NashuaPats
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- May 6, 2015
- Messages
- 3,670
- Reaction score
- 9,960
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.I don't give a damn if the man sent his phone to the moon. It's his freakin phone. He paid for hit. He can do what he wants with it. They had the texts from the two knuckleheads. They know what they talked about. What more do they need?
From Facebook:
Adam Schefter
3 mins ·
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.
If I were Brady, and if he is innocent (as I still suspect), I would get the records from the carrier and dump them at the league offices. Show that this is his normal practice.The NFL can't subpoena the phone and the phone company has all the records anyway, so the phone itself is irrelevant. This is just more spin from the NFL.
According to the NFL's statement, they weren't aware that the phone was destroyed until after the punishment was handed down. I agree, Brady's team needs to make a statement explaining that right away.
I don't know, there's a pretty big difference between false information informally passed off-the-record to a reporter as part of a PR battle, and a lawyer-vetted official statement as part of an appeal decision immediately prior to a likely lawsuit. The NFL knows this statement will be heavily involved in upcoming litigation. I would be surprised if they are outright lying in this case. At most, it is probably misleading, not an outright falsehood. eg, it is almost definitely the case that the phone is destroyed and the information is unrecoverable. We just have no context for why that is the case.As if I'm going to believe that. I won't forget 11 out of 12 football 2 pounds below! NFL* how low will you go...
I agree that the timing is key here if a phone was destroyed. If the issue is that they wanted texts from the "deflator" time period but Brady had gotten rid of that phone before the investigation even started, then this is yet another non-story deflection by Goodell. If the phone was destroyed after the investigation started, then that's a problem.
Tom Brady has a ring for each day of his suspension. Nobody in the NFL can claim that.
All the evidence support Brady's innocence, but this destruction is highly suspicious
WHAT ABOUT THE CELL PHONE MIKE!!!!
I am assuming that like most everything else, Wells twisted the facts about the destruction of the cell phone. But if he did destroy it on the day of the interview or shortly before, it does look really bad.
But why is this fact being issued two months after the Wells Report was issued? Wells was interviewed and never mentioned it and it wasn't in the report.