If I was framed for a crime I did not commit, and I could not provide decent evidence of my innocence, I would probably give up. I believe the American justice system is not about justice but rather about who has the better lawyer, and I would be loathe to further fund the misguided American legal system with more taxpayer dollars in a futile attempt to defend myself.
However, calling Deflategate a crime is a bit harsh. I liken Deflategate to more like falsifying a resume. Someone who gets caught falsifying a resume likely will not go to jail, but he will have difficulty finding a job. Similarly, a student caught cheating on a college entrance exam would be unlikely to go to jail, but unable to attend a decent college if the cheating became common knowledge to the general public.
I believe Brady has not committed a crime, but that he has cheated and purposely broken NFL rules.
The "deflator" texts in the Time article I noted are not likely to be about dieting to lose body fat (as ridiculously claimed by defense lawyers). These texts were weeks or months before the Indy game, and I believe that the texts strongly implicate that Brady pressured McNally to break NFL rules.
Given that Deflategate is cheating rather than a crime, I do not think that the evidence needs to be perfect to justify suspending Brady for 2 or 4 games.
brENsKi · Member since
as it's obvious you DO NOT intend to answer the question the way it was worded, let's make it EXACTLY the same as the given situation - you do realise that your agenda is all-too-clear [b][i]"haters gonna hate"[/i][/b]
so consider this. if someone said that [b][i]"you were more probably than not aware of rules being broken" [/i][/b] 1] does this confirm that [b][i]you[/i][/b] were actually aware? 2] can this be [b][i]proven[/i][/b]? 3] does this make [b][i]you[/i][/b] guilty?
answer honestly and specifically, please - using simple [b]YES [/b]and [b]NO[/b] answers. no explanations no hypothesis...
YES and NO will more than suffice.
Saint Jiub · Member since
100% confirmation - NO
~90% confirmation (beyond reasonable doubt) - NO (USA criminal law)
51% confirmation (preponderance of evidence) - YES (USA civil law)
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
100% confirmation - NO
~90% confirmation (beyond reasonable doubt) - NO (USA criminal law)
51% confirmation (preponderance of evidence) - YES (USA civil law)[/QUOTE]
you're astounding human being, and NOBODY here would EVER want you presiding on a jury over their case.
innocent until proven guilty, unless in Marsupial Court of Panchgani eh?
think about it
100% you were not aware + 90% that it can't be proven = 51% guilty?
how in the name of fuck can YOU claim to have a functioning, reasoning brain? you have clearly - beyond all doubt shown your true colours - your agenda is one of anti-Patriots, enjoy it
only time will tell how this whole thing pans out...but you sir, are beyond reason (even your own reasoning)
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]
100% you were not aware + 90% that it can't be proven = 51% guilty?
100% confirmation - NO to all 3 questions
~90% confirmation (beyond reasonable doubt) - NO to all 3 questions (USA criminal law)
51% confirmation (preponderance of evidence) - YES to all 3 questions (USA civil law)
"you were more probably than not aware of rules being broken" = 51 % confirmation
In your 100% perfect world Brady would be found "Not Guilty"
In a criminal case, Brady would probably be found "Not Guilty"
In a civil case, Brady would probably be found "Guilty"
The King Of Rhye · Member since
Just a random thought here....I bet if we really looked into every team in every sport we'd find a LOT of this kind of stuff going on......not that it's exactly what we're talking about here, but I've heard all kinds of stories about baseball teams doing all kinds of screwy things.....
brENsKi · Member since
Just remember Mr Panchgani, I said earlier that you clearly had an agenda [QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b]you do realise that your agenda is all-too-clear [b][i]"haters gonna hate"[/i][/b] [/QUOTE] - and these two posts (below) shows you do:- [QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]Patriot's coach Bill Bela[b]cheat[/b] - Fined $500,000 for Spygate in 2007. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b] In your 100% perfect world [b]Brady[/b] would be found "Not Guilty" In a criminal case, [b]Brady[/b] would probably be found "Not Guilty" In a civil case, [b]Brady[/b] would probably be found "Guilty"[/QUOTE] you dismiss the questions asked because your fixation is based on Patriots-hating and petty jealousy. your Patriots hate is all-consuming...and you love hating the Patriots more than your love your own pathetic team. idiotic or what? - so much so that you cite (as evidence) biased newpapers reports with no actual evidence included. - my guess? you're a New York [b][i]Jest[/i][/b] Fan. But for the record I never asked you about Brady....i asked whether "You" would be guilty. If YOU can't discuss things by answering the actual questions asked, then you haven't the intelligence to digest,assess and discuss what minimal actual evidence has been disclosed.
[QUOTE] [b]brENsKi wrote:[/b] so consider this. if someone said that [b][i]"you were more probably than not aware of rules being broken" [/i][/b] 1] does this confirm that [b][i]you[/i][/b] were actually aware? 2] can this be [b][i]proven[/i][/b]? 3] does this make [b][i]you[/i][/b] guilty? YES and NO will more than suffice.[/QUOTE]
Saint Jiub · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
51% confirmation (preponderance of evidence) - YES to all 3 questions (USA civil law)
"you were more probably than not aware of rules being broken" = 51 % confirmation
[/QUOTE]
I already answered your questons.
brENsKi · Member since
and now that Robert Kraft has said the Patriots will not appeal the £1m fine and 2 draft-picks penalty...where do you think that leaves the Brady 4-game suspension?
let me put something forward here: I think the NFL are 100% sure that Brady will not only appeal his suspension, but also sue the NFL for defamation - as their "findings" are not based on any actual evidence.
on that basis, i think Kraft's "agreement" today is based on an "understanding" that Brady's suspension is done away with on appeal
Saint Jiub · Member since
Does Goodell recuse himself from the appeal because of an "understanding"? If he does not recuse himself, how will Goodell spin his about-face to completely drop the suspension?
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
Does Goodell recuse himself from the appeal because of an "understanding"? If he does not recuse himself, how will Goodell spin his about-face to completely drop the suspension?[/QUOTE]
i would've thought that dropping the suspension is the easy bit:
1] appeals are won on the basis of lack of evidence - there is NO evidence at all to directly link Brady to ball-deflation.
2] Wells "leaked" confidential aspects of the report post publication when he was asked about the Patriots' counter claims - this is a breach of protocol - and can be seen to directly prejudice the outcome of any subsequent appeal
3] King did NOT have any authority under the CBA to issue punishments - which effectively makes Brady's punishment illegal, which in turn makes it easy to erase.
4] there were NO ACTUAL pre-game PSI recordings taken. Referee - Walt Anderson f**ked up - yet his word is taken as good enough? How could they state balls had deflated by fixed amount - when they don't actually know what pressure they were inflated to?
5] the half-time measurements taken recorded two different figures for EVERY ball - it was later acknowledged (by the NFL) that ONE GAUGE was not recording correctly (coincidentally- the one that produced the figures with the critical discrepancies) - yet BOTH measurements are included in the Wells' Report. This makes the whole basis of the report invalid.
Goodell maintains some face by
1] keeping the fine/draft picks penalty against the team in place
2] increasing the existing tariff of £25k fine threshold against any future breaches of this rule
3] put more robust systems in place
FWIW:
I reckon it'll go like this:
1] Brady appeal will be heard and his four-game ban will be either [a] expunged or [b] reduced to 1 game
2] If [b], Brady will sue NFL on basis of defamation and that ban is illegal - as no evidence links him directly to deflations.
3] Court case will get scheduled for late August and get heard at that time. Result of court case will be disclosed AFTER week 1 of 2015 season opener, thereby Brady plays for defending SB champs in week 1 opener vs Pittsburgh. Goodell gets his marquee opener with BOTH star QBs present.
4] Brady 1-game ban upheld and suspension served either against Buffalo (sept 20th) or Jacksonville (sept 27th)
Saint Jiub · Member since
Goodell confirmed today that the appeal will still proceed
The whole "understanding" can still fall apart. Will Brady and the NFLPA accept this understanding, particularly if the suspension is reduced to a one game suspension rather than expunged?
...
Your statement of "there is NO evidence at all to directly link Brady to ball-deflation" forgets "the two poor schlubs the Patriots suspended"
"Most notably, Kraft refused comment when asked why the Patriots felt the need to suspend ball attendants John Jastremski and Jim McNally if they did nothing wrong.
Sorry. This is a pretty big stepping stone in the Patriots’ leap to convincing the public that they had no hands in the matter.
By now, perhaps Jastremski and McNally are on a golf course in Hawaii with old friend Matt Walsh of Spygate fame, never to be heard from again. But if Kraft is looking for the "smoking gun," it indeed resides with these two nitwits, a factor that the Patriots lawyers likely knew in not allowing McNally to speak with Wells’ investigation a second, fourth, or however many times each side wants to claim this week."
brENsKi · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]Panchgani wrote:[/b]
Your statement of "there is NO evidence at all to directly link Brady to ball-deflation" forgets "the two poor schlubs the Patriots suspended"
"Most notably, Kraft refused comment when asked why the Patriots felt the need to suspend ball attendants John Jastremski and Jim McNally if they did nothing wrong.
[/QUOTE]
you fail to grasp how employment law works. where an investigation is held into work-place wrongdoing it is standard practice to suspend employees on full pay. this is then followed by either a return to work or dismissal - depending upon the outcome.
you're playing your silly game again of assuming guilt based on "perceived reasons" - because you somehow think the suspensions were underhand - but your comments (so far) in this thread show that you are incapable of formulating an opinion based on anything other than your hatred for a team.
don't really want to engage with you any further on this - let's agree to disagree and wait n see how things unfold
