#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[Investor 11]

Watching a replay of BB's second press conference back in January. I have a question:

Was any of his ball preparation stuff, the rubbing and so forth hat he went deep into, taken into consideration by the investigators? Or was it just temperature?

Going off memory here.... I believe they covered and acknowledged but given the time at which they said the rubbing had taken place enough time had elapsed for the temperature to equalize. I believe 2:30 was the supposed rubbing time if I remember correctly

 

[Leather]

I'd have at least liked to hear, "while I can not elaborate at this point, I am very disappointed by the Wells report and do not feel it paints an accurate picture".

Even an ounce of anger would have been nice to see...

You know that his agent was on CNN at the same time saying exactly that and more, right?

It's a long game, now. Pressing too hard at the outset is just going to look like he's desperate.

 

[Harry Hooper]

If they lose a 1st round pick it would be so, so, dumb.

 
Smacks of "Harrison Bergeron." I am cool with referring to the Commish as Diana Moon Glampers from here on.

 

[Van Everyman]

Just re-watching that presser I love when Belichick serves Curran (who I really like) about how vigorously the balls were rubbed up. "I mean, we're not polishing fine china here, Tom."

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

DDB and those who may have experience
doing internal investigations--I asked upthread but didn't get a response. Do you think the firm's work product (interview notes, etc.) qualifies for privilege purposes? PW was engaged to do fact-finding, apparently. But I'm not sure this is in anticipation, nor is it clearly rendering legal advice to the league. I mean, I'm sure they'd say it's all privileged, but is there a clear basis for that?

 
My assumption were I drafting the report would be that by making it public, there would be no privilege with respect to notes and prior drafts.  I would fight like hell that communications with my clients during the preparation of the report were still privileged.  That's a hard answer and might depend on the nature of the communication and its timing.  Edits by my client would be a difficult gray area, but my assumption would that they would have to be produced.  None of that, however, means that there actually are any drafts or notes.  It's quite common during an investigation to destroy them as you go along.  Often, investigative reports are kept in a meta-data free environment, and there is only draft of the report -- and when it's edited the original is overwritten.  There is no obligation to keep notes, if there is no litigation pending or threatened.  The only consequence to destroying them is that you might have to explain yourself later, and someone might take a negative view of what you did.  Here, it would be kind of interesting, given that the report blasts Brady for not turning over his cell phone, if they destroyed drafts and notes.  But in a litigation context, if it's part of your standard practice, you really only have to account for or can be held accountable for destroying notes or drafts if there was a pending claim and there is a suggestion you did it to hide evidence.
 
Even if drafts and notes exist, and even if privilege has been waived, that still doesn't mean anyone can get them.  There needs to be a subpoena or rule requiring their production, and for a subpoena or judicial compulsion there needs to be some kind of judicial process -- a lawsuit in which the documents are relevant, a crime committed, etc.  Arbitrators usually don't have subpoena powers, and there is not typically in arbitration a duty to disclose all relevant information like there is in-court litigation.  So, the question whether they are privileged may be academic.  There also is the court of public opinion, and certainly, a press outlet could write a letter asking for these documents.  In that case, the NFL would face the question whether they want to voluntarily provide the documents, and the balance would be the negative impact of doing so versus the negative impact of showing the world what's in the documents.  A problem with a voluntary production, though, is that it's impossible to know whether the production is complete.  In the litigation context, if you're discovered to have withheld documents, you can get hammered.  But in a voluntary production, there is no consequence to simply producing what you want to produce -- although, if you're the NFL you might want to be careful before you burn the New York Times.  ESPN?  You likely don't care if Brady's lawyer comes forward and shows that your production was incomplete.

 

[Hoya81]

"If a prominent [NFLPA member] were to provide all private communications absent a subpoena, this would set a dangerous precedent."- Don Yee
— PatriotsSB50 (@PatriotsSB49) May 8, 2015

 

[Myt1]

My assumption were I drafting the report would be that by making it public, there would be no privilege with respect to notes and prior drafts.  I would fight like hell that communications with my clients during the preparation of the report were still privileged.  That's a hard answer and might depend on the nature of the communication and its timing.  Edits by my client would be a difficult gray area, but my assumption would that they would have to be produced.  None of that, however, means that there actually are any drafts or notes.  It's quite common during an investigation to destroy them as you go along.  Often, investigative reports are kept in a meta-data free environment, and there is only draft of the report -- and when it's edited the original is overwritten.  There is no obligation to keep notes, if there is no litigation pending or threatened.  The only consequence to destroying them is that you might have to explain yourself later, and someone might take a negative view of what you did.  Here, it would be kind of interesting, given that the report blasts Brady for not turning over his cell phone, if they destroyed drafts and notes.  But in a litigation context, if it's part of your standard practice, you really only have to account for or can be held accountable for destroying notes or drafts if there was a pending claim and there is a suggestion you did it to hide evidence.
 
Even if drafts and notes exist, and even if privilege has been waived, that still doesn't mean anyone can get them.  There needs to be a subpoena or rule requiring their production, and for a subpoena or judicial compulsion there needs to be some kind of judicial process -- a lawsuit in which the documents are relevant, a crime committed, etc.  Arbitrators usually don't have subpoena powers, and there is not typically in arbitration a duty to disclose all relevant information like there is in-court litigation.  So, the question whether they are privileged may be academic.  There also is the court of public opinion, and certainly, a press outlet could write a letter asking for these documents.  In that case, the NFL would face the question whether they want to voluntarily provide the documents, and the balance would be the negative impact of doing so versus the negative impact of showing the world what's in the documents.  A problem with a voluntary production, though, is that it's impossible to know whether the production is complete.  In the litigation context, if you're discovered to have withheld documents, you can get hammered.  But in a voluntary production, there is no consequence to simply producing what you want to produce -- although, if you're the NFL you might want to be careful before you burn the New York Times.  ESPN?  You likely don't care if Brady's lawyer comes forward and shows that your production was incomplete.

Under the FAA and many state statutes, arbitrators do have subpoena power. Under the FAA, they just have to have the district court enforce them.

Things change as to third parties, discovery vs. hearing, etc. and vary by circuit. But they generally have subpoena power.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

After thinking about this for 24 hours, I guess I have one prevailing thought that's not particularly notetworthy, but it's how I look at it.  
 
What bothers me is that the entire narrative on this is being driven, and punishment may likely be imposed, on one person's opinion about what the evidence supposedly shows more probably than not.  That is, the report is a bit different from how I think of investigative reports in that it not only states the facts, but also gives a jury verdict on what those facts mean.  

 
This is pretty much my take as well. You can take the exact same "facts" and come up with "we can't conclusively prove that Brady instructed to cheat or cheated himself."
 
Instead, we get the (NFL's version of) "guilty" verdict without the proof. That's why I mentioned Rashomon before. Truth lies not in some undisputable set of facts but one man's point of view. Unfortunately that means:
 

 

[simplyeric]

Who will he sue and for what?

I don't really think he's going to 'sue' so much as appeal any discipline in a way that tries to really get a lot of info on the table.

But im wondering: could he try to claim workplace harassment or something, in that he's being arbitrarily disciplined? I assume he wouldn't get paid for any suspended games, so the loss of income would serve as the jumping point for damages.

The NFL obviously has really broad rights to discipline players. But they don't have the right to harass a player, I would think. This sure as hell seems like harassment.

Again: I don't tealy think he's goingto sue, but is that angle at all possible?

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Under the FAA and many state statutes, arbitrators do have subpoena power. Under the FAA, they just have to have the district court enforce them.
Things change as to third parties, discovery vs. hearing, etc. and vary by circuit. But they generally have subpoena power.

Right, good point. If it's an AAA arbitration or something. My statement was way too broad. I assumed that player discipline arbitrators don't issue subpoenas, but maybe they can and do.

 

[simplyeric]

 
The discussions about weather effects on pressure have been filled with half-informed idiocy since the beginning of this, and a whole shitload of "three blind men and the elephant" type conclusions from people who know just enough to be convincing while still being wrong. 
 
Rather than contribute to the noise with my own analysis, I will simply point out one glaring hole in the Exponent models/assumptions: they don't specify or account for any difference between wet-bulb vs dry-bulb temperature. 
 
Take off your shoes, and pour some water on one of your socks. Which foot feels colder? The evaporative cooling effect of the wet sock will accelerate the rate of heat-transfer between your wet foot and air, relative to the dry foot and the air. This is not just a perceptual difference: if you measure air temperature using two thermometers, one with a "dry" sensing bulb, and the other with a wet sock placed over the sensing bulb, you will get two different temperatures, possibly significantly different. See Wikipedia or some such for details, but this is an absolutely basic factor in things like HVAC engineering (and exactly the kind of thing that is commonly overlooked by scientists or researchers working in academia or the like). 
 
So using the outside air temperature as reported by the weatherman or whatever is not the correct way to model the surface temperature of a wet football, nor the effects of heat-energy on air-pressure inside the football. 
 
But more to the point, as someone said up-thread, the science procedurals really don't matter, because of the circular foundations of the conclusions: The report cites the Exponent analysis as the basis for its conclusions, while the Exponent analysis cites Wells as the source for the input assumptions. In other words, the report is saying, "Our conclusions are correct, if our assumptions are correct."
 
This is not independent, it's not objective, and it's not how you do science. It wouldn't even pass a basic engineering review. This is a (very good) example of advocacy. They are making an argument, not trying to objectively determine facts. 
 
Most especially, "reasonable assumptions" are not proof, nor even evidence. Since we are posting on a Red Sox message board, it would be reasonable for you to assume that I am a Red Sox fan, and that I therefore watched that game last night, and following that, that I was probably awake until at least about 10pm, since that's about when the game ended. That's a perfectly-reasonable scenario, based on perfectly-reasonable starting assumptions. But it's not even remotely close to "proof" that I was awake at 10pm. The fact that the assumptions are "reasonable" does not disprove the reality that I actually went to bed about 9pm, because I had an early appointment this morning. 
 
The sciencey-sounding stuff in the report is making a reasonable-sounding case, and presenting a reasonable-sounding narrative. But it's neither objective nor independent, and from an engineering perspective, the methodology and assumptions have significant flaws. The conclusions may be right or may be wrong, but they are not proved by the barrage of technical-sounding graphs and charts and numbers supplied in the appendix.
 
This is the engineering equivalent of a sales presentation, or better yet, a grand-jury hearing. Only the prosecutor gets to speak, only one side is presented, and no cross-examination is allowed. It is very easy to present a convincing and reasonable-sounding argument, when there is no opportunity for rebuttal. In a trial court, the Patriots would have the opportunity to present their side, to call their own experts, to question the technical-sounding sand thrown up in the air. In a scientific paper, peer-review would have (should have?) caught the sloppiness and circular reasoning of the models. In an engineering study of any importance, the client's own review engineers would have sent this back as unacceptable, or at best, as incomplete. 

My understanding of the wet bulb issue is that at the outside temp (40's) and humidity (70-ish%), wet bulb temps would bring the football down at most an additional 4d F.
It might affect the rate at which the balls came back to temperature. Seems pretty likely actually (the RH in the warmer room would be lower, so the evaporation would probably retard the re-absorption of heat by the balls), and result in slightly lower readings than pv=nrt suggests.

 

[J.McG]

Don Yee has appeared on CNN, MSNBC, and NPR tonight, per SI's Richard Deitsch (notes there may have been other appearances he's unaware of). Also notes Yee has yet to appear on ESPN, NFL Network, or Fox Sports, to his knowledge.

Can speculate as to Yee's strategy here, but guessing he's smart enough to know ESPN and its sports media cohorts have no real interest in reporting objectively on the subject (not to mention their role as conduits for the most damaging and inaccurate leaks from the league office).

 

[nattysez]

I'd have at least liked to hear, "while I can not elaborate at this point, I am very disappointed by the Wells report and do not feel it paints an accurate picture".

Even an ounce of anger would have been nice to see...

 
Yep.  Or how about "I didn't break the rules and I didn't tell others to do so for me.  I'll save any further comment for when things have settled down."
 
The "he doesn't want to screw up his later court case/arbitration excuse" holds no water.  The only way saying that he did nothing wrong causes him problems down the road is if he lying.

 

[Ed Hillel]

Bolden, Nink, McCourty all sending out rallying tweets. Nice to see.

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

 
Yep.  Or how about "I didn't break the rules and I didn't tell others to do so for me.  I'll save any further comment for when things have settled down."
 
The "he doesn't want to screw up his later court case/arbitration excuse" holds no water.  The only way saying that he did nothing wrong causes him problems down the road is if he lying.

 
I believe the commish has on more than one occasion cited continued denial as grounds for more severe discipline. Smarter to see what happens before saying anything. I'm actually surprised he has his agent coming out so strongly.

 

[DJnVa]

I'd have at least liked to hear, "while I can not elaborate at this point, I am very disappointed by the Wells report and do not feel it paints an accurate picture".

Even an ounce of anger would have been nice to see...

 
Why do you need to see it? His agent said it.
 
You know Brady is pissed.

 

[riboflav]

 
Why do you need to see it? His agent said it.
 
You know Brady is pissed.

 
Because nattysez says.

 

[Bongorific]

 
Yep.  Or how about "I didn't break the rules and I didn't tell others to do so for me.  I'll save any further comment for when things have settled down."
 
The "he doesn't want to screw up his later court case/arbitration excuse" holds no water.  The only way saying that he did nothing wrong causes him problems down the road is if he lying.

At which point the interviewer asks, what rules are you referring to? When you say you didn't tell others to break the rules for you, do you know if they broke the rules themselves? What was your relationship with these individuals?

Oh sorry, Jim, no follow ups please!

That looks even worse.

 

[PBDWake]

 
Yep.  Or how about "I didn't break the rules and I didn't tell others to do so for me.  I'll save any further comment for when things have settled down."
 
The "he doesn't want to screw up his later court case/arbitration excuse" holds no water.  The only way saying that he did nothing wrong causes him problems down the road is if he lying.

 
Jesus Christ. If he says that, then you ask why he didn't just turn over the relevant text messages and head this off at the pass. If he turned over relevant text messages that didn't incriminate him, and Wells incriminated him anyways, you'd wonder why he didn't turn over everything. There's nothing you can say to prove a negative here. There is no singular reaction that innocent people have to false accusations. The fact of the matter is that it is dumb for him to talk about this, especially as his rep is running the gauntlet of cable news now. You don't want to accidentally, innocently, say anything that could contradict him, and everything you say is going to be put on a teleprompter for him to respond to without having had time to prepare. You're then taking away time from what he was trying to say to demonstrate your innocence. Making any definitive comment tonight does nothing but hurt what you're trying to accomplish.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I am sorry I can't recall who first mentioned it a zillion posts upthread, but someone mentioned the long time it took to interview Brady was a signal that he was the target of the investigation from the early stages. Don Yee said tonight on CNN that Brady was essentially the last interview done by the Wells crew, and it seemed to me he indicated it was done not that long ago.
 
 
Edit: It was lambeau back on Jan. 23rd:
 
 

I don't like this. Goodell has hired a firm of ex-federal agents who spent three days in Boston interviewing 40 people, but not TB12. The lawyers here will know better, but my layman's understanding is that the target of an investigation is often approached last.
The wisdom of Tom speaking freely to the media for thirty minutes has been questioned. I wonder who's advising him.

 

 

[simplyeric]

Exponent was given the conditionals by Wells' team, which when considered makes it look like one of the lawyers did the calculations on his smart phone and gave them conditions to yield the desired result. Exponent, to their credit, makes a point that they had to use the numbers provided them by Wells' people, so that if the whole thing blows up in their face they have plausible deniability.

Here, in a nutshell are the problems, they requested that Exponent use a starting temperature of 65-67 (i.e. room temperature) but a halftime range of 71-74. So why would the clubhouse personnel be cranking the heat in the officials' locker room when it was empty? Or, if 71-74 was the actual temperature why use a lower temperature for the pre-game? To a casual observer this looks entirely like a case of Exponent's client looking for a favourable report and attempting to minimise the temperature change on the front end while maximising the rate of pressure increase on the back end. And for all that, combined with the time assumptions, they weren't able to produce a dramatic difference in expected pressure ranges.

If the temperature were constant (which I can give you assurance it was because new electronic heat sensor controls are really good at maintaining) the balls are within the expected pressure range. If the measurements happened a couple of minutes before they say they did, the balls are in the expected pressure range. But the conditionals set forth by Wells' investigators make it pretty clear that they started from the conclusion and worked their way backwards and massaged the evidence to fit the conclusions.

I agree that there are way too many variables involved and that the report is very selective about them.

But: the temp increase in the room could simply be that someone cranked the heat up because it was getting colder out. Or that the thermostat simply cranked up on its own because of cold air getting in.
There's no reason to assume the room stayed at a constant temp, because I assure you that HVAC systems are very often not good at maintaining temperature. They constantly struggle with peak loads, occupancy, hear and humidity from showers, lag times, cold air coming in from outside, a system that piggybacks from some other system, the thermostat could badly placed or even be in a different room. Even a stand-alone system can have trouble cycling on and off, oscillating between high and low set points as it warms up to 74, shuts off, then kicks back in at 69 or whatever.

Anyway, I don't think it really changed the situation much...the problem with their 'science' is that it's skewed by their assumptions. The contrary assumption is not any more valid.
But yeah, there are certainly perfectly legit ways to technically resolve the pressure difference absent any illegal intervention.

 

[J.McG]

Why do you need to see it? His agent said it. You know Brady is pissed.

Translation from former NFL agent/current law professor Andrew Brandt:
https://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/596471348240752640

https://twitter.com/adbrandt/status/596471348240752640

link to tweet

 

[LuckyBen]

@NEPD_Loyko: Don Yee says on CNN that Brady spent a full day answering questions from 4 lawyers and his cell phone was probed thoroughly.

this would be a pretty big contradiction right? Or did they ask for his phone a second time and were denied?

 

[Bongorific]

I still can't believe that of the thousands of former players to have on CNN prime time, they picked Shawne freakin Merriman

 

[soxhop411]

http://courses.unh.edu/class/201510/16974#.VUwq9ikChjJ.twitter

Deflategate is a course and UNH.

 

[riboflav]

this would be a pretty big contradiction right? Or did they ask for his phone a second time and were denied?

 
A cell phone is not the same as cell phone records. 

 

[Van Everyman]

Solid piece by Volin:

@BenVolin: Column: It takes a small leap of faith, but a case can definitely be made in Tom Brady’s defense http://t.co/4GV3UPvz5h

Hoping as a fan we see more of these dribble out as Goodell waits to see which way the wind blows.

 

[LuckyBen]

A cell phone is not the same as cell phone records.

In this case, Brady submitted to an interview, but he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and email) that [Wells] requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of [the] investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls).

I pulled this off of PFT, but everything I have seen is that they wanted to look into text messages which obviously aren't coming up on cell phone records.

Edit: I guess he could've given them the phone and said they couldn't read his texts which sounds absurd.

 

[twibnotes]

I still can't believe that of the thousands of former players to have on CNN prime time, they picked Shawne freakin Merriman

It's always interesting when the news media probes around something you know well. You suddenly realize: these people have no idea what they are talking about

 

[Marciano490]

Who will he sue and for what?

Not linking to the end of Rocky IV here as caused me to lose all respect and affection for you.

Pity. I used to like you.

 

[Dogman]

Not linking to the end of Rocky IV here as caused me to lose all respect and affection for you.

Pity. I used to like you.

 
 
Rocky ended the Cold War at the end of that one, mano.
 
Rocky V, my friend.

 

[Marciano490]

 
 
Rocky ended the Cold War at the end of that one, mano.
 
Rocky V, my friend.

I feel shame. Such shame. I'm throwing in the towel for tonight in slow motion.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Brady gets a two game suspension--appeals it just before season starts, plays against Pittsburgh and Buffalo, hearing held, suspension reduced to one game and he sits out the home game against Jacksonville as Jimmy G goes all Matt Flynn against them, getting the Pats a #1 pick in the offseason.

 
This seems like the most likely outcome except that the suspension & appeal would have played out long before the first game. If Brady has any suspension hung on him, can't imagine it'll start at any point except game 1. 
 
That is a huge FU to the Pats on their Thursday SB night. Pats haters will glee, and Kraft will really have some axe to grind. 

 

[Stu Nahan]

 
Smacks of "Harrison Bergeron." I am cool with referring to the Commish as Diana Moon Glampers from here on.

Does this mean he is going to shoot Brady?

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

The amazing thing about all this is that we still know very little about what, if anything, actually happened with the balls.
 
That said, anyone who has experience with a corporate investigation knows what the report represents.   It does not matter whether Brady is complicit in having footballs deflated below the limits specified in the league rules or not.  It is, essentially, the finding of the NFL's independent investigator and likely the one the league was looking for when the investigation was concluded.  This sort of thing happens in corporate America every day.  
 
The NFL will then hand down a penalty, Brady will move to have it overturned and then they will hammer out his final punishment.  He, like Kraft before him, will then accept that and everyone will move on.   There will be no lawsuits or anything else because, in the end, its best for Brady and his employers for this to go away ASAP.
 
This whole "story" and its related investigation has never been about fact-finding and getting to the truth.  Its about managing perceptions within and outside the league.  

 

[RG33]

Dear Mr. Goodell:

Sincerely, Tom

 

[RG33]

Seriously though, regardless of the veracity of anything and everything, I don't see how Goodell could go any other route than suspending Brady. Having found BB and Kraft completely unknowing of any charges, how can you dock the Patriots a draft pick or even fine them -- regardless of the activities of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum UNLESS you also retroactively do something to the Carolina Panthers? I mean, it was literally on national television that they were illegally doctoring a football during a game, after the referee inspection. . . . . . so if they dock the Patriots picks or even fine them, how is that any different from what the Carolina ball boys did? I know we are talking about Goodell here, but I think this would hard to defend.

I could see him suspending Brady based on the nonsensical "evidence", but I don't see how they could ever get away with doing anything to the organization. Couldn't the Patriots appeal and just bring that video clip to the Arbritrator and say "here."???

 

[Harry Hooper]

Does this mean he is going to shoot Brady?

 
Well, close enough. Freddie Coleman on ESPN Radio had Bill Plaschke on as a guest, and they both agreed that based on what they're hearing Brady is getting a 4-game suspension. Plaschke thought Brady might get it knocked down to 2 games or even 1 on appeal, while Coleman said it will stay at 4 games.
 
 

Seriously though, regardless of the veracity of anything and everything, I don't see how Goodell could go any other route than suspending Brady. Having found BB and Kraft completely unknowing of any charges, how can you dock the Patriots a draft pick or even fine them -- regardless of the activities of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum UNLESS you also retroactively do something to the Carolina Panthers? I mean, it was literally on national television that they were illegally doctoring a football during a game, after the referee inspection. . . . . . so if they dock the Patriots picks or even fine them, how is that any different from what the Carolina ball boys did? I know we are talking about Goodell here, but I think this would hard to defend.

I could see him suspending Brady based on the nonsensical "evidence", but I don't see how they could ever get away with doing anything to the organization. Couldn't the Patriots appeal and just bring that video clip to the Arbritrator and say "here."???

 
Coaches and teams don't have the same rights to contest disciplinary decisions as the players do. Basically they have to submit to whatever Diana Moon Glampers decrees.

 

[Jake Peavy's Demons]

The Patriots are forced to release Michael Buchanan and Kevin Dorsey as punishment. 

 

[djbayko]

@NEPD_Loyko: Don Yee says on CNN that Brady spent a full day answering questions from 4 lawyers and his cell phone was probed thoroughly.

I don't think I've seen anyone address this yet. Yee did NOT say the bolded portion. If he had, it would have been a very interesting turn of events, to be sure.

After Yee addressed at length a question from Rachel Nichols regarding why they didn't turn over the text messages...

Anderson Cooper then asked: What if Brady had texts that shed him in s good light - for example, showing how surprised he was regarding this whole investigation...wouldn't he want to share those?

Yee answered: "Well I can share with you, without getting into the specifics of Tom's testimony, (in) nearly an entire day of answering questions from four different lawyers, that area was probed pretty vigorously,"

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Well, close enough. Freddie Coleman on ESPN Radio had Bill Plaschke on as a guest, and they both agreed that based on what they're hearing Brady is getting a 4-game suspension. Plaschke thought Brady might get it knocked down to 2 games or even 1 on appeal, while Coleman said it will stay at 4 games.
 
 
 
Coaches and teams don't have the same rights to contest disciplinary decisions as the players do. Basically they have to submit to whatever Diana Moon Glampers decrees.

 
I fully understand that this is not a court of law and Goodell can pretty much do whatever he wants.  And I firmly believe he'll suspend Brady.  Four games would be out of this world ridiculous.  But I'd like to know exactly WHY Brady would be getting suspended.  What, exactly, did he do wrong?
 
It hasn't even really been established for certain that the Patriots' guys tampered illegally with the footballs.  It's possible - maybe more probably than not - but nothing REMOTELY definitive.  So really, we don't even know if anything nefarious was done AT ALL.
 
But if we assume there was, what evidence is there that Brady was involved?  The report states that it is more probable than not that he had a general knowledge of what was going on.  A "general knowledge"?  You can suspend a guy for having a vague idea that some low-level employees might have been pulling some stunts?  So anyone who has been doing steroids and gets a 4-game suspension….we can also suspend anyone else who "more probably than not had a general knowledge" of steroid use on the team?  Good god nobody will be left.
 
Moreover, the penalty is a minimum of a $25k fine, *per the precious NFL rulebook*.  Sure it can be more, but as I said in a previous post, that doesn't mean a minimum of a paltry $25k but oh you can go for a year suspension and loss of a first round draft pick.  Again, it's like punishing a jaywalker with 30 years in prison.  Or, as someone smarter than me put it, it's like punishing the jaywalker's MOM with a 30 year sentence for having a general knowledge that her son was a jaywalker.
 
The reputation hit Brady may take here…well…not much we can do about that - it doesn't materially affect the Patriots.  But if they lose Brady for a year and it submarines a season because of it…..that's very, VERY much worth fighting the league over.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Thank you Ben Volin for making the money point.  This has been ignored my all of the haters and most others.  And it's blindingly obvious but still needs to be said:
 

■ Brady never explicitly said anything about deflating the footballs under 12.5 PSI.
 
The report notes that McNally was very specific with referee Walt Anderson before the AFC Championship game that Brady prefers his footballs at 12.5 PSI, the lowest allowable amount.
And Brady has been very, very particular about the way he likes his footballs throughout his career.
 
In 2006, he and Peyton Manning were the catalysts for a rule change that allowed NFL teams to provide their own footballs for games. And Brady apparently was livid about the condition of the footballs in the Patriots’ win over the Jets last October, complaining that they felt like “bricks,” according to the report. Jastremski said he tested some of the footballs the next day, and some of them supposedly measured close to 16 PSI (although it is a bit hard to believe that the balls registered that high nearly 12 hours after the game).
 
But there’s not one iota of evidence in the report supporting the notion that Brady wanted his footballs below the legal limit. It’s certainly possible that McNally knew Brady’s preference for a softer football and simply let his imagination run wild, taking it upon himself to take air out of the football and curry favor from his quarterback.
 
Did Brady order the Code Red? Wells certainly didn’t find that out.
 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/07/case-can-made-for-tom-brady-defense/ShY2NpZCO4osD2kobkS2sN/story.html

 

[bluefenderstrat]

I don't think I've seen anyone address this yet. Yee did NOT say the bolded portion. If he had, it would have been a very interesting turn of events, to be sure.
After Yee addressed at length a question from Rachel Nichols regarding why they didn't turn over the text messages...
Anderson Cooper then asked: What if Brady had texts that shed him in s good light - for example, showing how surprised he was regarding this whole investigation...wouldn't he want to share those?
Yee answered: "Well I can share with you, without getting into the specifics of Tom's testimony, (in) nearly an entire day of answering questions from four different lawyers, that area was probed pretty vigorously,"

That makes more sense. I don't think Brady or his reps needed to ask the NFLPA whether it was a good idea.

 

[dcmissle]

Seriously though, regardless of the veracity of anything and everything, I don't see how Goodell could go any other route than suspending Brady. Having found BB and Kraft completely unknowing of any charges, how can you dock the Patriots a draft pick or even fine them -- regardless of the activities of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum UNLESS you also retroactively do something to the Carolina Panthers? I mean, it was literally on national television that they were illegally doctoring a football during a game, after the referee inspection. . . . . . so if they dock the Patriots picks or even fine them, how is that any different from what the Carolina ball boys did? I know we are talking about Goodell here, but I think this would hard to defend.

I could see him suspending Brady based on the nonsensical "evidence", but I don't see how they could ever get away with doing anything to the organization. Couldn't the Patriots appeal and just bring that video clip to the Arbritrator and say "here."???

I spelled out a route last night that hits the Pats hard and leaves Brady alone.

Here is what somebody has to explain to me: how can a player be suspended for what he knows?

I don't see how that can possibly stand. And that's why they threwthe impede-the -investigation point in.

So if he is suspended, it's an all out ground war that will take months to resolve.

 

[JokersWildJIMED]

Boston media is often accused of being parochial and imho seems to often go out of their way to look the opposite (Ryan / CHB / Jackie). However it seems interesting and slightly hopeful that some of the more "influential" nfl media types have been far more measured in their response. Peter King who we all hate is openly stating Brady should not be suspended, Florio has been measured in his countless write ups, and even mike and mike (hardly nfl heavyweights) have been ok. Although I fully expect a three game suspension I still have a scintilla of hope it will be zero
Unrelated point: The person Wells decides to lauds in the report and rely on is Walt Anderson, who demonstrated this to Wells by remembering (with conviction) that the patriots footballs were at 12.5, despite the fact that had been widely reported for weeks after the afccg, the same Walt Anderson who lost the game balls before kickoff and thought nothing of it. That's your guy Wells!

 

[Joshv02]

I spelled out a route last night that hits the Pats hard and leaves Brady alone.

Here is what somebody has to explain to me: how can a player be suspended for what he knows?

I don't see how that can possibly stand. And that's why they threwthe impede-the -investigation point in.

So if he is suspended, it's an all out ground war that will take months to resolve.

Again, what obligation does Brady have to cooperate by providing text messages, and if none, on what basis could that be a violation under the cba?

The team is obvious.

 

[Marbleheader]

$100,000 fine. That's the going rate for breaking the rules I hear.

 

[Fred in Lynn]

Seriously though, regardless of the veracity of anything and everything, I don't see how Goodell could go any other route than suspending Brady. Having found BB and Kraft completely unknowing of any charges, how can you dock the Patriots a draft pick or even fine them -- regardless of the activities of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum UNLESS you also retroactively do something to the Carolina Panthers? I mean, it was literally on national television that they were illegally doctoring a football during a game, after the referee inspection. . . . . . so if they dock the Patriots picks or even fine them, how is that any different from what the Carolina ball boys did? I know we are talking about Goodell here, but I think this would hard to defend.

I could see him suspending Brady based on the nonsensical "evidence", but I don't see how they could ever get away with doing anything to the organization. Couldn't the Patriots appeal and just bring that video clip to the Arbritrator and say "here."???

The balls were all under the minimum of the range, however they got there. I could see the NFL levying a fine against the team, claiming negligence, but not suspending any individuals. They won't, but they could.

 

[HowBoutDemSox]

Here's what I want to know, and it doesn't look like Well's addresses it at all, but someone point it out to me if he did: what happened with the balls between testing and being carried out to the field during the Ravens game the week before?
 
Wells' thesis is pretty clear in footnote 34: during the regular season, McNally has the opportunity to mess with the balls in the official's locker room before the game, but during the playoffs, when the extra set of refs are in there, he had to use the bathroom to deflate the footballs: "Indeed, even the sitting area is generally quiet at that time during the regular season, unlike the busy scene during a playoff game."
 
But what happened during the Ravens game? That was a playoff game, with the extra set of refs hanging out in the official's locker room and, accepting Wells' accusations, preventing the normal chicanery by McNally from going down. Did McNally make a trip to the bathroom? Again, that's a playoff game, too, so according to Well's surmising in footnote 34, he would have needed to use the bathroom to deflate the balls there, too, right? To cite support their supposition that the bathroom trip at the AFC Championship Game was nefarious, they cite the NFL Security rep assigned to the Patriots as telling them that "Farley cannot recall McNally previously bringing game balls to the field prior to the start of a game without being accompanied by or in close proximity to one or more game officials." So, does that include the Ravens game, the very week before, right? And how about the disappearance of the balls, that so shocked Walt Anderson - did that happen the week before? Per footnote 4, the security footage is maintained for 10 days before being overwritten, so there is no excuse for the investigators not to have that at their disposal for a game that was only a week before, considering that NFL Security was on the case that very night, according to the report, and even if they didn't have the footage, interviews should have let them know if the balls were taken out to the field with the refs present or without them. At the very least, they should be able to tell if McNally carried the footballs out on his own, and if he visited the bathroom prior to stepping on the field, from the Ravens game.
 
I don't think the information would be dispositive either way, but it would certainly be interesting, and I think the burden is on Wells to mention it. When you write a 243 page report and you don't mention something, that's a conscious choice. And moreover, when Wells is citing text from before the season to support his conclusion that McNally is tasked with being "the deflator" - and that Brady knows that McNally does this - then I'd like to know a little more about prior games, other than Wells sinister musings in footnote 34, and specifically the game that had just happened, under very similar conditions, for which they should have been able to acquire the security footage. The only way Wells view makes sense is if this isn't a one-off event, but the report seems very focused on this one game. Some of that is because it's a playoff game, but wasn't the Ravens game also a playoff game? So why not delve into that? It's the best control case.
 
Maybe its in there and I'm just missing it, but I would think it would there and be there prominently. 

 

[86spike]

Seriously though, regardless of the veracity of anything and everything, I don't see how Goodell could go any other route than suspending Brady. Having found BB and Kraft completely unknowing of any charges, how can you dock the Patriots a draft pick or even fine them -- regardless of the activities of Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum UNLESS you also retroactively do something to the Carolina Panthers? I mean, it was literally on national television that they were illegally doctoring a football during a game, after the referee inspection. . . . . . so if they dock the Patriots picks or even fine them, how is that any different from what the Carolina ball boys did? I know we are talking about Goodell here, but I think this would hard to defend.

I could see him suspending Brady based on the nonsensical "evidence", but I don't see how they could ever get away with doing anything to the organization. Couldn't the Patriots appeal and just bring that video clip to the Arbritrator and say "here."???

IMO, Goodell will discipline the Pats organization for a lack of full cooperation with the investigation (a serious charge) with a "history of infractions" kicker (which is lame, but totally his style).

That's what makes this different from those other cases.