TOM TERRIBLE IS SUSPENDED!

MarathonMind wrote:

You want spoliation? Try the Bush/Rove WH erasing millions (22 million?) of emails from the extragovernmental GWB43.com server. Or Romney leaving Beacon Hill with ALL of he statehouse computers (bough and paid for of course).

Brady destroying his cell phone is relatively minor, if it even counts as spoliation.

Oh for F*ck's sake, give it a rest. We're talking football, not politics from decades ago.

I like titties wrote:

What?! Brady destroyed his phone? Now we'll never get to see leaked photos of naked Giselle. Damn you, Tom Brady!

What are the odds that is the actual reason he destroyed the phone haha. Could make some claim that it would be detrimental to her career for nudes to leak and she makes more than he does anyway.

None of this suggests that Brady's phone contained anything related to any of the Deflategate allegations. It is entirely possible that there was other incriminating evidence unrelated to the deflategate investigation that Brady did not want to turn over to the NFL especially given the leaks that plagued the entire affair.

If Brady is being punished for failure to turn over his phone (which is what Brett Favre) did, then he should be punished in line with that case. If he is being punished for deflation of footballs, then there is still no evidence to support the suspension.

Moreover, if there was incriminating evidence related to the deflation of footballs on his phone, it would be discoverable through other, reasonably attainable sources.

I have long thought that Brady's phone contained messages that relate to items far more damaging (read: PEDs) than the deflation of footballs.

It's entirely possible, incidentally, that what was or wasn't on the phone never comes up in court. Brady's appeal to the federal court is based around the arguments that 1) his four game suspension was an arbitrary punishment with no precedent and no reasoning given 2) the NFL made procedural errors in filing their accusations against Brady that invalidated their authority under the CBA to punish him 3) that Goodell did not have the authority under the CBA to preside over a hearing for the appeal when the outcome reflected back on him and 4) that the Wells report was schlock.

Only number 4 would make Brady's phone and its destruction even remotely relevant, and even then his phone is incidental as the Wells report attacked Brady on his possible knowledge of alleged ball tampering, not his cooperation or lack thereof with the league.

Also, I love the tautological reasoning surrounding this whole process...

"The stuff on Brady's phone is obviously incriminating, because Brady is guilty, which we know because he destroyed his phone which we know is incriminating!"

Ironically, you provide a link to an article that includes false information. The Patriot's balls did not deflate by 2.0 psi. It was false information leaked to ESPN from the beginning and often repeated by the media. And how can you compare the drop between the Pats balls and the Colts when one set was measured immediately at the end of the half and other set were measured at the end of halftime?

Speaking of citations, I would suggest reading the Wells Report, the Patriots rebuttal, and AEI report. The final link questions both sides, but puts the entire controversy into some much needed perspective.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2015/05/06/0ap3000000491381.pdf

http://wellsreportcontext.com

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdf

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/aeis-debunking-reportedly-gets-debunked/

"Brady is being punished for failure to turn over his phone (which is what Brett Favre) did, then he should be punished in line with that case. If he is being punished for deflation of footballs, then there is still no evidence to support the suspension."

Once again, Brady was not asked to turn over his phone. Only the text messages relevant to the issue.

Sally V wrote:

"Brady is being punished for failure to turn over his phone (which is what Brett Favre) did, then he should be punished in line with that case. If he is being punished for deflation of footballs, then there is still no evidence to support the suspension."

Once again, Brady was not asked to turn over his phone. Only the text messages relevant to the issue.

You forgot to include my "IF" that preceded that statement. That makes my point (and your rebuttal) the same argument.

And, for what it's worth, I am Pats fan and a Brady supporter.

Sally,Please read Mundus' post below. He is correct. Who were those incriminating texts sent to? There is a 'paper' trail here, yet there is zero evidence that Brady asked the ball boys to deflate the balls below the limit.

Mundus Vult wrote:

Moreover, if there was incriminating evidence related to the deflation of footballs on his phone, it would be discoverable through other, reasonably attainable sources.

yuiop wrote:

Sally,

Please read Mundus' post below. He is correct. Who were those incriminating texts sent to? There is a 'paper' trail here, yet there is zero evidence that Brady asked the ball boys to deflate the balls below the limit.

Mundus Vult wrote:

Moreover, if there was incriminating evidence related to the deflation of footballs on his phone, it would be discoverable through other, reasonably attainable sources.

You are correct. This is getting ridiculous. It has dragged on far too long. It should have been concluded in one month IF everyone who is proclaiming innocence had cooperated fully.

Why should he cooperate when the NFL leaked false information (balls were down 2.0 psi at halftime) from the beginning? Maybe not releasing his texts was a simple, "F*ck you!" to Goodell. I've seen nothing to indicate guilt on Brady's part or anyone else within the Pats organization, yet regardless the entire saga seems more of an NFL side show created by a commissioner who lacks credibility.

From

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/aeis-debunking-reportedly-gets-debunked/

:

"I continue to place no faith in the conclusions, either, for one very important reason. During the 95-year history of the NFL, the question of whether air pressure inside a football changes during game conditions never registered as even a faint blip on the league’s radar screen. Officials inflated the footballs before kickoff and then they played the games, oblivious to the fact that footballs at the high end of the 12.5-to-13.5 range on a warm day would quickly rise above the limit, and to the fact that footballs at the low end on a cold day would quickly shrink below it.

Then, suddenly, the NFL gave the topic of air pressure an extreme degree of importance, treating any deviation below the minimum not as the result of atmospheric conditions but as presumptive proof that someone was cheating. The stage was set for the strings of the Commissioner to be manipulated not from above but from below, with one or more league office employees able to kick-start a process that resulted in the Wells investigation — thanks in large part to the unrebutted leak of blatantly false PSI information to ESPN.

The mere fact that Wells needed such detail and nuance to reach a conclusion shows that the results of the air pressure testing and analysis should have been deemed inconclusive for proof of cheating. Instead, Wells and Exponent massaged and tinkered and assumed and disregarded the best recollection of referee Walt Anderson just enough to find that the Patriots cheated."

person wrote:

exthrower wrote:

Why is this cheating if both teams used the same balls?

They don't use the same balls. They SHOULD.

Damn straight, they should. All of this tedius crap could have been avoided. The NFL is getting more and more stupid with each passing year. Is this a Goodell thing?

PS: New England played most of the game vs Colts using Indy's footballs. Was the score even close?

Sally V wrote:

It has dragged on far too long. It should have been concluded in one month IF everyone who is proclaiming innocence had cooperated fully.

Correct. Once again, the fall out from the cover-up is far worse than the actual crime. Too bad Tom and the Pats didn't figure this out 6 months ago.

What cover up? There was nothing to cover up!

Try to keep up wrote:

What cover up? There was nothing to cover up!

So, you were just so overflowing with stupid that you had to spill some out, huh?

Sally V wrote:

You are correct. This is getting ridiculous. It has dragged on far too long. It should have been concluded in one month IF everyone who is proclaiming innocence had cooperated fully.

Do you believe the NFL has earned the cooperation of the players in these sorts of matters?

yuiop wrote:

Ironically, you provide a link to an article that includes false information. The Patriot's balls did not deflate by 2.0 psi. It was false information leaked to ESPN from the beginning and often repeated by the media. And how can you compare the drop between the Pats balls and the Colts when one set was measured immediately at the end of the half and other set were measured at the end of halftime?

Speaking of citations, I would suggest reading the Wells Report, the Patriots rebuttal, and AEI report. The final link questions both sides, but puts the entire controversy into some much needed perspective.

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2015/05/06/0ap3000000491381.pdfhttp://wellsreportcontext.comhttps://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/On-the-Wells-report.pdfhttp://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/29/aeis-debunking-reportedly-gets-debunked/

You can't be serious, right, do the freaking math, it is physically impossible for the balls to deflate as much as they were deflated only due to air temperature. In one of your sources (http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/photo/2015/05/06/0ap3000000491381.pdf) it states that a professor of Physics tenured at Princeton concluded that the temperature drop would not account for the difference that the balls were deflated and that the Colts football's were not as deflated as the patriots footballs.

Hello McFly!

As I pointed out, I suggested you read the Wells Report (paid for by the NFL), the Patriots rebuttal, and the AEI report. It went over your head, but my point was there have been different conclusions from different scientists. You are picking the information that serves your conclusion: Tom Brady cheated. If you bothered to read all of the links, you would know the Wells Report has its flaws and neglected to use the data from the gauge that the ref thinks he used. Isn't that fact alone enough to raise suspicion about their conclusions?

And for f*ck sake, if the Patriots balls were measured as soon as the half ended and the Colts balls were in a warm room for 10 minutes before being measured, do you expect the same conclusion scientifically?!

yuiop wrote:

Hello McFly!

As I pointed out, I suggested you read the Wells Report (paid for by the NFL), the Patriots rebuttal, and the AEI report. It went over your head, but my point was there have been different conclusions from different scientists. You are picking the information that serves your conclusion: Tom Brady cheated. If you bothered to read all of the links, you would know the Wells Report has its flaws and neglected to use the data from the gauge that the ref thinks he used. Isn't that fact alone enough to raise suspicion about their conclusions?

And for f*ck sake, if the Patriots balls were measured as soon as the half ended and the Colts balls were in a warm room for 10 minutes before being measured, do you expect the same conclusion scientifically?!

Ok you got me on a couple responses, that's a pretty decent troll job 6.5/10