The common wisdom right now seems to be that Goodelll took such a hard line on Brady because he was 'uncooperative' with demands to turn over his cellphone.
Now however, Ted Wells is saying that he never told Brady that he would be disciplined if he didn't turn over his cellphone.
"Separately, NFL investigator Ted Wells denied that he warned Brady he would be punished if he didn’t turn over his cellphone."
"Wells said he asked repeatedly for Brady’s cellphone, but denied that he gave the quarterback an ultimatum."
“I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that,” the transcript read.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/05/deflategate-tom-brady-was-not-given-ultimatum-over-cellphone-documents-reveal
Yet this is the reason that Goodell cited in upholding Brady's 4 game suspension. So did Wells misspeak like Jeb Bush?
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/ok-this-is-jebs-47-moment.html
Yet, Wells seems to think that Brady was just terribly out of line in not giving him his cellphone:
Wells said, though, that he did not believe Brady had nothing to do with the ball deflation because Brady refused to provide all of the documents that were requested.
“In my almost 40 years of practice, I think that was one of the most ill-advised decisions I have ever seen, because it hurt how I viewed his credibility,” Wells testified. “It hurt my assessment of his credibility for him to begin his interview by telling me he declined to give me the documents.”
So he thinks Brady had something to do with it because? Well, he didn't hand over his cellphone. That's enough to determine guilt.
What I'm hearing from Stephen A Smith on ESPN's First Take and other places is that a lot of people are just pleased that Brady is being punished because he's a big superstar. People are cheering his punishment because this proves there's no favoritism in the rules-the system works!
That's a rather presumptuous way to look at it. Just because a superstar is punished harshly-more harshly than the NFL rules actually called for-this means it's to be celebrated? That's the logic of envy for you.
What no one seems to get is that you don;t have to turn over your cellphone to someone just because they accuse you of something-that's the whole point of the Bill of Rights, due process, and protection from unjust search and seizure.
That's the American system. In the older European system-then yes, the accused have no rights. You just make a wild accusation against someone and they have to prove it;s not true. Their guilt is assumed rather than their innocence. But a lot of people are so full of envy they never get around to looking at the Constitution. They just like a great player getting his comeuppance.
Now however, Ted Wells is saying that he never told Brady that he would be disciplined if he didn't turn over his cellphone.
"Separately, NFL investigator Ted Wells denied that he warned Brady he would be punished if he didn’t turn over his cellphone."
"Wells said he asked repeatedly for Brady’s cellphone, but denied that he gave the quarterback an ultimatum."
“I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that,” the transcript read.
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/05/deflategate-tom-brady-was-not-given-ultimatum-over-cellphone-documents-reveal
Yet this is the reason that Goodell cited in upholding Brady's 4 game suspension. So did Wells misspeak like Jeb Bush?
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2015/08/ok-this-is-jebs-47-moment.html
Yet, Wells seems to think that Brady was just terribly out of line in not giving him his cellphone:
Wells said, though, that he did not believe Brady had nothing to do with the ball deflation because Brady refused to provide all of the documents that were requested.
“In my almost 40 years of practice, I think that was one of the most ill-advised decisions I have ever seen, because it hurt how I viewed his credibility,” Wells testified. “It hurt my assessment of his credibility for him to begin his interview by telling me he declined to give me the documents.”
So he thinks Brady had something to do with it because? Well, he didn't hand over his cellphone. That's enough to determine guilt.
What I'm hearing from Stephen A Smith on ESPN's First Take and other places is that a lot of people are just pleased that Brady is being punished because he's a big superstar. People are cheering his punishment because this proves there's no favoritism in the rules-the system works!
That's a rather presumptuous way to look at it. Just because a superstar is punished harshly-more harshly than the NFL rules actually called for-this means it's to be celebrated? That's the logic of envy for you.
What no one seems to get is that you don;t have to turn over your cellphone to someone just because they accuse you of something-that's the whole point of the Bill of Rights, due process, and protection from unjust search and seizure.
That's the American system. In the older European system-then yes, the accused have no rights. You just make a wild accusation against someone and they have to prove it;s not true. Their guilt is assumed rather than their innocence. But a lot of people are so full of envy they never get around to looking at the Constitution. They just like a great player getting his comeuppance.
No comments:
Post a Comment