DanteGabriel Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 Yes this is generally how a majority works. If the homerist (fun fake word :-) ) local Boston news believes TB is innocent or the punishment is too harsh that makes it so? Boston is in the minority on this one. I still don't understand why the opinion of news media, many of whom hate Belichick for reasons outside of the game, are supposed to be useful to any kind of judgment. Yes, Boston media is biased, but that doesn't mean outside media isn't biased as well. It's basically a useless attempt to justify a punishment that has no precedent in the NFL's operations. News media majority? Come on. You accused me earlier of grasping at straws, this is pretty straw-grasping itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 All of this hoopla only means one thing: I am vindicated. That's right, because Tom Brady is a cheating cheater who cheats, the Patriots beat the Bears by 28 points instead of 21 points, which means in reality he only slightly embarrassed my team last fall instead of massively embarrassing them. Huzzah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke_Lamora Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I still don't understand why the opinion of news media, many of whom hate Belichick for reasons outside of the game, are supposed to be useful to any kind of judgment. Yes, Boston media is biased, but that doesn't mean outside media isn't biased as well. It's basically a useless attempt to justify a punishment that has no precedent in the NFL's operations. News media majority? Come on. You accused me earlier of grasping at straws, this is pretty straw-grasping itself. Well that would entail that every media outlet in every city has something against Boston and the Pats. It's not just say, New York, it's everywhere. So everyone is out to get the Pats? Which is what some of you Pat fans were being lambasted for saying earlier in these threads. So who's grasping at straws in this situation? And Wiley said TB should be suspended for a YEAR. I brought him up because I think hes CRAZY. That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BormonReborn Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Correct, but If they had stated the truth, that Tom Brady was behind it without a shadow of a doubt, than they would have needed a smoking gun or they would be liable for a defamation case. Just really covering their asses to be honest. But doesn't the act of such a huge penalty imply that they are accepting what is said as truth? I hate the fact that it seems that the Patriots (Brady in particular) are having to prove themselves innocent. And despite the fact that I am a Patriots fan, I would say the same thing about the Jets. Finally, I get that Spy-gate happened..... but why is Tom Brady(I understand the team argument for this) being so harshly punished for it? He had NO control over that incident. If Adam Vinatieri was suspected of cheating in some way, would he be punished more severely because he was on that team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Not my take, but I forgot whose it was, so whatever... If the Patriots are claiming that pressure variations are due to temperature change/ gas laws, why did they suspend the two ball boys without pay? Also, if we agree the League is punishing Brady and the Pats largely for not cooperating, why didn't they just offer a quick mea culpa and get a slap on the wrist? I think the answer is they didn't want to admit just how long this has been going on. So, I don't think the punishment is outrageous, though I would have been satisfied with the suspension alone. As for the competative advantage afforded by deflation, I don't think it could have helped Brady's passing too much. He's great regardless. I don't think it's too much to assume that it reduced the chances of dropped passes and fumbles for the offense as a whole, which viewed cumulatively over many years (if indeed this treatment of the balls has been going on for years) would account for some close games being in the W column for the Pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 Well that would entail that every media outlet in every city has something against Boston and the Pats. It's not just say, New York, it's everywhere. So everyone is out to get the Pats? Which is what some of you Pat fans were being lambasted for saying earlier in these threads. So who's grasping at straws in this situation? And Wiley said TB should be suspended for a YEAR. I brought him up because I think hes CRAZY. That was my point. You know what? Fuck this. I refuse to grant your sloppy premise. I want you to back up your claim that a "majority" of news media think the punishment is okay. I never said "everyone is out to get the Pats" and I never said "every media outlet in every city" -- that's your fabrication. So fuck this strawman of an argument you're building up to assign to me. Come up with a well worded characterization of media reaction around the country and back it up, and I'll argue with you about that, and then you can prove to me why the reaction of sports reporters means any fucking thing at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weeping Sore Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 -dp- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lancerman Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Guys it's just football, no need to get hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 Guys it's just football, no need to get hot. I've tried to be very precise in my wording and fill my posts with disclaimers about how I agree the Patriots did something wrong. So I don't like LL's sloppy attempts to paint me as just some kind of irrational homer by mischaracterizing my arguments and attempting to box me in with arguments I never made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke_Lamora Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 But doesn't the act of such a huge penalty imply that they are accepting what is said as truth? I hate the fact that it seems that the Patriots (Brady in particular) are having to prove themselves innocent. And despite the fact that I am a Patriots fan, I would say the same thing about the Jets. Finally, I get that Spy-gate happened..... but why is Tom Brady(I understand the team argument for this) being so harshly punished for it? He had NO control over that incident. If Adam Vinatieri was suspected of cheating in some way, would he be punished more severely because he was on that team? They are accepting it as truth, that's the point. They just can't out and say it or else they are liable for a defamation suit. Either way everyone still knows the truth. You know what? Fuck this. I refuse to grant your sloppy premise. I want you to back up your claim that a "majority" of news media think the punishment is okay. I never said "everyone is out to get the Pats" and I never said "every media outlet in every city" -- that's your fabrication. So fuck this strawman of an argument you're building up to assign to me. Come up with a well worded characterization of media reaction around the country and back it up, and I'll argue with you about that, and then you can prove to me why the reaction of sports reporters means any fucking thing at all. Listen I am sorry if I somehow went too far and riled you up. It was really not my intentions. Just simply discussing our differences in opinion and trying to understand a little better where some of the pats fans are coming from (Note: not just you although I am quoting you a lot so I apologize if you feel it is all directed at you personally, but I do thank you for being active with responses) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I was listening to the Wells press conference today and something he said stuck out. During his time interviewing Brady, who had his agent present for the interviews, he asked for Brady's cell phone. We all know that, we also all know Wells specified he was only going to look at info pertinent to the investigation (so no looking for naughty pics of Mrs. Brady). What I didn't know, and what Wells elaborated on, was that he offered to allow Brady's agent to do all this for him. Take Brady's phone, find the info relating only to this case, and then pass just that info back to the investigation. He even went as far as saying he would trust Brady's agent to honestly include all records pertaining to the investigation, with no way to check that the agent remained honest, and they still denied giving up the info in his phone. This has got to be like the textbook example of how to convince people you really are guilty of something. I can understand the privacy issues of turning over your entire phone. However, under the conditions Wells presented I can't understand why one wouldn't comply (unless of course there is something to hide)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Yes, Boston media is biased, but that doesn't mean outside media isn't biased as well.I have argued this point with so many sports fans; there is always this assumption of Bush Doctrine that fans presume about issues involving their team, that the world is roughly divided into for or against bias. Fans of a team ARE by definition biased, and while there are outsiders who take the contrary position, the bulk of the neutral majority are mostly just that: neutral. If not in the absolute, at least in the extreme when contrasted with a team's own 'fanatics', which is what fan is short for. There's no rational way to see them as offsetting, IMO, if that's what you're saying.OT, but my mom has become Catholic and does the same thing. Sources on, say, the Crusades or priest child abuse are broken down into biased for or against the RC church and not giving them equal credit means taking the against side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BormonReborn Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I can understand the privacy issues of turning over your entire phone. However, under the conditions Wells presented I can't understand why one wouldn't comply (unless of course there is something to hide)? Agreed to a point, but here is the thing, We don't know what he was hiding. It could literally be anything that he doesn't want to share with anyone. Maybe he is having an affair with his agent's wife.... or is into puppy porn .... or is secretly a democrat. The point is its private and without a legal reason, he doesn't have to share it. And we can't assume that is damning when it pertains to the controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Agreed to a point, but here is the thing, We don't know what he was hiding. It could literally be anything that he doesn't want to share with anyone. Maybe he is having an affair with his agent's wife.... or is into puppy porn .... or is secretly a democrat. The point is its private and without a legal reason, he doesn't have to share it. And we can't assume that is damning when it pertains to the controversy.I agree with this from the point of view of criminal behaviour. Not as strongly with regards to something like this; there's no presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion or in terms of employee conduct which does not contravene law.Edit: to clarify, I don't think the onus is on the league to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, short of which Brady has zero obligation to present a case. If you are caught undressed in the office with a co-worker, your boss doesn't need videotape of your having sex to presume you were and act accordingly. If you have something that will show an alternate explanation, I think it's on you to put it forward. You are free to not do so, but that doesn't mean no inferences can be drawn by your refusal. You are the agent of your interests here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 And we can't assume that is damning when it pertains to the controversy. Says who? It is a most reasonable assumption, given the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke_Lamora Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I agree with this from the point of view of criminal behaviour. Not as strongly with regards to something like this; there's no presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion or in terms of employee conduct which does not contravene law.Edit: to clarify, I don't think the onus is on the league to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, short of which Brady has zero obligation to present a case. If you are caught undressed in the office with a co-worker, your boss doesn't need videotape of your having sex to presume you were and act accordingly. If you have something that will show an alternate explanation, I think it's on you to put it forward. You are free to not do so, but that doesn't mean no inferences can be drawn by your refusal. You are the agent of your interests here. Beautifully said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reny of Storms End Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Agreed to a point, but here is the thing, We don't know what he was hiding. It could literally be anything that he doesn't want to share with anyone. Maybe he is having an affair with his agent's wife.... or is into puppy porn .... or is secretly a democrat. The point is its private and without a legal reason, he doesn't have to share it. And we can't assume that is damning when it pertains to the controversy.Except there was literally 100% no way that anything but information pertaining to the investigation would even be released to Wells. He literally told Brady that Brady's agent would take the phone, and on his own honesty present only that info which pertained to the case. Brady's agent could have released one text, said that's all Tom sent, and Wells would have accepted it.Or are we supposed to believe Tom Brady trusts his agent so little that he was afraid the guy would snoop around his phone when asked to look for specific info? He trusts the guy to negotiate the terms of his career, but not to only look for phone numbers X, Y, and Z when asked to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Except there was literally 100% no way that anything but information pertaining to the investigation would even be released to Wells. He literally told Brady that Brady's agent would take the phone, and on his own honesty present only that info which pertained to the case. Brady's agent could have released one text, said that's all Tom sent, and Wells would have accepted it. I'd have to assume that Brady didn't want to hand over his phone to his agent either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I'd have to assume that Brady didn't want to hand over his phone to his agent either. Or his lawyer cause I'm sure that would have worked too. The only reason Brady wouldn't do that is because he's hiding something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Ultimately it didn't matter because Brady flat out lied. He said he had no idea what this was about and acted like football was a foreign concept. When you're that brazen about your lie and you get called on it, the punishment tends to be a lot greater. That he also didn't cooperate does make him appear even more guilty looking. That he's not been remotely penitent about it is even worse. I don't think it's because the Patriots have been super successful. I think that's the bullshit Us vs. Them narrative that Pats fans have been using for years, and it has been as bullshit then as it is now. I think that if any star of the NFL had a press conference where he said he had no knowledge of anything and that it was a big sham and it turned out to be almost certainly a lie that the NFL would come down hard on that person. Largely because Goodell and the NFL are a bunch of vindictive gunts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.