|
>>>-the footballs used by the patriots were deemed illegal by
>>the
>>>league, weren't they?
>>
>>Speaking of biased...the league's "independent report" was
>>anything but, which they later admitted in court.
>
>-but, you didn't answer.
Sure I did. The NFL's reporting and the Wells Report in general was full of biases, inaccuracies and straight up lies. So, if they "deemed" the footballs illegal, even that statement on its face should be taken with a grain of salt, not to mention the fact that there is evidence that the Colts' balls were also "deemed illegal," but not investigated, all of which has been adequately explained by the science of the weather conditions affecting the footballs. Absent any legitimate proof of tampering, the NFL's statement "deeming the balls illegal" means literally nothing. They can "deem" anything they want to deem. The balls were underinflated at halftime, for both teams. That is the only known fact. Outside of that, the ENTIRE thing is unproven speculation.
>>Furthermore, 3 of the 4 Colts' balls were also
>underinflated.
>>FURTHERMORE, the refs couldn't even remember which gauges
>they
>>used before and during the game, rendering any conclusions
>>reached in the already biased report obsolete and useless,
>>which the judge strongly condemned the league for in the
>>ACTUALLY unbiased courtroom.
>
>-sounds like more confusion, after the fact.
What does that even mean bro. There's nothing confusing about that. Unless you're referring to the fact that the refs' memories and the NFL's entire reporting was confused, in which case yes, you're right. They fucked the entire thing up.
>agn, i wonder what would be, if everyone got this type of
>"justice"
YOU KEEP SAYING THAT BUT IT LITERALLY MEANS NOTHING BRO. THE JUDGE GOT IT RIGHT, THE NFL FUCKED THE WHOLE THING UP. DO YOU PROCESS ENGLISH WORDS?!?!
>
>>In other words, anything "deemed" by the league at any point
>>throughout this ordeal should be taken with a fucking
>mountain
>>of salt.
>
>-see, i feel like you know that shit don't sound right.
So you believe everything Goodell and the NFL has told you, in every case? Or just this one, because it's anti-Patriots?
Even the Wells Report couldn't decide when to believe stories and when not to. They literally took 99.9% of the refs' recollections as fact, except when the lead ref couldn't remember which gauge he used prior to the game, because that didn't serve their pre-determined fate of this investigation, so they said "well, he must have used the one gauge that would indicate cheating". It was a failed witch hunt which the judge saw right through, and he made the right decision. Sorry that makes you sad.
>>>everyone writing abt it makes it a point to first mention
>>that
>>>the ruling was not a proclamation of brady's innocence, why
>>>won't you?
>>
>>I never proclaimed Brady's innocence. I proclaimed that the
>>judge's decision was the correct one based on the unfairness
>>of the investigation and the lack of any kind of tangible,
>>legitimate evidence suggesting that anything illegal took
>>place.
>
>right.
>
>brady is not innocent.
How do you know this? Do you have proof that the NFL doesn't? I'm sure Goodell would love to see it at this point.
>>>-disregarding kraft and the judge hamming it up over
>drinks,
>>>right? but mort's an embarrassment? you don't really
>believe
>>>that.
>>
>>So now you're questioning the integrity of a federal judge
>who
>>the NFL THEMSELVES chose over Judge Dody in Minnesota
>(you'll
>>gloss over that point I'm certain), who previously had a
>>history of voting 99.9% in favor of big business? That's
>>really your argument? And even if you're really stupid
>enough
>>to believe that a federal judge, with absolutely NO history
>of
>>sketchy behavior or questionable conduct, could be bought by
>>any interested party in a court case regarding a misdemeanor
>>equipment violation in a professional sport/game, you truly
>>believe that Kraft would have more money/power/influence
>over
>>a judge than Goodell and the rest of the owners in the
>NFL?!?
>>Jesus Christ bro do me a favor and take a deep breath, and
>>rethink your logic here. It's getting ugly.
>
>-no.
>
>all them mofos tricky to me.
>
>not to you?
Hahahahahahaha what dude. That's your response?
>>>mofos appreciate the law when convenient.
>>
>>Now you're just saying words. Mofos only appreciate Goodell
>>when convenient. I'd venture a guess that you were calling
>for
>>Goodell's head during the Ray Rice fiasco. As you should
>have
>>been, for the record. But one way or the other, let's not
>>suddenly pretend Goodell has been a bastion of all that is
>>good in the world now that his target is the hated Patriots.
>
>-i'm not.
>
>you read that wrong.
Well, enlighten me, please. Because your argument is terrible. It's basically "Brady did it" with absolutely no context. Which is fine, you're more or less like everyone else in the country outside of New England. And I love it. Because you're all squirming at this point. But your opinion and the known facts do not jive, that's the most important piece of this discussion.
>>>-you took this out of context, but i understand why.
>>
>>Fair. You got one W.
>
>thx.
>
>& fair means white. we shouldn't use it to describe what is
>just.
>
>adds to more confusion.
What does that mean dude.
>>>i asked if yous thought a punishment was warranted, for
>>using
>>>footballs that the league said was illegal.
>>
>>If they proved anything, then yes, a $25,000 fine, as
>written
>>in the rulebook, is certainly warranted.
>
>-where does the burden of proof lie, agn?
Dude, what? The burden of proof would be on the league, to prove there was wrongdoing. They couldn't do it and they bungled the investigation. Therefore, no penalty is warranted. ESPECIALLY not one as hefty as the one levied.
>are we talking abt that, or a nation of folks who care most
>abt football. because, it's not possible to have it both
>ways.
What.
>you just admitted that dude wasn't innocent.
I didn't admit anything. It's also not my place to comment one way or the other. We can all have OPINIONS on what happened, but based on the FACTS PRESENTED, there is NO PROOF that anything illegal took place. Therefore, the penalty levied is inappropriate and unfair.
And, while we're here, even if they DID have solid proof of tampering, the punishment would have been unfair. Ex. Jay Feely, the Vikings, the Jets, etc. etc. etc.
>>>-desperation to do what, exactly?
>>>
>>>ask questions?
>>
>>Make bad points.
>
>well, i say that's your bad opinion.
You say things that don't make any sense. It's adorable to watch you try though. ----------------------------------------
"Fuck aliens." © WarriorPoet415
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okay Sports
#/media/File:Firefly.png)
