Wells Report "deeply flawed", "unreliable"

guppy wrote:says an independent study from the American Enterprise Institute.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From the NY Times article:

"Our recommendation? When the NFL hears [Tom] Brady's appeal of his suspension later this month, it should proceed with the knowledge that the Wells report is unreliable."




[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From the report:

"It is therefore unlikely that the Patriots deflated the footballs."




My question:  When do we get our draft picks back?

George1963 wrote:

guppy wrote:says an independent study from the American Enterprise Institute.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From the NY Times article:

"Our recommendation? When the NFL hears [Tom] Brady's appeal of his suspension later this month, it should proceed with the knowledge that the Wells report is unreliable."




[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

From the report:

"It is therefore unlikely that the Patriots deflated the footballs."




My question:  When do we get our draft picks back?

Never.
Your owner copped.

Little known fun fact;
Under the CBA the Commissioner has the power to increase a punishment unless and until it's accepted. One of the powers the man who saved football gave him.


If he has so much power, then he'll have no problem exercising it in order to give back the draft picks, since it will become clear that it is the right thing to do, and this concept will dawn on him eventually.

George1963 wrote:
That's water under the dam. Or over the bridge. Something like that. Kraft copped. I don't know what it's called in MA, or here for that matter, but in Nevada they called it admission of sufficient facts to prove guilt.
You take your sentence without admitting guilt.
Done. No appeal.

THAT'S WHAT KRAFT DID.

I'm not talking about an appeal or even a request by Kraft.  I'm talking about Goodell coming to his senses and doing the right thing, and, on his own volition, reversing himself and commuting the sentence, or the punishment as the case may be.  He can reverse himself all on his own, notwithstanding Kraft's "reluctant"  "acceptance" of the punishment.  That's what I was talking about.


That's done. Not what I was talking about. I meant Brady.
Goodell would be completely within his authority to turn 4 into 6. Or 8. Or a lifetime ban.

Who cares about the extent of his authority?  Why would such a bizarre notion even be a topic for discussion?


I say this as someone who doesn't want to see that happen. Every day this goes on has to piss off Krafts hand picked commissioner more,

Why would Goodell get pissed off more as each day goes by?  Because as each day goes by, it becomes more and more apparent that the huge witch hunt, er, I mean, "investigation", that he spent millions of dollars on was a total waste of time and money?  If he's getting more pissed off, it should only be at himself for allowing this fiasco to happen in the first place.  (When are we going to learn who leaked false information time after time?  And why were the false reports not immediately corrected?)  

He says he has "an open mind" for Brady's appeal.  His "open mind" has to begin to realize sooner or later that the Wells report is garbage.  Just as this new report from the American Enterprise Institute says it is.


and make him more detirmend to show that he's not what he he is.
Which is, or was, you know...... Krafts sock puppet.

So now its all about HIM?  The sheriff?    F*ing great.  He screwed up on Ray Rice, Bountygate, and Peterson, and embarrassingly got reversed on all three, so now this time, by god, he going to "show us" by going completely overboard and off the deep end on Tom Brady?  Really?  On Thomas Edward Patrick Brady, Jr.?  The greatest quarterback in the history of the game?  The player who in comparison to all the aforementioned cases is the only one who is actually completely innocent?  

It looks like that's exactly what he's planning though, since in his mind, it is all about him. 

Well, he had better tread carefully.  Very carefully. 

The federal court may eventually have something to say about his little power play whose only goal is to "show us".

George1963 wrote:
Really. Nobodies ever been able to tell me what he would go to court on.



A little concept called innocence.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

George1963 wrote:

Brady has no chance of winning in court. Zero.

Wow.  "Zero" chance of winning?  Yikes.  That doesn't sound too promising.


Kind of like when Rob Parker said, "NO WAY, NO HOW!"  when asked in 2012 whether TB will ever "get to" another superbowl.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:
Really. Nobodies ever been able to tell me what he would go to court on.



A little concept called innocence.


According to the standard of proof that he agreed to he's guilty as sin. Common sense about his guilt aside, his representative signed off on the CBA. They wouldn't use a different standard in court. I doubt his lawyers would even try to argue his innocence. I doubt they will at his hearing. They'd argue the punishment. Which is a loser at his apeal or in court because in a case like this Goodell can do whatever he wants.
Which is what all parties agreed to.
Any judge with half a brain would say the time to take issue with this was four years ago.
Suing over something you agreed to, unless it involves a criminal act, when it bites you in the ass years later has never worked to my knowledge.

George1963 wrote:

According to the standard of proof that he agreed to he's guilty as sin.

No he's not.  Just the opposite.  That's the point.  Using the very standard for the applicable burden of proof, which is "a preponderance of the evidence", or stated another way, "more probable than not", or stated one more way, 51% to 49%, there are insufficient facts to support the conclusion that Ted Wells, as one (well paid) individual, concluded.  Wells could have looked at the exact same factual record (a few off-color texts between two employees, none of whom were sent to, or received from, Tom Brady himself), and come out with the precise opposite conclusion.  Which is what Attorney Wells should have done:  

"I, Ted Wells, in evaluating and weighing all the evidence in front of me as a whole, do hereby conclude, applying the "preponderance of the evidence" standard, that the entire weight of said evidence does not prove more probably than not, that Tom Brady was even "generally aware" of -- much less directly or personally ordered -- the deliberate and nefarious tampering of football air pressure, after Referee Walt Anderson signed off on them  --- if indeed such activity took place by equipment personnel, of which there is also no direct evidence. 

As a further rationale for reaching this conclusion no wrongdoing, I take special account of the fact that the scientific analysis is far too inconclusive and uncertain to be used as a reliable basis to assign guilt of intentional tampering to any individual.

When the weakness of the circumstantial evidence, is added to and taken together with the unreliability and dubious level of certainty of the scientific evidence, there is only one conclusion possible.  We do not believe that the evidence establishes that any Patriots personnel participated in or had knowledge of any deliberate effort to circumvent the Playing Rules."



 in a case like this Goodell can do whatever he wants.

Not entirely true.  Remains to be seen.  You don't go from a set punishment in the Manual of $25,000 fine per ball to be imposed on the team, and from there make the breathtaking leap to suspending a player for an amount of games, applying his per game salary, that is equivalent to over $1.8 Mil.  $25,000 for the team, to $1.8 Mil for a player!!!!   Are you kidding?  Even the Fuhrer can't just willy nilly "do whatever the hell he wants" on a scale like that.  There is always appeal.   There is always review by a higher authority to see if the lower authority used due process, or was the decision reached through erroneous procedure, or erroneous or improper application of the law (rules) to the facts. 

It cannot be about a supreme authority that can do whatever he wants without limitation or some measure of checks and balances.  There is justice.  There is fairness.  There is due process.  There are boundaries.  That's what the courts are for.  That's why they exist.  Good lawyering will exploit the gross disregard of all of these legal safeguards that has disgustingly transpired in this case. 

George1963 wrote:From Brady's suspension letter;

"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence.
"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football. The integrity of the game is of paramount importance to everyone in our league, and requires unshakable commitment to fairness and compliance with the playing rules. Each player, no matter how accomplished and otherwise respected, has an obligation to comply with the rules and must be held accountable for his actions when those rules are violated and the public's confidence in the game is called into question."


Key words:  "Your actions as set forth in the report....blah blah blah."

Exactly what "actions" with respect to alleged deflation of balls by others did TB12 supposedly "act out"? 

I thought he was guilty, in the opinion of one attorney, of maybe probably being "at least generally aware" of something?  Oh, now we've made the jump from general awareness to some supposed "actions"? 

Its really special when on some clown's mere say so, you can go from "probable" "general knowledge" to "actions", without specifying those "actions" of course, to being fined $1.8 Million for a $25K fine.  Troy Vincent's letter also characterized these unnamed "actions" as "conduct".  Swell. 

What "conduct" (ie, "actions") was TB12 proven (under any standard) to actually do?  

Anyone?



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:From Brady's suspension letter;

"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence.
"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football. The integrity of the game is of paramount importance to everyone in our league, and requires unshakable commitment to fairness and compliance with the playing rules. Each player, no matter how accomplished and otherwise respected, has an obligation to comply with the rules and must be held accountable for his actions when those rules are violated and the public's confidence in the game is called into question."


Key words:  "Your actions as set forth in the report....blah blah blah."

Exactly what "actions" with respect to alleged deflation of balls by others did TB12 supposedly "act out"? 

I thought he was guilty, in the opinion of one attorney, of maybe probably being "at least generally aware" of something?  Oh, now we've made the jump from general awareness to some supposed "actions"? 

Its really special when on some clown's mere say so, you can go from "probable" "general knowledge" to "actions", without specifying those "actions" of course, to being fined $1.8 Million for a $25K fine.  Troy Vincent's letter also characterized these unnamed "actions" as "conduct".  Swell. 

What "conduct" (ie, "actions") was TB12 proven (under any standard) to actually do?  

Anyone?


For on refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Which is clearly his right. And is just as clearly conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football.
Which is punishable BY RULE, by anything from an unspecified fine to a lifetime ban AT THE COMMISSIONERS SOLE DISCRETION.

I've wondered why he's fighting something that he can't win. People say to salvage his reputation but, it won't. If he loses, or somehow weasles out a win (By the way, this whole thing is only serving to enhance his already considerable cry-baby image) it won't change a single persons opinion.
Then I figured it out. He's fighting it just so he can say he did. He's fighting it just so 20 years from now when left out of the HOF again, he, and his slavish sycophants (you) can say he's being unfairly snubbed for something he didn't do.
If he took his punishment like a man he'd be admitting at least some culpability.
Can't do that.

George1963 wrote:

What "conduct" (ie, "actions") was TB12 proven (under any standard) to actually do?  

Anyone?


For on refusing to cooperate with the investigation.

That's it?  That's his proven "actions"?  That's his proven "conduct"?  How swiftly and conveniently we move away from "probable" "general awareness" so that we can focus on "refusing to cooperate", even though he was fully interviewed for a full day by Wells and his team.  Remind me.  What did Brett Favre get again for his "refusing to cooperate", and how does that compare with what Brady got?  Maybe you thought Favre should get a lifetime ban?  I'm sure you were highly outraged at him just as much.  [rolling eyes]

Which is clearly his right. And is just as clearly conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football.
Which is punishable BY RULE, by anything from an unspecified fine to a lifetime ban AT THE COMMISSIONERS SOLE DISCRETION.

I've wondered why he's fighting something that he can't win. People say to salvage his reputation but, it won't. If he loses, or somehow weasles out a win (By the way, this whole thing is only serving to enhance his already considerable cry-baby image) it won't change a single persons opinion.
Then I figured it out. He's fighting it just so he can say he did. He's fighting it just so 20 years from now when left out of the HOF again, he, and his slavish sycophants (you) can say he's being unfairly snubbed for something he didn't do.
If he took his punishment like a man he'd be admitting at least some culpability.
Can't do that.


You continue speak in your typical close-minded and non objective fashion.  Fighting for for one's name, for justice against the injustice of wrongful accusations based on faulty science and leaps of logic from weak circumstantial evidence that does not even involve TB's own communications is now being a "crybaby"?  Priceless.  You keep coming up with some good ones, but that's right up there at the top.  I really think your sickly obsessed, just like Wells, in coming to your conclusion first, and then holding on to justify it by any means possible, however irrational, no matter how far you have to stretch.  Why?  Because its the Patriots, of course.  Can't beat them on the field, so defame them.  Over what?  Over basically NOTHING. 

Keep speaking about the Commissioner being able to do anything he wants under the CBA, and your confusion as to what would Brady go to court for?  It may be that the CBA itself violates federal labor laws.  There goes your "Commissioner's sole discretion" out the window.  Brady's lawyers and the Players Association's lawyers wanted Goodell to recuse himself from the appeal because (1) he is only reviewing his own decision to swallow whole hog Ted Wells' extremely shaky conclusions, and in no way is that a fair and impartial "review" (he's just reviewing himself); (2) the lawyers want Goodell as a witness in the appeal.  I guarantee you one thing.  NEVER IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE has there been a process where the investigating body (the NFL) (or its agent, Wells), the prosecuting body, the judge, the jury, the executioner, the appeals officer, and a WITNESS, is the SAME FUCKING PERSON, and there is ZERO checks and balances on such a system.  NEVER.  Not in America.  Nazi Germany maybe.  The Federal Court will issue an injunction against that fundamentally flawed, unfair, unjust, and ILLEGAL process in about two seconds.

Hey, how about a change of subject.  How about those St. Louis Cardinals under FBI investigation for hacking into the Houston Astros computers?  We're talking breaking federal law here.  We're talking people could go to jail. 

But I'll bet that you think a football missing a puff of air is WORSE.  Come on, admit it.  You do, don't you?  

CAVEAT:  Just as long as its only the Patriots balls that are missing that precious and all important puff of air, or it is Tom Brady maybe being "generally aware" of something (we're not sure exactly what, but why bother ourselves with specifics).  Any other team, or any other QB?  Not so much. 

Thank God we have a court system.  And hopefully its manned by honest and fair mnded human beings.  But any system is only as good as the people running it.  That's why the NFL's system for discipline sucks.  The guy at the top running it is a joke.   

  

George1963 wrote:From Brady's suspension letter;


I post this again and ask you; where is his appeal?

"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge. Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence.
"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football. The integrity of the game is of paramount importance to everyone in our league, and requires unshakable commitment to fairness and compliance with the playing rules. Each player, no matter how accomplished and otherwise respected, has an obligation to comply with the rules and must be held accountable for his actions when those rules are violated and the public's confidence in the game is called into question."

From the NFL operations manual;

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Personal Conduct Policy
All persons associated with the NFL are required to avoid “conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the National Football League.” This requirement applies to players, coaches, other team employees, owners, game officials and all others privileged to work in the National Football League

Discipline:
Upon learning of conduct that may give rise to discipline, the League may initiate an
investigation to include interviews and information gathering from medical, law enforcement,and other relevant professionals. On matters involving NFL players, the League will timely advise the NFLPA of the investigation and outcome. As appropriate, the employee will also have the opportunity, represented by counsel and/or a union official, to address the conduct at issue. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the Commissioner will have full authority to impose discipline as warranted.
Discipline may take the form of fines, suspension, or banishment from the League and may include a probationary period and conditions that must be satisfied prior to or following reinstatement.


Hearing Rights:
Following the imposition of discipline, the affected person will have the right to appeal the decision. (For players, the disciplinary decision must be appealed within three (3) business days.) Persons filing an appeal shall be entitled to a prompt hearing pursuant to Article 46 of the
Collective Bargaining Agreement and the NFL Constitution and Bylaws, to be conducted by the Commissioner or his designee. In cases involving players, the NFLPA will be entitled to participate in the hearing.

George1963 wrote:

None of this is doing ANYBODY ANY good!

Goodell offers it because it's in his best interest to have it over with, Brady takes it for the same reason.


Brady takes it?  So then you and all the like-minded, headlines only readers out there can call him a cheater and proclaim that the HOF will deny him entry for the next 2 or 3 decades over something he actually did not do? 

No thanks.

George1963 wrote:


How swiftly and conveniently we move away from "probable" "general awareness" so that we can focus on "refusing to cooperate", even though he was fully interviewed for a full day by Wells and his team.


And refused to cooperate with some of their inquiries.

So which is it?  Is he being punished for supposed (but not proven) "general awareness", OR for "refusing to cooperate" with some aspects of some inquires regarding that supposed (but not proven) "general awareness"?

.........





Remind me. Did what Brett Favre was being investigated for have anything to do with cheating in a championship game?

I thought we put the "general awareness" of something pertaining to the game itself aside as being not proved, and not proveable, and were focusing only on the "actions" of "refusing to cooperate", which, of course, is a fair and appropriate comparison.  We're putting aside the underlying matter that was the subject of the "refusing to cooperate".  We're comparing "refusing to cooperate" to "refusing to cooperate".  Now not handing your phone over - on the advice of counsel - that happens to piss off Ted Wells, is something worthy of four games?  That's what we call justice?    

........

 Over what?  Over basically NOTHING. 



 The two big ones, and all the little ones...?
Why does it keep happening?

Oh, come on.  Two big ones?  All the little ones?  There is only one "big" one.  It happened NINE freakin years ago.  They went 18-1 AFTER IT WAS OVER.  Its only "big" in people's minds because it was blown out of proportion -- by Goodell's mismanagement of it, and by the media.  In and of itself, it was really not "big".  Just ask Bill Cowher, Jimmy Johnson, Eric Mangini, and a host of others involved in the game.  The Jags, for example, do the same thing and its not "big" at all.  The Jags do it, and it might be a footnote at best.  And it doesn't linger for years and years.  You asked why did they do it?  Just what Bill Cowher said - "arrogance".  It was a mistake.  The mistake was born out of "arrogance" I suppose, and I certainly get why that pisses people off.  In relation to the actual offense a HUGE price was paid.  But it was paid.   

Why did Jerry Rice use stickum?  Why did Montana's linemen use silicone on jerseys?  Why did the Falcons pipe in noise?  Why did Lawrence Taylor submit teammates urine for his own in order to fool drug tests?  Why? Why? Why? 

The "second big one"?  There is no "second big one" yet.  The process is not over yet.  If you want to call a puff of air - something that was never a concern of anyone in football, ever before, not even the league itself - a "big" one, I guess you can characterize it that way.   The league knew about the Colts concerns pregame.  If this was such a "big" issue, why didn't the league take action pregame to insure that that the first half had no such psi issue?  What about the all important "integrity of the game"?  The league really didn't seem to care about that.  But from a football standpoint, I'm just glad the "problem" got solved at halftime, because that missing puff of air clearly held the Patriots back in the first half, and once corrected, allowed Brady and the offense to play more like themselves in the second half.



"All the little ones"?  lol.  I really don't want to go down the tin foil hat road.  If we do that, then I'll be on solid footing to say that the Colts piped in artificial crowd noise when they were never proven to have done that.  And I don't want to do that.  I don't want to be a crybaby.  But if we're going to bring up dumb conspiracy theories and blame losses on them rather than on execution, then we do it for everyone, not just the Pats. 

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

None of this is doing ANYBODY ANY good!

Goodell offers it because it's in his best interest to have it over with, Brady takes it for the same reason.


Brady takes it?  So then you and all the like-minded, headlines only readers out there can call him a cheater and proclaim that the HOF will deny him entry for the next 2 or 3 decades over something he actually did not do? 

No thanks.

George1963 wrote:
Headlines only readers? Guppy, the guy has never won a championship in a season where he wasn't cheating. How's that for a headline?


Dumb.  Boarding on retarded.