VectorPrime
Pro Bowl Player
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2010
- Messages
- 15,371
- Reaction score
- 20,380
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.And thus is the problem. You have a no BS approach; under oath, serious penalties of lying; you might actually get the truth. Put a gun against someone's head and make them believe you'll pull the trigger, wait until you see their pants get wet... very few will have the balls to lie. It's just too easy for people to BS the courts. It's disgusting. (of course this is kind of fantasy, you can't just put a gun to someone's head! )
Obviously there has to be a section in the rulebook that clearly stipulates having balls inflated over 2.5 above the prescribed limit will warrant no investigation or punishment and only balls that are under at all will be punishable by the harshest penalties ever levied in league history.The refs put the Jets balls at 16 and Tom was pissed off about it. And rightfully so. And Tom got pissed at Jast about it because, as Jast specifically said in his text messages, Tom wanted the balls at 13.0. Which is somehow proof that Tom wanted the balls under 12.5 apparently...
Well the 1963 Pete Rose card is about $500.I hope this won't negatively affect the value of my mint condition Clement rookie trading card.
The refs put the Jets balls at 16 and Tom was pissed off about it. And rightfully so. And Tom got pissed at Jast about it because, as Jast specifically said in his text messages, Tom wanted the balls at 13.0. Which is somehow proof that Tom wanted the balls under 12.5 apparently...
I hope the court takes this into their decision and hopefully they see some jail time for lying under oath!
Calling out an attorney for lying is like calling out a surgeon for cutting.
True but an attorney has a duty of candor to the court and an obligation to correct mistatementw or risk discipline.It's not "under oath." A lawyer's argument is not, strictly speaking, testimony.
He wasn't under oath and I don't know how high (or low) the bar is for a reprimand, but the fact that he had to explain that he didn't "lie" and that he did so in a three page letter with a markedly condescending tone could be enough to tip a wavering Judge in the NFLPA's direction.I hope the court takes this into their decision and hopefully they see some jail time for lying under oath!
He wasn't under oath and I don't know how high (or low) the bar is for a reprimand, but the fact that he had to explain that he didn't "lie" and that he did so in a three page letter with a markedly condescending tone could be enough to tip a wavering Judge in the NFLPA's direction.
And, no matter how feeble an attempt we may think it to be, Kraft's going public now about his asking Goodell last month for a return of the Draft Picks because of the bad science in the Pash/Wells report is also probably timed to get the attention of the Judges.You'd think it would tip the Judges off about how weak the NFL's case is here. From day 1 the NFL has lied and and mislead the public about having a resemblance of a leg to stand on in handing out this punishment.
I hope this won't negatively affect the value of my mint condition Clement rookie trading card.
| 18 | 3K |
| 8 | 4K |
| 321 | 31K |
| 19 | 944 |
| 43 | 3K |
From our archive - this week all-time:
April 11 - April 26 (Through 26yrs)











