#DFG: Canceling the Noise

Is there any level of suspension that you would advise Tom to accept?


  • Total voters
    208

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,054
joe dokes said:
 
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.
 
I agree he's most certainly not. The interesting question to me, then, is what does the League do if they have concerns about their existing presentation of the science and if they think a federal judge might look into it and want to know what's really what.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Wells there to talk about junk science would be a virtual suicide mission; Kessler can't wait.
 
I think he more likely to expand on how Tom not surrendering his cell records really, really, really, really impaired the investigation.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,595
Here
AB in DC said:
 
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.
 
He shouldn't be there because he's already made his case in the form of his report, and it's highly unlikely a judge would ever have subjected him to any form of cross examination down the line. Now he's willing signing up for that, on the record. There's really very little good that can come of this for Wells, and plenty that can, and probably will, go wrong. Especially since he is on the wrong side of the science. He's also going to have to answer questions like why he put a paragraph in his report about finding no wrongdoing on the part of the NFL after he was asked specifically not to investigate it. And he's going to have to answer why he chose to ignore Anderson's best recollection for the gauge, despite taking him at his word for everything else, and his logic behind why Brady would ask to have the rules brought to the ref, and on and on. I'm sure Yee and Brady have plenty of notes from that 6-7 hour interview, and there's a ton of information that would be helpful here that Wells never put in his report. Wells will have to answer for why he left 99% of Brady's testimony away from the eyes of the public.
 
And what's the positive for Wells? To clarify his position? On What? He was just paid 5 million dollars for a ~240 page report; if that can't stand on its own, he's in trouble. It's clear what the obstruction charges are, why go through all of the rest of the bad things just to re-iterate what he's already stated?
 

Wells there to talk about junk science would be a virtual suicide mission; Kessler can't wait.
 
I think he more likely to expand on how Tom not surrendering his cell records really, really, really, really impaired the investigation.
 
As I say above, I don't really think his testimony is going to add much of anything in that regard, but if he's there, Goodell is going to have to allow Brady's side to question him on the whole of the report, I'd think. He certainly wouldn't look impartial to a reviewing judge if picks and chooses what Wells is allowed to speak about. Plus, we've seen a report that says Wells is prepared to answer any questions about the report. I think Wells is worried about his reputation here, and he's going to go down with the ship if he has to.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,054
Harry Hooper said:
 
Missing December games? The legal folks seem to think any federal court final decision won't come down until sometime in 2016.
 
Which decision? You mean if the League or Brady appeals the District Court decision? Because Doty rules on Peterson's appeal, which was handed down on December 18, by February 16.

It's the next round of appeals in court that is still unclear.
 

nattysez

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 30, 2010
8,436
Ed Hillel said:
 
He shouldn't be there because he's already made his case in the form of his report, and it's highly unlikely a judge would ever have subjected him to any form of cross examination down the line. Now he's willing signing up for that, on the record. There's really very little good that can come of this for Wells, and plenty that can, and probably will, go wrong. Especially since he is on the wrong side of the science. He's also going to have to answer questions like why he put a paragraph in his report about finding no wrongdoing on the part of the NFL after he was asked specifically not to investigate it. And he's going to have to answer why he chose to ignore Anderson's best recollection for the gauge, despite taking him at his word for everything else, and his logic behind why Brady would ask to have the rules brought to the ref, and on and on. I'm sure Yee and Brady have plenty of notes from that 6-7 hour interview, and there's a ton of information that would be helpful here that Wells never put in his report. Wells will have to answer for why he left 99% of Brady's testimony away from the eyes of the public.
 
And what's the positive for Wells? To clarify his position? On What? He was just paid 5 million dollars for a ~240 page report; if that can't stand on its own, he's in trouble. It's clear what the obstruction charges are, why go through all of the rest of the bad things just to re-iterate what he's already stated?
 
 
 
I assume Kessler will be entitled to ask him leading questions.  While Wells will do his best to bloviate his way out of them, it's a little tough to deal with a really well-done cross-examination.  I mean, when he's asked in 10 different ways "There is no evidence that Coleman used Gauge A to test the balls pre-game, is there?" he eventually has to admit that there isn't.  And then he'll be reminded that Coleman's recollection was that he used Gauge B.  And then he'll be asked "So you have no evidence that Gauge A was used, and Coleman told you Gauge B was used, but since using Gauge B would mean that the results showed Brady did nothing wrong, you badgered Coleman into saying it was possible that he used Gauge A, isn't that right?"  And no matter WHAT his answer is at this point, he looks awful.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
Ed Hillel said:
 
And what's the positive for Wells? To clarify his position? On What? He was just paid 5 million dollars for a ~240 page report; if that can't stand on its own, he's in trouble. It's clear what the obstruction charges are, why go through all of the rest of the bad things just to re-iterate what he's already stated?
 
Will they be able to fit Ted Well's ego in the room they are using for the appeal?  
I read through all the lawyer porn in some of these threads about how this guy walks on water in the legal community.  However from his press conference defending his report and now this, it seems that he is extremely thin skinned.  What's the positive for him?  The positive is that his ego is butt hurt that people are doubting him and he wants to defend himself.  Goodell seems like the type to let him walk into a shit show, but I'm curious why no one else is putting a stop to this?  Either NFL lawyers or others that work with Wells.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
Yeah, no good can ever come of allowing Wells to go on record about the report. Even if all the NFL wants to hear is that Brady was a big meany that refused to allow them to go on a fishing expedition in his smart phone, Goodell's still going to have to either let Wells get torn to shreds by Kessler or basically admit that this was a witch hunt by disallowing any questions outside that little narrow slice of the report.
 

( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)

T&A
SoSH Member
Feb 9, 2010
5,302
Providence, RI
I'm assuming that the answer is yes, but this thing is going to closed off from all media right?  Do they eventually release transcripts from these things or are we going to have to rely on just the leaky NFL office or tips from Brady's team to learn anything about what was said?
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,101
Question for the legal experts on this board:  what exactly are the steps after Goodell issues his ruling?  
 
I am going to assume that Goodell will reduce the suspension to 2 games.  Brady will then file appeal in District Court.  I assume that with that appeal there would be a request for an injunction against the NFL's imposing the suspension until the court hearing, which I assume would be granted almost as a given.  Is that indeed a correct assumption? 
 
What are the options for the court?  Am I correct in assuming the following:
 
a.) Court decides to let NFL decision stand, claiming that it's a private matter and there were no procedural violations of the CBA.  
 
b.) Court vacates the decision over procedural grounds and remands it back to the NFL.  NFL goes through proper channels and issues 2 game suspension. I've heard this mentioned here a few times.  But is this really an option?
 
c.) Court reduces the suspension over grounds such as overly harsh punishment (arbitrary and capricious) or lack of supporting evidence.  Can the court actually do that?  Would they just say "it needs to be less than 2 games" and let the NFL deal with it? 
 
d.) Court completely vacates the suspension over similar grounds, without remanding it back to the NFL.  
 
Then I assume that Brady, the NFLPA,, and/or the NFL would have appeals options available to them?  Would any remaining suspension be suspended pending the appeal of the District Court ruling? 
 
Lester Munson is so unreliable on this topic, even though the local media personalities seem to take his word as gospel. 
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
slowstrung said:
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.
Kraft wont do that, but if he were to do so I hope Brady tells him "Thats fine.  By the way Im not playing as a Patriot anymore boss"
 

Tony C

Moderator
Moderator
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
13,696
Gorton Fisherman said:
...
 
Overall the segment had a definite pro-Brady slant, which I found surprising given ESPN prior reportage on this topic. It really painted Brady as a victim of overzealous prosecution. It's still outrageous that ESPN hasn't acknowledged the existence of the AEI report on their air. Their journalistic ethics are still a joke. But the fact that they are willing to express even a mild anti-NFL/anti-Goodell critique is somewhat encouraging. Maybe the suits at ESPN see that the worm has possibly turned, and are starting to shift their coverage a bit in response?
 
 
The simpler Occam's razor explanation is not that ESPN had an anti Pats/Brady slant and are now turning. It's that they have an interest in this being a story, and that the only way it stays a story is if the appeal is played as having a competitive chance.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
 
Will they be able to fit Ted Well's ego in the room they are using for the appeal?  
I read through all the lawyer porn in some of these threads about how this guy walks on water in the legal community.  However from his press conference defending his report and now this, it seems that he is extremely thin skinned.  What's the positive for him?  The positive is that his ego is butt hurt that people are doubting him and he wants to defend himself.  Goodell seems like the type to let him walk into a shit show, but I'm curious why no one else is putting a stop to this?  Either NFL lawyers or others that work with Wells.
 
There is zero chance that Wells is giving press conferences or showing up at this hearing without the NFL really wanting him to do it (either they asked him or he proposed it and they agreed).  It's also 100% likely that the Paul Weiss deliberated a shitload on whether Wells should be there or not. 
 
That's not to say these are smart decisions, but they are very carefully considered ones, and not just the actions of a random guy who's pissed off that his report is being challenged.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Could not agree more with Stitch. And if it comes to that, guess what -- Tom Brady is bigger than Bob Kraft. He is not going to acquiesce, even with radio and print no- nothings in Boston demanding that he "put the team before himself."
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,402
Shelterdog said:
 
There is zero chance that Wells is giving press conferences or showing up at this hearing without the NFL really wanting him to do it (either they asked him or he proposed it and they agreed).  It's also 100% likely that the Paul Weiss deliberated a shitload on whether Wells should be there or not. 
 
That's not to say these are smart decisions, but they are very carefully considered ones, and not just the actions of a random guy who's pissed off that his report is being challenged.
 
 
True enough, though Florio's note is interesting about Wells wanting a more vigorous defense:
 
And Ted Wells, whose displeasure with public criticism of his work resulted in one spirited conference call with the media and (per a league source) multiple calls to the league office pleading for stronger efforts to respond to those throwing darts at his work, likely will emerge from the process feeling angrier than ever.
 
 

MarcSullivaFan

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2005
3,412
Hoo-hoo-hoo hoosier land.
Shelterdog said:
 
There is zero chance that Wells is giving press conferences or showing up at this hearing without the NFL really wanting him to do it (either they asked him or he proposed it and they agreed).  It's also 100% likely that the Paul Weiss deliberated a shitload on whether Wells should be there or not. 
 
That's not to say these are smart decisions, but they are very carefully considered ones, and not just the actions of a random guy who's pissed off that his report is being challenged.
Wells is arguably a material fact witness, since one of the charges against Brady is that he failed to cooperate with Wells' investigation. I wonder if the union demanded he be there.
 

Buster Olney the Lonely

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2006
4,520
Atlanta, GA
dstunbound said:
Did anyone catch this?
Caught part of it, unfortunately. They interviewed Stan A. Veuger, a Duch economist.

Not an American football fan at all (he's been to two football games in his life: Harvard - Yale and UNC - Wake Forest). Soccer is his sport.

Did not notice anything funny about the numbers on his initial reading of the Wells report. Nothing in the tone of the report stood out to him.

No one funded the study. It was a labor of love mostly initiated by Sullivan.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Harry Hooper said:
 
 
True enough, though Florio's note is interesting about Wells wanting a more vigorous defense:
 
To be sure, he probably is quite pissed. Lawyers are accustomed to taking potshots, not receiving them. And if you are good enough for long enough, you come to think you are royalty.

But Wells should have thought about that when he took this on. Glass was going to be broken, especially since he knew the mission going in. And although he might well have calculated Kraft would fold, Wells was out of his mind if he thought Brady would. Every wart would be exposed. When you go elephant hunting, they don't give a shit if you are Ted Wells.
 

lambeau

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 7, 2010
1,175
Connecticut
Veuger (recent Harvard PhD. with statistics training) made a good impression, sounding like an affable, neutral, mildly amused academic with no skin in the game.
He said it wasn't particularly difficult looking closely at the halftime measurments to determine they were exactly what you would expect from the balls when they got cold--before warming back up, as the Colts' did (explaining the difference).
 

J.McG

New Member
Aug 11, 2011
204
If you're looking to get a sense of Goodell & co.'s mindset going into tomorrow's hearing, here's Bert Breer's breakdown for NFL Pravda:
https://twitter.com/albertbreer/status/613113891959218176

https://twitter.com/albertbreer/status/613113891959218176

link to tweet

There's a whole lot of league office spin to take issue with in Breer's piece, but here's the part I found most infuriating:

So if the league cuts the penalty to a game or two, centers it on the lack of cooperation and levies a fine for the actual transgression, what does Brady do? That much is anyone's guess. At that point, Brady would have to make a decision, knowing the courts are loath to intervene in labor law, and that the burden for him would shift from the question of his guilt to a question of whether or not the league violated the CBA in investigating and punishing him (a significant difference). The road, overall, will get tougher, not easier.
Can any of the lawyers out there confirm Breer's contention that if Brady takes this to court, the proceedings will be focused on whether the NFL violated the CBA in issuing its punishment, rather than, you know, determining whether Brady actually did anything wrong in the first place? If true, I don't see the Brady camp getting anything close to the exoneration they're reportedly seeking, unless Brady opts to file a separate defamation lawsuit against Goodell, Troy Vincent, Wells, et al., which by all accounts he'd have a much harder time winning.
 

garzooma

New Member
Mar 4, 2011
126
One other rationale for having Wells there: Goodell said  “I very much look forward to hearing from Mr. Brady and to considering any new information he may bring to my attention.”  So if Brady brings what he claims is "new" information, it would be up to Wells to say why it wasn't brought to Goodell's attention in the first place.  In particular, I'm thinking of this nugget from the Wells Report Context:
 
 
Even after halftime, when obvious attention was being paid to game footballs and psi issues by League and game officials, who took control of the footballs at halftime, the security video shows Mr. McNally, with no objection, taking the footballs from the Officials’ Locker Room back to the field totally unaccompanied by any League or Game official. 
which speaks to the Wells Report insistence that McNally's taking the footballs to the field unaccompanied by officials was unprecedented and extremely suspicious.
 
Team Brady can say this video is "new".  It would be up to Wells to agree it's new, or to say it's not new, and explain that it was considered, but wasn't included because of X.  Where X is not an easy thing to come up with.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,302
deep inside Guido territory
Tom Brady and Roger Goodell aren’t going to just be two guys sitting down Tuesday morning over coffee hashing out what’s gone on over the past six months.

Brady’s appeal proceedings at the NFL offices on New York’s Park Avenue will be formal, according to people familiar with how these things go down.

Brady will be represented by NFLPA counsel Jeffrey Kessler and another attorney who has done work for the NFLPA before, Andrew Tulumello from the law firm Gibson Dunn in Washington, DC. Brady’s side will zero in on Ted Wells’ 243-page investigation. They’ll also attack the level of punishment – four games and $1.88M for Brady as it currently stands. As it pertains to the Wells Report, their assertion will be that its findings are flawed based on haphazard gathering of PSI numbers before the game and at halftime and the failure of Wells and Exponent, the firm that did the science, on a number of fronts.

Wells, we learned Monday, will be in the room for the appeal which could lead to some interesting interplay since cross examination and objections are a part of the proceedings. Despite Wells’ cocksure conference call with reporters after his report was made public, there are plenty of items for Kessler to choose from if he wants to put Wells on the griddle.

Of course, with this being Brady’s appeal, he’ll be on the griddle as well. Prior inconsistencies in his testimony – if there are any – are going to be highlighted. Kessler and Tulumello can argue that the case begins and ends with the apparently flawed data, that there is no conclusive proof that the balls were tampered with because the PSI levels are explicable. The NFL’s attorneys could counter by asking Brady to explain things like texts and lengthy conversations. That also has the potential to be contentious.

Throughout this, Goodell must maintain every appearance of impartiality. He’s got the collectively bargained right to hear this appeal even though he handpicked the investigator and meted out the discipline.

But if the transcript – there will be a court transcript – shows Goodell was not willing to hear both sides (as he’s labored to make clear he is), that could work against him if he doesn’t vacate the suspension and an appeal follows.

As for that potential appeal, there will be hurdles to clear in order to get Brady’s suspension “tolled” or suspended if it isn’t vacated. This is where a term called “law of the shop” comes in. Goodell does have the right to mete out discipline in his “shop.” He does not have the right to mete out a disproportionate penalty for an offense that’s unprecedented. Nor is he allowed to hand out discipline based on bad evidence, which the Wells Report is going to be portrayed as.

But an appeal won’t overturn Goodell just because the whole thing seems stupid.

If only, right?
http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/appeal-wont-be-casual-get-together-brady-and-goodell
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
dcmissle said:
To be sure, he probably is quite pissed. Lawyers are accustomed to taking potshots, not receiving them. And if you are good enough for long enough, you come to think you are royalty.

But Wells should have thought about that when he took this on. Glass was going to be broken, especially since he knew the mission going in. And although he might well have calculated Kraft would fold, Wells was out of his mind if he thought Brady would. Every wart would be exposed. When you go elephant hunting, they don't give a shit if you are Ted Wells.
 
I go back to something I thought when Goodell first announced Brady's punishment. Short of Wells concluding "nothing to see here," Brady being "generally aware" is about the least culpable he could be found. As much as Wells "knew the mission," is it possible that even he was surprised that Goodell turned "generally aware" and "didn't fully cooperate" into a 4-game suspension and the attendant shitshow?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,070
Hingham, MA
joe dokes said:
 
I go back to something I thought when Goodell first announced Brady's punishment. Short of Wells concluding "nothing to see here," Brady being "generally aware" is about the least culpable he could be found. As much as Wells "knew the mission," is it possible that even he was surprised that Goodell turned "generally aware" and "didn't fully cooperate" into a 4-game suspension and the attendant shitshow?
 
I think that is highly likely
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
joe dokes said:
 
I go back to something I thought when Goodell first announced Brady's punishment. Short of Wells concluding "nothing to see here," Brady being "generally aware" is about the least culpable he could be found. As much as Wells "knew the mission," is it possible that even he was surprised that Goodell turned "generally aware" and "didn't fully cooperate" into a 4-game suspension and the attendant shitshow?
 
It is inconceivable that Wells did not know precisely what he was writing when he described Brady as being not fully cooperative and that he was more likely than not generally aware of what went on.
 
I can't imagine that Wells was surprised at Goodell's actions (in terms of punishing Brady) after his report was issued.  More to the point, I don't see why it would be relevant at all.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,279
Lol nfl
“@RapSheet: League source explains on Tom Brady: If he says the same thing he did to Ted Wells, his suspension won’t change. How forthcoming will he be?”
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,070
Hingham, MA
soxhop411 said:
Lol nfl
“@RapSheet: League source explains on Tom Brady: If he says the same thing he did to Ted Wells, his suspension won’t change. How forthcoming will he be?”
 
So admit guilt and have suspension reduced? That makes a whole lot of sense. Lol nfl indeed.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I would pay a lot of American dollars to be in the room today.  What fascinating theater.  The good news is that we can count on someone to leak what they are not supposed to leak. That has been the most consistent element of this story.
 
The thought of Wells trying to walk anyone through his flawed report, especially if Kessler and others are allowed to interrupt and ask questions...gold.
 
As a lawyer who has worked with Paul Weiss on numerous occasions and has a healthy respect for that firm, I was truly stunned at Wells' performance at that ill conceived press conference.  If he demonstrates the same lack of precision and professionalism today, he will get shredded (assuming the Sheriff subjects him to questioning).
 
In reality, this hearing is pretty meaningless in that Goodell is never going to lift the suspension entirely and Brady is never going to accept a suspension of any kind, so this is just part of the dance until they wind up in Court.  But man I would love to see it.  
 

jimbobim

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2012
1,558
soxhop411 said:
Lol nfl
“@RapSheet: League source explains on Tom Brady: If he says the same thing he did to Ted Wells, his suspension won’t change. How forthcoming will he be?”
More conflating from the NFL. According to Wells he answered everything. So in essence the NFL is saying "let us prowl through the records or we'll see you in court".
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,279
“@AlbertBreer: … In the end, Goodell wants Brady to convince him that he isn’t guilty, not that the league’s process was flawed. We’ll see if he can.”
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
It is beyond comical that Wells has to appear at the hearing and his $5 million report cannot speak for itself on the matters on which Wells was asked to investigate.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,897
Los Angeles, CA
tims4wins said:
 
So admit guilt and have suspension reduced? That makes a whole lot of sense. Lol nfl indeed.
Well, to be fair, that's how it kinda works in real life too...with plea bargains pinging people who don't want to risk going to trial.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
Average Reds said:
 
It is inconceivable that Wells did not know precisely what he was writing when he described Brady as being not fully cooperative and that he was more likely than not generally aware of what went on.
 
I can't imagine that Wells was surprised at Goodell's actions (in terms of punishing Brady) after his report was issued.  More to the point, I don't see why it would be relevant at all.
 
Yes. He knew exactly what he was writing. I disagree about whether Wells was surprised at the *degree* of punishment. (I expect he knew there would be some punishment.).
It's "relevant" only insofar as I was responding to dcmissile's previous post about Wells's pissed-off-ness. I don't see it as "relevant" to today's proceedings in the sense that Wells's surprise (or not) will be evidence.
 
It is beyond comical that Wells has to appear at the hearing and his $5 million report cannot speak for itself on the matters on which Wells was asked to investigate.
 
 
With the caveat that this isn't a trial and that Wells is not the expert, experts' *reports* are hearsay that usually don't get admitted into evidence at trials (that is, the reports aren't allowed to "speak for themselves.").  The expert testifies, and if the testimony is inconsistent with the report that was provided to the other side, the report will be used to cross-examine the expert. But the report is not usually admitted into evidence, so the jury doesn't get to take the report into its deliberations, only the expert's court testimony. The old adage is "you can't cross-examine a report." (I doubt the Rules of Evidence apply today, but trying to add some larger context).
 
The *only* way, IMO, that Wells's appearance makes sense is if he's a witness to the non-cooperation aspect. If he puts himself (or is put) into a position where he has to "defend the science," it will be a difficult day for him.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,070
Hingham, MA
jimbobim said:
The real crime is this isn't televised. Do better NFL.
 
Correct. I said yesterday I'd pay $100 to see this on PPV and I would take the day off from work. Shit I would be more excited about this than the draft. I would start drinking at 9:30, probably have a cook out, etc.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,070
Hingham, MA
djbayko said:
Well, to be fair, that's how it kinda works in real life too...with plea bargains pinging people who don't want to risk going to trial.
 
True, fair point... the NFL doesn't seem to understand that the exact opposite is going to happen though, Brady and the NFLPA WANT this to go to trial
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Ralphwiggum said:
It is beyond comical that Wells has to appear at the hearing and his $5 million report cannot speak for itself on the matters on which Wells was asked to investigate.
On the other hand, the report was just dealt a pretty large blow by AEI.  Anyone who has actually read both reports has to conclude that Wells got exposed. 
 
If Goodell wants to go through the charade of rehabilitating it so he can rely on it when he rubber stamps the penalty or reduces it by only a game or two, he needs to be able to say that Wells answered the questions and problems with the report satisfactorily.
 
The danger for Wells and Goodell, I think, is that Wells could totally fall on his face.  And by any objective measure, I would bet that he will do just that.  I suppose that Goodell will just pretend that Wells did not do that.  He might simply continue his utter BS and claim that Wells succeeded, regardless of what actually happens today.
 
In the end, Brady will not kiss the ring by offering up his phone records or anything else of a sufficient nature to constitute new evidence in the eyes of Goodell, and any move that Roger makes will be insufficient for Tom.  But if this whole thing was based solely on Wells' ability to defend his piece of crap and the Judge was remotely objective, Tom would win in a 45-7 like fashion.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,595
Here
If Goodell isn't going to accept that the science proves Brady's innocence, there's literally nothing Brady can do. Hey, go prove a negative. What a farce.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Rico Guapo said:
 
So the opposite of what happens in our legal system, what a joke.
 
Actually, that is perfectly aligned with the appeals process of our legal system. 
 
The part that is the opposite of our legal system is when Lord Goodell and his minions get to pronounce Brady guilty in the first place because they don't like the cut of his jib.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,070
Hingham, MA
Ed Hillel said:
If Goodell isn't going to accept that the science proves Brady's innocence, there's literally nothing Brady can do. Hey, go prove a negative. What a farce.
 
Goodell: Tom, prove you are innocent.
Brady: Science.
Goodell: Can't use science, inconclusive.
Brady: ...
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,249
TheoShmeo said:
On the other hand, the report was just dealt a pretty large blow by AEI.  Anyone who has actually read both reports has to conclude that Wells got exposed. 
If Goodell wants to go through the charade of rehabilitating it so he can rely on it when he rubber stamps the penalty or reduces it by only a game or two, he needs to be able to say that Wells answered the questions and problems with the report satisfactorily.
 
The danger for Wells and Goodell, I think, is that Wells could totally fall on his face.  And by any objective measure, I would bet that he will do just that.  I suppose that Goodell will just pretend that Wells did not do that.  He might simply continue his utter BS and claim that Wells succeeded, regardless of what actually happens today.
 
The bolded suggests that if Wells is asked about the science, Wells says, "I'm no expert, the report speaks for itself on the science, Mr. Commissioner."
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,595
Here
There is no rehabilitation on the science. His science is wrong, his presumptions are suspect, and his conclusion is not in line with the facts. Anything he says will make it worse.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,778
Rotten Apple
TheoShmeo said:
I would pay a lot of American dollars to be in the room today.  What fascinating theater.  The good news is that we can count on someone to leak what they are not supposed to leak. That has been the most consistent element of this story.
Well, leak only the info that fits the league's Cheatriots narrative.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Ed Hillel said:
There is no rehabilitation on the science. His science is wrong, his presumptions are suspect, and his conclusion is not in line with the facts. Anything he says will make it worse.
Yet he is there.  I get that Wells could totally punt on the science and try to emphasize the texts and other stuff that is arguably damning.
 
But the Wells Report was dominated by the science, and if Wells shows up to try to defend and rehabilitate the Report, his ducking the science will look weak and go over that way.
 
Again, I am not sure any of this matters.  This is Kabuki Theatre to the extreme.  Goodell ordered up the report with a preconceived conclusion and he will get to where he wants to get to at the end of this chapter.
 
But those there will see this for what it is, and I would give Dennis Leary's other nut to be in attendance.