"Tom Brady prefer his balls to feel a certain way" - balls underinflated

[SP33Demon]

Still waiting on the evidence of wrongdoing to warrant an investigation...

Reasonable doubt in Goodell's court. What are you harping on? Brady destroyed the phone and its texts and without that evidence (nor the deleted texts from his buddies) they felt it was enough reasonable doubt. No evidence of wrongdoing necessary in Goodell's court.

 

[Phoenix86]

Reasonable doubt in Goodell's court. What are you harping on? Brady destroyed the phone and its texts and without that evidence (nor the deleted texts from his buddies) they felt it was enough reasonable doubt. No evidence of wrongdoing necessary in Goodell's court.

Clearly all attempts at simple communication are impossible. Stay frothy, my friend.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Clearly all attempts at simple communication are impossible. Stay frothy, my friend.

Dude, he's a creationist and a Trump sucker. He creates his own reality. Reason is pointless.

 

[SP33Demon]

Dude, he's a creationist and a Trump sucker. He creates his own reality. Reason is pointless.

People who cannot accept reality claim others create their own reality when reality doesn't actually agree with their reality. Brady's reality is that he shouldn't have destroyed the phone and he's paying the price accordingly. Garth's (your name is Garth lol) reality is that he thinks God doesn't exist and his insecurity drives him to ridicule people who don't agree with his little reality. :biggrin:

 

[CZroe]

People who cannot accept reality claim others create their own reality when reality doesn't actually agree with their reality. Brady's reality is that he shouldn't have destroyed the phone and he's paying the price accordingly. Garth's (your name is Garth lol) reality is that he thinks God doesn't exist and his insecurity drives him to ridicule people who don't agree with his little reality. :biggrin:

Your thought process is COMPLETELY backwards. There's a reason unreasonable search and seizures are unjustified and you have to have CAUSE in the first place, but you completely ignore that and condemn him for not submitting to an entirely unjustified search (though facts are he submitted; only destroyed when assured it wasn't needed). Once the numbers were proven irrelevant there wasn't a shred of real evidence to support the charge or the search for additional evidence, yet you still convinced yourself that he was guilty based on something that was never justified in the first place (interest in his phone). You are a sick, sick puppy.

 

[emperus]

No, there was ZERO evidence or texts or logs from AT&T. What part of that don't you understand?

That's just not true. The NFL had the phones of all the Patriots employees (hence the deflator text). And Brady offered to retrieve any texts the NFL didn't have or wanted (knowing that would require you to read). You know if I send you a text, you and I both have that text.

But you would know that if you took time to read any of the documents in this case and actually attempted to be informed. But you don't seem to care about facts or logic for that matter. And this is what is funny with your type. You have time for post after post on speculative BS. But not enough time to read to get yourself informed? The strange world we live in.

BTW, since you have time to read 457 pages of court documents, can I get you to do a spreadsheet for me? Secretary is out today and you are most likely unemployed. I'm willing to pay $10/hr, it'll help you buy a new video game. What do you say?

 

[emperus]

En banc Appeal filed. This thing seems destined for a Supreme Court filing. It's odd that Ted Olson (Bush solicitor) is basically on the side of Labor in this case. Weird twists and turns.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/05/...ng-for-en-banc-rehearing-with-second-circuit/

 

[emperus]

Another interesting tidbit.

Professors file with court in support of Tom Brady

"This is not tampering. It is science. And it pervades the NFL. Games routinely are played with footballs that fall below the league's minimum pressure requirement," the papers said. "Courts should not be powerless to consider the absence of scientific proof when a proceeding is so interlaced with laws of science."

The legal brief was filed on behalf of 21 professors from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the University of California, Berkeley; University of Michigan; Stanford University; University of Southern California; University of Delaware; Purdue University; University of Pennsylvania; Boston College and the University of Minnesota.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/15703982/professors-back-tom-brady-rehearing-name-science

 

[Phoenix86]

Another interesting tidbit.

Professors file with court in support of Tom Brady

That amicus curiae brief is hard to ignore, this is hard science that was simply tossed out in favor of a presumed opinion.

 

[emperus]

That amicus curiae brief is hard to ignore, this is hard science that was simply tossed out in favor of a presumed opinion.

I do wonder if it will prompt people to alter their views on this.

 

[waggy]

That amicus curiae brief is hard to ignore, this is hard science that was simply tossed out in favor of a presumed opinion.

I don't think it matters. since this is just about rather or not does goodell have the power to suspend players and decide if he is right or not. The players did give him the power to do that.

 

[Anubis]

I do wonder if it will prompt people to alter their views on this.

sadly it wont. Anti brady homers don't care about science and facts. the hatred and jealousy for his and the pats success is not going to change

 

[Phoenix86]

I don't think it matters. since this is just about rather or not does goodell have the power to suspend players and decide if he is right or not. The players did give him the power to do that.

One of the articles I read implied the reasoning could be questioned, but everything I read before that agreed with you. This isn't about the facts of the ball pressure/measurement/investigation, only if it was OK that the CBA gave Goodell all the power.

Anoobis is 100% right though. Brady haters don't give a fuck about the facts.

 

[SP33Demon]

En banc Appeal filed. This thing seems destined for a Supreme Court filing. It's odd that Ted Olson (Bush solicitor) is basically on the side of Labor in this case. Weird twists and turns.

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2016/05/...ng-for-en-banc-rehearing-with-second-circuit/

You are delusional if you think the SCOTUS will hear such a case based on a petty quarrel while there are much more important real issues in this country to deal with. Even worse that you think this isn't a waste of taxpayer resources. But keep the hope alive! "So you're saying there's a chance..."
:biggrin:

 

[emperus]

You are delusional if you think the SCOTUS will hear such a case based on a petty quarrel while there are much more important real issues in this country to deal with. Even worse that you think this isn't a waste of taxpayer resources. But keep the hope alive! "So you're saying there's a chance..."
:biggrin:

I said a Supreme Court Filing. The last I checked there is a difference between a filing and an actual hearing.

Having said that, if you read the article(though we know you are adverse to actual knowledge and information), you would understand why I think there is a chance. This is no longer a case about deflation of footballs or Brady per se. The 2nd circuit ruling has some larger implications for Labor disputes and arbitration agreements.

And btw, I see you glossed over the post about the Professors' statements. Typical.

 

[waggy]

You are delusional if you think the SCOTUS will hear such a case based on a petty quarrel while there are much more important real issues in this country to deal with. Even worse that you think this isn't a waste of taxpayer resources. But keep the hope alive! "So you're saying there's a chance..."
:biggrin:

this has gone beyond a petty quarrel. Emperus is right in this amazingly.

it is not about deflatgate. it's about Labor disputes and arbitration agreements. it actually pretty important.

The ramifications are pretty interesting to think about. IF the brady wins it cast doubt on any agreements made between a union and business. But then again Can a union give unlimited power to a business? even though the players agreed.

In the end i think that the NFL is going to win. The players union agreed to give the NFL this power. The players agreed with the Union on it.

I do think this is going to have effects latter though.

 

[emperus]

I don't think it matters. since this is just about rather or not does goodell have the power to suspend players and decide if he is right or not. The players did give him the power to do that.

I think this was akin to a brush back pitch. One of the justices in the appeal ruling basically said that he thought Brady did it. This filing makes it harder (if there is a re-hearing) for any justice to jump to that conclusion.

Also, it will help sway public opinion.

The players did give him the power but, I still believe he has to act fairly.

From Olson's filing

The panel decision will harm not just NFL players, but all unionized workers who have bargained for appeal rights as a protection—not as an opportunity for management to salvage a deficient disciplinary action by conjuring up new grounds for the punishment. The panel decision will also harm management by freeing labor arbitrators from collectively bargained limitations on their authority, enabling them to dole out their own brand of industrial justice.

But I think the greater reliance on arbitration is BS anyhow.

 

[dainthomas]

Anoobis is 100% right though. Brady haters don't give a fuck about the facts.

What's funny about this statement is that "Brady haters" don't even care about this. The only ones still obsessed with it are the Pats and their perpetually-annoying fans.

I honestly had no idea this was still going on. Maybe because I'm in playoff hockey and baseball mode.

 

[SP33Demon]

this has gone beyond a petty quarrel. Emperus is right in this amazingly.

it is not about deflatgate. it's about Labor disputes and arbitration agreements. it actually pretty important.

The ramifications are pretty interesting to think about. IF the brady wins it cast doubt on any agreements made between a union and business. But then again Can a union give unlimited power to a business? even though the players agreed.

In the end i think that the NFL is going to win. The players union agreed to give the NFL this power. The players agreed with the Union on it.

I do think this is going to have effects latter though.

A contract is a contract. If I sign a contract to give you power over all aspects of my life, then I'm legally bound by it. Contract law has been solidified for a half a millennia now. The SCOTUS will never hear this about this stupidity, ever.

 

[SP33Demon]

But I think the greater reliance on arbitration is BS anyhow.

If you feel this way, then why are you continuing to side with Brady and co?

A contract is a contract. Stick with it, don't go crying to an arbitrator every time something happens that you don't like but contractually agreed to.

 

[Phoenix86]

A contract is a contract. If I sign a contract to give you power over all aspects of my life, then I'm legally bound by it. Contract law has been solidified for a half a millennia now. The SCOTUS will never hear this about this stupidity, ever.

You can create illegal contracts which you would in fact not be bound to, and the SCOTUS hears contract law disputes all the time.

 

[Capt Caveman]

A contract is a contract. If I sign a contract to give you power over all aspects of my life, then I'm legally bound by it. Contract law has been solidified for a half a millennia now. The SCOTUS will never hear this about this stupidity, ever.

Actually, you're incorrect like usual.

 

[waggy]

A contract is a contract. If I sign a contract to give you power over all aspects of my life, then I'm legally bound by it. Contract law has been solidified for a half a millennia now. The SCOTUS will never hear this about this stupidity, ever.

you can't really think that can you? A illegal and unethical contract can be brought to suit and the Supreme Court has heard them. now am i saying for sure they will hear THIS one? no. it highly depends on how it makes it's way through the courts to get to it.

 

[SP33Demon]

you can't really think that can you? A illegal and unethical contract can be brought to suit and the Supreme Court has heard them. now am i saying for sure they will hear THIS one? no. it highly depends on how it makes it's way through the courts to get to it.

How is something like a CBA contract "illegal and unethical" when written and agreed upon by hundreds of individuals? Short answer: It's not. The SCOTUS has more important things to hear than an agreed upon contract between the NFL and Players. Brady is out of luck and just looks petty for continuing his appeals. Remember that all of the 2nd Circuit judges have to agree to hear this thing which has a 5% chance of happening.

 

[Capt Caveman]

How is something like a CBA contract "illegal and unethical" when written and agreed upon by hundreds of individuals? Short answer: It's not. The SCOTUS has more important things to hear than an agreed upon contract between the NFL and Players. Brady is out of luck and just looks petty for continuing his appeals. Remember that all of the 2nd Circuit judges have to agree to hear this thing which has a 5% chance of happening.

Incorrect again, just a majority, seven have to agree.