I would say at this point most posters seem confident to very confident that Brady's suspension is halved to overturned completely. Tell me why I should not be confident and why I'll need to learn to spell Jimmy G's last name correctly by September.
#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
Average Reds said:
It is in the sense of the federal crime of obstruction is somewhat analogous to the NFL "crime" of "non-cooperation." And the complaints of "no underlying crime" are, IMO, analogous to the complaints of "there wasn't even any deflation."
HowBoutDemSox said:
I have many problems with Wells' report, but I think this particular illustration is flawed, and it starts with the author's false premise that "many things can be 'more probable than not' that do not satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard."
We don't evaluate probability in a vacuum. The author says it's "perfectly rational" to find it "more probable than not" that Brady Anderson used steroids, "even if there is no evidence" that he did so. Actually, if there's no evidence whatosever, then it's not perfectly rational to conclude that he probably used steroids... in fact, it's not rational to draw any conclusions. In this example, the evidence of steroid use is the spike in homerun totals and change in physique. Obviously, this is extremely weak evidence to support such a damning conclusion, but the author suggests that it is not "evidence" at all. The only explanation I can think of is that he defines "evidence" as "direct evidence" or a "smoking gun," and everything else is just noise.
The real issue, as I think the author explains better in his next example, is that the preponderance of the evidence standard requires exploring facts and possible explanations that challenge the narrative. Wells didn't do that -- at least not in writing.
Wells makes a big deal out the lack of cooperation because he couldn't get a 5th interview with McNally, but it has since come out that Wells was offered a phone interview, which he turned down. He might not have thought it worthwhile, but if you're going to make a big deal out of lack of cooperation, how do you justify leaving out an attempt at cooperation? Wells not only wasn't interested in being fair, he didn't even care to appear fair.Van Everyman said:
One angle to this that is getting buried nationally because it's inconvenient to Wells and the NFL is the extraordinary demand for all electronic data from Brady wrapped in the wriggle words "relevant to the investigation". The only reporter who answered honestly when asked if they would turn over the same in Brady's position was Sheftner. Wells takes Brady refusing to turn over his "relevant data" as basically a "guilty" plea.
From the class of individuals who protect their electronic communications most fervently,reporters, the embracing of Wells approach would seem problematic. In fact, I bet this story would make far more sense if one could rifle through Scheftner's, King's, Florio's, Mortensons, Kravitz, "relevant" personal and work comms. Yee talked about precedent there and that refusing the idea that refusing private electronic comm qualitatively amounting to guilt and obstruction is an interesting legal approach that the NFL PA might embrace, They surely will want that in the CBA and not made up on the Ray Rice standard which is how it's been framed/referred to.
From the class of individuals who protect their electronic communications most fervently,reporters, the embracing of Wells approach would seem problematic. In fact, I bet this story would make far more sense if one could rifle through Scheftner's, King's, Florio's, Mortensons, Kravitz, "relevant" personal and work comms. Yee talked about precedent there and that refusing the idea that refusing private electronic comm qualitatively amounting to guilt and obstruction is an interesting legal approach that the NFL PA might embrace, They surely will want that in the CBA and not made up on the Ray Rice standard which is how it's been framed/referred to.
If Goodell or Henderson hear the appeal the suspension will not be reduced by more than a game. Only a truly independent arbitrator, which was not bargained for in the CBA, should provide such confidence. Absent that, it's onto federal court.riboflav said:
Are you saying that the timing of when the balls were deflated is not relevant (before handing them to the officials versus after) because that is how the post you quoted reads?dcmissle said:
Edit: i reread and see now that it is claiming after approval from the officials. I am simply not confident that this has been established.
riboflav said:
Here's the possible losing scenario for the Patriots.
Brady appeals. Goodell appoints himself or another guy from his office as the one to hear the appeal. Of course, because it's Goodell (or a lackey) he simply refuses to accept Brady's appeal. After all, if Goodell himself is handling the appeal, why on earth would he have any incentive to reduce the penalty?
So Brady then has a choice: Accept the suspension or file a lawsuit. He's more than capable of the lawsuit, but if he goes there, then his own texts, etc., probably have to be admitted as evidence. Maybe he doesn't want that. So maybe he really doesn't want a lawsuit. Maybe Goodell knows this (or suspects that it's more probable than not). And so he plays hardball with Brady. A little game of chicken.
dcmissle said:
Given that Jastremski and McNally were immediately suspended when the report was issued, it's pretty clear that the Pats would never argue this was acceptable. They may question whether the report is correct in concluding that tampering occurred, but actions speak volumes here.
BTW, I tried to send you a PM and you are not currently accepting them...
BigSoxFan said:
Kraft won't have an interest in supporting the union in the next CBA. He is still, after all, an owner, and the NFLPA is the opposition in the collective bargaining process. Goodell be damned - it's not about him when it comes to the CBA negotiations.
pappymojo said:
If you read it in context, it's clear that he's saying that timing is everything. Once the officials certify the ball, no one can change the inflation level(s) regardless except for a league official authorized to do so.
ivanvamp said:
What if the basis of the lawsuit is that an employer has no right to punish him for refusing to hand over his personal communications? (i.e. - some kind of invasion of privacy claim.) Then Brady may have his cake and eat it too.
ivanvamp said:
No, but I'm sure he'll be more than willing to try and negotiate discipline out of Goodell's hands and neuter him in any way possible in order as a trade off to keep the finances in their favor
Chicken works both ways in that scenario. Brady's lawyers would certainly push for any and all communications for individuals in the league office. That includes texts/emails/phone calls to the media and from other teams/owners who haven't previously been identified in this story. That's potentially more embarrassing for the league than anything else.ivanvamp said:
Myt1 said:
Yup.
People way overestimate how big a business the NFL is.
2014 NFL revenue: $~9B
2014 Goldman Sachs revenue: $~35B
2014 Coca-Cola revenue: $46B
2014 Caterpillar revenue: $55B
2014 ExxonMobil revenue: $438.2B
2014 Walmart revenue: $473.1
You get the idea.
The people who run such places, and who hire PW to make problems go away, and pay PW very large sums to do so, don't like the sight of PW clowning itself on a very public stage.
PBDWake said:
True. It still amazes me to hear people talk about the close relationship between Kraft and Goodell, as if that possibly could still be true.
MuppetAsteriskTalk said:
I don't really know how this all would work. He's suing over a suspension, not over not turning over his phone. Though obviously that's part of the reason for the suspension.
Hoya81 said:
Good point. Man, I'd *LOVE* to see all the texts and phone calls to and from the NFL front office in the lead-up to the AFCCG, and all during this entire investigation. Holy cow.
For example, consider Wetzel's piece today (I think it was posted last night).
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/this-is-how-the-nfl-let-deflate-gate-get-so-out-of-control-and-ridiculous-200459796.html
Now, consider the tweet from Mortensen that really launched this whole thing. I'd subpoena every single text message and phone record and email of every single person in the NFL offices to find out who was in communication with Mortensen at the relevant time. And then get the internal communications within the NFL office in the aftermath of that. See what was said, and by whom.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Goodell doesn't want THAT to come out.
A lot of the discussion is focused on discrete problems in the investigation or with pieces of evidence (full texts in full context v. cherry picking, what is preponderance, was the investigation biased, etc.)
Can someone post (or point me to a post) that lays out what the possible procedural path is? I assume there's an appeal to an arbitrator(s) allowed by the CBA? However, I don't know what standard will be applied, what the hypothetical time frame is, etc.
FWIW, I'll thrown in that preponderance (in most proceedings that involve a "final" determination of culpability/guilt) assumes all the relevant evidence is brought to the table and considered, not just the facts that favor one side.
Thanks in advance.
Can someone post (or point me to a post) that lays out what the possible procedural path is? I assume there's an appeal to an arbitrator(s) allowed by the CBA? However, I don't know what standard will be applied, what the hypothetical time frame is, etc.
FWIW, I'll thrown in that preponderance (in most proceedings that involve a "final" determination of culpability/guilt) assumes all the relevant evidence is brought to the table and considered, not just the facts that favor one side.
Thanks in advance.
PBDWake said:
I doubt it, but anything is possible.
Kraft may (again) insert himself into the process as something of an "honest broker" like he did last time, but his interests are aligned with the other owners. To the extent he is perceived as breaking ranks, it's just that - a perception. He's only going to disagree with his fellow owners on tactics. And while these tactics may be very important (since some owners don't seem to understand that a work stoppage means they lose regardless of what concessions they extract from players) he's still an owner.
As it relates to player discipline, the solution to an inept commissioner is to replace the commissioner, not to take power from the office and give it to a third party. But to your suggestion that he could help extract concessions from the NFLPA in return for a disciplinary process that excludes the commissioner but does not go outside the NFL, I guess that's a possibility. (However, I'm not sure why the players would trust this.)
Hoya81 said:
I would tend to agree.
I believe that the first step would be to ask for an injunction by demonstrating that irreparable harm would occur if the suspension were allowed to be imposed before the appeal could be heard. That process is quick and I can't see a court not granting it.
Average Reds said:
Okay and I am sorry to have misread the discussion.
I think that we can all agree that if McNally deflated the balls after the balls had been certified by the officials than this is a serious offense that should be punished by the league.
1) What evidence is there that McNally deflated the balls after the balls had been certified by the officials?
A) there are the half time measurements of the balls when compared against the pre-game measurements.
A1) the pregame measurements were not recorded and are only based on the official's best recollection.
A2) the half time measurements showed two separate results based on two separate gauges (the non-logo and the logo gauge). One of these gauges was faulty.
A3) the officials best recollection of his pregame measurements were that he used the faulty gauge.
A4) the half time measurements were only performed on 4 of the available 12 Colts balls.
A5) the comparisons of the half time measurements and the pregame measurement uses some assumptions to determine an expected outcome.
A5a) the temperature of the locker room.
A5b) the timing of when the balls were measured
A6) no measurements seem to have been performed on the Colts balls after the game.
B) McNally took the balls without an official from the officials locker room to the field. Along the way he stopped in the bathroom. Some claim that this is not a usual thing.
B1) the game had a delayed start.
B2) the crews of officials were not the regular season crews.
B3) some claim that it was not unusual for the ball attendant to take the balls without an official escort.
C) McNally's texts.
C1) are the texts proof that McNally deflated the balls?
C2) If McNally deflated the game balls prior to handing them over to the officials, would this be against the rules?
C3) are the texts evidence that McNally was deflating balls after the officials had certified them?
2) if McNally was deflating the balls after the officials certified them, was he working under directions from Brady?
E) Was Brady even aware that this was happening (if it was happening)?
F) What evidence is there of Brady's involvement?
pappymojo said:
That's kind of the entire point of this discussion, no?
There isn't any evidence that I am aware of that conclusively shows that to be the case. Wells concluded that it was more probable than not that it occurred.
I may agree or disagree with that conclusion, but I can at least see how he came to it. However, the rest of the report is nonsense, especially the conclusion that It's more probable than not that Brady was generally aware of the infraction that we think may have happened but can't really prove.
You might start here, Doty's decision in the AP case in Feb., which I posted last evening:Rovin Romine said:
http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2015/0226/DotyPetersonruling.pdf
There Goodell handed off review to Harold Henderson. I think the analysis and procedural pathway would be the same whether Goodell hands this off, or takes it himself.
I agree with your last point, though I am not sure the Report's failure to set forth all evidence is fatal, as it is not the legally operative document. Troy Vincent's decision is the "order", and one only can wonder whether he reviewed all of the facts. I tend to think not, though I would have advised it.
If you want to go to the source (jump to Article XI for the detailed procedure and timeline):Rovin Romine said:
http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/cba/nfl-cba-2006-2012.pdf
There's really nothing in the CBA to indicate what standard would be applied during the appeal hearing; it really could be up to the Commissioner. From what I've read, Brady's defense team will focus on the following:
a.) The holes in the Wells report, which, if established, could truly break the "more probable than not" finding of tampering.
b.) The lack of evidence implicating Brady.
c.) The severity of the punishment being excessive as compared to other, similar infractions that have occurred in the past.
But, technically, Goodell is still free to ignore all that and uphold the punishment.
Apologies Mods if this is redundant and needs to be merged, but I'm interested to try and break out some of the mess from the various mega-threads...
In Scotland's criminal system, they supposedly have three verdicts: Innocent, Guilty, and "Not Proved". Deflategate is not a Scottish criminal proceeding, but if it were, and if we were applying a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, I think the verdict would be "not proved", at least based on the evidence we know so far.
But the starting premise of this thread is a thought-experiment, where we assume that the stuff found to be "more probable than not" is factually true. I.e., we pretend that the Patriots did intentionally deflate game-day footballs after they had been approved by the refs, to PSI levels below rulebook requirements, that Brady at least knew that it was going on, and that this was a regular and ongoing thing that was rumored about in the league, until they got caught in the AFC championship game. From that point on, we resume reality, and only know what we know. My idea is to isolate the punishment phase of the discussion, from the fact-finding issues in the Wells report.
I bring this up, because my own gut reaction does almost a complete 180, if I make that starting assumption of outright and intentional guilt (which is not what I personally believe). Not that I think deflating footballs is something deserves the sentence handed down, but the post-event handling by Kraft, Brady, and the Pats takes on a really ugly and arrogant cast if they were in fact systematically and deliberately breaking the rules. Especially after the "learn the rulebook" snark, the public outrage, demands for apology, and "aww shucks" Brady presser all take on a very different tone, if they were part of a cover-up attempt.
So to start the game off:
I think this kind of harsh and vindictive punishment is not actually all that unreasonable. Is this a somewhat capricious personal vendetta? Yeah, but the Pats made it personal, with the demands for apology, the public outrage, promises of "full cooperation" and then being cagey with the evidence. They knew they were guilty. They had plenty of opportunity to take a contrite tack, or even a mealy-mouthed non-apology tack, something like, "if there were any irregularities in bal-handling we certainly intend to correct them and to comply fully with the letter of the rulebook going forward" or whatever, they could have even tried out the "everybody does it" defense (maybe the one time in the history of ever that might have gotten some traction)... But they went full-retard on the outraged victim play, all but publicly calling out Goodell by name and daring him to punish them.
They knew their own history, they knew the rumors, they knew they were breaking the rules, they knew they had a target on their back not only as convicted cheaters (justly or unjustly) but also as on-the-field rulebook-lawyers who knew and exploited every ambiguity they could find (that's something I love about this team, BTW). As always, the coverup is worse than the crime.
The NFL isn't governed by the kind of Constitutional protections and right to be a jackass that citizens have. It's a business, and when you publicly call out your employer and defy them to punish you, when you go on TV and lie about your workplace infractions, and swear that you have nothing to hide and demand an apology when you are inevitably vindicated, and when you do all that when you know you are guilty, then you can only blame yourself when the CEO goes nuclear on you for lying and hiding and covering up your mistake, no matter how trivial your mistake was.
Yes it's personal. The Pats made it personal. Yes it's capricious and arbitrary, but it's the NFL, not the Supreme Court. I don't like Goodell any more than anyone else, but 'm not surprised he threw the book at them.
In Scotland's criminal system, they supposedly have three verdicts: Innocent, Guilty, and "Not Proved". Deflategate is not a Scottish criminal proceeding, but if it were, and if we were applying a "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, I think the verdict would be "not proved", at least based on the evidence we know so far.
But the starting premise of this thread is a thought-experiment, where we assume that the stuff found to be "more probable than not" is factually true. I.e., we pretend that the Patriots did intentionally deflate game-day footballs after they had been approved by the refs, to PSI levels below rulebook requirements, that Brady at least knew that it was going on, and that this was a regular and ongoing thing that was rumored about in the league, until they got caught in the AFC championship game. From that point on, we resume reality, and only know what we know. My idea is to isolate the punishment phase of the discussion, from the fact-finding issues in the Wells report.
I bring this up, because my own gut reaction does almost a complete 180, if I make that starting assumption of outright and intentional guilt (which is not what I personally believe). Not that I think deflating footballs is something deserves the sentence handed down, but the post-event handling by Kraft, Brady, and the Pats takes on a really ugly and arrogant cast if they were in fact systematically and deliberately breaking the rules. Especially after the "learn the rulebook" snark, the public outrage, demands for apology, and "aww shucks" Brady presser all take on a very different tone, if they were part of a cover-up attempt.
So to start the game off:
I think this kind of harsh and vindictive punishment is not actually all that unreasonable. Is this a somewhat capricious personal vendetta? Yeah, but the Pats made it personal, with the demands for apology, the public outrage, promises of "full cooperation" and then being cagey with the evidence. They knew they were guilty. They had plenty of opportunity to take a contrite tack, or even a mealy-mouthed non-apology tack, something like, "if there were any irregularities in bal-handling we certainly intend to correct them and to comply fully with the letter of the rulebook going forward" or whatever, they could have even tried out the "everybody does it" defense (maybe the one time in the history of ever that might have gotten some traction)... But they went full-retard on the outraged victim play, all but publicly calling out Goodell by name and daring him to punish them.
They knew their own history, they knew the rumors, they knew they were breaking the rules, they knew they had a target on their back not only as convicted cheaters (justly or unjustly) but also as on-the-field rulebook-lawyers who knew and exploited every ambiguity they could find (that's something I love about this team, BTW). As always, the coverup is worse than the crime.
The NFL isn't governed by the kind of Constitutional protections and right to be a jackass that citizens have. It's a business, and when you publicly call out your employer and defy them to punish you, when you go on TV and lie about your workplace infractions, and swear that you have nothing to hide and demand an apology when you are inevitably vindicated, and when you do all that when you know you are guilty, then you can only blame yourself when the CEO goes nuclear on you for lying and hiding and covering up your mistake, no matter how trivial your mistake was.
Yes it's personal. The Pats made it personal. Yes it's capricious and arbitrary, but it's the NFL, not the Supreme Court. I don't like Goodell any more than anyone else, but 'm not surprised he threw the book at them.
pappymojo said:
I think it should be punished just as much as other ball tampering violations. The two most recent of which were:
2012 - San Diego used a stickum-laced towel to rub the balls down. They also failed to surrender the towels to the NFL. The punishment? A $20,000 fine.
2014 - The Carolina Panthers and Minnesota Vikings are seen on television during a game on a cold day taking their footballs to a sideline heater, hoping that warming them up would increase the air pressure within (hey, the Ideal Gas Law at work!). Tampering with footballs during a game by fiddling with the air pressure to get them as to a desired pressure. The punishment? Nothing. Just a warning.
So yes, what the Patriots did was serious. They broke an NFL rule (if, in fact, they actually did). And as a result, they should face the same penalty that other teams who broke the same rule received.
lexrageorge said:
And, I have to say, while I'm not really shocked by this, I'm sort of embarrassed that a document/agreement drafted by legal teams can have these sort of gaping omissions in it. You'd think both sides would benefit from the certainty of knowing what options are available to them. (Although I guess uncertainty could theoretically induce a reasonableness-lest-we-be-burned approach.)
Understand that there is no "law" here, certainly from the NFL's perspective. Thus it felt free to argue that it could punish twice, in the Ray Rice case, and punish retroactively, in the AP case. Judges Jones and Doty had different ideas.Rovin Romine said:
But you get the idea -- it's a jungle out there.
I doubt the Pats would have "made it personal" out of the gate had the NFL front office not been so actively engaged in smearing them every 10 minutes leading up to the Superbowl.
It got personal because both sides made it personal.
Also, Spygate disproves your contention that owning up to it and being contrite would lead to lesser punishment. The fact is, there is one rulebook for the Pats and another for the rest of the teams.
It got personal because both sides made it personal.
Also, Spygate disproves your contention that owning up to it and being contrite would lead to lesser punishment. The fact is, there is one rulebook for the Pats and another for the rest of the teams.
1. Brady/NFLPA file an appeal today.Rovin Romine said:
2. Goodell appoints a "hearing officer" after consulting with the Union. Could be him, could be someone else from the league, or could be a neutral. Article 46 of the CBA does not provide the Union with a right to a neutral arbitrator for this type of player discipline issue. (He has 10 days to appoint the hearing officer and hold the hearing.)
3. The hearing officer issues a decision "as soon as practicable" after the hearing.
4. The NFLPA can file a petition in federal court to vacate the decision under the FAA and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The standard of review is highly deferential to the "arbitrator's" decision. It is outlined in the Peterson decision from the D. Minn. (On appeal to the 8th Circuit.) http://stmedia.startribune.com/documents/Judge+Doty's+ruling+overturning+Peterson's+suspension.pdf
As to the standard of proof that the hearing officer should apply, that's an interesting question. Generally, labor arbitrators analyze employee discipline under a just cause standard, which requires, among other things, that the employer prove the rule violation with (typically) clear and convincing evidence. The NFL has previously stated that it would apply a preponderance standard to club violations, but I'm not sure it's ever done so w/r/t player discipline of this type, and the CBA is silent on the issue. I'm interested to see if the NFLPA argues that the preponderance standard was improperly applied.
If this is the first time the NFL applied that standard to player discipline, the NFLPA could also file a charge with the NLRB on the basis that the NFL unilaterally implemented the standard without bargaining. Typically, when such a charge is cognizable as a grievance under the CBA, the Board will defer to the arbitration procedure. I doubt this will happen here for a number of reasons--including the glacial pace at which the Board processes charges--but it is another potential pressure point.
Rovin Romine said:
Right. Even the lower "substantial evidence" threshold requires consideration of all the relevant evidence; the issue is whether there is enough evidence to reasonably support a particular conclusion. Obviously, the Wells Report doesn't provide much in the way of logical explanation for drawing some inferences and rejecting others. The entire report seems to be based on a few basic heuristics: (1) if there's smoke, there's fire... you just have to squint hard and find it; (2) people who are under official investigation will lie to protect themselves... therefore, any inconsistencies in their statements are proof of guilt; and (3) people who are not under official investigation have no incentive to lie... therefore, any inconsistencies in their statements have innocent explanations (e.g., poor recollection, science).
With all the deification of NYC/DC white-shoe lawyers in this thread, I can't believe Wells put his name on that drivel.
dcmissle said:
Gotcha. It just personally irks me since in my civil practice I see mostly the results of failure to contract (in the broadest sense) - which leads to so much stupidity in litigation. If I was drafting a CBA from the union side, I'd make sure there was an established and approved procedure for dealing with this sort of thing.
The two aren't mutually exclusive.troparra said:
There's plenty of smoke here without trying to argue that it's perfectly OK to deflate a ball after it's been checked by a ref so long a the deflation doesn't take it out of range.
The rule in general is stupid and poorly drafted for a lot of reasons. But we don't have to gild the lily.
pappymojo said:
Regarding A2, either or both gauges could be faulty. There's no calibration record on them.
Regarding A5, there's also the issue of wetness of footballs and its companion that the Pats balls got more use during the first half based on ToP. Were the 4 Colts balls taken from the middle of the bag and maybe drier, from the top and maybe wetter? No one knows.
In addition for A5, it's unclear just how many footballs were in the Pats bag went it went out onto the field--maybe 12, maybe 13, maybe 14, or more.
Edit: Regarding A6, the Wells Report says 4 balls for each team were randomly selected and measured post-game.
Edit2: Can't be repeated enough, the NFL's VP of Officiating Dean Blandino looks to be a liar.
OK, I'll bite.
Let's start from this angle: assume there is guilt. Then the question is: "who was guilty"?
I'll start with the most favorable assumption from the Patriots standpoint: McNally deflated the balls after inspection. That is undoubtedly a rules violation; the rule book explicitly states that the balls may not be altered or tampered once they are checked by the officials and released to the ball attendant. However, let's also assume that McNally did this without anyone's knowledge. He knows that Brady likes them on the low side, knows that Brady goes nuclear whenever they're too hard, and he likes keeping Brady happy as he gets autographed memorabilia, etc. As part of this scenario, not even Brady knows that McNally is de-juicing the balls after inspection.
In that scenario, the reactions of Brady, Belichick, and Kraft all appear quite reasonable. The NFL up to that point had been creating a witch hunt atmosphere, had been arbitrarily leaking stuff to the press ("distraught"), many of those leaks containing inaccurate information (11 of 12 balls being 2 psi under, etc.). Belichick (who, along with Kraft, was found to be "innocent" by the Wells report) is honest when he says he has no knowledge of how the balls are handled, and goes so far to sanction a scientific study of how the balls react under the principles of the Ideal Gas Law. Kraft, obviously bothered by the leaks, and convinced that there's nothing going on, puts the NFL on notice that he will demand an apology.
In this scenario, the attitude in the press conferences is just noise, noise that should have had no bearing whatsoever in the punishment. There is nothing in the rulebook that states the Pats have to bow down to what the mediots are saying, or have to admit "cheating" when there's no evidence or knowledge of it.
There are worse scenarios. Perhaps Brady was "generally aware" (I'm skeptical); perhaps he endorsed McNally's actions outright. So, Brady truly has some level of guilt in this scenario, which is consistent with the statements that Wells made. OK, so Brady gets whacked, and gets whacked again for being dishonest in his interview with Wells. But, again, the press conferences should have had nothing to do with anything. Nor should the "read the rule book" comment, which was directed at Harbaugh and the mediots, not the Commissioner. None of Brady's public comments are punishable offenses. No matter Brady's reaction, the punishment should fit the crime, and past punishments for similar violations should be used as precedents.
The 3rd scenario is that Brady, Belichick, and Kraft knew all along, and played the coverup game as you seem to imply in your email. I guess this is theoretically possible. Possibly Kraft assumed that there was no chance Wells would find anything incriminating, not realizing that McNally had texted with Jastremski about the topic. But accepting this scenario means also rejecting the findings in the Wells report that completely exonerated Kraft and Belichick. You cannot simply sweep that finding under the rug and say that Kraft/Belichick were wrong to defend themselves in the press conferences.
Finally, there's the way this was handled by the start. More than one respected media person has stated this whole incident could have been handled with a simple warning and token fine, and better oversight of the balls post-inspection.
So, it's not the Pats that made it personal. It was the small minds in the NFL office that made it personal. Kensil's purported statement to the Pats equipment manager was completely out of line and unprofessional. Goodell's cries about Belichick's "lack of contrition" made it personal. The inaccurate leaks from the NFL office on what should have been a private matter made it personal.
Let's start from this angle: assume there is guilt. Then the question is: "who was guilty"?
I'll start with the most favorable assumption from the Patriots standpoint: McNally deflated the balls after inspection. That is undoubtedly a rules violation; the rule book explicitly states that the balls may not be altered or tampered once they are checked by the officials and released to the ball attendant. However, let's also assume that McNally did this without anyone's knowledge. He knows that Brady likes them on the low side, knows that Brady goes nuclear whenever they're too hard, and he likes keeping Brady happy as he gets autographed memorabilia, etc. As part of this scenario, not even Brady knows that McNally is de-juicing the balls after inspection.
In that scenario, the reactions of Brady, Belichick, and Kraft all appear quite reasonable. The NFL up to that point had been creating a witch hunt atmosphere, had been arbitrarily leaking stuff to the press ("distraught"), many of those leaks containing inaccurate information (11 of 12 balls being 2 psi under, etc.). Belichick (who, along with Kraft, was found to be "innocent" by the Wells report) is honest when he says he has no knowledge of how the balls are handled, and goes so far to sanction a scientific study of how the balls react under the principles of the Ideal Gas Law. Kraft, obviously bothered by the leaks, and convinced that there's nothing going on, puts the NFL on notice that he will demand an apology.
In this scenario, the attitude in the press conferences is just noise, noise that should have had no bearing whatsoever in the punishment. There is nothing in the rulebook that states the Pats have to bow down to what the mediots are saying, or have to admit "cheating" when there's no evidence or knowledge of it.
There are worse scenarios. Perhaps Brady was "generally aware" (I'm skeptical); perhaps he endorsed McNally's actions outright. So, Brady truly has some level of guilt in this scenario, which is consistent with the statements that Wells made. OK, so Brady gets whacked, and gets whacked again for being dishonest in his interview with Wells. But, again, the press conferences should have had nothing to do with anything. Nor should the "read the rule book" comment, which was directed at Harbaugh and the mediots, not the Commissioner. None of Brady's public comments are punishable offenses. No matter Brady's reaction, the punishment should fit the crime, and past punishments for similar violations should be used as precedents.
The 3rd scenario is that Brady, Belichick, and Kraft knew all along, and played the coverup game as you seem to imply in your email. I guess this is theoretically possible. Possibly Kraft assumed that there was no chance Wells would find anything incriminating, not realizing that McNally had texted with Jastremski about the topic. But accepting this scenario means also rejecting the findings in the Wells report that completely exonerated Kraft and Belichick. You cannot simply sweep that finding under the rug and say that Kraft/Belichick were wrong to defend themselves in the press conferences.
Finally, there's the way this was handled by the start. More than one respected media person has stated this whole incident could have been handled with a simple warning and token fine, and better oversight of the balls post-inspection.
So, it's not the Pats that made it personal. It was the small minds in the NFL office that made it personal. Kensil's purported statement to the Pats equipment manager was completely out of line and unprofessional. Goodell's cries about Belichick's "lack of contrition" made it personal. The inaccurate leaks from the NFL office on what should have been a private matter made it personal.
This isn't quite true, Brady would be asking for emergency relief in setting aside the unprecedented punishment. Any lawsuit would be later, and it would need be the NFL that pursues it, and then they would be exposing all their communications with the "independent investigative team" as well as all the pre AFC title game communications between the Colts, Ravens, and NFL officials and all the stuff that's been flushed down the memory hole (the scheme by Kensil's underling to steal from charity) would not only be subject to discovery, but get a public airing, which would send this story beyond the general football public out into the wider world of news.ivanvamp said:
Once beyond that protective cocoon, where the "Cheatriots!" narrative won't govern all the news coverage, at least one media outlet is going to notice that the NFL office conducted a half-assed sting operation that compromised the integrity of a conference championship game and permanently tarnished one of the greatest Superbowls ever. Put another way, when a Federal judge grants Brady's petition for relief the NFL is going to "take their options under advisement" and finally let the story die.
I agree with this. Is it possible? Sure. Is it likely? I guess that's the gray area for opinion. Is it certain? No.Average Reds said:
And it's not "more probable than not that Brady was aware" (I don't think) It's more probable than not they were deflating footballs, and (I'm lost on the qualifier) Brady was generally aware. But that leads to a math problem -- if it's 70% likely they were deflating footballs, and 70% likely Brady was generally aware, there is a less than 50% likelihood that "Brady knew they were deflating footballs."
Lawyers, doesn't that mean the "more likely than not," on Brady, goes the other way? (It's 49% for lawyers who don't want to do math.)