I'm not sure how I feel about Peter King being the voice of reason.
This might be the most disturbing moment of this whole saga.
This might be the most disturbing moment of this whole saga.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Well there's this:
@ParthVenkat: @SI_PeterKing you wrote "two men then spoke six times over the next three days, for a total of 55 minutes" should TB answer q's about that?
@SI_PeterKing: Yes. Absolutely. I want to hear the explanation of that. https://t.co/p4VUA14ilI
"Uhh, I wanted to know what happened and "You good Johnny Boy?" wasn't quite sufficient.
@ParthVenkat: @SI_PeterKing you wrote "two men then spoke six times over the next three days, for a total of 55 minutes" should TB answer q's about that?
@SI_PeterKing: Yes. Absolutely. I want to hear the explanation of that. https://t.co/p4VUA14ilI
"Uhh, I wanted to know what happened and "You good Johnny Boy?" wasn't quite sufficient.
What makes these morons think that contacting the guy in charge of footballs after people starting losing their shit about the footballs implies guilt? What is an innocent Brady supposed to have done in that situation?
Hopefully this isn't what Sharks of Vegas are predicting via their "sources." If so, then it's a Brady 6 game suspensioncrystalline said:
soxhop411 said:
I guess I'm out of the loop as I don't understand this "working with" stuff at all.
I think one of the thoughts "out there" is that the league, in an effort to avoid ultimately looking like fools, might be negotiating punishment with Brady.Harry Hooper said:
I had a long drive on Friday and listened to a bunch of Sports Hub and 'EEI on the radio – I believe it was Felger who asked this question, not based on any knowledge but just wondering if that might be happening. Someone (Gasper maybe?) shut down the idea within a few minutes.DrewDawg said:
It cannot be coincidence that Florio and King, both of whom have happily served as NFL mouthpieces, today started raising serious red flags with the report. However, it's also not a good sign that they both continue to hit Brady for not "fully cooperating" with the investigation. At this point, there is literally no penalty or lack thereof that would surprise me.
For me, this was the key passage in Florio's latest piece:Hoya81 said:
Essentially, Florio is saying that it's precisely because this issue is not generally understood—the science of football inflation and deflation but also the competitive advantage (or lack thereof) gained—that it became a powder keg when combined with the Patriots reputation in the wake of Spygate (which itself involved a lot of misinformation and confusion).
Put another way, nobody seemed to give a shit about this until the Patriots (apparently) did.
Will be interesting to see what tomorrow brings.
Tito's Pullover said:
Complaining about non-compliant balls need not involve the opposing team. It could be the officials.
Van Everyman said:
Glad to see Florio finally get there, but this thread and points elsewhere months ago pointed out the NFL's ignorance that multitudes of cold weather (and hot weather) NFL games have been played with balls outside the rulebook's specified range.
Hoya81 said:
Wells claims, and Yee has seemed to confirm, that Wells was willing to get discovery of Brady's texts through a variety of measures that did not require "giving up the phone." Brady supposedly could've just printed texts between himself and certain people and provided them. This makes his total lack of cooperation on that score less defensible. I don't find Yee's excuses on this point at all believable:
Saying "We were provided with a reasonable way to cooperate, but we didn't do so because we don't think Wells would've believed that what we did was actually cooperative" is more or less the definition of obstructive behavior. Even if you concede that they had a good reason to be obstructive here because they thought Wells's team had no idea what they were doing and had it in for Brady, it's hard to argue that this wasn't obstructive behavior.
Except that's exactly how he characterized the rest of Brady's testimony in the report.
Of course but I think the point is that the report has actually helped make that case.Harry Hooper said:
See the other thread. Wells realized the same thing and gave T B realistic alternatives. TB refused, and provided a weak rationale. There's a reasonable inference that there's something germane on the phone that he doesn't want to disclose.ivanvamp said:
Sorry.
It's been covered many times in the post release pages of this thread WHY releasing the context of the phone was a no win for Brady. You (and others) can scream this over and over, but there are valid reasons to decline to do so - without the goal of being obstructive. Being labeled obstructive however is the price paid for any of those myriad of valid reasons.nattysez said:
How's this one:
The league office (and all those in the periphery of it) can't keep anything in house. Nothing. Not the punishment possibilities, not the supposed inflation levels of the balls, nothing. The Patriots are in the air on the way to the superbowl and still more leaks are out.
Brady has 20 texts w/ BB assuring him that he didn't touch the ball or ask to have them lowered below 12.5. He makes a joke: "there hasn't been this much interest in my balls since the time Giselle started in with the manscaping requests." Is it relevant and need to be turned over? Yep. A week later some reporter somewhere throws a line in a piece about Brady manscaping, or Giselle having Tom's grooming habits under her control. Mrs. Brady gets pissed at Tom for a week for talking about their personal life with the anyone.
I personally wouldn't give up my phone either - because I've never had a significant other misread something that was on my phone...
1. Absent Wells showing us the letters/emails he sent Yee/Brady, I do not think it is wise to believe his characterization of them. There is plenty of evidence in the report that Wells/his team lost their objectivity, and a long history of this style of 'independent investigators' developing tunnel vision around a narrative.
Now, If Wells comes up with the letters that show precisely what he's characterized, that looks bad for Brady (though, being the alpha public figure in this entire thing, Brady still has a non-ridiculous excuse about his privacy).
2. As noted a couple pages ago, I suspect what has happened is the NFL's competent inhouse and primary outside counsel have reviewed the Wells report, collectively agreed it is a POS that will be destroyed by any of two dozen top-tier white collar lawyers ready to be hired, and told RG that he needs to make this go away or it will be another embarrassment for him.
3. My best personal guess is that Brady was asking the ballboys to do shady things; however, this is a game about proof and I doubt many (if any) serious lawyers would be comfortable defending a penalty based on this report. Wells himself wouldn't even state his conclusion with enough certainty to support one.
Now, If Wells comes up with the letters that show precisely what he's characterized, that looks bad for Brady (though, being the alpha public figure in this entire thing, Brady still has a non-ridiculous excuse about his privacy).
2. As noted a couple pages ago, I suspect what has happened is the NFL's competent inhouse and primary outside counsel have reviewed the Wells report, collectively agreed it is a POS that will be destroyed by any of two dozen top-tier white collar lawyers ready to be hired, and told RG that he needs to make this go away or it will be another embarrassment for him.
3. My best personal guess is that Brady was asking the ballboys to do shady things; however, this is a game about proof and I doubt many (if any) serious lawyers would be comfortable defending a penalty based on this report. Wells himself wouldn't even state his conclusion with enough certainty to support one.
Come on. I love TB too, but this is just unrealistic.RetractableRoof said:
Case 1: Won't fly. The same applies to all evidence gathered or submitted to Wells. Why is this different? Only if he's submitting non-germane data. See Case 2 below.
Case 2: TB to his counsel - I've screened the emails, there are a couple where personal comments are interwoven with something substantive.
Counsel to TB - Redact the personal comments and simply indicate where you've done so, give me the redacted emails.
Counsel to Wells - This is what TB did. There are intensely personal comments he's redacted. The emails will indicate where he's done so.
If Wells wants to make an issue out of that, let him. He loses that one, big time. Refusing entirely to permit access to what may be pertinent emails or texts is an invitation to trouble and a defiant stand.
What would have been Wells' response if Brady had turned over all "pertinent" texts, and they turned out to be the exact same ones Wells already had from Jastremski?
A) "Thanks, Tom, just double-checking."
B) "Mr. Brady, I don't believe these are the only pertinent texts; please stop obstructing my investigation and give me more access to your private conversations."
C) Other (please specify)
A) "Thanks, Tom, just double-checking."
B) "Mr. Brady, I don't believe these are the only pertinent texts; please stop obstructing my investigation and give me more access to your private conversations."
C) Other (please specify)
That's not the only reasonable inference though. It's also reasonable to infer that Brady retained his right to not give up his personal property due to his lawyer / agent advising him that he is both not required to and that once the door is opened a crack the NFL / public will demand to see whatever he chooses to censor / not share.Otis Foster said:
I am not sure everyone appreciates the level of information that is contained on people's phones these days. It basically has everything...
Hoya81 said:
This is Florio's best hack at Wells and the NFL yet. DCM may need to excuse himself to the bathroom with a printout. Couple of real good money quotes:
We can blather about Ideal Gas Laws all we want; that kicker is a line the Common NFL Fan understands.
Oh what a lovely day.
It's too much if a slippery slope. If Brady took that advice and redacted personal bits and Wells finds nothing nefarious then why wouldn't he write in the report that anything juicy was likely redacted by Brady. Tom would end up in the exact same spot he is now, being accused of not cooperating.Otis Foster said:
Turning over the phone was a no win:
1. You turn over the phone and nothing is bad on it but now you risk something unrelated but personal leaking out of a leaky nfl office
2. You turn over the phone and there is a smoking gun. You've screwed yourself.
3. You selectively turn over some and they find nothing, well they either press you for more and then call you uncooperative or they call you uncooperative from the start for being too selective. You are in the same spot you are now.
All three outcomes are not good for Tom.
Option 4 is you hold the phone, fight for your right to privacy and possibly release something later on your terms.
Why wouldn't you take option 4?
I think Brady most likely had something on his phone that he was uncomfortable with Wells finding. How often does Brady get a new phone though? I highly doubt he's still on his iPhone 4. Who's to say he didn't get a new phone recently and felt that Wells would incriminate him on this fact. I just think Wells made it seem like this narrow scope, when in reality they would've had free range under these bogus terms. Anyways, my new prediction is one game that will probably be reversed, plus a hefty fine.Devizier said:
It is unrealistic to think that TMZ or Reddit or Deadspin or whomever would have insane interest in the contents of a major star's (whose married to an elite supermodel) text and phone breadcrumbs? It's insane that there might be a leak somewhere... from the law offices, to the league, to where ever? I've never been a star (nor played one on TV, nor slept in a Motel 6), but I bet 90 percent of what is on Brady's phone would be stuff he wouldn't want out there. Again as has been stated above - he is in a no win situation to open the cell at all - for any number of reasons - but they don't all occur because of guilt.Otis Foster said:
You can say that he should do X or Y or Z to accomplish A without causing B to happen. And there is likely a lawyer on this board who can show an example of it blowing up in his face. I don't have an issue with Brady declining - because he is willing to wear the 'didn't fully comply label' - or because he believes any punishment will get removed by the appeal process.
Thought of others: a series of texts between the players that goes like this: "I can't believe those assholes just let our number one CB walk out the door". "Can you believe the bullshit Kraft is swinging about the ..." "I'm not going to the F'g white house, those aholes were the ones that...".
As long as he's willing to wear the label, I can see a hundred reasons not to open that phone, including the one that's been labeled lame by the critics of 'not setting a precedent of making a personal phone of a star player available to league investigators".
Regarding the texts/emails, the best solution would be to have a large firm with a good reputation vet for relevant information. Any personal leaks would result in the destruction of the company, you could even write out damages in a contract beforehand. If Brady is objectively innocent and cares deeply about his public image (he may or may not), he should probably do that on his own terms.
Look, I don't want to belabor this, But the idea is to let TB make the initial screening, in which case (a) none of what you quote bears on DFG, and (2) If it is filtered out by TB and redacted before he turns anything over to anyone, including his counsel, where's the leak? Furthermore, anything leaking from his law firm would create enormous liability and professional damage. I can assure you that the firm would set up a double screen to limit access to anything to a handful of people on a n eed to know basis.RetractableRoof said:
The point of all of this is that he's put himself in a bad poistion by rejecting all reasonable alternatives. I hope his personal counsel has been involved, and if TB is stonewalling, that counsel is onr ecord as advising against it.
Ed Hillel said:
See, that's a good point, but I think the league should be on the hook for offering that solution. Gaming it out, Brady could have offered that very solution and been told "No, that will take too long."
The fact that Ghost also refused his phone tells me that this is less about Brady afraid of turning over incriminating evidence and more about taking a determination based on broader implications. And, really, if there's nothing directly incriminating in the texts that the league already has from the ballboys, what makes people think Brady is texting with...whom, exactly, and about what?
"Hey baby, practice is almost over. Just gotta check with the ball boys about deflating my balls in violation of league rules!"
"Hey coach, I'm ready for the game tomorrow! Just gotta work on the ball boys to make sure we get below 12.5 this time! Ciao!"
Ed Hillel said:
Look what happened with the MLB private and supposedly anonymous voluntary drug testing. If something like that can leak, anything can leak.
But to me the bigger bottom line is the union thing and the privacy thing. Basically, it would be extremely unusual for an employer to be able to compel an employee to give up private communications which occurred on their own employee owned devices. It's an invasion of privacy. Absent specific language in the CBA which would compel Brady to give it up, I don't think any punishment based on refusal to do that will stick. (I'm not a lawyer)
Thanks my friend; yes it is.JimBoSox9 said:
So here is the deal folks. The two maestros of NFL news on Sunday night football -- Florio and Peter King -- are killing the report and the process. Florio is throwing lawyerly haymakers; King is totally derisive to the point of mocking the whole thing.
I am probably giving Goodell too much credit in this respect, but this would be one good reason to let the report percolate for a few days before handing anything down in the way of discipline. The warts are going to be exposed.
That said, I expect something today or tomorrow. If it goes beyond tomorrow, the NFL is in the neighborhood of "WTF do we do?"
OK, then let's not belabor this... my point is that you apparently trust this a) process and b) the people involved a lot more than most people. The quality of the report, the leaks in the league, the direction of the report all indicate that there was no part of this process that could be trusted from Brady's perspective - and yet you want him to do something that most lawyers would say is blatantly a less than desirable choice.Otis Foster said:
What about the possibility that Brady deleted a bunch of texts, including ones they may have gotten off of other's phones? This wouldn't really provide any kind of smoking gun, but clearly not good for Brady and we know what kind of inferences Wells and company would have drawn from that. In terms of reasons why Brady has refused to turn over the texts, him and Yee figuring out during the interviews (or whenever) that this was going to be a railroad job, and then refusing to provide the investigators more ammunition from which to draw negative inferences (such as deleted texts, or texts that don't prove anything or that can be read out of context) is about the best likely scenario that I can think of for Pats fans. Other possibilities:
1. Phone contains nothing but he's standing on principle that private phone conversations should be private: admirable I guess, but stupid in light of what is going on.
2. Phone contains nothing that will hurt his case, but some of the relevant texts would hurt his image (language, etc.): his image is getting shattered anyway, it would have to be something pretty bad to be worse than what is happened to him in the court of public opinion now.
I can't really think of other likely scenarios given that he was only asked to turn over relevant texts, and they could have been made available through his lawyers.
1. Phone contains nothing but he's standing on principle that private phone conversations should be private: admirable I guess, but stupid in light of what is going on.
2. Phone contains nothing that will hurt his case, but some of the relevant texts would hurt his image (language, etc.): his image is getting shattered anyway, it would have to be something pretty bad to be worse than what is happened to him in the court of public opinion now.
I can't really think of other likely scenarios given that he was only asked to turn over relevant texts, and they could have been made available through his lawyers.
For Brady: Sentenced to two game suspension for whatever grounds (probably more to do with obstruction than the deed itself, whatever the deed actually might have been), imposition of sentence to be suspended for whatever length of time as long as Brady behaves himself, and then the "sentence" will just go away. For Team: $25,000 fine related to lack of supervision of junior staff members. Additionally, Kensil will be reassigned for having run a sting operation gone bad, and Grigson will be disposed of by the Colts for creating a situation in which he showed he was perfectly willing to put his team at a disadvantage (even though in fact there was no disadvantage) just to carry out a personal vendetta.
I'm a lawyer of many years standing and can assure you I'm not a rookie at this. The point is simply to craft an apparently reasonable response to the NFL that puts Wells back on his heels.RetractableRoof said:
As I've said (too) many times, if in fact he tampered with or deleted the texts, that's another matter entirely. Then, you just have to gut it out. See RW's response.
I still think TB wld benefit from a smart PR person as part of his team.
At this point it really wouldn't surprise me to find out that this actually did happen, and Wells responded by simply omitting any mention of it in the report. For the most part, we have yet to hear anything but one side of the story, and that side has been transparently tailored to fit a narrative and an agenda.Otis Foster said:
Otis Foster said:
That makes sense, because your responses sound like someone who is used to following the rules of the system, and making sure as a lawyer you've provided your client with advice that ensures that you've also done a good job of covering your backside as well. It doesn't (to me) sound like the advice of someone who is thinking of the totality of Brady's situation - which is to say is place within the players union, his place as a star within the league, his place as the husband of a megastar (arguably the number one model in the world). You (nor I) weren't in that room during the interview and can't say how aggressive Wells was, nor how sincere the request was.
In the megastar world, he can tell anyone that will listen - it's all gamesmanship about that stuff that happened, and jealousy too. The prospect of allowing private information to get out there may be more frightening to his 'megastar-ness' than a suspension for a couple of fractions of a PSI. We just don't know. But I know I'm not going to throw stones at his glass house because I know what has been on my phone - and I'm sure that isn't a fraction of what has been on his phone in the last year plus.
As to the PR person - again while in theory that sounds good, I have to believe that he either has one or the ear of one, but also that if he hired a new one in the shadow of this event, he would be pilloried for that.
NOTE: There is nothing in these words that is meant as disparaging to you or your advice as a lawyer, just relating what the approach you are advocating for sounds like to my ears.
Edit: added your quote and corrected an incorrect negative
There is too much we don't know to evaluate this cell phone business.
There could be legitimately bad stuff there; I doubt it.
There could be joking around stuff that isn't bad but could be painted that way; quite possible.
Or, there could be nothing at all; also possible. I have dug in my heels on things like this to make a point, or because the other side is acting like a jerk. I hold out, I hold out -- and then I throw the equivalent of the phone on the table, and say here, take it. And when there is nothing, the other side is frustrated and butt-hurt and says, "why did you hold out ... all of this could have been avoided, your Honor." And my answer is, "principle."
If, hypothetically, we are in the third category here, don't be surprised if team TB gives in on the point. And when the NFL responds, "it's too late", that's going to fall on deaf ears. If there is nothing there, the hearing officer will be mightily impressed. It's never too late in these circumstances.
But again, we don't know enough to evaluate the matter at this point.
There could be legitimately bad stuff there; I doubt it.
There could be joking around stuff that isn't bad but could be painted that way; quite possible.
Or, there could be nothing at all; also possible. I have dug in my heels on things like this to make a point, or because the other side is acting like a jerk. I hold out, I hold out -- and then I throw the equivalent of the phone on the table, and say here, take it. And when there is nothing, the other side is frustrated and butt-hurt and says, "why did you hold out ... all of this could have been avoided, your Honor." And my answer is, "principle."
If, hypothetically, we are in the third category here, don't be surprised if team TB gives in on the point. And when the NFL responds, "it's too late", that's going to fall on deaf ears. If there is nothing there, the hearing officer will be mightily impressed. It's never too late in these circumstances.
But again, we don't know enough to evaluate the matter at this point.