Sports
Related: About this forumRockaFowler
(7,429 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)and raise it with the championship banner a week from today.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Nobody regards Lance Armstrong as anything other than a cheater. Unfortunately U.S. sports don't take cheating seriously. Trash like Robert Mathis try to sell us that he was taking a fertility drug for women and he didn't get laughed out of the league. Likewise Wes Welker and David Ortiz claiming they have no idea how they failed a drug test is just a joke.
So is Tom Brady saying he knew nothing about this.
Until there are real punishments for cheating trash like Brady will continue to cheat.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Auggie
(31,204 posts)bluedigger
(17,087 posts)A lot.
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)El Supremo
(20,365 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)It says nothing about whether Tommy cheated.
sir pball
(4,761 posts)While it does sound like the judge is concerned about the "independent" (his quotes not mine) investigation and adequate proof, the questions of contract and law addressed had nothing to do with whether or not there was cheating - the biggie was whether Goodell was allowed to use the "conduct detrimental" clause to apply the explicitly written PED punishments as his guideline for the suspension, rather than the explicit "tampering with equipment" punishment; and if Brady had been made aware that he was facing a punishment outside of anything he reasonably expected based on the player's rulebook he was provided instead of the coach/cwner rulebook which is what Goodell was working from.
Spoiler, he's not. And given the pretty strong, clear wording in the ruling, if anything is changed on appeal it's likely going to be slapping Brady with the equipment-tampering punishment of IIRC $5500 per squishy ball.
Disclaimer, Pats fan, ambivalent on the deflation - wouldn't surprise me in the least, but the "science" in the Wells report IS sloppy as hell.
ProfessorGAC
(65,228 posts). . .(heard it on ESPN on Sirius) that the judge was clearly concerned about the lack of proof as the reason why the punishment was far too harsh.
I haven't read the ruling, but he's supposed to be an expert lawyer, so i can only go by what he said just about 20 minutes ago.
I don't know if it was live or taped earlier, but they played the clip on the Waddle and Silvy show on ESPN radio.