Predict the outcome of Brady's appeal

[faba]

Why? You already stated the reason it shouldn't.

Because  suspensions have a history of being reduced.

[Ken Schroy]

lame

 

if he wanted to be there he would have his jet leave earlier

 

lol

It is lame. Although it is a nice that Kraft is sucking up to Jet HOFer Curtis Martin.

[EM31]

Well that's really the part where even 4 games is light. Of course it's been going on for years. So all those games, all that cheating prior to the 2014 season playoffs, he got no penalty at all.

 

I find myself with Integrity28 on this one.  I think Tom Brady is literally taking one for the team here because BB knew about it all along. The Patriots franchise and the league simply could not withstand another guilty finding against the Patriots.

 

Honestly I doubt it is even about Tom Brady's ball pressure preferences at all.  I think Bill Belichick recognized a  linkage between low ball pressure and low rates of fumbling and could not resist the temptation to move the turnover differential in favor of the Pats.  What is playing out now is all a farce.

 

I also believe that this was the message delivered in no uncertain terms to Robert Kraft in the recent owners meeting.  The full-32 are extremely pissed off at the Patriots and are likely to become even more pissed off with them if Kraft did not shut up and take the punishment.

[Jet Fan RI]

Most carriers only hold texts for a limited amount of time (60-90 days). They claim this is due to storage space but real reason is they don't want to be inundated with subpoenas related to records since the beginning of time.

 

This was Brady's plan all along. Stall until the carrier purges the texts and then hand the records his lawyer conveniently printed out and is willing to share at the appeal when it's too late to get the full picture. "Oh sorry I checked with Verizon and the text from that period were purged, but since I'm such a nice guy, I instructed my lawyer to share his file of the texts with you."

 

Actually, it seems most carriers retain the records for a year or more. Here's an online article:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/22/how-long-cellphone-companies-store-your-call-records

 

And here's a graph from the article:

 

(see attachment)

[JustInFudge]

The outcome is no matter what happens, suspension or no suspension, this is pissing Brady and BB off and they'll proceed to win another Super Bowl next year in response.

[#27TheDominator]

The outcome is no matter what happens, suspension or no suspension, this is pissing Brady and BB off and they'll proceed to win another Super Bowl next year in response.

 

Think of the bulletin board!

[loluchka80]

reduced to 1 game

[Jet Fan RI]

I think it will stay at 4 games.

 

Apparently, Brady didn't even testify. Here's a quote from a cbs sports article:

 

Brady apparently didn't speak or testify at the hearing, but was there until the "bitter end" and came off as an "A-plus, 10 kind of guy."

 

Here's the full article:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25223595/whats-next-for-tom-brady-after-10-hour-appeal-hearing

[afosomf]

I think it will stay at 4 games.

 

Apparently, Brady didn't even testify. Here's a quote from a cbs sports article:

 

Brady apparently didn't speak or testify at the hearing, but was there until the "bitter end" and came off as an "A-plus, 10 kind of guy."

 

Here's the full article:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25223595/whats-next-for-tom-brady-after-10-hour-appeal-hearing

LMAO  A+ guy and was a mute  

[jgb]

Actually, it seems most carriers retain the records for a year or more. Here's an online article:

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/05/22/how-long-cellphone-companies-store-your-call-records

 

And here's a graph from the article:

 

(see attachment)

I am referring to texts, which is much much shorter. The call logs are pretty worthless when trying to prove conspiracy between two people who who know each other and would have reason to contact each other anyway.

[Bronx Jet]

Reduced to a game or 2 if he gives up the phone records

[Panzer Division Marduk]

Reduced to a fine, which itself will be suspended for a year.

[Jet Fan RI]

I am referring to texts, which is much much shorter. The call logs are pretty worthless when trying to prove conspiracy between two people who who know each other and would have reason to contact each other anyway.

 

Good point. But many companies apparently retain them quite a while. Here is something from a 2011 article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393887,00.asp

[Sperm Edwards]

I find myself with Integrity28 on this one.  I think Tom Brady is literally taking one for the team here because BB knew about it all along. The Patriots franchise and the league simply could not withstand another guilty finding against the Patriots.

 

Honestly I doubt it is even about Tom Brady's ball pressure preferences at all.  I think Bill Belichick recognized a  linkage between low ball pressure and low rates of fumbling and could not resist the temptation to move the turnover differential in favor of the Pats.  What is playing out now is all a farce.

 

I also believe that this was the message delivered in no uncertain terms to Robert Kraft in the recent owners meeting.  The full-32 are extremely pissed off at the Patriots and are likely to become even more pissed off with them if Kraft did not shut up and take the punishment.

 

Agree with most of this. I don't know that it was all Belichick's design, but think it was a nice coincidence of Brady's preference and low fumble rates having that thing in common. So it may not have originated with BB, but it was done with his blessing.

 

Your last sentence is the one reason I have some hope that it won't be reduced. 

[Sperm Edwards]

I am referring to texts, which is much much shorter. The call logs are pretty worthless when trying to prove conspiracy between two people who who know each other and would have reason to contact each other anyway.

Yeah but if Goodell had the desire to stick to his guns, his response could/should be that Brady should have turned them over when they were available. In the absence of having them, we can assume the worst. 

 

You're the lawyer. Isn't that how it works when allegations are made by a plaintiff and the defendant claims the files are lost or deleted? That the plaintiff (or the jury) can assume the missing evidence contained everything that was alleged in the complaint? Or do I have it wrong. Granted, this hearing is not a court of law either way.

[jgb]

Good point. But many companies apparently retain them quite a while. Here is something from a 2011 article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393887,00.asp

I should've mentioned that I appreciated your last link and graph, I was on my mobile so was responding quickly. Back at my desk now.

 

The chart above is text message logs (who you texted), not content. Here is a blurb from an article around same time frame:

 

"AT&T, for example, retains information about who you are texting for five to seven years. T-Mobile keeps the same data for five years, Sprint keeps it for 18 months, and Verizon retains it for one year. Verizon is the only one of the top four carriers that retains text message content, however, and it keeps that for three to five days." [These figures align with your chart above]

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393887,00.asp

 

So it's actually shorter than I thought. Almost all texts that are used in court are recovered from forensic IT recovery from the device itself--much like a computer, "deleted" usually does not mean "unrecoverable."

 

This is a business decision by the carriers, they don't want to deal with tens of thousands of subpoenas in divorce cases every day for this data. Much easier to say "sorry, we don't retain it."

[jgb]

Yeah but if Goodell had the desire to stick to his guns, his response could/should be that Brady should have turned them over when they were available. In the absence of having them, we can assume the worst. 

 

You're the lawyer. Isn't that how it works when allegations are made by a plaintiff and the defendant claims the files are lost or deleted? That the plaintiff (or the jury) can assume the missing evidence contained everything that was alleged in the complaint? Or do I have it wrong. Granted, this hearing is not a court of law either way.

 

You're referring to spoliation. Spoliation (willful or complicit destruction of evidence) only comes into play when the offending party "reasonably anticipated litigation." Brady can simply say he never retains the messages on his phone and cleared them before he knew there would be an investigation (I delete most of mine, not for any reason but to keep the clutter off my phone), and he can't control what his cell phone carrier does. Now that's Court of law standard, Emporer Goodell can do whatever he pleases.

[Jet Fan RI]

I should've mentioned that I appreciated your last link and graph, I was on my mobile so was responding quickly. Back at my desk now.

 

The chart above is text message logs (who you texted), not content. Here is a blurb from an article around same time frame:

 

"AT&T, for example, retains information about who you are texting for five to seven years. T-Mobile keeps the same data for five years, Sprint keeps it for 18 months, and Verizon retains it for one year. Verizon is the only one of the top four carriers that retains text message content, however, and it keeps that for three to five days." [These figures align with your chart above]

 

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2393887,00.asp

 

So it's actually shorter than I thought. Almost all texts that are used in court are recovered from forensic IT recovery from the device itself--much like a computer "deleted" usually does not mean "unrecoverable."

 

Thanks. I guess I was confused by the line "text message detail," which shows retention periods of years. Strange that "text message content" is much shorter. I would have thought "detail" would include "content," but apparently not.

[jgb]

Thanks. I guess I was confused by the line "text message detail," which shows retention periods of years. Strange that "text message content" is much shorter. I would have thought "detail" would include "content," but apparently not.

 

Yeah you responded as I was editing in the following last sentence to the post: "This is a business decision by the carriers, they don't want to deal with tens of thousands of subpoenas in divorce cases every day for this data. Much easier to say "sorry, we don't retain it."

 

There is one caveat, if you are using a company cellphone, they may use software that retains the data internally.

[Sperm Edwards]

You're referring to spoliation. Spoliation (willful or complicit destruction of evidence) only comes into play when the offending party "reasonably anticipated litigation." Brady can simply say he never retains the messages on his phone and cleared them before he knew there would be an investigation (I delete most of mine, not for any reason but to keep the clutter off my phone), and he can't control what his cell phone carrier does.

 

Yeah, whatever it's called. 

 

Brady can say it, but no one other than the willfully ignorant will believe it. Say he claims he deletes texts immediately. It might not be too hard to show texts he responded to after longer than that duration.  Further, that would have been his claim from the start. Instead, he refused to turn it over so there's reason to believe he wanted it concealed. He can claim he didn't want all his info peripheral to the investigation to be looked at, but they could always video going through the phone with him in the room to make sure no one looks at things that investigators have no business looking at. The smoking gun is that he refused to turn it over. It's far-fetched to say, 6 months later after it's off the carrier's servers, that he deletes everything right away. If that was the case he'd have turned his cell phone over when asked back then.

[Jet Fan RI]

You're referring to spoliation. Spoliation (willful or complicit destruction of evidence) only comes into play when the offending party "reasonably anticipated litigation." Brady can simply say he never retains the messages on his phone and cleared them before he knew there would be an investigation (I delete most of mine, not for any reason but to keep the clutter off my phone), and he can't control what his cell phone carrier does. Now that's Court of law standard, Emporer Goodell can do whatever he pleases.

 

But then, why did he refuse to provide his phone when requested during the investigation?

[Irish Jet]

Suspension revoked and a full apology from the league along with compensation for putting Brady through such horrors.

[jgb]

Yeah, whatever it's called. 

 

Brady can say it, but no one other than the willfully ignorant will believe it. Say he claims he deletes texts immediately. It might not be too hard to show texts he responded to after longer than that duration.  Further, that would have been his claim from the start. Instead, he refused to turn it over so there's reason to believe he wanted it concealed. He can claim he didn't want all his info peripheral to the investigation to be looked at, but they could always video going through the phone with him in the room to make sure no one looks at things that investigators have no business looking at. The smoking gun is that he refused to turn it over. It's far-fetched to say, 6 months later after it's off the carrier's servers, that he deletes everything right away. If that was the case he'd have turned his cell phone over when asked back then.

 

See my response below. I'm not saying it's a good argument, but sometimes as a lawyer you have to do the best you can. That's how I'd play this.

 

But then, why did he refuse to provide his phone when requested during the investigation?

 

Yup, that's a major problem for him. I still predict he walked in with carefully pre-selected texts by his lawyers that (obviously) help him saying "here is what we have," knowing that Goodell has no way to get the full data.

[JohnnyLV]

There should be no discretion in player penalties under the CBA.  

 

Drunk Driving: 2 games

Domestic violence: 8 games

Domestic violence against children or with significant injury: Year

Failure to cooperate with investigation: 4 games

 

Something like that. Then we can keep all the lawyers out of it.

 

What amazes me most by the Pats fans defending it, is that they think the NFL wanted Wells to find fault and that could not be farther from the truth. More likely is that the report is whitewashed to make the behavior look isolated which of course it is not.

 

All I really care about is that they do something to make sure it does not ever happen again. Everyone other than Pats fans know they cheated and will continue to find ways to cheat. The length of the suspension is sort of irrelevant. 10+ hours suggests negotiation and compromise. Maybe they just put Brady on double secret probation.

[EM31]

So if a civil suit is the catalyst which permits phone records to be subpoenaed I was wondering if Wells has any kind of reasonable cause to file a civil complaint against Brady and/or the Patriots here?  Some of the comments after the ruling came down, impugning his integrity, motivations and competence etc. are pretty close to being slander/libel if not true.  Certainly they would impact his ability to get work in the future if they are allowed to stand unchallenged.

 

If Wells files a suit and gets hold of the phone records that way then that would be some pretty funny sh1t right there.

[nycdan]

But then, why did he refuse to provide his phone when requested during the investigation?

 

Naked pics of men.

[Klecko73isGod]

Goodell is going to overturn the golden boy's suspension because he is afraid of pissing off his main benefactor, Bob Kraft. 

 

This whole thing was a show. 

 

The player's association should file suit regardless of the outcome. 

[jgb]

So if a civil suit is the catalyst which permits phone records to be subpoenaed I was wondering if Wells has any kind of reasonable cause to file a civil complaint against Brady and/or the Patriots here?  Some of the comments after the ruling came down, impugning his integrity, motivations and competence etc. are pretty close to being slander/libel if not true.  Certainly they would impact his ability to get work in the future if they are allowed to stand unchallenged.

 

If Wells files a suit and gets hold of the phone records that way then that would be some pretty funny sh1t right there.

 

He would need the phone itself, intact, for a chance to recover anything useful at this point.

[Klecko73isGod]

If Goodell overturns Brady's suspension (which I am sure he will) Troy Vincent should quit his job very loudly and very angrily. 

[PFSIKH]

Think of the bulletin board!

 

I am pretty sure people on this board will lose their $hit.

[jgb]

If Goodell overturns Brady's suspension (which I am sure he will) Troy Vincent should quit his job very loudly and very angrily. 

 

We must protect this brand!!! An overturn would be a worse black stain than the Golden Boy going down, imho. It would be a "Emporer had no Clothes" type of moment for Goodell, and his authority may never recover from it. I still predict a reduction, but not a complete reversal. But what do I know.

[PFSIKH]

There should be no discretion in player penalties under the CBA.  

 

Drunk Driving: 2 games

Domestic violence: 8 games

Domestic violence against children or with significant injury: Year

Failure to cooperate with investigation: 4 games

 

Something like that. Then we can keep all the lawyers out of it.

 

What amazes me most by the Pats fans defending it, is that they think the NFL wanted Wells to find fault and that could not be farther from the truth. More likely is that the report is whitewashed to make the behavior look isolated which of course it is not.

 

All I really care about is that they do something to make sure it does not ever happen again. Everyone other than Pats fans know they cheated and will continue to find ways to cheat. The length of the suspension is sort of irrelevant. 10+ hours suggests negotiation and compromise. Maybe they just put Brady on double secret probation.

 

Cute dog.  Austrailian Sheppard?

 

I disagree with this. 

 

If this was true, then Goodell would have handled it internally.  He would have given a warning to the Patriots, like the memo he sent out for camera recordings, or call Bob up and let him know..."teams are whining about ball pressure".

 

While Goodell did not have an axe to groind, some of the other ex-Jets employees in the NFL offices clearly did.

[southparkcpa]

Full De Facto Pardon, i.e. everything stays in place EXCEPT the one thing that counts, the suspension.

THIS...except, the door is briefly left open and a pic of Goodell swallowing Brady and it dripping from his chin is let out to the public.

[PFSIKH]

We must protect this brand!!! An overturn would be a worse black stain than the Golden Boy going down, imho. It would be a "Emporer had no Clothes" type of moment for Goodell, and his authority may never recover from it. I still predict a reduction, but not a complete reversal. But what do I know.

 

Goodell has no credibility regardless of how he handles this.

 

Reduce/overturn and he looks dumb for meting out punishment from a flawed report that cost 5 million. 

 

Stick with original, he looks dumb for continued standing behind a flawed report.

 

How a smart man can make the wrong decision everytime is amazing.

[JohnnyLV]

Cute dog.  Austrailian Sheppard?

 

I disagree with this. 

 

If this was true, then Goodell would have handled it internally.  He would have given a warning to the Patriots, like the memo he sent out for camera recordings, or call Bob up and let him know..."teams are whining about ball pressure".

 

While Goodell did not have an axe to groind, some of the other ex-Jets employees in the NFL offices clearly did.

 

Yes an Aussie rescue dog from Katrina.

 

It was way too big of a story for Goodell, who has a reputation from Spygate as a Pats homer, to handle the investigation himself. He may have lost his job if he did that because it would have incited the other owners. Having some sort of "impartial" investigation was the only way to go.