#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[dcmissle]

Two reasons:
 
1.  They make think this process is a sham, and have argued it is illegitimate, but they really cannot afford to guess wrong and lose.  There is a non-frivolous argument, at least, that this process was agreed to in the CBA.
 
2.  Generally you cannot raise when attacking a ruling points that you could have raised, but didn't, when the matter was before Goodell.  Otherwise, you will be met with waiver arguments before the district court judge.
 
Those are two legal reasons.  Additionally, I have no problem "showing my hand" if it's a strong one.

 

[Punchado]

Yes, there is no risk in showing your hand when you are arguing about the age of the Universe with a creationist.  

 

[Harry Hooper]

Two reasons:
 
1.  They make think this process is a sham, and have argued it is illegitimate, but they really cannot afford to guess wrong and lose.  There is a non-frivolous argument, at least, that this process was agreed to in the CBA.
 
2.  Generally you cannot raise when attacking a ruling points that you could have raised, but didn't, when the matter was before Goodell.  Otherwise, you will be met with waiver arguments before the district court judge.
 
Those are two legal reasons.  Additionally, I have no problem "showing my hand" if it's a strong one.

 
 
Thanks, were I unlucky enough to need Kessler but lucky enough to have him representing my case, I certainly wouldn't second-guess his approach!
 
Just curious about the difference in tactics seen. As pertains to your #2, though, I don't know the details but that wasn't an insurmountable obstacle for Vilma apparently.

 

[drbretto]

Yes, there is no risk in showing your hand when you are arguing about the age of the Universe with a creationist.  

 
Boy, that's a hell of a way to put that.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I'll add one point to the showing of the hand discussion (though Punch's pithy one-liner is impossible to top):
 
There isn't a lot of downside to Brady and the NFLPA in letting the NFL know where they are going.  This isn't a gotcha situation when a revelation is going to knock the NFL off its ass.  The basic paths that Brady could take are already known.  And even if Brady was to unfurl a new line of attack that would unsettle the NFL's lawyers at trial, there is often an opportunity for post-trial briefing (as we are seeing re Goodell's Kabuki Theater).
 
As a related point, I like the atmospheric of Brady presenting an earnest and consistent case.  "We have nothing to hide, your Honor.  As we told Mr. Goodell in a 9-hour hearing..."

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

Also the NFL lawyers aren't dumb people and the union showing why they will win in court might persuade the NFL to elect to avoid court all together by finding a middle ground with Tom. 
 
To that end, everyone seems very convinced that the violations of the CBA are clear and that the punishment is not aligned with previous punishments.  My understanding is that those two reasons are why the judge will side with Brady.  So what is the NFL's angle?  If we see it then they see it two.  There are only two plausible scenarios I can think of:
1. The NFL just doesn't care about losing in court.  They have already won the PR battle and that is good enough for them.
2. The NFL thinks they can keep this from ever hitting the courts.
 
I don't know much about #2.  Can someone enlighten us?  Is this a sure thing to even get in front of a judge or are there things the NFL can do to put a stop to it after the appeal decision comes out?  It would blow chunks if Brady truly does have a slam dunk winner in court, but gets prevented from ever getting that chance.
 
Also is the willfull ignorance of the local media about the proceedings and next steps pissing anyone else off?  I'm not talking about the "Hot Sportz Takz!!!" but the complete lack of basic understanding.  I am not expecting these guys to become legal experts, but yesterday Holley was talking about how a jury might not be convinced by what Tom Brady testifies.  It takes about 5-10 minutes to get a basic understanding that it would not be a trial, there would not be a jury, there will not be pre-trail discovery, etc....  I am not a lawyer but learning the general process is not hard.  Its lazy and pathetic.

 

[dcmissle]

The NFL cannot prevent this from getting to court.  It can make lots of arguments about why RG's decision should be upheld, but the decision is reviewable.

 

[bankshot1]

How many bites of the apple does the NFL get?
 
Is the Wells Report and now the appeal, the sole record a Federal judge can use to review the process? Or can additional evidecne be submitted?

 

[txexile]

 
 
Don't get your hopes up. The Commish's started off his "State of the League" speech at the Super Bowl with a line about how the NFL has the best media partners in the world!

 
Most legit reporters (and I worked in daily journalism for more than 30 years so I've known many) cringe when they are called "media partners." That said, the watchdogs of another era -- publications like Columbia Journalism Review, More Magazine, the American Journalism Review -- are either defunct or tied to academic institutions that take a, shall we say, more ethereal view of its audience and topics for investigation. (On today's CJR blog: "The Messy Case of Egypt's Journalists Union.")
 
In any case, some organizations -- notably not ESPN -- still have ombudsmen to help air out issues like the ones this case includes: complicity of journalists with the organizations they cover, reckless use of anonymous sources, willful ignorance of the actual facts of a case. Other organizations have outsider voices -- think Simmons (before), Florio -- who are not part of the rank and file and who can generally be depended upon over time to raise uncomfortable issues. But so far in this particular case, the stunning lack of curiosity and the overall unwillingness to look under all the rocks in the NFL's office are symptoms of the kind of corrupt behaviors you can always expect when so-called journalists are co-opted by the organizations they cover. No sports journalist wants to risk the free passes and access to decision makers that would accompany too many impertinent questions. 

 

[Doctor G]

Joe Dokes, my guess is that there are many people with senior positions across the NFL who (a) have a "there you go again" attitude about the Pats and (b) found the team's conduct regarding the availability of witnesses and Tom's unwillingness to turnover his phone records (after Wells apparently agreed to limit it to only those relating to DG) to be quite damning.  I would guess, also, that some think that the Pats/Brady should have cut a deal with the NFL a long time ago to make this thing go away and blame Tom for not making it known to the NFL behind the scenes that he would move on with a two game suspension (assuming that did not in fact happen). 
 
Not that anyone with those views is being fair or is correct.  I also assume that officials on other teams are affected in varying degrees by their level of regard for Bob, Bill and Tom, and some will be petty types who will be affected by the fact that the Pats have been winners for all these years.  The NFL official I mentioned up thread is with a team whose fans particularly hate the Pats, fwiw.
 
But I do think there is a general sense that the Pats "did something here," regardless of how flawed the Wells Report is and the other many dubious aspects of this whole debacle.
 
For all the talk about Kraft's power and influence, we have not heard ONE owner come out with statement that is even remotely supportive of the Patriots (as far as I know).  That could speak to Goodell's level of control, but it could also reflect that the other owners and team officials just think the Pats did something wrong here, again, and should pay.
 
PS: I know I did not directly deal with your distinction between owners and GMs/coaches.  That's mostly because I simply don't know.  When I speak about NFL executives, I have senior front office people in mind, but that's probably an artificial division.

No owner would benefit from being publicly critical of the league office. As far as being supportive of the perceived evil Pats they are not likely to tell their fans to stop drinking that bitter kool-aid.

 

[Doctor G]

I will once again put on my well worn tinfoil hat and speculate that there might be a political component to this ongoing drama. The Obama snub and the subsequent AEI report suggests to me that there might be well placed GOP king makers who have a serious interest in TB's ongoing reputation and who also have a serious desire for a Senate seat in deep blue California.
A finding that exonerates Brady from wrongdoing and finds him only guilty of protecting the little guy and standing up for privacy would seem to be a lot better for someone contemplating a future political career.
I realize this might seem farfetched, but the American Enterprise Institute is not exactly non-partisan.

 

[kartvelo]

Doctor G - silenced by the NSA.

 

[JimBoSox9]

They already penetrated V&N a couple weeks ago; I'm sure suppression in the public forums has been within their arsenal for awhile.

 

[jimbobim]

Jason Cole on one of his stupid " I want you to listen to this video so I'm not going to write an accompanying article" says the NFL is still clinging to the text messages even though the science has ruled that "something" happening was more probably then not  nature.
 
The NFL is dead set on maintaining some type of suspension and therefore are only willing to reduce the suspension if Brady doesn't bring it to court. (Cole)
 
Essentially 4 games and court or 2 reputation continues to be damaged but Brady gets to "move on" to this year. 
 
I don't see how that works for Brady. It's also a ridiculous stance for NFL and RG to take. More proof that the games suspended was always 4 to allow RG room to negotiate and avoid Court.
 
The circus will continue on and I'm sure both sides realize that and realized it in the first hour of that meeting Tuesday.  

 

[allstonite]

Legal people, I'm sure this has been covered in one of these threads but I'm not sure we have a clear answer. I see everyone (including myself) saying that his next step is to take this to court. But I was thinking what does that actually mean and what are the possibilities? 
 
-Is he taking it to court strictly because of the labor law/CBA violations? Does that mean that the suspension is invalid because the proper protocols weren't followed. It seems he has a very strong case on these grounds with the delegating to Vincent issue or the no neutral 3rd party appeal. This would be great but if he gets off on this the perception would still be there that he got off on a technicality. Not the worst thing in the world but still frustrating.
 
-Is he taking pretty much the exact same trial he brought to Goodell/Wells in the investigation and appeal but to a judge instead?  Meaning all of the relevant science and procedural issues come into play. This would probably be optimal because if everything we believe is true and holds up, a judge would rip Goodell's case to shreds, Brady's name would be cleared and it would look better historically. 
 
-Is he just trying to get another hearing or appeal using a true neutral third party ruling. This would also be good because I would believe the facts are on Brady's side and hopefully he would get cleared. 
 
Thank you for any clarification. 

 

[Devizier]

I will once again put on my well worn tinfoil hat and speculate that there might be a political component to this ongoing drama. The Obama snub and the subsequent AEI report suggests to me that there might be well placed GOP king makers who have a serious interest in TB's ongoing reputation and who also have a serious desire for a Senate seat in deep blue California.
A finding that exonerates Brady from wrongdoing and finds him only guilty of protecting the little guy and standing up for privacy would seem to be a lot better for someone contemplating a future political career.
I realize this might seem farfetched, but the American Enterprise Institute is not exactly non-partisan.

You're right, that is pretty far fetched.

 

[Bleedred]

You're right, that is pretty far fetched.

You're being kind.  It's preposterous

 

[Ed Hillel]

So if Roger does the "2 games if you don't go to court" avenue, what is the logic going to be behind that? He's going to have to give a reason in his ruling, so I'd love to see exactly how that's written up that won't come back to bite him in the ass in court. We will agree to reduce it to 2 because...?

 

[Average Reds]

I will once again put on my well worn tinfoil hat and speculate that there might be a political component to this ongoing drama. The Obama snub and the subsequent AEI report suggests to me that there might be well placed GOP king makers who have a serious interest in TB's ongoing reputation and who also have a serious desire for a Senate seat in deep blue California.
A finding that exonerates Brady from wrongdoing and finds him only guilty of protecting the little guy and standing up for privacy would seem to be a lot better for someone contemplating a future political career.
I realize this might seem farfetched, but the American Enterprise Institute is not exactly non-partisan.

 
And we are through the looking glass.

 

[Harry Hooper]

You're right, that is pretty far fetched.

It also ignores the AEI folks jumping in on the earlier NFL court case.

 

[Average Reds]

It also ignores the AEI folks jumping in on the earlier NFL court case.

 
That's a different initiative designed to support the inevitable ascension of President Vilma.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The 2/done versus 4/court arrangement is not going to be announced anywhere and it wont be part of any written decision. 
 
It's a conversation with Tom's lawyers.  "We're willing to reduce the sentence but we want finality.  Absent finality, the suspension stands."
 
If and when Tom says GFY, then Goodell issues his decision along the lines that the hearing on Tuesday did not move the needle and that all of the reasons justifying the 4-games remain. 
 
In Goodell's shoes, I would do exactly the same thing.  If Goodell lops off two games and Tom still takes him to Court, he looks a little weak and is in a less advantageous, principled position in Court.

 

[Myt1]

I agree with that.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Has Brady ever said anything publicly that could remotely be construed as him being interested in a career in politics after his football career is over?  I know he attended the one State of the Union address years ago.  Beyond that?  Where does this whole thing come from?
 
I really hope Brady spends his post-NFL career traveling the world, spending his millions and banging his absurdly hot wife.  Fuck politics, why would he want to deal with that bullshit?

 

[CaptainLaddie]

The only thing that worries me: Goodell decides to wait until 4 weeks into camp to issue his ruling, leaving the NFLPA and Brady a very short amount of time to get an injunction to push things off the start of the season (like, days, not weeks or months).  And Goodell does reduce it to 2 games, but now Brady is seen as "not a team player" because "now it's a distraction" (I don't subscribe to those but that's what will happen).

 

[ivanvamp]

What's to stop Goodell from waiting until this November or December to issue his ruling, thus taking Brady out of the most important games of the season and maybe playoffs?  Is there anything in the rules prohibiting that?

 

[Ed Hillel]

Wrong Thread.

 

[dcmissle]

TB would get a temporary restraining order the day after, and a preliminary injunction shortly thereafter.

TB bears all the risk of irreparable harm, and the balance of hardship tilts decisively in his favor.

Things are bad enough. Let's not wander with Alice into Wonderland to conjure up additional horrors.

 

[scott bankheadcase]

 
And we are through the looking glass.

 
How do the reverse vampires fit in?

 

[DJnVa]

What's to stop Goodell from waiting until this November or December to issue his ruling, thus taking Brady out of the most important games of the season and maybe playoffs?  Is there anything in the rules prohibiting that?

 
Okay, Goodell is the devil and all that, but come on...
 

 

[TomRicardo]

What's to stop Goodell from waiting until this November or December to issue his ruling, thus taking Brady out of the most important games of the season and maybe playoffs?  Is there anything in the rules prohibiting that?

 
The networks coming after Goodell for screwing with high ratings game.  It seems like NBC is already fine with running at Goodell full tilt.

 

[Van Everyman]

Is anyone getting the impression that Florio is beginning to be the media member who DOES see not mere bias and wrongdoing but, perhaps more importantly, THE BIGGER STORY? It would be nice to think someone with his megaphone realizes that it would be a pretty significant notch on his belt not just to flip the angle on this story, but to flip it to something clearly (you'd think) more earth shattering than Patriots and footballs being down a tick or two - i.e., league office scandal.

If Florio is really continuing to dig on this, in hopes of being The Guy who broke this wide open, that'd be pretty spectacular. Please, Florio, lean hard into your own self-interest. Go, go, go.

Edit: autocorrect b.s.

So I love this idea but continue to wonder at what point Goodell/NBC tells Florio to knock it off if he wants to keep his role on Sunday Night Football.

 

[nighthob]

How do the reverse vampires fit in?

From behind.

 

[bankshot1]

So I love this idea but continue to wonder at what point Goodell/NBC tells Florio to knock it off if he wants to keep his role on Sunday Night Football.

We need a Woodward and Bernstein and a Deep Threat.

 

[AB in DC]

 
In Goodell's shoes, I would do exactly the same thing.  If Goodell lops off two games and Tom still takes him to Court, he looks a little weak and is in a less advantageous, principled position in Court.

 
I can't imagine a less principled position than he has today.
 
 
But seriously, wouldn't a reduction in penalty put the NFL in a better position to tell a court that their process works?  Brady appealed, presented new evidence (or cooperated better or whatever) and the NFL acted accordingly.  I'd think that would work against the eventual Kessler argument that it was a sham from start to finish.

 

[dcmissle]

I followed Florio for a good long while before he sold the site to NBC.  He was a practicing lawyer in those days, and although I didn't know the breath or depth of his practice, I got the sense that he is a bright guy and  a good lawyer.
 
I think the lawyer in him is outraged.  In the main, we do have scruples and a sense of fairness.  Florio has figured it out.  This isn't  railroading somebody to a 20-year stretch for a crime he didn't commit.  It very much appears to be the sports equivalent of that.

 

[LogansDad]

I will once again put on my well worn tinfoil hat and speculate that there might be a political component to this ongoing drama. The Obama snub and the subsequent AEI report suggests to me that there might be well placed GOP king makers who have a serious interest in TB's ongoing reputation and who also have a serious desire for a Senate seat in deep blue California.
A finding that exonerates Brady from wrongdoing and finds him only guilty of protecting the little guy and standing up for privacy would seem to be a lot better for someone contemplating a future political career.
I realize this might seem farfetched, but the American Enterprise Institute is not exactly non-partisan.

 
....... Hahahahahaha.  
 
No wonder SeanBerry hates us so much.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

 
....... Hahahahahaha.  
 
No wonder SeanBerry hates us so much.

On the other hand, is this any crazier than the widely held view that Robert Kraft would have Goodell fire Mike Kensil for setting up a sting?

You guys gave Berry plenty of ammo long before this post.

p.s. Sorry General Rev...like a moth to a flame...

 

[ifmanis5]

On the other hand, is this any crazier than the widely held view that Robert Kraft would have Goodell fire Mike Kensil for setting up a sting?

That's a widely held view?

 

[Doctor G]

On the other hand, is this any crazier than the widely held view that Robert Kraft would have Goodell fire Mike Kensil for setting up a sting?
You guys gave Berry plenty of ammo long before this post.
p.s. Sorry General Rev...like a moth to a flame...

Ask Stan Kroenke.

 

[dcmissle]

On the other hand, is this any crazier than the widely held view that Robert Kraft would have Goodell fire Mike Kensil for setting up a sting?

You guys gave Berry plenty of ammo long before this post.

p.s. Sorry General Rev...like a moth to a flame...

What's the crazy part, the sting or the firing? DC radio host with no axe to grind spent 20 minutes of afternoon drive time today - yes 20 -- offering his theory of DG.

verdict - a sting gone bad run by Kensil and other Jets' sympathizers in the NFL office. Chose to cover up rather than come clean and using this to increase future leverage vs players ("if they can do that to Brady ...")

The naive part was thinking Kraft could get redress.

 

[JimBoSox9]

The problem with calling it a sting is I feel like generally the official party has to enable the suspect party to do the deed, or at least engage in some kind of active deception. All Kensil did was withhold information from the suspect. That's a trap clear as day, but not a sting.

 

[JimBoSox9]

Duplicate

 

[Harry Hooper]

The problem with calling it a sting is I feel like generally the official party has to enable the suspect party to do the deed, or at least engage in some kind of active deception. All Kensil did was withhold information from the suspect. That's a trap clear as day, but not a sting.

OK, but if Spygate involves a camera guy in plain view of over 50,000 people filming another guy in plain view of over 50,000 people, then Kensil ran a sting.

 

[JimBoSox9]

OK, but if Spygate involves a camera guy in plain view of over 50,000 people filming another guy in plain view of over 50,000 people, then Kensil ran a sting.

If you want to properize it and label it Stinggate, I won't stop you. Certainly comes closer to the mark than Deflategate.

But, it wasn't a sting.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

The specific claim that DeJesus is mocking is that Kraft would have Goodell fire Kensil for setting up a sting, not just the claim that DG was a sting operation. Pretty clearly, many of us here (and even a lot of non-Pats fans) wildly overestimated Kraft's influence with Goodell and the other owners. Before the Wells report came out, several Colts fans told me that the Pats would get off because Goodell was in the bag for Kraft. Not so much.

In any event I don't see much evidence of a "sting." I see the Colts and Kensil seizing the opportunity to smack down the Pats when they thought they caught them red-handed. If it was a sting, it was the most incompetent sting of all time.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

If it was a sting, it was the most incompetent sting of all time.

 
I generally agree with you, but this is the NFL we are talking about.  Just regular old incompetence would be an overall improvement for this clown show.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I think it was worse in practice than the conventional sting.
 
In the typical case, the authorities provide an opportunity for a person to commit a crime and while the person is taking the bait and before he does any real damage, he gets arrested.  For example, a police officer poses as a prostitute, a john pays her money and before they get busy, he gets arrested.  Or a trap is set for a someone to bribe a public official.  Just after the bribe is offered, and before the official acts on it, the victim is arrested.
 
Here, the NFL suspected the Pats were messing with the balls, they let them do whatever they do before or during the Colts game, they let the first half proceed with balls they suspected were tampered with and only after 30 minutes of football did they try to ascertain whether a "crime" had in fact been committed and prevented the Pats from furthering their supposed plot.
 
That they were totally inept in all respects doesn't change the fact that the NFL, which believed the Pats were doing something that compromised the integrity of the game, allowed the supposed advantage taking to done for the first half of the AFC Championship Game.  That's like the cops allowing the John to have sex with the cop/fake prostitute before making the arrest.  Or allowing the drug dealer who buys product from the cops to sell it on the street before the arrest.
 
That the NFL didn't simply tell the Pats before the game not to screw with the balls is of course amazing and makes clear that the NFL was more interested in nailing the Pats than protecting the evenness of the playing field.  And even if their intent was singly to  catch the Pats red handed, they should have measured the Pats balls and then pulled any underinflated balls before the game started.
 
But the fact that the NFL acted foolishly in both respects doesn't change the fact that they sat in wait for the Pats to commit a "crime" and then took actions to see if their suspicions were warranted.  That looks like a sting to me.  Not that the label matters...it was a stupid approach no matter what it's called.

 

[loshjott]

The specific claim that DeJesus is mocking is that Kraft would have Goodell fire Kensil for setting up a sting, not just the claim that DG was a sting operation. Pretty clearly, many of us here (and even a lot of non-Pats fans) wildly overestimated Kraft's influence with Goodell and the other owners. Before the Wells report came out, several Colts fans told me that the Pats would get off because Goodell was in the bag for Kraft. Not so much.

In any event I don't see much evidence of a "sting." I see the Colts and Kensil seizing the opportunity to smack down the Pats when they thought they caught them red-handed. If it was a sting, it was the most incompetent sting of all time.

 
Why was it incompetent? It resulted (so far) in a major AFC rival losing their GOAT QB for a quarter of the season and loss of draft picks, and public ridicule. It was a pretty brilliantly played sting, if that's what it was.

 

[Gorton Fisherman]

So here's something that irritates me about about Deflategate truthers who insist that even if they were to admit that the Wells science has been effectively debunked, there are still "THE TEXTS!!" and "THE BATHROOM BREAK!!", and that those factors alone are still enough to convict the Patriots/Brady.
 
The Wells report conclusions basically rest on three major evidentiary components: science + texts + "suspicious activity" by McNally on game day (e.g. bathroom break etc). The three components were not weighted equally by Wells; about half of the Wells report was dedicated purely to the science component. Using the combination of all three of these components, Wells concluded that it was "more likely than not" that intentional tampering occurred. As we all know, this is a relatively "weak" standard. "More likely than not" = "preponderance of evidence"; basically the accused is considered guilty if the "percentage" of evidence is as low as 51%-49% against.
 
If you now admit that the science is debunked/unreliable/non-probative, that eliminates one of the three evidentiary components. Moreover, it eliminates the most significant of the three components, judging by the degree of emphasis in the "prosecutor's" own argument. So now you're left with just texts + suspicious activity. Could Wells seriously argue that these two components by themselves still reach the "more likely than not" standard? If you take out the science, are you really still at 51%-49% against the Patriots/Brady? Let's say the science stuff had been completely omitted from the original Wells report. Would any fair-minded person still conclude that it is "more likely than not" that the Pats/Brady cheated on the basis of the remaining two factors alone? 
 
Seems crazy to me.