for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NYT on the Deflategate investigation...

Dan in the Springs : 9/21/2016 10:10 am
since this topic has been beat to death, why not another thread on it? Actually, the NYT has an article with some new info on the matter, and given our interest in all things football it seems worthy to share and discuss.
The science behind Deflategate - ( New Window )
The Times really knows  
Gman11 : 9/21/2016 10:25 am : link
how to take a short story and make a novel out of it.
So here's what I still don't get  
David B. : 9/21/2016 10:31 am : link
Quote:
"On May 6, 2015, the N.F.L. released what instantly became known as the Wells report, named for the lead lawyer in the investigation, Theodore V. Wells Jr. It concluded that it was “more probable than not” that Patriots employees were deliberately releasing air from footballs and that Brady knew about it.


That language, "more probably than not," was insufficient evidence in the original court case. That is, it was NOT "beyond a shadow of doubt." Brady won the case, and avoided the suspension, and played last year based on that ruling.

So then the NFL -- being the authoritarian asshole organization it is -- can't stand having it's authority challenged (much less beaten), appeals that ruling, and somehow comes away with the jurisdiction to suspend Brady for the 4 games anyway. How does some league CBA nonsense not only supersede a US court ruling, and at the same time gives Brady no further recourse (as was widely reported) to fight it again/further.

I believe the suspension came  
MBavaro : 9/21/2016 10:34 am : link
from not cooperating fully with the investigation (destroying cell phone, etc..)

I could be wrong.
The actual evidence  
pjcas18 : 9/21/2016 10:35 am : link
had nothing to do with why Berman over-turned the suspension.

It was about the process with which the suspension was determined and handed down as well as the access of Brady's lawyers to interview witnesses that was the basis for Berman over-turning it.

The league was right and it's not a court of law so there is no standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"
On the heels of numerous statistical  
LauderdaleMatty : 9/21/2016 10:43 am : link
Themed threads I had an hour conference call on two studies both published in very reputable peer reviewed medical journals which came out with diffenrtent conckusons.

Sorry but the NFL came in w a hypothesis to prove the Pat's cheated. I'm not saying they didn't but if studies that adpffect patient lives can be looked at differently so can the pressure inside a football. And as that article states people did disagree.

People will generally axcept a study they agree with. Regardless of its subject matter. The people I tend to try and avoid are those who generally claim to have no bias. They often do. Pretending somehow a scientist isnt human amd can like Mr Spoke set aside every emotion and thought isn't rational.

We canf even decide on a good way to measure a QBs perfotmance. Ive been ambivalent about this mainly as I don't trust either side to be totally honest. Like the NFL is so pure but the Pat's are not. The NFL hid concussion data. Belichick will push anything to the edge.

Interesting topic and one worthy of discussion. But it usually ends home people calling the other side liRs in one waynor another Which in and of itself kind of funny considering all the science behind this
And I hate typing  
LauderdaleMatty : 9/21/2016 10:46 am : link
On this small iPad. Fuck w all the mistakes and autocorrect gifts
RE: The Times really knows  
Dan in the Springs : 9/21/2016 10:52 am : link
In comment 13133972 Gman11 said:
Quote:
how to take a short story and make a novel out of it.


Have you ever used the TLDR extension in Chrome browser? I sometimes use it to see what an article is about before reading in full.

The NYT recently changed its web platform so that you can't highlight text. Not sure if TLDR is impacted by it yet, as I haven't tried to use it.
While I don't like the Pats, or Brady, I think suspending Brady  
Marty in Albany : 9/21/2016 10:53 am : link
was not the best way to punish the Pats. The way I see it, the team is responsible for Brady's actions and a more severe punishment to the team would be better. My reason is that Brady is very popular and Pats fans have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for tickets to watch him play. The NFL is hurting those fans. In a nutshell, I have no sympathy for the Pats or Brady or the NFL, but I feel sorry for the fans who won't get to see their (not my) hero play.
RE: While I don't like the Pats, or Brady, I think suspending Brady  
djstat : 9/21/2016 10:55 am : link
In comment 13134027 Marty in Albany said:
Quote:
was not the best way to punish the Pats. The way I see it, the team is responsible for Brady's actions and a more severe punishment to the team would be better. My reason is that Brady is very popular and Pats fans have paid hundreds or thousands of dollars for tickets to watch him play. The NFL is hurting those fans. In a nutshell, I have no sympathy for the Pats or Brady or the NFL, but I feel sorry for the fans who won't get to see their (not my) hero play.
How would you have punished them?
People don't realize this, especially outside of New England  
pjcas18 : 9/21/2016 11:04 am : link
the science is irrelevant.

it was the intentional willingness (redundant?) to break a league rule and then cover up or at best not comply with the investigation into the the plan to break the league rules that is the reason for the suspension and penalties.

The min allowed PSI is a stated rule, the Patriots intentionally deflated the footballs to be below that. Brady "more likely than not" knew about it and in fact orchestrated it because he was more comfortable with the less inflated football.

Did the rain/environment have an effect on the PSI, probably or possibly. who cares. It's the intent, not the advantage. The Patriots demonstrated they did not get any on-field advantage, just watch the 2nd half of the game.

But if you believe Brady texted a guy nicknamed "the deflator" because he was trying to lose weight that you live in New England and/or are Patriots fan.

If you believe Brady smashed his phone after knowing it was requested for reviewing by the investigators because "that's just what he does when he's done with phones" then you live in New England and/or are a Patriots fan.

Did the punishment fit THIS crime? who knows, but I do believe the Patriots history contributed to the punishment, since they, as an organization, are not first offenders.

RE: So here's what I still don't get  
Mike from SI : 9/21/2016 11:22 am : link
In comment 13133978 David B. said:
Quote:


Quote:


"On May 6, 2015, the N.F.L. released what instantly became known as the Wells report, named for the lead lawyer in the investigation, Theodore V. Wells Jr. It concluded that it was “more probable than not” that Patriots employees were deliberately releasing air from footballs and that Brady knew about it.



That language, "more probably than not," was insufficient evidence in the original court case. That is, it was NOT "beyond a shadow of doubt." Brady won the case, and avoided the suspension, and played last year based on that ruling.

So then the NFL -- being the authoritarian asshole organization it is -- can't stand having it's authority challenged (much less beaten), appeals that ruling, and somehow comes away with the jurisdiction to suspend Brady for the 4 games anyway. How does some league CBA nonsense not only supersede a US court ruling, and at the same time gives Brady no further recourse (as was widely reported) to fight it again/further.


Almost every last thing you said in your post is wrong.
I'm not saying they didn't do it  
David B. : 9/21/2016 11:27 am : link
I'm saying the NFL's ruling and penalty was ultimately based on:

you probably did it, but we don't have conclusive proof.

IMO, that stance should bother people outside of New England, too.
RE: I'm not saying they didn't do it  
pjcas18 : 9/21/2016 11:33 am : link
In comment 13134157 David B. said:
Quote:
I'm saying the NFL's ruling and penalty was ultimately based on:

you probably did it, but we don't have conclusive proof.

IMO, that stance should bother people outside of New England, too.


Brady instructed his assistant to destroy his cell phone on the day he was to be interviewed by Wells, the equipment managers phones were not destroyed and repeatedly reference instructions from Brady on how to deflate the footballs.

He deserved a punishment. 4 games I said from the beginning was too much, but when you don't comply you're left at the whim of the decision makers to think the worst.

The Patriots, as a team, never even appealed their penalties (lost 1st round draft pick, and $$), so that should shed some light on the guilt.
RE: And I hate typing  
shabu : 9/21/2016 11:55 am : link
In comment 13134006 LauderdaleMatty said:
Quote:
On this small iPad. Fuck w all the mistakes and autocorrect gifts


iOS autocomplete is terribad.
the 'science' of deflatgate is irrelevant  
Torrag : 9/21/2016 11:58 am : link
.
RE: RE: While I don't like the Pats, or Brady, I think suspending Brady  
Montreal Man : 9/21/2016 12:33 pm : link
In comment 13134035 djstat said:
Quote:
In comment 13134027 Marty in Albany said:

How would you have punished them?


If it were up to me, I take away some draft picks. Brady certainly didn't act alone and it was the TEAM that benefited so the TEAM should be punished. Draft picks.
You know  
Tom in DC : 9/21/2016 12:45 pm : link
in all the points raised by Brady's defense during the appeal, none of those points were that he didn't do it. Additionally, the Patriots admitted to and accepted the fine and lost of draft pick. Also, this off season, they restructured Brady's contract turning much of his salary to a bonus so he would minimize his losses for a 4 game suspension.
I Think The Issue For Brady  
Trainmaster : 9/21/2016 12:57 pm : link
was the "destruction of evidence / obstructing the investigation" (e.g. cell phone). It also seemed the CBA allowed the "preponderance of evidence" criteria rather than the legal "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria.

I think Brady is getting what he deserved and I'm glad his suspension was upheld.

Cell phone  
Tom in DC : 9/21/2016 3:02 pm : link
Even though I think they deflated the balls on purpose, I think its ridiculous that the NFL can demand Brady's cell phone. Brady runs in some pretty elite celebrity circle and this investigation had a bad record of leaking things.
RE: Cell phone  
pjcas18 : 9/21/2016 3:06 pm : link
In comment 13134705 Tom in DC said:
Quote:
Even though I think they deflated the balls on purpose, I think its ridiculous that the NFL can demand Brady's cell phone. Brady runs in some pretty elite celebrity circle and this investigation had a bad record of leaking things.


He didn't need to let them access his phone period. He could have simply said no, it's private. That would have made him look guilty.

But, why couldn't he have just said we'll let you access the cell phone, but only with me (Brady) and/or my attorney present to prevent any undesired content being leaked?

smashing it and destroying it was the only other option?

It leads to the appearance of impropriety. Which is all they need.
RE: RE: RE: While I don't like the Pats, or Brady, I think suspending Brady  
VenteSette : 9/21/2016 4:08 pm : link
In comment 13134327 Montreal Man said:
Quote:
In comment 13134035 djstat said:


Quote:


In comment 13134027 Marty in Albany said:

How would you have punished them?



If it were up to me, I take away some draft picks. Brady certainly didn't act alone and it was the TEAM that benefited so the TEAM should be punished. Draft picks.


Um... you trolling?

Do you know who the Pats picked in the first round this year? They forfeited their 2016 1st and a 2017 4th. They were also fined $1M. The team did not appeal, only the NFLPA did on behalf of the player.
RE: I'm not saying they didn't do it  
VenteSette : 9/21/2016 4:17 pm : link
In comment 13134157 David B. said:
Quote:
I'm saying the NFL's ruling and penalty was ultimately based on:

you probably did it, but we don't have conclusive proof.

IMO, that stance should bother people outside of New England, too.


Conclusive proof?

The standard is not beyond a reasonable doubt. This is/was not a criminal matter. It is based on a contract which is negotiated between the league and the NFLPA. You think your employer needs to be able to prove misdeeds beyond a reasonable doubt to fine or fire you?

The report stated that Brady "more probably than not" was "generally aware" of the deflation. I believe their actual standard was "sufficient credible evidence" In March the Appeals court reinstated the verdict because the standard was acceptable under the labor statute
Back to the Corner