Florio: Pash ordered PSI readings “expunged” in 2015
- Thread starter tims4wins
- Start date
"All game ball information will be recorded on the Referee’s Report, which must be submitted to the League office by noon on the day following the game."
https://operations.nfl.com/updates/the-game/preparing-the-footballs-for-nfl-games/
https://operations.nfl.com/updates/the-game/preparing-the-footballs-for-nfl-games/
He is so bad at public speaking. It’s simply remarkable given his position. Clearly a terrible liar on top of it.
NFL destroyed Spygate tapes = they're covering for the Patriots!
These idiots never learn.
I have added the phrase “generally aware” and “more probable than not” to my vernacular when referencing something that is vague or generally ambiguous. No one knows what the hell I’m talking about or referencing but it gives me some small level of satisfaction.
I’ve seen this thrown around enough that I thought it worth mentioning:
“more probable than not” is often used as an articulation of “preponderance of evidence” which is the standard for civil suits, which is why the Wells report used it. So, like, it’s not so much uncommon and weird as it is a lynchpin of our civil legal system.
Though if people want to find that weird, well, have at it.
I do find that to be a weird equivalency, because something can be "more probable than not" based on, say, baseline statistics, with no or minimal evidence to support it. Like, I can say it's "more probable than not" that you're right-handed because most people are, even though I don't have any evidence of your handedness; I wouldn't say I have a "preponderance of evidence" that you're right-handed. A lot of how they "got" Brady was an assumption that the QB had to be aware of the ball deflation even though they hit very little tying Brady to the "scheme."I’ve seen this thrown around enough that I thought it worth mentioning:
“more probable than not” is often used as an articulation of “preponderance of evidence” which is the standard for civil suits, which is why the Wells report used it. So, like, it’s not so much uncommon and weird as it is a lynchpin of our civil legal system.
Though if people want to find that weird, well, have at it.
See I like the term “generally aware” better. It’s one thing if it is more probably than not that Brady was specifically aware of a plan to deflate balls. But no, it was just more probably than not that he was “generally aware”. Like WTF does that even mean?
I think it was the “more probable than not”/“at least generally aware” Street Fighter combo punch of equivocation that rubbed most people the wrong way.I’ve seen this thrown around enough that I thought it worth mentioning:
“more probable than not” is often used as an articulation of “preponderance of evidence” which is the standard for civil suits, which is why the Wells report used it. So, like, it’s not so much uncommon and weird as it is a lynchpin of our civil legal system.
Though if people want to find that weird, well, have at it.
Edit:Beaten by @tims4wins
But that's how preponderance of evidence is used legally: it just means the jury (or fact finder) believes there's a greater than 50% chance of a claim being true. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/preponderance_of_the_evidence Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.
Preponderance of evidence is generally the standard in civil trials, and is in contrast to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal cases.
Well, the more complete statement would be, “more probable than not based on the evidence.” So yeah, for this case, that bears exactly on the fact that the same people were performing the role of investigator and judge, which is entirely inappropriate.
I don’t remember all the details of the process of the Wells Report, but in civil litigation, it would be easy enough to get evidence of whether or not I was left-handed; put me into a deposition hearing and ask me under oath. I can plead the Fifth, but in civil litigation, juries are allowed to use that in their considerations.
What’s really fucked about the Wells Report is that their determination that they themselves made of whether or not the evidence met that standard was based on the evidence that they themselves chose to present (and here it’s worth mentioning that the MIT video I posted has the professor explaining that one of the graphs presented was empirically incorrect).
So the report and basing action off of it was bs, fersure insofar as the same party that presented the evidence then evaluated it and determined if it was dispositive or not, grading their own work, if you will. But I thought it worth pointing out that the standard employed that so many people find absurd is actually the standard we use on civil litigation in this country.
Well I am not a lawyer. As a non lawyer (ie dimwit) it reads as basically, “we don’t know what happened, but we think it did.” As others have said I just find those two phrases when paired together odd, ambiguous, and mildly amusing. The league spent 6 months and like 25 million dollars investigating this and that’s the best you can do? Like how can you suspend someone for 4 games, take a million bucks and 2 draft picks. Where’s the hard evidence? Nothing about the process makes sense. Goddamn it I’m getting all torqued off about this again. Jfc.I’ve seen this thrown around enough that I thought it worth mentioning:
“more probable than not” is often used as an articulation of “preponderance of evidence” which is the standard for civil suits, which is why the Wells report used it. So, like, it’s not so much uncommon and weird as it is a lynchpin of our civil legal system.
Though if people want to find that weird, well, have at it.
edit. 22 million. My bad.
Last edited:
Yeah, when a white shoe lawyer slaps “generally” in front of something like that, alarms and whistles should be going off.
In this aspect, the same entity that is amassing the evidence and assessing it if it meets the standard is also defining the “crime,” here, “generally aware,” so it’s a double no-no.
Check out my previous post, which addresses how this was handled in ways that railroads the bs outcome in all sorts of institutional ways. I just thought it worth pointing out that that is, the standard in law. How they went about saying that the evidence met that standard is where the real bullshit lies—but the league can count on most people not knowing enough or caring enough to parse that, right?
It is more probable than not, that I am generally aware, what your post was pointing out.
It is hard to think about "more probable than not" in the Brady context because the NFL obviously bastardized that standard beyond any recognition.
To me it was because it was applied to "generally aware," which, unlike "more probable than not" (a fairly standard quantum of evidence) is a made-up transgression. Usually it's "more probable than not" that something happened or that someone did something.
I'm not a lawyer either, but isn't it obvious the Patriots got whacked due to them being a "repeat offender", even if they found no hard evidence, no smoking gun, no nothing?
They were punished because that's what the other owners wanted their lap dog stooge commissioner to do in order to level the playing field.
As the saying goes, teams could not beat them on the field, so they beat them off the field by docking them yet another first round pick AND suspending their QB for four games.
And they still went on to win the Super Bowl that year, then go two more times, winning another one.
Living well truly is the best revenge.
I think that was what it was at first, but at some point, this was the league’s chance to get a legal ruling that, under the CBA, they could do whatever the fuck they wanted to anyone they wanted; that it was Brady underscored the point and let them fuck the Patriots which the fans would be more interest in too, so it was kinda perfect for them, but by the end, that ruling was the prize.
He was Mr Football in Ohio. He won a National
championship in College. He won the Heisman.
He won a Super Bowl. He was DPOY. He is in the pro football HOF.
And this is what he chooses to think about every day.
Sort of sad sort of funny.
The thing I'm most upset about is the first round draft pick they got docked; had they had that player in the 2018 Super Bowl, maybe he makes a key play to help them win that game.
To dock the organization a first round pick was pure and utter bullshit; they punished Brady, then they punished the team after they said the organization did nothing wrong.
Volin took advantage of a rare opportunity, but no backup from the rest of the media. Don't forget at a previous SB, the Commish was going on an on about how he was eminently available to the media, and a high-profile scribe (the late Don Banks?) noted Roger had refused to do a sit-down for years.
I get you. But that was a function of their ability to find Brady “guilty” which was an outcome of the ruling—and it was all definitely a signal to the NFLPA and, well, everyone else in the league as an assertion of power.
Agreed about the "it was all definitely a signal to the NFLPA and, well, everyone else in the league as an assertion of power"; ie, they made an example out of arguably the face of the league and if they can do that to him..................
Rev is right. At first this whole thing got started at the behest of people who were (a) jealous of NE, and (b) believed that they got off light on Spygate. That was what drove it initially.
But then it became nothing more than an issue of power. The NFL had it, exercised it, and wanted everyone to know that nobody could stop them. The court of appeals even ruled that even though the NFL got the actual facts of the case wrong, they still had the authority to punish Brady because they allowed Brady his “day in court”, so to speak, before an NFL arbiter.
No mention, though, that the arbiter in that case was none other than Roger Goodell, the man who was also the prosecutor and the jury as well, not just the judge.
But then it became nothing more than an issue of power. The NFL had it, exercised it, and wanted everyone to know that nobody could stop them. The court of appeals even ruled that even though the NFL got the actual facts of the case wrong, they still had the authority to punish Brady because they allowed Brady his “day in court”, so to speak, before an NFL arbiter.
No mention, though, that the arbiter in that case was none other than Roger Goodell, the man who was also the prosecutor and the jury as well, not just the judge.
Yeah of all the depressing things about this whole ordeal, the fact that the courts actually upheld their punishment on the grounds that the union had agreed to it was among the most depressing.
Not just "jealous of New England". Perpetrators of this travesty were people with specific axes to grind with New England. Starting with Harbaugh and Grigson, through Kensil and Pash, these are people who wanted revenge on the Pats for one reason or another.
And Rev accurately notes, it largely put to bed the question of Goodell's disciplinary power--it is absolute. The league wanted that codified, and they got it. Using Brady to get there won Roger some brownie points with the old guard, but that was really just a bonus.
Last edited:
A legal ruling that makes the rest of the CBA moot on any discipline issue even if it was already collectively bargained a penalty for rules violations so long as Goodell invokes the magic words to invoke article 43 (forget which one it actually is but that is the number in my head).
