RonSpringsdaman20
Hold The Door!
- Messages
- 9,773
- Reaction score
- 3,861
You can tell that's photoshopped, because the noisemaker is fully inflated.

You can tell that's photoshopped, because the noisemaker is fully inflated.
Not me.. I will take a W any way I can get it.
Amazing! As I was driving home from work I heard the news on SIRIUS NFL, and Sid to myself: He got pulled over for speeding and got caught with a trunk full of coke...great minds...Sounds like someone was pulled over for speeding but got caught with a kilo of coke under the seat.
Please don't tell me you are equating domestic violence with letting a little air out of footballs.
Since the two employees are suspended, I suspect they will be itching to tell the truth and stick it to Brady.
Hardy got paid while on leave, hasn't lost a game check yet and was found guilty by a judge and then paid a women to go away so comparing beating a women to deflating a football is ridiculous
When the book about the Patriot's cheatin' ways comes out, these two will be paid handsomely.
No proof was able to be found that he paid off anyone.
Also even if you believe the report released he is being accused of pushing a woman away from him....not exactly the same as "Beating" a woman.
No, they're different charges an the courts treat them differently. The NFL enacted a new domestic violence policy in 2014, and the courts have ruled that it cannot retroactively apply its new policy. Brady's violations have nothing to do with that policy.It will probably will be ruled. However, Hardy had the same charges as Brady "actions detrimental to the game." If thats the case Hardy's punishment should be much less severe and Brady should have been much worst than what he got. It just doesn't add up.
Please don't tell me you are equating domestic violence with letting a little air out of footballs.
Just FYI, but they didn't need the woman to testify at the retrial. They could have merely submitted her prior testimony as evidence, without another appearance by her. But the prosecutors determined that her prior testimony was not trustworthy, so they chose not to use that prior testimony and did not have enough evidence other than that to justify a prosecution. Yes, the prosecution determined independently that the woman's prior testimony was most likely false.Hardy got paid while on leave, hasn't lost a game check yet and was found guilty by a judge and then paid a women to go away so comparing beating a women to deflating a football is ridiculous
I hope it gets reduced. I want to see the Cowboys smash the Pats with Brady.
Just FYI, but they didn't need the woman to testify at the retrial. They could have merely submitted her prior testimony as evidence, without another appearance by her. But the prosecutors determined that her prior testimony was not trustworthy, so they chose not to use that prior testimony and did not have enough evidence other than that to justify a prosecution. Yes, the prosecution determined independently that the woman's prior testimony was most likely false.
Just FYI, but they didn't need the woman to testify at the retrial. They could have merely submitted her prior testimony as evidence, without another appearance by her. But the prosecutors determined that her prior testimony was not trustworthy, so they chose not to use that prior testimony and did not have enough evidence other than that to justify a prosecution. Yes, the prosecution determined independently that the woman's prior testimony was most likely false.
his agent said he came to a settlement with the woman...he was found guilty by a judge who heard the evidence which was set aside for a jury trial for which the woman wouldn't cooperate and couldn't be found by police...the medical reports, pictures, bruises etc...it wasn't a push..try to keep up
the accused has the right to face their accuser for cross examination in front of a jury.....she didn't cooperate because she was paid to disappear and with no victim/accuser, the prosecutor can NOT go forward with the case...