#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Saw the tweet, assumed DFG. Who talks about trivial things like blood tests? 
[SIZE=1pt]
[/SIZE]
Chris Andersonhttps://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fchr1sa%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y%26sig%3Dc65c21ca28ec935841fbfb04949358993e6ed731%26al%3D1%26refsrc%3Demail%26iid%3Da322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49%26autoactions%3D1445978155%26uid%3D1482032562%26nid%3D244%2B123&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&sig=404a73185183c8cd416c0069f396ce99ee8c52de&iid=a322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49&uid=1482032562&nid=244+123
@chr1sahttps://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fchr1sa%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y%26sig%3Dc65c21ca28ec935841fbfb04949358993e6ed731%26al%3D1%26refsrc%3Demail%26iid%3Da322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49%26autoactions%3D1445978155%26uid%3D1482032562%26nid%3D244%2B123&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&sig=404a73185183c8cd416c0069f396ce99ee8c52de&iid=a322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49&uid=1482032562&nid=244+123
[SIZE=15pt]When the world doubts your science, adding a notorious litigation lawyer to your board is not the best move: nytimes.com/2015/10/27/bus…https://t.co/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FB06V39CvIH%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y%26sig%3D439dea81f434fd74ee7a75907accf9a582f89bd4%26al%3D1%26iid%3Da322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49%26autoactions%3D1445978155%26uid%3D1482032562%26nid%3D244%2B288&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&sig=15d3374334bc65895eda93b62bfab9cf6aca2804&iid=a322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49&uid=1482032562&nid=244+288 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1pt]
[/SIZE]Chris Andersonhttps://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fchr1sa%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y%26sig%3Dc65c21ca28ec935841fbfb04949358993e6ed731%26al%3D1%26refsrc%3Demail%26iid%3Da322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49%26autoactions%3D1445978155%26uid%3D1482032562%26nid%3D244%2B123&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&sig=404a73185183c8cd416c0069f396ce99ee8c52de&iid=a322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49&uid=1482032562&nid=244+123
[SIZE=15pt]When the world doubts your science, adding a notorious litigation lawyer to your board is not the best move: nytimes.com/2015/10/27/bus…https://t.co/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FB06V39CvIH%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y%26sig%3D439dea81f434fd74ee7a75907accf9a582f89bd4%26al%3D1%26iid%3Da322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49%26autoactions%3D1445978155%26uid%3D1482032562%26nid%3D244%2B288&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&sig=15d3374334bc65895eda93b62bfab9cf6aca2804&iid=a322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49&uid=1482032562&nid=244+288 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1pt] View on Twitter [/SIZE]
dcmissle said:
After his most recent trip to SCOTUS, you'd think Boies'd be more notorious among conservatives than liberals, no?
DDB in the legal thread:
And have we reached a point in the process where the FACT that this whole thing is idiotic, trumped up bullshit just doesn't matter anymore?
And was the NFL playing for the appeal all along?
Will it be Kessler responding? Or will NFLPA bring in another hired gun?DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
And have we reached a point in the process where the FACT that this whole thing is idiotic, trumped up bullshit just doesn't matter anymore?
And was the NFL playing for the appeal all along?
Then she should read Denny Doyle's post tonight in the Legal Thead. And as I noted there, do not get carried away with these commentators. With this case now on appeal, I believe Stradley is out of her depth, though my rooting interests align with her's. She admittedly does not know what persuades these judges.DrewDawg said:
It almost certainly will be a team effort. Brady is represented separately by a law firm as good at this stuff as it gets, and they will have huge input unless someone has lost his mind. One person needs the final call on strategy, themes and so forth. We won't know who that person is until the brief is filed. It will be the counsel of record who will argue the appeal.Eddie Jurak said:
Honest question: why is she more out of her depth than any other lawyer? Is specific knowledge of the judges or court that important in these cases?dcmissle said:
By the way, WTF is a former solicitor general and one of the premier appelate lawyers in the country doing taking this shitshow of a case?
I realize the NFL is paying him well, but presumably there is a long line of clients eager to pay him just as well if not better.
So if not money, what then? Principle? Notoriety? Why?
I realize the NFL is paying him well, but presumably there is a long line of clients eager to pay him just as well if not better.
So if not money, what then? Principle? Notoriety? Why?
He and his firm will get paid their rate. He took the case because this is what he does. No appellate lawyer without a conflict or a potential future conflict would turn this case down,
There's no downside to his taking this case. If the NFL loses, he can go to bed at night knowing that the NFL/Goodell handed him a bag of poo to begin with.
WayBackVazquez said:
Not only that but barring conflicts/potential future conflicts (and Clement has represented the NFL before) Clement and every Olson, Waxman and Katyal out there would be more than willing to take either side on a case like this.
mwonow said:Saw the tweet, assumed DFG. Who talks about trivial things like blood tests?
[SIZE=1pt]
Chris Andersonhttps://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fchr1sa%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y%26sig%3Dc65c21ca28ec935841fbfb04949358993e6ed731%26al%3D1%26refsrc%3Demail%26iid%3Da322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49%26autoactions%3D1445978155%26uid%3D1482032562%26nid%3D244%2B123&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&sig=404a73185183c8cd416c0069f396ce99ee8c52de&iid=a322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49&uid=1482032562&nid=244+123@chr1sahttps://twitter.com/i/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fchr1sa%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y%26sig%3Dc65c21ca28ec935841fbfb04949358993e6ed731%26al%3D1%26refsrc%3Demail%26iid%3Da322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49%26autoactions%3D1445978155%26uid%3D1482032562%26nid%3D244%2B123&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&sig=404a73185183c8cd416c0069f396ce99ee8c52de&iid=a322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49&uid=1482032562&nid=244+123
[SIZE=15pt]When the world doubts your science, adding a notorious litigation lawyer to your board is not the best move: nytimes.com/2015/10/27/bus…https://t.co/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FB06V39CvIH%3Ft%3D1%26cn%3DZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y%26sig%3D439dea81f434fd74ee7a75907accf9a582f89bd4%26al%3D1%26iid%3Da322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49%26autoactions%3D1445978155%26uid%3D1482032562%26nid%3D244%2B288&t=1&cn=ZmxleGlibGVfcmVjc18y&sig=15d3374334bc65895eda93b62bfab9cf6aca2804&iid=a322765c06274ff48a6d7bf74d221b49&uid=1482032562&nid=244+288 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=1pt] View on Twitter [/SIZE]
Hey, Mr. Suspect, if you hire a lawyer and don't speak to us, your constitutional right, of course, but who cares about that, we'll assume you are guilty and you will be much worse off. Rights, schmights.
In addition to echoing the points made above, even for a lawyer as well known and well regarded as Clement, there are not many engagements that are as profile enhancing as this one. Not that Clement needs to increase his stature in order to get hired, but this kind of publicity can never hurt. And as noted, he's getting paid and paid by a client who will likely come back for more in the future.
Interesting -- check;Eddie Jurak said:
Challenging -- check;
Well paying -- check (we're talking about a predictable, manageable work stream with two briefs and an argument; my guess is a fixed fee of at least $400,000);
Annuity client that has interesting cases, and you'll get the most challenging ones -- check;
Advertising (though he certainly does not need it) -- check;
No obvious tension between the position advocated here and some pretty conservative leanings -- check
What's not to like?
What is standard is often wrong, and I would argue that she is wrong here. The policy and the brief's parade of horribles -- e.g., the Black Sox scandal -- make the hard line legal position more palatable.
Not only did a full informed Union sign on to this regime (for the sake of argument) but also there are good reasons for it. You need to make that case. Because otherwise this appeal gets viewed through the narrow prism whether TB was screwed or not. That's Kessler's preferred battleground, and I would not fight on it either.
Not only did a full informed Union sign on to this regime (for the sake of argument) but also there are good reasons for it. You need to make that case. Because otherwise this appeal gets viewed through the narrow prism whether TB was screwed or not. That's Kessler's preferred battleground, and I would not fight on it either.
I have not been commenting in the legal thread because, well, I am not a lawyer. But since we've now changed venues ...dcmissle said:
I don't get the attitude here. Stradley knows the facts of the case, and all the lawyering in the world cannot change that. She also explicitly acknowledged the difficulty in predicting judges. Lastly, it's worth noting that before Clement, the last lawyer who received the royal tongue-bath from SoSH was Ted Wells.
I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but my understanding is that even if the 2nd circuit overturns Berman, he will then rule on evident partiality and the entire cycle starts again.
I will also say that as a non-lawyer who has dealt with legal issues in the past, I don't find Clement's arguments (at least what I have read) to be compelling. He's distorted/stretched/taken out of context a lot of the facts, included at least one preposterous analogy (the Black Sox analogy is pretty hysterical) and IMO the core argument about Goodell's power doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.
It really should go without saying that yeah, the panel could consist of two judges who will rule for the NFL. But that risk always exists.
It really should go without saying that yeah, the panel could consist of two judges who will rule for the NFL. But that risk always exists.
So after reading DDB's post in the other thread it seems clear that the brief, taken on its own, is very clever and is attempting to bait Kessler into making some mistakes that they can then pounce on in the reply. My question for the lawyers here is - doesn't part of that strategy rely on the panel of judges NOT educating themselves on everything that's happened to date? It seems like any judge who reads through the (admittedly large quantity) of materials leading up to this point - the Wells report, the appeal transcript, Goodell's decision, Berman's decision, etc - would see through these arguments pretty quickly. Are they counting on the panel to only read Berman's decision and their arguments?
Stradley has been far more accurate and sensible than that Disbarred Assclown on ESPN, who for some reason is still viewed as an authority on these matters by the populace outside SoSH.
IANAL, so I enjoy reading the legal issues thread because I'm learning a lot, and "a lot" is obviously a tiny and minuscule smidgen of what there is to actually learn about appeals court practice. So, even though there's a ton I don't know, I do know enough that single line tweets from a legal analyst, no matter her background, don't really tell us a whole lot. I learned a lot more from DDB's and dcmissle's posts in the legal thread, among others.
Is Stradley "out of her depth"? Maybe, as appellate practice really is a legal specialty on its own. But she's no more out of her depth than any of the other talking heads, and she's far more credible in my eyes than ESPN, Volin, and others. Still, I'll stick with the legal thread on this board.
IANAL, so I enjoy reading the legal issues thread because I'm learning a lot, and "a lot" is obviously a tiny and minuscule smidgen of what there is to actually learn about appeals court practice. So, even though there's a ton I don't know, I do know enough that single line tweets from a legal analyst, no matter her background, don't really tell us a whole lot. I learned a lot more from DDB's and dcmissle's posts in the legal thread, among others.
Is Stradley "out of her depth"? Maybe, as appellate practice really is a legal specialty on its own. But she's no more out of her depth than any of the other talking heads, and she's far more credible in my eyes than ESPN, Volin, and others. Still, I'll stick with the legal thread on this board.
There is always the possibility that a judge will want to rule a certain way, and simply needs a plausible argument from counsel to give them the window to do so. But that threat exists at every level, and gets less and less likely as you move up the chain*. A federal court of appeals is, IMO, highly unlikely to sweep aside the legal conclusions of Berman on the basis of a self-serving policy argument from a business.
I mean, anything is possible, and (again) judges are people too and not immune to partiality, but the NFL lawyers throwing in a Black Sox analogy and an argument that amounts to "Well, even if we don't have the authority under the CBA or otherwise to discipline players as we see fit, we should, darn it!" isn't a "good look" as they say. Dcmissile thinks it's availing, I think it smacks of desperation and is probably meant more for the press to pick up on and repeat than for the judges who are going to review the briefs. Moreover, it's absurd on its face given that the Colts balls were also deflated and nobody cared.
IMO, the judges aren't going to even touch that line of argument with a ten foot pole, because it raises far more questions than need to be answered to rule on this thing definitively.
*Supreme Court joke here.
I mean, anything is possible, and (again) judges are people too and not immune to partiality, but the NFL lawyers throwing in a Black Sox analogy and an argument that amounts to "Well, even if we don't have the authority under the CBA or otherwise to discipline players as we see fit, we should, darn it!" isn't a "good look" as they say. Dcmissile thinks it's availing, I think it smacks of desperation and is probably meant more for the press to pick up on and repeat than for the judges who are going to review the briefs. Moreover, it's absurd on its face given that the Colts balls were also deflated and nobody cared.
IMO, the judges aren't going to even touch that line of argument with a ten foot pole, because it raises far more questions than need to be answered to rule on this thing definitively.
*Supreme Court joke here.
The Black Sox scandal reference is interesting, even as a throw-away line by Clement. Below is Section 15 of the form NFL Player Contract, which is Appendix A to the CBA and is signed by every player, including Brady:
When arguing the notice point, seems very easy to point to this and say, of course Goodell has the power to prevent a Black Sox scandal in football - and the players are very specifically given notice of that and acknowledgment of that forms part of the collectively bargained deal.
(The form contract also has the broad "any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football" language, but that doesn't seem to differentiate it from Article 46.)
Emphasis added.
When arguing the notice point, seems very easy to point to this and say, of course Goodell has the power to prevent a Black Sox scandal in football - and the players are very specifically given notice of that and acknowledgment of that forms part of the collectively bargained deal.
(The form contract also has the broad "any other form of conduct reasonably judged by the League Commissioner to be detrimental to the League or professional football" language, but that doesn't seem to differentiate it from Article 46.)
For me--perhaps this is a bit more nuanced than those with bias on either side dictating their response to what's gone on--my view of the NFL changes little regardless of how the appeal goes. And I'm not a Pats fan.
a) Factually, I'm convinced 1) There's no definitive proof anything went on with the ball. "Definitive" meaning a reasonable standard of proof has been met. Science provides a plausible and neutral explanation for what happened to the balls, no direct connection Brady to the dinks or proof he instructed them to do anything, only circumstantial evidence the dinks may have done something to the balls. 2) NFL manipulated facts in the media with its lapdog mediea partners in an attempt to control the narrative. 3) The arbitration process wasn't even remotely balanced/fair, goalpost were moved, and a great player with an otherwise sterling reputation on and off the field got thrown under bus in process, 4) even if something against the rules happened, no material competitive advantage was gained, and that should have dictated the severity and level of any punishment. A few assholes running an organization that basically cannot fail despite itself have developed a sense of hubris about their powers and relative abilities and worth, and this was the result.
b) If NFLPA wins appeal, the above stands.
c) If NFL wins appeal, basically they do so with an argument they can do everything in "a" above becuase they collectively bargained the right to do so. Ergo, NFL can rule any way it wants because the players allowed them to via the CBA. I think this is way too extended a reading of the CBA, but even so, it confirmes RG and the NFL are a colossal bunch of assholes (I know, we arleady knew this), and I'm very much more inclinced to go more out of my way not to support their product (or media partners).
d) If not for fantasy football, I'm much further along with the plan in "c." There are forces out there trying to get rid of FF, or heavily regulate/tax it. I don't do DFS yet - but if FF suddenly is banned or regulated in a way that makes it too difficult to participate in, the NFL may as well be dead to me.
e) "d" scenario very unlikely to happen, as NFL probably is aware of this and won't want FF to die out or be banned. IMO their on field product is actually pretty bad for the most part. FF does a great job distracting much of the watching public from this fact.
a) Factually, I'm convinced 1) There's no definitive proof anything went on with the ball. "Definitive" meaning a reasonable standard of proof has been met. Science provides a plausible and neutral explanation for what happened to the balls, no direct connection Brady to the dinks or proof he instructed them to do anything, only circumstantial evidence the dinks may have done something to the balls. 2) NFL manipulated facts in the media with its lapdog mediea partners in an attempt to control the narrative. 3) The arbitration process wasn't even remotely balanced/fair, goalpost were moved, and a great player with an otherwise sterling reputation on and off the field got thrown under bus in process, 4) even if something against the rules happened, no material competitive advantage was gained, and that should have dictated the severity and level of any punishment. A few assholes running an organization that basically cannot fail despite itself have developed a sense of hubris about their powers and relative abilities and worth, and this was the result.
b) If NFLPA wins appeal, the above stands.
c) If NFL wins appeal, basically they do so with an argument they can do everything in "a" above becuase they collectively bargained the right to do so. Ergo, NFL can rule any way it wants because the players allowed them to via the CBA. I think this is way too extended a reading of the CBA, but even so, it confirmes RG and the NFL are a colossal bunch of assholes (I know, we arleady knew this), and I'm very much more inclinced to go more out of my way not to support their product (or media partners).
d) If not for fantasy football, I'm much further along with the plan in "c." There are forces out there trying to get rid of FF, or heavily regulate/tax it. I don't do DFS yet - but if FF suddenly is banned or regulated in a way that makes it too difficult to participate in, the NFL may as well be dead to me.
e) "d" scenario very unlikely to happen, as NFL probably is aware of this and won't want FF to die out or be banned. IMO their on field product is actually pretty bad for the most part. FF does a great job distracting much of the watching public from this fact.
HowBoutDemSox said:
That's interesting - so if I'm reading this correctly - if Goodell were to invoke this clause, he would have had to have a hearing for Brady BEFORE announcing any discipline, which obviously didn't happen in this case.
What Brady got was the equivalent of a show-trial before which his guilt was predetermined.dcmissle said:
Goodell is being honest when he says this isn't about Brady. This is all about him changing his title from Commissioner to Emperor (or General Secretary, or Dear Leader or - breaking Godwin's law here - Fuhrer). Disgusting. And depressing to the extreme that those in the know here think he has a decent chance of winning this. WWE here we come. Brady ought to retire and go play in Canada if he loses.
Eddie Jurak said:
Kind of the opposite of a show trial, actually -- it all took place behind closed doors where the NFL felt that they could do whatever they want without transparency.
Eddie Jurak said:
Better analogy here would be a Supreme Mullah convicting a reporter in secret because he dared to question the Mullah's propaganda.
Eddie Jurak said:
Perhaps we get too hung up on the science, which proves nothing either way. All explanations are within the available bounds of deviation, a huge range considering how poorly things were handled.
It's obvious that the NFL's case is really driven by the dorito-dinks text messages and Brady's phone destruction. This is understandable...imagine the entire fiasco without the Exponent analysis and just an assertion that the Patriot's fuck around with footballs (no direct evidence).
I've never heard a plausible explanation of the texts (not to say there hasn't been one that I've missed). Stretching the interpretation to "weight loss" in the face of quotes about going to ESPN or blowing it up like a balloon stretch credulity.
I'd like to know what I've missed in those text trails - if they were poorly edited, re-sequenced or have different meanings in context - because those are the things (not the poor science) that are really damning. Not in a court of law, but in the court of "If it looks like, smells like, tastes like..."
Depends which texts you're referring to. A single reference to "the Deflator" in the offseason, completely out of context, could mean absolutely anything. "Going to ESPN" probably means McNally has some dirt on Jastremski himself, otherwise why would he mention it?
If your position is "these texts must refer to illegal football deflation unless you give me another plausible explanation", that's just another way of saying "guilty until proven innocent".
If your position is "these texts must refer to illegal football deflation unless you give me another plausible explanation", that's just another way of saying "guilty until proven innocent".
This has been discussed possibly a thousand times, but framed in this way Brady must prove a negative, which is almost always impossible, especially after the actions of the NFL to frame public opinion.geoduck no quahog said:
Right, Brady is responsible for adequately explaining the meaning of two separate text messages where (1) Brady was neither the sender nor the receiver of the text messages and (2) where neither text message was sent on or near the AFC Championship game. Brady's failure to properly explain these text messages obviously means he is guilty, even though there is no evidence that the balls were even in fact deflated after the inspection by the officials.
For the most part I've gone from thinking about this stupid fiasco daily to hardly thinking about it at all. The Patriots going out and just crushing everyone under a microscope makes it abundantly obvious to all reasonably impartial people with brains what has really gone on over the last 15 years.
The one thing that has changed is I notice the word "deflate" when it's used in a non-Patriots or football context. It's amazing to me how often people say they feel "deflated" or use the word in some other manner regarding things completely unrelated to football.
The belief that the text messages are a smoking gun in light of all the other evidence to the contrary just comes down to the Availability Heuristic.
The one thing that has changed is I notice the word "deflate" when it's used in a non-Patriots or football context. It's amazing to me how often people say they feel "deflated" or use the word in some other manner regarding things completely unrelated to football.
The belief that the text messages are a smoking gun in light of all the other evidence to the contrary just comes down to the Availability Heuristic.
There's a reason why they repeated the texts over and over again throughout that report. It was the only thing they really had that was even close to being maybe something if you squint and tilt it just right in the light.
And even then, they require you to accept at face value without the actual testimony (just paraphrasing) of those that created them that the NFL's interpretation (who we know don't have the best track record in correctly conveying someone's testimony accurately, see Brady testimony) is correct. It also requires you to believe that they only texted about this ongoing deflating scheme a couple of times with the most damning in the offseason.
And even then, they require you to accept at face value without the actual testimony (just paraphrasing) of those that created them that the NFL's interpretation (who we know don't have the best track record in correctly conveying someone's testimony accurately, see Brady testimony) is correct. It also requires you to believe that they only texted about this ongoing deflating scheme a couple of times with the most damning in the offseason.
I haven't heard a plausible explanation either, but that includes the explanation that they are proof of an ongoing deflation scheme. Because the exchange after the Jets game ...geoduck no quahog said:
... makes no sense if they were deflating balls as far back as May 2014 (when "The Deflator" / "going to ESPN" exchange is from). Wouldn't McNally just have deflated the balls after the refs put air in them? If McNally was supposed to deflate the balls post-inspection but didn't, why would JJ say "the refs fucked us?" I do agree some of the texts are pretty fishy, but neither the Pats' story nor the Wells Report's interpretation makes much sense to me.
Yes as SN said the deflator text is a lot less incriminating when you consider the texts about the jets game and when each text was sent.
If you want to damn Brady for the ambiguous deflator text sent in May you need to ignore the text from October that is directly related to ball pressure.
If you want to damn Brady for the ambiguous deflator text sent in May you need to ignore the text from October that is directly related to ball pressure.
Hey, no problem. I'm firmly in the camp that this is much ado about less than nothing.
Has there been published a comprehensive rebuttal about the texts, including timing, context and plausible explanations that I've missed? I imagine a transcript of the dinks' testimony would/could be really enlightening since they're the only ones who knew what they were talking about.
I'm not interested in proving a negative. I'm curious about a non-legal explanation that plausibly explains these excerpts...but it would probably require a comprehensive look at all of their texts in order to provide context.
It's been such a long time now. All I can recall is crap about:
- Swag (getting shit to sell)
- Jets game over-inflation and TB being pissed
- Something about a relative or girlfriend
- Balloon and ESPN references
- Tickets
I guess I can go back and look at the report/response for recorded explanations. I can't find a single document/article that addresses the texts in context.
Lesson being - don't ever put anything in an email, text or social media that you wouldn't want a lawyer to see.
Has there been published a comprehensive rebuttal about the texts, including timing, context and plausible explanations that I've missed? I imagine a transcript of the dinks' testimony would/could be really enlightening since they're the only ones who knew what they were talking about.
I'm not interested in proving a negative. I'm curious about a non-legal explanation that plausibly explains these excerpts...but it would probably require a comprehensive look at all of their texts in order to provide context.
It's been such a long time now. All I can recall is crap about:
- Swag (getting shit to sell)
- Jets game over-inflation and TB being pissed
- Something about a relative or girlfriend
- Balloon and ESPN references
- Tickets
I guess I can go back and look at the report/response for recorded explanations. I can't find a single document/article that addresses the texts in context.
Lesson being - don't ever put anything in an email, text or social media that you wouldn't want a lawyer to see.
Damn, I was planning to put a FAQ-type list of common rebuttals in the SOSH wiki, but I never got around to it.
At least one of the Dorito Dink Twins (Jastremski) was engaged in an illegal practice that I'm fairly positive that every clubhouse employee in every sport practices. Namely peaching merchandise that could be resold on the very lucrative secondary markets. So if I were to make a guess as to what the ESPN joke was about, it was probably in reference to Jastremski's sticky fingers and reselling tickets (which McNally probably did as well). Aside from that you have texts from Jastremski to McNally complaining about how anal retentive Brady was about having the balls just the way he liked them and McNally's responses that he was going to make sure the referees overinflated the footballs. I'm not sure how that equates to a scheme to deflate footballs.geoduck no quahog said:
The only real suspect text is the deflator one, but that came during the 2014 offseason when Brady was nowhere in sight and couldn't have been about some long term conspiracy given Brady's complaints about referees' overinflation habits the next season. In all honesty it doesn't even rise to the level of circumstantial evidence as it requires you to assume that the two were speaking in some sort of super secret code where the sentences don't mean what they plainly say.
Two thoughts here. First, from all we have heard and read, neither of the Dorito Dinks is likely a Mensa candidate. This suggests that the likelihood that they would be integral parts of this nefarious scheme but leave no real smoking gun is unlikely at best. What are the odds that they were secretly in collusion with the great Tom Brady but were temperate enough to not go bragging to Sully from Southie?
Second, the Wells Report in Context, though overall a solid piece of advocacy, really hurt the overall cause with the weight loss argument. When discussing the case with non-Pats fans, it is inevitably raised in mocking tones.
My sense is that they quite likely were talking about deflating footballs, but not as a violation of NFL rules. Deflating footballs is legal, depending on the timing. If Dink One was in charge of taking the balls Brady that selected and getting them to 12.5 before giving to the refs, he is the "deflator" and Dink Two might well refer to him as such. This is such a difficult needle to thread in terms of PR, though, that it may have similarly been a weak leg of the WRiC stool.
Second, the Wells Report in Context, though overall a solid piece of advocacy, really hurt the overall cause with the weight loss argument. When discussing the case with non-Pats fans, it is inevitably raised in mocking tones.
My sense is that they quite likely were talking about deflating footballs, but not as a violation of NFL rules. Deflating footballs is legal, depending on the timing. If Dink One was in charge of taking the balls Brady that selected and getting them to 12.5 before giving to the refs, he is the "deflator" and Dink Two might well refer to him as such. This is such a difficult needle to thread in terms of PR, though, that it may have similarly been a weak leg of the WRiC stool.
or it really could have been about weight loss. The Green Bay game video and text match up was uncanny. Especially considering that was the only other time deflate was used in the texts Wells chose to present.CoolPapaLaSchelle said:
That text makes no other sense otherwise. So either McNally texts nonsensical stuff (probably true) and you can't take them at face value then or it really was accurate and it's a also a reference to weight loss.
Except McNally ("Dink One", who called himself "the deflator") had no role in preparing the gameday footballs according to the Patriots. So if that's the right interpretation, McNally was doing things he wasn't supposed to.CoolPapaLaSchelle said:
dcmissle said:
Average Reds said:
Since this thread may end up directing people over there, I should clarify a bit since there's a bit of history over there in how we talk about things that might not be apparent to those not reading each page as it develops over there. I was taking the opening brief in isolation and giving my initial thoughts about it. I added the caveat that's not really how judges read them, and it's a bit artificial because you don't have the full set yet. One point that I was trying to make is that my read on the NFL's brief is that they are trying to set themselves up to win this thing in the reply brief. They've presented Kessler's side with some very difficult decisions, and I think I can see little mini-traps they are trying to set -- or maybe a better way to put it is that they've left themselves some latitude to attack depending which way Kessler chooses to go on a few things. The second brief in an appeal is difficult to do well. You need to be responsive, but you also need to make your best affirmative case. Do you hook your wagon to what the judge did below, or do you recognize some weaknesses in it and distance yourself from him by being more directly responsive to your opponent? Stuff like that. I'm a little worried that Kessler's style is not perfectly suited to appeals, and going up against Clement in oral argument might be a little bit of a mismatch. But I'll say this -- I don't think Kessler has had a significant mis-step yet in this case. There were a few points where I really questioned his choices -- much of this is laid out in the legal thread -- but in the end he really has already shown the capacity to do what I think is the hardest thing to do on appeal: figure out where you absolutely must stick your sword in the ground and defend, and figuring out what you can let go.
Whenever I need to respond to a brief, unless I'm on a compressed schedule I try to let it sit for a week. I find briefs usually get worse with age. That is, when I first get them, I see the good in them and mentally put the best spin on them for my opponent. Then the weaknesses sort of tend to emerge over the next few days as it percolates. So, anyway, I guess the point is that my thoughts over in the legal thread are very much first impressions. Like, for example, just since I've posted over there, I've soured just a little more on how much liberty the NFL has taken with the record. My initial reaction was that they walked a tightrope pretty well, and never really crossed a line. And I still don't think they've really done anything egregious and they've left themselves plenty of cover in the record, with nothing they can't walk back if they need to in the reply. And they have stolen some of the narrative, which is often hard to do when you were the loser in the lower court. But if there's such a thing as a spectrum with clever on one side and risky on the other, I'm starting to think they have tipped a little closer to the latter than I originally gave them credit for.
HowBoutDemSox said:
This is a nice point. I think judges sometimes intuitively respond well to arguments that general provisions shouldn't be given the same meaning as more specific provisions -- if the general meant exactly what the specific does why did you need the specific?
Hasn't the NFLPA added the firm of Gibson Dunn& Crutcher ( Olson) who among other things specialize in appellate cases? If this is the case won't they be preparing the brief on Brady's behalf.
They have been involved from the outset, but in the background. They represent TB, but of course it's a team effort with Kessler's firm.scotian1 said:
The brief will be terrific. I'm intrigued by who winds up arguing this at oral arguments.