Given that this is not a criminal case and is an issue of league rules, then the fact that the Patriots as an organization are a documented repeat offender of similar transgressions would play into the magnitude of the sanctions. There is a great deal of precedent for this rationale.
Sanctions on the Patriots
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
Glide,
To some extent, you are missing the point. If Brady appeals, he will be entitled to have an arbitrator hear his case. This is because, I would assume, that there is an arbitration provision in the NFL players contract. Such an arbitration provision is common in all sorts of commercial contracts. Thus, if Brady appeals and the case goes to arbitration, the NFL will be required to prove, not be innuendo, that Brady knowingly violated a league rule. If anyone feels otherwise about this,I would be happy to be educated. (I'm old,but you are never too old to learn something.)
Again, you miss the point. Do you not agree that the NFL has the burden of proof in this instance? Or,is it your belief that whenever the NFL suspects that there is a violation of league rules, they can simply say to the accused player, please turn over to us everything that you have in your possession which tends to establish that you knowingly violated a league rule. That would be utter nonsense, unless you believe that the NFL does not have the burden of proof. The point here is that after conducting an in depth investigation, the NFL has produced nothing in the way of direct evidence to suggest that Tom Brady knowingly violated a league rule, other than speculation, conjecture and innuendo.
I don't know. There is no guarantee that there is a burden of proof on the NFL.
With my government contracts, the government has no burden of proof to blacklist me from future work if they feel that there is any reason to believe that I might have knowingly accepted bribes or committed fraud. They specifically exclude the requirement for burden of proof. They cannot throw me in jail but they can keep me from bidding future government work.
So it is possible to write a contract which allows enforcement of the clauses contained therein (or referenced) without burden of proof.
That does not mean this is the case with the NFL. I have no idea. But your statement that the NFL for sure has a burden of proof is not necessarily a given.
Oh come on. Not all cheating is the same. Some cheating takes place on the field (holding, illegal blocks, etc.) and when caught is punished with a penalty. Some cheating (targeting a QB's head) is actually dangerous so, when caught, players can be suspended. Deflating the balls does not seem dangerous to me and so, in my opinion, doesn't justify a penalty that is actually WORSE than dangerous cheating.
Deflating the balls strikes me as analogous to spitballing. MLB spitballers are often viewed as lovable rascals, it seems. I don't know. Does the punishment fit the crime? How much of an actual advantage can be attributed to deflating footballs? I'm no Patriots fan at all, but they were just better than their competition most of the time, it seems. Can you point to a game and tell me that they won only because their footballs were deflated?
Feral, you seem to have forgotten: baseball players enjoy their lives and get to laugh at the ballpark. Football players are forbidden from having fun.
(Truly though, Brady actively lobbied to have the rules altered, then used those rules to tilt the playing field in his advantage, in at least this instance too far outside the bounds of the rules to be explained by coincidence.
Again, isn't that the cardinal sin of competition?)
The NFL should punish itself for poor oversight.Too severe
not severe enough
or just right?
Certainly I have no familiarity with your situation involving government contracts, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that if the government has "any reason to believe" that you might have knowingly accepted bribes or committed fraud they can keep you from bidding future government work, and that you would have no recourse. That would represent a clear violation of your due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. (Call me for representation if this ever happens to you.) On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure about the burden of proof issue in the Brady case, which I think I've made clear in other posts. So, does anyone know whether the NFL carries the burden of proof in this situation?
I am a New York Jets fan (embarrassed to admit it!), and have no love lost for Tom Brady or the Patriots. But this whole matter is a sham.
If this were such a significant matter as many have been saying on this thread, the NFL would have protected, controlled and tested the balls. They did not, and NFL Quarterbacks have played around with the pressure on balls, because they are fine tuned athletes, who can do this, and get away with it.
It made no difference whatsoever in the game as was proven by the second half. NO DIFFERENCE. I REPEAT, NO DIFFERENCE! This whole matter will not effect Tom Brady's career or perception of him as one of the all time greats, in any way.
This "Brady may have been involved" means nothing. You suspend the best QB in the NFL because he "may have been or 'likely was' involved?" That is beyond silly. You don't fine or suspend people for what may have happened. This is the United States of America, and the burden of proof remains.
A first round pick? Come on, as a Jets fan, I will take anything to even the field with the Patriots. But this whole matter makes the NFL look like a laughingstock. I am sorry.
It is clear from the investigative report if you read it, that Brady knew. Wells said as much today. The only reason that they had to caveat it a bit is that Tom failed to turn over any records, so there may have been some records to support his notion that he did not know that the investigators did not see.
This would have been a non issue if Brady did have a press conference to emphatically deny the charges, especially after his coach hemmed and hawed about it. If he had admitted and explained his actions I doubt this would even be news now.. But probably on bad advice from his agent (who has been making idiotic statements throughout) he decided to smokescreen in the hopes that Goodell's protector Kraft would come through for him.
Now it is just a big mess-- headlines every day in papers nowhere near New England, talk show fodder (Stewart's segment was particularly good) etc. Heck the NY Post even INTERVIEWED the "deflator" the other day! The suspension is the least of his worries-- he will now be the butt of jokes until the end of time, and his reputation will never be the same.
Quite possibly, but eventually it becomes old news. Have not heard any recent jokes about the Notre Dame player who went to play for the Chargers after being Catfished.
The NFL is becoming a big show like Wrestling where all the employees are responsible for the good of the larger organization. They have to enforce cooperation of the pageantry and production.
Keep in mind that the NFL fairly regularly fines players (deprives them of property) without any involvement of federal or state courts. These actions are governed by league rules and the CBA. I don't see how this situation is any different.
Right and I just heard on the ESPN radio, the guy who researched and issued the ruling that it was deceided because the "propondenance of evidence" was there.
I only disagreed to the extent that the NFL has a "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden, which they absolutely do not. Beyond that, the only disagreement we have is that I believe that there are text messages describing/showing:
1. That Tom Brady likes to have game balls deflated
2. That Brady would often be upset if the balls were not deflated to his liking
3. That Brady was in heavy contact with someone who was known as the "deflator"
4. That merchandise was usually exchanged for deflation services
To me, this meets the burden of proof for NFL action within their collectively bargained agreement. On top of that, Brady refused to cooperate fully with the investigation. Today, the investigator said he used the general civil case preponderance of evidence standard. Looking at his report and the texts, I would have to agree.
I don't quite know what you would want as direct evidence. Video of Brady deflating balls? Someone wearing a wiretap and getting him to talk about how he likes his footballs a bit deflated? Brady publishing a "how to deflate game balls on Sundays" guide on his blog?
http://www.boston.com/sports/footba...ssible-rate/LCgrlUR9qgxDsIgcal9dUI/story.html
There was a recent statistical analysis of the Patriots fumble-rate since 2007. It concluded that the Patriots low fumble rate was statistically impossible. See above link.
Due process? They would not be withholding life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness from me. Just choosing not to accept bids from me due to a lack of trust. They would not be doing this due to my race, creed, national origin, or gender, but due to suspecting me of violating one of the requirements of my contract which includes anti-bribery and anti-fraud provisions. If they could prove either of these claims then I would go to prison. If they suspected that I was guilty but could prove it, they would have the option to bar me.
In the private sector, if someone does not trust me, they do not invite me to bid on their work nor accept any bids that I might tender to them. No burden of proof there either.
There are a lot more government contractors barred from bidding than there are government contractors in prison. Although there are plenty of both.
For the record, I have never been barred from bidding nor had the government question my integrity in any way.
Brady may be the butt of your jokes but he has won 4 Superbowls under many different scenarios. This included conditions where the NFL started each game with a new ball. I believe the leagues "other" glamour QB Peyton Manning got that rule changed so the ball could be roughed up and broken in to his liking. How do you feel about George Brett's career? Did having too much pine tar on his bat tarnish his reputation?
I understand it is against the rules and needs to be punished, but the extent of this punishment is absurd. Players have greased up to slip away, lineman shirts are tighter than the skin on a grape, all in get an edge. In baseball, foreign substance on the ball happens, teamed adjust the height of the visitors bullpen mound, baselines are watered down and grass is grown longer. In basketball, point guards have always had a preference on air pressure and in hockey, players plat with curves too big, goalie pads too large, and pucks that are properly frozen. Let's not make this out to be a capital crime.
This all happens under a commissioner who has continues to preach "do as I Say, not as I do". Yes, Roger it is "more probable than not" that Brady knew what was going on. It also is " more probable than not" that you Roger saw the video of Ray Rice pummeling his finance. If you didn't, you are the most incompetent head of a league in the history of sport. How much of your $40m salary did you fine yourself? It took a public release of the video to adjust your paltry suspension of two game for domestic abuse. I guess domestic abuse doesn't impact your precious integrity of the game. Keep protecting the shield Roger!
Obviously "yes" since you used him as an example. I remember a handful of things about George Brett's career. The pine tar thing is the #1 memory I have of him. The fact that it is mildly humorous (like the deflated balls) makes it that much more memorable. I would say the pine tar thing absolutely tarnished George Brett's reputation.
Glide, since was voted into the MLB Hall of Fame first ballot, I would say the voting writers to the HOF don't feel the same way. This rule certainly wasn't and isn't viewed as the same advantage that PED's had for Bonds, Clemens, McGwire and Sosa. In fact, the Royals won their protest of this game and eventually got the victory . Brett is overwhelming the most popular player in franchise history. Sounds like a guy who plays in NE.
I hear a lot of "but, but" excuses from the people claiming this was too harsh and not a whole lot of rebutting of the facts of the Wells report. The punishments seem pretty straightforward and clear. Rules were broken by a team with a history of rule-breaking with the clear intent to gain a competitive advantage. The team and specific personnel also were not fully cooperative with the league in its attempts to get to the bottom of what happened. The combined impact of those things makes for a heavier punishment.
Ray Rice has nothing to do with this punishment. Adrian Peterson has nothing to do with this punishment. George Brett has nothing to do with this punishment. The punishment is apparently based upon the factors I noted above and seems pretty straightforward to me. So:
1) It seems really obvious that Brady knew about this and was, in fact, the one pushing for the alteration. Given the report, no other explanation passes the smell test. I don't see many people arguing cogently against this.
2) If that's the case, there needs to be a punishment and, given the team's history with skirting the rules and Brady's/the team's lack of cooperation with the investigation, it needs to be stiff.
3) This will likely go to arbitration and I bet Brady ends up with a two-game suspension while the other punishments remain intact. I doubt that Brady or the Pats want this anywhere near a court of law because discovery would likely be a bitch for them.
4) George Brett's reputation was obviously impacted by the pine tar incident and I think Brady's will as well. It won't keep him out of the HOF, but it'll forever be one of those things people talk about when they talk about Brady.
5) The really unconscionable thing here is the way that the Patriots (and Brady) have thrown the two trainers under the bus for this. They better be taking care of those guys behind the scenes because those guys losing their careers because they capitulated to the team's star is a bad look for both Brady and the Patriots.
If the Royals had been previously disciplined for providing corked bats to Freddie Patek and Amos Otis, Brett had plied bat boys with swag to knowingly illegally pine tar all his bats for him with the specific intent to gain an advantage, and then Brett refused to cooperate with the subsequent investigation while the Royals refused to allow conversations with the bat boys, it might be a solid comparison.
Since none of that happened, it just sounds like more "but, but" excuses.
I am surprised the issues raised with regard to the trainers seem to have been relegated to a back burner. The emails certainly identify swag payback by Brady to compensate for the illegal conduct.
This whole matter has some interesting parallels to Watergate. The initial conduct itself was one party trying to get a competitive advantage over another through cutesy illegal means in both cases, and both were followed by initial denials which upon investigation have proven by a preponderance of the evidence to be coverups. In both situations one could well argue that the underlying conduct itself would not have made a Boston Bean of difference to the ultimate outcome of the "game/election."
By the way some legal eagle Top Trial Attorney from Boston was being interviewed on CBS Sports Radio or ESPN Radio today (I switch back and forth between both) and he emphatically stated the applicable legal standard was "a preponderance of the evidence" and NOT "beyond reasonable doubt."
Last edited:
My point has not been to debate guilt or innocence, but to question the severity of the penalty. If Brady had been fully cooperative, I personally doubt the penalty would have been less from King Roger. The NFL can set ant penalty they want. In typical fashion, Roger gets puffy chested and wants to set an example that he is the Dean of Discipline. Rice is relevant because it shows 1) NFL's inept investigation and 2) a ridiculous initial punishment all defended by Roger because of a lack of hard evidence. Suddenly, the tape becomes public and Roger is under fire. Do you think the punishment is going to be light after that?
We'll agree to disagree on Brett. IMO the only reason the incident is so famous is Brett went berserk. The clip was played in the intro of many sports shows for years. You can argue it is the most famous Brett moment, but I can never recall a single person question his reputation. He remains the most iconic figure in KC sports history.
Eleven of twelve balls any bets on which ball the kickers used? And what about the poor equipment guys who lost their jobs just following orders from the millionaires.
None of them. There are separate kicking balls. From the Wells report:
"Rule 2, Section 2 also establishes the following procedures for the supply and
testing of footballs prior to use in games:
Each team will make 12 primary balls available for testing by the Referee two
hours and 15 minutes prior to the starting time of the game to meet League
requirements. The home team will also make 12 backup balls available for testing
in all stadiums. In addition, the visitors, at their discretion, may bring 12 backup
balls to be tested by the Referee for games held in outdoor stadiums. For all
games, six new footballs, sealed in a special box and shipped by the manufacturer
to the Referee, will be opened in the officials‟ locker room two hours and 15
minutes prior to the starting time of the game. These balls are to be specially
marked by the Referee and used exclusively for the kicking game."
Last edited:
Your question was "did it tarnish his reputation?" Not whether it ruined it. I typed "George Brett" into Yahoo and the second most popular completion it offered was "George Brett Pine Tar". I checked him on Wikipedia and there is an entire section "Pine Tar Incident."
Did the incident keep him out of the HoF? No.
Did it make him any less beloved in KC? No.
Did it tarnish his reputation? Yes.
Otherwise, he would not be an example for this discussion.
It's what he's known for by those who aren't baseball fans, but I don't think it was really even considered cheating. Against the rules, and spectacular gamesmanship and timing from Billy Martin, but no competitive advantage.
Brett was a grinder; too much pine tar was just a symptom of him being dirty (literally, a filthy ballplayer, unclean).
Said another way: 20 years from now, Brady will never, never, ever sign ball pumps or Deflategate t-shirts or Ballghazi bootleg caps. When Brett does autograph shows today, I bet he happily signs pine tar photos as frequently as he writes "HOF". No reputational hit at all.
TerraCat,
You have an excellent understanding of the situation. Why people on this Board, and elsewhere, are unable to comprehend this is beyond me. mike's response below is utter nonsense!
