Maybe your memory is failing, but I am the attorney who was in this issue from Day 1 and read pretty much everything of note written and spoken on the subject, including transcripts, reports and court documents. And yes, I did listen to the haters as well when this was at its peak.
Read the article and the quote it contains rather than simply acknowledging the obviously dead link (not the point of giving you the article). And please spare me an "I see with untrammeled vision" opinion with the "fail to see" line. That statement comes across as condescending and insulting, and you are not an all-seeing oracle if that has become your self-perception by writing all you did here on this topic. Also, that reply is the answer of every whacked, tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist operating without a shred of evidence for a theory. It just makes you sound like you went over the cliff on this subject and are incapable of objective statements in posting all you did on Deflategate. That would be a shame, as your posts (which I suspect have not been changed on this forum) provided solid updates as events unfolded.
As for the article I offered a link to, it is Indy Star (not the most reputable, I know, but the rest of the world doesn't care what Luck has to say so that is what I found). The dead ESPN link is contained in that article, which also contains a quote from Luck. The article was dated September 1, 2015. If you believe that article was changed from its original content in order to offer a false Luck quote, then the pages are archived. Feel free to run the Way Back Machine on that page, look at the archives, and see if that content was in fact changed and is thus inaccurate as your post appears to imply.
And for the record, I have no doubt that there was a conspiracy here against the Pats, nor do I doubt the teams, owners, and media played a role in that. I do not believe the NFL controls the Internet and the evidentiary properties of the servers, routers and switches that comprise the Internet. If you have wrapped the government processes in your depths of the conspiracy statement, and I know you wrote opinions on what you read about judges, then you are simply wrong and have never worked for federal judges or understand internal court processes. The NFL and media are as far as I go with the conspiracy here. Anything in that zone is fair game to me, including Luck. But I don't accept the "I remember it differently" over actual, apparently contemporaneous documents (I go by the "dull pencil is better than a sharp mind" on recollection). That seems to be your approach here.
Thanks for the respectful candor. I appreciate it.
There are several levels there.
Let's address the judges first. I have always thought that Kessler blew the Appeal and shouldn't have tried to argue before an Appeals Panel in the first place. I think Chin actually threw him a high, hanging curveball when he tossed the words of Pash or Nash in his face, but Kessler simply lost his cool. I've never met Chin, but I did know/was a client of the late Judith Vladeck, who hired him years ago. If he was hired by the iconic Ms. Vladeck, he is no friend of management, but Kessler's response disrespected Chin by not addressing the substance of his question...as you know better than do I, that's a big "no no" when questioned by any Appeals Court judge, let alone one on as prestigious a Court as the Second Circuit. Barrington Parker is a hack and the son of a hack, so it didn't surprise me that he was star struck by a former SG arguing the NFL's case in front of him (I had a bad feeling about it as soon as I saw that Clement was the face of the case)...I think the Appeal would have had a different outcome if Ted Olson had been Brady's face to the Appeals court from the beginning...but, sadly, water under the bridge.
As for Luck, I'll concede that there are different ways of reading or listening to what he said in the "salty" statement. I read and continue to read it pejoratively and believe that, when he said he wished they could have "stepped up" (or whatever words he chose) he was trying to have it both ways, looking noble while leaving the unstated implication that he didn't get a fair chance to "step up" (or whatever he actually said). I read his whole demeanor during that statement as directed negatively towards Brady and the Patriots. I'll grant that someone might read it differently, but I don't think my interpretation puts me one degree of separation away from those who believe in little green people. In the end, "salty" is a pretty strong word for him to have chosen to describe his feelings about the SB...he could have said "regretful" or "sad" or even "disappointed," but he chose a word that implies unresolved anger.
And, I am certain that I did read a tweet, attributed to Luck, in which he did say that "Brady lied." But, we all know that literally hundreds of tweets are taken down by people every day, so I'm not venturing into the realm of conspiracy theory to suggest that Luck might have done so.
As for the disappearing posts/articles, I'll take your word that you have found them and acknowledge that nothing can be really deleted that has appeared on a public website on the internet.
So, I continue to view the preponderance of the evidence as leaning against a favorable view of Luck in this regard. I know he has ardent fans across the country for a variety of reasons and can see how others, especially those favorably inclined towards him, could view the preponderance of evidence in a different manner.
Thanks again for the thoughtful response.
