|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 29, 2015 11:44:53 GMT -5
Question, would you turn over your phone that likely contains information as to your passwords, private correspondence, off-hand comments to and from friends, relatives and co-workers not to mention in the case of Brady, private numbers and contacts to well known individuals (given the circles he and his wife travel in) to an organization that leaked false information about the case (11 of 12 footballs more than 2 psi under the low limit), sanctioned a report that accepted a referee's memory of the psi of 12 (or more footballs) to an accuracy of one tenth of a psi while rejecting his recollection of which of two gauges he used for the measurement and had the the same person essentially act as judge jury and executioner? Seriously? Maybe if Brady said all that before publicly giving his phone the bass-o-matic treatment he would have had more support. Even conceding the entirety of the above, you should absolutely still retain the phone (a) in case it could be used as a bargaining chip (e.g., the NFL might say "if you give us the phone, we'll eliminate the suspension") and (b) in order to avoid losing the P.R. battle (which, as the Rice saga has taught us, means a lot). You can't concede the above and then say the phone can be used as a bargaining chip, the point was he would/should NEVER turn over the phone. As for the PR battle, that's already been lost thanks to the bias of ESPN and other toadies to the NFL, the non-reaction to the overwhelmingly ridiculous Wells report and the ongoing general media hatred of the Pats and their success including some within the NE press corps |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2015 12:34:16 GMT -5
Why? Saints and Peterson won. Gotta say, the phone thing IS fishy. Even if you're getting a new phone, you don't have to throw the old one out. I still have my last two. Although that's more out of laziness than anything. You're also not a famous professional athlete who needs to worry about data security. That said, it was a boneheaded move to destroy the phone after you'd been asked for it. He should have just said "no, I have personal information on there that I know will be leaked". They already have the phones of everyone involved who he may have called or texted so there is no need for his phone. That being said, it will be a pretty impressive lawyer All-Star game in court. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 29, 2015 12:47:30 GMT -5
You can't concede the above and then say the phone can be used as a bargaining chip, the point was he would/should NEVER turn over the phone. That's not really true. There are mitigating measures that can be taken to protect the confidentiality of its contents. |
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 12:52:38 GMT -5
He should have just said "no, I have personal information on there that I know will be leaked". They already have the phones of everyone involved who he may have called or texted so there is no need for his phone.Yea that's the other aspect that makes no sense. It really seems like the NFL is conjuring up controversy over discipline so that people forget about the fact that at least 5 guys who were either in, approaching, or not far removed from their athletic prime retired this year, including some who hadn't made much money at all (Chris Borland, Anthony Davis). I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but the NFL is just so shady and this whole thing has been so senseless and dragged out that I have to think there's some kind of ulterior motive. Or just mind-numbing incompetence of an order that hasn't been seen before |
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 29, 2015 12:54:55 GMT -5
You can't concede the above and then say the phone can be used as a bargaining chip, the point was he would/should NEVER turn over the phone. That's not really true. There are mitigating measures that can be taken to protect the confidentiality of its contents. Only a naif would trust the NFL with the sensitive info that was undoubtedly on that phone. That plus the precedent of a member of the NFLPA turning over a personal device. In Kraft's statement today he noted that the devices of all non NFLPA members had been turned over, there is a reason he made that distinction. Add: If you haven't read Kraft's statement it is very powerful. |
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 29, 2015 13:04:34 GMT -5
None of those factors matter if they hit Goodell and co. with a defamation suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 29, 2015 13:18:47 GMT -5
None of those factors matter if they hit Goodell and co. with a defamation suit. Defamation has to involve a false statement. So, in fact, all these factors matter even more. |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 29, 2015 13:23:08 GMT -5
Only a naif would trust the NFL with the sensitive info that was undoubtedly on that phone. There are a whole host of potential ways to mitigate the risk of leaks. Some were discussed in the Wells report (e.g., only turn over texts which included certain keywords). Others easily come to mind. |
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,860
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 29, 2015 13:45:43 GMT -5
None of those factors matter if they hit Goodell and co. with a defamation suit. Defamation has to involve a false statement. So, in fact, all these factors matter even more. I'm well aware of that, thanks. The false statement would be the NFL leaking false reports about the PSI readings to ESPN, refusing to correct it, and forcing the Pats to remain silent about it until they released their findings. During this time, the story went from a punchline about deflated balls to a full-blown cheating scandal. That's textbook defamation right there. All of these other factors are secondary, and a blatant attempt by the NFL to paint a certain picture. It has nothing to do with winning a defamation suit, but could certainly alter any punitive damages. |
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 13:46:54 GMT -5
Only a naif would trust the NFL with the sensitive info that was undoubtedly on that phone. There are a whole host of potential ways to mitigate the risk of leaks. Some were discussed in the Wells report (e.g., only turn over texts which included certain keywords). Others easily come to mind. Yea but if you turn the phone over, that's no longer in you're control, and I wouldn't trust the NFL to abide by any agreement limiting their access personally |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 29, 2015 13:49:37 GMT -5
There are a whole host of potential ways to mitigate the risk of leaks. Some were discussed in the Wells report (e.g., only turn over texts which included certain keywords). Others easily come to mind. Yea but if you turn the phone over, that's no longer in you're control, and I wouldn't trust the NFL to abide by any agreement limiting their access personally You don't have to turn over the phone to the NFL. The Wells report suggestion of running keyword searches would have kept the phone in Brady's possession throughout (Wells was willing to trust Brady and his attorneys to run the search themselves). You could also have a trustworthy mutually-agreed third party hold the phone in escrow and conduct any necessary analysis. |
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 13:52:36 GMT -5
Yea but if you turn the phone over, that's no longer in you're control, and I wouldn't trust the NFL to abide by any agreement limiting their access personally You don't have to turn over the phone to the NFL. The Wells report suggestion of running keyword searches would have kept the phone in Brady's possession throughout (Wells was willing to trust Brady and his attorneys to run the search themselves). You could also have a trustworthy mutually-agreed third party hold the phone in escrow and conduct any necessary analysis. From the limited amount of knowledge I have of cellphone service providers' practices, that would still be possible without the phone physically existing, so the destruction of the phone itself becomes pretty irrelevant |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 29, 2015 13:59:32 GMT -5
You don't have to turn over the phone to the NFL. The Wells report suggestion of running keyword searches would have kept the phone in Brady's possession throughout (Wells was willing to trust Brady and his attorneys to run the search themselves). You could also have a trustworthy mutually-agreed third party hold the phone in escrow and conduct any necessary analysis. From the limited amount of knowledge I have of cellphone service providers' practices, that would still be possible without the phone physically existing, so the destruction of the phone itself becomes pretty irrelevant Agreed-- then why destroy the phone in the first place? Keep it in a safe somewhere so they have one less arrow to sling. |
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 29, 2015 14:10:08 GMT -5
From the limited amount of knowledge I have of cellphone service providers' practices, that would still be possible without the phone physically existing, so the destruction of the phone itself becomes pretty irrelevant Agreed-- then why destroy the phone in the first place? Keep it in a safe somewhere so they have one less arrow to sling. Again, this is just meaningless drama. They have all of the information they need and destroying the phone doesn't prove anything. Add to this that even if the balls were purposely low pressure, who gives a damn? The sticky gloves that receivers wear give them 100 times more of an advantage than a low pressure ball. The punishment does not fit the "crime", which shouldn't even be a crime anyway. And then we can mention that if ball pressure is such a crucial element of the game, individual teams should never be in possession of the game balls and have the opportunity to "cheat". But they checked air pressure in the most half-assed way possible, they don't maintain possession and that proves to me that they never really give a damn about it. Until the opportunistic witch hunt began started by former Jets executives. |
|
|
|
Post by ctfisher on Jul 29, 2015 14:27:29 GMT -5
Agreed-- then why destroy the phone in the first place? Keep it in a safe somewhere so they have one less arrow to sling. Again, this is just meaningless drama. They have all of the information they need and destroying the phone doesn't prove anything. Yeah, my point is simply that whether or not the phone was destroyed is really immaterial, it just looks bad. So I agree, destroying it was dumb, but it also makes very little difference to the actual case- the NFL had access to all the information it should have needed, including Brady's messages to Jastremski or whatever his name is, and the records of those messages still exist. So, unless Brady's really dumb, which I don't think is the case, I think it's just the NFL scoring publicity points that don't hold up when you examine the facts of the situation |
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 29, 2015 14:32:18 GMT -5
I'm hearing talk that Brady might go for a court injunction so he can play till he gets a court hearing. My Question is how long that is likely to take? I see a nightmare coming at the end of December or early Jan.
|
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 30, 2015 10:48:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 30, 2015 21:36:35 GMT -5
He had no (legal) obligation to maintain his phone. So why shouldn't he destroy it if he wants to? He can turn it into a giant needle for all I care.
|
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Jul 31, 2015 13:19:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jul 31, 2015 19:40:05 GMT -5
From the limited amount of knowledge I have of cellphone service providers' practices, that would still be possible without the phone physically existing, so the destruction of the phone itself becomes pretty irrelevant Agreed-- then why destroy the phone in the first place? Keep it in a safe somewhere so they have one less arrow to sling. Because it's a collectively bargained right of Labor. Why would TB set precedent that might affect a generation of fellow laborers (especially if he might someday aspire to public office)? Interesting note: Commissioner Goodell refused to turn over his cell phone when requested for the Mueller Report (Ray Rice). |
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2015 20:47:19 GMT -5
There's a difference between refusing to turn in your phone (which I have no problem with) and actively destroying it. The latter is what I object to.
|
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Jul 31, 2015 20:56:12 GMT -5
Why? It's not evidence and it's his property.
Your objection is shockingly illogical.
|
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 31, 2015 21:33:59 GMT -5
PR matters. The decision he made to destroy the phone (as opposed to continuing to decline to turn it over) had no apparent benefits, but hurt him significantly in the court of public relations. That's the objection.
|
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Jul 31, 2015 21:52:31 GMT -5
You object to the fact that people object? I don't get it.
It's his phone. He can piss on it in front of Goddel if he wants. Why would you care?
|
|
|
|
Post by scottysmalls on Jul 31, 2015 21:55:24 GMT -5
PR matters. The decision he made to destroy the phone (as opposed to continuing to decline to turn it over) had no apparent benefits, but hurt him significantly in the court of public relations. That's the objection. Are you serious? There are plenty of very good reasons for a celebrity to destroy a cell phone that they are replacing. Besides, whatever his actual reasons for destroying the phone, it's still irrelevant and is just a red herring being used by the NFL, because they were never going to touch that phone anyways. |
|
