Jump to content

Report: NFL believes Tom Brady will accept a shorter suspension


Jet Fan RI

Recommended Posts

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25249432/report-nfl-believes-tom-brady-will-accept-a-reduced-suspension Report: NFL believes Tom Brady will accept a shorter suspension
By John Breech | CBSSports.com
 
July 24, 2015 2:26 pm ET

Settlement talks between Tom Brady and the NFL have gone nowhere so far, but that could change soon.

According to Bleacher Report's Jason Cole, the league believes Brady will eventually accept a deal that would involve Brady's four-game suspension being reduced. Although the potential deal would cut down Brady's suspension, it wouldn't reduce it to zero and Brady would still miss games.

The NFL's belief, according to Cole, is that Brady will want to get a deal done before training camp so that he can focus exclusively on football. Under that timeline, a deal between Brady and the NFL would have to be done by July 29, when the Patriots veterans are scheduled to report to camp.

One of the sticking points in the settlement talks so far is that league doesn't want to agree to a deal unless there's an "admission of guilt by Brady on some level," according to NFL.com.

How do you solve that problem? According to Cole, Brady would likely sign off on a deal that suspends him for not cooperating with the league during the Ted Wells investigation, but in the potential deal, Brady wouldn't admit to any wrongdoing as Deflategate.

Basically, Brady would say, "I didn't cooperate with the league investigation, I understand why I'm being punished," but he wouldn't admit to guilt as far as deflating footballs.

ESPN.com had previously reported that Brady would be open to a deal that involved him paying a fine, instead of facing any suspension. However, when the NFLPA made that suggestion to the NFL recently, the offer was met with 'Silence,' according to ESPN.

A possible settlement doesn't seem out of the question either.

When ProFootballTalk originally reported on Wednesday that settlement talks had occurred, PFT noted that although a settlement would be "unexpected," it wouldn't be completely shocking to see one get "worked out."

The only thing slowing things down at this point could be the group of anonymous 'influential' owners who want to see Brady's suspension stick at four games.

As for Brady, he seems pretty relaxed as he waits for the final ruling on his appeal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom-Brady-Gisele-final-07-22-15.jpgIt's been a relaxing week for Tom Brady. (Facebook/TomBrady)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  •  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discipline should be discipline and the system should be set up so there is no judgement or argument. All these "deals;" and lawyers and equivocating is just wrong. He's guilty. Roger needs to stand his ground. Brady should not be a position to "accept" anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the way this whole thing comes out is so annoying to me. As if the guy that has been suspended will accept, negotiate etc etc. It's beyond ridiculous, makes me sick.

It's all about protecting the Legacy, at least he's got to play it straight now. Any whiff of further wrong doing and it's over. The gloves will be off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the way this whole thing comes out is so annoying to me.  As if the guy that has been suspended will accept, negotiate etc etc.  It's beyond ridiculous, makes me sick.

 

Yeah. I wonder if the Boston bomber will accept the death penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about protecting the Legacy, at least he's got to play it straight now. Any whiff of further wrong doing and it's over. The gloves will be off.

After everything the Pats in general have done in the past?  It's pathetic and the lack of leadership from Dodgy Roger is pathetic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just know this is what is going to happen 2 games suspension and no admission of guilt- in exchange for not going to court- I will be shocked if this is not what happens.

 

 

The 'No admission of guilt' part just screams "I AM GUILTY"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brady gets two games and has to admit he did not cooperate with the investigation that is a win. The hole idea is to have him miss games and have to admit he did something wrong. In my opinion being an ass to the investigation is way worse then taking some air out of the ball.

Would be nice if Brady got told no, you can't do that just once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brady gets two games and has to admit he did not cooperate with the investigation that is a win. The hole idea is to have him miss games and have to admit he did something wrong. In my opinion being an ass to the investigation is way worse then taking some air out of the ball.

Would be nice if Brady got told no, you can't do that just once.

No way in the world Brady is ever going to admit he did anything wrong.    

 

Suspensions are very often cut in half on appeal, suspect it will happen here also to avoid court.      I'm good with that, it still indicates that the NFL knows he's full of crap.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he supply any reason for his belief?

He indicated (not clear whether it was a source or speculation) that the NFL lawyers have been telling Goodell that.

Also, he thought that the long delay is a sign that the NFL is concerned about the strength of its case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He indicated (not clear whether it was a source or speculation) that the NFL lawyers have been telling Goodell that.

Also, he thought that the long delay is a sign that the NFL is concerned about the strength of its case.

 

Very strange. The Wells report seems airtight  to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk with any lawyer who's looked at this case and they'll tell you the same thing.

 

They have no conclusive scientific evidence linking Brady to any wrongdoing.  The Wells report regarding Bradys guilt has been criticized by pretty much every mainstream outlet including the NYT, the Washington post and pretty much every scientist looking at it. 

They have no eyewitness to any crime, and everything they have is essentially circumstantial (very hard to win in court with).

They have a strange precedent problem with Troy Vincent handing the punishment down.

The punishment seems incredibly arbitrary.  Why 4 games, why not 8, why not 1?  

 

There is probably all sorts of embarrassing things that will show up in discovery, like where all those league leaks came from, as well as potential pressure by owners.

 

Meanwhile the only thing they really have on Brady is obstructing/withholding phone records, which he provided in his appeal and which has a precedent of a 50k fine not more.

 

I'm completely neutral on whether he is or is not guilty, I simply have no idea.  But the point is It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what you can prove in a court, and the case falls apart like a house of cards unless they get one of those two deflator guys to testify, which they can always take the fifth on. 

 

Worst comes to worst, Brady can just delay this for a very long time and get a stay.  I think no matter what happens he will be playing those early season games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk with any lawyer who's looked at this case and they'll tell you the same thing.

 

They have no conclusive scientific evidence linking Brady to any wrongdoing.  The Wells report regarding Bradys guilt has been criticized by pretty much every mainstream outlet including the NYT, the Washington post and pretty much every scientist looking at it. 

They have no eyewitness to any crime, and everything they have is essentially circumstantial (very hard to win in court with).

They have a strange precedent problem with Troy Vincent handing the punishment down.

The punishment seems incredibly arbitrary.  Why 4 games, why not 8, why not 1?  

 

There is probably all sorts of embarrassing things that will show up in discovery, like where all those league leaks came from, as well as potential pressure by owners.

 

Meanwhile the only thing they really have on Brady is obstructing/withholding phone records, which he provided in his appeal and which has a precedent of a 50k fine not more.

 

I'm completely neutral on whether he is or is not guilty, I simply have no idea.  But the point is It doesn't matter what we think, it matters what you can prove in a court, and the case falls apart like a house of cards unless they get one of those two deflator guys to testify, which they can always take the fifth on. 

 

Worst comes to worst, Brady can just delay this for a very long time and get a stay.  I think no matter what happens he will be playing those early season games.

 

The first bolded statement is accurate. The second is not. I am a scientist and the science in the Wells report is solid. In fact the only statements to the contrary I have seen are those put out in a ludicrous AEI report. From my reading of the AEI report, I don't think its authors looked at the science in the Wells report. Or, if they did, they did not understand it. - Can you point to any other published comments by scientists calling the science into question? If so, I'll take a look.

 

Now of course, the science does not implicate Brady. But it doesn't have to. The standard in the NFL rules for proving rules violations is "the preponderance of evidence," which is precisely why the Wells report used the carefully chosen terminology "more likely than not." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Goodell holds his ground and they wind up going to the mat, on what legal basis would a judge be able to overturn the suspension?

 

According to what I've read, the process is what TB's lawyers will be attacking. Goodell hearing the appeal being one. The severity of the punishment being another. The rules call for a $25,000 fine for tampering with equipment so 4 games and a loss of 2+ million in pay seems arbitrary. And lastly, not cooperating with the investigation has in the past (Favre) resulted in only a fine.

 

I am not a lawyer but I have read that the courts would not take the case if Brady went after the scientific results of the Wells report. For the Wells report and the judgement as to whether Brady is guilty or not to come into play,  the courts would have to take the case based on the procedure aspect first. 

 

I think Goodell holds his ground knowing that he will be reversed in court and can walk away from the situation looking tough to the other owners and the majority of fans from other NFL teams. He can say he tried to punish Brady but the courts overturned him.

In the end I think Brady plays all 16 and gets fined for not turning over his phone. I think that is the deal Kraft made with Goodell when he agreed not to fight the million dollar fine and the loss of the 1st and 4th round picks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first bolded statement is accurate. The second is not. I am a scientist and the science in the Wells report is solid. 

I am a scientist as well, actually a physicist and the flaws with the paper were obvious from day one.  I could talk about the lack of detailed error analysis and some technical data analysis details, but I won't.  In fact I will assume the paper is correct.  The real problem wasn't the science, but the scientific logic of the paper.  At every opportunity they take numerical values that most implicates the Patriots.  

Thats not how you do statistical analysis and reads like a cherry picked conclusion set.  In fact simply doing the opposite and taking the values of the Wells report that most benefits the Patriots leads to the opposite conclusion, namely that there was no crime in the first place.  The problem, is that it is precisely this value that they must defend in a court of law with the presumption of innocence.  Indeed thats why you have Nobel Laureates calling out the science.

 

You see it doesn't matter if there is more evidence than not that there was in fact deflation that took place (and I think there is), what you have to show is some measure of statistics that rules out any other PLAUSIBLE alternative scenario, and there own paper shows that there is such a thing with enough generosity in the give/take of psi and measurement errors.  Basically you have to show a 2 sigma confidence bar that such a hypothesis is ruled out, and you simply don't get that in the paper.

 

This might be good enough for a commissioners ruling, but it won't stand up in a court of law with a much higher burden of proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...