Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Capt. Obvious

(9,002 posts)
2. Maybe they can make a banner for it
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 10:37 AM
Sep 2015

and raise it with the championship banner a week from today.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
3. Eventually cheaters lose.
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 10:59 AM
Sep 2015

Nobody regards Lance Armstrong as anything other than a cheater. Unfortunately U.S. sports don't take cheating seriously. Trash like Robert Mathis try to sell us that he was taking a fertility drug for women and he didn't get laughed out of the league. Likewise Wes Welker and David Ortiz claiming they have no idea how they failed a drug test is just a joke.

So is Tom Brady saying he knew nothing about this.

Until there are real punishments for cheating trash like Brady will continue to cheat.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
10. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this just a ruling on whether Goodell could issue the suspension?
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 12:55 PM
Sep 2015

It says nothing about whether Tommy cheated.

sir pball

(5,350 posts)
12. Yes. I slogged through all 40 pages of the actual ruling, Tom isn't cleared in any way.
Fri Sep 4, 2015, 11:45 AM
Sep 2015

While it does sound like the judge is concerned about the "independent" (his quotes not mine) investigation and adequate proof, the questions of contract and law addressed had nothing to do with whether or not there was cheating - the biggie was whether Goodell was allowed to use the "conduct detrimental" clause to apply the explicitly written PED punishments as his guideline for the suspension, rather than the explicit "tampering with equipment" punishment; and if Brady had been made aware that he was facing a punishment outside of anything he reasonably expected based on the player's rulebook he was provided instead of the coach/cwner rulebook which is what Goodell was working from.

Spoiler, he's not. And given the pretty strong, clear wording in the ruling, if anything is changed on appeal it's likely going to be slapping Brady with the equipment-tampering punishment of IIRC $5500 per squishy ball.

Disclaimer, Pats fan, ambivalent on the deflation - wouldn't surprise me in the least, but the "science" in the Wells report IS sloppy as hell.

ProfessorGAC

(77,267 posts)
11. Roger Cossack Said. . .
Thu Sep 3, 2015, 01:50 PM
Sep 2015

. . .(heard it on ESPN on Sirius) that the judge was clearly concerned about the lack of proof as the reason why the punishment was far too harsh.

I haven't read the ruling, but he's supposed to be an expert lawyer, so i can only go by what he said just about 20 minutes ago.

I don't know if it was live or taped earlier, but they played the clip on the Waddle and Silvy show on ESPN radio.

Kick in to the DU tip jar?

This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.

As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.

Tell me more...

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Sports»Tom Brady Won