Brady vs. Steelers week one

Is it possible that Brady could get a one game suspension for his part in deflate gate? Steelers vs. a Brady-less Pats* suits me just fine :)

They can't find Brady guilty. After all, they let him play in the Super Bowl and win the MVP. How does the Commish dish out punishment to a player he had to hug on the podium.
Oh, he can, but he won't.  

I wrote a commentary on the Deflate Gate subject here:

http://www.steelersxtreme.com/t5591-the-deflate-gate-wait

Of course, DesertSteel, I'm a little slow on the news. Seems the NFL believes there is guilt to be found.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FBN_PATRIOTS_DEFLATED_FOOTBALLS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-05-06-13-15-55

As much as we may all want it, I don't think the NFL can suspend Brady here.

The evidence, while highly suspect and intriguing, is all circumstantial. You can't suspend a player on the grounds of "more probable than not", especially when that suspension would include the week 1 kickoff against the Steelers. Keep in mind, the NFL is already missing out on Le'Veon that game. Suspending Brady would just be bad business.

Even if the NFL does decide to suspend him, the NFLPA would get it overturned within a couple of days. "More probable than not" isn't good enough to suspend anyone.

SteelersCanada wrote:

As much as we may all want it, I don't think the NFL can suspend Brady here.

The evidence, while highly suspect and intriguing, is all circumstantial. You can't suspend a player on the grounds of "more probable than not", especially when that suspension would include the week 1 kickoff against the Steelers. Keep in mind, the NFL is already missing out on Le'Veon that game. Suspending Brady would just be bad business.

Even if the NFL does decide to suspend him, the NFLPA would get it overturned within a couple of days. "More probable than not" isn't good enough to suspend anyone.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that made it "more than probable" without any real evidence that Roethlisberger raped that girl and he still got suspended...

PhantomJB93 wrote:

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that made it "more than probable" without any real evidence that Roethlisberger raped that girl and he still got suspended...

I don't disagree with you, but the optics on that are different. One is the alleged sexual assault of a female, the other is deflating footballs.

PhantomJB93 wrote:

SteelersCanada wrote:

As much as we may all want it, I don't think the NFL can suspend Brady here.

The evidence, while highly suspect and intriguing, is all circumstantial. You can't suspend a player on the grounds of "more probable than not", especially when that suspension would include the week 1 kickoff against the Steelers. Keep in mind, the NFL is already missing out on Le'Veon that game. Suspending Brady would just be bad business.

Even if the NFL does decide to suspend him, the NFLPA would get it overturned within a couple of days. "More probable than not" isn't good enough to suspend anyone.

There was a lot of circumstantial evidence that made it "more than probable" without any real evidence that Roethlisberger raped that girl and he still got suspended...

That is true but i have to agree with SC that the allegations against Ben were far more serious. Now that said I hope this does tarnish Brady's image because he was so adamant that he wouldn't have done anything to the balls and honestly I felt he was lying the whole time. Granted some of that is confirmation bias but I really got that vibe from him.

SteelersCanada wrote:

As much as we may all want it, I don't think the NFL can suspend Brady here.

The evidence, while highly suspect and intriguing, is all circumstantial. You can't suspend a player on the grounds of "more probable than not", especially when that suspension would include the week 1 kickoff against the Steelers. Keep in mind, the NFL is already missing out on Le'Veon that game. Suspending Brady would just be bad business.

Even if the NFL does decide to suspend him, the NFLPA would get it overturned within a couple of days. "More probable than not" isn't good enough to suspend anyone.

the NFL can do whatever they want.  This isn't a court of law. Brady did it. He cheated. He cheated to gain a competitive advantage. That is conduct detrimental to the rest of the league. He deserves punishment.

tony hipchest wrote:

the NFL can do whatever they want.  This isn't a court of law. Brady did it. He cheated. He cheated to gain a competitive advantage. That is conduct detrimental to the rest of the league. He deserves punishment.

I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying they won't. That, and again, the evidence is completely circumstantial. The NFLPA needs to utter "show me the evidence" and that's that. The NFL isn't going to suspend the face of the league for the first game of the season against the most storied organization in the league on circumstantial evidence.

However, this is where it gets interesting.

The NFL's own policy language states...

"Under the policy, the "standard of proof required to find that of a violation of the competitive rules has occurred" is a "Preponderance of Evidence", meaning that "as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more provable than not".

Legal jargon for the NFL to not need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If they feel as if the evidence in this case is enough to warrant discipline, they can.

I don't know what the ramifications would be with the CBA and the NFLPA, however.

SteelersCanada wrote:

As much as we may all want it, I don't think the NFL can suspend Brady here.

The evidence, while highly suspect and intriguing, is all circumstantial. You can't suspend a player on the grounds of "more probable than not", especially when that suspension would include the week 1 kickoff against the Steelers. Keep in mind, the NFL is already missing out on Le'Veon that game. Suspending Brady would just be bad business.

Even if the NFL does decide to suspend him, the NFLPA would get it overturned within a couple of days. "More probable than not" isn't good enough to suspend anyone.

You are incorrect on that SC. The NFL is a private business. They may suspend him. This isn't the criminal justice system.

DesertSteel wrote:

SteelersCanada wrote:

As much as we may all want it, I don't think the NFL can suspend Brady here.

The evidence, while highly suspect and intriguing, is all circumstantial. You can't suspend a player on the grounds of "more probable than not", especially when that suspension would include the week 1 kickoff against the Steelers. Keep in mind, the NFL is already missing out on Le'Veon that game. Suspending Brady would just be bad business.

Even if the NFL does decide to suspend him, the NFLPA would get it overturned within a couple of days. "More probable than not" isn't good enough to suspend anyone.

You are incorrect on that SC. The NFL is a private business. They may suspend him. This isn't the criminal justice system.

Realize now I worded that poorly and it mixed you and Tony up. I meant they wouldn't as it would be bad business for them.

The legal jargon I posted a little earlier though makes it interesting with how the NFLPA could handle an appeal if he were to get suspended.

Brady SHOULD have been suspended for the SuperBowl.

And, the Taperiots SHOULD have lost draft picks.

As far as circumstantial goes, when Goodell has suspended other players (specifically BB), it is not entirely based on evidence; Goodell bases quite a bit of his punishment based on "besmirching the shield."

If ANYONE else had done this, it would be an automatic 4 game suspension, for putting a black eye on the game.

But, it is not just "anyone"; it is Tom Brady.

$150,000 fine... and the Taperiots will lose a R3 draft pick*.

*(They will also be awarded a R3 comp pick... so, no biggie for them.)

teegre wrote:

As far as circumstantial goes, when Goodell has suspended other players (specifically BB), it is not entirely based on evidence; Goodell bases quite a bit of his punishment based on "besmirching the shield."  

If ANYONE else had done this, it would be an automatic 4 game suspension, for putting a black eye on the game.  

But, it is not just "anyone"; it is Tom Brady.  

$150,000 fine... and the Taperiots will lose a R3 draft pick*.  

*(They will also be awarded a R3 comp pick... so, no biggie for them.)  

Exactly. You can't tell me that Brady and the Pats* don't get special treatment from Goodell since he and Kraft are tight. If this were any other player, a suspension would be a foregone conclusion but because it's golden boy Tom, I expect a slap on the wrist and a fine at the most. I said it on SF when the story broke but I really do feel that Tom is a fraud. Ain't it telling that McNally and Jagnowski were making cracks about how Brady was sucking and his passer rating was down right around the time Tom had his "resurgence" in the mid fall? Really, this kind of stuff is exactly why it's prosperous to link Brady with names like Bradshaw, Marino, Montana, Unitas, etc. Wherever there's a scandal with the Patriots*, there's the Golden Boy front and center going "Who not me, I'm Tom Brady, America's sweetheart." The guy's nothing more than a cheater who benefits repeatedly from shady tactics.

James Harrison will be fined $100,000 and suspended for two games...

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2015/05/steelers-opener-against-Patriots*-being-pulled-from-betting-boards/

SteelersCanada wrote:

tony hipchest wrote:

the NFL can do whatever they want.  This isn't a court of law. Brady did it. He cheated. He cheated to gain a competitive advantage. That is conduct detrimental to the rest of the league. He deserves punishment.

I'm not saying they can't, I'm saying they won't. That, and again, the evidence is completely circumstantial. The NFLPA needs to utter "show me the evidence" and that's that. The NFL isn't going to suspend the face of the league for the first game of the season against the most storied organization in the league on circumstantial evidence.

I will let you get back to me when you read the report.



Those text messages of the two Patriot employees hammering Tom Brady sure are funny though.

They might let him off scott free but his chances were better before he exposed himself as a piece of shit liar who was obviously uncooperative and hiding the truth.

Incriminating deflate gate texts are hilarious :

http://www.steelersdepot.com/2015/05/incriminating-deflate-gate-texts-are-hilarious/

Vegas books stop taking Pats*-Steelers bets

Two of Vegas' biggest sportsbooks -- William Hill and the Westgate SuperBook -- have both stopped taking bets on the Patriots* regular season opener against the Steelers. Both books told CBSSports.com they would reset the game around Pick'em if Brady is suspended and Jimmy Garoppolo starts.

"Our thinking is it couldn't possibly be more than a one- or two-game suspension," said Ed Salmons, the SuperBook's head oddsmaker. "We don't think it's a big deal but we just have to see what happens."

Another oddsmaker, CG Technology, dropped the Patriots* from a 6.5 point favorite to a 3.5 point favorite over the Steelers in the NFL's regular season opener.


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25176523/tom-brady-suspension-coming-vegas-books-stop-taking-Pats*-steelers-bets

I'm calling him OUT for week one.............

Atlanta Dan wrote:

Vegas books stop taking Pats**-Steelers bets

Two of Vegas' biggest sportsbooks -- William Hill and the Westgate SuperBook -- have both stopped taking bets on the Patriots** regular season opener against the Steelers. Both books told CBSSports.com they would reset the game around Pick'em if Brady is suspended and Jimmy Garoppolo starts.

"Our thinking is it couldn't possibly be more than a one- or two-game suspension," said Ed Salmons, the SuperBook's head oddsmaker. "We don't think it's a big deal but we just have to see what happens."

Another oddsmaker, CG Technology, dropped the Patriots** from a 6.5 point favorite to a 3.5 point favorite over the Steelers in the NFL's regular season opener.


http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25176523/tom-brady-suspension-coming-vegas-books-stop-taking-Pats**-steelers-bets

yeah... but what the hell does Vegas know? They're obviously not considering the different "optics".

Kornheiser and Wilbon on PTI say Brady should be suspended - Kornheiser says he will be suspended for reasons including the "optics" (the official word of today's news) of letting Brady skate after Roger having dropped the hammer on so many black players

SteelersCanada wrote:

As much as we may all want it, I don't think the NFL can suspend Brady here.

The evidence, while highly suspect and intriguing, is all circumstantial. You can't suspend a player on the grounds of "more probable than not", especially when that suspension would include the week 1 kickoff against the Steelers. Keep in mind, the NFL is already missing out on Le'Veon that game. Suspending Brady would just be bad business.

Even if the NFL does decide to suspend him, the NFLPA would get it overturned within a couple of days. "More probable than not" isn't good enough to suspend anyone.

Though I don't care for Florio as a sports writer, his legal background comes in handy with issues like these. He breaks down the "more probable than not" legal phrasing here:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/06/more-probable-than-not-carries-important-legal-meaning/

In other words, Bill, Tom, and the Pats* organization are very likely in trouble.

Brady's Dad is now crying that the league is framing his son. Poor Tommy.