Tom Brady Suspended for 4 Games, Pats lose 1st round pick in 2016 and 4th in 2017 & fined $1Million

[William F. Russell]

1. Uhh, No. There are labor laws that all private organizations have to abide by. The Patriots cannot fire employees for whatever reason.

2. Sufficient evidence is a subjective standard, which the Wells report obviously met. Again, the charge against Brady is not deflating balls or even refusing to provide phone records, but obstructing the league's investigation (refusing to hand over electronic records were only a part of his obstruction). By refusing to cooperate with an NFL investigation, Brady was found to be in contravention of the league conduct policy. You are absolutely right Brady has no legal requirement to hand over his cell phone records. He also has no legal requirement to be employed by the NFL. If the NFL has concluded that Tom Brady was "generally aware" (notice, they don't have to have incontrovertible proof) of an illegal scheme being operated, and have found him to be acting in a manner that is tarnishing the image of the league by providing implausible and contradictory testimony, they have the right to suspend or fire him.

Confucius says: try harder.

Dumb smart dumb nikka. Your bias and misunderstanding of the facts is so apparent. Have at it.

 

[William F. Russell]

Their universally regarded as cheaters also.

To those who have agendas.

 

[Formerly known as...]

I hope it gets completely over turned!

Brady gonna have a good team of lawyers who will take on the NFL straight up if need be.

Oh the hate will be on epic levels if he doesn't miss a game.

 

[315]

http://tombradyday.com/

Give me a fukkin break

 

[¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

1. Uhh, No. There are labor laws that all private organizations have to abide by. The Patriots cannot fire employees for whatever reason.

2. Sufficient evidence is a subjective standard, which the Wells report obviously met. Again, the charge against Brady is not deflating balls or even refusing to provide phone records, but obstructing the league's investigation (refusing to hand over electronic records were only a part of his obstruction). By refusing to cooperate with an NFL investigation, Brady was found to be in contravention of the league conduct policy. You are absolutely right Brady has no legal requirement to hand over his cell phone records. He also has no legal requirement to be employed by the NFL. If the NFL has concluded that Tom Brady was "generally aware" (notice, they don't have to have incontrovertible proof) of an illegal scheme being operated, and have found him to be acting in a manner that is tarnishing the image of the league by providing implausible and contradictory testimony, they have the right to suspend or fire him.

Confucius says: try harder.

Translation: fall back @SuperCoolP_Cal

 

[23Barrettcity]

Dumb smart dumb nikka. Your bias and misunderstanding of the facts is so apparent. Have at it.

You should put a ban bet up. And calling someone else bias ridiculous !!! Your not even taking the possibility the pats lose their case and I know your blame everyone being against the pats

 

[Shogun]

Funny how Patriots fans are out here saying everyone else has a bias in this.

 

[GulfCoastGhost]

The more Brady and them fight it, the more guilty he looks
Been listening to a lot of Boston sports radio lately, those faqqots sound like some of ya'll defending Brady tooth and nail. For what? Just fess up, spend time with your gorgeous wife on a beach for another 3 weeks, God damn

The rest of the country already made up their mind, you're guilty, now you're just waiting our time

 

[SouljaStu]

Waiting on the next sports story...

 

[No1]

1. Uhh, No. There are labor laws that all private organizations have to abide by. The Patriots cannot fire employees for whatever reason.

2. Sufficient evidence is a subjective standard, which the Wells report obviously met. Again, the charge against Brady is not deflating balls or even refusing to provide phone records, but obstructing the league's investigation (refusing to hand over electronic records were only a part of his obstruction). By refusing to cooperate with an NFL investigation, Brady was found to be in contravention of the league conduct policy. You are absolutely right Brady has no legal requirement to hand over his cell phone records. He also has no legal requirement to be employed by the NFL. If the NFL has concluded that Tom Brady was "generally aware" (notice, they don't have to have incontrovertible proof) of an illegal scheme being operated, and have found him to be acting in a manner that is tarnishing the image of the league by providing implausible and contradictory testimony, they have the right to suspend or fire him.

Confucius says: try harder.

You thought long about this too.


Anyone who dapped your post up does not deserve legal counsel the next time they get hemmed up. They should get a url link to your user account and see how well they fare with your advice.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

1. Uhh, No. There are labor laws that all private organizations have to abide by. The Patriots cannot fire employees for whatever reason.

2. Sufficient evidence is a subjective standard, which the Wells report obviously met. Again, the charge against Brady is not deflating balls or even refusing to provide phone records, but obstructing the league's investigation (refusing to hand over electronic records were only a part of his obstruction). By refusing to cooperate with an NFL investigation, Brady was found to be in contravention of the league conduct policy. You are absolutely right Brady has no legal requirement to hand over his cell phone records. He also has no legal requirement to be employed by the NFL. If the NFL has concluded that Tom Brady was "generally aware" (notice, they don't have to have incontrovertible proof) of an illegal scheme being operated, and have found him to be acting in a manner that is tarnishing the image of the league by providing implausible and contradictory testimony, they have the right to suspend or fire him.

Confucius says: try harder.

I still find it hilarious that "refusing to cooperate with the investigation" = "not handing over cell phone records" (cuz he cooperated with everything else).

How many of you would hand over your cell phone to your employer simply cuz a jealous co-worker accused you of something you didn't do?

 

[King Kreole]

You thought long about this too.


Anyone who dapped your post up does not deserve legal counsel the next time they get hemmed up. They should get a url link to your user account and see how well they fare with your advice.

It's telling that instead of rebuking the content of my post, you just posted that.

Also, I did not give any advice in my post, I just laid out why the NFL is within its rights to suspend Tom Brady. If Brady had heavily incriminating info possibly linking to even worse infractions on his phone, I would advise him to not give up the records. But if he had no incriminating info on his phone and was truly not linked with Deflategate, I would advise him to give up his phone records as exonerating evidence. He's well within his legal rights to not do so, but now he has to suffer the consequences of not doing everything he can to exonerate himself.

I still find it hilarious that "refusing to cooperate with the investigation" = "not handing over cell phone records" (cuz he cooperated with everything else).

How many of you would hand over your cell phone to your employer simply cuz a jealous co-worker accused you of something you didn't do?

According to the Wells Report he did not cooperate with everything else. He gave contradictory and implausible testimony.

Let me put it this way, if there's been a theft from the cash box at work, and there's security footage of someone with your height and build walking into the office at the time of the theft, and they get phone records of a coworker saying "(your name) just came into a lot of money!", and you refuse to give an alibi (as is your legal right), you cannot complain when management comes to the conclusion that you were the most likely party to commit the offense and punishes you accordingly. What Patriots fans don't seem to understand is that they do not have to catch you red handed to be justified in punishing you. If that was the legal standard, 95% of prisons would be empty.

 

[R.E.N. Spells Ren]

According to the Wells Report he did not cooperate with everything else. He gave contradictory and implausible testimony

Where else did he fail to comply?

Let me put it this way, if there's been a theft from the cash box at work, and there's security footage of someone with your height and build walking into the office at the time of the theft, and they get phone records of a coworker saying "(your name) just came into a lot of money!", and you refuse to give an alibi (as is your legal right), you cannot complain when management comes to the conclusion that you were the most likely party to commit the offense and punishes you accordingly. What Patriots fans don't seem to understand is that they do not have to catch you red handed to be justified in punishing you. If that was the legal standard, 95% of prisons would be empty.

You didn't answer the question? Are you giving up your phone to your employer because a jealous co-worker accused you of breaking company policy (like say having an inappropriate relationship with clients which is helping boost your sales)?

The problem with your example is you're talking about a criminal matter. Facing jail time, I'd likely offer up my cellphone to the POLICE with certain assurances about who'd exactly get to see my records and that they'd get destroyed thereafter, etc. Under no circumstance am I letting my employer see my records...especially over a policy issue.

(And for the record, the Patriots DID offer up an alibi with the ideal gas law and how it relates to how they prepare the balls and the game time temperature conditions)

 

[Bernie Madoff]

Are the Patriots appealing that 1st round pick too? Anybody know?

 

[King Kreole]

Where else did he fail to comply?

I would consider giving contradictory and implausible testimony a failure to cooperate. If someone asks you where you were on Monday and you say the moon, you're not being cooperative. We're not privy to Brady's testimony, but "contradictory and implausible testimony" is basically lawyer speak for lying.

You didn't answer the question? Are you giving up your phone to your employer because a jealous co-worker accused you of breaking company policy (like say having an inappropriate relationship with clients which is helping boost your sales)?

It depends. If I'm actually guilty of breaking company policy, then no, i'm not going to incriminate myself. If I'm not guilty, then perhaps. Let's look at what was actually requested of Brady.

“At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence in this case as in most cases comes from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone. And I want to be crystal clear, I told Mr. Brady and his agents I was willing to not take possession of the phone, I don’t want to see any private communications, I said, ‘You keep the phone, you give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word for it’ and they still refused.”

So basically they just asked him to forward them the pertinent text conversations with the involved parties, which would mitigate the potential for snooping or other breaches of privacy that could arise from someone taking possession of your phone. Again, Brady has no requirement to do so. But if my reputation and livelihood is on the line, then yes, I would have no problem exonerating myself by providing that select information.