7/29: Marcia outraged: 'I did nothing wrong'

[DraftBoy]

i see your point draftboy. the league does not have legal authority to require it. Fine.

But if the evidence says he is more than likely guilty and the player provides no rebuttal, the league is legally allowed to proceed with its decision. As any employer is. and if its viewed to be prejudicial or done as a vendetta, the employee can take it to court.

but the court of law is going to look at destroying evidence a lot harsher than your employer. I don't know the finer pieces of how this is going to playout, but the initial items look like brady has a huge uphill climb. and this time there are no refs to throw flags to make it easier for him.

He has provided a rebuttal, he said he didn't do it.

You're making an assumption about what the court will do, but we don't know how they'll view that. If they determine that the NFL has no right to the phone then why would they view a person destroying his own property harshly? That doesn't make any sense.

Brady is absolutely screwed, but like I said I don't really care about his outcome.

[trapezeus]

fine, don't give the phone to the employer, but you would keep it for the court case. you can be innocent and not comply. but destroying your side of the arguement is the nail in the coffin. and because he did that, it seems like he's conveniently talking about legal precedent.

if it was me and i was innocent and didn't want to hand the phone in as principal, i'd sure as hell keep all the evidence, have it go to court and then win decisively.

for the actual football side of things, i hope the nfl stops protecting brady with all the BS calls. we'll see how much he enjoys being a quarterback when he's treated like the rest of them.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Greg Williams, Sean Payton, Bill Belichick, Robert Kraft, and Jim Irsay are examples of non-players that have been fined/suspended for things related to the integrity of the game or an act detriment to the league.

That's not what I asked.

None of these people are the commissioner, or league employees or contractors.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Common sense says if Brady was innocent & had nothing to hide, he would have been more than happy to comply with the NFL's request for his phone records that relate to the investigation.

You as the arbiter of commom sense?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

You'd make a great Gestapo officer. All you need is a pair of wire rimmed glasses and some practice holding your cigarette backwards...

[Joe Fo Sho]

That's not what I asked.

or is it only players that can negatively affect the integrity of the game?

None of these people are the commissioner, or league employees or contractors.

I guess you'll have to read the writing that's in their contracts, obviously. The language is different for everybody, especially contractors that may have their own contracts.

[swiper]

You as the arbiter of commom sense?

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

You'd make a great Gestapo officer. All you need is a pair of wire rimmed glasses and some practice holding your cigarette backwards...

I laughed and laughed. Then I laughed some more.

[swiper]

Disagree, if the accused feels as though the accusation is BS and the accuser has no legal authority to demand anything then by complying with the request you are accepting the premise that you may have done something wrong. Brady is under no legal requirement to turn over his phone so why should he? The idea that he should have nothing to hide is a fallacy since he's under no obligation to prove his own innocence.

You are lost here. No the NFL isn't a legal authority. But it's a business that Brady works for. They have printed rules. They have the right to ask for the phone to see if he broke company rules based on that. Brady can refuse, but if he does fight this, it will go to a legal authority who will ask.

Brady is under no legal requirement to turn over his phone so why should he?

Because his boss feels he has broken company policy based on evidence given to him. He meted out a fine. Either Brady serves the sentence given to him or he gives the phone to prove his innocence.

[Bill Cody]

it was proven the balls were deflated.

Was it? The only way they "proved" it is by ignoring what Walt Coleman, the ref who actually checked the balls before the game, said about which gauge he used. If you believe Walt the amount of decompression falls well within the parameters of the ideal gas law. The league leaked a false story to Chris Mortensen (see link) and then failed to correct it for 4 months. Without that leak to Mort there is no deflategate.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/...gwIA?ocid=iehp

[CommissarSpartacus]

I guess you'll have to read the writing that's in their contracts, obviously. The language is different for everybody, especially contractors that may have their own contracts.

Why are you quibbling? Because I didn't say players, coaches and owners? You know who I'm talking about - Goodell, the people he employs and the people he hands contracts out to.

There are people who work for the league who used to work or play for one or more of the various teams who play significant roles in this drama. Is Goodell investigating them?

[better days]

Was it? The only way they "proved" it is by ignoring what Walt Coleman, the ref who actually checked the balls before the game, said about which gauge he used. If you believe Walt the amount of decompression falls well within the parameters of the ideal gas law. The league leaked a false story to Chris Mortensen (see link) and then failed to correct it for 4 months. Without that leak to Mort there is no deflategate.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/...gwIA?ocid=iehp

There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that the equipment guys deflated footballs for Brady.

And Hernandez was convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence.

[ICRockets]

We've known for months that Brady intended to go to court to fight a possible suspension if he had to. Legally, I don't believe he had an obligation to hand over his phone to the NFL. But if he had even mediocre legal advice, he'd have been encouraged not to destroy evidence that could exonerate him in court. I just don't see a way to make sense of his decision to destroy the phone if it did not have incriminating texts on it.

[DraftBoy]

fine, don't give the phone to the employer, but you would keep it for the court case. you can be innocent and not comply. but destroying your side of the arguement is the nail in the coffin. and because he did that, it seems like he's conveniently talking about legal precedent.

if it was me and i was innocent and didn't want to hand the phone in as principal, i'd sure as hell keep all the evidence, have it go to court and then win decisively.

for the actual football side of things, i hope the nfl stops protecting brady with all the BS calls. we'll see how much he enjoys being a quarterback when he's treated like the rest of them.

So would I, but it's not about what you or I would do.

[DraftBoy]

You are lost here. No the NFL isn't a legal authority. But it's a business that Brady works for. They have printed rules. They have the right to ask for the phone to see if he broke company rules based on that. Brady can refuse, but if he does fight this, it will go to a legal authority who will ask.

That point has been made and I've asked for that citation, but haven't received it yet. I'm not sure that's what will happen in a civil proceeding which is what this is. You're basically saying the Court will grant the NFL the legal right to subpoena the phone (or records), and I'm not sure that will happen. Again that's why I'm asking the question.

Because his boss feels he has broken company policy based on evidence given to him. He meted out a fine. Either Brady serves the sentence given to him or he gives the phone to prove his innocence.

This isn't an either or type of question. Brady being suspended isn't really relevant.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Why are you quibbling? Because I didn't say players, coaches and owners? You know who I'm talking about - Goodell, the people he employs and the people he hands contracts out to.

There are people who work for the league who used to work or play for one or more of the various teams who play significant roles in this drama. Is Goodell investigating them?

I'm not quibbling. I'm just wondering why you can't ask the question that you actually want to ask. Who do you want Goodell to investigate and why? Troy Vincent?

[Bill Cody]

There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence that the equipment guys deflated footballs for Brady.

And Hernandez was convicted of murder on circumstantial evidence.

wow nice comparison

[SpikedLemonade]

wow nice comparison

"but...but...but...both Brady and Hernandez play on New England Cheaters..."

The mentality of a 6 year old rather than a 60 year old.

[cookie G]

That point has been made and I've asked for that citation, but haven't received it yet. I'm not sure that's what will happen in a civil proceeding which is what this is. You're basically saying the Court will grant the NFL the legal right to subpoena the phone (or records), and I'm not sure that will happen. Again that's why I'm asking the question.



This isn't an either or type of question. Brady being suspended isn't really relevant.

A few bullet points:

-In a civil proceeding, they could, and would subpoena phone records...and would make a discovery request. It would far more broad than what the NFL investigator made, which was one of the most narrowly tailored requests you will find.

-But in a civil proceeding...you don't have a right to seize a phone either...you can ask for records. But in a civil proceeding, like the nfl investigtation scheme, if they aren't produced when requested, sanctions are possible.

-Here...the request was made ONLY for a limited set of records, directly relevant to the investigation at hand.

-Here...the player was under an affirmative duty, via the NFL Code of Conduct, to provide honest answers to questions and all documents requested.

-Certain protections given in a criminal or civil matter don't apply in an employer/employee setting, especially when there is an express "duty to cooperate" clause as a part of the employment agreement(s). Many employees, for instance, might try to plead the 5th, and that might work as far as a criminal investigation or often in a civil suit, but it doesn't work too well against an employer. "Talk or walk" is the common catchphrase many times.

I don't know if people realize how much effect the duty to cooperate clause has on this matter.

[cookie G]

"Cheater Cheater Pumpkin Eater..."

Grow up!

Eh...give me the old Raiders..when the Raiders were the Raiders...they cheated, you knew they cheated, they knew they cheated, they were proud of their cheating. It was one of the things that made them the Raiders.

None of this "Oh boo hoo, everyone's picking on me, I didn't do anything wrong, why does everyone hate me" crap..

When Ken Stabler smiled at a camera, he was saying, "chalk another one up for the bad guys".

That's why I've always liked Uppy's comments on this..."yeah, we cheated, stfu!"

[DraftBoy]

A few bullet points:

-In a civil proceeding, they could, and would subpoena phone records...and would make a discovery request. It would far more broad than what the NFL investigator made, which was one of the most narrowly tailored requests you will find.

A couple of questions...Is there any argument for relevance here? What does Brady's phone records exactly prove, especially with the records they already have from McNally and the other guy? This case isn't just about his phone, it's about a much broader issue. Other than that argument I can't think of one that Brady's camp would make to block this discovery. You?

-But in a civil proceeding...you don't have a right to seize a phone either...you can ask for records. But in a civil proceeding, like the nfl investigtation scheme, if they aren't produced when requested, sanctions are possible.

Yes, which is why the NFL's release that Brady destroyed the phone is more about PR than actual substance.

-Here...the request was made ONLY for a limited set of records, directly relevant to the investigation at hand.

Which would shoot a large hole in any argument as to relevance, I would assume?

-Here...the player was under an affirmative duty, via the NFL Code of Conduct, to provide honest answers to questions and all documents requested.

Technically isn't him telling them that he destroyed the phone an honest answer to the question or request for the phone?

-Certain protections given in a criminal or civil matter don't apply in an employer/employee setting, especially when there is an express "duty to cooperate" clause as a part of the employment agreement(s). Many employees, for instance, might try to plead the 5th, and that might work as far as a criminal investigation or often in a civil suit, but it doesn't work too well against an employer. "Talk or walk" is the common catchphrase many times.

I don't know if people realize how much effect the duty to cooperate clause has on this matter.

Thanks for the info!

[swiper]

That point has been made and I've asked for that citation, but haven't received it yet. I'm not sure that's what will happen in a civil proceeding which is what this is. You're basically saying the Court will grant the NFL the legal right to subpoena the phone (or records), and I'm not sure that will happen. Again that's why I'm asking the question.

No you're not. What's happening is both parties failed to settle a dispute and they've asked the court to find the truth. No one's granting the NFL legal right to subpoena the phone. This is the court's job. To find the truth and render justice.