Mike Reiss on What it Would Take for Zero Games For Brady

[VectorPrime]

Zero games out for Brady is really not that important. Losing the first round pick is way, way more damaging (and totally undeserved).

And now because of Kraft forever beyond our reach.

 

[Deus Irae]

Zero games out for Brady is really not that important. Losing the first round pick is way, way more damaging (and totally undeserved).

In the world of free agency, draft picks are nice, but often overrated. Your post is a great example of that.

 

[Tony2046]

and we all KNOW that Goodell NEVER does what he can't. It had to be heard in ten days, and an "independent"(or whatever) arbiter has to be named, etc.



To shorten your paragraph. We assume all the Colt balls were 13 psi, per the best recollection in the Wells report. When tested they should be about the same reading. The four recorded were not. (Yes, even by the same ref using the same gauge.) Therefore they were not all 13 psi. The data is useless.

Haha, are you calling me long winded?

 

[Rob0729]

It can't be increased. Knock yourself out trying to rationalize your mistake. I'm, once again, not looking to engage in a war here. And, by the way, I agree with you that there is no chance the suspension is reduced to zero games. My point is that Goodell can reduce it to zero, but can't increase it. Neither will happen in my opinion.

Ummm. It was never a mistake. I knew that Goodell can't increase the suspension (although that didn't stop him with Ray Rice which was overturned by the courts). That was the point of my original post. Goodell is never going to reduce Brady's suspension to zero. Not in a million years. I was using hyperbole to make a point. If read enough of my posts, I use hyperbole all the time to make points.

But it is still far more likely he tries to find a loophole to increase the suspension like he tried with Ray Rice than rescind the suspension. I think there is a 0.00000000001% Goodell tries to increase the suspension. That is still far more likely than it goes to zero.

 

[rochrist]

I give a far better chance of Goodell increasing it to 8 games than reducing it to zero games. No way does Goodell wipe out the suspension. I think the most he will do is cut it to two games, but still say that he believes the Wells Report but he cannot prove that Brady did it even though he knows he did.

He can't increase is on appeal.

 

[rochrist]

He had to hear it within 10 days unless the he and the union agreed to go beyond, which evidently was the case.

I'm pretty sure all he had to do was set a /date/ to hear it within 10 days.

 

[rochrist]

And now because of Kraft forever beyond our reach.

The draft picks weren't coming back no matter what Kraft did.

 

[Rob0729]

He can't increase is on appeal.

Read my last post. I was using hyperbole.

But as I pointed out in the Ray Rice case, not being able to increase a suspension hasn't stopped Goodell from trying.

 

[VectorPrime]

The draft picks weren't coming back no matter what Kraft did.

Well we'll never know now.

 

[TheRightTool]

You might be right, as I am not a Lawyer. But, it's my understanding that the bar for proving "libel" in the case of a public figure is pretty high. Someone else has already observed that this is not a case that would get tossed before being heard, but I think it would be difficult to prevail.

If this were a Debate and I were asked to take a side, whether I agreed with it or not, I could make a pretty strong argument that "more probable than not that Tom Brady...was at least generally aware..." is not that different a statement than "there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude that you were at least generally aware of..." In other words, I'd make the argument that Vincent's statement says that there's a lot of evidence but the evidence isn't definitive...in other words, it's "more probable than not."

So, I think you'd have a hard time making the case that that amounts to "libel," even if I happen to agree that Vincent's use of language was biased, unfair and took the definition of "more probable than not" to its limit.

PS: please don't attack me for agreeing with Vincent. I clearly do not and anyone who's read my posts out here for the last few weeks knows I do not. I'm just arguing a narrow point of language and the standard for "libel" in the case of a public figure.

In regards to libel, the wording in regard to what is opinion vs what is fact is important.

Ted Wells: "Based on the evidence, it also is our view"
Troy Vincent: "the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence"

Even though both these statements make reference to the shoddy "evidence" in the report, Wells' statement refrains from making definitive conclusions of Tom Brady's actions and behaviour. Saying "our view" is like saying "I think" or "it is my opinion" or "my theory". All examples of statement of opinion, which Brady's legal team would have a hard time proving to be defamatory since it would have to be a statement of fact... which leads us to Vincent's statement.

Saying "established" pretty much means "No doubt about it", "No question", "100% fact". Hardly the "preponderance of evidence" standard set forth by the NFL. This is the kind of statement that can be exploited by Brady's Legal team as a form of libel. And it isn't the only statement in his letter that provides libelous language.

"Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.) despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."

"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football."

In that first statement above, Vincent claims that Brady didn't cooperate much at all, that he refused to turn over his phone and uses Well's statement that they were going to handle the info in his phone with proper care. He then adds in that Brady provided testimony which was deemed insufficient and contradictory. Of course this testimony is nowhere to be found in the report. So how can he really know what Brady told the Wells team? If Don Yee's notes provide insight that proves contradictory to Vincent's claims, it's libel.

Regarding the second statement, what actions is Vincent referring to? The "evidence" of tampering is pathetically weak and, even on Pg 228 of the Wells Report, concludes that "the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain." This is the case that the NFL is presenting. Pitiful.

Vincent's claims that Brady was uncooperative will soon be tested either at the appeal hearing or in Federal Court. Should this statement prove untrue, it's libel.

 

[signbabybrady]

the interesting thing is that kraft accepted the penalties even though the report exonerates both owner and coach........are you really telling me that they're pinning the whole team portion of this on a couple of guys who barely make minimum?

kraft's decision to not fight the penalty even though he disagrees with it has nothing to do with whether or not anyone actually did anything.

Why is it that nobody has bothered to ask Kraft to get into the details of why he accepted a punishment even though he disagreed with it......just because he has no recourse with his owner friends? now we are walking back to the whole thing about collusion

I don't think people realize in how many different directions this whole thing can mushroom......collusion, damages for endorsees.....this portion of the iceberg stands to be bigger than whether or not the NFLPA can make good on it's stance that Goodell is overstepping his authority.

I'd like to see Tony Romo make some noise about the whole fantasy thing in vegas.......at some point players have to make a move to gain back more control over their own endeavors

All I am saying is that if someone was guilty of something then slander is that much more difficult. I think.

Especially if Goddell were to overturn the decision(not that I think he will just the context of this discussion).

 

[IllegalContact]

except that unprecedented punishments will be used as the 'statement' rather than what's in the report.........you can't just have soft wording ignore the magnitude of the punishment....huge logical disconnect that needs to be reconciled

In regards to libel, the wording in regard to what is opinion vs what is fact is important.

Ted Wells: "Based on the evidence, it also is our view"
Troy Vincent: "the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence"

Even though both these statements make reference to the shoddy "evidence" in the report, Wells' statement refrains from making definitive conclusions of Tom Brady's actions and behaviour. Saying "our view" is like saying "I think" or "it is my opinion" or "my theory". All examples of statement of opinion, which Brady's legal team would have a hard time proving to be defamatory since it would have to be a statement of fact... which leads us to Vincent's statement.

Saying "established" pretty much means "No doubt about it", "No question", "100% fact". Hardly the "preponderance of evidence" standard set forth by the NFL. This is the kind of statement that can be exploited by Brady's Legal team as a form of libel. And it isn't the only statement in his letter that provides libelous language.

"Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.) despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."

"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football."

In that first statement above, Vincent claims that Brady didn't cooperate much at all, that he refused to turn over his phone and uses Well's statement that they were going to handle the info in his phone with proper care. He then adds in that Brady provided testimony which was deemed insufficient and contradictory. Of course this testimony is nowhere to be found in the report. So how can he really know what Brady told the Wells team? If Don Yee's notes provide insight that proves contradictory to Vincent's claims, it's libel.

Regarding the second statement, what actions is Vincent referring to? The "evidence" of tampering is pathetically weak and, even on Pg 228 of the Wells Report, concludes that "the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain." This is the case that the NFL is presenting. Pitiful.

Vincent's claims that Brady was uncooperative will soon be tested either at the appeal hearing or in Federal Court. Should this statement prove untrue, it's libel.

 

[Jackson 2]

I'm pretty sure all he had to do was set a /date/ to hear it within 10 days.

Who is "he?"

 

[Jackson 2]

Read my last post. I was using hyperbole.

But as I pointed out in the Ray Rice case, not being able to increase a suspension hasn't stopped Goodell from trying.

No you weren't. You were wrong.

 

[rochrist]

Who is "he?"

Goodell. AKA the league office.

 

[Jackson 2]

Ummm. It was never a mistake. I knew that Goodell can't increase the suspension (although that didn't stop him with Ray Rice which was overturned by the courts). That was the point of my original post. Goodell is never going to reduce Brady's suspension to zero. Not in a million years. I was using hyperbole to make a point. If read enough of my posts, I use hyperbole all the time to make points.

But it is still far more likely he tries to find a loophole to increase the suspension like he tried with Ray Rice than rescind the suspension. I think there is a 0.00000000001% Goodell tries to increase the suspension. That is still far more likely than it goes to zero.

Claiming to "use hyperbole all the time to make points" is weak as s##t. Rather, it's a self-granted
free pass to post emotional BS and then claim you didn't really mean it. We all wish we had that poetic license. Phony.

 

[Rob0729]

Claiming to "use hyperbole all the time to make points" is weak as s##t. Rather, it's a self-granted
free pass to post emotional BS and then claim you didn't really mean it. We all wish we had that poetic license. Phony.

LOL! You know, Know-It-All A-hole isn't a pretty look for you.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. Whenever I am wrong on this board I always admit it. I really don't have an ego that way.

You know what is weak a** sh*t? You claiming you are going to take the high road in the argument while throwing out insult after insult.

Seriously, even if Goodell could increase Brady's punishment, who would think he would double it to eight games. I thought I picked a ridiculous number increase to show even to stupid people that I was using hyperbole. You proved me wrong. See I can admit when I am wrong.

 

[Rob0729]

He had to hear it within 10 days unless the he and the union agreed to go beyond, which evidently was the case.

You get on my case for being wrong and not knowing the appeals rules and you don't even know them yourself.

The NFL has 10 days to SCHEDULE the appeal, not hear the appeal.

Per a source with knowledge of the situation, the NFL Players Association interprets the operative language of Article 46 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement to require only that a date for the appeal hearing be set within 10 days after the appeal is filed.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...hearing-to-start-within-10-days-after-appeal/

As outlined in the NFL's collective bargaining agreement, offseason player hearings must scheduled within 10 business days of the appeal being issued.

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Deadline-to-schedule-Tom-Bradys-appeal-draws-near-37441696

There was no news yesterday as the 10-day window closed for the NFL and NFLPA to schedule Tom Brady’s appeal hearing.

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...2015/05/tom_brady_appeal_date_still_uncertain

So before you get all high and mighty and pretend you know more than everyone else, you might want to educate yourself.

 

[Gumby]

In regards to libel, the wording in regard to what is opinion vs what is fact is important.

Ted Wells: "Based on the evidence, it also is our view"
Troy Vincent: "the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence"

Even though both these statements make reference to the shoddy "evidence" in the report, Wells' statement refrains from making definitive conclusions of Tom Brady's actions and behaviour. Saying "our view" is like saying "I think" or "it is my opinion" or "my theory". All examples of statement of opinion, which Brady's legal team would have a hard time proving to be defamatory since it would have to be a statement of fact... which leads us to Vincent's statement.

Saying "established" pretty much means "No doubt about it", "No question", "100% fact". Hardly the "preponderance of evidence" standard set forth by the NFL. This is the kind of statement that can be exploited by Brady's Legal team as a form of libel. And it isn't the only statement in his letter that provides libelous language.

"Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.) despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence."

"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football."

In that first statement above, Vincent claims that Brady didn't cooperate much at all, that he refused to turn over his phone and uses Well's statement that they were going to handle the info in his phone with proper care. He then adds in that Brady provided testimony which was deemed insufficient and contradictory. Of course this testimony is nowhere to be found in the report. So how can he really know what Brady told the Wells team? If Don Yee's notes provide insight that proves contradictory to Vincent's claims, it's libel.

Regarding the second statement, what actions is Vincent referring to? The "evidence" of tampering is pathetically weak and, even on Pg 228 of the Wells Report, concludes that "the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data is ultimately dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain." This is the case that the NFL is presenting. Pitiful.

Vincent's claims that Brady was uncooperative will soon be tested either at the appeal hearing or in Federal Court. Should this statement prove untrue, it's libel.

Any suit for slander or libel is going to take place (long) after the lawsuit about the punishment is resolved. So the first judges decision about the veracity of the report, the discovery of any NFL collusion-conspiracy, and general decision about the ridiculousness of the punishment will come into play and be established facts in the slander suit.

Of course if in appeal go-to-hell eliminates the suspension and leaves or emplacement a small monetary fine, that leaves TB in a quandary of continuing suit at hi cost for little direct $ return, or going for full absolution.

 

[Jackson 2]

LOL! You know, Know-It-All A-hole isn't a pretty look for you.

I have no problem admitting when I am wrong. Whenever I am wrong on this board I always admit it. I really don't have an ego that way.

You know what is weak a** sh*t? You claiming you are going to take the high road in the argument while throwing out insult after insult.

Seriously, even if Goodell could increase Brady's punishment, who would think he would double it to eight games. I thought I picked a ridiculous number increase to show even to stupid people that I was using hyperbole. You proved me wrong. See I can admit when I am wrong.

And you do it with grace and dignity, I might add. You are a model and inspiration to which we should all aspire.