like_that;1728617 wrote: I asked What's more important to you, a player (try not to think of Gordon) smoking weed or a player/franchise cheating.

That's pretty obvious if both are first time offenders. I have no issue with weed and frankly think it should be legalized and taxed like a mofo.

I didn't see where you set Gordon aside until you just mentioned it, as I didn't read every post on this thread.

HitsRus;1728601 wrote:What's worse 3 speeding tickets or manslaughter?

Pro sports have to take integrity of the game issues seriously. Note MLB's action to increase security of game baseballs in the wake of the Pats scandal.

What Brady "probably" did would not even be close to manslaughter. Compared to speeding, it might be parking in a handicapped spot.

Also, would someone who "probably" committed manslaughter go to jail, or does there need to be proof?

WebFire;1728624 wrote:What Brady "probably" did would not even be close to manslaughter. Compared to speeding, it might be parking in a handicapped spot.

Also, would someone who "probably" committed manslaughter go to jail, or does there need to be proof?

Ask Ray Lewis

WebFire;1728624 wrote:What Brady "probably" did would not even be close to manslaughter. Compared to speeding, it might be parking in a handicapped spot.

Also, would someone who "probably" committed manslaughter go to jail, or does there need to be proof?

No. but this is closer to a civil matter, where "probably" is sufficient to win.

queencitybuckeye;1728645 wrote:No. but this is closer to a civil matter, where "probably" is sufficient to win.

Sure. But I still don't think you go around punishing people because "probably".

WebFire;1728653 wrote:Sure. But I still don't think you go around punishing people because "probably".

Well, you aren't Roger GODell.

WebFire;1728653 wrote:Sure. But I still don't think you go around punishing people because "probably".

Yeah, footwedge acts like a total douche on the OC so that means, PROBABLY, he is a total retard in real life. That doesnt mean he really is....wait, bad example.

WebFire;1728653 wrote:Sure. But I still don't think you go around punishing people because "probably".

Seriously? Everyone and their mothers knew the patriots and Brady cheated and deflated those balls. Just because they didn't have Brady on video physically removing air, or a text specifically stating what he did, doesn't mean we should just let them get away with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WebFire;1728653 wrote:Sure. But I still don't think you go around punishing people because "probably".

This isn't the court system where one has 5th amendment rights, or where having to prove one's innocence is illegal. IMO, there is one and only one reason Brady wouldn't turn over the content of his phone, and his failure to do so is strong evidence of his "guilt".

WebFire;1728653 wrote:Sure. But I still don't think you go around punishing people because "probably".

If this were true then the concept of circumstantial evidence would be rendered completely meaningless. That's not the case.

queencitybuckeye;1728658 wrote:This isn't the court system where one has 5th amendment rights, or where having to prove one's innocence is illegal. IMO, there is one and only one reason Brady wouldn't turn over the content of his phone, and his failure to do so is strong evidence of his "guilt".

There are way more reasons for Brady to not give up his phone. You want to compare everything to law, then the NFL has no subpoena power. Why should he give up his personal phone?

lhslep134;1728659 wrote:If this were true then the concept of circumstantial evidence would be rendered completely meaningless. That's not the case.

What is the circumstantial evidence?

SportsAndLady;1728657 wrote:Seriously? Everyone and their mothers knew the patriots and Brady cheated and deflated those balls. Just because they didn't have Brady on video physically removing air, or a text specifically stating what he did, doesn't mean we should just let them get away with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well then about 90% of the NFL should be suspended.

WebFire;1728661 wrote:What is the circumstantial evidence?

Don't be dense and make me re-iterate what you are so obviously choosing to ignore.

Sounds like Brady has a pretty good defense team. I'd really like to see him suspended but only AFTER he plays his week 1 game.....

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/5/13/8600105/new-england-patriots-tom-brady-appeal-deflategate

queencitybuckeye;1728658 wrote:This isn't the court system where one has 5th amendment rights, or where having to prove one's innocence is illegal. IMO, there is one and only one reason Brady wouldn't turn over the content of his phone, and his failure to do so is strong evidence of his "guilt".

Brady refusing to give up his phone is not 'strong evidence' of anything at all.

BR1986FB;1728672 wrote:Sounds like Brady has a pretty good defense team. I'd really like to see him suspended but only AFTER he plays his week 1 game.....

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/5/13/8600105/new-england-patriots-tom-brady-appeal-deflategate

Typical browns fan...just wanting him to play against the steelers.........geesh.

I think he should get just a 1 game ban myself.

thavoice;1728674 wrote:Typical browns fan...just wanting him to play against the steelers.........geesh.

Coming from the king of reverse jinx, I'll laugh that off.

BR1986FB;1728677 wrote:Coming from the king of reverse jinx, I'll laugh that off.

I personally thought he would get 2-4 out of it which works good for the steelers. I still think they win 2 of their first 3 without him (and lost to dallas) and end up 2-2 when he returns. Steelers weak defense and playing without Bell will hurt them so the pats could pull off that win especially with their backup getting so much PT to get ready for it. If it was an injury the week or two before to brady.....I wouldnt expect as much from the backup.

Steelers did address the defense early and often in the draft so that is a good thing, but early on i expect it to be ugly. The offense will have to outshoot how bad the def plays. With a new D coord, youth coming in I just feel it could be rough going on early. Plus, Tomlin usually doesnt get much out of his rookies for whatever reason.

There are way more reasons for Brady to not give up his phone. You want to compare everything to law, then the NFL has no subpoena power. Why should he give up his personal phone?

That's exactly right. The NFL has no subpoena power, because this is not the United States judicial system. This is the NFL, an organization that has it's own rules,... and if you wish to be part of it, then you agree to abide by its rules and its authority, and the authority of the commissioner who is charged to act in the best interests of the game.
Probably the #1 thing that the commisioner is charged with that is not directly financial, is to protect the integrity of the sport and league. Whether deflating balls actually caused a game to be compromised isn't the issue...it is the perception that a game could be, that is enough for a harsh penalty.

The only mitigating factor that I see, is that the NFL has let QB's take liberties with the game balls in the past....deflating/inflating them is only one step away from rubbing dirt on them to get a good feel. Hence, I think the penalty was too harsh, because the NFL has a degree of complicity here.

wkfan;1728673 wrote:Brady refusing to give up his phone is not 'strong evidence' of anything at all.

Sure it is, this isn't a court system where a refusal can't be considered evidence of hiding something. Is this venue, one is permitted to use common sense.

queencitybuckeye;1728681 wrote:Sure it is, this isn't a court system where a refusal can't be considered evidence of hiding something. Is this venue, one is permitted to use common sense.

All that Brady refusing to give up his phone is that he doesn't want to give up his phone. Nothing more.

You can surmise that whatever is on his phone would prove something...but surmise is just another word for theory, assumption and many words that all mean guess.

He was never asked to give up physical possession of his phone, so if it's a privacy matter, it doesn't wash.

You are free to think that refusing to give up pertinent content from his phone without giving a reason why doesn't mean anything at all. I think that is a minority opinion.

queencitybuckeye;1728691 wrote:He was never asked to give up physical possession of his phone, so if it's a privacy matter, it doesn't wash.

You are free to think that refusing to give up pertinent content from his phone without giving a reason why doesn't mean anything at all. I think that is a minority opinion.

I see that you edited what you originally wrote to remove the 'educated guesses' reference.

Good call.

I never said that Brady refusing to give up his phone means nothing. I just said that it does not prove anything.

wkfan;1728693 wrote:I see that you edited what you originally wrote to remove the 'educated guesses' reference.

Good call.

I never said that Brady refusing to give up his phone means nothing. I just said that it does not prove anything.

Prove, no. Evidence? Yes.