[News] Steve Bisciotti's Statement On Deflategate Reports

[rmcjacket23]

can't argue with most of that, but I would argue that if it goes to court and then the texts are revealed, it actually is saying a lot more. Yes the underlying fact about him obstructing is the same, but the fact that he took it so much farther and wasted so much time and money and now there is definitive proof that he lied it's no longer just about there not being reasonable doubt and just punishing him for obstructing the investigation, but then it'd be clear that he was the one behind the deflating. Some say that the punishment was more about the obstruction than the actual wells report. It's not clear what actually held more weight. Either way if the texts are revealed and indicate that he was lying- he has now wasted a lot of people's time and now the science behind the wells report doesn't have to be questioned and now becomes moot. Not to mention if this is revealed in the court he could potentially face some type of perjury charge. Not sure on that and he may have to actually testify beforehand so I shouldn't speculate, and I highly doubt it comes to that anyway bc a court won't take this seriously enough to see the case.

1. He would never face a perjury charge unless he actually lied under oath (and its proven he did) in a court of law. He's not under any legal obligation to tell the truth to Ted Wells, Goodell, or anybody else for that matter.

 

2. Frankly, he could provide his phone, it validates that he did instruct people to deflate footballs for him, and he could STILL have the suspension at least reduced. I doubt his defense team will actually go down the road of arguing whether he did or did not do it, because that's probably not what the case is going to be about. Its about the fairness of the punishment and process by which the punishment was handed down.

 

Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson didn't get their suspensions tossed out by a judge because they argued they didn't do it. They got them tossed out by arguing the hypocrisy and complete mis-handling of the punishment process by the NFL, and in particular, how it violated the CBA. You could argue either way whether Brady's case is as good or worse than their's and that remains to be seen.

 

I don't think there's much question at this point that the bulk of the punishment comes from the idea of "obstructing" the investigation. If we were to go by what the standard rulebook says the typical punishment should be for an equipment violation related to footballs, its a $25,000 fine. So in this instance, Brady has every right and SHOULD ask... why does lying about it get a sentence that's, at least, 80 times that of a standard sentence under the rules.

 

Plenty of arguments his legal team can use in this instance, and I'd bet strongly that he would get an injunction to at least delay this significantly rather easily, since injunction standards are rather low. I posted a link to another article referencing this already, but amongst those possible arguments:

 

1. The fact that the Wells report basically went out of its way to say that they found practically nothing to be definitive, and that the entire investigation resulted in a conclusion of "generally aware", which likely wouldn't hold up in a legal setting and arguably shouldn't be used as a basis for determining punishment.

 

2. The lack of precedence for the severity of the punishment for this particular infraction (using the CBA standards as a guideline for this).

 

3. Attack the validity and information reported in the Wells report, and refute it with their own data.

[January J]

1. He would never face a perjury charge unless he actually lied under oath (and its proven he did) in a court of law. He's not under any legal obligation to tell the truth to Ted Wells, Goodell, or anybody else for that matter.

2. Frankly, he could provide his phone, it validates that he did instruct people to deflate footballs for him, and he could STILL have the suspension at least reduced. I doubt his defense team will actually go down the road of arguing whether he did or did not do it, because that's probably not what the case is going to be about. Its about the fairness of the punishment and process by which the punishment was handed down.

Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson didn't get their suspensions tossed out by a judge because they argued they didn't do it. They got them tossed out by arguing the hypocrisy and complete mis-handling of the punishment process by the NFL, and in particular, how it violated the CBA. You could argue either way whether Brady's case is as good or worse than their's and that remains to be seen.

I don't think there's much question at this point that the bulk of the punishment comes from the idea of "obstructing" the investigation. If we were to go by what the standard rulebook says the typical punishment should be for an equipment violation related to footballs, its a $25,000 fine. So in this instance, Brady has every right and SHOULD ask... why does lying about it get a sentence that's, at least, 80 times that of a standard sentence under the rules.

Plenty of arguments his legal team can use in this instance, and I'd bet strongly that he would get an injunction to at least delay this significantly rather easily, since injunction standards are rather low. I posted a link to another article referencing this already, but amongst those possible arguments:

1. The fact that the Wells report basically went out of its way to say that they found practically nothing to be definitive, and that the entire investigation resulted in a conclusion of "generally aware", which likely wouldn't hold up in a legal setting and arguably shouldn't be used as a basis for determining punishment.

2. The lack of precedence for the severity of the punishment for this particular infraction (using the CBA standards as a guideline for this).

3. Attack the validity and information reported in the Wells report, and refute it with their own data.

1) I was talking about strictly if he testified in court prior to the text messages being revealed. Ofcourse he has no "legal"obligation to turn anything over to Goodell or wells etc. really just a hypothetical anyway .

2) there is language within the spygate punishment that states if bellichek is found to be involved in any further actions such as cheating , he could face actual BANISHMENT from the league. So if there is anything in those text messages that implicate him(which isn't likely but possible there are texts from him or between him and Brady as well) it could definitely do a lot more harm. Also if text messages were revealed and indicated he was lying your whole last point about refuting the Info and science in the wells report would be irrelevant and no longer moot, other than the lack of precedence for the severity of the punishment.

Edited July 28, 2015 by January J

[rmcjacket23]

1) I was talking about strictly if he testified in court prior to the text messages being revealed. Ofcourse he has no "legal"obligation to turn anything over to Goodell or wells etc. really just a hypothetical anyway .

2) there is language within the spygate punishment that states if bellichek is found to be involved in any further actions such as cheating , he could face actual BANISHMENT from the league. So if there is anything in those text messages that implicate him(which isn't likely but possible there are texts from him or between him and Brady as well) it could definitely do a lot more harm. Also if text messages were revealed and indicated he was lying your whole last point about refuting the Info and science in the wells report would be irrelevant and no longer moot, other than the lack of precedence for the severity of the punishment.

True, but the NFL already ruled against Belichick and the Patriots, so extending any further punishment to them would probably end the exact same way as it did with Ray Rice and AP.

 

Plus, that discovery wouldn't make the process moot, because it was that process that made the basis for the NFL's decision. No judge is going to allow the NFL to punish him based on new evidence discovered in court after they've already issued their punishment. Again, that's precisely how Ray Rice/AP gets their suspension overturned.

[January J]

Breaking news*

Brady's 4 game suspension was just upheld.

[Drew P]

Breaking news*

Brady's 4 game suspension was just upheld.

 

Serves them well

[rmcjacket23]

And now the real legal battle begins...

 

As I stated earlier, I fully expect Brady to be under center in week 1 against the Steelers.

[poescrows]

Let it go to court, then Roger can get those text

Won't ever get those texts. Score released just minutes ago that the phone Brady was using he had destroyed just prior to meeting with investigators.

[The Mom Gene]

And now the real legal battle begins...

 

As I stated earlier, I fully expect Brady to be under center in week 1 against the Steelers.

I don't.  I see the Patriots telling him to stand down...  If he loses the court battle, he misses the end of the season or playoffs.

[rmcjacket23]

I don't.  I see the Patriots telling him to stand down...  If he loses the court battle, he misses the end of the season or playoffs.

1. If the Patriots were telllng him to stand down, he would have almost certainly negotiated some sort of reduction here. Nobody would have blamed Goodell one bit to reduce this by a game or two. He'd still come off looking incredibly harsh in the sentencing with any suspension.

 

2. You're assuming that the process will basically be of medium length. It could take six months, or it could take two. Adrian Peterson's case was essentially resolved in two months, putting a Brady ruling in around early October, a good three months before the playoffs start. He could attempt to expedite the process and have a ruling by September possibly, or he could easily stretch this out until February/March most likely.

 

Not like the legal system in this country is known for being expeditious, particuarly with cases where they probably don't have a ton of interest in being involved in to begin with.

 

Once he files for an injunction, and he probably will, all bets are off. My assessment is based on the assumption that he wins an injunction (I've ready multiple legal analysts who think its likely, since the standard for injunctions is incredibly low) and that it takes more than about six weeks for this to even get started in court, meaning he plays in early September.

[The Mom Gene]

1. If the Patriots were telllng him to stand down, he would have almost certainly negotiated some sort of reduction here. Nobody would have blamed Goodell one bit to reduce this by a game or two. He'd still come off looking incredibly harsh in the sentencing with any suspension.

 

2. You're assuming that the process will basically be of medium length. It could take six months, or it could take two. Adrian Peterson's case was essentially resolved in two months, putting a Brady ruling in around early October, a good three months before the playoffs start. He could attempt to expedite the process and have a ruling by September possibly, or he could easily stretch this out until February/March most likely.

 

Not like the legal system in this country is known for being expeditious, particuarly with cases where they probably don't have a ton of interest in being involved in to begin with.

 

Once he files for an injunction, and he probably will, all bets are off. My assessment is based on the assumption that he wins an injunction (I've ready multiple legal analysts who think its likely, since the standard for injunctions is incredibly low) and that it takes more than about six weeks for this to even get started in court, meaning he plays in early September.

I didn't say they HAD...  I said that they will...  and I do believe that they will.  He is seeking an injunction that would guarantee expediency in the hearing.  NFL network has stated both could happen.

[Drew P]

I don't.  I see the Patriots telling him to stand down...  If he loses the court battle, he misses the end of the season or playoffs.

 

They wont be discussing flat balls if it goes to court. Its the union on his behalf that would be suing the NFL in court for the lack of due process during the appeal. There is a law called the law of shop that states he was entitled to have an arbitrater hear the appeal. Goodell screwed up by handing out the suspension and also ruling on the appeal.  If they go that route he actually has a strong case against the NFL.

[rmcjacket23]

They wont be discussing flat balls if it goes to court. Its the union on his behalf that would be suing the NFL in court for the lack of due process during the appeal. There is a law called the law of shop that states he was entitled to have an arbitrater hear the appeal. Goodell screwed up by handing out the suspension and also ruling on the appeal.  If they go that route he actually has a strong case against the NFL.

Goodell didn't hand out the punishment.

[January J]

1. If the Patriots were telllng him to stand down, he would have almost certainly negotiated some sort of reduction here. Nobody would have blamed Goodell one bit to reduce this by a game or two. He'd still come off looking incredibly harsh in the sentencing with any suspension.

2. You're assuming that the process will basically be of medium length. It could take six months, or it could take two. Adrian Peterson's case was essentially resolved in two months, putting a Brady ruling in around early October, a good three months before the playoffs start. He could attempt to expedite the process and have a ruling by September possibly, or he could easily stretch this out until February/March most likely.

Not like the legal system in this country is known for being expeditious, particuarly with cases where they probably don't have a ton of interest in being involved in to begin with.

Once he files for an injunction, and he probably will, all bets are off. My assessment is based on the assumption that he wins an injunction (I've ready multiple legal analysts who think its likely, since the standard for injunctions is incredibly low) and that it takes more than about six weeks for this to even get started in court, meaning he plays in early September.

1) In light of the new evidence I think ppl would have blamed Goodell if it was reduced, and now the general concensus (from fans, around the nfl, and the media ) is this was necessary.

I agree with mom. No doubt they will persuade him to stand down. More important to have him later in the season as opposed to week 1-4.

Heck if things get dragged out that long he could potentially miss time in the playoffs.

[rmcjacket23]

I didn't say they HAD...  I said that they will...  and I do believe that they will.  He is seeking an injunction that would guarantee expediency in the hearing.  NFL network has stated both could happen.

They can tell them to do whatever they want... he just probably will tell them no, and that will be that.

 

Its basically a Tom Brady/NFLPA decision now... the Pats don't really have much, if any, power in this case. The only thing they'll do is essentially back him publicly, because well, he's their franchise.

[January J]

And if Brady does file a lawsuit against the nfl he would be required to testify- so it could potentially lead to perjury if further evidence leaks. However now it's said that the phones were destroyed , so it's next to impossible for the texts to recovered if they were sent from a burner. Which makes him look even more extremely guilty- but eliminates another chance for the smoking gun.

[rmcjacket23]

1) In light of the new evidence I think ppl would have blamed Goodell if it was reduced, and now the general concensus (from fans, around the nfl, and the media ) is this was necessary.

I agree with mom. No doubt they will persuade him to stand down. More important to have him later in the season as opposed to week 1-4.

Heck if things get dragged out that long he could potentially miss time in the playoffs.

The new evidence doesn't mean anything. You already knew he didn't turn over his cell phone... whether he destroyed it or simply didn't do it is the exact same thing in the NFL's eyes.

 

General consensus amongst fans? Sure, because NFL fans hated Tom Brady long before this occurred for a multitude of reasons. General consensus around the league and the media? Far from it. Not sure what you've been reading, but every news outlet I've seen is still waiting for the NFL to explain why deflating footballs and lying about it is the equivalent punishment (arguably double the punishment) of knocking your wife out on video, and why the NFL thinks one is worse for the "shield" than the other. I don't think any reasonable person thinks deflating footballs and lying about is a bigger "cloud" on the NFL than increasing domestic violence and the light punishment historically towards it.

 

That's what the media has been focusing on. Heck, every day, on ESPN (a network that notoriously goes out of its way to protect the NFL publicly), I see a half dozen people still trying to wrap their head around the concept that deflated footballs is even a topic worth discussing to begin with.

 

This is one of the rare instances where the media actually appears to have more perspective than the fans do, which I thought was borderline impossible.

[January J]

They can tell them to do whatever they want... he just probably will tell them no, and that will be that.

Its basically a Tom Brady/NFLPA decision now... the Pats don't really have much, if any, power in this case. The only thing they'll do is essentially back him publicly, because well, he's their franchise.

Brady is bellicheks lap dog. He will do exactly as he says bc he's obedient and a good wittle boy.

[rmcjacket23]

Brady is bellicheks lap dog. He will do exactly as he says bc he's obedient and a good wittle boy.

LOL, I'm not sure if you've ever seen the two coerce on the sidelines, but I'd argue the exact opposite is the case.

 

Remember, Belichick is primarily a losing NFL HC before Brady became his guy...

[January J]

Also what I think will be interesting is if garrapallo (sp?) goes 4-0 and plays lights out. Ofcourse they will go back to their guy Brady no question, but it will Atleast stir up a little controversy. Reminds me of the 1972 dolphins season when bob griese went down. Shula had a tough decision...Bob Griese started the season as the primary quarterback but suffered a fractured leg and dislocated ankle in Game 5 of the 1972 season against the San Diego Chargers. Griese was replaced by Earl Morrall who started all of the games up to and including the AFC championship game against the Steelers. Morrall was replaced by Griese in the second half of the game and was the starter in the Super Bowl. And they managed to pull off perfection.

[The Mom Gene]

LOL, I'm not sure if you've ever seen the two coerce on the sidelines, but I'd argue the exact opposite is the case.

 

Remember, Belichick is primarily a losing NFL HC before Brady became his guy...

No but Kraft could have some impact....

[The Mom Gene]

They can tell them to do whatever they want... he just probably will tell them no, and that will be that.

 

Its basically a Tom Brady/NFLPA decision now... the Pats don't really have much, if any, power in this case. The only thing they'll do is essentially back him publicly, because well, he's their franchise.

To say that the Patriots have no say is somewhat naïve...  They will "persuade" him.... for the good of the team.

[January J]

The new evidence doesn't mean anything. You already knew he didn't turn over his cell phone... whether he destroyed it or simply didn't do it is the exact same thing in the NFL's eyes.

General consensus amongst fans? Sure, because NFL fans hated Tom Brady long before this occurred for a multitude of reasons. General consensus around the league and the media? Far from it. Not sure what you've been reading, but every news outlet I've seen is still waiting for the NFL to explain why deflating footballs and lying about it is the equivalent punishment (arguably double the punishment) of knocking your wife out on video, and why the NFL thinks one is worse for the "shield" than the other. I don't think any reasonable person thinks deflating footballs and lying about is a bigger "cloud" on the NFL than increasing domestic violence and the light punishment historically towards it.

That's what the media has been focusing on. Heck, every day, on ESPN (a network that notoriously goes out of its way to protect the NFL publicly), I see a half dozen people still trying to wrap their head around the concept that deflated footballs is even a topic worth discussing to begin with.

This is one of the rare instances where the media actually appears to have more perspective than the fans do, which I thought was borderline impossible.

I was just watchin nfl live on espn and the exact quote they gave was the general concensus around the league was that in light of this new evidence goodell upholding the punishment was absolutely necessary. And everybody on the panel agreed.

And yes, not turning over a phone and destroyin a phone are 2 VERY diffrent things. In the Nfls eyes or anybody's for that matter. (Other than you evidentally)

If he simply didn't want to turn it over he could have argued that he's a private person or that there was personal pictures on there of his wife and blazay blah. The fact that he destroyed it shows a blatant intent to cover something up. How is that even a question?

Edited July 28, 2015 by January J

[rmcjacket23]

To say that the Patriots have no say is somewhat naïve...  They will "persuade" him.... for the good of the team.

What do you think they've probably been doing for the last two months? Sitting on their hands?

 

Again, even with an expedited process, he's probably looking at 2-3 months max. That puts him far away from missing playoff games, and pretty much puts him back by December. Why people think weeks 1-4 are less important than weeks 8-12, I'll never understand.

[rmcjacket23]

I was just watchin nfl live on espn and the exact quote they gave was the general concensus around the league was that in light of this new evidence goodell upholding the punishment was absolutely necessary. And everybody on the panel agreed.

And yes, not turning over a phone and destroyin a phone are 2 VERY diffrent things. In the Nfls eyes or anybody's for that matter. (Other than you evidentally)

If he simply didn't want to turn it over he could have argued that he's a private person or that there was personal pictures on there of his wife and blazay blah. The fact that he destroyed it shows a blatant intent to cover something up. How is that even a question?

1. It was necessary for Goodell to uphold the suspension no matter what. He comes off looking weak by doing anything else, particularly given how weak he has looked with his punishments lately. Goodell is just playing the politics card at this point... come down harsh, let somebody take you to court, and if it gets reduced or overturned, you throw your hands up to the public and say "hey, I did all I could do". He comes off looking like the tough disciplinarian the media wants him to be, and the owners approve of him.

 

2. Except he can't argue any of those things in court, hence likely we he destroyed the phone. Again, you're focusing on this invalid concept that Tom is likely to go to court and try to convince a judge that he's not guilty. So far, there's no indication that's the case.

 

He could walk up to a judge and confess his guilt to all of this, and could still very easily get a reduced sentence or a different outcome. Again, how do you think people like Adrian Peterson or any of the Saints players get reduced or eliminated suspensions? Peterson never once tried to convince a judge that he didn't beat his son.

[The Mom Gene]

1. It was necessary for Goodell to uphold the suspension no matter what. He comes off looking weak by doing anything else, particularly given how weak he has looked with his punishments lately. Goodell is just playing the politics card at this point... come down harsh, let somebody take you to court, and if it gets reduced or overturned, you throw your hands up to the public and say "hey, I did all I could do". He comes off looking like the tough disciplinarian the media wants him to be, and the owners approve of him.

 

2. Except he can't argue any of those things in court, hence likely we he destroyed the phone. Again, you're focusing on this invalid concept that Tom is likely to go to court and try to convince a judge that he's not guilty. So far, there's no indication that's the case.

 

He could walk up to a judge and confess his guilt to all of this, and could still very easily get a reduced sentence or a different outcome. Again, how do you think people like Adrian Peterson or any of the Saints players get reduced or eliminated suspensions? Peterson never once tried to convince a judge that he didn't beat his son.

Problem is that Peterson cooperated...  and he never lied or tried to conceal or destroy evidence.

[rmcjacket23]

Problem is that Peterson cooperated...  and he never lied or tried to conceal or destroy evidence.

So, just so I understand you....

 

Deflating footballs, by the rulebook, is a standard $25K fine (although others who have been caught manipulating footballs have simply gotten warnings). And lying and failing to cooperate with a lengthy investigation of an offense that warrants a $25K fine (ironic in it of itself) warrants a four game suspension and an additional $1.975M fine?

 

Naturally, you can sort of see why a judge or another reasonable person might have quite a difficult time making that leap...

[TXRavensFan]

So, just so I understand you....

 

Deflating footballs, by the rulebook, is a standard $25K fine (although others who have been caught manipulating footballs have simply gotten warnings). And lying and failing to cooperate with a lengthy investigation of an offense that warrants a $25K fine (ironic in it of itself) warrants a four game suspension and an additional $1.975M fine?

 

Naturally, you can sort of see why a judge or another reasonable person might have quite a difficult time making that leap...

 

Destroying the phone is considered spoliation of evidence, and is a pretty serious deal in the justice system. I have serious doubts that a judge will look upon it as trivially as you seem to think.

 

As noted in Goodell's letter denying the appeal, it goes far beyond simple failure to cooperate, and moves the infraction to an area without precedent when applying the punishment. Brady's boneheaded move basically wipes out the argument that the penalties you describe (and it's including, but not limited to a $25,000 fine) hold any value as precedents in this case.

 

Also keep in mind that Ray Farmer was given a 4 game suspension for texting the Brown's bench during a game. Explain to me how Brady's punishment is disproportionate to that one?

[rmcjacket23]

Destroying the phone is considered spoliation of evidence, and is a pretty serious deal in the justice system. I have serious doubts that a judge will look upon it as trivially as you seem to think.

 

As noted in Goodell's letter denying the appeal, it goes far beyond simple failure to cooperate, and moves the infraction to an area without precedent when applying the punishment. Brady's boneheaded move basically wipes out the argument that the penalties you describe (and it's including, but not limited to a $25,000 fine) hold any value as precedents in this case.

 

Also keep in mind that Ray Farmer was given a 4 game suspension for texting the Brown's bench during a game. Explain to me how Brady's punishment is disproportionate to that one?

1. And that would matter... if this was a legal case that involved innocence vs guilt, which by all accounts just simply isn't relevant. Like I've said plenty of times already, not inconceivable to think Brady could go into court and admit guilt and still get a suspension reduction or elimination completely just by arguing the fallacies of the investigation.

 

2. That's great and all, except that's irrelevant too. The NFL probably won't be challenged on why they should have given him a harsher punishment than $25K... they'll likely be challenged on how excessively larger the punishment was than $25K. While its great that the NFL writes its rules vaguely enough to appear to set a $25K MINIMUM standard, keep in mind its not actually the minimum standard at all based what the NFL has actually done. In two most recent cases, they simply issued warning letters to teams that violated NFL protocol with footballs. 

 

In fact, based on the legal analysis I've seen, part of the NFLPA's argument is that there is NO rule in the CBA that applies to players in that regards whatsoever. I personally doubt that holds much weight, but they have a much better understanding of the CBA to begin with.

 

So at the end of the day, what a defense team would argue and ask the NFL to do is provide their basis for determining that Brady's conduct was so detrimental to the league that it warrants a four game suspension. A union-supporting judge like David Doty will probably look at the previous suspensions handed down for incidents that were classified as "conduct detrimental" and try to decipher similarities and differences there. 

 

3. LOL, Brady's is disproportionate to that one because Brady plays football and Ray Farmer doesn't. The suspension of Farmer was literally laughed at by media outlets, because it suspends a FO position for regular season football games when they largely have ZERO responsibility. If you actually wanted to punish a GM, they'd actually suspend him for something like an offseason, where GM's do most of their work.

 

its not a coincidence that the time of the year where we pay the least amount of attention to Ozzie Newsome and Eric DeCosta is precisely between September and December/January. Their job is largely done by that point. 

[Tank 92]

Excerpt from an article linked in another thread........      

 

"Once again, Brady will try to argue that he routinely destroyed cell phones and that it was a giant coincidence that he happened to get rid of thousands of relevant messages on the same day investigators interviewed him.

So why does this actually matter? Well, because destroying his cell phone could ultimately crush any chance of success in a subsequent appeal or lawsuit due to sanctions allowed in every state and federal court."

As Federal Judge Francis Allegra aptly summarized in United Medical Supply Company, Inc. v. U.S., 77 Fed. Cl. 257, 259 (Fed. Cl. 2007):

"Aside perhaps from perjury, no act serves to threaten the integrity of the judicial process more than the spoliation of evidence. Our adversarial process is designed to tolerate human failings—erring judges can be reversed, uncooperative counsel can be shepherded, and recalcitrant witnesses compelled to testify. But, when critical documents go missing, judges and litigants alike descend into a world of ad hocery and half measures—and our civil justice system suffers."                                                                                                                                                                        

http://www.atlredline.com/no-destroying-tom-bradys-cell-phone-was-not-okay-1720689663 

                                                      

[TXRavensFan]

1. And that would matter... if this was a legal case that involved innocence vs guilt, which by all accounts just simply isn't relevant. Like I've said plenty of times already, not inconceivable to think Brady could go into court and admit guilt and still get a suspension reduction or elimination completely just by arguing the fallacies of the investigation.

 

2. That's great and all, except that's irrelevant too. The NFL probably won't be challenged on why they should have given him a harsher punishment than $25K... they'll likely be challenged on how excessively larger the punishment was than $25K. While its great that the NFL writes its rules vaguely enough to appear to set a $25K MINIMUM standard, keep in mind its not actually the minimum standard at all based what the NFL has actually done. In two most recent cases, they simply issued warning letters to teams that violated NFL protocol with footballs. 

 

In fact, based on the legal analysis I've seen, part of the NFLPA's argument is that there is NO rule in the CBA that applies to players in that regards whatsoever. I personally doubt that holds much weight, but they have a much better understanding of the CBA to begin with.

 

So at the end of the day, what a defense team would argue and ask the NFL to do is provide their basis for determining that Brady's conduct was so detrimental to the league that it warrants a four game suspension. A union-supporting judge like David Doty will probably look at the previous suspensions handed down for incidents that were classified as "conduct detrimental" and try to decipher similarities and differences there. 

 

3. LOL, Brady's is disproportionate to that one because Brady plays football and Ray Farmer doesn't. The suspension of Farmer was literally laughed at by media outlets, because it suspends a FO position for regular season football games when they largely have ZERO responsibility. If you actually wanted to punish a GM, they'd actually suspend him for something like an offseason, where GM's do most of their work.

 

its not a coincidence that the time of the year where we pay the least amount of attention to Ozzie Newsome and Eric DeCosta is precisely between September and December/January. Their job is largely done by that point.

 

Unfortunately, because you continue to disregard the seriousness of spoliation of evidence, your entire response is largely irrelevant. You also continue to look to precedents for a situation that is without one. As far as legal analyses go, I hope you read the one that Tanked linked to, as it is one of the most recent and includes the destroyed cell phone into the author's opinion.

 

To continue Tank's quote:

 

"Since Brady purposefully instructed his assistant to destroy his phone on the same day of his interview with Ted Wells, I would fully expect the NFL to seek spoliation sanctions. These sanctions can include the outright dismissal of a case, monetary penalties, or the dreaded adverse inference jury instruction. This means that if Brady or the NFLPA sues the NFL, the judge could instruct a jury that they are allowed to draw an inference that the evidence contained in Brady’s phone would have been unfavorable to his case.

 

In most circumstances, an adverse inference is akin to an outright dismissal of the case since the jury (or sometimes the judge) is allowed to assume that whatever evidence was destroyed would have made the destroying party look awful.

There is no doubt that the NFL’s legal team will pursue an adverse inference. In Goodell’s decision letter, he states:

 

there was an affirmative effort by Mr. Brady to conceal potentially relevant evidence and to undermine the investigation. Mr. Brady’s conduct gives rise to an inference that information from his cellphone, if it were available, would further demonstrate his direct knowledge of and involvement with the scheme to tamper with the game balls prior to the AFC Championship Game.

 

Finally, in footnote 12 of Goodell’s decision, he hints that Brady was acting under the advice of his attorneys. If true, his attorneys could also face severe sanctions, and even potential disbarment, if they actually ordered the destruction of highly relevant evidence.

 

At this point, both the NFL and Brady appear set for a lengthy court battle. However, Brady’s chances of success are drastically reduced due to his willful destruction of evidence. Even attempting to gain an injunction becomes exponentially more difficult as Brady’s likelihood of success on his overall claim is clouded by the lingering civil sanctions for destroying his phone."

Edited July 29, 2015 by TXRavensFan