OT: Brady out for 4 and Pats lose a first round pick. Nm | Page 22 | The Boneyard

OT: Brady out for 4 and Pats lose a first round pick. Nm

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bonehead said:
You would think finding Brady NOT GUILTY would be a highlight...



Thanks for correcting me.

Still searching through the ruling for 'Tom is NOT GUILTY' but that's hard to do when that is NOT what the case was about, right?
wrong?
Expand ...

Like upstater posted:

Judge Berman: What is the evidence of a scheme or a conspiracy?
Daniel Nash (NFL attorney): There is clear evidence in the texts (between McNally and Jastremski) that (Brady) knew...
Berman: On January 18?
Nash: No

That carries no weight with you? You can't make the mental leap that means not guilty? What did you get on your SAT's?
 
Waquoit said:
Like upstater posted:

Judge Berman: What is the evidence of a scheme or a conspiracy?
Daniel Nash (NFL attorney): There is clear evidence in the texts (between McNally and Jastremski) that (Brady) knew...
Berman: On January 18?
Nash: No

That carries no weight with you? You can't make the mental leap that means not guilty? What did you get on your SAT's?
Expand ...

I don't know what I got on my SAT's - but I qualified expert on rifle range.

What did you get on your SAT's?

Was this case that Judge Berman ruled on about Toms involvement in deflating balls - YES or NO?

If yes, why does the ruling NOT state this? Why are the 5 takeaways for the 'experts' the same as mine and not about his innocence or guilt?
 
Last edited:
Waquoit said:
Like upstater posted:

Judge Berman: What is the evidence of a scheme or a conspiracy?
Daniel Nash (NFL attorney): There is clear evidence in the texts (between McNally and Jastremski) that (Brady) knew...
Berman: On January 18?
Nash: No

That carries no weight with you? You can't make the mental leap that means not guilty? What did you get on your SAT's?
Expand ...

The NFL counsel is sitting here telling the judge there is NO evidence at all (even by the jokingly laughable standard the NFL uses to define "evidence") of anything at all happening on January 18th, and we're supposed to ask, "Is Brady innocent?"

Is Brady innocent of what? The NFL counsel said there is nothing about Jan 18th.

Since Bonehead brought up the Catholic thing earlier (which makes absolutely no sense since I never have even typed the word Catholic on this board), maybe we're to talk about Brady's original sin? The fact that he was conceived?
 
CL82 said:
Nah, Boney this was a bitch slap by the judge. I know that you don't have a dog in this hunt other than trolling Pat fans, but you might just need to find a new hobby. ;) This thing is over.
Expand ...

Looks like I get a few more months...

"We are grateful to Judge Berman for hearing this matter, but respectfully disagree with today's decision. We will appeal today's ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game," Goodell wrote. "The commissioner's responsibility to secure the competitive fairness of our game is a paramount principle, and the league and our 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. While the legal phase of this process continues, we look forward to focusing on football and the opening of the regular season."
 
Bonehead said:
I don't know what I got on my SAT's - but I qualified expert on rifle range.

What did you get on your SAT's?

Was this case that Judge Berman ruled on about Toms involvement in deflating balls - YES or NO?

If yes, why does the ruling NOT state this? Why are the 5 takeaways for the 'experts' the same as mine and not about his innocence or guilt?
Expand ...
Are these the same the same "experts" who said that the judge beating the crap out of the NFL in the hearing was a sign that he was going to rule in their favor, lol? If so, you might want poll a different bunch.

I know you know the answer because we discussed it above, but...
"Berman's basis for the ruling is procedural (see pages 20 and 21) because in a judicial review of an arbitration, the judge doesn't make rulings about findings of fact, but there are plenty of good nuggets in there that will severely curtail the NFL's ability to sanction Brady."

But that will be the last time I'll seriously respond to you, since I know you actually get what a beat down of the NFL the decision was.

Just curious with what weapons are you qualified as an expert? (And for that matter are you using that specifically or generically? I think it goes Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert, right?)

My father in law had "marksman" medals for rifle, machine gun and something else which eludes me at the moment- maybe pistol, in WWII. He carried a BAR at the the start of his deployment but handed it off when the first wave of replacements came in.
 
Last edited:
upstater said:
The NFL counsel is sitting here telling the judge there is NO evidence at all (even by the jokingly laughable standard the NFL uses to define "evidence") of anything at all happening on January 18th, and we're supposed to ask, "Is Brady innocent?"

Is Brady innocent of what? The NFL counsel said there is nothing about Jan 18th.

Since Bonehead brought up the Catholic thing earlier (which makes absolutely no sense since I never have even typed the word Catholic on this board), maybe we're to talk about Brady's original sin? The fact that he was conceived?
Expand ...

So was Joe Pa a good man?
Was he Catholic?
Was he a good catholic man?
 
.-.
Bonehead said:
Looks like I get a few more months...

"We are grateful to Judge Berman for hearing this matter, but respectfully disagree with today's decision. We will appeal today's ruling in order to uphold the collectively bargained responsibility to protect the integrity of the game," Goodell wrote. "The commissioner's responsibility to secure the competitive fairness of our game is a paramount principle, and the league and our 32 clubs will continue to pursue a path to that end. While the legal phase of this process continues, we look forward to focusing on football and the opening of the regular season."
Expand ...
Lol, I almost feel sorry for you...

Goodell has painted himself into a corner. Things will just keep getting worse for him.
 
CL82 said:
Just curious with what weapons are you qualified as an expert? (And for that matter are you using that specifically or generically? I think it goes Marksman, Sharpshooter, Expert, right?)

My father in law had "marksman" medals for rifle, machine gun and something else which eludes me at the moment- maybe pistol, in WWII. He carried a BAR at the the start of his deployment but handed it off when the first wave of replacements came in.
Expand ...

You are correct on the rankings and order - I think the best thing that helped me was my lack of rifle/gun knowledge going in...

I wasn't the 'SAT' type of kid through HS although I was in prep classes and such, but later earned my degree from Hawaii Pacific University.

I qualified expert all 5 of my USMC years with the M16.

Shooting from 200, 300, and 500 yareds, no scope!

The last two years of my service I had to qualify with Pistol (9MM) as I was the NCO that would bring the Marines convicted of crimes to Ford Island - brig in Hawaii. Expert as well but will admit pistol more difficult. Trained by second runner up to the 92 Olympics.

BAR??
 
Bonehead said:
You are correct on the rankings and order - I think the best thing that helped me was my lack of rifle/gun knowledge going in...

I wasn't the 'SAT' type of kid through HS although I was in prep classes and such, but later earned my degree from Hawaii Pacific University.

I qualified expert all 5 of my USMC years with the M16.

Shooting from 200, 300, and 500 yareds, no scope!

The last two years of my service I had to qualify with Pistol (9MM) as I was the NCO that would bring the Marines convicted of crimes to Ford Island - brig in Hawaii. Expert as well but will admit pistol more difficult. Trained by second runner up to the 92 Olympics.

BAR??
Expand ...
Interesting. Thanks for your service and sharing a bit about it.

BAR is Browning Automatic Rifle.

a411la.jpg
 
Brady was not found innocent because rarely is that ever determined. It's next to impossible to prove a negative.

This whole thing comes down to Occam's Razor, but that doesn't provide for billable hours and it doesn't win the news cycle in the off-season.
 
.-.
CL82 said:
SI's Micheal McCann
th


I dub thee not credible as a expert due to your questionable choice of hairstyle.
Expand ...

Actually, he has been pretty thorough throughout. He's the guy that has thought Goodell was bogus from the start. He's also the guy that brought the MIT professor's experiment into the limelight.

Here is Sally Jenkins's take at the Washington Post, an odd amicus curiae was sent by a heavy hitter: https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...003de0-e172-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html
 
Excellent article, thanks. This note pretty much sums up the thoughts of patriot nation.

“My theory is they thought it was true and wanted it to be true, and then they became committed to it,” Blecker says. “And then confirmation bias appeared.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,641
Messages
4,587,447
Members
10,497
Latest member
Orlando Fos


Top Bottom