Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

Patriots under investigation

Marshall said:
But Brady's lost income isn't a FINE. So the point IS valid.
Click to expand...

Can't find my quote you quoted, but what makes you say it isn't a fine? Is it a reward? Are you trying to say semantics matter?
 
JB said:
Can't find my quote you quoted, but what makes you say it isn't a fine? Is it a reward? Are you trying to say semantics matter?
Click to expand...
It's a bookkeeping distinction, not a semantic one. Fines are levied by the NFL. Lost income is not paid by the TEAM. They are different categories. One goes into a slush fund and the other remains with the team.

But I wonder if they already worked out a 2 game reduction on appeal in order to make the TEAM fine equal to the reduced payroll from Brady's suspension?
 
Fans to hold 'Free Tom Brady' rally

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- New England Patriots fans are planning a rally in support of their beloved quarterback Tom Brady.

The "Free Tom Brady" rally is scheduled to take place Sunday at Gillette Stadium from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., according to a recently created Facebook page.

The page describes the event as a "peaceful rally to protest the unjust football arrest of half God half man Tom Brady."​

FREE TAWM!!!
angry-mob-143.gif
 
Playoffs said:
Fans to hold 'Free Tom Brady' rally

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- New England Patriots fans are planning a rally in support of their beloved quarterback Tom Brady.

The "Free Tom Brady" rally is scheduled to take place Sunday at Gillette Stadium from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., according to a recently created Facebook page.

The page describes the event as a "peaceful rally to protest the unjust football arrest of half God half man Tom Brady."​

FREE TAWM!!!
angry-mob-143.gif
Click to expand...
IS IT FREE for the participants?
 
Playoffs said:
Fans to hold 'Free Tom Brady' rally

FOXBOROUGH, Mass. -- New England Patriots fans are planning a rally in support of their beloved quarterback Tom Brady.

The "Free Tom Brady" rally is scheduled to take place Sunday at Gillette Stadium from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., according to a recently created Facebook page.

The page describes the event as a "peaceful rally to protest the unjust football arrest of half God half man Tom Brady."​

FREE TAWM!!!
angry-mob-143.gif
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, in the Bahamas....

blog-brady-mj.jpg

 
The Free Tawmmy Rally attracted 'tens' of Patriots fans...

Patriots-rally-Brady-05-24-15.jpg


Brian Yocono ‏@BrianYocono
@GilletteStadium for 'Free Brady' fan-based event. Organizer says Kraft footed bill for security detail. @wpri12
Click to expand...
 
Albert Breer @AlbertBreer
Here is commissioner Roger Goodell's full letter denying the union's request that he recuse himself from the Brady appeal:

Our Collective Bargaining Agreement provides that "at his discretion," the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in "any appeal" involving conduct detrimental to the integrity of, or public confidence in, the game of professional football. I will exercise that discretion to hear Mr. Brady's appeal.

I have carefully reviewed the NFLPA's recusal motion of May 19 as well as Mr. Nash's response of May 22. (Neither party requested to be heard on the matter.) Based on the unambiguous language and structure of the CBA, as well as common sense, I conclude that none of the arguments advanced by the NFLPA has merit.

First, the NFLPA argues that I may not serve as hearing officer because Mr. Brady's discipline letter was signed by NFL executive vice president Troy Vincent rather than by me. I disagree. The identity of the person who signed the disciplinary letter is irrelevant. The signatory's identity does not influence in any way my evaluation of the issues; any suggestion to the contrary defies common sense. (I note that NFL executives other than the Commissioner have signed disciplinary letters in numerous proceedings in which the Commissioner or his designee later served as hearing officer. I am not aware of any objections by the Union to that practice. To the contrary, as Mr. Nash's letter points out, the Union has confirmed its acceptance of this procedure.)

There can be no dispute that this is an appeal ofCommissioner discipline: As the letter signed by Mr. Vincent explains in its first sentence, "The Commissioner has authorized me to inform you of the discipline that, pursuant to his authority under Article 46 of the CBA, has been imposed upon you ... ." I did not delegate my disciplinary authority to Mr. Vincent; I concurred in his recommendation and authorized him to communicate to Mr. Brady the discipline imposed under my authority as Commissioner.

Even if there were a procedural issue raised by the identity of the signatory to a discipline letter that I authorized, no reason or logic -- and certainly nothing in the CBA -- would support recusal as the remedy. After all, the CBA provides that "the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in "any appeal" involving conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game.

Second, the NFLPA argues that recusal is required because it believes that I may be a "necessary" and/or "central" witness in the appeal proceeding. I have carefully considered this argument and reject its premise. I am not a necessary or even an appropriate witness, much less a "central witness" as the NFLPA contends.

I do not have any first-hand knowledge of any of the events at issue. (That fact makes this matter very different from theRice appeal, in which there was a fundamental dispute over what Mr. Rice told me in a meeting at the league office.) Nor did I play a role in the investigation that led to Mr. Brady's discipline. Furthermore, there is no reasonable basis for dispute -- or for any testimony -- about authority for the discipline reflected in the letter signed by Mr. Vincent. The letter itself is clear on this point. And there is no basis for my testifying about prior instances in which discipline was considered or imposed for similar conduct; if that were the case, the NFLPA could seek my recusal in every conduct detrimental proceeding, directly contrary to our agreement that I have the "discretion" to hear "any" appeal.

Regardless, my knowledge of any underlying facts in this matter would not provide a basis for recusal. The CBA contemplates such knowledge and expressly provides that the Commissioner may hear and decide "any" appeal of conduct detrimental discipline.

Accordingly, there is no basis upon which I could properly be asked to testify in the appeal proceeding, which under Article 46 of the CBA is designed to afford Mr. Brady an opportunity to bring new or additional facts or circumstances to my attention for consideration.

Third, the NFLPA argues that recusal is required because I have "prejudged" the matter and cannot fairly evaluate the potential testimony of league staff members. After carefully considering this argument, I reject it.

The process by which discipline is imposed for conduct detrimental, and by which appeals of disciplinary decisions are heard, has been in place for many years and is well known to the parties. That includes the role of league staff in the proceedings and the likelihood that the Commissioner will have some knowledge of the underlying facts.

When the parties agreed in the Collective Bargaining Agreement to continue the provisions confirming the Commissioner's "discretion" to hear "any" appeal of a player facing discipline for conduct detrimental, they clearly understood (a) that such appeals regularly involve testimony by league staff about the issues and events in dispute and (b) that if the Commissioner has taken some action against the player for conduct detrimental and given him notice of impending discipline, he necessarily would have reached an initial conclusion about the player's actions. Nonetheless, the parties' agreement that the Commissioner may serve as hearing officer in "any appeal" could not be more clear. Thus, neither of those two factors can serve as a basis for recusal.

Nor have I "prejudged" this appeal. I have publicly expressed my appreciation to Mr. Wells and his colleagues for their thorough and independent work. But that does not mean that I am wedded to their conclusions or to their assessment of the facts. Nor does it mean that, after considering the evidence and argument presented during the appeal, I may not reach a different conclusion about Mr. Brady's conduct or the discipline imposed. That is true even though the initial discipline decision was reached after extensive discussion and in reliance on the critical importance of protecting the integrity of the game. As I have said publicly, I very much look forward to hearing from Mr. Brady and to considering any new information or evidence that he may bring to my attention. My mind is open; there has been no "prejudgment" and no bias that warrants recusal.

I have considered the cases cited by the NFLPA, Morris, Erving, and Hewitt. I agree with Commissioner Tagliabue's reasoning in the Bounty proceeding, in which he denied the NFLPA's motion that he recuse himself. Those cases are not applicable in an appeal governed by a collective bargaining agreement, especially one that so clearly reflects the parties' intentions about the Commissioner's authority, discretion, and role. As Commissioner Tagliabue stated: "No change in the Collective Bargaining Agreements between 1977 and the present day has ever abrogated the sole authority of the Commissioner to preside" in appeals involving discipline for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the game. This recusal motion, and others like it, represent nothing more than an effort by the NFLPA to renegotiate Article 46 of the current Collective Bargaining Agreement, signed in August 2011.

Because protecting the integrity of the game is the Commissioner's most important responsibility, I decline to rewrite our Collective Bargaining Agreement to abrogate my authority and "discretion" to hear "any appeal" in a conduct detrimental proceeding.

The motion for recusal is denied. We will proceed with the hearing on June 23, as previously scheduled.
Click to expand...

TL:dr -- No.
 
Schefter reporting that Brady plans to take the NFL to federal court in an attempt to redeem his legacy.

So we'll get to hear about how the Deflator was a weight loss nickname. :truck:
 
League’s reaction to Tom Brady testimony not as glowing

Those paid to exonerate Patriots quarterback Tom Brady were wowed by his performance at Tuesday’s appeal hearing, as expected. Those who suspended him in the first place weren’t.

Per a league source, Brady simply reiterated his denial regarding any involvement in or knowledge of whatever it was that John Jastremski and Jim McNally may have been doing with the team’s footballs. When pressed on certain facts relating to Brady’s potential knowledge or involvement, the answers were regarded by some in the room (i.e., some who aren’t paid to exonerate Brady) as not entirely credible.

Apparently, Brady’s case hinged heavily on attacking the science, under the broader umbrella of taking the position that: (1) he didn’t do anything wrong; and (2) Ted Wells can’t prove that Brady did. The question then becomes whether the NFL is willing to throw out the entire Wells report based on the flaws in the science (and the science is definitely flawed), or whether the NFL continues to be troubled by the Jastremski-McNally exchanges and Brady’s answers to questions about his interactions with either or both of them.

Most importantly, it’s unlikely that the Commissioner will fully exonerate Brady because the Commissioner nearly lost his job last year by not going far enough in disciplining a player. When the Commissioner goes too far, eventually having his decisions overturned by some independent party, he suffers little or no P.R. fallout.

That dynamic alone should tell us all which way the wind is howling on this one. And it provides further proof for the notion that last year’s Ray Rice debacle has left the Commissioner hopelessly conflicted in every single one of these cases.

With one path jeopardizing his job and the other path not triggering even a peep of substantial criticism, the smart play for Goodell will always be to uphold a suspension and let the player and his union fight for further reduction or outright elimination of it in court. And that’s the kind of inherent conflict that arguably makes Goodell unfit to be the final decision-maker in any of these cases.​
 
This case has been so woefully mishandled by the NFL that the NFL should suspend/fine whoever decided to hire Wells and sue Wells for incompetence.

The list of "should've"s that the league passed up on is long and distinguished. It's a total embarrassment how this has been so overblown and played out in the court of public opinion. I find it hilarious that the League set up the Pats for this scandal and now they are hogtied by their own incompetence. FTR, I don't think that Brady EVER told ANYONE, under any circumstances, to deflate balls below 12.5psi. It's far more likely that he simply said "I like my footballs to feel like this" and an assistant equipment guy made sure his footballs "felt" like that. Not a single person measuring the PSI of NFL game balls was using a calibrated gauge or recording the results (ever in the history of the NFL), so the results of the halftime measurements are valid.

I've heard a lot of analogies regarding rolling stops and speeding to this case. Neither of those violations result in jail time under normal circumstances. A single game suspension of Brady reflects a jail sentence. Let the punishment reflect the crime and PROVE that Brady ordered someone to lower the PSI to less than legal limits. Besides, I haven't heard anyone state that colder temps would make the leather stiffer while lowering the PSI.
 
Broncos receiver tells football youth cheaters shouldn't be rewarded

It took a kid to pry the most honest reaction, yet, to #Deflategate.

Denver Broncos' receiver Emmanuel Sanders told a group of young football campers Thursday that he doesn't think the New England Patriots should be Super Bowl champions because they cheated.

Sanders was the featured speaker at the Ed McCaffrey 14th Annual Football Camp for kids aged 8 to 15 at Valor Christian High School. Following his talk, Sanders opened it up to questions. One of the young campers asked Sanders if he was mad about #Deflategate – an NFL scandal in which two Patriots employees were accused of intentionally underinflating footballs for the team's AFC Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts on January 18.

An NFL-ordered investigation also determined Patriots quarterback Tom Brady "more probable than not" was aware of the illicit deflating practices.

"Am I mad about #Deflategate?'' Sanders said, repeating the youngster's question. "I feel like I'm on ESPN with that question. … Yeah, yeah, I'm kind of mad. I don't think that they should be the Super Bowl champion this year.

"You aren't supposed to cheat. Cheating is not good, especially when you've got guys who are working they're butts off for 365 days out of the year and one person cheats – whether it helps them win the Super Bowl or not, they still cheated and shouldn't be a champion."

The underinflated footballs were discovered at halftime of the Patriots' 45-7 victory against the Indianapolis Colts in the AFC Championship Game at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass.

Two weeks later, the Patriots defeated the Seattle Seahawks, 28-24 in Super Bowl XLIX.

The Patriots were fined $1 million by the league because of #Deflategate and the team was forced to forfeit two draft picks – including their first-round selection in 2016 – while Brady was slapped with a four-game suspension. Brady appealed his suspension Tuesday in New York.

Count Sanders among those who believe the league's punishment should have been more severe. Give him credit for saying what so many others were thinking but were afraid to say.​
 
Double Barrel said:
Says the guy who works for a franchise who cheated during their championship years.

Cheating is cheating is cheating. Quantifying it is not applicable.
Click to expand...

Maybe he doesn't know? If you're saying the Broncos cheated for their two Super Bowl wins, I'll cop to ignorance as well. Pray tell?
 
eriadoc said:
Maybe he doesn't know? If you're saying the Broncos cheated for their two Super Bowl wins, I'll cop to ignorance as well. Pray tell?
Click to expand...

I think DB needs to drop this one, but...

Link

The Denver Broncos were on the hook for approximately 100 million of the 401 million dollar cost for the construction of Sports Authority Field (at that time the new stadium or Invesco Field). This was a financial struggle for the team at the time so individuals on the back end of the financial operations made agreements with "Broncos players" (John Elway and Terrell Davis) to defer payments on their contracts to the future and in return promised to pay interest on the deferred amounts. Another player was promised that they wouldn't be waived prior to a certain date.

According to the league, both agreements triggered salary cap accounting issues. In regards to the player who was promised that he wouldn't be waived prior to a certain date, "That commitment had the effect of converting the player's roster bonus into a guarantee, which affected the timing of the salary cap treatment of a portion of the bonus. The NFL's Executive VP of labor relations at the time Harold Henderson confirmed that "the individual's responsible for the violations are no longer with the team" and that the Broncos "have been cooperative throughout the investigation."
Click to expand...
 
infantrycak said:
I think DB needs to drop this one, but...

Link
Click to expand...

yeah, I was just being contrary when I wrote that. I have no hard thoughts on it, either way, just really tired of hearing about this story, tbh. And then hearing a player whine about something that will never happen just makes it even more excruciatingly dull.

And for the record, the Denver Broncos have quite a bit of cheating in their history: Denver Broncos Cheating History
 
Double Barrel said:
yeah, I was just being contrary when I wrote that. I have no hard thoughts on it, either way, just really tired of hearing about this story, tbh. And then hearing a player whine about something that will never happen just makes it even more excruciatingly dull.

And for the record, the Denver Broncos have quite a bit of cheating in their history: Denver Broncos Cheating History
Click to expand...

No doubt. They definitely had to be cheating when they snuffed out Stagger Lee, right?
 
Screen-Shot-2015-07-08-at-8.31.57-PM-957x1024.png


Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter

Roger Goodell told CNBC on a decision on Tom Brady’s appeal of his four-game suspension “is coming soon”, possibly as early as next week.​
 
Playoffs said:
Screen-Shot-2015-07-08-at-8.31.57-PM-957x1024.png


Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter

Roger Goodell told CNBC on a decision on Tom Brady’s appeal of his four-game suspension “is coming soon”, possibly as early as next week.​
Click to expand...
Brady will be suspended for 4 (pre-season) games. lol
 
infantrycak said:
Is there an age limit for that?
Click to expand...

ugh....my daughter came out of the womb with attitude. I'm not kidding. Even the doctors mentioned how pissed off she was at the time.

Both sons, on the other hand, were chill. They didn't cry and just looked around, almost like "wassup". They are both still like that today.
 
Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer
The logic for the Brady strategy there, btw, is simple -- Go to a labor-friendly court (Minnesota) or home field (Massachusetts).

Lawyers for Brady and the union did huddle on Monday. One development from that: If there's a lawsuit, plan is to file in Minnesota or Mass.​



infantrycak said:
He better think on that. There's no saying "no" on turning over his phone in federal court.

The whole world has seen Gisele naked - that wasn't the reason he refused.
Click to expand...
I wonder how much is really on that phone. Longstanding practice that wouldn't require much more than a wink and a nod.

Question for me is how far is Brady going to take everybody to perpetuate his little lie? Pete Rose far?
topcmm-123flashchat-liar-smiley.gif
 
Playoffs said:
Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer
The logic for the Brady strategy there, btw, is simple -- Go to a labor-friendly court (Minnesota) or home field (Massachusetts).

Lawyers for Brady and the union did huddle on Monday. One development from that: If there's a lawsuit, plan is to file in Minnesota or Mass.​




I wonder how much is really on that phone. Longstanding practice that wouldn't require much more than a wink and a nod.

Question for me is how far is Brady going to take everybody to perpetuate his little lie? Pete Rose far?
topcmm-123flashchat-liar-smiley.gif
Click to expand...
Federal Courts are not known for either speed or backing down, even on the home court. But they do get it wrong with some frequency, so perhaps that is what Brady is hoping for.
 
I'm surprised that the two former Patriot employees that were associated with this have not be seen in public. Did they get paid off? Gad order? Why haven't we seen them interviewed for their side(s) of the story?
 
Double Barrel said:
I'm surprised that the two former Patriot employees that were associated with this have not be seen in public. Did they get paid off? Gad order? Why haven't we seen them interviewed for their side(s) of the story?
Click to expand...

Perhaps they're living in Hawaii with the photographer who filmed the Panther's SB practices...? :thinking:

No doubt Tawmmy purchased from them whichever story he prefers.
 
Playoffs said:
Perhaps they're living in Hawaii with the photographer who filmed the Panther's SB practices...? :thinking:

No doubt Tawmmy purchased from them whichever story he prefers.
Click to expand...
They're probably neighbors of the man on the grassy knoll. lol

I still think Brady shouldn't be suspended at all. The fine to the organization is more than sufficient.
 
Source: NFLPA offered settlement in Brady case - ESPN.com

The NFL Players Association extended a settlement offer to the NFL last week regarding Tom Brady's suspension for his role in Deflategate, a source told ESPN.com's Dan Graziano.

The offer, however, was met with "silence" by the NFL, the source said.

It is believed Brady is holding firm on his refusal to accept any suspension, though he would consider accepting a fine.

Brady appealed his four-game ban June 23 in New York City. It remains to be seen when the NFL will rule on that appeal.

ProFootballTalk reported Wednesday that progress toward an out-of-court agreement between Brady's side and the league has been minimal and that the likelihood of a settlement, in the event Brady's punishment is upheld in full, is low.

A source told ProFootballTalk that Roger Goodell has encountered pressure from a loud minority of team owners who want the commissioner to maintain Brady's original punishment. There is a real fear in that event, though, that the four-game length of Brady's ban would be nullified if ruled on by a federal court.

Goodell served as arbitrator in Brady's appeal. Attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who has had success taking on the NFL in other high-profile cases, led Brady's defense and said, "I think we put in a very compelling case."

Attorney Ted Wells -- whose report was used as the foundation for the NFL's decision to suspend Brady, fine the Patriots $1 million and strip them of a 2016 first-round draft choice and a 2017 fourth-round pick -- was present at the appeal hearing held at the league's New York offices.

The penalties were announced after Wells found that it was "more probable than not" that the Patriots illegally underinflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game against the Indianapolis Colts on Jan. 18.

On Tuesday, Goodell said he has no definitive timetable for a decision on Brady's appeal.

"There is no timeline. We want to make sure we have a fair and open process," he said at a fundraising luncheon.​
 
Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter
Regarding NFL decision to uphold Brady suspension, here is league statement:

In the opinion informing Brady that his appeal had been denied, Commissioner Goodell emphasized important new information disclosed by Brady and his representatives in connection with the hearing.

On or shortly before March 6, the day that Tom Brady met with independent investigator Ted Wells and his colleagues, Brady directed that the cell phone he had used for the prior four months be destroyed. He did so even though he was aware that the investigators had requested access to text messages and other electronic information that had been stored on that phone. During the four months that the cell phone was in use, Brady had exchanged nearly 10,000 text messages, none of which can now be retrieved from that device. The destruction of the cell phone was not disclosed until June 18, almost four months after the investigators had first sought electronic information from Brady.

Based on the Wells Report and the evidence presented at the hearing, Commissioner Goodell concluded in his decision that Brady was aware of, and took steps to support, the actions of other team employees to deflate game footballs below the levels called for by the NFL's Official Playing Rules. The commissioner found that Brady’s deliberate destruction of potentially relevant evidence went beyond a mere failure to cooperate in the investigation and supported a finding that he had sought to hide evidence of his own participation in the underlying scheme to alter the footballs.​


th_whistling-smiley.gif



Adam Schefter ‏@AdamSchefter
NFL's 20-page decision to uphold Tom Brady's suspension: http://tinyurl.com/prtpd9y​
 
Last edited:
What is it with Patriots destroying cell phones...?

Chris Long ‏@JOEL9ONE
My assistant Jack Daniels and I actually destroy a cell phone every four months or so. Usually just the screen but I get it.​

Strange, just got a call... Caller ID said "Tom Brady"... guy on the other end? Jimmy Hoffa.

Brady's cellphone sleeps with Luca Brasi.

Joe Niekro routinely destroyed his cell phones, too...

 
Wolf said:
Not too bad of a deal .still got a super bowl ring.
Click to expand...

The fact that he destroyed his phone altogether tells me he's guilty of systematic cheating and that he knew damn well it was not just a minor stretching of the rules. He was probably taking it to a greater extreme than we all realize.

So yeah, he knew he cheated, but he got a ring out of it. Makes it kind of hard for the good guys to stay clean. The message is clear - cheat and win, even when you get caught.
 
Yep. Destroying his phone tells me he knew rules were being broken.
Patriots IMO got off light imo




I should have put the sarcasm smilie on my post
 
ESPN reporting that league official said the NFLPA negotiated with the league on behalf of Brady their desire to have the record of Brady's appeal be sealed so that his destroying his cellphone would not become public.


NFL on ESPN ‏@ESPNNFL
“Cover up gets you every time. When you hear about destroying of the cell phones, 4 games is justified.” --Damien Woody @damienwoody

"The NFL has done everything it can to protect the integrity of the game." --Adam Schefter @AdamSchefter ​

Louis Riddick ‏@LRiddickESPN
Tom, what are you doing? Rules are there for a reason. Is this really what he's about?

Stop this mushroom cloud of destruction. Take your medicine. Find a way to end it.

Time's yours...Tom. Let's hear from you. #iwantanotherpressconference #hulksmashyourcellphone​


Hogwash. We don't need any lectures on integrity of the game from Mr. Lee. [Brady's lawyer]. This is a very, very untoward situation. It's difficult for any of us who love the NFL to have to be even peripherally involved with this. It's a stain on our league and the game. It didn't have to be this way. If Tom would have come clean from the beginning it would have been over and done with. It's a shame it has come to this. -- Bill Polian​
 
Last edited:
Speaking strictly to the "winning is everything" criteria that people often cite, given those are the three QBs with 4 SB wins.

I don't personally put Montana up there too highly myself. He was the ultimate system QB. Elway is probably the guy I rank at the top, given the teams he dragged to the SB in the '80s. Kelly is pretty high on my list as well, despite the four losses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top