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

[trapezeus]

Yes it is, and who said you're supposed to believe that?



That's not the question we're talking about. I don't care about his innocence or guilt, the question is about the legal authority for the NFL to request that Brady turn over the phone. The idea that him having nothing or something to hide is irrelevant to the question I'm asking.

it was proven the balls were deflated. it is now in the employers hands to sort out what happened. "do you want to provide evidence to support your side. Would you provide the phone." It was denied at the outset.

it wasn't required, but if you aren't going to defend yourself and hide behind some legal precedent BS well after the fact, then he got what he deserved. suspension. the report said more likely than not, (meaning what is believable) is that he did it.

And in the appeal process he said he went on to destroy it. would you do that if you were innocent. even if that was your process. he said after the NFL said they wouldn't need the phone, he destroyed the phone. but why the hell would you do that? it's still up in the air. if you have a case, you keep your documents ready to go.

and sure, make them go to court if you are hell bent on on the legal process. but he doesn't have it for court now. we are supposed to believe him...just because.

i hope when the upheld the suspension they also said the huge circle of protection they have provided him from tuck rule to barely even being able to touch him is a thing of the past. if the NFL didn't protect him enough for him to have to suffer this "injustice", they should him know they aren't up for it when he gets back.

Let him know what the other 31 qbs who play face every season.

[sudzy]

the question is about the legal authority for the NFL to request that Brady turn over the phone.

Of course they have the legal authority to request Brady to turn over his phone. They obviously don't have the legal authority to make him. I have every right to request to see you phone, just like you have every right to tell me to go to hell. I just think if I had done nothing wrong and my reputation was taking the beating that Tom's is, I would do everything I could to prove my innocents. Which means turning over the phone.

[YardRat]

Sure, but that's the use of personal property for business purposes. That's not what occurred here.

If Brady is texting back and forth with the ball boys regarding the deflation of game balls for use on Sundays it absolutely is what occurred here. His phone, being used for business.

[casdhf]

It's certainly within their right to ask, but that's not the question. The question is do they have the legal authority to do so?

My question isn't about Brady's guilt or innocence, because frankly I don't care. The nothing to hide argument is a fallacy.

- - - Updated - - -



Fair point.

Big words. Hiding behind the constitution here? Take a look at the CBA. I think the league has the ability to pretty much do whatever they want during an investigation. Playing in the league is a privilege, not a right.

- - - Updated - - -

It's certainly within their right to ask, but that's not the question. The question is do they have the legal authority to do so?

My question isn't about Brady's guilt or innocence, because frankly I don't care. The nothing to hide argument is a fallacy.

- - - Updated - - -



Fair point.

Big words. Hiding behind the constitution here? Take a look at the CBA. I think the league has the ability to pretty much do whatever they want during an investigation. Playing in the league is a privilege, not a right.

[YardRat]

Just a tidbit from the standard player contract...

15.INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

[JoeMama]

[DraftBoy]

it was proven the balls were deflated. it is now in the employers hands to sort out what happened. "do you want to provide evidence to support your side. Would you provide the phone." It was denied at the outset.

it wasn't required, but if you aren't going to defend yourself and hide behind some legal precedent BS well after the fact, then he got what he deserved. suspension. the report said more likely than not, (meaning what is believable) is that he did it.

And in the appeal process he said he went on to destroy it. would you do that if you were innocent. even if that was your process. he said after the NFL said they wouldn't need the phone, he destroyed the phone. but why the hell would you do that? it's still up in the air. if you have a case, you keep your documents ready to go.

and sure, make them go to court if you are hell bent on on the legal process. but he doesn't have it for court now. we are supposed to believe him...just because.

i hope when the upheld the suspension they also said the huge circle of protection they have provided him from tuck rule to barely even being able to touch him is a thing of the past. if the NFL didn't protect him enough for him to have to suffer this "injustice", they should him know they aren't up for it when he gets back.

Let him know what the other 31 qbs who play face every season.

I never made a case that he didn't get what he deserved. You're confusing my question, I'm not asking it as a defense of Brady, because I don't care about what happens to him or this issue. I'm simply interested in what legal authority the NFL has in this situation. Especially since it was the league and not his team asking for the phone.

I have no interest in trying to understand or make assumptions about why he destroyed his phone, though I would say that anybody who knows anything about smart phones or legal procedures know that releasing the fact that he destroyed the phone was a PR move by the NFL because it doesn't matter. The physical phone is not the only way to get the information that was contained on it. A recent Wired magazine piece talked about how its a BS bit of info because the NFL could try and subpoena the electronic records. Which again gets me back to my question, do they have the legal authority to obtain those?

Again the rest of your post doesn't really have anything to do with what I'm trying to get at.

- - - Updated - - -

Big words. Hiding behind the constitution here? Take a look at the CBA. I think the league has the ability to pretty much do whatever they want during an investigation. Playing in the league is a privilege, not a right.

Ok...so cite that part of the CBA then...

[DraftBoy]

If Brady is texting back and forth with the ball boys regarding the deflation of game balls for use on Sundays it absolutely is what occurred here. His phone, being used for business.

And if he denies that, then we're supposed to just take your word for it? That's the situation we're in. He's not admitting to conducting business on his personal phone, so unless you're telling me the standard for this kind of thing should start at hearsay we're at an impasse.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they have the legal authority to request Brady to turn over his phone. They obviously don't have the legal authority to make him. I have every right to request to see you phone, just like you have every right to tell me to go to hell. I just think if I had done nothing wrong and my reputation was taking the beating that Tom's is, I would do everything I could to prove my innocents. Which means turning over the phone.

Why even accept the premise of the accusation in the first place?

[Joe Fo Sho]

Why even accept the premise of the accusation in the first place?

Because it has the potential to result in a 4 game suspension and cost you over a million dollars.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Just a tidbit from the standard player contract...

15.INTEGRITY OF GAME. Player recognizes the detriment to the League and professional football that would result from impairment of public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of NFL games or the integrity and good character of NFL players. Player therefore acknowledges his awareness that if he accepts a bribe or agrees to throw or fix an NFL game; fails to promptly report a bribe offer or an attempt to throw or fix an NFL game; bets on an NFL game; knowingly associates with gamblers or gambling activity; uses or provides other players with stimulants or other drugs for the purpose of attempting to enhance on-field performance; or is guilty of any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football, the Commissioner will have the right, but only after giving Player the opportunity for a hearing at which he may be represented by counsel of his choice, to fine Player in a reasonable amount; to suspend Player for a period certain or indefinitely; and/or to terminate this contract.

Does this also apply to the commissioner and other league employees and contractors, or is it only players that can negatively affect the integrity of the game?

[JoeMama]

Well, we do know Roger friggin' Goodell ain't no bastion of integrity.

Not to defend Brady, but Paul Tagliabue must be pissed at the way Goodell is hurting the sport he built into something great.

[Joe Fo Sho]

Does this also apply to the commissioner and other league employees and contractors, or is it only players that can negatively affect the integrity of the game?

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.

[DraftBoy]

Because it has the potential to result in a 4 game suspension and cost you over a million dollars.

And he claims he'll be challenging that in the Court of Law. Doesn't mean he has to accept the premise of the accusation.

[Joe Fo Sho]

And he claims he'll be challenging that in the Court of Law. Doesn't mean he has to accept the premise of the accusation.

Handing over your phone doesn't necessarily mean you've accepted the 'premise of the accusation.' He doesn't have to accept the premise of the accusation to comply with the investigation. AP sure didn't accept the premise of his accusation.

[trapezeus]

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.

[better days]

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.

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.

The fact Brady destroyed his phone should be enough for IDIOTS & Pats* fans to realize Brady CHEATED.

And even if his suspension is reduced to 0 games by the Court, that does not mean anyone will think Brady is less guilty of Cheating than if he serves the full 4 game suspension.

[Bill Cody]

If Brady is texting back and forth with the ball boys regarding the deflation of game balls for use on Sundays it absolutely is what occurred here. His phone, being used for business.

It's really an interesting question. If this was a team phone clearly Brady would need to turn it over.

The only time I can remember the league asking for someone's phone was when Brett Favre was harassing that Jets cheerleader, sending her dick pics, etc and the league said they wanted to see his phone. Brett declined and I think the punishment was a $25,000 fine.

The thing is, the league did get both McNally and Jastremski's phones. They have all the texts both in and out including from Brady. The also got Bellichick's phone.

[SpikedLemonade]

"Cheater Cheater Pumpkin Eater..."

Grow up!

[casdhf]

- - - Updated - - -



Ok...so cite that part of the CBA then...

Read the pages in the 300s.

[DraftBoy]

Handing over your phone doesn't necessarily mean you've accepted the 'premise of the accusation.' He doesn't have to accept the premise of the accusation to comply with the investigation. AP sure didn't accept the premise of his accusation.

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.