....it became illegal in 1981 and if it wasn't illegal then why did he say "I know it might be a little illegal" ??????

Brad Johnson won a SB after paying $7500 to equipment guy to doctor balls so they are not the only team in history.

Four game suspension upheld but Brady had actually destroyed his cell phone that could have contained evidence proving his guilt.

Now Tom Brady is acting as though HE is the victim in this story.

As I've said before, I think the punishment was too light and that if it was only a four game suspension, it either should have been

1) the last four games of the regular season or

2) four DIVISION games.

AND THINK ABOUT IT.

Pete Rose is permanently banned from baseball because he BET on baseball and Brady is only giving a four game suspension WHEN HE ACTUALLY MAY HAVE AFFECTED GAMES BY TAMPERING WITH THE BALL????????????????

Give me a major break!

I wonder if smashing your cellphone when caught red handed is part of the Patriot player orientation. First Hernandez now Brady.

dgoodhue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if smashing your cellphone when caught
> red handed is part of the Patriot player
> orientation. First Hernandez now Brady.


They learned it from the NFL, who destroyed all the video tape evidence from the last Patriots cheating debacle, Spygate.... Better to destroy then let the public realize how bad the cheating really was.....Destroy, deny and downplay....

-----------------------------------------------------------------
All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.
Nietzsche

Now it becomes likely that by taking the case to Federal court, Brady will start game 1. By the time that case is decide, it may be mid to late season. At that time the league would suspend him immediately. We play the Pats October 29th (week 8) and January 3rd (week 17).

How funny would it be to see the destroyer (of evidence) be suspended in week 16 or 17th vs the Jets or Miami and have it carry into the playoffs?

It would be nnnniiiiiiiiiiccccccccccccceeeeeee!

Lol. I don't know what's better. This news or that Miami is bringing back the old logo for Monday night football.....

GO DOLPHINS!!!!

I believe in Karma and if this case isn't heard until after opening day Brady will suffer a season ending injury in week 1.

And you're exactly right, Joe. Pats fans are delusional. They actually think this is a witch hunt by 2 former jets employees now employed by the league.

One more bit of news....

Minnesota judge rules lawsuit to be heard in NY.

NFLPA and Brady wanted it in MN because they believed the judge there was more "player friendly" as he has been in the past. Awwe...that's too bad.

As a life long MA resident, Deflategate is a big reminder to why I am not a Patriots fan. Deflategate is a big old train wreck and it's entertaining hearing the Patriots and their fans try to justify themselves. The Pats were caught cheating, tried to cover it up, and won't admit to it. Roger isn't backing down and is pushing back even harder. It is like a little kid caught stealing, won't admit to it, and parent isn't letting it go, but with lawyers involved. If they would have co-operative and truthful, I am sure the penalties would have been far less than they received. Brady's legacy and his public perception have taken a huge hit. Many Pats fan already have the Manning complex, they are going to be defending Tommy the lair and deflated balls for years The NFLPA tried to hand picked a labor friendly judge and the NFL beat them to the punch. I wonder what the chances the NY judge is a Jets or Yankees fan? I hate the Yankees and Jets, but this is funny. This past Super Bowl win is tainted. This is almost as good as the perfect regular season after the loss to NY Giants. If Pete Carroll had only called a running play it would have made it better.

>I don't know how anyone who has read the Wells report, the >Commissioners decision of appeal, observed Brady's actions and >responses as well as Kraft's actions and responses, can legitimately >argue any excuse for Tom Brady and the Patriot organization!


Oh they do it every day around here (Boston area). In fact they cite the Wells report as proof that Brady is innocent, and think he had every right to destroy his phone.


> Brady has NO SHOT in federal court.
>

Here's hoping.!

PS: HI everyone, I've been checking in just a little here and there, without logging in. Now that the season is approaching, I'll be here more often. Hats off to Colonel for doing an awesome job moderating.



(edited because I omitted some of the text I'd intended to quote)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2015 06:17AM by JC.

Judge Berman just completed the pre-trial hearing today. I'm not a lawyer but it can't be a good thing for Brady when the judge connects the discipline Goodell handed out with the CBA and then precedents on punishments and courts upholding arbiter decisions.

It also doesn't help that Brady's defense lawyer gave answers that not only threw McNally and Jastremski under the bus, contradicted Brady's assertion that no one inside the Patriots did anything wrong, but also stretched the limits of credibility.

Brady's too arrogant to do this, but my sense is that his best outcome now is to get the punishment down to a two game suspension. I think he's in big trouble.

I haven't been keeping up with it, but that being true, it will probably stay at four games. When you go to a judge for relief from a punishment you consider to be harsh, and you piss him off, there is only one conclusion, he leaves the punishment as it is and if it were not for the Double Jeopardy Clause, most judges would increase it.

Just heard over the local (Boston) news radio:

"Judge admits that Brady played BETTER in the second half of the AFC Championship Game!"

The local media are basically confident that their little angel will emerge with his halo intact. Then they interviewed someone from the Colts who said "As a Bay-Area guy, I have to say that Brady is the Second Best quarterback next to Montana to ever play the game."

wow...hard hitting journalism right there. They take one phrase from the hearing out of context then quote a guy from Northern California who likes Brady and Montana.

I think the cover up is the biggest issue here not the stupid Air in the ball. Destroying evidence (his cell phone) the day before the hearing has to get him at least 2 games. The NFL cant directly connect him to the deed. But the evidence is outstanding that he conspired to cover up the incident. Tom didn't think it out. What he did was stupid but in the scheme of things , big deal. But his actions from the first press conference on are just completely insubordinate , reckless and detriment to the NFL as a whole. No one is above the rules.

GO DOLPHINS!!!!

Chyren, the refs were alerted at half time that the balls were tampered with, the obvious Pats bias in JC's statement is that the local Boston media took one statement from the judge as a sign that Brady will get off. In reality it makes no difference if it helped him or not, but Pats fans are hanging on anything they can

dolphaholic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chyren, the refs were alerted at half time that
> the balls were tampered with, the obvious Pats
> bias in JC's statement is that the local Boston
> media took one statement from the judge as a sign
> that Brady will get off. In reality it makes no
> difference if it helped him or not, but Pats fans
> are hanging on anything they can


Correct, and later yesterday evening all I heard was "Judge Grills NFL Attorney" and "NFL Presents No Evidence" as more signs that Brady will get off scot free. Of course he DESTROYED the freakin' evidence, but the local press conveniently leaves that out.

Are they getting testimony from the two guys to actually bled air out of the balls? Never hear about that locally.

Case watchers seem to agree that the law and the CBA are THE major hurdle for the Brady side. Again, it can't be good news when the judge links the punishment to the CBA and then to precedent.

For all the criticism of the Wells report, it strongly implicates Brady with the culprits. There may not be a smoking gun re Brady's involvement, but it's damning that several former NFL QBs (some of them HOFers) do not believe Brady's story AND that Brady deliberately destroyed his phone.

What anti-Goodell people like PFT's Mike Florio seem to ignore here is that the NFL Commissioner cannot...cannot...sweep a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Rules under the rug with a fine when he is dealing with a repeat offender team and three individuals within that team blatantly complicit in that violation.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...it's not a cow.

The way the criminal law works is that you have to be extra sensitive in allowing admission of evidence that may INFER guilt without actually PROVING guilt. However, an exception is made where the evidence is also relevant to prove knowledge, identity, or consciousness of guilt.

Destroying an item which could potentially provide evidence of either guilt OR EXCULPATION (innocence) can fall into the latter category.

The judge only disallows the evidence if it is of little probative value but of GREAT prejudicial effect.

On the other hand, when the probative value and the prejudicial effect are basically equally, he or she allows the evidence and lets the jury determine which is which with the prosecutor being allowed to urge consciousness of guilt AND allowing the defense attorney argue that it shows innocence otherwise why would he have done it or it means nothing.


In this case Brady destroying his phone falls into the latter category. The question is whether the probative (proof) value of the evidence is greatly outweighed by its prejudicial effect. Allowing the evidence of the destruction of the phone may cause people to think that the phone contained damning evidence without establishing that fact as a scientific reality so there is some prejudicial effect but Tom's excuse that he "always destroys old phones when getting new phones" can be considered but would an ordinary person who was NOT guilty follow that habit when he knows that phone is the subject of an INVESTIGATION....not likely unless he was guilty which is precisely why in this case the Probative value of the evidence (that he destroyed the phone) outweighs any unfair prejudicial effect even though that destruction does not ABSOLUTELY PROVE guilt.

Bottom line, Brady's destruction of the phone should be considered by the Commissioner as EVIDENCE OF A GUILTY STATE OF MIND.