What happened to Tunsil proves that Brady was 100% right in destroying his phone

Froob · May 5, 2016

luuked said:
That is the crux of the entire story. According to the CBA the NFL are not entitled to ANYTHING on the private phone of players. I just don't understand how someone can be punished because he refuses to cooperate about something that he specifically doesn't need to do. If the current CBA and infamous article GO****YOURSELF makes this possible then you can prepare for an even longer lockout than I thought whenever the next CBA is due. The league will protect their carte blanche article with all means and the NFLPA will fight it with everything they got.

Hopefully....they have the worst deal in North American sports. NBA players ***** and moan (not saying they don't have a fair reason to, because they do) but, their CBA is muuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuch better. If I'm a two sport football-basketball athlete, I'd easily choose the NBA. Far more money, near 100% guarantee in money, no concussions.

QuantumMechanic · May 5, 2016

Froob said:
I thought he was protected under the CBA? Or it just that he said they didn't need his phone and the inconsistency between Brady and Favre and Gostowski?

Brady and the NFLPA never claimed he was protected from having to turn his phone over. In fact, they conceded just the opposite -- Brady said that if he had known he could be suspended for not turning it over he would have turned it over, thus conceding that at least in some cases the CBA gives the NFL the power to demand the phone (or probably more precisely, doesn't uncategorically remove the NFL's inherent power as an employer to demand it). Brady the PA were arguing that there was lack of notice (i.e. he was not made aware that he could be suspended for not turning it over), not that NFL intrinsically was not allowed to punish him for not turning it over.

Also, I think the NFL never actually said it was punishing him for not turning over the phone. Rather, the NFL said that his failure to turn over the phone justified an adverse inference against Brady re: his alleged involvement in Deflategate. It's subtly different from punishing him for not turning over the phone, but it is (IMHO) an actual difference and not just hair-splitting.

But none of that weakens your points about double standards, inconsistency, etc.

Froob · May 5, 2016

QuantumMechanic said:
Brady and the NFLPA ever claimed he was protected from having to turn his phone over. In fact, they conceded just the opposite -- Brady said that if he had known he could be suspended for not turning it over he would have turned it over, thus conceding that at least in some cases the CBA gives the NFL the power to demand the phone (or probably more precisely, doesn't uncategorically remove the NFL's inherent power as an employer to demand it). Brady the PA were arguing that there was lack of notice (i.e. he was not made aware that he could be suspended for not turning it over), not that NFL intrinsically was not allowed to punish him for not turning it over.

Also, I think the NFL never actually said it was punishing him for not turning over the phone. Rather, the NFL said that his failure to turn over the phone justified an adverse inference against Brady re: his alleged involvement in Deflategate. It's subtly different from punishing him for not turning over the phone, but it is (IMHO) an actual difference and not just hair-splitting.

And none of that weakens your points about double standards, inconsistency, etc.

I wonder if they didn't have an actual script with Wells saying he does not want the phone. I don't see how a judge could possibly overlook that unless Wells blatantly denied he said it.

letekro · May 5, 2016

For whatever reason, it is not sinking in with many of you that nobody asked for Bradys phone and the discipline was not for failing to turn over the phone. This is not a huge point in the grand scheme, but it is a source of confusion on this forum.

Koma · May 5, 2016

Froob said:
Why exactly is Wells entitled to texts to folks other than Jaz and McNally? Even if he texts his wife "this is such bs that they think I did this" they would somehow overlook it.

Overlook it or take it as proof that something happened. Wells interpreted all of those texts from Jastremski after the Jets game about the balls being overinflated well beyond the legal limit and that they should be at 13 as signs that there was a scheme to deflate footballs.

Froob · May 5, 2016

Koma said:
Overlook it or take it as proof that something happened. Wells interpreted all of those texts from Jastremski after the Jets game about the balls being overinflated well beyond the legal limit and that they should be at 13 as signs that there was a scheme to deflate footballs.

Interesting how the Jets always seems to be involved in these scandals....does Captain Integrity have a reason the original Tripgate was an internal investigation by the New Jersey Jets?

Koma · May 5, 2016

Froob said:
Interesting how the Jets always seems to be involved in these scandals....does Captain Integrity have a reason the original Tripgate was an internal investigation by the New Jersey Jets?

The fact that the league gave the Jets a week to get their story straight, I mean, perform an internal investigation makes even less sense considering the Jets were caught tampering with footballs the year before. The same team, with the same coaching staff was involved in 2 cheating scandals in back to back years. Where was the league's "pattern of behavior" and "repeat offender" punishments when it came to tripgate?

Froob · May 5, 2016

Koma said:
The fact that the league gave the Jets a week to get their story straight, I mean, perform an internal investigation makes even less sense considering the Jets were caught tampering with footballs the year before. The same team, with the same coaching staff was involved in 2 cheating scandals in back to back years. Where was the league's "pattern of behavior" and "repeat offender" punishments when it came to tripgate?

And that's leaving out their looooooong history of tampering.

RobertWeathers · May 5, 2016

letekro said:
For whatever reason, it is not sinking in with many of you that nobody asked for Bradys phone and

Correct. During the investigation Wells wanted the pertinent text messages. Later on, when Brady provided the text records the NFL said too little too late and was too lazy to track down the recipients of TB12s texts.

letekro said:
the discipline was not for failing to turn over the phone. This is not a huge point in the grand scheme, but it is a source of confusion on this forum.

Not 100% correct but close. The discipline was for general awareness of a scheme to deflate footballs but also for not cooperating with an NFL investigation. Troy Vincent's letter calls that out as a factor in which garnered consideration as to determining the severity of the penalty.

ForThoseAboutToRock · May 5, 2016

letekro said:
And don't be so foolish to think that Brady's lawyers thought it impossible that failing to provide the requested information would be used against him. They obviously weighed this possibility and still decided against turning the information over.

I've wondered now for a while if they wish they'd given Tom different advice, or if they really thought they'd have lost faster with the evidence all being available.

ivanvamp · May 5, 2016

letekro said:
Good post. I take issue with some of it though. Wells asked for specific texts, like all texts between Brady and a certain person during a certain time frame and all texts that included the search terms. Brady turned over data from a number of devices that were run against the search terms, but he failed to provide anything from the phone that was active during the most relevant period. So, his argument was not "I didn't turn over the the texts on that phone because they were not relevant", but rather "I didn't turn them over because I didn't have the phone, because I got rid of it." This may seem like a small difference, but it is quite different from what you are suggesting. And it looks bad, to be honest.

Also, there is nothing per se illegal about a private employer asking an employee to see their texts or other information if the employer deems it relevant to an inquiry into their conduct, and nothing wrong with disciplining that employee if he fails to comply. As an example, If I, the private employer, think you are looking at porn on your phone at work, I can ask you to provide your internet history to me and fire you if you refuse. Subject to the terms of any employment contract, I can fire you for any reason, or for no reason.

And the "details" that you claim not to know are very important here. Brady provided some texts from phones that were not active during the relevant timeframe, but decided to treat the data on the phone that was active during the relevant period quite differently--disposing of it and then offering to give a worthless list of people he spoke with. Contrary to what you are suggesting, the texts could not be recovered from the phone company for that period, and, yes, it is impractical to try to convince someone, over whom the NFL has no power to compel production of evidence or punish in any way, to provide evidence out of the goodness of their heart.

Question: Wells and the NFL said they trust Brady and his agent, Don Yee, to turn over "relevant" texts. Suppose Brady handed over a handful of texts over that time frame that talked about the issue, but which painted them all in a positive light. For example, let's say that Brady submitted a text to Wells that he sent to Jastremski saying, "JJ, what is going on?" and JJ replied, "No idea. We didn't do ANYTHING like what they're claiming we did. I didn't. Neither did McNally. This is so frustrating."

Suppose Brady submitted texts like that, but no texts that were in any way incriminating.

What do you think would have been the NFL's response? Would they have considered Brady to be fully cooperative? Or would they think that he's just hiding the incriminating texts?

I think we all know the answer to that question. This was a sham from the very beginning.

RobertWeathers · May 5, 2016

ivanvamp said:
Question: Wells and the NFL said they trust Brady and his agent, Don Yee, to turn over "relevant" texts. Suppose Brady handed over a handful of texts over that time frame that talked about the issue, but which painted them all in a positive light. For example, let's say that Brady submitted a text to Wells that he sent to Jastremski saying, "JJ, what is going on?" and JJ replied, "No idea. We didn't do ANYTHING like what they're claiming we did. I didn't. Neither did McNally. This is so frustrating."

Suppose Brady submitted texts like that, but no texts that were in any way incriminating.

What do you think would have been the NFL's response? Would they have considered Brady to be fully cooperative? Or would they think that he's just hiding the incriminating texts?

I think we all know the answer to that question. This was a sham from the very beginning.

During the appeal hearing Goodell proved your last sentence.

It would not have made a damn bit of difference. They would have taken texts from Brady to Gisele talking about filling up air in the kid's floaties if it helped support their spin.

Froob · May 5, 2016

robertweathers said:
During the appeal hearing Goodell proved your last sentence.

It would not have made a damn bit of difference. They would have taken texts from Brady to Gisele talking about filling up air in the kid's floaties if it helped support their spin.

I wish Brady had gotten his hands on Wells and Goodell's wives' numbers and put their numbers on that list.

letekro · May 5, 2016

ivanvamp said:
Question: Wells and the NFL said they trust Brady and his agent, Don Yee, to turn over "relevant" texts. Suppose Brady handed over a handful of texts over that time frame that talked about the issue, but which painted them all in a positive light. For example, let's say that Brady submitted a text to Wells that he sent to Jastremski saying, "JJ, what is going on?" and JJ replied, "No idea. We didn't do ANYTHING like what they're claiming we did. I didn't. Neither did McNally. This is so frustrating."

Suppose Brady submitted texts like that, but no texts that were in any way incriminating.

What do you think would have been the NFL's response? Would they have considered Brady to be fully cooperative? Or would they think that he's just hiding the incriminating texts?

I think we all know the answer to that question. This was a sham from the very beginning.

The NFL was out to get him. For sure. We know that from the Mortensen leak and other evidence.

But, even though the courts say they are only looking at process, their perception of the facts weighs on their decision. Needless to say, such texts wouldve been extremely powerful for Brady in court and the court of public opinion.

letekro · May 5, 2016

robertweathers said:
Correct. During the investigation Wells wanted the pertinent text messages. Later on, when Brady provided the text records the NFL said too little too late and was too lazy to track down the recipients of TB12s texts.

Not 100% correct but close. The discipline was for general awareness of a scheme to deflate footballs but also for not cooperating with an NFL investigation. Troy Vincent's letter calls that out as a factor in which garnered consideration as to determining the severity of the penalty.

On point 1, it is disingenuous to say that he complied by providing a list of recipients. Why on earth would anyone on that list turn over the texts? I cant fault the NFL for not going through that pointless exercise.

Agree on point 2.

RobertWeathers · May 5, 2016

letekro said:
On point 1, it is disingenuous to say that he complied by providing a list of recipients. Why on earth would anyone on that list turn over the texts? I cant fault the NFL for not going through that pointless exercise.

Agree on point 2.

Right.

It was a classic cat n mouse b/t/w the NFL and NFLPA. As we discussed yesterday, Wells asked but knew damn well he didn't have the authority to have Brady turn them over which is why he said TB12 cooperated fully but said he hurt himself by not turning over the records when initially asked to.

With Brady, he didn't trust the NFL to turn them over as he knew he was being railroaded as well and in the same turn wanting to protect his privacy.

Once he turned over the records at the appeal hearing - but not the actual messages he complied but really didn't. This goes back to the question of does a perception of concealment prove guilt....which it certainly does not but according to Article 46, balls naturally deflating due to atmospheric conditions certainly does.

RhodyPatriot · May 5, 2016

FreeTedWilliams said:
OTL: Tunsil camp investigates ex-adviser in hack

Apparently Tunsil's troubles all come from a cell phone that a man he hired as a financial advisor gave him. Once Tunsil signed with an agent, the agent told him that they financial advisor wasn't licensed and is basically just someone who is hired by other agents to funnel people towards a particular agent and or financial advisor.

So after Tunsil fired him, he gave him back the phone. The guy then used the phone and Tunsil's stored passwords to his social media accounts to cost him 10 million dollars in a few minutes!

Could you imagine what the Wells and the NFL would have done with Brady's phone?

Brady's mistake was not in refusing to return over his phone. He was never going to turn over his phone nor should he have. Brady needed to go into these meetings with the phone in question and put it right on the table.
No Brady's mistake was destroying the phone. I STILL can't believe someone as image conscious as Brady was that naive and stupid. Tom is brilliant on the football field but he's not the brightest bulb on the tree. Definitely not streetwise.

letekro · May 5, 2016

RhodyPatriot said:
Brady's mistake was not in refusing to return over his phone. He was never going to turn over his phone nor should he have. Brady needed to go into these meetings with the phone in question and put it right on the table.
No Brady's mistake was destroying the phone. I STILL can't believe someone as image conscious as Brady was that naive and stupid. Tom is brilliant on the football field but he's not the brightest bulb on the tree. Definitely not streetwise.

Either stupid or there was something incriminating on the phone. We dont know. It is odd that he freely turned over thousands of texts and emails from other phones but none from that one. Probably an innocent explanation, but like you said, it just looks bad.

ReverendMaynard · May 5, 2016

letekro said:
Either stupid or there was something incriminating on the phone. We dont know. It is odd that he freely turned over thousands of texts and emails from other phones but none from that one. Probably an innocent explanation, but like you said, it just looks bad.

While you are right about the texts (they are only stored long term on the device, the phone company has records of when/where they were sent/received, but not the contents) you are wrong about the emails. The emails do not live only on the phone and were searched and relevant emails turned over.

letekro · May 5, 2016

ReverendMaynard said:
While you are right about the texts (they are only stored long term on the device, the phone company has records of when/where they were sent/received, but not the contents) you are wrong about the emails. The emails do not live only on the phone and were searched and relevant emails turned over.

Yes you are correct. Thanks

What happened to Tunsil proves that Brady was 100% right in destroying his phone

Independent Investigator & pliable af

Burn it all down!

Independent Investigator & pliable af

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

In the Starting Line-Up

Independent Investigator & pliable af

In the Starting Line-Up

Independent Investigator & pliable af

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

In the Starting Line-Up

In the Starting Line-Up

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

Independent Investigator & pliable af

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

Member of the Seattle 7 & Roadie for Metallica

In the Starting Line-Up

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

On the Game Day Roster

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract