To: Perdogg
I don't understand how you can suspend someone for "probably" doing something.
This should be overturned.
8 posted on
05/11/2015 2:55:26 PM PDT by
Veggie Todd
(The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. TJ)
To: Veggie Todd
Read the article it was for LACK OF COOPERATION.
10 posted on
05/11/2015 2:56:15 PM PDT by
for-q-clinton
(If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
To: Veggie Todd
The issue is Tom’s lack of cooperation via his relevant texts and the Pats’ lack of cooperation via not making their equipment guy available.
It is also, IMO, reasonable to draw inferences that lack of cooperation.
To: Veggie Todd
Didn’t cooperate and what he shared was inconsistent with other facts. In other words, he lied and obstructed.
23 posted on
05/11/2015 3:10:38 PM PDT by
ilgipper
To: Veggie Todd
This should be overturned.
Doubtful. This is not a court of law. "Probably" is all the league needs. Especially considering his subsequent lack of cooperation with the investigation. Consider a flagrant personal foul. The league can suspend you for probably trying to take a guy's head off. You can insist it was unintentional, there may be no hard proof that it wasn't accidental. But "probably" is enough to declare a rule violation and levee punishment.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson