farn
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,197
- Reaction score
- 18,755
Already happened with Favre, to the tune of $50k.
Wow. That is CRAZY ANYWHERE outside the NFL... Did not know that.
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.Already happened with Favre, to the tune of $50k.
"Nobody trusts him. Nobody trusts him. I'm not talking about a DUI, or using a gun in a strip club, which are pretty clear violations. I think there're too many times where the league has come to its decision in a case before calling a guy in, and the interview is just a façade. I think now if a guy has to come in to talk to Roger, he'll be very hesitant because he'll think the conclusion has already been reached.''
The Wells report went on and on about Jastermski's texts to his mother. Don Yee and Brady should use that as an example of why they were well within their right to not turn over the phone.
Wells Reports' goal: To impugn, embarrass Tom Brady and the New England Patriots
Good question, and I hadn't read into this distinction until just now. Here's the relevant section of the report.
Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady‟s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady‟s telephone or other electronic devices.
That does shed a slightly different light on the matter, but I wonder what the CBA says about this. I'm sure Brady, Yee and a players union rep discussed this at some point.
We'll see where this 'non-cooperative' narrative goes, if it's cited in any punishment and what Brady/Yee's response is to it. My guess is union members are under no obligation to surrender this type of information in an investigation, though it could just be my biased opinion.
I'm sure the CBA would not be interested in a request. He can request a night with Giselle if he likes. But if they are going to punish him for not providing it then that is an issue the NFLPA would probably fight. If there's a punishment for not doing it, then it's not a request.1) Apparently, Brady wasn't asked for for his phone, no matter how many hundreds of time we repeat that he was.
2) If the request was a violation of the CBA, why didn't the union object or make a statement?
3) Cooperation or not can change the severity of a sentence. I don't that this is in any way unusual.
Cooperation or not might be the difference in how many games or how much money.
4) I expect that Brady will respond to the above alleged failure to cooperate when he makes a statement.
I think it's a little different with Lerner and Clinton. McNally and the other guy are not comparable than Brady. They had company cell phones so the company owns them and they had to give them up. Lerner and Clinton both use government emails so they are owned by the public. It would be more like if McNally threw his phone in the river and then smashed the Patriot owned server when he was asked for the information. Certainly that would make him look suspicious, and be justification for punishment. I bet if they have personal phones and emails they didn't give them to Wells. In fact I almost guarantee they have personal Emails, so the standard Brady is being held to is probably unique. As far as I know he didn't get personal texts or emails from anyone else on private devices either. Giving up private emails or texts on your personal phone is IMO completely different. I would never agree to it, and I have nothing to hide....Exactly....and interesting similar to both the Lois Lerner and Hillary Clinton cases, whereby they refused to turn over their cell phone/email info when faced with much more legally compelling reasons to do so (at least some would contend). But this whole angle of analysis fails to focus on the real problem. If the NFL must compel its players to give up their private information in order to prove guilt, wouldn't it just be a better idea to change its internal processes so it doesn't have to resort to such practices, thereby diminishing the value of the very product (star football players) that it is marketing? To that end (and it's already been stated by many on this forum) , merely changing the inspection process and associated custody rules for the handling of its footballs would have eliminated the quagmire the NFL has managed to create.
And after a few days TMZ will leak something totally unrelated from the phone.The problem wth turning over the phones or e-mails is that they would likely lead to people other than those the NFL had already interviewed. It was a fishing expedition. Wells already had all of Brady's outgoing texts from the phones he had access to. Again, he was fishing.
Recently read the ball-boys phones were company phones. So, they were obligated to turn over their phones with all texts. The investigators wanted Brady's personal cell phone - which (like any one of us) he refused
Well, if they are so sure that Brady had communicated to J.J or J.M about deflating the balls below a legal amount or to alter them after ref inspection, how come they didn't find any of Brady's texts/calls/emails on J.M or J.J's phone? Just texts between J.J and J.M...