The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

An appeals court overturned the earlier ruling and has said Tom Brady must server a suspension of four games (one against Miami).

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15353950/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-four-game-suspension-deflategate-reinstated-appeals-court

Do you think this puts an end to it or is this opening the discussion again?

I think it's over, in that he'll have to serve the 4 game suspension. But... everyone will have to listen to Brady and Kraft whine for the next 9 months.

I'm sure there will be another appeal to a higher court.

I wonder how far this could potentially go.  To the Supreme Court? 

This is the end.  There's not enough time to appeal the appeal of the appeal.  He'll miss 4 games, whine and complain all year, and Belicheck will use it to motivate his team to be relentless down the stretch.

It's nice to get an easier shot at the Pats, though.  We'll need it.  Our front of our schedule is pretty brutal.

They likely don't have time as the Supreme Court is the next step and it takes a long time to get in front of them, if they agree to hear the case. I've heard that it is unlikely Brady could win an injunction to stay his suspension so the season will likely start with a suspended Brady before anyone else heard the case.

I fully expect that the suspension is going to be accepted but Brady & the Pats will try to convince the NFL to lower the number of games. The way this played out, I doubt Goddell has plans on doing that.

I wish I could find the true facts of the case somewhere.   

This should have been last year. I honestly don't know what that judge was thinking when he ruled the way he did. You may not like Goodell's decision but it absolutely was his decision to make and he followed the proper procedure in making it, there was absolutely no reason to overule it, Brady should have had to abide by it. You want to change that NFLPA, go back to the bargaining table and take some of that power back, of course you'll have to give up something else like some money or something and you don't want to do that.

The next step isn't an appeal to a higher court. The next step is a petition for an en banc review, i.e. getting the case heard before the entire panel of judges and not just 3. This particular court has a reputation of being particularly stingy with respects to granting en banc reviews, though.

This is not over yet, by any means.

I wish I could read the Wells Report, though. 

This one?

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/investigative-and-expert-reports-re-footballs-used-during-afc-championsh.pdf

So, you can suspend somebody based on "more probable than not"?

Roger Goodell can suspend a player for anything he deems "detrimental conduct", pretty much regardless. That's what the players agreed to with the most recent CBA.

That said, the terminology in the Wells report is legalese. The phrases don't always mean exactly the same as they would in casual use.

"More likely than not" is pretty much the definition of "preponderance of the evidence", which is the standard used to determine "guilt" in most non-criminal court cases. (So, basically, the Wells Report would have found Brady "guilty", had it been a verdict in a civil trial).

"Beyond reasonable doubt" is very much ingrained in the public perception, but it is a very high standard and usually reserved for criminal cases.

I suggest a cursory reading of this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof

Why don't you read the decision which is a hell of a lot more important then the Well's report. Brady was not suspended solely on the basis of the Well's report. He was suspended on the commissioner's belief he had participated in conduct detrimental to the NFL which includes Brady's refusal to cooperate in the Well's investigation.

http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experiments/usatoday/Sports/2016-04-25-tom-brady-suspension-appeal.pdf

On the bright side, MIA would have missed his suspension last year, but MIA gets it (on the road, even!) this year.

I wouldn't be surprised if MIA still manages to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but you takes what you can gets.

Answer this question for me:

Is there a quarterback in the NFL, whom, if inserted into the New England lineup, would make the Patriots not favored against the Dolphins?  It does make the task much easier for them, though. 

Even with Jimmy G, the Dolphins still have to stop Gronk and that receiving corps. 

really you don't know the facts of this case yet after 18 months?

I think your a little high from your continual Patriot jock sniffing.  The NE receiving corps, with the exception of Gronkowski, is mediocre.  They would all be #3 receivers on any team without a HOF QB placing the ball in their hands.

Garappolo?

 Seriously? Um, almost all of them?  The Pats are a garbage team without Brady.  Get off their tip already.

Yeah, they can.  Brady should be lucky this is not NASCAR.  Tony Stewart spoke out publicly about safety issues because some teams would only tighten 3 or 4 of the 5 lug nuts during pit stops to try and get an advantage.  So NASCAR fines him $35,000.00, THEN institutes a new rule that all five lug nuts must be tightened.  Figure that out.

Wait, guys. I still don't understand what this is all about.

Something about a ball that had a hole in it?  It's all very confusing and I don't understand how they can suspend Brady when nobody really even knows what happened.  What about his First Amendment rights?

So many sources say so many different things.

I think Amendola and Edelman would be starters on most NFL teams. 

People said the same thing about Welker, but they overlooked the fact that he caught 67 passes as a backup receiver for Miami in 2006.  And this was with Culpepper and Harrington as his quarterbacks.   

Back to the suspension, if it upholds, do you think the Patriots will sign somebody, or will they go with Jimmy G? 

I don't think they are garbage.  Didn't we conclude this year that quarterbacks don't win or lose football games?

...wait--wha'?!?!?!?



^  These.  Seriously, though, while calling the Patsies garbage and all their receiving corps short of Gronk #3 receivers might be a little bit of a stretch in the other direction, I definitely agree with the sentiment of masterfins and Tenshot on the whole--lifer, I really believe you're just too close (by physical proximity or mentally/emotionally or however you want to perceive it) to the Patsies to discern that they are not such the hot team you think they are.  Yes, Bellicheat is an amazing coach, unfortunately for us, and yes, "Twhammy" Boy is a great QB as much as I hate to begrudgingly admit it (though contrary to "popular belief" a.k.a. BSPN [yes, that was intentional], he sure as hell didn't start off that way, for several seasons, irrespective of SB titles), but that doesn't mean they have an all-around great team at this point.

While I'm also in line with Spider's thinking that our beloved 'Phins will more likely than not find a way to screw the proverbial pooch up there in Gillette on Sept. 18th, to think the Patsies have this great, unstoppable powerhouse of a team without Brady at the helm (or maybe even with...we'll see after Week 5) is a little delusional, IMHO.

*sigh*  I don't post a lot around here, though I view essentially daily, but all these inane postings by lifer regarding the Pats the past year plus have been draining my soul.  Okay.../rant.

According to Vegas, removing Brady from the Patriots is worth about 4 points (in each of the four games). The Patriots were 9.5 point favorites against the Dolphins, now it's closer to 6.


His First Amendment rights to what? Peaceably assemble? Freedom to chose and exercise his religion? Freedom to say whatever he wants?


This case isn't very hard to understand.

Being as neutral as I possibly can, this is the gist of it:

1. The balls provided by the Patriots did not have enough pressure and were replaced at half time.

2. The amount of pressure lost could in theory have been natural, but the conditions necessary didn't seem to be present making it likely that the pressure loss was induced from the outside (tampering). Additionally, the pressure loss appeared more variable from ball to ball than one would expect had it been natural (i.e. temperature, ball prep, play etc).

3. Video tape showed a Patriots' employee taking the balls from the refs locker room and into a toilet where he emerged about 90 seconds later. He then delivered the balls to the field. (Neither of these actions is permitted and, apparently, no other team does this).

4. Investigation of the cell phones of various Patriots' employees showed a number of suspect text messages, including references to the employee who took the game balls into  the locker room as "the Deflator". The Patriots subsequently claimed that this wasn't because he was deflating balls, but rather because he want to deflate himself (lose weight). Yes, really. The text messages also contained numerous references to Brady and to pressure of footballs, including threats of increasing the pressure at one point where the employee was apparently pissed at Brady for some reason.

5. Brady destroyed his phone making it impossible to check text messages and phone records. He had been informed of the wish to examine the phone contents prior to the destruction. The offer had also been made to conduct the review via an agreed upon third party who would assure that only relevant records were retrieved and that the phone at no point would need to come into the NFL's (or Wells') possession. Brady subsequently claimed that he regularly destroyed his phones for security reason, despite (at his appeal) producing his two phones prior to that.

6. The Wells' report found it overwhelmingly likely that the balls had been tampered with while in Patriots' possession. Using standard civil case burden of proof, it further found Tom Brady "guilty" of at least knowing about it. These findings were not disputed by any of the judges who heard the case.

7. A judge threw out the 4 game suspension handed down by Goodell, citing a variety of "technical" reasons: There were no prior instances where "just knowing about it" resulted in such a harsh punishment. There was no "advanced notice" that tampering with the footballs could result in such harsh punishment. And, finally, that Brady was unreasonably limited in access to potential witnesses during his appeal.

8. In a 2-1 decision, an appeals court reinstated the punishment, finding that the Goodell did indeed have the authority to impose such a penalty under the CBA and that the federal minimum standards imposed by the Labor Management Relations Act were fulfilled.

The bottom line is that, given all we know, it is overwhelmingly likely that the balls were tampered with by a Patriots employee and that at least some other employees knew about it. Are we supposed to believe that these low-level guys just did this on their own without any input from the quarterback? Really? And when said quarterback then destroys his phone, well, what exactly are we supposed to believe?

His First Amendment rights to a trial of his peers and no taxation without representation.

 :P

Im still a bit confuse about the whole thing,  Why only brady and not the entire organization getting the Hammer.  4 game suspensian and a 1million dollar fine , plus draft picks to me is a slap on the wrist.  Excuse me if im late I been in Afghanistan for the year.

The whole organization most certainly did "get the Hammer". Million dollar fine plus their first round pick this year and a fourth next year.

Anytime a team gets docked a first round pick, that's pretty severe punishment.

If it sticks, I'm satisfied with the punishment.

Ok, so do you think the reason Miami didn't win a Super Bowl during Dan Marino's career was because Dan Marino is not as good a quarterback as any quarterback who has won a Super Bowl?  I certainly don't.  I think Marino just simply did not have the support that the other quarterbacks did.  (But that is another story).

There are many other players on a football team besides the quarterback.

It's been to trial and then went to an appeals court. Read the 2 transcripts. People under oath testified on it. Those are the only sources that matter  ::)