Off Topic Lounge

[Darrell Green Fan]

I understand that as well. As someone who conducts investigations, I confront that type of issue every now and then. If it's the perp, that would definitely be something to take into account if a rule violation is found and the violation was serious. But if the violation was ticky-tack and the guy or gal was being obstructionist, the penalty I'd recommend wouldn't be much. The major issue in any investigation is to determine whether a wrong was committed; if so, you determine the gravity of the wrong and issue punishment based on that and other factors.

Agreed. But the other factors are the key here. Virtually everyone who has voiced an opinion agrees that had Brady simply stood up after the Colts game and said "yes I like the balls a bit softer. I asked the equipment guys to handle that but never thought I was breaking any rules" things would be very very different today.

But he didn't do that. And now they need to pay for their behavior once the story broke. The lies, the arrogance showed by the entire organization as they trotted out experts and demanded apologies, as well as their history which is a big one, played a huge role in this punishment. This is not a court of law. This is a workplace situation. And as always the cover up and the lies are always punished more severely than the initial crime.

You need to address this instead of simply arguing the punishment was too much for simply taking a little air out of the football because the punishment was not about just taking a little air out of the football.

 

[redskinsfan]

Agreed. But the other factors are the key here. Virtually everyone who has voiced an opinion agrees that had Brady simply stood up after the Colts game and said "yes I like the balls a bit softer. I asked the equipment guys to handle that but never thought I was breaking any rules" things would be very very different today.

But he didn't do that. And now they need to pay for their behavior once the story broke. The lies, the arrogance showed by the entire organization as they trotted out experts and demanded apologies, as well as their history which is a big one, played a huge role in this punishment. This is not a court of law. This is a workplace situation. And as always the cover up and the lies are always punished more severely than the initial crime.

You need to address this instead of simply arguing the punishment was too much for simply taking a little air out of the football because the punishment was not about just taking a little air out of the football.

But that's the thing: you don't punish people for that alone. It may factor in a bit into the punishment, but, as you just stated, if he had just copped to it, it would've been okay. That shows you how minor the rule violation was, which normally fetches you a slap on the hand. The bulk of the penalty appears to result from his contumacy, which is clearly punitive more than anything else.

 

[redskinsfan]

And it begins . . . here's what I was talking about and this will be part of the legal strategy attacking Wells' report. If you're going to ding the Patriots and Brady, start investigating others you already know who've tampered with the balls. May not makes sense to some here, but this is what lawyers do everyday.

As Ted Wells investigated Deflategate, the Patriots asked him to investigate whether other teams — including the Colts, whose complaint to the league got the whole thing started — had previously tampered with footballs.

The Patriots’ rebuttal to Wells’s report includes a letter describing the information the Patriots turned over to Wells and his staff. That letter references the Patriots’ contention that other teams may have tampered with footballs in violation of league rules.

“The Patriots also supplied information to Mr. Wells about a prior reported incident of actual ball tampering which took place during a Vikings-Panthers game in 2014. Evidence was also provided that Indianapolis ball boys, in a prior season, had been seen by Jacksonville personnel with ball needles hidden under their long sleeves,” the Patriots’ letter says.

The NFL has already acknowledged that both teams broke the rules on football preparation during the Vikings-Panthers game. In that case, the league let both teams off with a simple warning not to do it again. The Patriots are, understandably, upset that they were given such a harsh punishment while the Vikings and Panthers got away with no punishment at all.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

 

[Caliskinsfan]

An interesting read


Excerpt

In our initial analysis we discussed the intersection between direct and circumstantial evidence which is important to an understanding of how evidence rules work. We must now discuss another key rule which we mentioned but didn’t delve into deeply. It’s called the missing evidence rule (or sometimes the missing evidence instruction).

5.01 Failure To Produce Evidence or A Witness If a party to this case has failed [to offer evidence] [to produce a witness] within his power to produce, you may infer that the [evidence] [testimony of the witness] would be adverse to that party if you believe each of the following elements: 1. The [evidence] [witness] was under the control of the party and could have been produced by the exercise of reasonable diligence. 2. The [evidence] [witness] was not equally available to an adverse party. 3. A reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances would have [offered the evidence] [produced the witness] if he believed [it to be] [the testimony would be] favorable to him. 4. No reasonable excuse for the failure has been shown. (Pattern Jury Instruction Illinois)

When a party to a civil proceeding refuses to provide evidence, the trier of fact is entitled to infer the evidence would have been unfavorable. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume someone would not withhold evidence beneficial to his case or by which his case might be deemed stronger.

Why it matters here is that under Rule 2, the rule through which the league polices the integrity of the game and enforcement of the rules, the failure to provide the requested evidence hampers the league’s investigation and enforcement ability. As the “trier of fact” in this situation, the league is more than justified in believing the missing evidence was not provided because it was detrimental to Brady and/or the Patriots.

In conclusion, while Rule 1 is what sparked the investigation into the Patriots handling of their game balls, it is not the Rule that ultimately got Tom Brady and the Patriots in hot water. It is Rule 2, the rule under which the Patriots had previously run afoul, and under which the investigation was conducted, that led to their downfall.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

But that's the thing: you don't punish people for that alone. It may factor in a bit into the punishment, but, as you just stated, if he had just copped to it, it would've been okay. That shows you how minor the rule violation was, which normally fetches you a slap on the hand. The bulk of the penalty appears to result from his contumacy, which is clearly punitive more than anything else.

If you have a history of cheating, then you are caught again and lie and try to cover it up then as far as I'm concerned you don't get a lot of sympathy, nor do you deserve any. And again if they were caught for 2 things imagine what they have been getting away with all these years. It's not just the Colts game, who knows how many games they could have effected. Ask the Ravens who lost a very close game if they think it's no big deal. It was such a big deal they actually took the time to warn the Colts.

I'm not saying it would have been OK had he copped to it, I'm saying the punishment would have been much less severe. Frankly I don't see how that's debatable. Lying and not fully cooperating has a price.

 

[redskinsfan]

If you have a history of cheating, then you are caught again and lie and try to cover it up then as far as I'm concerned you don't get a lot of sympathy, nor do you deserve any. And again if they were caught for 2 things imagine what they have been getting away with all these years. It's not just the Colts game, who knows how many games they could have effected. Ask the Ravens who lost a very close game if they think it's no big deal. It was such a big deal they actually took the time to warn the Colts.

I'm not saying it would have been OK had he copped to it, I'm saying the punishment would have been much less severe. Frankly I don't see how that's debatable. Lying and not fully cooperating has a price.

That's mostly about the Colts, not Brady. While Brady could've done more to cooperate, that didn't warrant a quarter-season suspension. As for how many games they might've done this in the past, I'm sure it's many. But so does just about every other QB. On that point, it's now clear that at least four Colts balls were deflated in the same game that gave rise to this whole investigation. The Patriots asked Wells to investigate that and he refused to do so. While I'm not excusing what the Patriots or Brady did, if I were them and knew that, I'd be quite pissed. As someone who does investigations, if I'm told that others are guilty of the conduct I'm looking into, you bet I'm going to investigate that. If I didn't do that, the people I'm investigating would have every right to believe that this is a witch hunt and refuse to cooperate. I'm not saying that they shouldn't cooperate, but I'd understand why they'd believe that and, if they ultimately didn't do so, I'd consider the fact that I didn't look elsewhere as a mitigating factor in meting out punishment, if any.

The more I'm hearing about Wells report, the more crap I'm finding about it. Now the circus has come full circle. Goodell has appointed himself to hear the appeal.

 

[skinsdad62]

the patriots asking wells to investigate other teams is the same old pointing to other peoples bad behavior to justify their own . i am sorry but that is never going to cut the mustard with me no matter how many ways its repackaged

2nd , if it was "minor " and it doesnt affect the outcomes of games then why all the secret squirrel BS and the encrypted cell phone BS (encrypted is an exaggeration ) . why lie about "knowing" the equipment manager? Wells gave Brady every easy out he could to incude letting him screen out the text messages and he still wouldnt cooperate

If you did nothing wrong then why lie ? when you lie you lose credibility.

i say the infraction itself was probably worth a fine , draft picks and a one game suspension in of in itself however the history , the cover up , the total arrogance and contempt for the rules brady and the team have exhibited throughout the years got them a harsher penalty

bottom line is brady chose his destiny in this case and now he wants to piss and moan when the NFL gets pissed at his arrogance and lack of cooperation and they drop the hammer on him . perhap 2 mil in lost game checks will check his attitude

if you want sympathy from me you can find it in the dictionary between shit and syphilis

that is all

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

dad nailed it. Again it's not just the failure to cooperate from Brady, it was the bold faced lies he was telling everyone. Frankly I don't see how you can look at those text messages and all the reference to Brady and not conclude that he at the very least knew. And with all the discussion of SWAG due it's also pretty clear he was orchestrating it. And again if you tell the IRS that other cheat on their taxes it doesn't change the fact that YOU cheated.

And it's the same thing here.

 

[redskinsfan]

dad nailed it. Again it's not just the failure to cooperate from Brady, it was the bold faced lies he was telling everyone. Frankly I don't see how you can look at those text messages and all the reference to Brady and not conclude that he at the very least knew. And with all the discussion of SWAG due it's also pretty clear he was orchestrating it. And again if you tell the IRS that other cheat on their taxes it doesn't change the fact that YOU cheated.

And it's the same thing here.

You guys keep repeating the same tired points.

In most investigations, if the underlying offense is minor, the lying or obstructionism matters little as well. For instance, let's say you're investigating whether someone comes in a few minutes late for the past few weeks and they balk at giving you info. If you find out that the violation is truly minor, you may excuse them for that, but then slap them on the hand for failing to cooperate. On the other hand, if you've got a sexual harassment claim you're looking into and the perp doesn't want to cooperate, that's a lot different. This is especially true if you find that the perp committed things like sexual battery. In that case, the failure to cooperate justifies a larger penalty.

The fact that you and dad don't appreciate the significance of others doing the same thing really betrays a lack of understanding on how investigations work. Let's suppose your employer has a rule that you come in exactly at 8:00 a.m. each day. Despite this clearly worded rule, you and others come in a few minutes late each day. It's not a big violation and your employer knows everyone is doing it. However, on one day, the employer takes you aside and nails you for a rule violation. Is that fair? Why not? You did violate a rule.

You then tell the employer to take a look at other guys doing the same thing. He says he won't do it. He then asks you to participate in an investigation on this rule violation. Given the fact that you're clearly being singled out, would you be willing to give over info to the employer? Certainly not. Having said that, I'd never recommend refusing to do so.

But if your employer eventually disciplined you for violating a rule that it knows everyone else is violating, that's when an employer gets sued. It's a concept called disparate treatment (thought that's normally applicable in discrimination lawsuits). What happens if the employer defends the suit and claims that you violated a rule? The argument against that is another legal concept called estoppel. Basically, that holds if an employer promulgates a rule that it doesn't enforce or doesn't enforce consistently, the rule shouldn't apply. This is perhaps one of the greatest flaws in the punishment being leveled against Brady. And you can argue till you're blue in the face that the "other people did it" argument shouldn't apply. Guess what? It does. It's an argument that sometimes costs employers millions of dollars when they do the very same thing to one set of employees they fire and others they don't.

This long dissertation teaches us a few things. First, no matter how you feel about being singled out, you still should participate in an investigation. If you don't, it's really a form of insubordination. Brady was wrong to blow Ted Wells off for that. However, because the underlying offense wasn't that big and/or, more significantly, because the rule that was being applied was done inconsistently, there's a real good argument that there shouldn't have been a rule violation in the first place. That's the estoppel issue I just discussed.

So, you can ramble on all you want about how Brady didn't cooperate and/or how it was rule violation. When you consider the other moving parts here, the investigation has some definite flaws. The biggest one is the fact that the NFL should've been estopped, at least to some extent, for its disparate treatment of Brady. That's the "other people did it" argument. And it's a good one.

I'm not sure what the exact legal strategy will be for overturning or reducing Brady's suspension, but this would normally be one angle for doing so. Of course, this isn't a normal set of circumstances here. Gooddell has turned this into a circus and one huge bone of contention will be the fact that he's handling the appeal, which is absolutely comical. But if you guys can't also see the comical value in a league punishing a guy for a rule they never enforce, I'm not sure what to tell you. And whatever you might believe in terms of his contumacy during the course of his investigation, it hardly merits a quarter-season suspension.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

And you keep trotting out the same points as well. Gotta be honest, I started to skim and then bailed on your post at about word 200.

 

[skinsdad62]

this is basics , i wouldnt accept that excuse from my kids and that is what this is a childish deflection to minimize a wrong you were caught doing

this isnt about what other teams did or didnt do because they arent under investigation at this time . that doesnt mean they should or shouldnt but the here and now is the pats and brady are

you can write all the novels you want about the legalized labor court interpretation of this and what acceptable to you or not . it doesnt matter

because i am not buying that weak , feeble enabling double talk to alter my stance . there is no supreme idea i dont understand get it ? i reject the premise because its a weak , feeble excuse and the maximum effective range of an excuse is 0.0 and i wont tolerate that

you can , if that is your standard , but my standard isnt that feeble and weak

brady, you did it , you got caught , you lied and obstructed , you got slammed now grab a set , be a man and accept the consequences of your actions and stop whining about what peggy sue and linda lou are doing and fix your house before you fix others

 

[redskinsfan]

this is basics , i wouldnt accept that excuse from my kids and that is what this is a childish deflection to minimize a wrong you were caught doing

this isnt about what other teams did or didnt do because they arent under investigation at this time . that doesnt mean they should or shouldnt but the here and now is the pats and brady are

you can write all the novels you want about the legalized labor court interpretation of this and what acceptable to you or not . it doesnt matter

because i am not buying that weak , feeble enabling double talk to alter my stance . there is no supreme idea i dont understand get it ? i reject the premise because its a weak , feeble excuse and the maximum effective range of an excuse is 0.0 and i wont tolerate that

you can , if that is your standard , but my standard isnt that feeble and weak

brady, you did it , you got caught , you lied and obstructed , you got slammed now grab a set , be a man and accept the consequences of your actions and stop whining about what peggy sue and linda lou are doing and fix your house before you fix others

Well, actually there is and your consistent double-talk and contradictory scatter-shot logic shows it here. I've pointed out a couple of very common-sensed points you don't seem to get. If an employer finds that an employee violates a rule that it's never enforced before, everyone with half a brain will see how screwed that is. You even half-way got this concept when responding to my hypothetical a while ago about you supervising subordinates and finding one that violated a rule but then finding out that others did that as well. You correctly stated that you'd investigate others. Bingo! Good for you. That's what you're supposed to do. The rub here, however, is that the NFL is not doing that. Instead, it's pulling a gotcha on Brady when it knows every other QB and kicker has done this as well.

It's really unbelievable how you don't get the fact that you contradict yourself on some pretty big points. And this shines a light on the issue that the "other people do it" defense is something you can raise. If you doubt this, go ask any HR person whether they'd start enforcing a rule they'd never enforced before. Outside of failing to document discipline, that's one of the big reasons why employer get sued and lose jury trials. Why? Because they understand the basic concept of consistent treatment. They view this type of conduct as a set up or a witch hunt.

This doesn't take an Einstein to figure out. It takes basic common sense, something which you appear to lack. If your employer on Monday all of a sudden sits you down and says, "hey dad, looks like you've violated a 10-minute break rule by taking a 12-minute break and we're suspending you for that" but knows everyone else has been doing the same thing for years, wouldn't it occur for you to say, "why haven't you enforced this rule with other people." Middle class joes and janes sitting on a jury will look at this and tell you that if your employer didn't enforce the rule until now, it's really not a rule.

How you can't see this pretty basic concept is mind-boggling.

But keep telling yourself, "if you violated a rule, you're guilty." To say that this is linear thinking is a kind of way of putting it.

 

[redskinsfan]

An interesting read


Excerpt

In our initial analysis we discussed the intersection between direct and circumstantial evidence which is important to an understanding of how evidence rules work. We must now discuss another key rule which we mentioned but didn’t delve into deeply. It’s called the missing evidence rule (or sometimes the missing evidence instruction).

5.01 Failure To Produce Evidence or A Witness If a party to this case has failed [to offer evidence] [to produce a witness] within his power to produce, you may infer that the [evidence] [testimony of the witness] would be adverse to that party if you believe each of the following elements: 1. The [evidence] [witness] was under the control of the party and could have been produced by the exercise of reasonable diligence. 2. The [evidence] [witness] was not equally available to an adverse party. 3. A reasonably prudent person under the same or similar circumstances would have [offered the evidence] [produced the witness] if he believed [it to be] [the testimony would be] favorable to him. 4. No reasonable excuse for the failure has been shown. (Pattern Jury Instruction Illinois)

When a party to a civil proceeding refuses to provide evidence, the trier of fact is entitled to infer the evidence would have been unfavorable. Indeed, it is reasonable to assume someone would not withhold evidence beneficial to his case or by which his case might be deemed stronger.

Why it matters here is that under Rule 2, the rule through which the league polices the integrity of the game and enforcement of the rules, the failure to provide the requested evidence hampers the league’s investigation and enforcement ability. As the “trier of fact” in this situation, the league is more than justified in believing the missing evidence was not provided because it was detrimental to Brady and/or the Patriots.

In conclusion, while Rule 1 is what sparked the investigation into the Patriots handling of their game balls, it is not the Rule that ultimately got Tom Brady and the Patriots in hot water. It is Rule 2, the rule under which the Patriots had previously run afoul, and under which the investigation was conducted, that led to their downfall.

These are garden-variety rules governing adverse inferences a trier of fact may draw when someone balks at testifying or producing evidence. One reason why this is irrelevant to me is that because I believed or assumed Brady did deflate balls. However, contumacy also has a place in terms of punishment. This is the thing that really bothered me about Brady. He basically told the investigator to basically eff off. As I've explained before, I can see why he was peeved. When your employer starts enforcing a rule it's never enforced before and while knowing everyone's done if for years, you understandably feel singled out, especially when the rule violation is as minor as deflating a ball. (Sidenote: Zak Deossie, a long snapper who played for the Giants, Patriots, and Cowboys went on Shan & Sharif's show yesterday explaining how QBs and kickers have doctored balls for years.) However, you do also have a duty to cooperate, something I've run across when conducting investigations myself.

Having said all that, the real issue is the punishment. Four games is comically excessive, particularly in view of the other considerations at play here such a selective enforcement. If Brady didn't balk at providing evidence, I'd have a problem giving him a suspension at all. But because he did, one game might be appropriate. What the NFL should've done was to note that Brady did violate a rule, but then notify everyone else that it would be serious in the future about enforcing the rule. That way, it would put that rule on the same level of something like PEDs, which the league has consistently enforced. That's HR 101 for cases like this one.

 

[skinsdad62]

Well, actually there is and your consistent double-talk and contradictory scatter-shot logic shows it here. I've pointed out a couple of very common-sensed points you don't seem to get. If an employer finds that an employee violates a rule that it's never enforced before, everyone with half a brain will see how screwed that is. You even half-way got this concept when responding to my hypothetical a while ago about you supervising subordinates and finding one that violated a rule but then finding out that others did that as well. You correctly stated that you'd investigate others. Bingo! Good for you. That's what you're supposed to do. The rub here, however, is that the NFL is not doing that. Instead, it's pulling a gotcha on Brady when it knows every other QB and kicker has done this as well.

It's really unbelievable how you don't get the fact that you contradict yourself on some pretty big points. And this shines a light on the issue that the "other people do it" defense is something you can raise. If you doubt this, go ask any HR person whether they'd start enforcing a rule they'd never enforced before. Outside of failing to document discipline, that's one of the big reasons why employer get sued and lose jury trials. Why? Because they understand the basic concept of consistent treatment. They view this type of conduct as a set up or a witch hunt.

This doesn't take an Einstein to figure out. It takes basic common sense, something which you appear to lack. If your employer on Monday all of a sudden sits you down and says, "hey dad, looks like you've violated a 10-minute break rule by taking a 12-minute break and we're suspending you for that" but knows everyone else has been doing the same thing for years, wouldn't it occur for you to say, "why haven't you enforced this rule with other people." Middle class joes and janes sitting on a jury will look at this and tell you that if your employer didn't enforce the rule until now, it's really not a rule.

How you can't see this pretty basic concept is mind-boggling.

But keep telling yourself, "if you violated a rule, you're guilty." To say that this is linear thinking is a kind of way of putting it.

i havent contradicted myself on ANY point at all not one that defense wont fly with me and i have stayed with it throughout

there isnt anything to get it isnt common sense at all it is being an apologist with weak standards of conduct

so stop trying to force feed your apologist crap down my throat and calling it some enlightened sense of being or playing it off as my "not understanding " . it isnt its weak and enabling and i wont accept it period

i dont know how else to put it . i dont believe in your scenarios , the nfl has investigated doctored balls in the past so whats your point ?

you cn talk to me till your blue in the face and i could care less what other teams have done because it wont change the fact that the pats and brady got caught period .

 

[redskinsfan]

And you keep trotting out the same points as well. Gotta be honest, I started to skim and then bailed on your post at about word 200.

It was a lot of words, but it conveys a pretty common sense principle. One of them is the fact that if your employer suspends you for a rule it's never enforced before and knows that everyone else has violated in the past, there's something awfully unfair about that. When that gets taken in front of a jury, they return some awfully large verdicts against employers for that. The concept is basic: if an employer doesn't an enforce a rule, it's not a rule in the first place.

 

[redskinsfan]

i havent contradicted myself on ANY point at all not one that defense wont fly with me and i have stayed with it throughout

there isnt anything to get it isnt common sense at all it is being an apologist with weak standards of conduct

so stop trying to force feed your apologist crap down my throat and calling it some enlightened sense of being or playing it off as my "not understanding " . it isnt its weak and enabling and i wont accept it period

i dont know how else to put it . i dont believe in your scenarios , the nfl has investigated doctored balls in the past so whats your point ?

you cn talk to me till your blue in the face and i could care less what other teams have done because it wont change the fact that the pats and brady got caught period .

I'm sure you think you haven't contradicted yourself, but you surely have. What's unbelievable is that you can't seem to own up to that. There are people that believe the drivel you're peddling. Do you know who they are? Employers that pay a whole lot of money when juries of everyday joes and janes see through the fact that an employer playing gotcha enforcement should be punished. Nice group you've associated yourself with.

 

[skinsdad62]

I'm sure you think you haven't contradicted yourself, but you surely have. What's unbelievable is that you can't seem to own up to that. There are people that believe the drivel you're peddling. Do you know who they are? Employers that pay a whole lot of money when juries of everyday joes and janes see through the fact that an employer playing gotcha enforcement should be punished. Nice group you've associated yourself with.

what did i contradict myself on then , go ahead and name them and i will address them

 

[redskinsfan]

what did i contradict myself on then , go ahead and name them and i will address them

I just did! Did you remember that hypothetical regarding you supervising males and females? Suppose you were going to bust a female for violation a rule that's never been enforced and one that you find out that the other males have been violating forever? You said you wouldn't bust the female and would look into what that males had been doing. That's the right answer. But that's precisely not what the NFL is doing with Brady. They're basically saying you violated a rule and we don't give a flying F that we actually know have violated the rule in the past. In fact, Wells was asked to investigate the Colts deflated balls and he told them to take a hike! Based on the response to the hypo you'd do things far differently. Yet you somehow believe the NFL didn't do anything wrong when it simply focused in on Brady. That's that contradiction!


This reminds me of some cases in the 60's after the passage of the Civil Rights Act where white employers tried to get rid of their black employees. They dusted off old policy manuals and figured out which rules the black employees violated. Each of those rules were ones that the employer never enforced and knew other white employees had violated. For instance one case involved a black employee violating a rule requiring time sheets to be turned in at noon on Fridays. No one ever abided by that rule, white, black or otherwise. But when the black employee didn't turn his time card in on a Friday at noon, he got fired for it. He eventually sued and got his job back, but the lesson here is a pretty stark illustration of gotcha rules enforcement. While Brady's situation doesn't involve race, it puts at issue the same concept, which is the fact that he got set up. Basically the NFL pulled out an old rule it never enforced and stuck him with it.But you and DGF continue to persist in your belief that because he committed a violation of the rules, he needs not only to be punished but miss a quarter of the season. Based on that line of thinking, you'd agree with that white employer in saying that the black employee deserved what he got. After all, he violated a rule didn't he?

 

[skinsdad62]

oh for the love of God , first off the nfl has investigated the falcons and the vikes in previous years for this

secondly pointing to the bad behaviors of others is not a defense as you clearly want to make it and trying to manipulate a theoretical scenario for your benefit of a debating point is foolishness

here is reality , i am not investigating anyone for footballs . the nfl is . the pats and brady got caught doing it and they made their owns beds so now they have to sleep in it i am not investigating anyone for anything

. i have been judge and jury to my subordinates and if they violated a regulation or standard i dealt out punishment as i saw fit .each case having its own set of facts and circumstances with rank, experience , level of cooperation , truthfulness past history all playing a part in this as well as the recommendation of the supervisor

i have never once uttered or even implied that no one else should be punished for doctoring footballs that is your fallacy. i have stated that if the evidence proves that anyone else doctored footballs then they should be punished based on the facts of the case and that doesnt mean they need to miss 4 games if they cooperate or if the other teams dont show contempt for the rules as often as the pats have done . how you handle yourself matters . brady chose his path and now he is getting burned at the stake because he couldnt fess up and accept the consequences of his actions . if he had come clean i doubt you would have seen such a harsh penalty directed at him

goodell and kraft damn near sleep together . i doubt there is any sinister plot to "get the pats and tom brady "

one size does not fit all as you want to try to make it .

you and i do not know what investigations are in the works regarding footballs at this time and they should be taken up as a separate issue if the evidence warrants it . accusations arent facts or evidence . perhaps the accusations cant be proven , perhaps they can

now i dont care how many scenarios you want to dream up to manipulate your talking points it isnt going to change my mind in the least

so when do you want to say , skinsdad isnt going to change so why bother carrying this on for days going nowhere fast ? havent you become bored of this yet ? what happens to the pats happens to them .

i am never going to change a core value , never so why bother with this exercise anymore ? time to put this topic to bed