Brady 4 Game Suspension Upheld

[Guiness]

The inference and lack of credibility of Brady seems to have been a major rationale for the decision.

Apparently, Brady destroyed a phone that was only 4 months old, on the same day he was interviewed. His explanation is that it was his normal procedure, but he still had an older phone that was not destroyed. The destroyed phone just happened to be in the critical time period. -- How unfortunate.

Deflate' was a term they used to refer to losing weight. -- Strange coincidence.

http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-o...one-1722190784

The whole 'destroyed phone' thing now takes on a different slant with the information that he still has the previous phone in his possession. If the NFL knew this, I wonder why they didn't release the information. I think a lot of people understood why he would destroy his old phone, even if the timing was suspect. Of course, it is possible the NFL didn't want to look like they were trying to tar and feather Brady anymore than they already do, so leaked the info to Deadspin knowing it would get out.

Jesus Deadspin is one of the best sources for investigative journalism out there. They have a pretty narrow focus, but it's they decide to look at something, you can be pretty sure they're not going to leave any stone unturned...and they don't kick ass and take names, I don't know that I've seen any unfounded mudslinging coming out of them.

[Patler]

It seems likely Brady was trying to hide something, and he committed the capital error of thinking he could lie his way out of it. Unfortunately for him, he did not carry the deceit far enough, and destroy the earlier phone, whenever. It clearly was not a well-followed standard practice to destroy his old phone immediately upon getting a new one, and the timing of the one phone's destruction is sure questionable. The simple answer is likely the correct answer as to why these facts are as they are, he had something to hide, he destroyed his phone to hide it, and he made up a story to cover it up.

This leaves us with two questions in my mind:
- Why in the word does he get a new phone every couple months?
- Does he have nothing better to do than write 557 texts over a 30 day time span during the season?

[Guiness]

It seems likely Brady was trying to hide something, and he committed the capital error of thinking he could lie his way out of it. Unfortunately for him, he did not carry the deceit far enough, and destroy the earlier phone, whenever. It clearly was not a well-followed standard practice to destroy his old phone immediately upon getting a new one, and the timing of the one phone's destruction is sure questionable. The simple answer is likely the correct answer as to why these facts are as they are, he had something to hide, he destroyed his phone to hide it, and he made up a story to cover it up.

This leaves us with two questions in my mind:
- Why in the word does he get a new phone every couple months?
- Does he have nothing better to do than write 557 texts over a 30 day time span during the season?

Have to disagree with your two questions. With the second, I think your age is showing a bit - now that unlimited texting is generally included in all plans, 2 dozen texts/day is probably on the low side for many (most?) people. As to the first question, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the cycling through phones is, if not common, also not unheard of.

I think the two better questions are
-why destroy the phone that day?
-if the previous phones are always destroyed, why is the older one around?

[pbmax]

Unfortunately, the charge is deflation, not reliability. Even if you think it makes him an unreliable witness, they still don't have the goods. Favre was fined for a failure to turn over an existing phone.

They've got bupkus.

The experts retained by Wells did not even account for the time/temperature effects while measuring the balls inside at halftime. After declaring temperature the most significant factor in changes with pressure under the circumstances, they avoided analyzing that effect when looking at the halftime results.

So its impossible on available evidence to determine if the Colts balls exhibited different loss of pressure characteristics that the Patriots. 3 of the 4 Colts balls were below the legal limit. The evidence of the various pressures seems to support an effort by the Patriots to ensure they were absolutely as close to 12.5 as possible. Even if the 90 second bathroom break is nefarious, it still doesn't link to Brady. And the pressure results don't indicate an absolute intent to get distinctly below 12.5

[Patler]

The charge against Brady is involvement/knowledge/complicity. His destruction of a source of potential evidence can be interpreted if not presumed to be an act to conceal damning evidence against him. He can weaken that by explaining the destruction as "in the course" of standard activity, but the existence of the earlier phone pretty much negates that argument.

[pbmax]

The charge against Brady is involvement/knowledge/complicity. His destruction of a source of potential evidence can be interpreted if not presumed to be an act to conceal damning evidence against him. He can weaken that by explaining the destruction as "in the course" of standard activity, but the existence of the earlier phone pretty much negates that argument.

If he has destroyed all other phones and that phone belonged to one of his kids, it doesn't tell you much. I haven't gone through the entire transcript but I have not seen if he was asked or offered a reason for that phone's continued existence.

They have no evidence of involvement, knowledge or complicity. All they have on Brady is a _possible_ cover up. The physical evidence doesn't add up to a violation. The only direct piece of evidence of tampering is the guy in the bathroom for 90 seconds.

The cover up violation, or more properly, failure to cooperate, has been adjudicated in the past with fines.

Roger has constructed a casserole in order to cover up the weakness of the ingredients.

[sharpe1027]

In preparation for an interview he knew was coming Brady had a forensic examiner look at his phones before he destroyed the missing phone -- but he never gave that phone to the examiner. Then, on the day of the interview, he destroys the phone.

It makes no sense.

As for there not being "direct evidence," I think "direct" vs. "indirect" is a meaningless distinction. They have enough to support a conclusion that there probably was tampering going on, not absolute, but probable. They have enough to support a conclusion that it was probably that Brady knew about it. I think that's really all they need.

[smuggler]

Word through the grapevine is that the league is getting shitty because they specifically asked the Pats to stop doing it and they basically refused.

[sharpe1027]

Word through the grapevine is that the league is getting shitty because they specifically asked the Pats to stop doing it and they basically refused.

I couldn't see Bellechick ever doing that.

[pbmax]

Word through the grapevine is that the league is getting shitty because they specifically asked the Pats to stop doing it and they basically refused.

Reporters were all over this angle too about a week ago, but the Ravens publicly stated they had not been in contact with Goodell and SalPal on ESPN backtracked his remark.

Neither of those things is dispositive, but have you heard of other instances?

[pbmax]

In preparation for an interview he knew was coming Brady had a forensic examiner look at his phones before he destroyed the missing phone -- but he never gave that phone to the examiner. Then, on the day of the interview, he destroys the phone.

It makes no sense.

As for there not being "direct evidence," I think "direct" vs. "indirect" is a meaningless distinction. They have enough to support a conclusion that there probably was tampering going on, not absolute, but probable. They have enough to support a conclusion that it was probably that Brady knew about it. I think that's really all they need.

Direct means you do not need to infer motive. Video of the attendant in the restroom/utility room (did they ever establish what that room was?) is direct evidence of a single person's access to the balls without supervision. Its not direct evidence of deflation. Its direct evidence of opportunity.

[sharpe1027]

Direct means you do not need to infer motive. Video of the attendant in the restroom/utility room (did they ever establish what that room was?) is direct evidence of a single person's access to the balls without supervision. Its not direct evidence of deflation. Its direct evidence of opportunity.

I think I am not explaining myself properly. Why does it matter that the evidence is indirect, so long as it is sufficient?

[pbmax]

I think I am not explaining myself properly. Why does it matter that the evidence is indirect, so long as it is sufficient?

Indirect, or circumstantial evidence never completes the circle that a crime was committed and you know who did it.

At best, it gives you a probability. In some cases, say a murder or robbery, you have physical evidence, method and a time frame for the crime. Process of elimination with indirect or circumstantial evidence can get you close to certain. Maybe enough to overcome reasonable doubt.

In this case, the complete lack of direct evidence of tampering, including what should have been regarded as less than compelling physical evidence of the balls in use, is being used in connection with direct evidence of opportunity (guy in room with balls) and possibly incriminating conduct (destroy cell phone) to imagine a crime that there is LITTLE TO NO evidence has occurred.

So it SEEMS like Brady is guilty of something. But no one can say with any sense of certainty what he did, or knew about.

[sharpe1027]

Indirect, or circumstantial evidence never completes the circle that a crime was committed and you know who did it.

At best, it gives you a probability. In some cases, say a murder or robbery, you have physical evidence, method and a time frame for the crime. Process of elimination with indirect or circumstantial evidence can get you close to certain. Maybe enough to overcome reasonable doubt.

In this case, the complete lack of direct evidence of tampering, including what should have been regarded as less than compelling physical evidence of the balls in use, is being used in connection with direct evidence of opportunity (guy in room with balls) and possibly incriminating conduct (destroy cell phone) to imagine a crime that there is LITTLE TO NO evidence has occurred.

So it SEEMS like Brady is guilty of something. But no one can say with any sense of certainty what he did, or knew about.

All you ever have is a probability. Sometimes, the probability is so large that we pretend it is absolute, but it never is. Philosophical point aside, the issue is not whether there is direct or indirect evidence, it is what the evidence suggests happened. I believe the relevant standard is more likely than not. If you look at all the data and it suggests that they were more likely than not deflating the balls, then it doesn't matter if the evidence is direct or indirect.

The science doesn't prove tampering, but it doesn't rule it out either.

Let's look at a few other indirect things.

McNally's official job responsibilities did not include preparing, inflating or deflating footballs. It was that of another guy. McNally took the balls without permission of the referees, which allowed him to have access without an official nearby. What was he doing? He should not have had the balls at all.

McNally lied about going to the bathroom when questioned.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about Brady being unhappy about the PSI in the game balls.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about providing a "needle" and about how there better be "cash" or he would overinflate.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how Brady felt McNally "must have a lot of stress trying to get them done."

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how the refs "fucked us" by inflating them.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about "not going to ESPN, yet"

The Wells report simulated the conditions and could not repeat the pressure difference.

[Guiness]

Indirect, or circumstantial evidence never completes the circle that a crime was committed and you know who did it.

At best, it gives you a probability. In some cases, say a murder or robbery, you have physical evidence, method and a time frame for the crime. Process of elimination with indirect or circumstantial evidence can get you close to certain. Maybe enough to overcome reasonable doubt.

In this case, the complete lack of direct evidence of tampering, including what should have been regarded as less than compelling physical evidence of the balls in use, is being used in connection with direct evidence of opportunity (guy in room with balls) and possibly incriminating conduct (destroy cell phone) to imagine a crime that there is LITTLE TO NO evidence has occurred.

So it SEEMS like Brady is guilty of something. But no one can say with any sense of certainty what he did, or knew about.

At this point I truly feel the main thing Brady is guilty of is telling the High King to fuck off.

I'm trying to think of any other instance in which an employer could demand their employees hand over personal property. It would be different if the phone was provided by, or issued by the team or the NFL, but it wasn't. As I've said before, I think the CBA specifically says they have to, but I'm not sure.

What are the odds Brady says enough is enough, and throws in the towel? Not significant, but I'd guess not 0 either. Is he chasing any other significant records? He's got most SB wins by a QB, that would be the big one for him. His statistics were never great, he's not going to run down any of Manning or Favre's records. He's got his health, wife, family and is set for money for life. Shit, he could be in Brazil with Giselle right now, but had to go to New York for the hearing.

Can you imagine the shit storm Goodell would face if he publicly said he was retiring, and this was part of the reason?

edit: he has tied the wins record. I bet he'd like to own that one, and it would stand a while.

[pbmax]

McNally lied about going to the bathroom when questioned.

Was this ever determined? I thought some reports had a commode in there and another report thad said no. But regardless, there are things people can do for 90 seconds that they wouldn't want to reveal that might or might not involve a needle, yet have nothing to do with inflation. But its disconnected to Brady.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about Brady being unhappy about the PSI in the game balls.

That conversation probably happens each week, even before the refs inspect the balls.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about providing a "needle" and about how there better be "cash" or he would overinflate.

Seems like a joke to me.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how Brady felt McNally "must have a lot of stress trying to get them done."

What was the time frame for this one?

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about how the refs "fucked us" by inflating them.

See previous instance where they thought the refs had gone nuts and taken them to 16 PSI.

McNally/Jastremski exchanged text messages about "not going to ESPN, yet"

Another joke.

The Wells report simulated the conditions and could not repeat the pressure difference.

Other studies were able to duplicate it. With a wet ball, they could get them down 2 PSI in a half of simulated game situation.

The visit to the (non) water closet is the shaky one. And we do not have Brady directly addressing his preference beyond low end of the scale. Now there are three messages unaccounted for that Brady apparently has in his spreadsheet that the Wells report didn't find. If I was the NFL or Brady, I would have spent time looking for them.

I would also be interested to know how the equip guy got his hands on the balls. At one time I read it was a failure of the ref crew to let them out of their sight. Did he really just walk away with them?

[sharpe1027]

Pb, you are a more trusting individual than I am. It seems pretty straight-forward to me.

[sharpe1027]

[B]Other studies were able to duplicate it. With a wet ball, they could get them down 2 PSI in a half of simulated game situation.

What studies are you referring to? The one I read had some holes. Notably, the Wells report indicated that the balls were tested indoors and accounted for that warm up time, which makes sense because that is where they test and inflate them before the game.

[pbmax]

What studies are you referring to? The one I read had some holes. Notably, the Wells report indicated that the balls were tested indoors and accounted for that warm up time, which makes sense because that is where they test and inflate them before the game.

Wells report hired Exponent to do the testing and they ignored the temperature changes that would have occurred during halftime while measuring. Patriots balls were measured first (all 12) and then the Colts 4 (3 of which were under inflated). The study did not calculate the effect that the wait had on the Colts footballs.

Here is the study with the info on wet footballs: https://uploads.strikinglycdn.com/fi...b%20Report.pdf

from these guys: http://www.headsmartlabs.com

[sharpe1027]

That study doesn't recreate the conditions. For example, they wet the balls and then stick them in a cold room. Likely they did not put them in a room with 100% humdity. In all likelihood it was a low humdity room, meaning the balls would be cooled below room temperature.