Tweet
Re: 7/29: Marcia outraged: 'I did nothing wrong'
Sorry, busy weekend, just saw this.
As to whether the phone records are relevant, especially at the investigation phase, or in a civil case, the discovery phase. He was really asked to produce phone records related to preparation of game day balls...not necessarily records just from the equipment manager communications. These could have been communications with the GM, his QB coach, Belichick, Kraft, etc.
In addition, when you think someone is playing coy and not providing full information, a request is often made to catch them in a lie. By the way the request was phrease, I doubt that was the reason.
It was actually used as a grounds to uphold the penalty, along with his initial refusal to produce them, along with some inconsistent statements of Braday.
Reading that part of the decision, I read into it a very pissed off Roger Goodell. He really took the role of a pissed off judge. When a judge thinks someone is thumbing their nose at the court...they go off.
There is no doubt in my mind that when Brady informed them, months after the fact, that he had destroyed his phone, Goodell took that as thumbing his nose at the NFL. And he compounded it by giving a bogus reason for doing so, (his "standard practice" of destroying his old phone when getting a replacement wasn't followed with the phone he had before the destroyed phone. He still had it when this investigation began, long after it had been replaced).
Goodell took the time to point all of this out in his decision. That sounded like a ticked off commissioner to me.
When a decision maker goes off like Goodell did, the first question asked is whether they have grounds for what they did.
Here, I have little problem seeing the request as relevant.
Keep in mind, you have a question about equipment doctoring, with some evidence that it occured;
You have the one person with the motive to doctor the equipment in the manner alleged;
You have some questionable actions, such as a ball boy going into the ref's room, actually taking the balls, going into a room by himself with them and taking them directly to the field. (The refs were saying they never saw anyone do that before);
You have the one player with the motivation to do so state in a national press conference that he basically had no idea about how anything occured;
You discover this same player discovered to have talked to the equipment manager numerous times over a 3 day period, when he hadn't spoken to the guy for the prior 6 months. He called a meeting with him, something he had never done before;
This same player, when questioned about these conversations, said he didn't recall the specifics of any of them, except that they might have been prepartion for the SB;
In other words...you have suspicious circumstances and suspect no. 1 isn't being fully honest in his statements. Since you can't take him at his word, you are required to verify everything.
The request was relevant.
Well yes...and? Because he answers one question truthfully, it isn't logical that all questions are answered honestly.
More importantly, it is not merely about answering questions, it is about producing information. he didn't.
There is one huge caveat in cell phone and e-communication cases. Technology is evolving, and the law is barely keeping up with it. Justice Kennedy, I think, in a case about 5 years ago warned people that the law is nowhere near settled in this area and warned of using specific cases as precedent.
Originally posted by DraftBoy
View Post
As to whether the phone records are relevant, especially at the investigation phase, or in a civil case, the discovery phase. He was really asked to produce phone records related to preparation of game day balls...not necessarily records just from the equipment manager communications. These could have been communications with the GM, his QB coach, Belichick, Kraft, etc.
In addition, when you think someone is playing coy and not providing full information, a request is often made to catch them in a lie. By the way the request was phrease, I doubt that was the reason.
Originally posted by DraftBoy
Reading that part of the decision, I read into it a very pissed off Roger Goodell. He really took the role of a pissed off judge. When a judge thinks someone is thumbing their nose at the court...they go off.
There is no doubt in my mind that when Brady informed them, months after the fact, that he had destroyed his phone, Goodell took that as thumbing his nose at the NFL. And he compounded it by giving a bogus reason for doing so, (his "standard practice" of destroying his old phone when getting a replacement wasn't followed with the phone he had before the destroyed phone. He still had it when this investigation began, long after it had been replaced).
Goodell took the time to point all of this out in his decision. That sounded like a ticked off commissioner to me.
Originally posted by DraftBoy
Here, I have little problem seeing the request as relevant.
Keep in mind, you have a question about equipment doctoring, with some evidence that it occured;
You have the one person with the motive to doctor the equipment in the manner alleged;
You have some questionable actions, such as a ball boy going into the ref's room, actually taking the balls, going into a room by himself with them and taking them directly to the field. (The refs were saying they never saw anyone do that before);
You have the one player with the motivation to do so state in a national press conference that he basically had no idea about how anything occured;
You discover this same player discovered to have talked to the equipment manager numerous times over a 3 day period, when he hadn't spoken to the guy for the prior 6 months. He called a meeting with him, something he had never done before;
This same player, when questioned about these conversations, said he didn't recall the specifics of any of them, except that they might have been prepartion for the SB;
In other words...you have suspicious circumstances and suspect no. 1 isn't being fully honest in his statements. Since you can't take him at his word, you are required to verify everything.
The request was relevant.
Originally posted by DraftBoy
More importantly, it is not merely about answering questions, it is about producing information. he didn't.
Originally posted by DraftBoy
Comment