- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The NFL has upheld Tom Brady's 4 game suspension
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:51 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:51 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
It only said that he "more likely than not" knew something was up with the balls. You don't win a conviction as a prosecutor by claiming someone "more likely than not" committed a crime
Actually in civil court this is what happens.
1
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:51 pm to StrongBackWeakMind
quote:
This isn't a criminal investigation.
No. But it's about to go to federal court and a federal judge will be looking for evidence that proves Brady is guilty of what the NFL is excusing him of.
There is more than enough evidence out there that calls the Wells Report's findings into question.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:51 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
The Wells Report didn't say that Brady was involved beyond a shadow of a doubt.
why do you keep tossing around beyond a shadow (reasonable) doubt? that burden of proof only applies in a criminal court. seriously, it does nothing but make you look ignorant
quote:
It only said that he "more likely than not" knew something was up with the balls. You don't win a conviction as a prosecutor by claiming someone "more likely than not" committed a crime.
that's actually exactly what you do in a civil court. and a civil court doesn't have a prosecutor. you also don't convict anyone
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 2:55 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:52 pm to Goldrush25
From what I understand, there is a very unique kind of civil court that handles these matters.
Not that I'm arguing it's the shadow of a doubt thing.
Not that I'm arguing it's the shadow of a doubt thing.
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:54 pm to Jcorye1
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 3:30 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:55 pm to Jcorye1
quote:I will volunteer my legal ignorance. If Brady files an injunction and a judge grants it, could the league offer a one game suspension and then Brady drop the charges.....or would it still have to go to trial?
Well, we should find out rather quickly, I doubt Brady will sit on the injunction.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:56 pm to Jcorye1
Didn't the CBA say "preponderance of the evidence" (civil) standard? I might be mistaken but I think that's why Wells was saying, "more likely than not," in the report.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:56 pm to dante
Woah.
This just went from NFL vs. Brady to the NFL vs. the NFLPA.
Apparently the NFL has asked a federal court to confirm the Tom Brady suspension. This is about to get crazy, they don't do that unless they are absolutely positive Brady is going to file in MN or MA.
This just went from NFL vs. Brady to the NFL vs. the NFLPA.
Apparently the NFL has asked a federal court to confirm the Tom Brady suspension. This is about to get crazy, they don't do that unless they are absolutely positive Brady is going to file in MN or MA.
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:57 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
No. But it's about to go to federal court and a federal judge will be looking for evidence that proves Brady is guilty of what the NFL is excusing him of.
There is more than enough evidence out there that calls the Wells Report's findings into question.
why don't you read up on judicial process and then come back to discuss this matter when you have at least a basic understanding of the burden of proof necessary in different courts of law. it's really becoming very clear you think tom brady is on trail for a criminal offense and a "prosecutor" has to prove his guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt or he will be absolved of everything. that's just not how it works, bud
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 2:58 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:59 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
But it's about to go to federal court and a federal judge will be looking for evidence that proves Brady is guilty of what the NFL is excusing him of.
So much fail
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:59 pm to lsufball19
quote:
why do you keep tossing around beyond a shadow (reasonable) doubt? that burden of proof only applies in a criminal court. seriously, it does nothing but make you look ignorant
I understand the difference between a civil court and a criminal court. I was paying attention during the OJ Simpson criminal and civil court cases.
Brady's team has to prove that there is a greater than 50% chance that the NFL and Ted Wells is wrong. There is plenty of evidence out there that could do just that.
That being said, there is a very good chance that Brady plays out the rest of his career without sitting out a single game.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 2:59 pm to Jcorye1
quote:Im not sure what that means.
This just went from NFL vs. Brady to the NFL vs. the NFLPA. Apparently the NFL has asked a federal court to confirm the Tom Brady suspension.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:00 pm to Galactic Inquisitor
quote:
So much fail.
Punctuation at the end of a sentence is necessary for good grammar, a-hole.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:03 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Brady's team has to prove that there is a greater than 50% chance that the NFL and Ted Wells is wrong. There is plenty of evidence out there that could do just that.
What kind of evidence would have to exist for you to believe Brady could've done what he's accused of doing?
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:05 pm to lsufball19
quote:
why don't you read up on judicial process and then come back to discuss this matter when you have at least a basic understanding of the burden of proof necessary in different courts of law.
I have done just that.
quote:
it's really becoming very clear you think tom brady is on trail for a criminal offense and a "prosecutor" has to prove his guilt or innocence beyond a reasonable doubt or he will be absolved of everything. that's just not how it works, bud
And everything has been cleared up for me.
My opinion still stands. The NFL will have a difficult time in civil court.
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:06 pm to Goldrush25
quote:
What kind of evidence would have to exist for you to believe Brady could've done what he's accused of doing?
I have already accepted the possibility that Brady tampered with the balls, though I don't really believe it to be that big of a deal. If the NFL was so worried about football tampering there would have been a better system in place to guard against it.
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:07 pm to RollTide1987
Why did that idiot destroy his phone? 
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:08 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
That being said, there is a very good chance that Brady plays out the rest of his career without sitting out a single game.
depends on if a federal court grants an injunction. if it doesn't, tom brady will sit those four games and then can sue for damages, which i doubt he would at that point
This post was edited on 7/28/15 at 3:09 pm
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:09 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
My opinion still stands. The NFL will have a difficult time in civil court.
so will tom brady
Posted on 7/28/15 at 3:10 pm to Walking the Earth
quote:
Why did that idiot destroy his phone?
According to Brady he destroys his phones all the time, as do a lot of celebrities when they get new ones. And since he wasn't planning on giving his phone to Wells anyway, and since the NFL can't get it through a warrant, I don't see how it is relevant.
Also...all of the texts Brady sent those ball boys were already in Wells's possession. I don't see what more he was hoping to find in Brady's phone.
Page 9 of 36
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News