Which means nothing because: (a) we don't have starting pressure readings, and (b) they arbitrarily switched recorded A/B readings because they looked consistent with the other gauge...yeah, for real.Nick Kaufman said:
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
The AEI report also critiqued the Exponent statistics. If I remember correctly, they showed that the Exponent guy just threw the data into SPSS or SAS and then wrote down a bunch of equations that were wrong.
There were several posts on this a few weeks ago, when the UVM biostatistician said his standard analysis (i.e. throwing the data into a simple model in SPSS or SAS) replicated the Exponent findings exactly. And AEI showed why Exponent's analysis didn't do what they thought it did, because their equation was wrong.
There were several posts on this a few weeks ago, when the UVM biostatistician said his standard analysis (i.e. throwing the data into a simple model in SPSS or SAS) replicated the Exponent findings exactly. And AEI showed why Exponent's analysis didn't do what they thought it did, because their equation was wrong.
Nick Kaufman said:
I think it was pretty obvious that the NFL was trying to get Brady to say he likes the footballs on the low end and Tom Brady was coached not to give them a statement that could be used out of context. It doesn't matter why he wants them at 12.5, since that's the low end of the legal limit and it speaks for itself. I think it is more telling that this trivial issue is what the NFL lawyers spent a good chunk of time harping on. They weren't trying to understand the case better, instead they were fishing for a juicy quote to headline Goodell's confirmation of the punishment.
Nice headline:
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13378023/tom-brady-testimony-deflategate-released-nfl-players-association
Though the article is actually fair.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13378023/tom-brady-testimony-deflategate-released-nfl-players-association
Though the article is actually fair.
Yes yes yes yes yes.EricFeczko said:
The statistics are a red herring. The problem is the DATA are flawed. Rod MacKinnon covers this well, focusing on the data flaws. http://wellsreportcontext.com/mackinnons-scientific-conclusion/ MacKinnon is legit. Nobel Prizes in Chemistry are no joke.
And yes Eric, that is the definition of data manipulation, of cherry picking facts to support the conclusion. The p-value isn't worth dog doodoo if you did several tests and only focus on one.
It still kills me that those who've unfairly, inaccurately, and (IMHO) intentionally shat this embarrassing mess have no accountability whatsoever.
Wells will keep his millions. Goodell will keep his post, so will Vincent, Kensil, and Mortensen. Pagano & Harbaugh's reputation unscathed (fortunately, Irsay has already done enough damage to his already).
Even if the suspension is overturned, I can imagine Vincent and Kensil having a beer cackling about how they "still got them good". I'd like put less than savory additives to that pint.
Wells will keep his millions. Goodell will keep his post, so will Vincent, Kensil, and Mortensen. Pagano & Harbaugh's reputation unscathed (fortunately, Irsay has already done enough damage to his already).
Even if the suspension is overturned, I can imagine Vincent and Kensil having a beer cackling about how they "still got them good". I'd like put less than savory additives to that pint.
I'd love it if you stats gurus could provide insight on the exponent testimony where they disagree with AEI and Snyder.
In particular, I found it very hard to follow the discussion on time and whether it (along with other variables such as wetness) were tested to see if they could explain the difference. They both seem to say it matters and it doesn't matter. It clearly matters so I don't follow their explanation of if they left it out and why? There also seemed to be some discussion of whether it was appropriate to average the balls or not.
I did like when the exponent guy got caught trying to argue that an average measurement time under 2 minutes meant that no ball could have been tested after the 2 minute mark.
There's no way Goddell was able to follow this conversation. The direct of Exponent was done well and presented in a simple manner. I can see how Goddell would believe them.
Edit: I realize to admit a flaw would have been career suicide for Exponent, I'd like to know if their justification makes any sense at all.
In particular, I found it very hard to follow the discussion on time and whether it (along with other variables such as wetness) were tested to see if they could explain the difference. They both seem to say it matters and it doesn't matter. It clearly matters so I don't follow their explanation of if they left it out and why? There also seemed to be some discussion of whether it was appropriate to average the balls or not.
I did like when the exponent guy got caught trying to argue that an average measurement time under 2 minutes meant that no ball could have been tested after the 2 minute mark.
There's no way Goddell was able to follow this conversation. The direct of Exponent was done well and presented in a simple manner. I can see how Goddell would believe them.
Edit: I realize to admit a flaw would have been career suicide for Exponent, I'd like to know if their justification makes any sense at all.
I was actually impressed with Brady here. Seems I'm in the minority, but TB's point was feel and texture is much more important than air inflation( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
During the Brady appeal hearing, NFLPA lawyer Jeffrey Kessler asked the NFL to make the transcript public immediately. The NFL declined.
— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) August 5, 2015
— ProFootballTalk (@ProFootballTalk) August 5, 2015
My favorite part so far?
Wells bitching about Columbia having the gall to leak that they had been contacted to help the investigation.
Can't have uncontrolled leaks like that in this investigation. No sirree!!
LoL.
I always wondered why they weren't hired. Now we know why. They leaked too much for Wells and NFL liking. Might have meant the psi numbers got out early.
Wells bitching about Columbia having the gall to leak that they had been contacted to help the investigation.
Can't have uncontrolled leaks like that in this investigation. No sirree!!
LoL.
I always wondered why they weren't hired. Now we know why. They leaked too much for Wells and NFL liking. Might have meant the psi numbers got out early.
Hoya81 said:
Wasn't there a leak that Brady would only settle if the record was sealed so no one would find out he destroyed his cell phone?
a close second is the sequence where NFL counsel objects to a question asked to Wells (all pretense of independence gone) and sustained by an NFL attorney.edmunddantes said:
In that sequence all three guys are getting paid for by the NFL. With latter two of them supposed to be independent.
LoL. Yep. Definitely can see why Brady didn't want this to see the light of day. /snark
Yes, although I don't know that it explicitly mentioned the cell phone as a reason. Perhaps the cell phone was implied, but I feel the lack of mention is more devious, as it leads people to assume that there is more dirt in the testimony.Peak Oil Can Boyd said:
Like most front-half leaks initiated by the NFL which told lies or half truths, it helped shape public opinion before it was later corrected with a back-half leak by Brady/NFLPA.
I'm only about 70 pages in or so but this is by far my favorite exchange at this juncture. (On phone so trouble quoting, but paraphrasing). Regarding the 2006 petition by QBs for permission to prepare balls, Goodell interrupts:
Goodell: Mr. Kessler, where did this come from?
Kessler: The petition?
G: Yes.
K: the quarterbacks and the league all signed it.
G: I know. I signed it. But who did it come from?
Brady: Peyton.
G: Peyton?
B: Manning.
K: and then it was presented and approved by the competition committee and that's what happened.
I'm not sure how to read that. Was he asking who beat the drum to start the petition or who literally furnished the document to Kessler? I'd imagine it's on record, so maybe it wasn't what I'm thinking, that Peyton was helping Tom out(in which case I might have to start hating him a little less), but a part of me this whole time has been hoping for some other big name guys to speak out and back TB.
Either way, I loved that Goodell was clearly trying to imply that Brady was behind the whole thing and got it shoved back in his face. You didn't know who drove that bus ten years ago?
Goodell: Mr. Kessler, where did this come from?
Kessler: The petition?
G: Yes.
K: the quarterbacks and the league all signed it.
G: I know. I signed it. But who did it come from?
Brady: Peyton.
G: Peyton?
B: Manning.
K: and then it was presented and approved by the competition committee and that's what happened.
I'm not sure how to read that. Was he asking who beat the drum to start the petition or who literally furnished the document to Kessler? I'd imagine it's on record, so maybe it wasn't what I'm thinking, that Peyton was helping Tom out(in which case I might have to start hating him a little less), but a part of me this whole time has been hoping for some other big name guys to speak out and back TB.
Either way, I loved that Goodell was clearly trying to imply that Brady was behind the whole thing and got it shoved back in his face. You didn't know who drove that bus ten years ago?
The poll needs a "BB did it" choice. I'm convinced BB:
- hacked the Ravens email system and told the Colts to be on the lookout
- siphoned a few psi out of the balls using his mental powers alone
- forced McDaniels to call a play that BB knew would result in the D'Qwell Jackson pick, thereby setting the shitstorm in motion.
Why? Because in his mind's eye BB could see how the dominoes would fall. He knew Goodell would investigate, the NFL would fuck it up beyond all reason, and that Brady would be unfairly hammered -- and that Brady's subsequent wrath would lead the Pats to lay waste to the NFL this year, all the way to a SB50 thrashing of some poor NFC schmuck.
This explanation is no more preposterous than the punishment the NFL has given Brady and the Pats based on the 'evidence' collected.
- hacked the Ravens email system and told the Colts to be on the lookout
- siphoned a few psi out of the balls using his mental powers alone
- forced McDaniels to call a play that BB knew would result in the D'Qwell Jackson pick, thereby setting the shitstorm in motion.
Why? Because in his mind's eye BB could see how the dominoes would fall. He knew Goodell would investigate, the NFL would fuck it up beyond all reason, and that Brady would be unfairly hammered -- and that Brady's subsequent wrath would lead the Pats to lay waste to the NFL this year, all the way to a SB50 thrashing of some poor NFC schmuck.
This explanation is no more preposterous than the punishment the NFL has given Brady and the Pats based on the 'evidence' collected.
Can't sleep so scrolling further into the report now. Reisner all but calls Snyder a nerd during cross, keeps trying to strike statements he doesn't like without knowing if he can, and makes some hilarious gotcha! attempts by putting words in his mouth.
Possibly worth noting that Rog was pretty silent throughout Snyder's testimony. He pops in to confirm (incredulously, I imagine) that Snyder thinks it takes four minutes to inflate 11 balls (it's in the Report) and then again to ask about assumptions, but I can easily see him zoning out for much of it.
Possibly worth noting that Rog was pretty silent throughout Snyder's testimony. He pops in to confirm (incredulously, I imagine) that Snyder thinks it takes four minutes to inflate 11 balls (it's in the Report) and then again to ask about assumptions, but I can easily see him zoning out for much of it.
Kessler [regarding the Jets game]: "Even though it's all about inflation, you interpret it to be about deflation."
TW: "That's correct, sir."
Just about sums up this whole thing
TW: "That's correct, sir."
Just about sums up this whole thing
This is a sloppy sentence that makes it sound like the "Deflator" text was part of the discussion of Jan 18 ball prep. Why not "one of whom once referred to himself as 'the Deflator' in an unrelated text 2 years ago?"Ed Hillel said:
Wells' investigation found text messages between Brady and a pair of equipment managers -- one of whom referred to himself as "the Deflator" -- discussing the preparation of footballs for the Jan. 18 game.
He's not full of shit, he's just been prepped (and properly so) to not offer more than necessary in his answers. One of the key reasons that you do this is that an answer that is otherwise perfectly reasonable can be placed in another context and be made to sound/feel sinister, which has happened repeatedly in this case. And one of the ways you combat this is to limit the information you offer in your testimony. So (for example) if you don't remember all of the details required to answer a question, "I don't remember" is a great answer.Nick Kaufman said:
The last thing I will add to this is that the Gronk quote you are using to make your case that Brady is full of shit is precisely the kind of bullshit quote Brady would want to avoid in his testimony, because it is 100% context-dependant. In this case, the context is that he is making a joke, which you seem not to understand.
The fact that Brady is unwilling to repeat that joke or that he is unwilling to concede that the joke is actually a serious reflection of his preference for ball inflation does not make him full of shit.
Which is probably why Brady had no intention of giving an inch on the subject in the appeal.ivanvamp said:
I read the whole report last night. (I don't recommend it, by the way) More than half of the appeal was devoted to Ph.D. arguing about what the analytic model was, or should have been. The only thing I got out of the exchanges was that Exponent wrote up their original report so poorly that no one could understand exactly what they did. Frankly everyone would have been better off just getting Snyder and the Exponent guy to talk to each other rather than to the lawyers. Yeah, I know that's not how it works in the legal setting, but there's a reason why "peer review" is a thing. That's the only real way to get at any of truth in the matter.
My other big takeaways:
1. Yee is even more incompetent than I imagined. Not once did he explain to Wells why they were declining his request for the text messages. Wells seemed almost plaintive about this, basically saying that if he had only know their rationale, maybe they could have talked it through, come to some other agreement or something. Just the possibility that this shitshow could have been avoided if Yee had been candid with Wells makes me sick.
2. Wells just couldn't get over the cell phone thing. Apparently it never occurred to him that Brady might have reasons for this other than impeding the investigation. He admits that the refusal basically soured him on all of Brady's testimony and made him question whether any of Brady's other answers were hiding something. My guess is that Mr. High-Priced Defense Attorney could never imagine a situation where he would have withheld evidence from an investigation -- IANAL, but that would be illegal in a criminal investigation, right? So he was shocked that Yee would do the same here, even though it was a completely different situation.
3. I'm a lot less convinced that the NFL Front Office pushed Wells to reach the conclusions he did. Kessler basically failed in trying to make the case otherwise. I mean, yeah, he got Pash to admit that he edited the report, which explains some of the more egregious language in the report IMHO, but Wells was adamant that the conclusions were his alone, and I believe him.
4. Othewise, the NFL front office doesn't look any better than they did before. The only guy who seemed to know what he was doing was Levy, the one who was running the meeting.
5. Kessler obviously felt that the court action was the real ballgame here. A lot of what he did during the appeal had no obvious purpose except to set the stage for the next round.
My other big takeaways:
1. Yee is even more incompetent than I imagined. Not once did he explain to Wells why they were declining his request for the text messages. Wells seemed almost plaintive about this, basically saying that if he had only know their rationale, maybe they could have talked it through, come to some other agreement or something. Just the possibility that this shitshow could have been avoided if Yee had been candid with Wells makes me sick.
2. Wells just couldn't get over the cell phone thing. Apparently it never occurred to him that Brady might have reasons for this other than impeding the investigation. He admits that the refusal basically soured him on all of Brady's testimony and made him question whether any of Brady's other answers were hiding something. My guess is that Mr. High-Priced Defense Attorney could never imagine a situation where he would have withheld evidence from an investigation -- IANAL, but that would be illegal in a criminal investigation, right? So he was shocked that Yee would do the same here, even though it was a completely different situation.
3. I'm a lot less convinced that the NFL Front Office pushed Wells to reach the conclusions he did. Kessler basically failed in trying to make the case otherwise. I mean, yeah, he got Pash to admit that he edited the report, which explains some of the more egregious language in the report IMHO, but Wells was adamant that the conclusions were his alone, and I believe him.
4. Othewise, the NFL front office doesn't look any better than they did before. The only guy who seemed to know what he was doing was Levy, the one who was running the meeting.
5. Kessler obviously felt that the court action was the real ballgame here. A lot of what he did during the appeal had no obvious purpose except to set the stage for the next round.
AB in DC said:
If your takeaways are accurate, not sure why the NFL objected to the transcripts being released. It seems there's not much to see here and may even be be a net negative for Brady if he comes off as too defensive in his testimony. Maybe I was just hoping too much for a bigger boner from the NFL.
The report is already going through the spin cycle. Different media members are latching onto specific parts, applying their own context/weight to that part and are using that to further push the opinion they had already formed from before this was released.riboflav said:
Neither side benefits from this.
I usually don't do this, but I'm not checking back to see if anyone has posted the link to Deadspin's rundown of the transcript.
http://deadspin.com/here-is-the-transcript-from-tom-bradys-appeal-hearing-1722113452
Some of you are actually going through the transcript. Curious to see how the rundown compares.
One of the things that stands out for me is how painfully obvious the difference between Tagliabue and Goodell is. Lawyers get stuck in cases with science that's way over their heads on a regular basis. Eventually, I learned how to educate myself about the narrow topic at hand enough to deal with it and -- most importantly guide the real experts through the trial process in a way that gets their points across. I think Tagliabue would have been able to deal with the science here. Goodell cannot. I'm not suggesting that "all lawyers good," "all not-lawyers incompetent." But as this process has morphed from a Joe Torre-ish "how many games do we give the guy that threw the beanball" into an actual legal-like thing, Goodell, as he has in other quasi-legal contexts, gets exposed. The lawyers in the NFL office must be cringing that Chauncey Gardner is Commissioner.
And this:
.
http://deadspin.com/here-is-the-transcript-from-tom-bradys-appeal-hearing-1722113452
Some of you are actually going through the transcript. Curious to see how the rundown compares.
One of the things that stands out for me is how painfully obvious the difference between Tagliabue and Goodell is. Lawyers get stuck in cases with science that's way over their heads on a regular basis. Eventually, I learned how to educate myself about the narrow topic at hand enough to deal with it and -- most importantly guide the real experts through the trial process in a way that gets their points across. I think Tagliabue would have been able to deal with the science here. Goodell cannot. I'm not suggesting that "all lawyers good," "all not-lawyers incompetent." But as this process has morphed from a Joe Torre-ish "how many games do we give the guy that threw the beanball" into an actual legal-like thing, Goodell, as he has in other quasi-legal contexts, gets exposed. The lawyers in the NFL office must be cringing that Chauncey Gardner is Commissioner.
And this:
.
Agree 100%. It seems as though Yee was playing tough guy because he thinks that's what litigation clients want.
AB in DC said:
I've read a good majority of it, I did skip over a lot of the Exponent stuff once it got to a point.
Kessler definitely didn't push as much as he should in certain areas. I think he let Vincent off lightly. I'm surprised he didn't reference the San Diego Chargers towel incident at all.
Wells comes off bitter, much like he did in the press conference/call. I fully agree with point #2. Wells is painting it that if Brady just showed him the phone's contents (or through a proxy) then this would have been all closed up on 3/6 and no more investigation. He's so hung up on the phone, it clouds his entire investigation. Once Brady didn't give him the phone's contents, he should have just written the report in one sentence:
"Tom Brady wouldn't give me his phone, so he must be guilty"
I love that Vincent only read the report, didn't look at any interview transcripts or other materials, he just read the report and ruled off the report. A report that his own legal council edited, left out huge amounts of information and was poorly written. Shows what a dolt he really is.
I think it's because the answer requires some subtlety/shades of grey that clearly the NFL and their legal counsel have no interest in.( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Like I never thought about air pressure this much before a game, normally I trust Jastremzki to do his job. Or I normally don't think about air pressure this much because I never thought that one of the equipment guys may have been fucking around
For all we know, Brady could be saying he likes those deflated balls because they mean Gronk and the Pats just scored a TD.Average Reds said:
This is one of my favorite exchanges, from Kessler crossing Exponent's Principle Engineer Caligiuri (pg. 368):
See, if the officials had someone as skilled as McNally, who was able to deflate a dozen footballs in a bathroom in 90 seconds, then this wouldn't be an issue at all!
See, if the officials had someone as skilled as McNally, who was able to deflate a dozen footballs in a bathroom in 90 seconds, then this wouldn't be an issue at all!
Joshv02 said:
Correct, because it applies to the team, not to the players, which is the point. There should be no penalty for a player. I'm sure the players were generally aware about the towels.
The best part about that quote is that he doesn't accurately articulate what an average is. All 11 balls do not have to be tested within 2 minutes for the average time to be two minutes. Kessler gets him eventually there but it's amusing.semsox said:
Can either of you explain the Yee thing more? I know he has been called out previously but what exactly did he do in not handing over the cell phone that was egregious? Was i justt not giving a reason or is there more to it?joe dokes said:
If this was posted previously, sorry. Here's cbssports.com take on the difference in penalties between the pats and other ball / air pressure violations:
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25260183/nfls-response-to-vikingspackers-differs-greatly-from-pats
There is as much actual, concrete evidence against Rodgers attempting to inflate the football as there is against Brady attempting to deflate the ball. (Circumstantial evidence? Totally different situation.)
But Brady and New England are subject to a multi-million investigation over the course of many months, while Rodgers is considered unworthy of a follow up.
The methodology for deciding when to conduct an investigation feels very arbitrary.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25260183/nfls-response-to-vikingspackers-differs-greatly-from-pats
There is as much actual, concrete evidence against Rodgers attempting to inflate the football as there is against Brady attempting to deflate the ball. (Circumstantial evidence? Totally different situation.)
But Brady and New England are subject to a multi-million investigation over the course of many months, while Rodgers is considered unworthy of a follow up.
The methodology for deciding when to conduct an investigation feels very arbitrary.
Also, though I'm sure exactly what I was expected, but the appeal seemed a bit less of a kangaroo court as I thought it would be. If you came into the appeal thinking that Brady was guilty, I didn't see anything in the transcript that would have convinced you otherwise. Ditto if you came in thinking that Brady was innocent. At times, Brady sounded confident and convincing; at other times, he seemed evasive. Kessler's scientist made some good points, but Exponent rebutted them fairly well too. The process itself was flawed, of course, but from reading the transcript it seemed like everyone made the best of it.
Though I have to say, I still don't understand why Kessler/Yee bothered to submit an analysis of Brady's other two phones; no one mentioned it all except to point out that neither of them had the messages that Wells was looking for.
Though I have to say, I still don't understand why Kessler/Yee bothered to submit an analysis of Brady's other two phones; no one mentioned it all except to point out that neither of them had the messages that Wells was looking for.
I think the transcript release is more positively to Brady's benefit than to the NFL, for one reason: prior to this, we'd only heard multiple leaks from the NFL, all aimed at making the Patriots look bad.
The transcript actually contradicts multiple NFL people's leaks and proclamations made in the media.
So while Tom Brady's credibility remains the same if you were already predisposed to think one way or the other, the NFL's credibility, on the other hand, had nowhere to go but down.
The transcript actually contradicts multiple NFL people's leaks and proclamations made in the media.
So while Tom Brady's credibility remains the same if you were already predisposed to think one way or the other, the NFL's credibility, on the other hand, had nowhere to go but down.
The fact that the Wells report blatantly mis-characterizes Brady's interview answers re: what he talked to Jastremski about in January is pretty damning.
It makes it seem as if Brady claimed he talked to Jastremski, couldn't remember what he talked about, but then remembered it was all just about ball prep. This, of course, immediately smacks of bullshit because any normal person would have at least talked a little about the storm surrounding the balls, and what might have happened, etc..., especially if they were innocent.
Well, it turns out, Brady did say he talked to Jastremski about the curious case of the balls and what might have happened.
I don't see how any sane person can look at the Wells report and not conclude that it was drafted specifically to make Brady look dishonest and support the general "incredibility" position that Wells/Goodell/Vincent stake their punishment on. It's real Italian Court System bullshit.
It makes it seem as if Brady claimed he talked to Jastremski, couldn't remember what he talked about, but then remembered it was all just about ball prep. This, of course, immediately smacks of bullshit because any normal person would have at least talked a little about the storm surrounding the balls, and what might have happened, etc..., especially if they were innocent.
Well, it turns out, Brady did say he talked to Jastremski about the curious case of the balls and what might have happened.
I don't see how any sane person can look at the Wells report and not conclude that it was drafted specifically to make Brady look dishonest and support the general "incredibility" position that Wells/Goodell/Vincent stake their punishment on. It's real Italian Court System bullshit.
Had a long post that was just lost, which annoys me. The content of the post was that we need to be very careful not to buy the clear implication from Ted Wells testimony that all of this would have been avoided if Brady had simply complied with his request for phone records. Because that's clearly false.
The Wells Report took months and cost $5 million and came up with some texts which could be interpreted any number of ways depending on the bias of the observer and a skewed scientific report that made it seem possible that something happened. That wasn't going to cut it, so they needed something else to justify the expenditure and the coming punishment. Because it's now very clear that Goodell was going to punish the Pats and Brady all along and the report was merely the vehicle for allowing it.
The entire issue surrounding Brady's phone was a case of entrapment. Wells knew he wasn't getting Brady's personal cell phone or his cell phone records because he wasn't entitled to it. And when he did not indicate that there would be any consequences for Brady to refuse the request, he made it easy for Brady to decline. And then he used that refusal as the cornerstone of the conclusion that Brady had to have known of the deflation that may (or may not) have occurred.
Far be it from me to defend Don Yee, but the idea that all of this could be avoided if only Yee had explained to Wells the reason for the refusal or if they had simply complied with the initial request for records is comical. Wells clearly knew the reason (after all, another player apparently did the same) and he didn't care. And thinking that if Brady had only supplied records this would have gone away is also false. I mean, he did this at his appeals hearing and Goodell used the fact that the records were comprehensive to claim that using records at all was "not practical."
The NFL needed a fall guy to bail them out of their ineptitude. They also wanted a target to bully the NFLPA and the players themselves about the commissioner's disciplinary authority and Brady fit the bill.
The Wells Report took months and cost $5 million and came up with some texts which could be interpreted any number of ways depending on the bias of the observer and a skewed scientific report that made it seem possible that something happened. That wasn't going to cut it, so they needed something else to justify the expenditure and the coming punishment. Because it's now very clear that Goodell was going to punish the Pats and Brady all along and the report was merely the vehicle for allowing it.
The entire issue surrounding Brady's phone was a case of entrapment. Wells knew he wasn't getting Brady's personal cell phone or his cell phone records because he wasn't entitled to it. And when he did not indicate that there would be any consequences for Brady to refuse the request, he made it easy for Brady to decline. And then he used that refusal as the cornerstone of the conclusion that Brady had to have known of the deflation that may (or may not) have occurred.
Far be it from me to defend Don Yee, but the idea that all of this could be avoided if only Yee had explained to Wells the reason for the refusal or if they had simply complied with the initial request for records is comical. Wells clearly knew the reason (after all, another player apparently did the same) and he didn't care. And thinking that if Brady had only supplied records this would have gone away is also false. I mean, he did this at his appeals hearing and Goodell used the fact that the records were comprehensive to claim that using records at all was "not practical."
The NFL needed a fall guy to bail them out of their ineptitude. They also wanted a target to bully the NFLPA and the players themselves about the commissioner's disciplinary authority and Brady fit the bill.
Is there any appropriate reason for Wells' choice not to inform Brady what failing to provide the phone would mean?
Florio and NESN had stories up last night about Goodell mischaracterizing Brady's testimony about what those phone calls with Jastremski were about. That's the point that needs to be hammered home. Goodell was sneaky and that's why they wanted it sealed.
The entire NFL case relies on negative inferences against Brady. And even then, they have to pick and choose which data they consider to support those negative inferences.
The biggest bullshit factor in this entire fiasco is that, implicitly, the burden of proof has been on Brady to exonerate himself. But if he is innocent (which I believe he is), there's nothing he can do to exonerate himself because nothing happened with the balls.
It's like a judge demanding proof that you didn't know your wife was smuggling drugs in your car when, in fact, your wife wasn't smuggling drugs in your car.
"Did you talk about smuggling drugs with your wife?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I had no reason to believe she was smuggling drugs."
"I find your testimony un-credible. Guilty."
The biggest bullshit factor in this entire fiasco is that, implicitly, the burden of proof has been on Brady to exonerate himself. But if he is innocent (which I believe he is), there's nothing he can do to exonerate himself because nothing happened with the balls.
It's like a judge demanding proof that you didn't know your wife was smuggling drugs in your car when, in fact, your wife wasn't smuggling drugs in your car.
"Did you talk about smuggling drugs with your wife?"
"No."
"Why not?"
"Because I had no reason to believe she was smuggling drugs."
"I find your testimony un-credible. Guilty."
The biggest takeaway is they paid Exponent $600,000 for a pile of crap analysis. It probably worked out to 200 hours at $1000/ hr + $400K to make it say what they wanted it to say. Talk about a gun for hire.semsox said:
https://twitter.com/BenVolin/status/628716172490481664
Yee might have had many good reasons not to turn over the information. But it seems like he didn't explain any of them to Wells. In situation where I'm not complying with at least facially reasonable requests (which this is -- its a valid investigation, Wells is trying to get at least arguably relevant info), I've explained why. I never had a lawyer on the other side *not* explain. We may not like or agree with the explanations, but that's how professionals behave.
I know nothing of Yee's lawyer background. Some agents really practiced law. Some are Theo Epstein and Tony LaRussa -- skilled people with law degrees -- But not lawyers.
Taking Wells's characterization at face value, Yee saying "No and that's the end of it" is pretty close to unheard of without trying to discuss ways to get to, or close to, "yes." Maybe you can't actually get there.
From where I sit now, if Wells accurately characterized both the "two buckets " of info he was looking for, provided Yee with the search terms to give to his own searcher, and take Yee's word that he had a good faith search done, Yee's actions are inexplicable to me. They are not the actions of an experienced lawyer.
EDIT: Average Reds sez (my quote function is FUBAR):
But wasn't the search Wells asked Brady to do eventually done?
http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784
Maybe I'm confusing timelines. But I just don't see Wells's request -- if this was the request -- "search these terms; show us what you find; I'll trust you (yee/Brady) that you'll do it on the up-and-up" as problematic.
As far as Wells's conclusions go, maybe others have had different experiences, but I never had another lawyer refuse a discovery request without any comment at all.
Since the Commish actually used that D&C quote from Brady about Gronk spiking the ball, I think his lawyers should have insisted on playing the 7:00 AM interview segment to give the real flavor of it. Not that this would have swayed Glampers any, but just to make him squirm a bit on it.