Originally posted by genus49:
You guys are being so petty. Were you ok when Goodell totally fuked us with the Lance Briggs tampering? Only to see him give his boys the Jets a slap on the wrist on a much more egregious and obvious tampering case...you know when they actually signed the player they were tampering with?
Forget the whole Brady vs Montana thing for a second and just understand what this ruling means for Goodell's power. He can pretty much pick and chose who he punishes and how much he punishes them.
Him destroying his phone had nothing to do with their investigation none of you should be mentioning it.
How did Brady play in the second half of that Colts game or in the Superbowl after they found the balls were lower than legal limit(btw teh original ESPN story was wrong in how much lower and how many balls were below the legal limit) and how did he play last year?
Don't let the NFL brain wash you.
Me siding on Goodell with this doesn't mean I support him. I actually can't stand him as commissioner, and I'm pretty sure Brady didn't really have the footballs deflated to help help him or whatever.
But Brady destroying his phone does indeed have to do with this investigation. The judges felt this way as well. Doing so was deliberately obstructing, however questionable the reason for the investigation might have been. I would have loved to side with Brady on this as he has his right to privacy, and should have went through whatever legal means he had to in order to defend himself from turning over his phone. But he didn't, and he gave Goodell a free excuse to exercise his power given to him by the CBA. The statement when Brady's appeal was first denied reads..
"We hold that the Commissioner properly exercised his broad discretion under the collective bargaining agreement and that his procedural rulings were properly grounded in that agreement and did not deprive Brady of fundamental fairness"
Brady screwed himself here. How are you going to argue you were deprived of fairness when you were well aware there was an investigation coming up, what it would entail, and days before that investigation you decide to just straight up destroy your phone? (Although the quote might mean that the Goodell acting under the CBA itself is fair, and therefore fair to Brady) What is Goodell suppose to think of the implications of that as an arbitrator? Brady easily could have not destroyed his phone and go through whatever other means he needed to in order to protect his right to privacy. I understand not refusing to turn over his phone would also have at least some implications of guilt, but at least it would seem more plausible that Brady just wanted to protect his privacy, and Goodell would have a harder time using that as evidence to punish Brady. And had Brady went this route, he might have even had the reinstatement successfully appealed, or maybe the reinstatement never happens. And I would have laughed at Goodell as his attempt to overexert his power failed.
But instead Brady takes the dumbest path in what looks like an attempt to spite Goodell during the investigation, and then wonders why his appeal is being denied. Good job Brady.
[ Edited by Dicekiller on Jul 13, 2016 at 12:21 PM ]
