Golden Boy Tom Brady suspended four games

**Rick N. Backer** · July 31, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.

**Narps** · July 31, 2015

:laughing guy:

11811308_10204761812272854_4446837025928737265_n.jpg?oh=f0bfbb0d3bd3ca61ccb67acb37e5d76b&oe=565B30BE

Edited July 31, 2015 by Narps

**Chicken hawk** · July 31, 2015

Lots of things go on with the Patriots. Its really strange.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25208374/report-patriots-cut-brandon-spikes-amid-automobile-investigation

Like bad luck.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Chicken hawk

**laughedatbytime** · July 31, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.

By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.

Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.

Such as? ETA: I think you're referring to Mortensen's original report. Correct? I don't think I have repeated anything that has been proven to be a lie.

By the way, I completely agree with your first sentence. Bet it makes it hard to get through on WEEI though. If I had a dollar for every time an apologist said that they haven't proven Brady did anything, I'd buy Donald Trump out of the Presidential race.

Edited August 1, 2015 by laughedatbytime

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.
Such as? ETA: I think you're referring to Mortensen's original report. Correct? I don't think I have repeated anything that has been proven to be a lie.

By the way, I completely agree with your first sentence. Bet it makes it hard to get through on WEEI though. If I had a dollar for every time an apologist said that they haven't proven Brady did anything, I'd buy Donald Trump out of the Presidential race.

Sadly, not everyone, even on this board, are as willing to give up.

You could probably get on WEEI now. I hear some of their guests aren't comfortable defending their work product on the air right now.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis & Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.
Such as? ETA: I think you're referring to Mortensen's original report. Correct? I don't think I have repeated anything that has been proven to be a lie.

By the way, I completely agree with your first sentence. Bet it makes it hard to get through on WEEI though. If I had a dollar for every time an apologist said that they haven't proven Brady did anything, I'd buy Donald Trump out of the Presidential race.

Sadly, not everyone, even on this board, are as willing to give up.

You could probably get on WEEI now. I hear some of their guests aren't comfortable defending their work product on the air right now.

Sounds good. When I call in I'll remember not to call in as John Farrell or Ben Cherington, in order to keep from sidetracking the conversation (though if I was a radio repairperson that would be a great way to drum up business).

I need to know though... will I be dealing with people enamored with the phrases "51%" (apparently the only number between one half and one in Patriot nation) and "proof"? With the educational system in Massachusetts being purported to be of such high quality, I'm expecting the answer to be "no", but then it IS sports talk radio...Brad Stevens isn't going to be calling in.

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis &amp; Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.
Such as? ETA: I think you're referring to Mortensen's original report. Correct? I don't think I have repeated anything that has been proven to be a lie.

By the way, I completely agree with your first sentence. Bet it makes it hard to get through on WEEI though. If I had a dollar for every time an apologist said that they haven't proven Brady did anything, I'd buy Donald Trump out of the Presidential race.

Sadly, not everyone, even on this board, are as willing to give up.

You could probably get on WEEI now. I hear some of their guests aren't comfortable defending their work product on the air right now.
Sounds good. When I call in I'll remember not to call in as John Farrell or Ben Cherington, in order to keep from sidetracking the conversation (though if I was a radio repairperson that would be a great way to drum up business).

I need to know though... will I be dealing with people enamored with the phrases "51%" (apparently the only number between one half and one in Patriot nation) and "proof"? With the educational system in Massachusetts being purported to be of such high quality, I'm expecting the answer to be "no", but then it IS sports talk radio...Brad Stevens isn't going to be calling in.

It depends. If you're suggesting that the burden of proof for you personally is a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, then 50.1% is enough. We know we're not dealing with the government stripping someone of their liberty or property, so you probably don't need to get into discussing beyond a reasonable doubt, but someone could say that's what they need to be convinced. If you think you need clear and convincing evidence, another standard applied in civil litigation cases, 50.1% isn't going to carry the day. So I think you need to decide what for you personally is the standard before you call.

Of course if your standard is whatever makes the team that has run roughshod over yours for 15 seasons look bad, you can talk about how Tom Brady destroyed a phone, or how 11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi under regulation.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis &amp; Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.
Such as? ETA: I think you're referring to Mortensen's original report. Correct? I don't think I have repeated anything that has been proven to be a lie.

By the way, I completely agree with your first sentence. Bet it makes it hard to get through on WEEI though. If I had a dollar for every time an apologist said that they haven't proven Brady did anything, I'd buy Donald Trump out of the Presidential race.

Sadly, not everyone, even on this board, are as willing to give up.

You could probably get on WEEI now. I hear some of their guests aren't comfortable defending their work product on the air right now.
Sounds good. When I call in I'll remember not to call in as John Farrell or Ben Cherington, in order to keep from sidetracking the conversation (though if I was a radio repairperson that would be a great way to drum up business).

I need to know though... will I be dealing with people enamored with the phrases "51%" (apparently the only number between one half and one in Patriot nation) and "proof"? With the educational system in Massachusetts being purported to be of such high quality, I'm expecting the answer to be "no", but then it IS sports talk radio...Brad Stevens isn't going to be calling in.

It depends. If you're suggesting that the burden of proof for you personally is a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, then 50.1% is enough. We know we're not dealing with the government stripping someone of their liberty or property, so you probably don't need to get into discussing beyond a reasonable doubt, but someone could say that's what they need to be convinced. If you think you need clear and convincing evidence, another standard applied in civil litigation cases, 50.1% isn't going to carry the day. So I think you need to decide what for you personally is the standard before you call.

Of course if your standard is whatever makes the team that has run roughshod over yours for 15 seasons look bad, you can talk about how Tom Brady destroyed a phone, or how 11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi under regulation.

50.1% is good enough for a preponderance of the evidence. Most of the fine citizens who defend St. Thomas use 51% so I did too. Nice change on your part though...but why not 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

The point was, as you probably already know is that 51% is not the only number that is over 50%, 99% is too. The actual likelihood that Tom had general knowledge of footballs being deflated on his behalf is a hell of a lot closer to 99% than it is to 51%, that's the minimum standard and this is determinable with what we know without his phone. I would be interested in what probability you would assign to this likelihood. I think the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" hurdle is cleared easily with what we currently know, and if more is discoverable, and Brady is willing to listen to his lawyers, he'll be forced to do what he needs to "to protect the shield", in Mr. Kraft's words (which have proven by his later words to have been, well, let's say,somewhat disingenuous).

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis &amp; Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.
Such as? ETA: I think you're referring to Mortensen's original report. Correct? I don't think I have repeated anything that has been proven to be a lie.

By the way, I completely agree with your first sentence. Bet it makes it hard to get through on WEEI though. If I had a dollar for every time an apologist said that they haven't proven Brady did anything, I'd buy Donald Trump out of the Presidential race.

Sadly, not everyone, even on this board, are as willing to give up.

You could probably get on WEEI now. I hear some of their guests aren't comfortable defending their work product on the air right now.
Sounds good. When I call in I'll remember not to call in as John Farrell or Ben Cherington, in order to keep from sidetracking the conversation (though if I was a radio repairperson that would be a great way to drum up business).

I need to know though... will I be dealing with people enamored with the phrases "51%" (apparently the only number between one half and one in Patriot nation) and "proof"? With the educational system in Massachusetts being purported to be of such high quality, I'm expecting the answer to be "no", but then it IS sports talk radio...Brad Stevens isn't going to be calling in.

It depends. If you're suggesting that the burden of proof for you personally is a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, then 50.1% is enough. We know we're not dealing with the government stripping someone of their liberty or property, so you probably don't need to get into discussing beyond a reasonable doubt, but someone could say that's what they need to be convinced. If you think you need clear and convincing evidence, another standard applied in civil litigation cases, 50.1% isn't going to carry the day. So I think you need to decide what for you personally is the standard before you call.

Of course if your standard is whatever makes the team that has run roughshod over yours for 15 seasons look bad, you can talk about how Tom Brady destroyed a phone, or how 11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi under regulation.
50.1% is good enough for a preponderance of the evidence. Most of the fine citizens who defend St. Thomas use 51% so I did too. Nice change on your part though...but why not 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

The point was, as you probably already know is that 51% is not the only number that is over 50%, 99% is too. The actual likelihood that Tom had general knowledge of footballs being deflated on his behalf is a hell of a lot closer to 99% than it is to 51%, that's the minimum standard and this is determinable with what we know without his phone. I would be interested in what probability you would assign to this likelihood. I think the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" hurdle is cleared easily with what we currently know, and if more is discoverable, and Brady is willing to listen to his lawyers, he'll be forced to do what he needs to "to protect the shield", in Mr. Kraft's words (which have proven by his later words to have been, well, let's say,somewhat disingenuous).

50.1% is a preponderance of the credible evidence. I'm not sure why we don't go out 43 decimal places. :wacko:

As for your other questions, let's try something a little different. Unlike some, I will admit that my bias in this matter colors how I view things. Some will swallow anything they are told that makes Brady look bad simply because they hate him. I'm Patriots fan, and have been for around 40 years. I think it is arguable Brady is the greatest quarterback in the history of football, and he's certainly in the top 5. So I want to believe him. Just as, in June 1994, I wanted to believe the great O.J. Simpson did not kill his wife. When a jury is selected in a civil case, the judge asks all the potential jurors at the outset if they believe they have bias for or against one side of a lawsuit that they believe makes them unable to fairly judge the evidence. In this matter, I would have to admit I am, and I would be excused. I suppose you and a couple other posters on here believe you would not.

Some of the folks around here are convinced of Brady's guilt because of what they read in Mr. Wells' report, and in Mr. Goodell's decision. Mr. Wells, of course, is an attorney for the NFL, and he submitted his report to the NFL's General Counsel before he released it. AEI has done a study that suggests Mr. Wells' "science" is not reliable. Oddly enough, Mr. Wells' report doesn't talk much about what Tom Brady's testimony before him was, except to note he didn't believe him. Maybe some simply don't care why.

Mr. Goodell is sometimes criticized around here, and everywhere, for being an @ss, although for some strange reason he's unassailable now. And it's now known that Mr. Goodell's operation has leaked completely false information to the media about Brady and the Patriots designed to make them look bad, and win the public relations war. Its also now known that rather than simply address the issue of ball inflation before the AFC Championship to try and protect the "integrity" of the game, at least as they would argue they see it, the league ran a "sting" operation designed to catch the Patriots. I participate in arbitration hearings with some regularity. If an "impartial" arbitrator did that to a client of mine, I'd at least look to have his decision tossed out.

So I don't know if Brady's telling the truth. I know I'm biased though. And I also know that AFTER the issue of ball inflation became a big deal, the Patriots whipped the sh*t out of the Colts and Seahawks.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis &amp; Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.
Such as? ETA: I think you're referring to Mortensen's original report. Correct? I don't think I have repeated anything that has been proven to be a lie.

By the way, I completely agree with your first sentence. Bet it makes it hard to get through on WEEI though. If I had a dollar for every time an apologist said that they haven't proven Brady did anything, I'd buy Donald Trump out of the Presidential race.

Sadly, not everyone, even on this board, are as willing to give up.

You could probably get on WEEI now. I hear some of their guests aren't comfortable defending their work product on the air right now.
Sounds good. When I call in I'll remember not to call in as John Farrell or Ben Cherington, in order to keep from sidetracking the conversation (though if I was a radio repairperson that would be a great way to drum up business).

I need to know though... will I be dealing with people enamored with the phrases "51%" (apparently the only number between one half and one in Patriot nation) and "proof"? With the educational system in Massachusetts being purported to be of such high quality, I'm expecting the answer to be "no", but then it IS sports talk radio...Brad Stevens isn't going to be calling in.

It depends. If you're suggesting that the burden of proof for you personally is a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, then 50.1% is enough. We know we're not dealing with the government stripping someone of their liberty or property, so you probably don't need to get into discussing beyond a reasonable doubt, but someone could say that's what they need to be convinced. If you think you need clear and convincing evidence, another standard applied in civil litigation cases, 50.1% isn't going to carry the day. So I think you need to decide what for you personally is the standard before you call.

Of course if your standard is whatever makes the team that has run roughshod over yours for 15 seasons look bad, you can talk about how Tom Brady destroyed a phone, or how 11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi under regulation.
50.1% is good enough for a preponderance of the evidence. Most of the fine citizens who defend St. Thomas use 51% so I did too. Nice change on your part though...but why not 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

The point was, as you probably already know is that 51% is not the only number that is over 50%, 99% is too. The actual likelihood that Tom had general knowledge of footballs being deflated on his behalf is a hell of a lot closer to 99% than it is to 51%, that's the minimum standard and this is determinable with what we know without his phone. I would be interested in what probability you would assign to this likelihood. I think the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" hurdle is cleared easily with what we currently know, and if more is discoverable, and Brady is willing to listen to his lawyers, he'll be forced to do what he needs to "to protect the shield", in Mr. Kraft's words (which have proven by his later words to have been, well, let's say,somewhat disingenuous).

50.1% is a preponderance of the credible evidence. I'm not sure why we don't go out 43 decimal places.

As for your other questions, let's try something a little different. Unlike some, I will admit that my bias in this matter colors how I view things. Some will swallow anything they are told that makes Brady look bad simply because they hate him. I'm Patriots fan, and have been for around 40 years. I think it is arguable Brady is the greatest quarterback in the history of football, and he's certainly in the top 5. So I want to believe him. Just as, in June 1994, I wanted to believe the great O.J. Simpson did not kill his wife. When a jury is selected in a civil case, the judge asks all the potential jurors at the outset if they believe they have bias for or against one side of a lawsuit that they believe makes them unable to fairly judge the evidence. In this matter, I would have to admit I am, and I would be excused. I suppose you and a couple other posters on here believe you would not.

Some of the folks around here are convinced of Brady's guilt because of what they read in Mr. Wells' report, and in Mr. Goodell's decision. Mr. Wells, of course, is an attorney for the NFL, and he submitted his report to the NFL's General Counsel before he released it. AEI has done a study that suggests Mr. Wells' "science" is not reliable. Oddly enough, Mr. Wells' report doesn't talk much about what Tom Brady's testimony before him was, except to note he didn't believe him. Maybe some simply don't care why.

Mr. Goodell is sometimes criticized around here, and everywhere, for being an @ss, although for some strange reason he's unassailable now. And it's now known that Mr. Goodell's operation has leaked completely false information to the media about Brady and the Patriots designed to make them look bad, and win the public relations war. Its also now known that rather than simply address the issue of ball inflation before the AFC Championship to try and protect the "integrity" of the game, at least as they would argue they see it, the league ran a "sting" operation designed to catch the Patriots. I participate in arbitration hearings with some regularity. If an "impartial" arbitrator did that to a client of mine, I'd at least look to have his decision tossed out.

So I don't know if Brady's telling the truth. I know I'm biased though. And I also know that AFTER the issue of ball inflation became a big deal, the Patriots whipped the sh*t out of the Colts and Seahawks.

So is 99.9999999999999999999999%

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

I've got more but I'm going to cut the post off here because, well, Windows 8 sucks and I'll never know when the font size will expand and I'll lose the whole post correcting it.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

Since "we" all agree that the principles of criminal investigation "must" apply to this matter, so, for example, the refusal to turn over your private property creates the inference that you're hiding something, what do "we" make of a reporter's refusal to answer questions?

http://profootballta...eei-appearance/

Apparently, only 11 of 12 reminders about his WEEI appearance to Chris Mortensen went through.
Mortensen was scheduled to appear on theDennis &amp; Callahan show at 7:45 a.m. ET, but he has canceled.
“You guys made a mistake by drumming up business for the show and how I would address my reporting for the first time,” Mortensen informed WEEI. “I will not allow WEEI, [Patriots owner Robert] Kraft or anybody to make me the centerpiece of a story that has been misreported far beyond anything I did in the first 48 hours. Maybe when the lawsuit is settled, in Brady’s favor, I hope, we can revisit. Don’t call.”
They tried to call him anyway. No answer.
I like and respect Mort. As Adam Schefter of ESPN said on WEEI on Thursday, Mortensen is a pioneer in this business. But his false report should be the centerpiece of the story. Because without that false report there is no story. More specifically, without that false report, there is no finding of cheating.
The false report instantly changed the narrative from “the NFL checked the Patriots footballs at halftime” to “someone deflated 11 of the 12 the Patriots footballs by two pounds each; what did Brady and Belichick know?” It made another Ted Wells investigation logical, it put the Patriots on the defensive, and it kept the Patriots from responding to the accurate PSI readings by pointing out that, on one of the two air-pressure gauges used, they fall squarely within the range expected by the Ideal Gas Law.
On Thursday, Schefter suggested that Mort was given false information by one or more high-level NFL officials. On Tuesday, the circumstances suggested that Stephen A. Smith of ESPN was given true information by one or more high-level NFL officials to introduce to the public the notion that “Tom Brady destroyed his cellphone.”
This would be a perfect topic for an ESPN Outside the Lines investigation as to how the NFL manipulated the media on multiple occasions for P.R. purposes. If only a couple of prominent ESPN employees hadn’t been pulled into this mess.
By we, do you mean Patriot fans who have no clue what the words "more likely than not" and "was generally aware" mean and want to hold the league to the standards of a criminal trial?

Nope, didn't think so..

No, you're right. I didn't mean that. I was talking about people who think the standards that apply to justify police inquiry, like someone dressed too fancy in a neighborhood known for drug sales, should apply to support imposing discipline on someone. Brady didn't want to turn over his phone? F*ck him. He's hiding something.
Not surprised you were not talking about the former. But now that it's out there, surely you're embarrassed by the lack of understanding of many in Patriot Nation who used those arguments ad nauseum.

I have no problem with a labor dispute basically applying a civil burden of proof. I do have a problem with people who keep repeating "facts" long disproved. I would think someone would be embarrassed to keep doing that.
Such as? ETA: I think you're referring to Mortensen's original report. Correct? I don't think I have repeated anything that has been proven to be a lie.

By the way, I completely agree with your first sentence. Bet it makes it hard to get through on WEEI though. If I had a dollar for every time an apologist said that they haven't proven Brady did anything, I'd buy Donald Trump out of the Presidential race.

Sadly, not everyone, even on this board, are as willing to give up.

You could probably get on WEEI now. I hear some of their guests aren't comfortable defending their work product on the air right now.
Sounds good. When I call in I'll remember not to call in as John Farrell or Ben Cherington, in order to keep from sidetracking the conversation (though if I was a radio repairperson that would be a great way to drum up business).

I need to know though... will I be dealing with people enamored with the phrases "51%" (apparently the only number between one half and one in Patriot nation) and "proof"? With the educational system in Massachusetts being purported to be of such high quality, I'm expecting the answer to be "no", but then it IS sports talk radio...Brad Stevens isn't going to be calling in.

It depends. If you're suggesting that the burden of proof for you personally is a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, then 50.1% is enough. We know we're not dealing with the government stripping someone of their liberty or property, so you probably don't need to get into discussing beyond a reasonable doubt, but someone could say that's what they need to be convinced. If you think you need clear and convincing evidence, another standard applied in civil litigation cases, 50.1% isn't going to carry the day. So I think you need to decide what for you personally is the standard before you call.

Of course if your standard is whatever makes the team that has run roughshod over yours for 15 seasons look bad, you can talk about how Tom Brady destroyed a phone, or how 11 of 12 footballs were 2 psi under regulation.
50.1% is good enough for a preponderance of the evidence. Most of the fine citizens who defend St. Thomas use 51% so I did too. Nice change on your part though...but why not 50.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

The point was, as you probably already know is that 51% is not the only number that is over 50%, 99% is too. The actual likelihood that Tom had general knowledge of footballs being deflated on his behalf is a hell of a lot closer to 99% than it is to 51%, that's the minimum standard and this is determinable with what we know without his phone. I would be interested in what probability you would assign to this likelihood. I think the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" hurdle is cleared easily with what we currently know, and if more is discoverable, and Brady is willing to listen to his lawyers, he'll be forced to do what he needs to "to protect the shield", in Mr. Kraft's words (which have proven by his later words to have been, well, let's say,somewhat disingenuous).

50.1% is a preponderance of the credible evidence. I'm not sure why we don't go out 43 decimal places.

As for your other questions, let's try something a little different. Unlike some, I will admit that my bias in this matter colors how I view things. Some will swallow anything they are told that makes Brady look bad simply because they hate him. I'm Patriots fan, and have been for around 40 years. I think it is arguable Brady is the greatest quarterback in the history of football, and he's certainly in the top 5. So I want to believe him. Just as, in June 1994, I wanted to believe the great O.J. Simpson did not kill his wife. When a jury is selected in a civil case, the judge asks all the potential jurors at the outset if they believe they have bias for or against one side of a lawsuit that they believe makes them unable to fairly judge the evidence. In this matter, I would have to admit I am, and I would be excused. I suppose you and a couple other posters on here believe you would not.

Some of the folks around here are convinced of Brady's guilt because of what they read in Mr. Wells' report, and in Mr. Goodell's decision. Mr. Wells, of course, is an attorney for the NFL, and he submitted his report to the NFL's General Counsel before he released it. AEI has done a study that suggests Mr. Wells' "science" is not reliable. Oddly enough, Mr. Wells' report doesn't talk much about what Tom Brady's testimony before him was, except to note he didn't believe him. Maybe some simply don't care why.

Mr. Goodell is sometimes criticized around here, and everywhere, for being an @ss, although for some strange reason he's unassailable now. And it's now known that Mr. Goodell's operation has leaked completely false information to the media about Brady and the Patriots designed to make them look bad, and win the public relations war. Its also now known that rather than simply address the issue of ball inflation before the AFC Championship to try and protect the "integrity" of the game, at least as they would argue they see it, the league ran a "sting" operation designed to catch the Patriots. I participate in arbitration hearings with some regularity. If an "impartial" arbitrator did that to a client of mine, I'd at least look to have his decision tossed out.

So I don't know if Brady's telling the truth. I know I'm biased though. And I also know that AFTER the issue of ball inflation became a big deal, the Patriots whipped the sh*t out of the Colts and Seahawks.
So is 99.9999999999999999999999%

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

I've got more but I'm going to cut the post off here because, well, Windows 8 sucks and I'll never know when the font size will expand and I'll lose the whole post correcting it.

Thank God I've never been called for jury duty but I can't imagine I'd be chosen as a jurist for the OJ jury because everything I heard, and it was way too much made it obvious that he was guilty. So any defense attorney that interviewed me would say "next". And no, it wasn't because he was a Bill or defeated my Indiana Hoosiers in the Rose Bowl. :)

Goodell has not been unassailable (I'm not as critical of his pre-Deflategate performance as most here, either); in fact I don't think he's comported himself well throughout the whole incident, but that doesn't in any way change the facts of the case, which point very heavily, almost to the standard in a criminal trial (if not to that standard) required for a guilty verdict. In fact the biggest reason for a not guilty verdict if it was a criminal trial would be the conduct of the prosecution.

Since Deflategate started, I've wished I had the video editing talent to recreate the Ice Bowl, extrapolating football deflation as it was posited by the Patriots in the 50 degree weather to Ice Bowl conditions. Bart Starr's pass to Chuck Mercein would have been even more impressive if he was throwing this...

http://www.sportspickle.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/deflated-football-300x191.jpg

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

A little house cleaning.

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

The offense hung 28 points on the Seahawks defense.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

A little house cleaning.

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

I've already read this (search for my Norman Ornstein joke if you want to find it).

From the article:

the Colts ball pressure dropped too little rather than because the Patriots ball pressure dropped too much.

Uh huh. If the air temperature had that effect on the ball that quickly, football would be unplayable in freezing conditions.

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?

Maybe they had enough info already and didn't feel it was necessary. Maybe (not to get this sent to SOCN) they thought he was as trustworthy as Hillary when she offers to be "helpful" in the investigations into her email scandals.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

The offense hung 28 points on the Seahawks defense.

Yes, they did. Which is hardly beating the shit out of someone on either side of the ball.

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

The offense hung 28 points on the Seahawks defense.
Yes, they did. Which is hardly beating the shit out of someone on either side of the ball.

It is when you advertise yourself as having arguably the best defense in history.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

The offense hung 28 points on the Seahawks defense.
Yes, they did. Which is hardly beating the shit out of someone on either side of the ball.

It is when you advertise yourself as having arguably the best defense in history.

Playing Colin Kaepernick and the detritus that the Cardinals and Rams were running out there at QB for 38% of your schedule may give you an inflated opinion of your talents.

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

A little house cleaning.

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

I've already read this (search for my Norman Ornstein joke if you want to find it).

From the article:
the Colts ball pressure dropped too little rather than because the Patriots ball pressure dropped too much.

Uh huh. If the air temperature had that effect on the ball that quickly, football would be unplayable in freezing conditions.

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?
Maybe they had enough info already and didn't feel it was necessary. Maybe (not to get this sent to SOCN) they thought he was as trustworthy as Hillary when she offers to be "helpful" in the investigations into her email scandals.

Someone who is investigating alleged wrongdoing says "we have enough info already"? That sounds more like someone who is looking for a particular outcome.

**Rick N. Backer** · August 1, 2015

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

The offense hung 28 points on the Seahawks defense.
Yes, they did. Which is hardly beating the shit out of someone on either side of the ball.

It is when you advertise yourself as having arguably the best defense in history.
Playing Colin Kaepernick and the detritus that the Cardinals and Rams were running out there at QB for 38% of your schedule may give you an inflated opinion of your talents.

Oddly, a very similar defense didn't get quite as many points hung on them by the great Peyton Manning and Co. one year earlier.

**laughedatbytime** · August 1, 2015

I fully admit that I dislike, OK hate, the Patriots and Brady. That's why I've been pleased to see the evidence emerge as it has, I don't want to have to defend something that I don't believe to be true. And I don't think I would. Again, because I don't have to I don't know if that's the case. But if you look at all of the facts I don't see how you can believe he's credible in any way. Even his laugh when he was first interviewed on WEEI by a friendly audience the laughter sounded forced. To believe that an NFL quarterback with such meticulous habits and preparation and an expressed desire to have the footballs inflated as low as possible would not be able to tell that the balls were underinflated strains any possible standard of credulity you could come up with, especially with the texts that went back and forth between the guilty parties.

A little house cleaning.

What is the source of the evidence you say has emerged? Mr. Wells? Mr. Goodell?

https://www.aei.org/...ells-report.pdf

If they are right, then there is no evidence the Patriots did anything wrong.

I've already read this (search for my Norman Ornstein joke if you want to find it).

From the article:
the Colts ball pressure dropped too little rather than because the Patriots ball pressure dropped too much.

Uh huh. If the air temperature had that effect on the ball that quickly, football would be unplayable in freezing conditions.

Moreover, it is also reported that the Tom Brady offered to help Mr. Wells obtain his texts through other means. What if that's true? Why would Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell have declined? Too much expense? Too much time?
Maybe they had enough info already and didn't feel it was necessary. Maybe (not to get this sent to SOCN) they thought he was as trustworthy as Hillary when she offers to be "helpful" in the investigations into her email scandals.

Someone who is investigating alleged wrongdoing says "we have enough info already"? That sounds more like someone who is looking for a particular outcome.

I would think that something like that happens in every investigation at some point, or the investigation would never end.

I like the Tom is as trustworthy as Hillary theory better though.

**laughedatbytime** · August 2, 2015

As far as beating the shit out of the Seahawks, in the Super Bowl I watched the Patriots were the stupidest play call in the history of professional football away from losing the game. They did, however, have a preponderance of the points at the end of the game, much like they did in the Colts game.

The offense hung 28 points on the Seahawks defense.
Yes, they did. Which is hardly beating the shit out of someone on either side of the ball.

It is when you advertise yourself as having arguably the best defense in history.
Playing Colin Kaepernick and the detritus that the Cardinals and Rams were running out there at QB for 38% of your schedule may give you an inflated opinion of your talents.

Oddly, a very similar defense didn't get quite as many points hung on them by the great Peyton Manning and Co. one year earlier.

According to Football Outsiders (a statistical website run by Patriot homer Aaron Schatz), the Seahawks pass defense over 19 games was 30% better than the league average defense in 2013 and 10% better (ranking 3rd in the league) in 2014. So the defense wasn't nearly as good. You are right, though, the Pats performance was relatively better than the Broncos in the same game. The Cowboys, though, for one, were more impressive vs Seattle.

I'll make your day though, Larry Lucchino is stepping down at the end of the year.

Golden Boy Tom Brady suspended four games

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Disembodied Spirit

Presto-digitation

JohnRogers

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members