![]() ![]() I would certainly expect the NFLPA to be strongly opposed to such a move. On point 1, I can certainly see why Brady wouldn't necessarily want to do that, even if there were not a single shred of evidence on his phone. The Patriots would not make one of the principal participants available for a follow-up interview. Brady would not release data from his phone to the investigation, even if through a third party to ensure that only relevant data was released.Ģ. Going by the report, Well's certainly felt so.ġ. All that's left is to argue whether it constitutes obstruction. The main facts surrounding the obstruction are not in dispute. I don't see how you can argue that's reasonable. In neither case was there a 10-week drumhead investigation, followed by the most severe penalty the NFL has ever handed out. The charges couldn't be proven (I guess the obstructing was effective!), but the penalty for obstruction was a $20,000 fine. (Kraft denies it vehemently.) But even if the Patriots did obstruct the investigation, then the precedent is the 2012 Chargers, who were accused of a similar crime (tampering with equipment to make ball handling easier in their case, it was putting adhesive on towels) and who the NFL stated obstructed the investigation. If you cite the "obstruction" as motivation for the penalty, then first you have to prove obstruction, which the NFL decidedly has not. So how is a fine 40X greater, a major loss of draft stock, and a suspension of a marquee player for *maybe* committing the same offense "reasonable"? There are two precedents-the rulebook itself, which suggests a $25,000 fine for what the Patriots (more probably than not) did, and the case of the Panthers, who were caught on camera doing something very similar after being warned not to, and who received no punishment at all. Really? How so? It's anything but obvious.Īren't you a lawyer, Will? Aren't' lawyers supposed to argue based on precedent? ![]() ![]() "I think the team's penalty is obviously so." Reading NFL statement closer: Prior record (2007 videotaping infractions) was considered in setting punishment.īrady will have three days to file a notice of appeal according to Andrew Brandt. The severity of the punishment would likely have been lessened without past transgressions. New England's loss of a first-round pick is also similar to Spygate, though this includes an additional fourth-round pick in the 2017 draft. This fine also exceeds - though probably not with inflation - the $968,000 fine the Denver Broncos were issued for circumventing the salary cap in the 1996-98 seasons. The $1 million fine is larger than the $750,000 the Patriots were fined for Spygate ($500,000 to head coach Bill Belichick and $250,000 to the team itself) in 2007. That makes for a season opener against Pittsburgh without Brady and Le'Veon Bell. Tom Brady's four-game suspension would end right before a Week 6 meeting with none other than Indianapolis. The NFL's punishment for the New England Patriots following the Wells report on Deflategate has been reported.įiled to ESPN: Tom Brady suspended four games, Pats lose 1st round pick in 2016 and a 4th in 2017, and team fined $1 million, per source: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |