So you admit he orchestrated deflating the footballs. Good for you. I'm happy you're not a naive cunt. I mean, if you're going to troll here. We tolerate trolls. Not naive cunts. _
You know I'm not sure how old all of you are but I feel like a geezer. Anyway, for you who are older imagine the age groups and negotiating positions of each of these groups. On one hand you have the owners who are all multi billionaires, they have the type of money that allows them to play kingmakers in all kinds of different situations to rig the rules they way they want them. They can literally codify their power. And at the other end of the table is a much of football players. Young, into something other than contracts and business, represented by agents and council which at the end of the day answer to the players. They get the choice for a little extra money and they jump at it no matter what they give up. At the time of the contract negotiation they give up the rights of discipline and fair arbitration for a few more scraps of what the NFL is making. It's a labor dispute. We sit all fucking day talking about how many black coaches are as if it mattered. How many black owners are there?
Can you show me that Brady deflated footballs? Can you show the proof? See, that's my point. Public opinion has Big Ben as a rapist and Brady as a cheater. There is no concrete evidence that either is true.
Not sure I get the difference, but can always appreciate the word cunt (applied to male cunts) in a sentence. Let me say 2 things- if the NFL applied its own rules and fined Brady $8k for a first time equipment violation, we are not here. (Troll?) That being said, the science doesn't support even the equipment violation without discounting testimony and making a lot of one-sided assumptions (cunt?).
the purpose of this case isn't to determine if Br*dy did anything wrong or not. the judge is not trying that. this is a procedural case, and a CBA case. the purpose of it is to determine if the NFL had any missteps within their investigation process, punishment, or appeal process. so the positive outcome you hope to hear would essentially be a procedural ruling, where the judge finds the NFL has overstepped their CBA boundaries in dealing punishment, or that either process was somehow conducted improperly. that could lead to a reduction of games suspended, but it would hardly exonerate anyone. the P*ts were already convicted, and didn't even contest the punishment. Br*dy was also convicted, and conviction upheld. He continues to whine about the punishment, and now a federal judge will rule on only the level of that punishment he is whining about. lol, there will be no 'not guilty' ruling.......it's not that type of case but i guess this is all you have left so you are hanging everything on it even if it's not intended to decide everything.
So you are honestly suggesting that Brady did not direct the deflating of footballs? Here on TGG, we are men of action. Lies do not become us. Don't be a cunt. _
Yeah I'm not going to believe the finding the NFL made later referred to by a federal judge as a "quantum leap" is something that proves cheating, I'm not a Jets fan. Give me a break already.
I think most rational men would agree Ben likely raped a chick in a bathroom. And that Brady directed the deflating of footballs. No double standard here. _
the first time 'equipment violation' for the P*ts and Br*dy was back in 2004 against the Jets, when they were sneaking in very worn (and presumably under inflated) practice balls into the game. this has been going on for years. how many fucking warnings do they need? what has happened here is unprecedented.
Munson while no longer practicing law has been right so far in this spoiled brats brigade Poofy poof ESPN legal analyst declares “NFL will win” Brady case Posted by Mike Florio on August 21, 2015, 6:11 PM EDT AP During 18 years of practicing law, clients routinely would ask me, “Will we win the case?” And I routinely would say, “I don’t know.” And if they’d press for more details or express any uncertainty about my uncertainty, I’d say this, “Anyone who tells you that they know how a case will turn out is lying or uninformed.” (I typically used a much stronger word than “uninformed.”) Regarding the Tom Brady suspension, ESPN legal analyst Lester Munson has been lying or uninformed for more than three months now. On May 17, five days after the NFL imposed a four-game banishment on Brady, Munson authored an item that declares there’s “not much hope” for Brady in his appeal. With a question-and-answer format to the column, Munson asked himself whether Brady can win a reduction in the suspension or eliminate it entirely. “No,” Munson wrote. “The evidence gathered by attorney Ted Wells for the NFL’s investigation is clear and convincing. The text messages between Brady and two Patriots staffers, the disappearance of the Patriots’ footballs in the moments before kickoff, the history of similar incidents involving Brady and Brady’s stonewalling of the NFL investigators lead to only one conclusion: Brady was clearly involved in an effort to underinflate the footballs to give him a competitive edge.” When the case moved from the internal appeal phase to the external litigation phase, Munson doubled down. “Will Brady succeed in court and stop the NFL from suspending him for four games?” Munson asked himself. “No, Brady will not succeed,” Munson told himself. “Although he enjoys top-of-the-line legal representation and his lawyers will file a brilliantly written lawsuit, his effort to stop the suspension is doomed. There are two reasons why: First, federal judges are reluctant to reconsider the rulings of arbitrators; second, [Commissioner Roger] Goodell produced a decision on Brady that is brilliantly reasoned, meticulously detailed, and well-written. Goodell’s recitation of the evidence of the tampering with game balls is powerful, and his description of Brady’s attempt at a cover-up is persuasive.” Of course, Munson’s second column came before the 456-page transcript of the appeal hearing was released, a transcript which reveals various flaws in the ruling, such as the failure to allow the NFLPA to call NFL general counsel Jeff Pash as a witness, the refusal to compel “independent” investigator Ted Wells to make his files available to the union, the mischaracterization of Tom Brady’s testimony regarding interactions with John Jastremski, the NFL’s lack of knowledge regarding the natural deflation of footballs in cold weather, and the failure of the league to give Brady the policy under which he was suspended. But none of that has changed Munson’s opinion. Two days after Judge Richard M. Berman aggressively questioned NFL lawyer Dan Nash regarding the flaws in the NFL’s case, Munson dismisses the interrogation and declares that “the NFL will win in the end.” Munson essentially believes that Judge Berman is doing whatever he can to force a settlement so that he won’t have to issue a ruling in the case, because Judge Berman fears being reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. But if the case is as clear as Munson seems to know it is, why should Judge Berman worry about anything? He should bang the gavel and move on, as confident as Munson is that the Second Circuit would quickly uphold the ruling. And if Judge Berman somehow does what Munson would view as unthinkable and overturns the suspension, Munson already knows that three randomly-assigned judges from a total available panel of 22 would unanimously agree that Judge Berman is clearly wrong. To support his certainty in this regard, Munson points to the Maurice Clarett legal attack on the draft from 11 years ago — which initially went against the NFL but went the other way on appeal — as proof. Of course, the Clarett case involved entirely different facts, circumstances, and legal principles. But since the Second Circuit already has reversed a Manhattan federal court once before in a case involving the NFL, it’ll happen every time, right? It’s unclear why Munson has been so strident in his views on the Brady case. We’ll assume that he genuinely believes he already knows the outcome, and that he’s not lying to the audience he serves. However, if we rule out that Munson is lying, it means that he’s uninformed. I don’t know Lester Munson personally, and I have no reason to question his intelligence or lack thereof. Except, that is, for the fact that he was once suspended by the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission in a case that included a finding that he failed to maintain separate accounts for client funds from settlements and for his business expenses. Which, as any lawyer can tell you, is incredibly uninformed. So if only one prior case from more than a decade ago is all that’s needed to support the notion that the NFL would win on appeal in the event Judge Berman goes rogue and rules against the NFL now, only one prior instance of extreme uninformedness is all that’s needed to concluded that, indeed, a legal analyst who believes with certainty that he knows how a legal case will end is seriously uninformed. Ultimately, Munson could get lucky; the NFL could win. But Munson would be no more accurate than if he’d called the toss of a coin correctly or accurately picked red or black on a roulette wheel. He’s making a guess and acting as if he knows. If he truly think he knows, he’s definitely uninformed.
Yes, but you didn't actually READ the article, did you. I don't think it says what you think it says. lol Jesus Christ you're a fuckup.
you can live in denial, and believe nothing happened at all. i'm sure most Pats fans will regardless of outcome in this case. but to the rest of the NFL fans, the P*ts and Br*dy have already been convicted, and this dispute is simply over the level of punishment being handed down. whether that level of punishment is upheld or not will not change anything, other than maybe the NFL's authority within the CBA. that's what this case is really all about......not innocence or guilt. so there won't be any exoneration in this type of case. that ship sailed long ago..
So, if you're a Pats fan, you have to believe the NFL dreamed up a controversy specifically intended to tarnish one of its premier franchises and the best quarterback of this generation. Because, that's, you know, the way most highly profitably entertainment businesses like to operate, by hurting their top performers. On top of that, you have to believe the NFL and its lawyers are now clearly disregarding the obvious legal advice they are getting from the judge on how this is going to rule. Because, you know, it makes all kinds of sense to look ridiculous. Assuming the merits of the whole matter, what possible motivation could the league have to do this to the Patriots? That doesn't compute. That's actually a good article about Munson. Not that Elvii understands a syllable of it.
If we are going to resort to that silly red herring about a $25k fine for equipment violations then let's get the math correct. He used 11 illegally tampered footballs for 100 plays in one game at least and likely multiple games. He didn't use just ONE tampered football for one play. This isn't Sammy Sosa using a corked bat once. This is every Cub in the lineup using a corked bat for every at bat in an entire game. Maybe multiple games. Somebody do the math there. I'm only a lawyer, I was told there would be no math on this test. _
Florio is flaming him, Florio is a failed lawyer too But Munson has been spot on so far It's easy to irritate you
