| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/14/2015 03:22:52 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Best part of this whole mess is the text transcripts between the equipment guys. Some truly great Mass townie-talk there. |
The best part is reading the Pats' fans excuses and thin explanations. Absolutely hysterical.
Message edited by author 2015-05-14 15:23:09. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 03:40:23 PM · #202 |
| Circumstantial evidence is the best kind. anyway, I always thought this was a better story. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 03:42:20 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Mike:
now before you guys run and claim tampering should be punished, there was a game just last season, the two teams were heating the footballs on the sidelines, last time i checked, that's tampering with the footballs, no suspension or fines were given out, they were merely told to knock it off. how is this any different? |
If an official checks and verifies equipment before a game (any sport) and then the team alters the equipment to make it illegal, that, to me, crosses the line. That's not just breaking a rule. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 03:51:31 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by Mike:
now before you guys run and claim tampering should be punished, there was a game just last season, the two teams were heating the footballs on the sidelines, last time i checked, that's tampering with the footballs, no suspension or fines were given out, they were merely told to knock it off. how is this any different? |
If an official checks and verifies equipment before a game (any sport) and then the team alters the equipment to make it illegal, that, to me, crosses the line. That's not just breaking a rule. |
oh those same officials who didn't bother to check all the balls because they ran out of time?
|
|
|
|
05/14/2015 03:55:27 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm waiting for Shannon to weigh in on how the NFL report was obviously wrong... ;) |
I can't speak for Shannon, but I have yet to see anything close to resembling demonstrable evidence. A lot of suppositions, allegations, inuendos and assumptions, but proof... not so much.
Ray |
Being former law enforcement, I'd think you'd understand a "preponderance of evidence". What are your explanations for the texting outside the straightforward obvious meaning? |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 04:29:54 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm waiting for Shannon to weigh in on how the NFL report was obviously wrong... ;) |
I can't speak for Shannon, but I have yet to see anything close to resembling demonstrable evidence. A lot of suppositions, allegations, inuendos and assumptions, but proof... not so much.
Ray |
Being former law enforcement, I'd think you'd understand a "preponderance of evidence". What are your explanations for the texting outside the straightforward obvious meaning? |
Jim McNally is a FATTY! |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 04:38:07 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by LN13:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm waiting for Shannon to weigh in on how the NFL report was obviously wrong... ;) |
I can't speak for Shannon, but I have yet to see anything close to resembling demonstrable evidence. A lot of suppositions, allegations, inuendos and assumptions, but proof... not so much.
Ray |
Being former law enforcement, I'd think you'd understand a "preponderance of evidence". What are your explanations for the texting outside the straightforward obvious meaning? |
Jim McNally is a FATTY! |
I don't wanna say your mom is a deflator. But when she deflates around the house, she deflates AROUND the house!
Man. It just doesn't have that zing I'm looking for! :) |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 05:21:01 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by nygold:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm waiting for Shannon to weigh in on how the NFL report was obviously wrong... ;) |
I can't speak for Shannon, but I have yet to see anything close to resembling demonstrable evidence. A lot of suppositions, allegations, inuendos and assumptions, but proof... not so much.
Ray |
Is that what's really needed?
I read an article today about a man who was released from prison after 29 years , the only evidence they had was he was pointed out in a line up.
Turns out after all these years they had the wrong guy.
You don't need to be a lawyer to figure out deflate gate just use some common sense. |
Yep, and line ups are replete with examples where some poor schmuck ended up in prison because we as a society relied too heavily on what is perceived as common sense.
I spent 30 years working in the RCMP and held a variety of positions and the one thing that I always took pride in was that I relied on evidence and not supposition when dealing with a matter where someone was accused of wrongdoing.
I have strived over the years to make certain that my daughter does not jump up on the proverbial wagon and that she carefully consider all that is available before passing judgement on the action of others.
A rush to judgement serves no practical purpose, particularly in a scenario such as this one. They are accused of using deflated balls but when they were replaced they scored more points. Yep, makes sense all right.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 05:23:30 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by LN13:
Being former law enforcement, I'd think you'd understand a "preponderance of evidence". What are your explanations for the texting outside the straightforward obvious meaning? |
I dealt exclusively with criminal law, but I do readily understand "preponderance of evidence" and I doubt that even that test has been met in this instance.
Let us assume that the equipment handler stated unequivocally that he let air out of the balls, are we to assume that that statement alone means that he let air out below the prescribed norms? There is a certain degree of leeway in the PSI and if the balls were inflated at the high end of the tolerance level and someone let out enough air to reduce it to the low end of the level... was there a violation.
Unless we are dealing with "Strict Liability" issues, then one has to consider "Intent" and I have yet to see anything that addresses that issue.
I have no pony in this race, but I am also not one to condemn without knowing all of the facts and nothing I have seen to date would support the decision made in this instance.
Ray
Message edited by author 2015-05-14 17:30:08. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 05:25:41 PM · #210 |
Well, officer, when I referred to the Skunk being in the trunk of my car, I was talking about an actual skunk.
Pfft.
The good news is lives are not at stake here. The other good news is that in my own opinion justice has been done. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 05:31:55 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, officer, when I referred to the Skunk being in the trunk of my car, I was talking about an actual skunk.
Pfft.
The good news is lives are not at stake here. The other good news is that in my own opinion justice has been done. |
Then I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree... like that would be something new. :O)
By the way Doc, if you happen to be driving and see a dead skunk on the road, make sure you don't run it over... you car will smell like skunk even though YOU were not the one who ran it over. Try explaining that to some city folks.
Ray
Message edited by author 2015-05-14 17:33:58. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 05:33:12 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I spent 30 years working in the RCMP and held a variety of positions and the one thing that I always took pride in was that I relied on evidence and not supposition when dealing with a matter where someone was accused of wrongdoing. |
Oh please, Ray. It was Snidely Whiplash every time. Some detective work. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 05:34:40 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I spent 30 years working in the RCMP and held a variety of positions and the one thing that I always took pride in was that I relied on evidence and not supposition when dealing with a matter where someone was accused of wrongdoing. |
Oh please, Ray. It was Snidely Whiplash every time. Some detective work. |
Curses... foiled again. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 05:36:46 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Then I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree... like that would be something new. :O)
Ray |
We will probably always disagree. :) One day you might also be correct. :P |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 06:54:24 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by nygold:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm waiting for Shannon to weigh in on how the NFL report was obviously wrong... ;) |
I can't speak for Shannon, but I have yet to see anything close to resembling demonstrable evidence. A lot of suppositions, allegations, inuendos and assumptions, but proof... not so much.
Ray |
Is that what's really needed?
I read an article today about a man who was released from prison after 29 years , the only evidence they had was he was pointed out in a line up.
Turns out after all these years they had the wrong guy.
You don't need to be a lawyer to figure out deflate gate just use some common sense. |
Yep, and line ups are replete with examples where some poor schmuck ended up in prison because we as a society relied too heavily on what is perceived as common sense.
I spent 30 years working in the RCMP and held a variety of positions and the one thing that I always took pride in was that I relied on evidence and not supposition when dealing with a matter where someone was accused of wrongdoing.
I have strived over the years to make certain that my daughter does not jump up on the proverbial wagon and that she carefully consider all that is available before passing judgement on the action of others.
A rush to judgement serves no practical purpose, particularly in a scenario such as this one. They are accused of using deflated balls but when they were replaced they scored more points. Yep, makes sense all right.
Ray |
No one ever said it gave them an advantage. Simply that they broke the rules. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 07:01:03 PM · #216 |
Actually someone has done the math and shown that the Patriots led the league over the last five years in fumble prevention. The odds that it was by chance were 1:300 to 1:16000
//www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-prevention-of-fumbles-is-nearly-impossible
So it's possible they have benefitted.
Message edited by author 2015-05-14 19:01:22. |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 08:17:53 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by Mike:
now before you guys run and claim tampering should be punished, there was a game just last season, the two teams were heating the footballs on the sidelines, last time i checked, that's tampering with the footballs, no suspension or fines were given out, they were merely told to knock it off. how is this any different? |
Actually, possibly only one:
//profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/14/actually-vikings-didnt-warm-footballs-in-november/ |
|
|
|
05/14/2015 11:57:57 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by bohemka:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I spent 30 years working in the RCMP and held a variety of positions and the one thing that I always took pride in was that I relied on evidence and not supposition when dealing with a matter where someone was accused of wrongdoing. |
Oh please, Ray. It was Snidely Whiplash every time.... |
 |
|
|
|
05/15/2015 12:46:42 AM · #219 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually someone has done the math and shown that the Patriots led the league over the last five years in fumble prevention. The odds that it was by chance were 1:300 to 1:16000
//www.sharpfootballanalysis.com/blog/2015/the-new-england-patriots-prevention-of-fumbles-is-nearly-impossible
So it's possible they have benefitted. |
...many things are possible and/or plausible, but it doe not necessarily follow that they did in fact occur.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/15/2015 11:32:46 AM · #220 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...many things are possible and/or plausible, but it doe not necessarily follow that they did in fact occur.
Ray |
Here we can agree. Personally I think there is likely to be a history of this. It was unlikely they got caught the very first time they tried and the organization has a history of breaking the rules. However, in a conversation about the idea of chronic abuse, I'd always preface that this is only my opinion and I couldn't "prove" it.
Message edited by author 2015-05-15 11:33:36. |
|
|
|
05/15/2015 12:21:10 PM · #221 |
I think part of the problem is people try to think like a lawyer instead of a juror.
Here is an example:
Aaron Hernandez (another upstanding Patriot) was found guilty of first-degree murder of Odin Lloyd.
There was no murder weapon found, no eyewitnesses that would testify that he was the shooter, and no clear motive as to why Hernandez wanted to kill a man who was dating his girlfriend's sister.
The jury had to base its decision on things like phone records, DNA evidence and home surveillance video. While the evidence certainly pointed to Hernandez as a possible participant in the crime, the defense argues that all of it required speculation and guesswork to fill in the gaps in order to reach a guilty verdict.
"Guesswork, speculation, and imagination do not equate to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," the memorandum reads. "Accordingly, Hernandez's murder conviction was unsupported by the evidence and must be vacated."
The problem with this argument, says Robert Bloom, a professor of law at Boston College, is that juries "always have to make guesses as to what happened, unless someone is holding a smoking gun in his hand." Speculation, he says, is "not unusual."
Message edited by author 2015-05-15 12:21:41. |
|
|
|
05/15/2015 04:41:53 PM · #222 |
Comparing Hernandez's actions and Brady's is a comparison that goes too far. I don't much care for the Patriots, but as this story spins out it is clear to me that the investigation has been done with the same care and even handed approach that was used in the Ray Rice investigation (part one).
There is an interesting article that sums up the Patriot's response to the Wells report that states the report fails to get the science right, was clearly a sting operation,and that the attempt to make Brady the chief mover of this deflation scheme is based on a slanted prosecutorial reading of a few texts out of context.
The best bit is when a Noble Laureate in chemistry's deflates the NFL's notion of how the noble gas laws actually work.
The fact that there were two gauges that were used which were calibrated very differently (one consistently measured .06 psi higher than the other) were used to take the measurements, and that no accounting of how long the footballs were allowed to sit inside the much warmer environment before one set was measured as opposed to the other team's.
Before I read those articles I had figured that this was another case of a Belichick team cheating, now I think it is another case of Goodell screwing up. It seems clear that The NFL office was watching for deflation based on a previous complaint, took no action to prevent it, failed to measure the inflation consistently or scientifically, and then threw together a prosecution using a biased view of the few facts that they had managed to gather.
Message edited by author 2015-05-15 16:50:31. |
|
|
|
05/15/2015 05:15:49 PM · #223 |
Another interesting article
Problem is when they start to put forth obviously-lame (to me) excuses like this it lowers their (Patriots) credibility even more ... :-(
Originally posted by Linked Article:
The team's rebuttal ... claimed that a ballboy's reference to himself as "The Deflator" was just a reference to losing weight. |
Message edited by author 2015-05-15 17:16:03. |
|
|
|
05/15/2015 05:58:42 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Problem is when they start to put forth obviously-lame (to me) excuses like this it lowers their (Patriots) credibility even more ... :-(
Originally posted by Linked Article:
The team's rebuttal ... claimed that a ballboy's reference to himself as "The Deflator" was just a reference to losing weight. |
|
Ya I thought that was the nail in the coffin. Until it turns out that that term was used once in a text on Nov. 30, 2014. Had it been used once after the January 18th, 2015 meeting of the Pats and the Colts it would have been pretty damning proof. The Wells report certainly made it look like the use of the nickname was tied to the allegations, yet it was used months beforehand. By the way, they guy who is called "the deflator"-Jim McNally is the locker room attendant not the equipment manager (John Jastremski does that, the guy called The Inflator in the text chain).
At a certain point in a prosecution when the public have heard the release of damming evidence leaked to the press, and then much later more of the story comes out and that damning evidence is given context where it looks much less damning; At that point you begin to realize that the prosecution is essentially lying by omission to try to twist the evidence, and you have to wonder what their motives are. |
|
|
|
05/15/2015 06:11:42 PM · #225 |
You tell 'em, Brennan! And let's bear in mind too that we have anecdotal evidence from NUMEROUS ex-NFL players that needling the balls has been going on forever. Plus, of course, EVERYBODY cheats in the NFL, and calls it "gaining a competitive advantage" :-) Check out //yourteamcheats.com/ for a sometimes amusing overview. It's obviously not exactly definitive of anything, but it's still interesting reading...
This whole "Deflategate" farce is blown way out of proportion and there's no WAY those punishments are gonna stand if they get an independent arbitrator. |
|
