Deflation-gate

The problem here is that there is no guarantee that the ball will stay at the same pressure after they are delivered to the referees. If the balls are inflated to 12.5 psig or dip to 12.4 psig on the referees guage, the referees might well decide to pump them up to the middle of the range or even higher depending on the weather outside. If the equipment managers see that, they might decide to make the balls "perfect" again.Obviously I cannot prove that this did or did not happen, but it is at least a scenario that ought to be considered when making the case that tampering with the footballs is ridiculous.Here is a quote from Tom Brady from back in 2011 that was widely reported during deflate gate

quote:

---

...when Gronk scores — it was like his eighth touchdown of the year — he spikes the ball and he deflates the ball, Brady said in November 2011. I love that, because I like the deflated ball. But I feel bad for that football, because he puts everything he can into those spikes.

---

Obviously there would be nothing illegal about using a deflated ball in the above instance and it is also obvious that Brady is joking around, but the statement does suggest that Brady does recognize a difference between a puffy ball and a flatter one and that he prefers the latter.

The sole reason for precision is to catch tampering. The actual pressure is allowed to vary by a reasonably wide amount, and in actual game play the pressure is going to vary by a substantial amount due to temperature conditions on the field.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Prior to the current set of rules, the NFL kept very strict control of the footballs, and in fact provided the balls at game day. The current rules are a liberalization in which the teams are allowed to handle the balls, rough their surfaces up a bit and get them ready for the game. The only concession is that the balls have to be inspected prior to game time and are not to be tampered with after that point.In my opinion, that does not seem to match what you are saying about environmental variables, so somewhere I am missing the point you are trying to make. Perhaps the current rule is silly, but I don't see any trend of the rules getting sillier. Instead it looks like we are being exposed to a rule that we never paid attention to before.Regarding performance enhancing drugs, to the extent that they are harmful to the athletes, I think the only prudent action for a sports league to take (from a financial/legal liability standpoint) is to ban them and to stay as far away from encouraging their use as possible. But maybe that's a lawyer's view.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : clarify performance enhancing drug statement

Well, we can stop worrying about this scenario.Go Panthers!

Perhaps that's because in the legal world, destroying evidence is generally inexcusable. Judges understand that people sometimes do value security and have what they consider good reason not to retain records, but often those excuses carry little weight in the court room. Sanctions for destroying evidence can include penalties such as monetary fines, assuming that destroyed evidence was in favor of the other side, or even having the judge rule in favor of the other side.When corporations sue each other, often their trade secrets, whose value can dwarf the value at stake for Brady, are central to the case. The courts make provisions for evaluating those issues without the information becoming public or even known to the parties. If the participants find that they cannot make the needed information available in court, then often they lose the case.Given the fact that the NFL had no subpoena power, Brady might well refuse to voluntarily give up the information to the NFL upon request. And the NFL trier of facts is free to make inferences based on the refusal. Brady can offer reasons to counter such refusals. No fifth amendment rights are involved here because it is a civil case.But destroying the information so that it cannot even be turned over in a court case is something I can readily understand being unforgivable to the judge.Just another take on things. My point here is that the judges are not necessarily idiots here just because they don't mention Brady's security. They simply don't in the course of things, give such excuses much weight. Surely Brady's lawyers knew that even if Brady did not.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I would suggest that destroying the phone was apparently not wise given the reaction of the judges. Doing so was completely unnecessary as a step to keeping the phone out of the hands of the NFL or anyone else's hands absent a court order. Just lock the thing up in a safe controlled by your attorney. And defiance of the court system is not an issue. The issue is destruction of evidence regardless of whether there is an order to preserve the evidence. How do you think a judge would react if you sued your doctor for malpractice and it turned out that he threw out your medical records when you asked for them.The NFL is not an extension of the court system. I indicated that not giving the phone to the NFL was understandable but risky. But destroying the phone is a different matter, given the fairly high probability that the issue would end up in court. If Brady's lawyers advised Brady to do that, they gave him particularly bad advice. That single action could result in losing the case on the merits. Brady could have accomplished his goal by simply refusing to hand over the phone. And of course, as was easily predictable, the matter is in an appellate court. I am not going to argue the details of the case again. I am aware of your belief that the NFL is stupid. I just wanted to point out a small legal point, and I've done that.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Recognized in what way?Why are Brady's concerns any greater or more substantial than those of anyone other person or corporation who elects to destroy evidence prior to a court hearing? I would suggest that Brady is nothing special when the situation is viewed in that light. And again, let's not confuse withholding information from the NFL with destroying the phone. It is the latter that cannot be justified from a legal standpoint. Wasn't Brady advised by counsel? Destroying evidence is irrelevant? Is that really what you meant to convey here? And has the destruction been evaluated to top level importance? Has a ruling been issued yet or are we just looking at some of the things the judges have said so far. Deflated footballs and possibly covering up same. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Not quite. Mitigating circumstances can affect what sanctions, if any are applied. If the evidence in question is replaceable, the sanction might be a warning. But IMO, Brady's particular case is not all that compelling, compared tot he kinds on things that regularly show up in court. That's based on my experience with the kinds of things I've seen judges do. If we disagree on that, then so be it. Yes, which makes me wonder why you pummeled the judge for mentioning it. That's pretty much the comment that drew me back into this.

Possibly. But text messages are easily deleted. A phone might contain evidence of those deletions. The best suggestion of good faith is Brady's claim that he tried to have the phone company produce the messages, but if there was such an attempt, it failed.

I do have some familiarity with the federal court system, yes. I have not personally appeared in federal court on a civil matter, but I have drafted motions, sat in court during trials, etc. I am familiar with the rules of federal procedure. No, they don't. But your question is loaded with assumptions that may not be correct. The first assumption is whether the judge actually did focus a lot of attention on the issue in question.Beyond that it appears that we are re-arguing an old point of controversy. The issue of destroying the phone may well have some role in the final ruling. That role could involve the assessment of the judgments made prior to the case reaching the appellate court.What I will note here is that the comments by the judges fit exactly with my expectations. Withholding the phone from the NFL is a calculated move and I understand Brady's reasoning completely. Destroying the phone was not a well calculated move. You and I cannot discuss this particular aspect without generating more heat than light. I'll just say that reasonable minds might disagree on the merit of the original charges, the importance of the phone as evidence, and on the nature of the process the NFL was required to use. I hope that I am not really saying something controversial enough to draw an insult that I cannot manage to ignore. We disagree. That should be fine.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I highly doubt that the there will be any sanctions for destroying the cellphone that are not relevant to the case. The court does have a lot of discretion (under rule 37) but discretion is not complete. Allowed relief is targeted at whether the missing evidence affects the case in question based on what the other side is attempting to prove. If in fact the decision is that the missing evidence is relevant to the case, then I see some substantial departures from your analogy with the Amirault family. For example, destroying the evidence might be deemed part of the cover up, and the trier of fact could make limited findings based on the fact that the evidence was not available. Beyond that, one might not have any choice but to fight in prison, but one does have a chose on whether or not to destroy a phone.If however, Brady's lawyers advised him to destroy the phone, his lawyers might be punished under Rule 11 which allows for quite severe punishment. So far, I don't see anything to suggest that. Yeah, that too is something that would not have happened if Brady had not been suspended, but we might say the same thing about things like spitting on the judge, or dropping trousers in the middle of court proceedings.

That's possible yes. FWIW, Brady might have response could be completely truthful and understandable if he suspected that destroying the phone in this instance might have been a bad idea even just for appearances. The agent would have then been saying 'do what you normally do'. I dunno. Maybe Brady does always destroy his phones. Corporations normally shred old documents too. But when there is legal action anticipated, they have to stop that activity. Agreed up to this point. The problem is that destruction was unnecessary to keep the phone away from the NFL without a subpoena and a cause of legal difficulty if the NFL were able to subpoena. Yes, it does seems ill-advised, particularly if Brady's agent is a lawyer. I'll change my mind about how good the advice is if the case ends with Brady not being punished. At that point I'll celebrate his lawyers' great legal acumen and ability to predict the end of the case. But right now it sure seems like putting the phone in a safe deposit box would have been a good move.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

How would they have found out which bank the box was in? Would Brady have told them that the phone was in a bank? Was Brady afraid of being rubber hosed, or that enough pressure would be applied to make him change his mind about giving up the phone. I don't think the NFL would have had a chance at getting that phone. At least absent a subpoena.Obviously, my perspective on this is different from yours. I don't believe that the bargaining agreement allows the NFL to issue subpoenas unless the case ends up in court. Beyond that, I don't respect a right to defy a court order. Unlike the NFL, the court could easily have made arrangements to keep secrets out of the public eye. They do such things routinely.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes. Of course they could have done so. That's how the legal system works. Again, we have a fundamental disagreement about what Brady should have done given that knowledge. What makes you think that the phone contents have ended up on the Internet or on a computer connected to the internet? Generally speaking if records are sealed, then they are not made available electronically. What I would expect is that the parties would agree that only the relevant information from the phone would become of record in the case.I've heard of occasional mistakes, but they are extremely rare. If Brady is correct in thinking he can win despite destroying the evidence then he has made the correct decision.

No. I don't see any way to make a criminal case out destroying evidence in a civil case. In particular, the destroying happened before the case got to court, so I don't think there is any chance of civil contempt escalating to criminal content (something I don't fully understand). I think the only repercussion in this case would be some negative effect on the outcome of the case.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.