BUSTED! Deflategate: Pats deliberately did it!
- Thread starter salsadancer7
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 385
- Views 26K
I know what a red herring is, I just don't see the connection. The destroyed cell phone is an NFL red herring to distract from what important issue? Seems much more to be evidence of deliberate non-cooperation than a red herring.
Can anyone answer me this: Goodell himself revealed that he had 'knowledge" of deflated footballs the night BEFORE the AFCCG game. If the NFL hierarchy thought that any supposed funny business was going on with footballs, why weren't the footballs placed under lock and key before the second most important game of the season?? To me it's akin to a cop hiding behind the bushes on the highway hoping to catch you speeding, when being out in the open would have the same result in slowing you down.
It's all good though, Jimmy G. will lead them to a 2-2 record, and then hell hath no fury....... Can't wait for the podium at next year's SB. It will be like Rozelle/Al Davis all over again
It's all good though, Jimmy G. will lead them to a 2-2 record, and then hell hath no fury....... Can't wait for the podium at next year's SB. It will be like Rozelle/Al Davis all over again
Last edited:
Good question ...
IF thats true, the NFL and the refs should be held responsible ...
If he KNEW they were deflated, why did he not do anything before the game to correct the situation ?
And I agree with you. Maybe the league wanted to see if he would fess up.
But again, if ya have nothing to hide, why TELL SOMEONE to get rid of what could be evidence the day of when you are due to be interviewed.
Reported - the phone was destroyed in March.
He had the phone in January & February if I thought it had something on it that would incriminate me.
I'm not waiting weeks to "destroy" it.
He had the phone in January & February if I thought it had something on it that would incriminate me.
I'm not waiting weeks to "destroy" it.
I agree completely. Anyone who would destroy a phone, an email server, or any electronic messaging device is guilty and should be suspended, prosecuted, and forced to re-create those missing messages as best they can by a court. Brady should serve as an example of this type of decision and punishment.
You actually think an employer has the right to anything on an employees personal cell phone?
My comment is purely intended for another matter and I simply used the Brady incident to make a point.
You are correct. That is a great question, but IF your employer SUSPECTED you of being guilty of some kind of fraud and they found out that information in the investigation of fraud was on that phone and you told someone to get rid of....if you don't think your employer with not both suspect you and/or fire you, you are greatly mistaken.
Sure, but the NFL doesn't have the authority to subpoena phone records. I wonder if they would if this does end up going to court....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That isn't going to be an issue in court, nflpa will argue the process, you can see that from their release yesterday:
The NFL had no policy that applied to players; The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players; The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of “general awareness” to predicate a legally unjustified punishment; The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.
Brady doesn't have to give up anything, but he's compelled to cooperate and can be judged of he's perceived to not be doing that.
The NFL had no policy that applied to players; The NFL provided no notice of any such policy or potential discipline to players; The NFL resorted to a nebulous standard of “general awareness” to predicate a legally unjustified punishment; The NFL had no procedures in place until two days ago to test air pressure in footballs; and The NFL violated the plain meaning of the collective bargaining agreement.
Brady doesn't have to give up anything, but he's compelled to cooperate and can be judged of he's perceived to not be doing that.
Similar threads
