The wells report

[Yehuda25]

Bec only pats fans will buy that rubbish

no ,thats not why . What I meant was in case they need some consoling

[elit]

no ,thats not why . What I meant was in case they need some consoling

Are you a pats fan?

[skyguy918]

I  didn't come to opine on the probability that he did it.  The report concludes on what probability they think he did it.

You think there is other evidence from the fact that he didn't hand over his phone, that you think the report didn't consider.  I threw out an off the cuff response--if you don't like it, I don't really care. 

The only point I wanted to make is that using more likely than not to punish someone is ridiculous, despite the opinion of all the editorialists who found out one law and now fancy themselves legal theorist. There are a lot of medium smart people who have been thinking about law for thousands of years, and when you start from first principles, you'll probably be wrong.

It's not ridiculous at all, especially if that standard was agreed to, something that applies to every player employed in the NFL. The NFL makes a ton of money, and also makes it's players a ton of money. There's a risk/reward factor for the players, and I assure you, it's worth the risk (even if you get hit with the punishment).

I love how you talk down at this 'editorialist' from you highfalutin lawyerly post. Meanwhile, this 'editorialist' is also a lawyer, and in fact practiced in labor law, including a case representing former Pittsburgh Penguins coach Ivan Hlinka in a wrongful termination suit.

[elit]

It's not ridiculous at all, especially if that standard was agreed to, something that applies to every player employed in the NFL. The NFL makes a ton of money, and also makes it's players a ton of money. There's a risk/reward factor for the players, and I assure you, it's worth the risk (even if you get hit with the punishment).

I love how you talk down at this 'editorialist' from you highfalutin lawyerly post. Meanwhile, this 'editorialist' is also a lawyer, and in fact practiced in labor law, including a case representing former Pittsburgh Penguins coach Ivan Hlinka in a wrongful termination suit.

+1000 exact what i wanted to say.

[henche]

It's not ridiculous at all, especially if that standard was agreed to, something that applies to every player employed in the NFL. The NFL makes a ton of money, and also makes it's players a ton of money. There's a risk/reward factor for the players, and I assure you, it's worth the risk (even if you get hit with the punishment).

I love how you talk down at this 'editorialist' from you highfalutin lawyerly post. Meanwhile, this 'editorialist' is also a lawyer, and in fact practiced in labor law, including a case representing former Pittsburgh Penguins coach Ivan Hlinka in a wrongful termination suit.

This conversation is getting unfriendly.  I'm out.

[elit]

This conversation is getting unfriendly.  I'm out.

Can't handle the heat?

[elit]

Now the patriots are really making a fool of themselves...

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Now the patriots are really making a fool of themselves...

What happen now?

[elit]

What happen now?

You could start with this one http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/14/pats-jim-mcnally-called-himself-deflator-because-hes-fat/
Enjoy

[ChaimMoskowitz]

You could start with this one http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/14/pats-jim-mcnally-called-himself-deflator-because-hes-fat/
Enjoy

Makes sense to me. 

[elit]

And these http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/14/the-patriots-fired-the-guys-theyre-passionately-defending-today
And
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/14/patriots-reason-for-espn-text-has-got-to-be-the-shoes/

[elit]

Actually shocked that they are doing this some thing i would expect from the jets or cowboys not the pats

[tageed-lee]

"The New England Patriots formally responded to the fallout from the Wells Report on Thursday morning with the creation of a new website."

Source.

[Cowboysuk]

Yes, "more likely than not" is the standard in civil cases. More than 50% probability.

Of course it is. How could any other standard make sense?  If reuven says shimon owes him money, and it is more likely than not that shimon does, then between the two, obviously the money should go to reuven.  Because one of them needs to have the money, so it should go to the one it more probably belongs to.  Even though we'll be wrong 49% of the time (in cases that are 51-49% likelihood), that is better than being wrong 51% of the time.  A false positive is equally bad to a false negative, because somebody is out money wrongfully in either case.

But we would never punish someone in court based on more than 50% probability.  Why not--he probably did it?  Because we don't want to be incorrectly punishing people in 49% of the criminal cases that are 51-49% likelihood.  When we are punishing people, we value false positives more strongly than false negatives.

So, in football cheating scandals, where we smear someone's reputation--are you ok with a false positive rate of 49%?  Because if you are not, then you should be signing on to my wiki.

There is no concept of hamotzie maichaveiro alav haraya in secular law? That the one that is trying to collect the money has the burden of proof?
Also the reason why we cant punish someone unless we know close to 100% is because everyone has an inherent right to llive free. Playing in the nfl isnt a right y hat Brady is born with so they could have any rules they want and if he doesnt like it he can leave.
So the nfl can say that if it "is more probable than not" that he cheated and thereby undermined the integrity of the game he has to face the consequences.

[henche]

There is no concept of hamotzie maichaveiro alav haraya in secular law? That the one that is trying to collect the money has the burden of proof?

Of course. We are dealing with how convincing the proof has to be.

Also the reason why we cant punish someone unless we know close to 100% is because everyone has an inherent right to llive free.

That's another way of saying the same thing.  We don't want to punish people unless we are very sure.  And the reason is because we value the false positives more strongly than the false negatives.

You're calling it a "right," but rights are something society decides to grant. And society has a reason. In this case a very good reason--because it is something that it is very bad to be wrongfully deprived of.

So the nfl can say that if it "is more probable than not" that he cheated and thereby undermined the integrity of the game he has to face the consequences.

Well, you mean there is a 51% percent chance he undermined the integrity of the game.  If there were 100 Tom Bradys and we suspended all of them for 4 games, 49 of them would be innocent and were suspended anyway and called cheaters anyway.

Is that ok with you? If yes, then it makes sense you would support this.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Playing in the nfl isnt a right y hat Brady is born with so they could have any rules they want and if he doesnt like it he can leave.

Really? You ever hear about "free agency?"

Technically you are correct but that doesn't mean they (rules) are legal.

[Cowboysuk]

Of course. We are dealing with how convincing the proof has to be.

51% doesnt seem to satisfy the burden of proof

[Cowboysuk]

That's another way of saying the same thing.  We don't want to punish people unless we are very sure.  And the reason is because we value the false positives more strongly than the false negatives.

You're calling it a "right," but rights are something society decides to grant. And society has a reason. In this case a very good reason--because it is something that it is very bad to be wrongfully deprived of.

I remember learning something about unalienable rights. Not going to prison and not paying fines are unalienable rights . Playing in the NFL isn't.

[henche]

I remember learning something about unalienable rights. Not going to prison and not paying fines are unalienable rights . Playing in the NFL isn't.

And I'm certainly not suggesting the government step in.

[henche]

51% doesnt seem to satisfy the burden of proof

Why do you say that?  Would you prefer the person who probably doesn't own the money have it?