Papelbon's Poutine said:At the risk of being slaughtered I propose a dedicated thread to this thing when the full document leaks, if for nothing else but keeping the discussions on point.
I'm way past the point where I have made up my mind now, yeah. If you showed me a picture of brady with a needle I would absolutely ask for some kind of proof that it wasn't photoshopped because at this point, it would take something pretty significant to change my mind.RIFan said:Umm, no. You are so deeply entrenched at this point that if pictures came out of Brady with a needle stuck in the ball you'd scream "Photoshop!!!" before you'd ever consider that it was even possible it was an untouched picture. You are the walking definition of prejudice, and I guarantee that your response that will follow in approximately 12.3 seconds will only reinforce that. More power to you and your strong convictions, but you are way past the point of being able to consider anything rationally.
Given my four-hour limitation and the need to
11 reserve time for cross-examination, I don't know
12 what the NFL is going to do with witnesses, whether
13 they are going to call Exponent, which they said
14 they might, any of those witnesses, those are all
15 the witnesses I think we are going to be able to
16 call and still have enough time in order to have
17 cross-examination time at all.
ifmanis5 said:How does Brady saying "I respectfully decline" translate for Wells' thinking of his credibility 'I'll just diregard everything he says?' Is that a common legal conclusion?
Was that 40 year comment under oath? Is such hyperbole common is that circumstance? Holy fuck what a stupid thing to say. It's indefensible.simplyeric said:So in 40 years of practice, he's never seen anything that hurt a witnesses credibility more than not producing a phone (along with the communications from it), which he is not required to produce, but which communications were available to him via other sources?
That somehow strikes me as bias right there.
Either that, or he's had 40 years of either incredbily credible witnesses who never did any little think askew, or incredible incredible witneses, for whom phone destruction wouldn't serve to further reduce that person's credibility.
But realistically, that's gotta be hyperbolic bullshit, no?
IIRC only Brady's part was under oath.OnWisc said:Was that 40 year comment under oath? Is such hyperbole common is that circumstance? Holy fuck what a stupid thing to say. It's indefensible.
I don't know if it legally meets the definition of entrapment but holy crap how can the NFL, knowing this very fact, then go leak the damaging report that Brady destroyed his phone, and THEN Goodell bases his punishment in large part on the fact that Brady wiped his old phone?soxhop411 said:
Isn't this entrapment?
. The wrinkle I see is that the steroid analogy is flawed, in that if you're somehow aware of some other guy doing steroids, that doesn't (directly) improve YOUR performance.ivanvamp said:I mean, this point from Kessler's opening statement is right on target, and I don't know how the NFL gets out of this when it's presented to Berman.
It is our position that there is no policy,
4 no precedent, no notice that has ever been given to
5 any player in the NFL that they could be subject to
6 any type of discipline, whether it's conduct
7 detrimental discipline or whether it is under the
8 policy that has been invoked here for being
9 generally aware of something.
10 It would be the equivalent if a player knew
11 or was generally aware that another player was
12 taking steroids, okay, and had nothing to do with
13 it, but had some general awareness of that. The
14 only person who was punished under the Steroid
15 Policy is the person who was taking the steroids.
16 You don't get punished for being generally aware
17 that somebody else is liable.
18 If the League wants to change that, of
19 course, you could promulgate new policies or
20 something else, but we really believe that, (A),
21 there is no such policy. It's not in the CBA. It's
22 not in the Personal Conduct Policy. It's not in
23 the -- it's not in the policy cited here. It's not
24 in any precedent of conduct detrimental and no
25 player has ever been punished for such a thing.
What possibly can the NFL's response be? Kessler is 100% correct.
EDIT: No idea how to format that properly.
ivanvamp said:I don't know if it legally meets the definition of entrapment but holy crap how can the NFL, knowing this very fact, then go leak the damaging report that Brady destroyed his phone, and THEN Goodell bases his punishment in large part on the fact that Brady wiped his old phone?
simplyeric said:. The wrinkle I see is that the steroid analogy is flawed, in that if you're somehow aware of some other guy doing steroids, that doesn't (directly) improve YOUR performance.
An argument could be made that the illegal tampering was intended to improve Brady's performance, so his awareness is culpable. (It's weak, but there it is)
It's maybe like being 'generally aware' that someone was putting steroids in your coffee.
I'm not saying I agree with the logic overall, but the 'someone else doing steroids' comparison has weaknesses.
I appreciate what you're saying, but as an example, an offensive lineman taking steroids could have an impact on a QB's ability to play football, so in that case would the QB be held responsible for being generally aware? Besides Goodell was the one who brought in the steroids analogy...
Fair enough. It came up a lot prior to this too, in our threads, so I was just commenting.There is no Rev said:
I think everyone needs to dial down to the legal case: Kessler is raising the steroid comparison because the NFL raised steroids as a comparable set of punishments due to competitive balance effects.
If we forget that, none of it makes sense.
Yes, there are parts of the transcript where Brady contradicts himself. I can't imagine that helps but hopefully they are parts of the case where Berman isn't going to be looking at.CaptainLaddie said:So, Brady admits he destroys his phone in his testimony but on FB he says he doesn't.
In fairness to Goodell, it is more probable than not that he doesn't know big words like "allegations" and "unprecedented", so it's a kind of honest mistake.Byrdbrain said:Yeah Kyed is doing good work.
Goodell said that Tom told testified he and JJ only talked about ball prep for the SB. In Brady's testimony he clearly states they talked about DG and what went on, after all the news broke that day.
Isn't this entrapment?
Isn't their complaint about K balls? Which the Pats wouldn't have access to?Ed Hillel said:So, Harbaugh and Pagano lied; Ravens are wah wah pants who initiated this whole bullshit.
Ravens alerted the league:
Which is typically how you council your client to answer unless they have an actual and specific recollection.uncannymanny said:Read up through all of the Brady testimony. Going to guess that the narrative begins very soon of Brady being "unable to remember" answers to most of the cross questions.
From Snyder: "Just look at Table A3. Look at their 16 equation. If you can show me -- if anybody can show 17 me that in their statistical model that they used 18 timing after stating and proving to the world that 19 timing matters, then I will change my view."
A (Snyder). Yes, A3, yes, that identifies the model that they ran that generated their so-called statistically significant result.
Q (Reisner, NFL). And that appendix is referenced in connection with their statistical significance analysis, right?
A. No. That's their model. That's their model to explain the difference in difference.
Q. And your criticism is that Exponent didn't take into account timing appropriately, right?
A. When they tested -- when they did their difference in difference analysis, you look at the equations. If I could refer you to the appendix.
Q. It would be better if you could answer my question.
Judy Batista reported it. Batista is arguably the NFL's biggest shill.sleepyjose03 said:Wasn't there initial reports about the NFLPA/Brady wanting to keep the record sealed, not the NFL? Looks like Kessler expressly requested the Transcripts be released DURING the appeal, and the NFL shot him down.
Edit: I took a screenshot of the pages from the report but I cant seem to get it to upload. It's on pages 343/344 - right before the take the 5 minute break.
ElcaballitoMVP said:You guys have to read around page 206 of the transcript where the NFL is cross examining the guy from Yale, Edward Snyder, that Brady brought in to poke holes in Exponents work.
[SIZE=8pt]CROSS/SNYDER/REISNERPage 199 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Q. [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]So you understand that the Exponent report consisted of at least three components: A statistical significance analysis, a transient
analysis and game-day simulations? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]A. [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]I don't -- I don't understand your first characterization. They did an analysis of the difference in difference. They tried to explain it and they didn't include timing. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]That's not the first -- that's not how I would characterize the first component of their work. That's what they said was their most significant work. I think -- [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Q. [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]Show me where in the report it says that's their most significant work. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]A. [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]I think it's in my slides. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Q. [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]I didn't ask you about your slides. Where in their report does it say it's their most significant work? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]A. [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]It's the quote on my slide that identifies
the difference in average pressure drops, Exponent Scenario 2. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=8pt]It says, "What is most significant about the halftime measurements is that the magnitude of the reduction in average pressure was greater for the Patriots football." [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]Q. [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]So your testimony is that that quote says [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]2 [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]that's the most important part of their analysis? [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]3 [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]A. [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]Well, I think most people would agree that [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]4 [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]that is the most important. I mean, you heard [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]5 [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]Mr. Nash's questions and opening. And he focused on [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]6 [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]the difference in difference. The difference in [/SIZE]
[SIZE=9pt]7 [/SIZE][SIZE=8pt]difference is the key to the case. [/SIZE]
The Ravens coaching staff didn't understand the ideal gas law, and it started with the kickers complaining about the balls they were playing with in arctic conditions and spread, I mentioned this in the other thread only to have URI snap at me. The Colts claimed to have spotted this at the game where their ballboy lugged the balls to the field, but really it was the Ravens coaching staff that got the ball rolling on this mess.DrewDawg said:Isn't their complaint about K balls? Which the Pats wouldn't have access to?
Remember in the SB pre-game when Costas asked Harbaugh if he had anything to do with alerting the Colts about the balls and Harbaugh stuck his chin out and defiantly said no. Fuck him.Ed Hillel said:So, Harbaugh and Pagano lied; Ravens are wah wah pants.
Ravens alerted the league:
ifmanis5 said:Remember in the SB pre-game when Costas asked Harbaugh if he had anything to do with alerting the Colts about the balls and Harbaugh stuck his chin out and defiantly said no. Fuck him.
Brady's answers are only evasive if you read it from that view point. This is unfortunately another piece where people will apply their own pre existing biases to arrive at the point they have already determined.Peak Oil Can Boyd said:Apologies if posted, but I haven't seen much discussion of the Florio article about TB's dance around the 12.5 preference.
Brady's answers are pretty clearly evasive, and isn't he on record in at least one television interview as preferring a less-inflated ball?
I'm not sure it means anything, but this does get filed in the "things that make uncomfortable Brady is hiding something" folder.
Q. Now, when you say, "They had eleven balls 10 under compliance," what you meant is that they had eleven balls that were below 12.5 being measured, correct?
Q. But at the time, you didn't know that some of that reduction could happen just because of cold or wetness or other factors, right? That just wasn't something you were aware of, correct?
A. I didn't include science, no, sir.
I get that, but then why say "I've never thought about air pressure before this" when you're on television saying you like the ball underinflated? Isn't that like, not true?( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:Brady's answers are only evasive if you read it from that view point. This is unfortunately another piece where people will apply their own pre existing biases to arrive at the point they have already determined.
I read this as an asshole lawyer trying to trick Tom Brady into saying something, anything, just a tiny bit that could be twisted and spun.
Brady answered like it was no big funking deal what the psi were. Presumably Because it was no big fucking deal.