|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 30, 2017 15:05:03 GMT
the NFL/Goodell appointed their own man to be co-lead "juror" completely destroys your claim that the "jury" was independent. No, it doesn't. Who do you think selects the jury in a criminal trial, idiot?
The prosecution and defense attorneys select the jury. In DeflateGate, the Commissioner selected Ted Wells as the independent investigator and Robert Kraft endorsed Wells' selection and praised Wells for his integrity and independence. So the Patriots agreed with the selection of Wells as the independent investigator, the same way that the prosecution and defense attorneys agree on a jury.you have repeatedly admitted that the NFL/Goodell were out to get the Patriots
Once again, irrelevant. Like I said, the L.A. District Attorneys office wanted to convict OJ for the double murders. But what they wanted was irrelevant because it wasn't up to them. It was up to a jury. And even though the state paid for the trial and paid a stipend to the jury, the jury was still independent and not obligated to give the state the verdict that the state wanted.
Likewise, what the NFL or Goodell wanted is completely irrelevant because it wasn't up to them. It was up to Wells and his investigation team. And even though the NFL paid for the independent investigation (because nobody is going to spend hundreds of hours conducting an independent investigation for free so somebody has to step up and foot the bill for the independent investigation), Wells and his investigation team were still independent and unbiased and not obligated to give the NFL or Goodell the verdict they wanted.
And Wells and his investigation team didn't give the NFL or Goodell the verdict that they wanted because they cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate, which clearly proves that Wells and his investigation team were truly independent and unbiased and objective and gave the correct and just verdict.
Bottom line: Brady cheated and got caught cheating and will forever be known as the biggest cheater and fraud in NFL history.
|
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on May 30, 2017 15:37:05 GMT
what the NFL or Goodell was irrelevant because nether the NFL nor Goodell had any say in the verdict. (I assume that 'was' was supposed to be 'wants') Are you saying there is no possible way Goodell could have said to Wells "Come back with a guilty conclusion"? It's really not analogous to the OJ case because that had a jury, judge, and police, so what the DA wanted is indeed irrelevant. Goodell is the one who wanted a certain outcome. He chose an investigator, he paid the investigator, he's the one who ultimately made the decision. Worse yet he picked himself as an arbitrator to make sure he wouldn't be overturned. A better analogy would be a bench trial (no jury) where the judge tells the police to find him guilty...but it's still not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by shadyvsesham on May 30, 2017 15:57:21 GMT
Understand, DC's arguments are already proven false.
NFL already said Wells WASNT INDEPENDENT. DC doesnt care, NE tied his Cowboys with superbowl wins, and most likely, they will pass them. He hates that.
O, and he also loves to mention Marlow, like he is a god among gods. His fantasy would be in the new Wonder Woman movie, she rips up a Brady poster.
I love watching him dig a deeper hole, though. (It gets boring eating him alive though, Ill let you guys keep doing it).
Bottom line: Brady won 5 super bowls in his career and will forever be known as one of the men on the mount Rushmore of QBs.
Fixed
|
|
|
|
Post by damngumby on May 30, 2017 16:02:39 GMT
The NFL's own man who was appointed as co-lead "juror" was NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash. His job in Deflate-gate was to work with Wells. Since you have admitted that the NFL was out to get the Patriots, it is 100% relevant that a key member of the "jury" was also a member of the prosecution. Under those circumstances, any claim as to the impartiality of the Wells Report must be ... thanks to you ... declared null and void. Christ, that poor foot of yours must look like chopped beef by now.  |
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on May 30, 2017 16:42:53 GMT
Bottom line: Brady won 5 super bowls in his career and will forever be known as one of the men on the [M]ount Rushmore of QBs Finally, some common sense, and a quote I can get behind. As has been pointed out on here ( and on IMDb ) there are other QBs with more championship game appearances ( Graham 10 ) and as many wins ( Graham 7, Starr 5 ) and others who never even lost one ( Montana 4-0, Bradshaw 4-0) So, I think it's fair for you to say he would be on MRoQBs ( as long as it has 5 spots ) The game was less competitive in Grahm and Starr's day. Montana went to the SB fewer times - how is that a good thing? It's just stupid cherry picking. I'd much rather be 5-2 in the SB than 4-0. Just getting there is a feat. Bradshaw? Are you fucking kidding? He threw picks as often as he threw TDs. He was not a great QB. |
|
|
|
Post by shadyvsesham on May 30, 2017 17:02:11 GMT
Bottom line: Brady won 5 super bowls in his career and will forever be known as one of the men on the [M]ount Rushmore of QBs Finally, some common sense, and a quote I can get behind. As has been pointed out on here ( and on IMDb ) there are other QBs with more championship game appearances ( Graham 10 ) and as many wins ( Graham 7, Starr 5 ) and others who never even lost one ( Montana 4-0, Bradshaw 4-0) So, I think it's fair for you to say he would be on MRoQBs ( as long as it has 5 spots ) Look, I got NP if you got him at 5, hey, youre putting him in your top 5, something DC probably wont do. He probably has him behind Joe Flacco and Eli Manning (ELI BEAT HIM TWICE IN THE SUPER BOWL, DONTCHAKNOW! Little Sarah Palin comedy, lol). I respect that view. BUT...I also wanna say, Graham and Starr didnt play in the free agency era, nor did Bradshaw or Montana. Look at Bradys playoff record, a fn beast record. BEAST record, amazing record. I also respect where youre coming from, and while I disagree, I respect it. |
|
ctown28
Sophomore
@ctown28
Posts: 507
Likes: 391
 
|
Post by ctown28 on May 30, 2017 17:15:54 GMT
Who do you think selects the jury in a criminal trial, idiot? The prosecution and defense attorneys select the jury. In DeflateGate, the Commissioner selected Ted Wells as the independent investigator and Robert Kraft endorsed Wells' selection and praised Wells for his integrity and independence. So the Patriots agreed with the selection of Wells as the independent investigator, the same way that the prosecution and defense attorneys agree on a jury. This is another of the many times your analogy fails. It didn't matter if Kraft endorsed or disputed the appointment of Wwlls. He does not have the power to have him removed, only the courrupt commissioner does. Wells is not the jury in this case, he is the lead invesigator. The judge, jury and executioner are all Roger Goodell. Goodell did not have to accept Wells findings, he could have just as easily stated that the Wells report did not prove the case. It's really not that hard of a concept. Once again, irrelevant. Like I said, the L.A. District Attorneys office wanted to convict OJ for the double murders. But what they wanted was irrelevant because it wasn't up to them. It was up to a jury. And even though the state paid for the trial and paid a stipend to the jury, the jury was still independent and not obligated to give the state the verdict that the state wanted. Likewise, what the NFL or Goodell wanted is completely irrelevant because it wasn't up to them. It was up to Wells and his investigation team. And even though the NFL paid for the independent investigation (because nobody is going to spend hundreds of hours conducting an independent investigation for free so somebody has to step up and foot the bill for the independent investigation), We Wells and his investigation team were still independent and unbiased and not obligated to give the NFL or Goodell the verdict they wanted. And Wells and his investigation team didn't give the NFL or Goodell the verdict that they wanted because they cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate, which clearly proves that Wells and his investigation team were truly independent and unbiased and objective and gave the correct and just verdict.
You obviously don't understand how the legal system works and that is why your analogy is such a fail. The jurors in the legal system don't answer to the DA. The defense attorney doesn't answer to the DA. But you know who the DA has some influence over? That's right, the lead investigator, Ted Wells. Who is the DA in this case, Roger Goodell.
Bottom line: Brady cheated and got caught cheating and will forever be known as the biggest cheater and fraud in NFL history.
So according to you, the Hall Of Fame selection committee will induct the biggest cheater and fraud in NFL history as a first ballot Hall of Famer? Are you trying to say that Brady will not be a first ballot hall of famer? That he won't be in the hall of fame at all? I'm really not expecting you to answer this as you know as well as anyone else he is a guaranteed first ballot inductee |
|
|
|
Post by shadyvsesham on May 30, 2017 19:20:37 GMT
Look, I got NP if you got him at 5, hey, youre putting him in your top 5, something DC probably wont do. He probably has him behind Joe Flacco and Eli Manning (ELI BEAT HIM TWICE IN THE SUPER BOWL, DONTCHAKNOW! Little Sarah Palin comedy, lol). I respect that view. BUT...I also wanna say, Graham and Starr didnt play in the free agency era, nor did Bradshaw or Montana. Look at Bradys playoff record, a fn beast record. BEAST record, amazing record. I also respect where youre coming from, and while I disagree, I respect it. All fair points. I do have to point out that Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb did not play during the free agency era, either!  What Im about to say is probably "no no" but I think Babe Ruth is over-rated. He was good for his time, but idk how good he'd be in todays era. Ty Cobb...yea he was good. But yea man, again, it sounds like you got Brady at least in your top 5, and I respect it. Im one of the few that does say I think Bradshaw doesnt get the respect he deserves. So yea, I cant argue with your list, and I respect where youre coming from man! |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on May 30, 2017 19:23:17 GMT
Finally, some common sense, and a quote I can get behind. As has been pointed out on here ( and on IMDb ) there are other QBs with more championship game appearances ( Graham 10 ) and as many wins ( Graham 7, Starr 5 ) and others who never even lost one ( Montana 4-0, Bradshaw 4-0) So, I think it's fair for you to say he would be on MRoQBs ( as long as it has 5 spots ) As I mentioned on another reply, no one holds that double standard against players like Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamerlin, or Gordie Howe. |
|
|
|
Post by President Ackbar™ on May 30, 2017 19:24:38 GMT
All fair points. I do have to point out that Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb did not play during the free agency era, either! What Im about to say is probably "no no" but I think Babe Ruth is over-rated. He was good for his time, but idk how good he'd be in todays era. Ty Cobb...yea he was good. But yea man, again, it sounds like you got Brady at least in your top 5, and I respect it. Im one of the few that does say I think Bradshaw doesnt get the respect he deserves. So yea, I cant argue with your list, and I respect where youre coming from man! I honestly would put him at third, but then you can't leave off either 4-0 guy, hence the "five spots" thing. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 31, 2017 3:02:24 GMT
Are you saying there is no possible way Goodell could have said to Wells "Come back with a guilty conclusion"? You're so dumb that you still haven't gotten it yet. It doesn't matter what Goodell said to Wells. Marcia Clark and Chris Darden told the jury in the OJ double-murder trial to come back with a guilty verdict. They told the jury that in their opening statements and they told the jury that again in their closing arguments. What verdict did the jury come back with in the OJ double-murder trial? Not Guitlty? But wait, the state paid for the trial and paid a stipend to the jurors and the prosecution attorneys repeatedly told the jury to come back with a guilty verdict. So according to your theory, the jury was supposed to do what the state told them to do and come back with a guilty verdict. Well, that blows up your whole theory that juries are supposed to give back a verdict that whomever is footing the bill wants them to come back with. It's really not analogous to the OJ case because that had a jury, judge, and police A jury, judge, and police all of whom were paid by the state. Yet the jury didn't give the state the verdict that the state wanted. So that blows up your whole theory that juries are supposed to give back a verdict that whomever is footing the bill wants them to come back with. Moreover, DeflateGate did have a "jury" (Ted Wells and his independent and unbiased investigation team), judges (the judges of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals who affirmed the guilty verdict against Brady for cheating), and "police" (the referees who collected the evidence - the deflated footballs - and performed testing on the evidence and presented the evidence to the presiding authority (the Commissioner) who brought the charges against Brady. Goodell is the one who wanted a certain outcome. Once again, what Goodell wanted was irrelevant because it wasn't up to Goodell to decide the verdict. It was up to the independent and unbiased investigation team to decide the verdict. And the independent and unbiased investigation team didn't give Goodell or the NFL the verdict that they wanted because they cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate, which clearly proves that the independent and unbiased investigation team weren't just giving back a verdict that Goodell and the NFL wanted but giving back the correct and just verdict. He chose an investigator whom Robert Kraft himself endorsed and praised for his independence and integrity, just like how prosecution and defense attorneys select a jury in a criminal trial. The NFL footed the bill for the independent and unbiased investigation (because nobody is going to spend hundreds of hours conducting an independent investigation for free so somebody has to foot the bill for the independent and unbiased investigation), just like the government paid the police to investigate the double-murders that OJ was charged with. But the jury didn't give the government the verdict that the government wanted, and likewise Wells and his investigation team didn't give the NFL or Goodell the verdict that they wanted because they cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate, which clearly proves that Wells and his investigation team were indeed independent and unbiased and came back with the correct and just verdict. he's the one who ultimately made the decision. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately made the final decision. And that final decision was that Brady got a fair and impartial hearing and the guilty verdict against Brady for cheating was correct and just. he picked himself as an arbitrator to make sure he wouldn't be overturned. He wasn't overturned because the guilty verdict against Brady was the correct and just verdict, which is why the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals not only didn't overturn the Arbitrator's correct and just verdict, they actually overturned incompetent Berman's ruling and re-instated the correct and just verdict made by the Arbitrator. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 31, 2017 3:21:44 GMT
[The NFL's own man who was appointed as co-lead "juror" was NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash. His job in Deflate-gate was to work with Wells. Nope. As the Arbitrator's decision said Pash did not "play a substantive role in the investigation" and the Wells Report was "prepared entirely by the Paul Weiss investigative team". And page 28 of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision says "The “insights” Pash might have had and the role he might have played in the preparation of the Wells Report were concerns that were collateral to the issues". So Pash wasn't a "juror" on the DeflateGate investigation. Pash was merely the liaison between the independent investigation team and the NFL offices. That's not unusual. When a billion-dollar company hires an outside, independent contractor for a job, the independent contractor isn't going to just have direct, unfettered access to the CEO of the company. If the independent contractor has any questions for the CEO or needs any information from the CEO, the independent contractor would submit them to the company's liaison that's assigned to them and then the company's liaison would make sure they get their questions answered or get the information they need. The same concept applies to criminal trials. I've served as a juror on 2 trials before, 1 criminal trial and 1 civil trial. When we deliberate in the jury room and we have a question for the judge, we don't just get to approach the judge and ask our questions. We have to submit our questions to the bailiff and then the bailiff makes sure that we get an answer to our questions for the judge. That's what Pash's role was. To act as a liaison between the independent investigation team and the NFL offices. If the independent investigation team had any questions or needed any information from the NFL offices, they would submit their questions or requests to Pash, whose role was to make sure the independent investigation team got their questions answered or got the information that they needed to proceed. a key member of the "jury" was also a member of the prosecution. |
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on May 31, 2017 3:33:36 GMT
It doesn't matter what Goodell said to Wells. Marcia Clark and Chris Darden told the jury in the OJ double-murder trial to come back with a guilty verdict. They told the jury that in their opening statements and they told the jury that again in their closing arguments. Oh it matters. Goodell hired Wells because he knew Wells would do what he wanted. OJ analogy fails, again. Sure defense said don't find OJ guilty, prosecution said find him guilty. But Brady didn't have an advocate on par to Goodell - who said to the investigator and to the judge, find him guilty. Moreover, DeflateGate did have a "jury" (Ted Wells and his independent and unbiased investigation team), judges (the judges of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals who affirmed the guilty verdict against Brady for cheating), and "police" (the referees who collected the evidence - the deflated footballs - and performed testing on the evidence and presented the evidence to the presiding authority (the Commissioner) who brought the charges against Brady. Wells was not independent, because he was hired by Goodell who had an anti-Brady bias. The 2nd circuit court didn't rule on guilt, only Goodell's authority. Wells was the police in this case. He interviewed the 'witnesses.' He interpreted evidence. He wrote up the final report. The refs were more like employees at a place that might have had a crime occur and Exponent were lab techs. But still, this whole analogy is shit. It all goes back to Goodell. Exponent also has a reputation of doing what they're hired to do - like concluding on behalf of big tobacco that smoking does not cause cancer. Or was it second-hand smoke? One of those. Once again, what Goodell wanted was irrelevant because it wasn't up to Goodell to decide the verdict. Once again, just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. Goodell was in a position to influence the outcome, by hiring someone who would do what he would tell them to do. That's relevant. He appointed himself as arbitrator. That destroys your position that he would simply let the chips fall where they may. He chose an investigator whom Robert Kraft himself endorsed and praised for his independence and integrity, just like how prosecution and defense attorneys select a jury in a criminal trial. So? That just means Kraft didn't know Wells could be convinced to support a pre-determined conclusion. It's not like Kraft's word is infallible. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately made the final decision. And that final decision was that Brady got a fair and impartial hearing and the guilty verdict against Brady for cheating was correct and just. The 2nd circuit's ruling was that the CBA says Goodell can do whatever the fuck he wants, not that he made the right decision. How do you feel about Whedon taking over Justice League? Conflicted? |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 31, 2017 3:36:51 GMT
The game was less competitive in Grahm and Starr's day. Not really. Back when Graham and Starr play, defenders could still hit the QB without getting flag for a penalty. The game is actually less competitive today because defenses are no longer allowed to play defense anymore. Montana went to the SB fewer times - how is that a good thing? It's just stupid cherry picking. I'd much rather be 5-2 in the SB than 4-0. Just getting there is a feat. Only because the best teams in the NFL were in the NFC. From 1981 through 1996, the NFC not only won 15 of 16 Super Bowls but 12 of those 15 wins were by double-digit margins. Troy Aikman played in only 3 Super Bowls, but everyone knows that even though the 1994 Cowboys didn't play in the Super Bowl, the 1994 Cowboys were the 2nd-best team in the NFL and clearly a much better team than the Chargers team that won the AFC and went to the Super Bowl that year. So just getting to the Super Bowl (and losing) doesn't mean you were better than a team from the opposite conference that didn't make it to the Super Bowl; it only means that you may have had an easier road to the Super Bowl because you were lucky enough to play in a much weaker conference. Bradshaw? Are you fucking kidding? He threw picks as often as he threw TDs. And Montana NEVER threw a pick in the Super Bowl, let alone a Pick-6 like Brady did. That's why the consensus is that Montana is still the greatest QB ever. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 31, 2017 3:45:11 GMT
Goodell did not have to accept Wells findings, he could have just as easily stated that the Wells report did not prove the case. It's really not that hard of a concept. The Wells Report did prove the case (that's why Judge Denny Chin said on the record in open court that "the evidence of ball tampering is compelling"). And that's why Goodell accepted the Wells Report findings - because the Wells Report did prove the case. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 31, 2017 3:49:28 GMT
As I mentioned on another reply, no one holds that double standard against players like Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamerlin, or Gordie Howe. That's correct. Moreover, it's not true that the game was less competitive when Graham and Starr played. When Graham and Starr played, defenders were still allowed to hit the QB without getting a penalty. In today's game, defenses aren't allowed to play defense anymore. Today's game is closer to flag football than the real, hard knocks football that was played back in the days of Graham and Starr. So no, the game wasn't less competitive when Graham and Starr played. |
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on May 31, 2017 4:06:04 GMT
Not really. Back when Graham and Starr play, defenders could still hit the QB without getting flag for a penalty. The game is actually less competitive today because defenses are no longer allowed to play defense anymore. Well of course you would cherry pick a single rule. I was actually talking about how players today are bigger, faster, stronger, know the game better, train more and with better equipment, have more experienced coaches, have more game film to watch etc. But sure, players can't hit QBs late or in the head is the sole factor... Troy Aikman played in only 3 Super Bowls, but everyone knows that even though the 1994 Cowboys didn't play in the Super Bowl, the 1992 Cowboys were the 2nd-best team in the NFL and clearly a much better team than the Chargers team that won the AFC and went to the Super Bowl that year. When you say things like 'everyone knows' - everyone knows you're full of shit. So just getting to the Super Bowl (and losing) doesn't mean you were better than a team from the opposite conference that didn't make it to the Super Bowl; it only means that you may have had an easier road to the Super Bowl because you were lucky enough to play in a much weaker conference. Well then that explains Montana 4-0 doesn't it? He faced easy teams in his SBs. Oh you didn't mean to make that point? Too bad, it's out there. And Montana NEVER threw a pick in the Super Bowl, let alone a Pick-6 like Brady did. That's why the consensus is that Montana is still the greatest QB ever. but like you just said, Montana faced shit teams in his Super Bowl appearances so it really isn't that impressive. Brady is the only one to OVERCOME having thrown a pick-six. Greatest comeback of all time. It's like he was just toying with the Falcons...Montana was never that clutch was he? Well he faced shit teams in his SB like you said so he didn't have to be clutch. Montana being the greatest is not the consensus. Saying that over and over won't make it so. Brady is 25-9 in the playoffs with 5 rings and Montana is 16-7 with 4 rings...but sure, 'Montana is better' You know, if you google 'greatest quarterback of all time' some images will pop up. First Brady. Then an enormous forehead. Then Montana. There's also a bunch of articles saying it's Brady. |
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 31, 2017 4:24:44 GMT
Brady didn't have an advocate Brady, Belichick, and Kraft all held press conferences before the Super Bowl. Brady also had an Arbitration hearing where he could've called Jim "The Deflator" McNally or any of the so-called scientific experts to testify for him. But Brady didn't call any of them to testify for him, because he was afraid their testimony would be taken apart and destroyed under the scrutiny of cross-examination. It's easy for a so-called "scientific expert" to step forward and make a claim when they know they wont' have to face the scrutiny of cross-examination. It's a whole lot harder for them to make those same claim when they know they'll be subjected to the scrutiny of cross-examination. Suddenly, those so-called "scientific experts" who were supposedly supporting Brady aren't so quick to step forward anymore. That's how you know that the claims by those so-called "scientific experts" who were supposedly supporting Brady are worthless and invalid. Because none of them were willing to step forward and face the scrutiny of cross-examination by the NFL's lawyers. On the other side, Professor Marlow stepped forward and defended his analysis under the scrutiny of cross-examination by Brady's lawyers. And Brady's lawyers couldn't poke any holes in Professor Marlow's analysis. That's how we know that Professor Marlow's analysis is sound and correct - because NO ONE has been able to poke holes in his analysis and EVERY ONE who supposedly disputed Professor Marlow's analysis was too scared to step forward and challenge Professor Marlow's analysis while having to subject their challenge to the scrutiny of cross-examination. Wells was not independent, because he was hired by Goodell And the jury in the OJ double-murder trial was selected by the LA DA's office and paid a stipend by the city of LA. But they were independent and didn't give the government the verdict that the government wanted. Likewise, the fact that Wells didn't give the NFL or Goodell the verdict that they wanted (by clearing Belichick of any wrongdoing) clearly proves that Wells and his investigation team were independent and unbiased. Your argument that Wells was biased would be strong IF Wells had also found Belichick guilty in DeflateGate. But the fact that Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate completely destroys your claim that Wells was biased and clearly proves that Wells wasn't biased and came back with the correct and just verdict.The 2nd circuit court didn't rule on guilt, only Goodell's authority. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Brady's guilt in DeflateGate. That's what the court case was about. When someone files a lawsuit, they're asking the court for a specific relief. If someone hits me with their car and I file a lawsuit, my lawsuit wouldn't just say "I'm suing because he hit me with his car". My lawsuit would say "I'm suing because he hit me with his car AND I'm asking for a relief of $100,000". When the NFL filed the DeflateGate lawsuit, they asked the court to affirm that they gave Brady a fair and impartial hearing and asked the court to affirm their verdict in the DeflateGate investigation and arbitration hearing. And that's what the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did - they affirmed that Brady got a fair and impartial hearing and they affirmed the Arbitrator's ruling that Brady was guilty of cheating. Goodell was in a position to influence the outcome, by hiring someone who would do what he would tell them to do. That's relevant. Nope, it's irrelevant. The flaw in your argument is that you keep claiming that Wells did what Goodell told him to do, but the fact that Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate completely destroys your weak argument. Are you claiming that Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate?
So? That just means Kraft didn't know Wells could be convinced to support a pre-determined conclusion. It's not like Kraft's word is infallible. So you want us to believe Kraft's claims that Brady didn't cheat, but to ignore Kraft's praise of Well's integrity and independence. Sounds like you're just cherry-picking comments from Kraft to try to support your weak argument. The 2nd circuit's ruling was that the CBA says Goodell can do whatever the fuck he wants, not that he made the right decision. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Brady's guilt in DeflateGate. That's what the court case was about. When someone files a lawsuit, they're asking the court for a specific relief. If someone hits me with their car and I file a lawsuit, my lawsuit wouldn't just say "I'm suing because he hit me with his car". My lawsuit would say "I'm suing because he hit me with his car AND I'm asking for a relief of $100,000". When the NFL filed the DeflateGate lawsuit, they asked the court to affirm that they gave Brady a fair and impartial hearing and asked the court to affirm their verdict in the DeflateGate investigation and arbitration hearing. And that's what the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did - they affirmed that Brady got a fair and impartial hearing and they affirmed the Arbitrator's ruling that Brady was guilty of cheating. How do you feel about Whedon taking over Justice League? How do feel about MCU letting Patty Jenkins leave Thor: The Dark World and Thor: The Dark World turning out to be a flop and a stinker while Wonder Woman will be a huge hit? And how do you feel about MCU refusing to make a female-led superhero movie and now DCEU has made the 1st good female-led superhero movie ever? |
|
zoilus
Junior Member
@zoilus
Posts: 2,831
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by zoilus on May 31, 2017 4:32:26 GMT
DC-Fan yeah...you're just repeating already defeated arguments and nonsensical analogies. Let me know when you come up with something new.
|
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 31, 2017 4:38:00 GMT
DC-Fan yeah...you're just repeating already defeated arguments and nonsensical analogies. Let me know when you come up with something new. I see that in addition to not answering my 2 last questions about the Wonder Woman movie, you also didn't answer this question:
The flaw in your argument is that you keep claiming that Wells did what Goodell told him to do, but the fact that Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate completely destroys your weak argument. Are you claiming that Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate?
Either
A. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Goodell told Wells to clear Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate
OR
B. Wells cleared Belichick of any wrongdoing in DeflateGate because Wells was truly independent and unbiased and objective and wasn't obligated to do what Goodell says
So which was it? A or B?
|
|
