Brady Suspension Overturned

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by rats60

He was given his day in court and found guilty. You can choose to stick your head in the sand and ignore the overwhelming circumstantial evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that he was proven guilty.

Numerous quarterbacks have come out and said that there is no doubt in their minds that he was involved. Yesterday, it was Fran Tarkenton. QBs are the ones who dictate how the balls are prepared. I guess you think that Brady is unique and has nothing to do with how the Pats prepare their balls. If that was the case, then why did he lobby the NFL to change the rule allowing visiting teams to prepare their own balls?

In what court would that be where he was proven guilty? Unless you're speaking of the NFL kangaroo court, I have no idea what you're talking about. And that "court" offered no real proof. They believed him to be "generally aware" that something was going on. By that squishy criterion, you should be criminally liable when you are "generally aware" that illegal drugs are being sold on your the block.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by kcohen

...
The real travesty here is the Goodell kangaroo court and the NFL's overreach. The judge obviously agreed to the extent of overturning a finding originally held within the framework of a CBA, which I understand they are normally very reluctant to do.

Goodell has had his rulings overturned regarding Rice, Peterson and now Brady. I agree with the "overreach" in the first two rulings, but I think it's perfectly within the NFL's rights to make decisions like the one regarding Brady. They might have screwed it up, but I think if you are going to let the courts pop in to overrule things that are related ONLY to the sport that the commissioner is responsible for (which the Rice and Peterson things were not), then you've opened the doors for all sorts of things;i.e-any time ANY fine or punishment is imposed in ANY sport, we're off to court. If a commissioner can't do his job, just get rid of him.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by gnaz01

I'll say it again, he was never PROVEN guilty, it was stated he was guilty. HUGE difference!!

That is your OPINION, not fact. HUGE difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Goodell has had his rulings overturned regarding Rice, Peterson and now Brady. I agree with the "overreach" in the first two rulings, but I think it's perfectly within the NFL's rights to make decisions like the one regarding Brady. They might have screwed it up, but I think if you are going to let the courts pop in to overrule things that are related ONLY to the sport that the commissioner is responsible for (which the Rice and Peterson things were not), then you've opened the doors for all sorts of things;i.e-any time ANY fine or punishment is imposed in ANY sport, we're off to court. If a commissioner can't do his job, just get rid of him.

What you "think" is "perfectly within the NFL's rights" does not reflect the legal standard of review of the Commissioner's decision, as properly articulated by the court.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA''), "the validity of an award is subject to attack
only on those grounds listed in [9 U.S.C.] § 10, and the policy of the FAA requires that an award
be enforced unless one of those grounds is affirmatively shown to exist." Wall Street Assocs.
L.P. v. Becker Pari bas Inc., 27 F .3d 845, 849 (2d Cir. 1994). For example, FAA § I 0 provides
that the Court may vacate an arbitral award "where the arbitrators were guilty of ... refusing to
hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy." 9 U.S.C. § I O(a)(3). The Court may
also vacate an arbitral award "where there was evident partiality ... " 9 U.S.C. § I O(a)(2).
A "principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its
essence from the collective bargaining agreement, since the arbitrator is not free to merely
dispense his own brand of industrial justice." 187 Concourse Assocs. v. Fishman, 399 F.3d 524,
527 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Saint Marv Home, Inc. v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Dist. 1199, 116
F.3d 41,44 (2d Cir. 1997)). "[A]s the proctor of the bar gain, the arbitrator's task is to effectuate
the intent of the parties. His source of authority is the collective-bargaining agreement, and he
must interpret and apply that agreement in accordance with the 'industrial common law of the
shop' and the various needs and desires of the parties." United States v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters,
954 F.2d 801, 809 (2d Cir. 1992) (quoting Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 94 S. Ct. 1011,
1022 (1974)) (emphasis omitted).
It is the "law of the shop" to provide professional football players with advance notice of
prohibited conduct and potential discipline.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The essence of the opinion:

The Court is fully aware of the deference afforded to arbitral decisions, but, nevertheless,
concludes that the Award should be vacated. The Award is premised upon several significant
legal deficiencies, including (A) inadequate notice to Brady of both his potential discipline (fourgame
suspension) and his alleged misconduct; (B) denial of the opportunity for Brady to
examine one of two lead investigators, namely NFL Executive Vice President and General
Counsel JeffPash; and (C) denial of equal access to investigative files, including witness
interview notes.

[packs]

How do you explain the text messages between equipment manages directly referencing Tom's preference for under inflation? Doesn't that show that he directed the equipment managers to inflate balls to his liking, an inflation that is in violation of league rules?

I feel like we're arguing over whether or not OJ was guilty. It's so obvious what happened. The legal opinion is not as relevant as your eyes and ears.

[bigfish]

Packs,

I suggest you read legal briefs of Marbury vs Madison, the people vs Larry Flint, and the people vs life savers....

Then you might be more qualified to rule on this than Judge Berman / the other 3 lawyers that have weighed in.

Are you a Jets or Giants fan?

All in good fun...it might be time for you to fold.

cheers,

Patriots season ticket holder

[Peter_Spaeth]

The issue for the court was not whether Brady was guilty or not. It was that the suspension, and the process followed by Goodell, were not consistent with the collective bargaining agreement.

But inevitably, a technical decision like this is going to be completely mischaracterized.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The issue for the court was not whether Brady was guilty or not. It was that the suspension, and the process followed by Goodell, were not consistent with the collective bargaining agreement.

But inevitably, a technical decision like this is going to be completely mischaracterized.

This was my take as well. The suspension was overturned because the penalty applied for this infraction was unprecedented and there was no real evidence in the first place. The judge may well have believed Brady was involved but the NFL did not provide any proof of his involvement.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

This was my take as well. The suspension was overturned because the penalty applied for this infraction was unprecedented and there was no real evidence in the first place. The judge may well have believed Brady was involved but the NFL did not provide any proof of his involvement.

No, as I just said, evidence or lack of evidence was not the issue. Read the excerpt I quoted summarizing the opinion. This was a technical, procedural decision, having nothing to do with guilt, innocence, or who had proved what.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No, as I just said, evidence or lack of evidence was not the issue. Read the excerpt I quoted summarizing the opinion. This was a technical, procedural decision, having nothing to do with guilt, innocence, or who had proved what.

Fair enough, I actually didn't read the entire thread. Obviously being a lawyer you can interpret the decision better than I can and I'm sure the process the NFL used to reach it's decision was the main reason they were overruled.

I also believe the lack of credible evidence and the fact that similar violations in other cases resulted in little or no punishment for the players involved factored in.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Fair enough, I actually didn't read the entire thread. Obviously being a lawyer you can interpret the decision better than I can and I'm sure the process the NFL used to reach it's decision was the main reason they were overruled.

I also believe the lack of credible evidence and the fact that similar violations in other cases resulted in little or no punishment for the players involved factored in.

And your basis for that belief is?

[Peter_Spaeth]

..

[steve B]

Thanks Peter for making the legal end of things as clear as possible for those of us who aren't lawyers. We may not like what we hear, but at least there's that bit of translation to something we can understand.

Steve B

[jhs5120]

Three things:

1. Brady obviously knew the balls were deflated, most reasonable people agree.
2. The ingenuity of purposely deflating the football to gain a competitive advantage should be celebrated, not punished.
3. Every team cheats, most more than the Patriots. www.yourteamcheats.com

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And your basis for that belief is?

The questions the judge asked of the NFL during the hearings lead me to believe that he felt they were important issues and factored into his decision. I don't have any direct quotes, but it seemed to me he disagreed with their reasoning as well as having a problem with the procedural issues.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by steve B

Thanks Peter for making the legal end of things as clear as possible for those of us who aren't lawyers. We may not like what we hear, but at least there's that bit of translation to something we can understand.

Steve B

Most people, in the media and otherwise, understandably are focused on the outcome of a legal case, not the reasoning which sometimes is very narrow and/or technical.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

The questions the judge asked of the NFL during the hearings lead me to believe that he felt they were important issues and factored into his decision. I don't have any direct quotes, but it seemed to me he disagreed with their reasoning as well as having a problem with the procedural issues.

In the end you can only go by the language of the opinion.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the end you can only go by the language of the opinion.

I will yield to your legal expertise on this one.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by packs

How do you explain the text messages between equipment manages directly referencing Tom's preference for under inflation? Doesn't that show that he directed the equipment managers to inflate balls to his liking, an inflation that is in violation of league rules?

I feel like we're arguing over whether or not OJ was guilty. It's so obvious what happened. The legal opinion is not as relevant as your eyes and ears.

I don't think that your argument holds any water unless text messages to which you refer showed that Brady directed the equipment guys to inflate or deflate the balls beyond the regulation psi range? It's a far cry from having a preference, which most quarterbacks probably do have, to directing that something irregular be done to the footballs.

[yanks12025]

In the end the Patriots still cheated. If they didn't, Robert Kraft would have fought the penalty and fine alittle hard and not fired the two employees(can't wait till one of them writes a book).

Tom Brady might have been given a pass in the courts because the NFL can run a investigation correctly. But people with a reasonable mind, know he knows he knew about what the ball boys were doing to the balls. They wouldn't mess with the ball without him knowing.

Also the way its reading lately, Tom and the talking horse(tosh.O joke) might not be married much longer.

[yanks12025]

delete

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

In the end the Patriots still cheated. If they didn't, Robert Kraft would have fought the penalty and fine alittle hard and not fired the two employees(can't wait till one of them writes a book).

Tom Brady might have been given a pass in the courts because the NFL can run a investigation correctly. But people with a reasonable mind, know he knows he knew about what the ball boys were doing to the balls. They wouldn't mess with the ball without him knowing.

Also the way its reading lately, Tom and the talking horse(tosh.O joke) might not be married much longer.

Anyone with a reasonable mind knows that they cannot know for sure what Brady did or didn't know.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

In the end the Patriots still cheated. If they didn't, Robert Kraft would have fought the penalty and fine alittle hard and not fired the two employees(can't wait till one of them writes a book).

Tom Brady might have been given a pass in the courts because the NFL can run a investigation correctly. But people with a reasonable mind, know he knows he knew about what the ball boys were doing to the balls. They wouldn't mess with the ball without him knowing.

Also the way its reading lately, Tom and the talking horse(tosh.O joke) might not be married much longer.

They weren't fired, just suspended indefinitely without pay.

[DanP]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

In the end the Patriots still cheated. If they didn't, Robert Kraft would have fought the penalty and fine alittle hard and not fired the two employees(can't wait till one of them writes a book).

Tom Brady might have been given a pass in the courts because the NFL can run a investigation correctly. But people with a reasonable mind, know he knows he knew about what the ball boys were doing to the balls. They wouldn't mess with the ball without him knowing.

Also the way its reading lately, Tom and the talking horse(tosh.O joke) might not be married much longer.

LOL... I'm assuming you're a Yankees fan. Where are the posts about the Yankees cheating (i.e Petitte, Arod, etc.)??

Let's face it, every team is cheating, some more than others. Cheating has probably been happening since the beginning of each sport. We accept it when our team wins and are critical of it when our team loses, especially to a team we hate (i.e. Patriots).

[egri]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

In the end the Patriots still cheated. If they didn't, Robert Kraft would have fought the penalty and fine alittle hard and not fired the two employees(can't wait till one of them writes a book).

Tom Brady might have been given a pass in the courts because the NFL can run a investigation correctly. But people with a reasonable mind, know he knows he knew about what the ball boys were doing to the balls. They wouldn't mess with the ball without him knowing.

Also the way its reading lately, Tom and the talking horse(tosh.O joke) might not be married much longer.

Kraft accepted the penalties "for the good of the NFL". He later said that was a mistake. Regardless of what you think about Brady, the fact remains that we are in a nation where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and there is no more proof of Brady's guilt than there is proof of life on Pluto. That you felt the need to insult his wife and drag their marriage into this tells me all I need to know about the merits (or lack thereof) of your case.

[TUM301]

Originally Posted by egri

Kraft accepted the penalties "for the good of the NFL". He later said that was a mistake. Regardless of what you think about Brady, the fact remains that we are in a nation where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and there is no more proof of Brady's guilt than there is proof of life on Pluto. That you felt the need to insult his wife and drag their marriage into this tells me all I need to know about the merits (or lack thereof) of your case.

Nail meet hammer, right on the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ !

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by kcohen

Anyone with a reasonable mind knows that they cannot know for sure what Brady did or didn't know.

It was the same with the 1919 Black Sox. They went to court, won, were all smiles....then Landis dropped the bomb on them.

Brady got the bomb dropped on him by the commissioner before court, then had the commissioner overruled when it went to court.

Thanks, Peter, for sharing the details as to why this happened. Since Goodell was wrist-slapped by the courts for technical failings in his process, it seems like the next step is for Goodell (or any other commissioner) to simply go to court any time someone steps out of line...since Goodell isn't a court and can't be expected to follow exactly the same procedures when trying to administer disciplinary actions.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by egri

Kraft accepted the penalties "for the good of the NFL". He later said that was a mistake. Regardless of what you think about Brady, the fact remains that we are in a nation where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and there is no more proof of Brady's guilt than there is proof of life on Pluto. That you felt the need to insult his wife and drag their marriage into this tells me all I need to know about the merits (or lack thereof) of your case.

Right, so no commissioner can administer ANY disciplinary actions fairly unless he does it through our legal system. Same should be true if a child disobeys his parents. If it doesn't go through our legal system, it doesn't count. Everyone's always right about everything, no matter what the level, and it should take a judge to determine they are wrong.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by egri

Kraft accepted the penalties "for the good of the NFL". He later said that was a mistake. Regardless of what you think about Brady, the fact remains that we are in a nation where the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and there is no more proof of Brady's guilt than there is proof of life on Pluto. That you felt the need to insult his wife and drag their marriage into this tells me all I need to know about the merits (or lack thereof) of your case.

While of course you're entitled to your opinion, the statement "there is no more proof of Brady's guilt than there is proof of life on Pluto" is utter B.S. Moreover, it is precisely over the top comments like that lead to the very great number of "Patriot haters" venting the way they do. This constant persecution complex sprinkled with the we did nothing wrong attitude sickens many, myself included. As noted, the case was "won" by the NFLPA if you will because of reasons that had essentially nothing to with the evidence and/or what was proved or not proved. Enjoy your victory, but expect to keep taking crap if you come here and tell us the Patriots are "innocent".

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Right, so no commissioner can administer ANY disciplinary actions fairly unless he does it through our legal system. Same should be true if a child disobeys his parents. If it doesn't go through our legal system, it doesn't count. Everyone's always right about everything, no matter what the level, and it should take a judge to determine they are wrong.

Scott there is a collective bargaining agreement.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

While of course you're entitled to your opinion, the statement "there is no more proof of Brady's guilt than there is proof of life on Pluto" is utter B.S. Moreover, it is precisely over the top comments like that lead to the very great number of "Patriot haters" venting the way they do. This constant persecution complex sprinkled with the we did nothing wrong attitude sickens many, myself included. As noted, the case was "won" by the NFLPA if you will because of reasons that had essentially nothing to with the evidence and/or what was proved or not proved. Enjoy your victory, but expect to keep taking crap if you come here and tell us the Patriots are "innocent".

So let the "Patriot haters" vent. Their whining and envy would sicken me if I cared. If it works for them that's cool. I suppose whining and envy are chicken soup for the soul.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

While of course you're entitled to your opinion, the statement "there is no more proof of Brady's guilt than there is proof of life on Pluto" is utter B.S. Moreover, it is precisely over the top comments like that lead to the very great number of "Patriot haters" venting the way they do. This constant persecution complex sprinkled with the we did nothing wrong attitude sickens many, myself included. As noted, the case was "won" by the NFLPA if you will because of reasons that had essentially nothing to with the evidence and/or what was proved or not proved. Enjoy your victory, but expect to keep taking crap if you come here and tell us the Patriots are "innocent".

I think this was much ado about nothing, but not because of the lack of evidence against Brady. There was no smoking gun proving he directed anyone to do anything, but there was certainly strong circumstantial evidence, as set out in the report. He did not come across as particularly credible, to me.

[nolemmings]

So let the "Patriot haters" vent. Their whining and envy would sicken me if I cared. If it works for them that's cool. I suppose whining and envy are chicken soup for the soul.

Believe me, I have not an ounce of envy for the Patriots. But hey, keep drinking that Kool Aid.

[kcohen]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Believe me, I have not an ounce of envy for the Patriots. But hey, keep drinking that Kool Aid.

And you keep drinking that chicken soup.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Scott there is a collective bargaining agreement.

Peter - it's obvious, and I'm not being sarcastic, that you understand the legal implications of all of this better than the rest of us, who represent the average joe who is watching from the sidelines. So no need to patronize me - I appreciate your expertise.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Peter - it's obvious, and I'm not being sarcastic, that you understand the legal implications of all of this better than the rest of us, who represent the average joe who is watching from the sidelines. So no need to patronize me - I appreciate your expertise.

Who was patronizing? I was simply explaining that your analogy didn't hold under the circumstances.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think this was much ado about nothing, but not because of the lack of evidence against Brady. There was no smoking gun proving he directed anyone to do anything, but there was certainly strong circumstantial evidence, as set out in the report. He did not come across as particularly credible, to me.

I don't have a real problem with the decision as stated. I also agree with your analysis other than perhaps the first clause in the first sentence. We can debate the effect or advantage of improperly inflated footballs and thus the rule governing them, but it appears to me it was much ado about something the Patriots thought important, and that they took noticeable lengths to try and avoid the rule. This was fairly orchestrated conduct that they clearly wanted kept hush hush. Why if it really makes no difference?

Also, while I agree there should be adequate notice of the potential penalty such that 4 games under these circumstances was excessive and violative of the CBA, it strains credulity to make the argument that gee I thought such infraction would only carry a $25K fine. You don't go to such lengths just to avoid such a minimal penalty. Brady and the Patriots, maybe others as well, would gladly and openly pay $25K for the opportunity to fine-tune the pressure on their footballs. Hell, do it on the sidelines and hand the check to the NFL on the spot--it's worth it. IMO they knew damn well that what they were doing was more than a token equipment violation. This case did/does have integrity of the game implications-do you really think that Goodell thought it a good idea to slap one of the league's more popular franchises and an even more popular player just for giggles, knowing that this crap storm would likely follow where even if he wins he's skewered? This is why I cannot agree that it is really much ado but nothing. Goodell handled it poorly--quelle surpris--but that doesn't mean there was nothing there or it wasn't worth protecting. There are no winners here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think Goodell necessarily thought the integrity of the game was on the line. I think he was worried that if he let it go, or imposed a token fine, he would be skewered for favoritism because the Patriots and their poster boy were involved. I think it was, in short, politics, not genuine concern. Or could be explained that way anyhow, as we can't know his subjective motivations.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who was patronizing? I was simply explaining that your analogy didn't hold under the circumstances.

I'm aware of the collective bargaining agreement (plus, you already mentioned it in your previous response to me) - to the average guy watching football (as I already mentioned), I think my analogy holds up perfectly. I'm not a lawyer, and most people aren't - that fact gets lost on this forum because the lawyers are the ones who talk the 'loudest' and who absolutely never back down.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think Goodell necessarily thought the integrity of the game was on the line. I think he was worried that if he let it go, or imposed a token fine, he would be skewered for favoritism because the Patriots and their poster boy were involved. I think it was, in short, politics, not genuine concern. Or could be explained that way anyhow, as we can't know his subjective motivations.

That may be true on one or more levels Peter, at least I know I’ve heard that previously. But what does that say about the Patriots then? See, they knew or with any internal investigation would have learned that they in fact did the very type of thing the Commissioner was looking into–deflating footballs. How do they respond? They send their QB out to publicly deny that he knew anything about it–an interview not only unconvincing to anyone with at least a double-digit IQ but one universally panned as false by more than a dozen quarterbacks who played the position. Instead of going behind closed doors and trying to work out something with their so-called buddy Goodell they pretty pre-emptively spit in his face. So if indeed it was blown way out of proportion you can lay a good heap of blame for that on Kraft, Brady, et al.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

That may be true on one or more levels Peter, at least I know I’ve heard that previously. But what does that say about the Patriots then? See, they knew or with any internal investigation would have learned that they in fact did the very type of thing the Commissioner was looking into–deflating footballs. How do they respond? They send their QB out to publicly deny that he knew anything about it–an interview not only unconvincing to anyone with at least a double-digit IQ but one universally panned as false by more than a dozen quarterbacks who played the position. Instead of going behind closed doors and trying to work out something with their so-called buddy Goodell they pretty pre-emptively spit in his face. So if indeed it was blown way out of proportion you can lay a good heap of blame for that on Kraft, Brady, et al.

Yeah but Kraft then backed way off by accepting the NFL's punishment... and Goodell didn't do his part to resolve the Brady piece of it.

[nolemmings]

Yeah but Kraft then backed way off by accepting the NFL's punishment... and Goodell didn't do his part to resolve the Brady piece of it.

Except that: 1) by then, the barndoor had been open far too long, again opened by the Patriots and again, due to their conduct, no one else's; 2) there was never any strict quid pro quo promised for Kraft's acceptance of the NFL punishment, certainly not one where it was agreed Brady could completely skate, especially as he was by far the worst actor in the whole matter; 3) by most and maybe all accounts Brady would not agree to even a single game suspension and would not even sign any acknowledgment of wrongdoing; and, 4) Kraft felt and feels no contrition at all, now complaining that he never should have agreed to the NFL punishment. Look at their conduct--they still claim they did nothing wrong and will not own up to anything. And one must be a hater or envious to find that disgusting?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Todd, turn on the TV next week and root for Pittsburgh. Oh wait, their quarterback had some issues too, maybe even a little more troubling. Damn. 6 game suspension, wasn't it?

[nolemmings]

Ah yes, played like a cornerback--deflection

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Ah yes, played like a cornerback--deflection

Defense lawyer. Go figure.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Ah yes, played like a cornerback--deflection

Perspective, son, perspective. One frickin PSI of air let out of a ball. That no official noticed. That meant nothing -- see second half. This is chickenfeed. Integrity of the game, yeah yeah yeah.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Defense lawyer. Go figure.

Redirecting attention to what matters.

[Kenny Cole]

I certainly agree with the redirecting part. Its the rest of the statement I'm somewhat dubious about.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Defense lawyer. Go figure.

Bingo. Now followed by trivializing-- it was a only a little bitty boo boo, but by the way we won't even admit to it anyway, and we knew it really didn't matter when we tried our best to keep it under wraps.

Coming soon to a thread near you--rationalization. Everybody cheats, there are worse sinners out there, etc (but by the way we still won't even admit to it anyway, and we knew it really didn't matter when we tried our best to keep it under wraps).