Disclaimer: The sentiment expressed in this post is strictly for entertainment purposes only.
Victor7 (07-29-2015)
the nfl told bradys lawyers they could go through and redact all personal items on the phone and only provide those relevant to the investigation. that of course would put the lawyers on the hook down the road if it went to court and it was discovered they had withheld items that were actually relevant
the point is, that would remove the objection of having personal information handed over bc that would not have happened. still refusing to comply with that reasonable request appears quite damning to claims of innocence
One set of rules for all in the beloved community
I don't think this is about deflating balls anymore. This is about obstructing this investigation and he is undeniably guilty of that. He's been caught in a lie already. He claimed he didn't know 2 men that he texted quite a few times. Then he destroyed evidence (the phone) after he was aware that the investigators wanted to see it. Every things he's done looks like a man that's guilty. I'm sure even Shiva is not gullible enough to believe Brady is 100% innocent. He just can't pass up an opportunity to stir the pot.
What I heard on the teevee today is that whatever Brady said in his discussion with the NFL over this, made his case worse, not better.
That he did "nothing wrong" is a true statement insofar as he doesn't consider having an equipment guy deflate the balls to be wrong.
Patti
Note: Discotrish information is Conspiralicious and has NO BASIS IN FACT. Considering her opinions may be HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH. Please do not get your medical advice from a subforum of a subforum of a sports message board.
Victor7 (07-29-2015)
What does the NFL do when a player doesn't show up for a drug test? Or tampers with the sample or uses a masking agent? There is no physical evidence that player did any drugs. That player get penalized like he failed the drug test. This is the same thing. Brady tampered with evidence (phone) and lied.
BuffaloRedleg (07-29-2015),Cntrygal (08-24-2015),Meathead (07-29-2015),senseofdoom (07-30-2015)
COMING SOON...
Originally Posted by Dr.Lecter
CommissarSpartacus (07-29-2015)
If they have reason to believe you have done something with you phone (like take photos of confidential info) and you refuse to let them see your phone, it could be grounds for dismissal. I've had to fabricate products for equipment which usually requires me to take pictures with my phone. Quite often I am required to let the customers view my phone before I leave. Never seemed unreasonable to me, but, I have nothing to hide.
better days (07-29-2015)
Sure, but that's the use of personal property for business purposes. That's not what occurred here.
Also there isn't really any relevancy to comparing what you do to do what Brady does. And you're using a fallacy by citing the nothing to hide angle. Since when does having something to hide or not suddenly give anybody the right to see your personal property?