Alex.
Diamond Member
- Aug 18, 2014
- 9,894
- 4,977
- 2,095
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #61
Guilt is usually reserved for criminal cases as it is a confusing term. Of course if you are now saying Brady is a criminal I will listen.Guilt in an arbitration case. Are you listening to yourself shorty?So your contention is the judge ruled on the merits? If so, please provide a source.The Judge looked at the NFL's attorneys and essentially asked them "Is that all your proof?" with an air of incredibility. He wasn't asked to render a verdict of guilty or innocent, Phallics...which is good for the NFL because there's little doubt that he would have ruled that the NFL failed to prove guilt.
I notice you don't want anything to do with explaining why Brady is even better this year than before...hard to make THAT jive with your contention that Brady cheats...isn't it, little buddy? Gee, if the Patriots go undefeated and Brady wins league MVP and Super Bowl MVP...will you still come on here and rant about how the Patriots "cheat"?
No, you dumbass...I'm saying that the judge ruled that the suspension of Brady wasn't "fair" as defined in the CBA. If he HAD ruled on the merits of the NFL's investigation to prove Tom Brady's guilt...I'm saying he would have found Brady not guilty!
I didn't say that he determined guilt in the case you idiot! What I SAID was that if he HAD determined guilt the NFL's lawyers would have lost.
Last edited: