curious about thit part:

Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cell phone, and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted that his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.

I know it's a perhaps a somewhat fictionalized account of the exchange, but where does the information that (1) Wells told Brady to keep his phone, and (2) the "Totally cooperative" comment come from? That's the first time I see these cited.

Finally got around to reading this.  Thought Sally Jenkins really nailed it (she's been doing some top notch stuff throughout Deflategate).

This part really rings with me and certainly agree with it.

There is another pattern here — a very unseemly pattern of unethical behavior by the league office under Goodell’s leadership. First, there is always a leak from the league that commands a big headline and gins up public indignation. Next comes a disciplinary hammer from Goodell that makes him look like a hero-protector. But when the excitement dies down and actual facts emerge, it all turns out to be a souped-up overreach.

I agree, I think it's a pretty good article. I'm just curious where she got some of her facts.

My guess would be Don Yee but who knows.

[kozlodoev]

My guess would be Don Yee but who knows.

That's what I thought, too -- but they're not credited and have never been published before. Quite curious indeed.

[Vermont Green]

I think the following Robert Kraft statement excerpt is the most spot on:

there are those in the league office who are more determined to prove that they are right rather than admit any culpability of their own, or take any responsibility for the initiation of a process and ensuing investigation that was flawed

and this one too:

Six months removed from the AFC Championship Game, the league still has no hard evidence of anybody doing anything to tamper with the PSI levels of footballs.

They don't even have proof that the balls were actually tampered with.  The process  they went through to that conclusion is flawed (which is an understatement).  Is it any wonder the league wants to make this about Tom's phone and other inconsequential but headline grabbing information?

I am with my man Robert K. in that:

I continue to believe and unequivocally support Tom Brady.

Call me a homer if you want and it is of course still possible I am being duped but I keep coming back to the main issue.  There is not even proof that the balls were tampered with.  In fact there is proof that the balls "probably" were not tampered with.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

I'm a homer, and I think there was something going on that Brady knew about, but ultimately I say, "Who cares?"

The prescribed penalty for breaking the PSI rule is $25,000. That's peanuts. And I think the rule is silly in the first place. Fans want to be entertained, and good NFL entertainment is based at least partly on quarterbacks being comfortable with their tools of the trade (particularly the footballs), so let the QBs have the footballs however they prefer. I mean, the NFL's not getting on Aaron Rodgers for having overinflated footballs that cut through the air better, allowing him to take better advantage of his strong arm.

Said it before and I'll keep saying it: This is a witch hunt, one in which a soft-on-domestic-violence Roger Goodell is using a team with a somewhat-checkered past to make himself look better.

[Neurotic Guy]

Can't read through 124 pages so here are my questions/points and hope I am not repeating others' thoughts for the umpteenth time.


It seems to me that either Jastremski or McNally or both actually know beyond any doubt the answer to the following questions:
1. Did Brady specifically tell them to deflate below the legal limit?
2. Did Brady specifically tell them to deflate after the referee had approved the footballs?
3. Were the balls really deflated after they were approved by the refs prior to the Indy game?


If the answer is "no" to all of the above, then why aren't Jastremski/McNally already engaged in a media campaign and been interviewed by Anderson Cooper, George Stephanopoulas, Greta Van Sustern, etc. ?

If the answer is "yes" to any of the above, don't Bob, Bill and Tom all know that by now?  Doesn't Tom's legal team know that?  Doesn't the NFLPA legal team know that.   And if they do, how can than take this to court?   Jastremski and McNally will be called to testify and they will have to tell the truth.  Certainly no pressure could be brought onto them to lie -- that would be crazy illegal; and Jastremski and McNally would be crazy to lie under oath.  They'll have to tell the truth as there is absolutely no upside to lying -- and huge downside if they were to perjor themselves.   

So, I am baffled.  If the only guys who actually know the truth could exonerate Brady (and themselves), why aren't they already doing so using the media?
 
If the guys are holding information that would reveal misbehavior, then how can Brady/NFLPA pursue the court case -- they can't be allowed to testify and bring themselves, the team and possibly Brady (if he is directly implicated) down.  If this goes to court, I think it has to mean that Brady was not complicit in a deflation scheme.

[Granath]

The prescribed penalty for breaking the PSI rule is $25,000. That's peanuts.

Not quite right.

“Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers and coaches are allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”

[Granath]

To me, the biggest aspect of Brady's challenge is that there is simply no precedent for applying the rules to a player as the NFL has done in this situation, nor is there precedent for punishing such an offense with a suspension as opposed to fines.  Too much of the NFL's discipline in this case is based on extremely broad interpretations of the language in the CBA and the NFL's conduct code.

Except there is. Some Patriots fans like to throw out words like "unprecedented" when it's clearly not.

Ben Roethlisberger was suspended for 6 games when no charges were filed. He was actually punished for nebulous ‘harm to the shield’ and made an example of and the response by the rest of the league was nearly 100% behind the ruling. Same goes for Jon Vilma. He was suspended not just once, but twice and served 5 games for 'BountyGate'. Again, there was no real outcry.
Then the Cowboys and Redskins were punished for treating the uncapped year like an uncapped year. Their fans cried foul. Nobody else cared.

Now we see the Patriots fanbase complaining about how Goodell has taken "unprecedented" action and such but it isn’t "unprecedented". Ben’s suspension made it possible to give large punishments for ‘Conduct Unbecoming’ and it seems fair that this applies to other teams as well. Now that the Patriots have run afoul of it, it seems hypocritical to cry about it when there were no tears shed in Patsville for the Steelers, Saints, Cowboys or Redskins.

[Jon]

Can't read through 124 pages so here are my questions/points and hope I am not repeating others' thoughts for the umpteenth time.


It seems to me that either Jastremski or McNally or both actually know beyond any doubt the answer to the following questions:
1. Did Brady specifically tell them to deflate below the legal limit?
2. Did Brady specifically tell them to deflate after the referee had approved the footballs?
3. Were the balls really deflated after they were approved by the refs prior to the Indy game?


If the answer is "no" to all of the above, then why aren't Jastremski/McNally already engaged in a media campaign and been interviewed by Anderson Cooper, George Stephanopoulas, Greta Van Sustern, etc. ?

If the answer is "yes" to any of the above, don't Bob, Bill and Tom all know that by now?  Doesn't Tom's legal team know that?  Doesn't the NFLPA legal team know that.   And if they do, how can than take this to court?   Jastremski and McNally will be called to testify and they will have to tell the truth.  Certainly no pressure could be brought onto them to lie -- that would be crazy illegal; and Jastremski and McNally would be crazy to lie under oath.  They'll have to tell the truth as there is absolutely no upside to lying -- and huge downside if they were to perjor themselves.   

So, I am baffled.  If the only guys who actually know the truth could exonerate Brady (and themselves), why aren't they already doing so using the media?
 
If the guys are holding information that would reveal misbehavior, then how can Brady/NFLPA pursue the court case -- they can't be allowed to testify and bring themselves, the team and possibly Brady (if he is directly implicated) down.  If this goes to court, I think it has to mean that Brady was not complicit in a deflation scheme.

All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.

And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?

I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

The prescribed penalty for breaking the PSI rule is $25,000. That's peanuts.

Not quite right.

“Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers and coaches are allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”

True. Now I remember seeing that once before. So maybe it would be reasonable to give a bigger fine to the "previously tainted" Patriots—like, maybe, $100,000? A couple of first-round picks and a 4-game suspension for the star QB seems, well, excessive. 

[Granath]

All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.

And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?

I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:

Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.

Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.

What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.

[Rondo2287]

All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.

And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?

I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:

Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.

Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.

What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.

No player has ever been suspended for not cooperating with an investigation, in fact the former commissioner vacated an pensltys enforced against saints players  for not cooperating because it was not inline with the cba

Additionally what evidence is there that Brady did anything,  I have yet to see any

[Granath]

The prescribed penalty for breaking the PSI rule is $25,000. That's peanuts.

Not quite right.

“Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers and coaches are allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000.”

True. Now I remember seeing that once before. So maybe it would be reasonable to give a bigger fine to the "previously tainted" Patriots—like, maybe, $100,000? A couple of first-round picks and a 4-game suspension for the star QB seems, well, excessive. 

It's two different penalties. The one to the team is for an established pattern of behavior. Spygate, deflating balls, misusing the injury report and illegal use of the IR list all happened and are proven (though there was no penalty incurred on the injury report). There's also suspected tampering with headsets, Belichick physically grabbing an official, signal stealing, accusations of stealing playbooks (though I think this is not true) and a few other assorted incidents. In short, there is an incredible amount of smoke to go with that fire.

The one to Brady is not just for likely ordering the deflation of the footballs, but also failure to cooperate. It's the "harm the shield" penalty and it's akin to the same ones Big Ben/Jon Vilma got for being the poster boys of a scandal - even if that scandal is unproven (Vilma) or no charges filed (Ben). Brady may have the right to not share his text messages and destroy evidence, but Goodell has every right to protect the shield in the CBA. That's why Brady will most likely lose in court. His only hope is to show that the hearing and appeal was arbitrary and capricious and I think that's going to be very difficult.

[Jon]

All fabulous points. And still people are hung up on the Brady phone thing, but somehow miss the fact that if Brady told Jastremski and McNally to deflate the balls via text or email, they would have already seen these messages on J and M's phones.

And if they are really trying to see what Brady may have said to other people, it's just preposterous. Imagine you got in trouble at work and your employer wanted to see your non work phone and read messages to non work people?

I really hope that not only does Brady win, but that this leads to the end of Roger Goodell's tenure:

Actually, the points are irrelevant. Even if Brady was 100% innocent - and that is quite hard to believe with the evidence against him - he could still be suspended for not cooperating. Destroying his phone is exceptionally powerful evidence of that, even if the New England Echo Chamber wants to try to excuse that with the same feeble excuses they've used for dismissing all of the other evidence.

Now a corporation cannot force you to turn over private messages. For one the NFL does not have subpena power so Brady is under no obligation from the law to give over his phone which, is a good thing. A corporation should not have that power.

What a corporation can do is assume the worst if you don’t cooperate and issue punishments based on that worst assumptions. You may be asked to take a drug test because the company suspects you of being high on the job. You may refuse, which is your right. But then the company can then fire you because they can assume that since you wouldn’t take a drug test you probably had been using some illicit drugs. If IBM was accusing me of sharing trade secrets with Toshiba, they could request to see my phone, if I didn’t comply, they have the right to fire me in most states.

No player has ever been suspended for not cooperating with an investigation, in fact the former commissioner vacated an pensltys enforced against saints players  for not cooperating because it was not inline with the cba

Additionally what evidence is there that Brady did anything,  I have yet to see any

Agreed.

Additionally, as has been pointed out, the NFL isn't Brady's employer, the Patriots are.  Goodell is an employee of the owners who can be fired by them. So this complicates things further since Kraft certainly isn't asking for the phone.

Moreover, what gets lost in all of this is that the NFL doesn't even have evidence that the balls were even deflated. So it'd be like a company forcing you to have a drug test about an accident at your work that they just think may have happened, but they have no evidence of. And that would lose in a court of law unless the company had a random drug testing policy for all employees, but that would mean that the NFL would have to see every employees phone periodically, including Roger Goodell.