"Well known around the league"

George1963 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  
Here's something new -- confirmation that the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] tipped off the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So you're pointing out that John Harbaugh, who denied doing that very thing, is a liar?  Cool.

Or is he?  Harbaugh disagrees, and says they (the Ravens) never mentioned the Patriots and did not complain about anything the Patriots did.  The Ravens singular text to the Colts had to do with how the officials rotate the kicking balls.  Nothing about the Patriots.

"I’ve been consistent from the beginning when asked about whether the Ravens tipped off the Colts about deflated footballs. I’ll say it again – we didn’t. We knew nothing about deflated footballs,” John Harbaugh said in a statement.
“As a former special teams coach, I know that members of the kicking group from teams talk to their counterparts all the time about conditions, including field, weather and footballs. I learned this morning that our kicking consultant (Randy Brown) sent a text to Coach Pagano on Jan. 16 suggesting to the Colts that they pay attention to how the officials rotate the kicking balls into the game. Coach Brown’s text did not mention the Patriots and did not complain about anything the Patriots did. The Colts never responded to Randy’s text, and he had no further communications with the Colts on this matter.”

Well someone is lying.  Hmmm.  Ravens or Colts?  I choose to believe the Ravens, and I conclude that, more probably than not, the Colts are the ones lying.  Its more in the Colts style to be slime balls than it is the Ravens.

George1963 wrote:Well someone is lying.  Hmmm.  Ravens or Colts?  I choose to believe the Ravens, and I conclude that, more probably than not, the Colts are the ones lying.  Its more in the Colts style to be slime balls than it is the Ravens.


Yea. I've been listening to Boston sports radio and this seems to be all the rage, but the one that that confuses me is;
How does any of it relate to the case?
Which is AT THIS POINT, was collectively bargined procedure followed?
Help me out with that Guppy because Dale Arnold sure ain't.
Because his be all and end all seems to be that Tom Brady didn't do anything wrong because he said he didn't.
Kinda like you.


Why don't YOU help ME out George.  We have a 15 year track record for this particular player to look back on as a reference.  Please recall for an instance or a specific incident (not counting perceived personality quirks, dorkiness, or the way he wears his hair, etc.) involving him personally, that would lead a reasonable person to the conclusion, "Ya, that's typical of him alright.  Based on his past conduct of x, y, and z, that (deliberate rule breaking) is something I can definitely see him doing." 

Show me a pattern of behavior.  Show me something arguably comparable.  Show me something.


By the way, shouldn't we retain Ted Wells again and spend millions of dollars to find out why the balls in the Jets game were 16 psi?  I'm in favor of that.   Are you?   I mean, think about it.  16 psi!!!  That is way, way over limit - 2.5 over.  That's huge.  That is way more than the Pats balls were under.  And if you account for natural deflation, they more probably than not started out greater than 16, right?  Maybe they started out at 17.   Who knows?  No wonder Brady was pissed.  No wonder McNally said "the refs fucked us."  

Investigate.  God forbid, don't spend a few bucks on cameras in the end zone to ensure the correct call if the ball gets over the goal line, as the owners voted not to incur that expense.  But hey, lets do spend millions investigating something we heretofore had no clue about, nor cared about, a less than 1 psi variation in ball pressure!   We live in the Bizzaro World.    

George1963 wrote:

And again, what does this, and everything else in your post, have to do with the case we're talking about as it stands right now?

Because I'm highlighting the misplaced priorities of the clowns in the league office.  They didn't care about 16 psi, which is waaaaay over limit, but now they suddenly really, really care about a few ticks of psi under?  Its just too f*cked up.  You call it a "case", and you're right, it is.  But it never should have been a "case".  The league took what, if true, which for starters is extremely dubious, amounts to a parking ticket, and made it into a FEDERAL CASE -- literally.  WTF are we doing?  Where is the common sense?

Speaking of the "case" and the CBA, and whether what Goodell did was within his collectively bargained authority, or he, by a WIDE margain, exceeded it, how did you like what bitter Patriot rival New York Jet Antonio Cromartie had to say about the penalty, which is supposed to be a $25,000 fine, and by handing down a 4 game suspension, Goodell is just "making it up as he goes along"?  

First Terrell Suggs, and now Antonio Cromartie backing Brady???   Like I said before, we are living in the Bizzaro World.

George1963 wrote:

They didn't. They started covering up, stonewalling, spinning, accusing

Or put another way, as innocent parties being wrongly accused, fighting for their rights against merit-less charges, and an "independent" investigation that worked itself backwards from a conclusion that they reached initially and then conducted a so-called "independent" investigation tailored and shaped to support that predetermined conclusion. 

Why else would the NFL edit the Wells report before it was released?




[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
From Brady suit: "The purportedly independent Wells Report was edited by Pash, the NFL's General Counsel, before its public release."

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:

They didn't. They started covering up, stonewalling, spinning, accusing

Or put another way, as innocent parties being wrongly accused, fighting for their rights against merit-less charges, and an "independent" investigation that worked itself backwards from a conclusion that they reached initially and then conducted a so-called "independent" investigation tailored and shaped to support that predetermined conclusion. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

George1963 wrote:



First, Cromartie said it was a maximum $25k. It's not. That's the minimum. Small thing but a lot of people bring it up.

Did Cromartie (who personally does not like TB) outright disagree with the suspension or not?  Why avoid the substance of his comments?  Sheesh.

For all your criticism of TB for dancing around an issue instead of addressing it head on, it seems that you are just like him (minus the 4 rings). 




Second, Brady wasn't sanctioned for tampering with the balls, not exactly.

"General awareness".  Don't be so hesitant to use those words.  That's as far as your man Ted Wells would go as far as involvement in assumed ever so slight ball deflation by humans as opposed to physics.  That was his bottom line conclusion, and he went no further.  He couldn't.  TB never sent or received a single email or a text having to do with psi, ever.  He was punished for being assumed, in the opinion of one person, Mr. Wells, to have "general awareness" of assumed misconduct, "misconduct" which was controverted by science and therefore unreliable in the first place.  "General awareness."  Period.  You can say whatever you want about the Goodell's powers, or the legal strategy of TB and his lawyers and agents and the NFLPA in reacting to the charges.  Maybe they didn't employ the best strategy at every turn.  In fact, they did not.  (How many times have I read "Its not the crime, its the coverup"?)  None of those "missteps" or ill-advised strategy changes the fact that at its core, the case has no merit.   TB was sanctioned by Troy Vincent primarily, if not exclusively, for "general awareness", even though Vincent, in his letter, erroneously used the words "your actions" (i.e, "conduct").  The federal judge should find that "general awareness" is not "actions" and it is not "conduct", and therefore beyond the scope of authority granted by Article 46. 

As to actual "actions" or "conduct", we are left with "failure to cooperate fully" and "failure to produce electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.)" according to Vincent.   Putting aside that TB did in fact produce all private emails, we are talking about a 4 game suspension for these so-called "actions"?  4 games?  Seriously?  Every other appeal, like those involving domestic violence, physical abuse of a child, running a bounty program to cause injury, ALL result in a reduction on appeal.  However, exercising your absolute right to not give up your personal phone, while at the same time fully cooperating by being subject to be interviewed by investigators for how ever long they want to keep you in the room, and you don't get a reduction on appeal?  Unbelievable! 

Moreover, throw any notion of consistency out the window.  Brett Favre gets a small monetary fine.  But Tom Brady gets 4 games???  Insanity.  Total, complete and utter insanity.


If you don't see the injustice here, what is the use of us keep jabbering back and forth about it?  Its all just a lot of hot air. (pun intended).

You "know" he's guilty.  Just like I "know" he's not.  That won't change. 

So why don't we just wait until real football starts and try to enjoy the games on the field.  Then comments can be about what happened on third and long, and was there a balance between the pass and the run, was it a fumble or not, and was he in bounds with possession, was that holding, etc., etc.?  This drama over an artificially manufactured, over-blown "controversy" is just not worth the angst.  Remember when you said you were "done" with this?  What happened to that?  Maybe deflategate is like a heroin, and you're hooked.  You know its not good for you, its going to kill you, but you can't not go back to the dealer for another hit.  That's it.  I've solved the psychology of this sick national obsession.  Deflategate = heroin.

George1963 wrote:Why else would the NFL edit the Wells report before it was released?



It's their report, they can do whatever the hell they want with it.

No, they can't have it both ways.  They can't hail it as an "independent" investigation (which Goodell did multiple times), and then have NFL lawyers edit it, and influence the final version before they made it public.

And before you adopt the NFL's argument that the CBA does not require the league to do an "independent" investigation, that is trumped by the legal principle of estoppel.  The league, once they said they were doing an "independent" investigation, and then were exposed that it was not in fact "independent", they are now legally estopped from asserting the new argument that, "Oh well, there was no requirement for us to do an "independent" investigation in the first place."  Can't do it.

Just on the one fact alone that the Wells report was tainted and poisoned because it was not truly "independent" at the same time when it was falsely presented as being "independent" is enough for Judge Berman to throw the whole suspension out.  He has enough justification to do so just based on that one fact, and doesn't even need to go any further in his analysis.   Wells Report = fatally tainted, therefore must be throw out.

George1963 wrote:
I'm also sure that in about five years you'll be saying I'm the only person in the world who cares.
You'll be wrong.


I'm pretty sure in about 5 years or more, I'll be reminding you that this will not affect in the slightest TB12's first ballot entrance into the HOF. 
I'll be right (once again).  And I'll remind you that you were wrong.  LOL.

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:
I'm also sure that in about five years you'll be saying I'm the only person in the world who cares.
You'll be wrong.


I'm pretty sure in about 5 years or more, I'll be reminding you that this will not affect in the slightest TB12's first ballot entrance into the HOF. 
I'll be right (once again).  And I'll remind you that you were wrong.  LOL.

Admin wrote:

One thing I would remind you of: outside of the New England area..... most fans don't give a rat's ass about TB12. Not saying he won't be a 1st ballot  but am saying it is not as certain as YOU say it is. The emphasis is on the fact that your opinion is not the law of the land. I'm sure the good folks up Green Bay way might have some interesting thoughts about Aaron Rodgers, maybe the some San Diego people think Philip Rivers is God's gift. How about Drew Brees down in the bayou?? Who is to say they are wrong & YOU are right?



I see clearly that your "problem" is really not with the Patriots, or Tom Brady for that matter.  Your "problem" is with ME.  You don't care for my style and you think my touting of TB12 and/or the Pats is "excessive".  I'm too much of a cheerleader.  I take it too far.  So I am the problem here.

But let me set the record straight.  My opinion is not the law of the land.  When you talk about Green Bay fans, San Diego fans, New Orleans fans and you then bring in the ideas of being "wrong" and "right", there is no "wrong" and "right".  If I am "excessive" that doesn't make me "right", it only makes me "excessive".   My "opinion" is just the opinion of a fan; one who doesn't mind a little trash talking (both giving and taking) and just whooping it up.  I try to be funny more often than I try to be serious.  

As far as TB12 being a first ballot, or not, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.  But when it is a fact that you the player who has accomplished more in the post season than any other QB in NFL history, I simply don't see the merit of an argument that you're somehow not going to get the votes necessary to get you in the HOF on the first ballot.  There is the possibility that I may be wrong.  But I just don't see it.   

George1963 wrote:As far as TB12 being a first ballot, or not, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.



10 out of 46 vote no he doesn't go in. I got 10 before I even got to the at-large guys. Including the guy from Boston.
I actually had a conversation with him about the Hall once.
Not really a conversation, I met him at a fight and asked him about something that another selector had said.
He agreed, if the vote were held today, OJ would still get in. Gale Sayers wouldn't

I don't understand what you are saying.  Are you saying you already KNOW right now how 10 people specifically will vote on Brady when his turn eventually comes up and whose career is still ongoing?  Can you also tell us with the same certainty you are displaying here who the next president will be?

Lets listen to a former QB who actually is a member of the HOF, Warren Moon:

Rich Eisen:  "Warren, do you think Tom Brady should be viewed any differently [because of deflategate] than the other QBs, including yourself, who are in the HOF?"
Moon:  "No I do not.  His body of work speaks for itself.  His legacy will not be interrupted by what's going on."

Now I fully expect you to say something ridiculous or absurd to in some manner negate or contradict the plain words of what Warren Moon just said.  Psssst.  Remember, Warren Moon is in the HOF.  You are not. 

George1963 wrote:
I am also, like Moon not a Hall of Fame selector. So my opinion means exactly as much as his does.  
Although it is true that neither of you are HOF voters, you'll pardon me if I continue to think that Moon's opinion carries a little more sway in general than yours.

As much as this guys too;

But when we asked Hall-of-Famer Charles Haley to compare the two on a Talk of Fame Network broadcast, he stopped us – saying there was no comparison. Montana was the only choice.
“Joe didn’t have to cheat,” said Haley. “I’ve lost all respect for Brady. When your integrity is challenged in the game of football, to me, all his Super Bowls are tainted.”

Charles Haley?  LOL.  This is the same clown that just told 49er's rookies to "act like white guys"?  Classy.  The guy may have rings and a yellow jacket, but that doesn't save him from being a total dumbass.  How come more guys with yellow jackets don't join him in his ultra extreme opinion?  He's just one guy on an island, no?


Which is to say, not as much as these guys;

Rick Gosselin, The Dallas Morning News: "Brady is still going into the Hall of Fame. He won his first three Super Bowls before the NFL turned over control of the game balls to the quarterbacks in 2006. But I think his status as a first-ballot Hall of Famer could be in jeopardy.

Well now, Rick also said this: 

All along I thought Wells would find that the footballs were indeed deflated. As a result, I thought the NFL would crack down on the Patriots as a franchise. Brady is on his way to the Hall of Fame with his four Super Bowl rings, and I thought he might be in line for a mere slap on the wrist.

Except that the Wells report also concluded that neither Patriots ownership, coach Bill Belichick nor or any members of his staff had any knowledge of this “violation of playing rules.” So that all but rules out the NFL disciplining the franchise.

So Rick was wrong there wasn't he?  He obviously thought there would/should be no discipline to the franchise.  Yet there was.  Unprecedented discipline by Fuhrer Goodell.  I wonder if deep down Rick thinks it was unjust or totally out of wack.  Put a lie detector to him, I'm thinking that more probably than not he does.

“I vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame and I don’t vote for McGwire and Sosa because they cheated, so I would have to take that in consideration, but I don’t like to judge players until their career is over,” said Vito Stellino of the Florida Times-Union. “At the very least, he should not be a first ballot [Hall of Famer].

George, you sneaky little bastard, you left out the rest of the sentence that Vito said.  I'm shocked.  Shocked I tell you. 
Here, allow me to complete Vito's sentence that you chopped up.  The following words by Vito belong after "...he should not be a fist ballot [Hall of Famer]": "I’m probably in the minority, though so there’s no doubt he will get in.”
Vito admitted he's "in the minority". 

Like I always say, you just try too damn hard. 
I thought you said there were 10?  Where are they?


And while we're at it, why not include the other quotes from the article you conveniently left out.  Here, I'll post them since you obviously can't be trusted:

Two said they think, at the very least, Brady should not get in on the first ballot.

That's "two" for "not on the first ballot".  Not 10.  "Two."  Out of 46.


How about Jason Cole from Bleacher Report?  Did you just miss him or something?  Guy makes a lot of sense, does he not?

“I think this is an overwrought controversy,” Bleacher Report’s Jason Cole said. “I think what Brady did is akin to throwing a spitter in baseball. Is it worth a suspension of a game or two? Sure. Does it diminish 15 years of achievement? No, that’s a dumb stance. Should we take away Gaylord Perry’s achievements because he continually threw a spitter? This is getting out of control.”


How about the Philly guy?  Why skip over him George?  He may be from Philly, but he counts just as much as Vito from Florida who you attached great importance to.  You don't like hearing other viewpoints or something?  Man, talk about lack of balance. 

“The Wells Report has not changed my view on Brady’s [Hall of Fame] worthiness,” said Paul Domowitch of the Philadelphia Daily News. “And the penalty he gets will have no influence either. This isn’t a borderline candidate. He’s going to have to do quite a bit more than green-light letting the air out of a few footballs before I wouldn’t put him in Canton.”


And the Houston guy?  What about Houston?  No love for the Houston writer George?  Pffft.  smh

“I’d like to let this play out, but I will still vote for Brady on the first ballot ’cause he’s one of three greatest QBs I’ve seen,” the Houston Chronicle’s John McClain said.


St. Louis?  Come on.  He's a Rams guy.  (I'll bet even he knows the "taping the walkthrough" charge was a lie.)  Yet he still says this.  You didn't find his quote worthy to put in your post?  "won't hesitate to vote for [Brady] as soon as he's eligible"  Hellooooo?  [knocks on George's hard head]  Anyone home in there?

“Nothing about Deflategate, including the anticipated NFL sanctions, changes my opinion on Tom Brady. He’s a Hall of Famer,” said Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “And I won’t hesitate to vote for him as soon as he’s eligible. He’s one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history, and I have no interest in downgrading him because he may have been part of something here — deflating footballs — that’s the football equivalent of a MLB pitcher scuffing a baseball. A misdemeanor at best. And erratically enforced.”


Finally, what about the general overview in the article that you cherry picked a couple of quotes (doing so without even including the entire quote)?  For the majority of HOF voters interviewed Deflategate was not a factor.  How could you leave that out?  How could that not be important to you?  Deflategate means nada, zippo, ziltch, nothing, to 15 out of 17 voters contacted regarding Brady and the HOF.  I'm pretty sure those 2 out of 17 who said Framegate mattered  to them will come around eventually and change their stance, don't you think?

15 of the 17 voters we spoke to responded that the Wells Report and its implication of Brady in the deflated ball scandal has done nothing to change their view of Brady when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

With Brady, the voters who we heard from cited two factors repeatedly that would keep Deflategate from factoring in — the view that this is not a serious infraction and Brady’s overwhelming credentials.

Two factors cited "repeatedly".  All together now.  One: "NOT A SERIOUS INFRACTION".  Two:  "OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS."  
You left this part of the article out.  I didn't.   


Your cherry picking a couple of quotes, then disingenuously trying to pass them off as presenting the majority, while at the same time intentionally leaving substantial opposing opinions out, doesn't fly with me. 
You're not fooling anyone else either. 

guppy wrote:

George1963 wrote:
I am also, like Moon not a Hall of Fame selector. So my opinion means exactly as much as his does.  
Although it is true that neither of you are HOF voters, you'll pardon me if I continue to think that Moon's opinion carries a little more sway in general than yours.

As much as this guys too;

But when we asked Hall-of-Famer Charles Haley to compare the two on a Talk of Fame Network broadcast, he stopped us – saying there was no comparison. Montana was the only choice.
“Joe didn’t have to cheat,” said Haley. “I’ve lost all respect for Brady. When your integrity is challenged in the game of football, to me, all his Super Bowls are tainted.”

Charles Haley?  LOL.  This is the same clown that just told 49er's rookies to "act like white guys"?  Classy.  The guy may have rings and a yellow jacket, but that doesn't save him from being a total dumbass.  How come more guys with yellow jackets don't join him in his ultra extreme opinion?  He's just one guy on an island, no?


Which is to say, not as much as these guys;

Rick Gosselin, The Dallas Morning News: "Brady is still going into the Hall of Fame. He won his first three Super Bowls before the NFL turned over control of the game balls to the quarterbacks in 2006. But I think his status as a first-ballot Hall of Famer could be in jeopardy.

Well now, Rick also said this: 

All along I thought Wells would find that the footballs were indeed deflated. As a result, I thought the NFL would crack down on the Patriots as a franchise. Brady is on his way to the Hall of Fame with his four Super Bowl rings, and I thought he might be in line for a mere slap on the wrist.

Except that the Wells report also concluded that neither Patriots ownership, coach Bill Belichick nor or any members of his staff had any knowledge of this “violation of playing rules.” So that all but rules out the NFL disciplining the franchise.

So Rick was wrong there wasn't he?  He obviously thought there would/should be no discipline to the franchise.  Yet there was.  Unprecedented discipline by Fuhrer Goodell.  I wonder if deep down Rick thinks it was unjust or totally out of wack.  Put a lie detector to him, I'm thinking that more probably than not he does.

“I vote for the Baseball Hall of Fame and I don’t vote for McGwire and Sosa because they cheated, so I would have to take that in consideration, but I don’t like to judge players until their career is over,” said Vito Stellino of the Florida Times-Union. “At the very least, he should not be a first ballot [Hall of Famer].

George, you sneaky little bastard, you left out the rest of the sentence that Vito said.  I'm shocked.  Shocked I tell you. 
Here, allow me to complete Vito's sentence that you chopped up.  The following words by Vito belong after "...he should not be a fist ballot [Hall of Famer]": "I’m probably in the minority, though so there’s no doubt he will get in.”
Vito admitted he's "in the minority". 

Like I always say, you just try too damn hard. 
I thought you said there were 10?  Where are they?


And while we're at it, why not include the other quotes from the article you conveniently left out.  Here, I'll post them since you obviously can't be trusted:

Two said they think, at the very least, Brady should not get in on the first ballot.

That's "two" for "not on the first ballot".  Not 10.  "Two."  Out of 46.


How about Jason Cole from Bleacher Report?  Did you just miss him or something?  Guy makes a lot of sense, does he not?

“I think this is an overwrought controversy,” Bleacher Report’s Jason Cole said. “I think what Brady did is akin to throwing a spitter in baseball. Is it worth a suspension of a game or two? Sure. Does it diminish 15 years of achievement? No, that’s a dumb stance. Should we take away Gaylord Perry’s achievements because he continually threw a spitter? This is getting out of control.”


How about the Philly guy?  Why skip over him George?  He may be from Philly, but he counts just as much as Vito from Florida who you attached great importance to.  You don't like hearing other viewpoints or something?  Man, talk about lack of balance. 

“The Wells Report has not changed my view on Brady’s [Hall of Fame] worthiness,” said Paul Domowitch of the Philadelphia Daily News. “And the penalty he gets will have no influence either. This isn’t a borderline candidate. He’s going to have to do quite a bit more than green-light letting the air out of a few footballs before I wouldn’t put him in Canton.”


And the Houston guy?  What about Houston?  No love for the Houston writer George?  Pffft.  smh

“I’d like to let this play out, but I will still vote for Brady on the first ballot ’cause he’s one of three greatest QBs I’ve seen,” the Houston Chronicle’s John McClain said.


St. Louis?  Come on.  He's a Rams guy.  (I'll bet even he knows the "taping the walkthrough" charge was a lie.)  Yet he still says this.  You didn't find his quote worthy to put in your post?  "won't hesitate to vote for [Brady] as soon as he's eligible"  Hellooooo?  [knocks on George's hard head]  Anyone home in there?

“Nothing about Deflategate, including the anticipated NFL sanctions, changes my opinion on Tom Brady. He’s a Hall of Famer,” said Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “And I won’t hesitate to vote for him as soon as he’s eligible. He’s one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history, and I have no interest in downgrading him because he may have been part of something here — deflating footballs — that’s the football equivalent of a MLB pitcher scuffing a baseball. A misdemeanor at best. And erratically enforced.”


Finally, what about the general overview in the article that you cherry picked a couple of quotes (doing so without even including the entire quote)?  For the majority of HOF voters interviewed Deflategate was not a factor.  How could you leave that out?  How could that not be important to you?  Deflategate means nada, zippo, ziltch, nothing, to 15 out of 17 voters contacted regarding Brady and the HOF.  I'm pretty sure those 2 out of 17 who said Framegate mattered  to them will come around eventually and change their stance, don't you think?

15 of the 17 voters we spoke to responded that the Wells Report and its implication of Brady in the deflated ball scandal has done nothing to change their view of Brady when it comes to the Hall of Fame.

With Brady, the voters who we heard from cited two factors repeatedly that would keep Deflategate from factoring in — the view that this is not a serious infraction and Brady’s overwhelming credentials.

Two factors cited "repeatedly".  All together now.  One: "NOT A SERIOUS INFRACTION".  Two:  "OVERWHELMING CREDENTIALS."  
You left this part of the article out.  I didn't.   


Your cherry picking a couple of quotes, then disingenuously trying to pass them off as presenting the majority, while at the same time intentionally leaving substantial opposing opinions out, doesn't fly with me. 
You're not fooling anyone else either. 


Dictionary
hypocrisy




noun hy·poc·ri·sy \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\
: the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do

George1963 wrote:From the Rich Eisen interview that Guppy (Partially, selectively) quoted;

THEY'VE DONE THEIR
INVESTIGATION, AND THEY FEEL
LIKE, I THINK THE BIGGEST PART
OF THIS INVESTIGATION WAS THAT
THEY FEEL LIKE TOM WITHHELD ED
AND DIDN'T COOPERATE WITH THE
PROCESS, AND THAT'S WHAT HE'S
BEEN PENALIZED FOR.
BECAUSE THE PENALTY FOR
TAMPERING WITH THE FOOTBALLS IS
NOT THAT BIG, $25,000 FINE.
THEY COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE
OF MONTHS AGO IF IT WAS ADMITTED
TO, BECAUSE OF THE OTHER THINGS
THAT HAPPENED SINCE THEN, THE
DESTROYING OF THE PHONE SO THE
NFL SAYS AND THAT, I THINK
THAT'S WHY THE PENALTY CAME DOWN
SO HARD.

What was the word you used?

Disin something?