Bleedred said:
I'm just reading through the Decision and found what is a minor, but foolish, error in Goodell's logic findings. In the last paragraph on Page 8 (carries over to page 9), Goodell is discounting Brady's testimony about what he discussed after the AFCCG with Jastremski about the footballs. In that paragraph, he writes "Mr. Brady testified that he was unable to recall any specifics of those discussions and he suggested that their principal subject was preparation of game balls for the Super Bowl."
Then, in the first full paragraph on Page 9, Goodell writes: "The sharp contrast between the almost complete absence of communications through the AFCCG and the extraordinary volume of communications during the three days following the AFCCG undermines any suggestion that the communications addressed only preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than the tampering allegations and their anticipated responses to inquiries about tampering."
Brady testified that "the principal subject" was preparation of game balls, not the only subject. Yet RG's decision can't even follow the facts of a preceding paragraph.
Here's two others:
-Stating that Brady prefers 12.5 PSI as "the perfect grip for me" and instructed assistances to inflate balls to 12.5 PSI is evidence for Brady preferring balls
under 12.5 PSI.
-footnote 1, where Goodell argues that there's ample evidence that the non-logo gauge was used, "because otherwise, neither the Colts balls' nor the Patriots' balls, when tested by Mr. Anderson prior to the game, would have measured consistently with the pressure each team had set their footballs prior to delivery to the game officials, 13 and 12.5 PSI respectively."
To me, this report basically read that RG upheld the suspension because the NFLPA and Brady are full of shit. Furthermore, it sounds like his justification reflected more the Brady/NFLPA conduct than the act itself; in footnote 17 he notes that he mitigated the Browns' manager's suspension because of his, "self-reporting and transparency in acknowledging wrongdoing". Perhaps, had Brady presented the cellphone or made a statement of wrongdoing (regardless of whether he actually committed the act or not), RG would've nixed the suspension. Of course, Brady didn't have the cellphone and is adamant that he has done nothing wrong. Ironically, Brady's camp testified that the cellphone was destroyed and the texts unrecoverable, and RG used that evidence to partially justify upholding the suspension.
It is also noteworthy that, apart from brady's cellphone, RG would've been unconvinced by almost anything. Had Mcnally testified, RG would've rejected the testimony as uncredible. RG would've rejected other scientists expertise because the exponent experts/professor Morrow were credible.
EDIT: Above is my interpretation of the report, not my personal opinion on the facts (or lack theroef) or (absurd) penalties.
