#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[Average Reds]

 
Why can't he remove the team punishments if he can publicly admit to "new evidence" showing they were not guilty? Why would that mean he's in Kraft's pockets? I'm all for admitting defeat on this subject real soon because I definitely haven't lost sight of his miraculous ability to fuck things up, but the smart move is absolutely to drop it all. He's not backed into a corner on the punishments. He's the king-god-man of the NFL and he can, just like that, feel magnanimous enough to eliminate those punishments all he wants if he feels that (t)he (general public) believes that Brady is indeed innocent.

 
You are seriously wish casting if you think that Goodell will alter the punishment on the Pats in any way, shape or form or that he will admit that no crime took place.  To do so would destroy him with many of the other owners, which is the same as destroying him period.
 
Also, this idea that there is a growing consensus that "no crime took place" is nonsense.  The vast majority of fans, media members and (most importantly) owners believe that the Pats did something to the footballs.
 
He may be smart enough to vacate Brady's suspension, but that's it.

 

[RedOctober3829]

 

Mark Daniels ‏@MarkDanielsPJ  3m3 minutes ago
I've been told by an NFL spokesman that Ted Wells will attend Brady's appeal tomorrow and respond to any questions about his report.
 

 

[joe dokes]

 
My whole issue with "generally aware" is this:  Can we now essentially "prosecute" people for being "generally aware" of something?  How many Saints players were at least "generally aware" of the bounty issue?  How many Broncos players were at least "generally aware" that their OLinemen years ago were smearing themselves with vaseline illegally?  How many Seahawks players were "generally aware" of all their teammates using PEDs?  I mean, since when is being "generally aware" of something a punishable offense?  
 
Was Goodell at least "generally aware" of leaks in the NFL office during this episode?  Was he "generally aware" of the Ray Rice video?  Good grief.

 
I'm with you there. While Kessler is obviously there specifically for Brady, in the larger context, "generally aware" as sufficient to suport punishment should have the NFLPA really up in arms.

 

[yecul]

He'll reduce it 0-2 games. The justification for the lessening would be due to cooperating. He hands over his phone. He looks him in the eye. Whatever.
 
There will be no walk back of the accusations or the team penalty. There will be no sweeping removal of anything.
 
The reason this went forward is to save face. Suddenly that doesn't matter? Plus they actually believe the Pats did something wrong.

 

[ifmanis5]

Roger's in a tough spot. The facts of the case, both legal and scientific, seem to support the Pats and Brady. However, the overwhelming public support for slapping down the Pats (both inside and outside the league office) are pressuring Roger not to relent on this matter one inch. In fact, if he does cut the suspensions in any way, there will be an outrage most likely and Roger will be seen as in Kraft's pocket. So I see this going to court for sure since Brady won't stop until his reputation is vindicated.

 

[soxhop411]

 

 

[soxhop411]

“@cpriceNFL: The possibility of Ted Wells and Don Yee in the same room? Mmm hmm. http://t.co/McrHs5otPb”

 

[Ed Hillel]

Wells is going to be there answering questions!? Hahahaha, these guys are braindead.

Who needs discovery when you're going to voluntarily enter all of this into evidence?

 

[tims4wins]

They should live stream tomorrow and PPV it. I'd take the day off from work and pay $100 to watch it.

 

[Shelterdog]

Wow, a league source reached out to Yahoo and said that about Brady never being informed he wasn't in compliance? Either there's a rogue in there, or the NFL is backing up the truck.

Edit - Or I guess league source could be a Pats guy. He should have pointed that out, if so.

And Robinson ignores the science. Blah.

 
"League sources" are frequently agents.

 

[Bleedred]

Would it behoove Brady to have a scientific expert at the hearing, or is this not the time or place?   

 

[bankshot1]

I just heard on Zo/Bert that Wells will be at the appeal and is ready to answer all questions and apparently address the AEI  report.
 
That I would pay to hear.

 

[amarshal2]

So Wells will get to respond to AEI but the AEI guys won't be there.  Sounds fair.
 
Edit: Sounds to me like the NFL is preparing to double down and uphold the suspension.  If they were actually interested in the truth they would invite AEI.  You would think they would be interested in appearing to be interested in the truth and would invite AEI but perhaps that opens them up to more exposure of running a kangaroo court with a pre-determined outcome.

 

[Bleedred]

I just heard on Zo/Bert that Wells will be at the appeal and is ready to answer all questions and apparently address the AEI  report.
 
That I would pay to hear.

I really hope Brady has someone on his side who knows the AEI report backwards and forwards, and can destroy the Wells' report.  I think Ted Wells reputation deserves to be tarnished for this, and I don't want him skating because he's the smartest lawyer in the room.  

 

[RedOctober3829]

They should live stream tomorrow and PPV it. I'd take the day off from work and pay $100 to watch it.

I should take the day off and go to 345 Park Avenue.

 

[RG33]

So Wells will get to respond to AEI but the AEI guys won't be there.  Sounds fair.
 
Edit: Sounds to me like the NFL is preparing to double down and uphold the suspension.  If they were actually interested in the truth they would invite AEI.

Yes, this was going to be my point. Can Brady bring Hassett and Veuger?

If Wells is attending the appeal, then RG is not budging and planning on upholding the 4 game suspension. If there was any thought about reducing/vacating, the NFL would be trying to wash their hands of the Wells Report not have the author in the room for the appeal.

See you in court Roger.

 

[nighthob]

So Wells will get to respond to AEI but the AEI guys won't be there.  Sounds fair.

 
Who cares? Kessler will get Wells on the stand and pepper him about the statistical fraud and Wells will be committing himself in advance of a court case. It's almost like they want to be demolished in court.

 

[jsinger121]

The NFLPA is going to save AEI until they go to court.

 

[bankshot1]

Standard IANAL disclaimer:
 
As the NFL's lawyer can Wells be compelled to testify if this case goes to court? Even if he was charged with running an independent investigation aren't there client/attorney issues?  Or could Brady demolish Wells appeal testimony without using him as a witness?

 

[drbretto]

Guess we'll find out, but I definitely think you underestimate the general population, too. Non pats fans who don't actually care assume the Pats are guilty, but almost everyone I've spoken to that is even remotely interested in it believes it's all a complete sham. Comments under all these articles and memes are all almost universally anti-NFL at this point, with only a few random crazy Jets fans still calling the Pats cheaters. The rational explanation is slowly taking over. 
 
Edit: "Wishcasting" suggests that I am hoping for this outcome, but to be honest, I feel like Goodell is so bad for the sport that what I am actually hoping will happen is he screws it up even more. The more he screws up, the more likely he will be removed or at least replaced at the earliest opportunity. I don't care if Brady plays 0 games next year. I want to see Goodell removed from power.

 

[Ed Hillel]

The NFLPA is going to save AEI until they go to court.

I believe it will have to be on record before they get there, so it will come up at the appeals hearing. Now, what the NFL is allowing Brady to do in terms of witnesses/experts, I don't know. Kessler is a good enough attorney that he's already familiarized himself with the science, even if it's just him. I still can't believe Wells is going to be there.

 

[joe dokes]

 
Who cares? Kessler will get Wells on the stand and pepper him about the statistical fraud and Wells will be committing himself in advance of a court case. It's almost like they want to be demolished in court.

 
Wells might be the best lawer on Earth, but he is not a scientist; and whatever you think about the Exponent report, they are at least, in theory, capable of talking science enough to muddy the waters.  That's what they do -- science and testimony.  A lawyer who testifies about the contents of a *solid* expert report is asking for trouble. One who testifies about the contents of a report that appears to be full of holes is really some sort of egomaniac.

 

[jimbobim]

Florio ( i feel dirty for embracing him )dropping a whopper about Wells
 
 
 
One of the authors of the AEI report, Stan Veuger, recently told Sally Jenkins of theWashington Post that AEI was “astonished” by the mistake.
“It was really clumsy. It’s the kind of mistake you’d see in freshman statistics class,” Veuger told Jenkins.
The biggest question for Goodell is whether he’ll apply common sense when reviewing the case, even if it means admitting that the lawyer Goodell hired to conduct the investigation applied a multi-million-dollar layer of tarnish to the NFL shield.
 
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/22/aei-report-looms-over-brady-appeal-hearing/ 

 

[Average Reds]

So we just learned that Ted Wells is going to be at the hearing and apparently will answer questions about his report raised by AEI and Brady.
 
You still think that Goodell is planning to declare that new evidence convinces him that no NFL rule was broken?

 

[drbretto]

So we just learned that Ted Wells is going to be at the hearing and apparently will answer questions about his report raised by AEI and Brady.
 
You still think that Goodell is planning to declare that new evidence convinces him that no NFL rule was broken?

 
Nope. Just read that and that changes everything.
 
Edit: To clarify, not sure what it means at all, just that's new and very important information and i'll need to think.

 

[tims4wins]

The bolded pretty much sums up this entire fiasco: will Goodell apply common sense? The world waits with bated breath.
 

The biggest question for Goodell is whether he’ll apply common sense when reviewing the case, even if it means admitting that the lawyer Goodell hired to conduct the investigation applied a multi-million-dollar layer of tarnish to the NFL shield.

 

[bankshot1]

So we just learned that Ted Wells is going to be at the hearing and apparently will answer questions about his report raised by AEI and Brady.
 
You still think that Goodell is planning to declare that new evidence convinces him that no NFL rule was broken?

Under a Machiavellian twist, maybe Goodell has been advised the Wells Report is garbage, and Wells appearance at the hearing is to be the fall guy for the shitty report that can't be defended?  Wells takes the hit, Goodell backtracks, Brady walks.

 

[Hiller]

This was one thought I had as well, but I quickly put it out of my mind. Nothing that has happened in this mess has made any sense to me, so I doubt it will start to now. I would be less surprised if Goodell said they are basing the suspension on the amount the NFL paid for the investigation.

 

[mwonow]

 
This would be the most rational decision, and it would be my choice if I were Goodell.  Vacate the Brady suspension entirely, but uphold the team penalties.
 
However, how does RG explain his decision?  Won’t the media press (no pun intended) RG for release of any ‘new evidence’?  How does he explain the removal of suspension or fines?
 
Also, I think this has gone well beyond deflated balls and is now a management vs. labor issue.  So, my best guess is that the whole ugly mess ends up in court.

 
If I believed in a rational outcome tomorrow, I'd agree with the above - and I don't think it would be that much of a stretch. We have two "more likely than nots" here, that the balls were tampered with and that TB knew about/orchestrated it. RG could say something to the effect of "Wells was persuasive with respect to the first issue, but I looked TB in the eye and I disagree that he was more likely than not involved, so I'm vacating his part of the punishment."
 
However, I think this is headed to court. When does Goodell's contract get renewed? He's got $40M/yr worth of reasons to have this safely buried well before or sometime after that date...

 

[drbretto]

This was one thought I had as well, but I quickly put it out of my mind. Nothing that has happened in this mess has made any sense to me, so I doubt it will start to now. I would be less surprised if Goodell said they are basing the suspension on the amount the NFL paid for the investigation.

 
I think that I was thinking the same thing because it actually makes sense, IF the NFL genuinely believes Brady is guilty and hiding it, that they put the penalty that high as if to get him to pay his part of that huge investigation he made them pay for. 
 
Wells being at the meeting suggests, to me, that Goodell is still firmly in the belief that the Wells report is accurate. Now, in order for everything to be absolved outside of court would be to convince Goodell and Wells that the Wells report was bunk. That's a taller task to me. 

 

[Ed Hillel]

So we just learned that Ted Wells is going to be at the hearing and apparently will answer questions about his report raised by AEI and Brady.
 
You still think that Goodell is planning to declare that new evidence convinces him that no NFL rule was broken?

 
The chance is thin, but the more talking Wells wants to do on the record, the better for Brady in the long-term.

 

[Average Reds]

 
The chance is thin, but the more talking Wells wants to do on the record, the better for Brady in the long-term.

 
Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.  My point was that there's no way Goodell is backing off the Wells Report if he's having Wells himself in the hearing.
 
We're on to Federal Court.

 

[dcmissle]

If Wells shows up, I make him tell the whole fucking lie and force him to double down on the lies he already has told.  I also demand a transcript and take all of that to federal court.
 
Wells' thinking he can rehabilitate Exponent in the wake of AEI is Kessler's wet dream.

 

[amarshal2]

Hmmm...
 

Per a source familiar with Kessler’s strategy, Brady’s defense will call many of the witnesses central to the think-tank report and will reiterate much of its findings.
 

mmqb: http://mmqb.si.com/2015/06/22/nfl-charleston-shooting-byron-maxwell-eagles/6/
 
This is in direct contradiction to AEI's statement to Doug Kyed that nobody from either side had contacted them.  I didn't hear the Kyed interview until very late in the week (Thursday or Friday) and I got it from his twitter feed so I assumed it was new.  
 
Edit: here's the link to Kyed's article which was posted thursday: http://nesn.com/2015/06/aeis-stan-veuger-no-contact-from-nfl-nflpa-on-wells-report-criticism/
 
I've read elsewhere that the teams had to submit all materials by sometime late last week.  It didn't sound like Brady's team had enough time to incorporate AEI into the defense.  In other words, I don't think Klemko is correct (certainly he does not demonstrate a firm grasp on the situation in the rest of the article).
 
However, if Klemko's source is correct and the AEI guys will be there then perhaps Wells presence in the appeal isn't a bellwether for what the NFL will do.
 
edit: clarification

 

[slowstrung]

The second poll question asks what TB should do, not what he will. My guess is he gets his two game reduction, and Kraft tells him, "you've got your legal rights and you're worried about your legacy and while technically I can't stop you, I am your boss and I want this over and done with. I'd like the remainder of your time as an employee here to be positive so you'll need to just accept the two games and live with it, as I did with the fine and picks. You focus on football and me, Roger and the other 31 go back to focusing on selling the brand." And Brady will.

 

[drbretto]

I think the NFLPA will have a problem with that scenario.

 

[jsinger121]

The second poll question asks what TB should do, not what he will. My guess is he gets his two game reduction, and Kraft tells him, "you've got your legal rights and you're worried about your legacy and while technically I can't stop you, I am your boss and I want this over and done with. I'd like the remainder of your time as an employee here to be positive so you'll need to just accept the two games and live with it, as I did with the fine and picks. You focus on football and me, Roger and the other 31 go back to focusing on selling the brand." And Brady will.

 
No he won't dude. Brady is going to take this probably the distance and won't listen to Kraft.

 

[Dan Murfman]

One of the AEI guys will be on Dale & Holley at 5:05

 

[AB in DC]

. I still can't believe Wells is going to be there.

 
Why wouldn't he be there?  I mean, there's at least some dispute about what exactly Brady said to Wells re knowing who McNally is (not knowing his name vs. knowing his nickname vs. thinking his nickname was "Burt").  Considering that the NFL is hanging their hat on Brady's testimony being less-than-truthful, then of course Wells should be there to clarify his position.

 

[allstonite]

I have believed since the punishment was announced that it was set intentionally high so it could then be reduced on appeal to a more reasonable number and he can look generous. Now I didn't think of the fact that Goodell is both the original judge and the appeal judge and how he could possibly explain a reduction, but none of this has made sense from the beginning and that was my original thought so I'll stick with that. 
 
I am already anticipating the hotsportztake, if that is what happens, that Brady should accept the reduction and if he doesn't he's just selfish and putting himself over the team. I know Fred and Wallach brought this up last week. Not as much the selfish part but that he didn't have a chance in court and it could push the suspension deeper into the season. I would risk the tiny chance of Brady missing actually missing 4 December games in order for him and Kessler to take this to court and absolutely wipe the floor with Roger and Wells. 

 

[bakahump]

I doubt Kraft asks him to do something so ridiculous. Rather I think that Kraft KNOWS that RG will get destroyed in court.  And because of that is quietly rooting for his comeuppance. "I wasnt able to get him......but Tom will be..."

Edit:

I have believed since the punishment was announced that it was set intentionally high so it could then be reduced on appeal to a more reasonable number and he can look generous. Now I didn't think of the fact that Goodell is both the original judge and the appeal judge and how he could possibly explain a reduction, but none of this has made sense from the beginning and that was my original thought so I'll stick with that. 
 
I am already anticipating the hotsportztake, if that is what happens, that Brady should accept the reduction and if he doesn't he's just selfish and putting himself over the team. I know Fred and Wallach brought this up last week. Not as much the selfish part but that he didn't have a chance in court and it could push the suspension deeper into the season. I would risk the tiny chance of Brady missing actually missing 4 December games in order for him and Kessler to take this to court and absolutely wipe the floor with Roger and Wells.
 

 
 
As Patriot Fans we have become conditioned to expect the "HOTSPORTZTAKE" to be overwhelmingly negative to ours.  Rather I bet a reduction along with the recent dissection of the Wells report and finally with the ongoing PR Battle so effectively being waged by TBs law team.....will instead make the "TAKE" more along the lines "Goodell Backtracks.....Brady not a participant....Reduces Suspension".   Followed by "Convinced of his innocence Brady vows to fight to be completely exonerated"

 

[bankshot1]

Kraft did what he thought was in his best interest, to stay a member in good standing in the billionaire's boy club. Brady should do what's in his best interest, and (IMO) that's to fight for his reputation/legacy. IMO Kraft is smart enough to understand that and would most probably not pull a boss/subordinate power play.

 

[NW Sox Fan]

The second poll question asks what TB should do, not what he will. My guess is he gets his two game reduction, and Kraft tells him, "you've got your legal rights and you're worried about your legacy and while technically I can't stop you, I am your boss and I want this over and done with. I'd like the remainder of your time as an employee here to be positive so you'll need to just accept the two games and live with it, as I did with the fine and picks. You focus on football and me, Roger and the other 31 go back to focusing on selling the brand." And Brady will.

Brady has a contract with the Patriots for the next three seasons and it pays him less than the market rate. So, how would he benefit from allowing Roger and the owners to focus on selling the NFL brand? Mind you, these are the same folks who just trampled his own TB12 brand.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I have believed since the punishment was announced that it was set intentionally high so it could then be reduced on appeal to a more reasonable number and he can look generous. Now I didn't think of the fact that Goodell is both the original judge and the appeal judge and how he could possibly explain a reduction, but none of this has made sense from the beginning and that was my original thought so I'll stick with that. 
 
I am already anticipating the hotsportztake, if that is what happens, that Brady should accept the reduction and if he doesn't he's just selfish and putting himself over the team. I know Fred and Wallach brought this up last week. Not as much the selfish part but that he didn't have a chance in court and it could push the suspension deeper into the season. I would risk the tiny chance of Brady missing actually missing 4 December games in order for him and Kessler to take this to court and absolutely wipe the floor with Roger and Wells. 

 
Missing December games? The legal folks seem to think any federal court final decision won't come down until sometime in 2016.

 

[bankshot1]

I think Wells being there is a little weird.Presumably Goodell is thoroughly familiar with the report, as he based his penalty on it. So he needs no more convincing. Wells is only there to be ripped apart by team Brady.

 

[Reverend]

 
Wells might be the best lawer on Earth, but he is not a scientist; and whatever you think about the Exponent report, they are at least, in theory, capable of talking science enough to muddy the waters.  That's what they do -- science and testimony.  A lawyer who testifies about the contents of a *solid* expert report is asking for trouble. One who testifies about the contents of a report that appears to be full of holes is really some sort of egomaniac.

 
This notion of who is or is not--or needs to be--responsible for the science being good, especially when it goes to court, gets to what  dcmissile said above about how, at the end of the day, judges would like their rulings to reflect factually correct realities in cases like this.
 
A most extreme example of this is the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District opinion on whether or not Intelligent Design could be taught as science. What makes this case weird is that the argumentation hinged entirely on what science is and how it works. As such, to rule, the judge had to write an opinion that engaged science at the epistemic levels and look at epistemic violations.
 
And the judge did just that. Which is obviously well outside the standard competencies for a district court judge. And yet Judge Jones manages to do it very, very effectively and accurately.
 
That case is not really analogous to this one, but it serves as an illustration of what a court will do when necessary to get right by science, and that a court will often have a desire to do so.

 

[joe dokes]

 
Why wouldn't he be there?  I mean, there's at least some dispute about what exactly Brady said to Wells re knowing who McNally is (not knowing his name vs. knowing his nickname vs. thinking his nickname was "Burt").  Considering that the NFL is hanging their hat on Brady's testimony being less-than-truthful, then of course Wells should be there to clarify his position.

 
That's a good point.  I was focussing on Wells-as-defender-of-science, and not Wells-as-witness-to-"obstruction."

 

[allstonite]

 
Missing December games? The legal folks seem to think any federal court final decision won't come down until sometime in 2016.

 
That's great and I'll trust legal folks here more than the Lester Munson's of the world but there will be a little bit of fear not knowing when we might hear the final result and it will definitely be a talking point in the media. 

 

[joe dokes]

 
This notion of who is or is not--or needs to be--responsible for the science being good, especially when it goes to court, gets to what  dcmissile said above about how, at the end of the day, judges would like their rulings to reflect factually correct realities in cases like this.
 
A most extreme example of this is the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District opinion on whether or not Intelligent Design could be taught as science. What makes this case weird is that the argumentation hinged entirely on what science is and how it works. As such, to rule, the judge had to write an opinion that engaged science at the epistemic levels and look at epistemic violations.
 
And the judge did just that. Which is obviously well outside the standard competencies for a district court judge. And yet Judge Jones manages to do it very, very effectively and accurately.
 
That case is not really analogous to this one, but it serves as an illustration of what a court will do when necessary to get right by science, and that a court will often have a desire to do so.

 
I dont disagree with what dcmissile said or what you write here. Often the role of the lawyer or expert isn't to convince the judge, it's to help the judge.  I just dont see Wells as the right guy on either count with respect to the science.

 

[dcmissle]

So the  guys who think TB has almost no shot in court were the same ones pissed at Kraft for folding -- when he really didn't have the proverbial snowball's chance?
 
Hotsportztake indeed.  Trust nothing about what these radio jockeys say about the law -- literally nothing.