#DFG: Canceling the Noise

[Bongorific]

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.

Beyond that, though, the rule assumes an intentional act, not just negligence.

"Once the balls have left the locker room, no one, including players, equipment managers, ball boys, and coaches, is allowed to alter the footballs in any way. If any individual alters the footballs, or if a non-approved ball is used in the game, the person responsible and, if appropriate, the head coach or other club personnel will be subject to discipline, including but not limited to, a fine of $25,000."

Based upon the language of the rule, if a team employee or player intentionally alters a football AFTER inspection, the suggested penalty is a $25,000 fine.

Now, if I were arguing the other side, I would say the Panthers were just negligent; they were trying to soften the leather in a cold game and because they did it right on national TV, they probably didn't know they weren't allowd to do it. Whereas a Patriots' employee repeatedly letting air out of balls out of sight demonstrates some type of malfeasance.

But that's not how the language reads. The League shouldn't say, well, it's only a $25,000 if a team fails to offer properly inflated footballs or it is discovered that they are using improperly inflated footballs, but based on the Patriots' acts, it was conduct detrimental to the league. The rule is already assuming someone altered the footballs intentionally

 

[cptcarl]

The fresh infusion of hater fuel infused from this Orwellian farce will thicken the enclave walls between Patriot Nation and the (cognitively inferior) rest of the NFL fan base.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

More $$$ points from Kerry Byrne at CHFF:
 
Wells Report: More Probable Than Not Colts Played With Under-Inflated Footballs
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/wells-report-more-probable-than-not-colts-played-with-under-inflated-footballs/33495/
 

Regardless, here's the story you don't hear: officials found both at halftime and after the AFC title clash that, to steal a weak phrase, "it's more more probable than not" that the Colts played the entire game with under-inflated footballs. 
 
That's not OUR interpretation. Those findings of likely under-inflation are straight from the report.

[snip]

Here's the other story uncovered in the Wells Report you've NOT been told: 3 of 4 Colts footballs checked at halftime weighed in under 12.5 PSI by one of the two officials measuring them. Then, they suddenly stopped checking. The other 8 Colts footballs simply, and conveniently, went unchecked.

 
Edit: Also tweets: @footballfacts Be hard to cruciify 1 team on altar of precious 12.5 PSI when both teams played w/ balls below legal limit. 

 

[joe dokes]

It's possible - maybe more probably than not - but nothing REMOTELY definitive
 

 
Once you say this, game over. In this context, "definitively" is not a thing.
This is why lawyers dont like to let their clients talk.
 
 
But seriously, crapping on the "more probably than not" standard itself  -- directly or implicitly -- is really not the way to go here. We live in a world of "probablies". Its the rest of the sentence --"generally aware"-- that represents both the non-gravity of the offense and what I see as potential difficulty in getting punishment against Brady upheld.
 
I believe an arbitrator with any legal acumen will take seriously the argument that "general awareness" is a Pandora's box of liability.  Now, if the NFL wants to hold *teams* strictly liable for anything done by underlings in an "institututinal control" sense-- like the Loomis suspension -- I get that.  But a lot of players are "generally aware" of a lot of "things" that dont require physics to demonstrate.  Was anyone "generally aware" of the texts being sent to the Cleveland sideline?
 
We will never escape the stupidity of Mark Brunell's Tears.  But that's the fault of those who watch ESPN. And maybe ESPN will drive the Nuremberg Narrative.  And the people who think the Patriots Cheat or The Yankees Buy all Their World Series' or whatever other juvenile view that fans of teams whose asses get kicked use to sleep at night will continue to think that. Life is way too short to care what those people think.
 
But I am having a hard time imagining a lesser finding of culpability than "generally" "aware."    Goodell may fuck this up, and have to be unfucked by an arbitrator, but no one is changing Wells's conclusions. Fine. So run with them.
 
The best anyone can say about the "analysis" is that there are other explanations for everything Wells says. So what. That's two children saying "yes it is....no it isn't...yes it is....."  But if I was giving advice to those involved here, it would be to point out the ambiguous and de minimis nature and dangerous precedent of "generally aware" over and over and over.  *Accept* the conclusions but question their value. Fighting the conclusions -- which are not going to change -- is a pointless exercise.

 

[Stitch01]

Just massive lol at the Pats "not cooperating with the investigation" being taken as anything but trumped up bullshit by anyone outside the Goodell household or media hottakemachine.

 

[JimBoSox9]

Let's talk process!  For me, here are a couple clear facts:
 
1) Brady/Pats has a jamoke JJ who is accountable for the feel of Brady's gameday balls
2) JJ has a sub-jamoke named JM who is directly responsible for executing the process that leads to said feel.
3) At some point prior to last season, the process evolved to include a direct letting out of air via a needle at some point during the process.
-Prior to the ref check, this is innocuous.
4) At some point last season, Brady become dissatisfied with the process' result and seemed to believe it was due to referee error during the check process.
-I qualify the second half there because JJ and JM are certainly incentivized to paint the picture that way for Brady.
 
Now, the controversial 'facts' in my eyes:
 
5)  At some point prior to the AFCCG, the process evolved to include post-ref-check manipulation of the balls, a minor procedural violation.
(Whether it happened due to pressure prior to last season or after the Jets 16psi incident, I find that part of the report's findings credible.  Even ascribing every negative incentive and personality trait to JM, it's hard not to look at the "Not going to ESPN" text as an acknowledgement between JM and JJ that they've stepped slightly off the page.  Now, I stress that JM has massive incentive to make the (whatever) sound worse than it is in his conversations with JJ - that's the leverage with which he goes from a sub-jamoke getting swag from players to a sub-jamoke getting a shit-ton of swag from players.  But that text, combined with using a urinal in a bathroom with no urinal and the presence of an obvious reason of why he would need to vary his process (traffic in the regular room)...come on.  Guy stuck a needle in the balls for a couple seconds after Anderson checked them.)
 
6) There is no evidence whatsoever that the process ever included an intent to decrease the PSI below 12.5.
 
7) There is no evidence whatsoever that Brady ever ordered or was even aware that the process included post-ref manipulation.
(If the Wells report was a thesis paper, their advisor would send it back and tell them they hadn't supported their "generally aware" thesis).
 
The way I see it, 1-4 are undisputed, 6 has just sort of been ignored, and 5 and 7 are the two major cruxes of the issue. I'd be interested in a poll that simply asks if people think JM manipulated the ball post-check, and leaves out all the Brady/Pats/NFL noise.
 
Then, just to round things out, here's the Meaningless Question overwhelming rational discussion in the media.
 
8) To what extent does Brady's 'guilt' on points 5,6, and 7 affect his "legacy"?
To which I say: LOOOOOOOOOL
 
 
I think I was hoping to have a point by the end of all this, but oh well.  Obviously #5 is just going to be in the eye of the beholder, but I'd be interested to see what holes can be poked in the other points.

 

[Norm loves Vera]

More $$$ points from Kerry Byrne at CHFF:
 
Wells Report: More Probable Than Not Colts Played With Under-Inflated Footballs
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/content/wells-report-more-probable-than-not-colts-played-with-under-inflated-footballs/33495/
 
 
Edit: Also tweets: @footballfacts Be hard to cruciify 1 team on altar of precious 12.5 PSI when both teams played w/ balls below legal limit. 

That link was the best attack on the process of the investigation of the Patriots in that game that I have read to date... thanks for posting.  This help's point out the officials on the field and the attending Front Office Officials were solely focused on gaining evidence that would help make a case against the Patriots. 
 
Here is the Brady interview with Gray last night:
http://sports.yahoo.com/video/england-patriots-quarterback-tom-brady-002400389.html

 

[Otis Foster]

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.

 
That's been my view. 'Lack of cooperation' = stonewalling for the general public. That tends to confirm the belief that other points in the report are accurate. 'If they hadn't done anything intentionally, why wouldn't they cooperate?' Not logical, but that's how people think.
 
After a night of mulling it over, and without spending the weekend reviewing every post, if the NFL had received a claim of possible violation before the AAFC title game (undisputed, IIRC), wouldn't the 'integrity of the game' have mandated that Kensil notify the Pats immediately that the league had received a complaint and would be monitoring the matter closely? Has this been answered?
 
I recall there being something in the report that glides by this issue. For me, that alone compromises the impartiality of the report. I can see Kensil saying: "Screw them - if they're going to monkey with the football, we'll nail those suckers."
 
(After spending an undue amount of time defending Wells and PW's impartiality, I have become a doubter. Goodell intentionally narrowed the mandate to PW, and TW intuitively understood where this was heading. The last thing Rog needed was a report that underscored NFL malfeasance or worse.
 
93% of communication is nonverbal. http://http://www.nonverbalgroup.com/2011/08/how-much-of-communication-is-really-nonverbal/)

 

[DJnVa]

Gary Myers is on the "Brady may sue" train: http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-brady-anger-clear-agent-deflategate-rip-article-1.2214037
 

If Goodell doesn’t clear Brady, I would not be surprised if this winds up in court with Brady suing for defamation of character.
 

 

[Otis Foster]

Gary Myers is on the "Brady may sue" train: http://m.nydailynews.com/sports/football/myers-brady-anger-clear-agent-deflategate-rip-article-1.2214037
 

 
Sure, he can do it, but if he's sensitive about what's on his cell phone, remember that it must be produced in response to a discovery request. It's even possible that he and Kraft have received a non-spoliation letter ('don't destroy evidence'), but a litigator will have to help out on that.

 

[DJnVa]

 
Sure, he can do it, but if he's sensitive about what's on his cell phone, remember that it must be produced in response to a discovery request. It's even possible that he and Kraft have received a non-spoliation letter ('don't destroy evidence'), but a litigator will have to help out on that.

 
I don't think he's "sensitive" because they may find a "Hey Bill--MAKE SURE THOSE GUYS DEFLATE THE BALLS TO 11.5!!!!" text. I think he rightly feels that he's under no obligation to hand over personal property for something that isn't a criminal matter.
 
If your boss came to you today and asked to review your cell phone, would you let him or her?
 

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

 
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. 

 
If Brady is not there for the Thursday opener, it's going to be a problem. I see zero.zero chance that the Pats do the traditional celebration without Brady. Not sure if they can delay that or if it's mandated by the league to do it on that Thursday due to their broadcast partners? If the NFL tries to mandate it, my guess is the Pats players will do something in protest. Hopefully something good.

 

[Mooch]

I don't think he's "sensitive" because they may find a "Hey Bill--MAKE SURE THOSE GUYS DEFLATE THE BALLS TO 11.5!!!!" text. I think he rightly feels that he's under no obligation to hand over personal property for something that isn't a criminal matter.
 
If your boss came to you today and asked to review your cell phone, would you let him or her?

Take it one step further: If the NFL had asked to go through Brady's mail or search his home, Brady (and anyone else in the same position) would tell the league to pound sand. Yet the NFL would say that he wasn't cooperating with the investigation.

 

[DJnVa]

Also--we've heard dozens of times in this thread that Brady has no standing to sue. Is Myers uninformed on this?

 

[BroodsSexton]

And, yet again, the idea that there's a defamation claim here is really, really far-fetched, notwithstanding the casually tossed-off comments of Mr. Myers.  To prove defamation of a public figure, you have to show that the false statement was known to be false, or in reckless disregard for the truth.  Wells has a 240 page investigation to justify the statement that, in his opinion, it is "more probable than not" that Brady was "generally aware" of what was going on.  That is not going to sustain a defamation claim.  And unless Goodell comes out and says something extraordinary--highly unlikely--then he's also not going be forced to defend against a claim that his statement was defamatory.  "Non-cooperation" is ambiguous.  I don't think you'd be able to use that to support a defamation claim, either.

 

[DJnVa]

 
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. 

 
I noticed you only objected to my timing of Brady's appeal, not Jimmy G dropping 400 yards in his first start
 
 

 

 

[DJnVa]

I don't think it would be Brady suing based on the report. But Goodell saying something stupid when announcing the punishment that would set it off.
 
But there has to be some mechanism in the labor agreement that doesn't allow Brady to take Goodell to court, right?

 

[BroodsSexton]

I think that Myers is anticipating Goodell making a statement when suspending Brady that Brady would object to, not Brady suing due to the report.

 
He's not going to go beyond what is supported by the report.  Why would he?  He doesn't want to take responsibility for this.  The whole reason for engaging Paul Weiss was so that he could lay the conclusions and accountability off on someone else. 

 

[DJnVa]

 
He's not going to go beyond what is supported by the report.  Why would he?  He doesn't want to take responsibility for this.  The whole reason for engaging Paul Weiss was so that he could lay the conclusions and accountability off on someone else. 

 
 
I would think the argument Brady would make is that "If you're suspending me, you are saying I did something wrong and essentially calling me a liar and cheater".

 

[BroodsSexton]

 
 
I think we're arguing semantics.
 
But I would think the argument Brady would make is that "If you're suspending me, you are saying I did something wrong and essentially calling me a liar and cheater".

 
And I would think that argument would not survive in court.  If you're going to sue for defamation, you have to identify a defamatory statement.

 

[scotian1]

Weis could have just as easily said in the report there is no substantial evidence based on our investigation that Tom Brady was aware of any wrong doing in the deflating of the footballs but that is not the conclusion they were working towards.

 

[DJnVa]

 
And I would think that argument would not survive in court.  If you're going to sue for defamation, you have to identify a defamatory statement.

 
I agree. And this is all speculation until something happens, but I would imagine the statement of suspension would say what he is suspended for. They'd have to be careful not to word it in a way that says something that he can pounce on. And the NFL seems to be run by idiots.
 
Anyway, moving on.
 
I wonder if we get anything more from Yee today.
 

 

[Otis Foster]

 
I don't think he's "sensitive" because they may find a "Hey Bill--MAKE SURE THOSE GUYS DEFLATE THE BALLS TO 11.5!!!!" text. I think he rightly feels that he's under no obligation to hand over personal property for something that isn't a criminal matter.
 
If your boss came to you today and asked to review your cell phone, would you let him or her?
 

 
Could be, DD, but doesn't Wells claim in the report that they offered to allow counsel to filter out only those messages that are directly pertinent to the charge, that is, the handling of the football? 
 
That may have been a gambit, but it does neutralize some privacy arguments IMO.
 
The handling of the cellphone issue does give me some concern. That's what those assholes in the NFL office were hoping for.

 

[dcmissle]

Gotta blow this train up again, with Red? It's beyond stupid.

But here is a good piece about last night from Wetzel:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tom-brady-in-position-to-put-nfl-on-defensive-over-deflate-gate-probe-044707322.html

This is not a political campaign either.

 

[JokersWildJIMED]

Weis could have just as easily said in the report there is no substantial evidence based on our investigation that Tom Brady was aware of any wrong doing in the deflating of the footballs but that is not the conclusion they were working towards.

And the Woody Paige's, Shannon Sharpe's, are Chris Russo's would have picked out the same specifics in the report and be calling for the same absurd punishment.  No opinions were changed by the report but it does give the league the cover it needs to "punish" in its infinite wisdom.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Sure, he can do it, but if he's sensitive about what's on his cell phone, remember that it must be produced in response to a discovery request. It's even possible that he and Kraft have received a non-spoliation letter ('don't destroy evidence'), but a litigator will have to help out on that.

 
I do not understand why Brady's personal phone has to be produced in a defamation case. I mean literally do not know the legal circumstances/laws that would require such an action by Brady.

 

[BroodsSexton]

 
I agree. And this is all speculation until something happens, but I would imagine the statement of suspension would say what he is suspended for. They'd have to be careful not to word it in a way that says something that he can pounce on. And the NFL seems to be run by idiots.
 
Anyway, moving on.
 
I wonder if we get anything more from Yee today.
 

 
Yeah, but that would be true, whether or not you agree with the findings, e.g., "We have suspended Tom because, based on our investigation, he was found more likely than not to have been aware of misconduct and to have not fully cooperated with the investigation," or whatever.  That's not defamatory.  Here's a useful case to look at--it's not perfect, but it's interesting, because it deals with an employer telling people that an employee had been "terminated," under circumstances that (at least to me) look much more egregious than the league meting out punishment based on the findings of its investigators.  
 
Note that the League's right to conduct such investigations, and mete out punishment, is analogous to an employer's right to conduct employee evaluations, and so statements resulting from that process may also be afforded some latitude by the Courts.
 
Anyways, moving on.  I'm going to actually go do some work I can bill someone for...

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

And the Woody Paige's, Shannon Sharpe's, are Chris Russo's would have picked out the same specifics in the report and be calling for the same absurd punishment.  No opinions were changed by the report but it does give the league the cover it needs to "punish" in its infinite wisdom.

 
Once again:
 

 

[Leather]

I'm not sure many people here get that reference, SSF.

 

[joe dokes]

Also--we've heard dozens of times in this thread that Brady has no standing to sue. Is Myers uninformed on this?

 
He has "standing". (thats a legal term). He just has a case that would not likely ever get to a jury.

 

I think he rightly feels that he's under no obligation to hand over personal property for something that isn't a criminal matter.
 
If your boss came to you today and asked to review your cell phone, would you let him or her?
 
 

 
And in both cases, if the requestor has some reasonable basis to ask the question (someone credibly claimed your were showing porn in the breakroom), the requestor is well within the bounds of reason to take a negative inference from the refusal.  The police might need "probable cause," your employer does not. A criminal jury might not be able to infer guilt from silence, but others are not so restricted.

 

[ALiveH]

A couple major assumptions...
 
The report assumes that the officials inflated the footballs to exactly 12.5 psi before the game just going on their word, even though they didn't log the PSIs and there's reason to believe based on prior history (brady's texts) that they have been very inexact in the past.
 
The report also assumes that McNally was able to precisely deflate all 12 balls to just under 12.5 PSIs (going off their numbers) in 1 minute 40 seconds in a bathroom stall...we don't know if that's humanly possible.  But if it were, then there's a logical inconsistency - why didn't the referees check all 12 Colts balls during halftime?  Wasn't there enough time to do this?
 
Lastly, in the table with the precise PSIs, one of the guys measuring the Patriots footballs had most of his measures fall in the acceptable range and the other guy was consistently below.  Yet, Wells' conclusion seems to be based off the lower set of measurements, even though we know that just gauging the balls lets out some air.  I don't remember seeing Wells address their thought process on this issue.
 
And yet, the conclusion of the report - "more probable than not" is the standard of proof for "guilty" in civil matters - gives Goodell all the cover to do whatever he wants from the lightest to most extreme punishment.  Just looking at how he handled Spygate & the way the national media is blowing & Kraft/BB/Brady challenging his authority on this issue - makes me much more concerned that he is going to go crazy and drop the hammer - Brady multi-game suspension, lost draft picks, 6-7 digits worth of fines.

 

[Stitch01]

If he does, just win the Super Bowl again to stick it up everyone's ass.  EZ game.

 

[Hoya81]

http://grantland.com/the-triangle/burn-brady-burn-the-wells-report-and-the-embattled-patriots-quarterback/

Interesting article from Charlie Pierce who thinks Brady is culpable but thinks the team set him up.

But Pierce takes the odd position that Brady could have avoided talking about this at all, which I find to be a little naive.

" He never should have given that January press conference. I don’t give a damn whether Edward R. Murrow had come from the dead to ask questions. He should have had no comment upon the release of the report and no comment Thursday night in Salem. His camp should have maintained radio silence until after the NFL levied its punishment."

 

[simplyeric]

It should be noted that it's completely irrelevant whether Brady wanted them to be below 12.5, or any other value.  
 
If he wanted them to be exactly 13, but some of them were approved at 12.5, and some at 13.5, and the ball boy adjusted them, some up some down, to 12.5, that would still be a violation. 
 
The only real point of the "science" behind their measurements and calculations is to show that the balls had to have been manipulated, regardless of the beginning or end result.
 
 
Even if the balls started at 10 and the guy inflated them up to regulation 12.5, that would be a violation.
 
No?

 

[Ed Hillel]

It should be noted that it's completely irrelevant whether Brady wanted them to be below 12.5, or any other value.  
 
If he wanted them to be exactly 13, but some of them were approved at 12.5, and some at 13.5, and the ball boy adjusted them, some up some down, to 12.5, that would still be a violation. 
 
The only real point of the "science" behind their measurements and calculations is to show that the balls had to have been manipulated, regardless of the beginning or end result.
 
 
Even if the balls started at 10 and the guy inflated them up to regulation 12.5, that would be a violation.
 
No?

 
It would still be a violation, but Brady wouldn't be culpable.

 

[CantKeepmedown]

 
I agree. And this is all speculation until something happens, but I would imagine the statement of suspension would say what he is suspended for. They'd have to be careful not to word it in a way that says something that he can pounce on. And the NFL seems to be run by idiots.
 
Anyway, moving on.
 
I wonder if we get anything more from Yee today.
 
 
 

I believe I read that he'll be on with Dan Patrick today.  I doubt he'll say much more than he did last night, but probably worth a listen.  

 

[RedOctober3829]

It should be noted that it's completely irrelevant whether Brady wanted them to be below 12.5, or any other value.  
 
If he wanted them to be exactly 13, but some of them were approved at 12.5, and some at 13.5, and the ball boy adjusted them, some up some down, to 12.5, that would still be a violation. 
 
The only real point of the "science" behind their measurements and calculations is to show that the balls had to have been manipulated, regardless of the beginning or end result.
 
 
Even if the balls started at 10 and the guy inflated them up to regulation 12.5, that would be a violation.
 
No?

Yes, it would be a violation to do anything after the referees checked them.  That isn't in dispute.  What is in dispute is if Brady specifically told anybody to lower them after that check process.

 

[joe dokes]

 
I do not understand why Brady's personal phone has to be produced in a defamation case. I mean literally do not know the legal circumstances/laws that would require such an action by Brady.

 
It would go something like this.....
 
Brady gets penalized for, among other things, "lack of cooperation."
"lack of cooperation" included not turning over the phone, despite the 'safeguards' offered by the investigators.
 
Brady sues. He has the burden of proving, among other things, that a false statement was made. So either he doesn't include "lack of cooperation" among the false statements, or he concedes that he didn't turn it over.   If he then argues, I didn't turn it over because there's nothing there...he has to turn it over to prove that.  If he argues I didn't turn it over because they had no right to it, he loses his case because he's barking up the wrong legal tree.
 
More generally, he wont sue because....
In general, but not always, once you argue "my reputation has been damaged,"  your life becomes an open book. "Your reputation Mr. Brady?  You mean the reputation that you relied on ILLEGAL videotape to win the SuperBowl?"  You mean the reputation of dumping your pregnant girlfriend?  *That* reputation, Mr. Brady?
 
And in addition to trying to prove falsity and defamatory and  recklessness or intent there's also the question of damages.  Some false and defamatory accusations have been deemed so bad that damages can be "presumed". IIRC, being accused of criminal acts is one such thing. This is not that. Otherwise you have to prove damages. If Brady is still loved, he has no damage; if he is hated and castigated, well, he was sort of hated and castigated to some extent before.
 
Joe Tacopino would advise Brady to sue.

 

[theapportioner]

I'm sure he has zero chance of winning a defamation suit, but aren't a lot of these things done for optics? Threaten or even file a suit, get some news attention and dirty up some other people, then wait a while and it gets dropped or dismissed.

 

[RedOctober3829]

Don Yee on Mike and Mike right now.

 

[Silverdude2167]

Is there a case to be made for any type of suit, if they willing left out material from his interview that exonates him from the whole process?
They seem to be hitting very hard that the report had almost nothing from the day and a half of interviews.
 
No idea if any of that matters, just curious.

 

[Jettisoned]

My biggest issue with this stupid report is that it doesn't even establish that the footballs were even tampered with after the pre-game referee inspection.  Their sole evidence for this is the gauge readings of the footballs at halftime.  The timing of this gauging of the footballs is critical, so you'd think they'd want to have a precise timeline and solid justification for it, right?
 
 
From page 74
 

Based on the information provided by various witnesses to the halftime measurements, we believe that it took approximately two to four minutes after the balls were returned to the officials locker room to devise, organize and begin implementing the testing protocol.  Based on information provided from Blakeman and Prioleau in particular, we estimate that it took approximately four to five minutes to test the pressure of the eleven Patriots balls.  The testing of the Colts balls took less time.  Inflation of the Patriots balls and resetting them within the permissible pressure range is estimated to have taken approximately two to five minutes. 

 
Well that's both vague and imprecise.  They should add some filler about how careful and well behaved they where while they did it, and some precise but irrelevant numbers at the end to give the illusion of precision.
 
 

Riveron described the process as organized and deliberate despite the time-pressured environment, and Blakeman said that the testing was carried out in an orderly, yet expeditious, manner.  Other witnesses described the halftime testing in similar terms.  Based on the security footage, which shows the game balls being taken into the Officials Locker Room at approximately 8:29 p.m. and back to the field at approximately 8:42:30 p.m., it is estimated that the footballs were inside the locker room for approximately 13 minutes and 30 seconds.

 
Much better.
 
Anyways this timeline is kind odd at parts.  It took them two to four minutes to devise a plan to gauge test some footballs and write down the results?  Are we sure they did this after they got into the room and not while they were walking there from the field?  They've assembled this timeline based on the memories of guys who weren't actually timing themselves while they did it, it is unlikely to be accurate at all.
 
I'll also add that there's nothing in this entire chapter about what the temperature of the room was, whether the footballs were wet, how much they were handled before they were tested, etc..  Oh wait there's a footnote.
 
 

It is clear that the halftime testing undertaken by the game officials and other NFL personnel was not performed in a laboratory setting or under ideal circumstances for forensic data collection and examination.  We nevertheless conclude that the game officials and other NFL personnel participating in the halftime measurements acted responsibly and created a reasonably reliable record of the measurements.

 
So the results are probably not that useful, but we're going to use them anyways and by the way those NFL guys did a great job.
 
 
 
They hardly have any evidence at all for a lot of the assumptions about the conditions under which the footballs were tested.  They've just picked a set of assumptions under which the theory of ball tampering works out.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

I'm not sure many people here get that reference, SSF.

 
More probable than not. 
 

Spoiler

Brimming with action while incisively examining the nature of truth, "Rashomon" is perhaps the finest film ever to investigate the philosophy of justice. Through an ingenious use of camera and flashbacks, Kurosawa reveals the complexities of human nature as four people recount different versions of the story of a man's murder and the rape of his wife.

 

[joe dokes]

specifically told anybody

Yes, it would be a violation to do anything after the referees checked them.  That isn't in dispute.  What is in dispute is if Brady specifically told anybody to lower them after that check process.

 
Wells doesn;t even say he "specifically told anyone." He could have been "generally aware" that they were going to make sure they were right after the check process. That's probably enough to support the conclusion.

 

[RedOctober3829]

 
Wells doesn;t even say he "specifically told anyone." He could have been "generally aware" that they were going to make sure they were right after the check process. That's probably enough to support the conclusion.

Look at the words you used: "He could have", "That's probably enough".  Again, I go back to the vagueness of this report.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

What if Brady spends some of his multi-millions on his own report that annihilate the Wells report?
 
Say, a 100+ pages report that hires real scientists & blows every hole in the Wells report to smithereens.

 

[Jettisoned]

This "more probable than not" crap really makes one appreciate the "beyond a reasonable doubt" criteria for criminal trials, because it clearly doesn't take much evidence for people do go from "they didn't do it" to "they probably did it".  There are people out there who were convinced of Brady's guilt when they found out McNally couldn't remember whether he pissed in a toilet or urinal several weeks before.

 

[ivanvamp]

 
Wells doesn;t even say he "specifically told anyone." He could have been "generally aware" that they were going to make sure they were right after the check process. That's probably enough to support the conclusion.

So if Brady was "generally aware" that they might do something with the balls, it sounds like his options were to either (a) go out a stop to it, or (b) don't put a stop to it and then be fined and suspended by the league and have your reputation smeared for all time and have all your accomplishments (and those of your HC) questioned and put in doubt.

I'm pretty sure that Brady was worrying about other things before the game. I'm pretty sure this is an absurd burden to put on a guy. Again, should every teammate and coach who is "generally aware" that a player might be doing steroids also subject to the same predicament - either put a stop to it or face suspension yourself?

 

[pappymojo]

I haven't read the report, but as I see it, human error by the officials seems like a likely cause here.  Does the report reference that the NFL changed the officiating crews for the playoffs, or the possible impact that a delayed start would have on normal game day activities? 

 

[WayBackVazquez]

Gotta blow this train up again, with Red? It's beyond stupid.

But here is a good piece about last night from Wetzel:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/tom-brady-in-position-to-put-nfl-on-defensive-over-deflate-gate-probe-044707322.html

This is not a political campaign either.

 

 
Was Wells supposed to make a call based on a preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or any other standard?
Who knows? The report doesn't say.

 
Wetzel must have skipped page 1.