#DFG: Canceling the Noise
- Thread starter nattysez
- Start date
He's gotta say: during the 2nd half of the colts game and the whole super bowl, the balls were under complete NFL control. So anyone who thinks those are tainted should kiss my supermodel-cuddling buttocks.
Isn't this going to lead to a bunch of "Well, if I were the one accused and I wasn't guilty, you couldn't shut me up, loudly proclaiming my innocence before the world" comments from, well, pretty much everybody?
Gray: How was trip to WH?
Tom: Couldn't make it, had a commitment. Hopefully back next year.
Tom: Couldn't make it, had a commitment. Hopefully back next year.
This last sentence nails it for me. The lack of logic and common sense displayed is painful to me. It is so fucking frustrating that no one (outside of SoSH) has shown the ability to put together the full picture of what likely happened. It is so ridiculously obvious that all TB wanted was for the balls to be as soft as allowable and nothing more than that; instead he is labeled a cheater. It is incredibly unfair. It is hard to feel bad for someone who has made over $100M in his career and is married to a super model but I legit feel bad for Brady.koufax32 said:
I don't know why people view this as something like a political campaign. It isn't. Brady doesn't sponsor a lot things, but he is in zero danger of losing any sponsors. Yes, zero. The big wide commercial world out there understands that the last penalty for this was recent and a $25,000 fine. This is not Lance Armstrong. In fact, it is about as far removed from Armstrong level evil as you can get as transgressions go. So why imperil your legal position through something like this? Just sit there and smile.Stitch01 said:
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.
Imagine the report were written with exactly all the same facts -- every single thing the same -- but the sentences that are opinions about what those facts mean actually had reached the opposite conclusion. That it was not more probable than not that Brady had "general awareness". Would that be unreasonable? Of course not. That would be a legitimate way to look at the facts. It's just an opinion -- and everyone hearing the facts will have an opinion.
I'm not saying that an investigative report should not editorialize some. That's going to happen. It's almost inevitable in how you organize the document. For example, you want to report the fact that person X said "Y" during an interview. It's only natural that, immediately after that, instead of 10 pages later, you might give other evidence to support or contradict Y. And, in that sense, the drafter of the report is going to telegraph his or her views or even affect how people view the report. But that's a bit different from offering an opinion on whether the evidence shows the ultimate fact to be more probable than not.
Many have noted that the report reads as though a conclusion was reached and then it was drafted in a way to support the conclusion. I think that's right. I think Brady's agent made a pretty good point that once you are alerted to is very hard to ignore. Most the stuff that Wells wants to say supports his conclusions is in the text, while most of the stuff that tends to counter what he's saying is in the footnotes. All of that is correct. But I'm trying to make a different point, though I'm not sure I'm articulating it correctly. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. The fact that an investigator forms some beliefs before drafting may often be inevitable, and it's not inherently bad. And that those beliefs affect organization, tone and the rest of his work product is gong to happen. What I'm saying is that even accepting all of that, and even accepting that Ted Wells is the finest investigator in the world, and even accepting that there was no tacit or explicit direction from the NFL pointing toward a favored result, the simple fact is that his particular opinion about what the facts show or don't show is not any more important than anyone else's. He may be an expert on investigating, but he's not an expert on deciding what it all means -- at least he's no more expert than any of the rest of us. He has no special expertise in interpreting conflicting information and stating what it probably means or doesn't. We're all as good as he is. In fact, some of us may be better, because he will be close the situation and the witnesses, etc. (One caveat to that would be that he is in better position to decide whether or not a witness is lying or credible based on demeanor during an interview. But there's not a lot of that in this report.)
Yet, we're elevating his opinion about what the data and conflicting information mean, above what anyone else might think about the same data or information. If reporters want to write articles about particular facts in the report and explain their view on why it leads to a particular conclusion, I think that's legitimate and should be encouraged. But simply to restate the result Wells reached when he engaged in that task as though it should be viewed as a universal opinion is not appropriate. In this charged atmosphere, I think there is simply too much editorializing and opinion in the report. It should have been a more neutral report of the facts. It reads like a judicial opinion -- that is, the decision of a person whose job it is sift through evidence and reach a conclusion based on that evidence. Even if we assume he did his job entirely without bias or predisposition -- which unlike many here I at least think is possible -- what he was ultimately asked to do or thought it was his job to do does not seem like the appropriate job of an investigator in this kind of circumstance.
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.
Imagine the report were written with exactly all the same facts -- every single thing the same -- but the sentences that are opinions about what those facts mean actually had reached the opposite conclusion. That it was not more probable than not that Brady had "general awareness". Would that be unreasonable? Of course not. That would be a legitimate way to look at the facts. It's just an opinion -- and everyone hearing the facts will have an opinion.
I'm not saying that an investigative report should not editorialize some. That's going to happen. It's almost inevitable in how you organize the document. For example, you want to report the fact that person X said "Y" during an interview. It's only natural that, immediately after that, instead of 10 pages later, you might give other evidence to support or contradict Y. And, in that sense, the drafter of the report is going to telegraph his or her views or even affect how people view the report. But that's a bit different from offering an opinion on whether the evidence shows the ultimate fact to be more probable than not.
Many have noted that the report reads as though a conclusion was reached and then it was drafted in a way to support the conclusion. I think that's right. I think Brady's agent made a pretty good point that once you are alerted to is very hard to ignore. Most the stuff that Wells wants to say supports his conclusions is in the text, while most of the stuff that tends to counter what he's saying is in the footnotes. All of that is correct. But I'm trying to make a different point, though I'm not sure I'm articulating it correctly. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. The fact that an investigator forms some beliefs before drafting may often be inevitable, and it's not inherently bad. And that those beliefs affect organization, tone and the rest of his work product is gong to happen. What I'm saying is that even accepting all of that, and even accepting that Ted Wells is the finest investigator in the world, and even accepting that there was no tacit or explicit direction from the NFL pointing toward a favored result, the simple fact is that his particular opinion about what the facts show or don't show is not any more important than anyone else's. He may be an expert on investigating, but he's not an expert on deciding what it all means -- at least he's no more expert than any of the rest of us. He has no special expertise in interpreting conflicting information and stating what it probably means or doesn't. We're all as good as he is. In fact, some of us may be better, because he will be close the situation and the witnesses, etc. (One caveat to that would be that he is in better position to decide whether or not a witness is lying or credible based on demeanor during an interview. But there's not a lot of that in this report.)
Yet, we're elevating his opinion about what the data and conflicting information mean, above what anyone else might think about the same data or information. If reporters want to write articles about particular facts in the report and explain their view on why it leads to a particular conclusion, I think that's legitimate and should be encouraged. But simply to restate the result Wells reached when he engaged in that task as though it should be viewed as a universal opinion is not appropriate. In this charged atmosphere, I think there is simply too much editorializing and opinion in the report. It should have been a more neutral report of the facts. It reads like a judicial opinion -- that is, the decision of a person whose job it is sift through evidence and reach a conclusion based on that evidence. Even if we assume he did his job entirely without bias or predisposition -- which unlike many here I at least think is possible -- what he was ultimately asked to do or thought it was his job to do does not seem like the appropriate job of an investigator in this kind of circumstance.
I've been beating the "it's one man opinion" drum today to people that have asked me about it. Ted Wells' job was to gather evidence and give his opinion on what went down. If there was a "smoking gun" such as video evidence of wrongdoing then his opinion or anybody else's means jack shit. How the press and fans at large are simply sheep and following what this says as Gospel is laughable. Nobody has a brain for themselves and can take the time or the effort to ask questions or criticize it. And if you do, you are labeled a "bobo" or a Patriots homer. It's mob mentality at it's highest.DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
soxhop411 said:
Doubling down...unless Tom already did that. If Brady is going down this route, he HAS to come out fighting, and likely does sue.
I'm not sure he can sue over a statement like "more likely than not he was generally aware". It's weasel words.Sportsbstn said:
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?
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?
If Brady is suspended and appeals, he will likely get a good chunk of what the Wells team has compiled. Not everything, but a good bit. Basic fairness.
NFL cannot have it both ways -- this is an independent investigation but Ted Wells was my advocate.
And relatedly, the NFL cannot be so brain dead to tap Wells to defend the discipline handed down. Even Brady can't get that lucky.
NFL cannot have it both ways -- this is an independent investigation but Ted Wells was my advocate.
And relatedly, the NFL cannot be so brain dead to tap Wells to defend the discipline handed down. Even Brady can't get that lucky.
Heard, I believe, Chris Villani on WEEI with Mike Adams about an hour ago. Villani bowed down to the awesome scientific analysis of Exponent. Adams replied, "It's not even science!"
Any time Mike Adams is making more sense than you are should fill you with deep shame.
Any time Mike Adams is making more sense than you are should fill you with deep shame.
Well, in a liability situation firms do that all the time under the cloak of privilege, ie, conduct an internal investigation. and they may even share the result with the government (for example) without disclosing everything. But this feels different for the reasons DDB highlighted--it's not really an advisory piece, it's pure fact-finding (or primarily fact-finding). I'm not certain that qualifies for privilege or immunity in litigation/arbitration. Is there precedent here anyone is aware of? Why do you say he'd get a chunk but not all? What are the principles in play for turning materials over?dcmissle said:
You may have it.ivanvamp said:
Goodell could so hurt the Patriots and satisfy every other constituency. And do it tomorrow.
Ruling -- so disappointed inTB, but awareness does not equal complicity. Tom skates. His withholding of phone did not seriously compromise investigation.
More likely than not that the two guys deflated the balls. Lifetime bans for them. NEP responsible for their conduct. Fines ( who cares) and stripped of 2016 first round draft pick. To bolster that penalty, conclude that they did impede the inquiry by refusing 5th interview.
TB has no standing to challenge anything. Kraft pissed but takes the medicine. Sponsors happy, networks giddy, other teams relieved. Over tomorrow.
Pigs get fat, but hogs get slaughtered.
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?
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?
Not prepared in anticipation of litigation, so most information unlikely to be work product. There might be some Wells/NFL communications that could be attorney-client.BroodsSexton said:
If you're investigating a possible liability situation, it would be different because you're anticipating the potential litigation, either at the hands of the government or, for example, customers.
Yes it apparently was. Felger and Mazz talked about it. basically the preparation does affect the balls but they return to equilibrium after ~30 minutes. The pats finished with their balls (hehehe) approx. 1 hour before the refs gauged them.Van Everyman said:
