The Verdict Is In On Deflategate...

[Guinevere]

Clearly none of you gentlemen have even read the report.

Meade, this isn't a civil matter, it's an administrative matter under the NFL bargaining agreement (at least with respect to Brady). It's complicated by the fact that Brady and the others are employees of the Patriots, not the NFL. Brady, as a player, has an obligation to uphold certain standards as set out in the bargaining agreement, and to discipline for failure to meet that standard, you typically need evidence to demonstrate "just cause" which requires more proof than more probable than not. The report clearly states they do not even have that level of evidence with respect to Brady's actions or inactions.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I can't stand to be corrected after all. No, seriously - explanation appreciated. However, isn't it the case that all legal matters are either under civil or criminal law? (I guess not)

I don't mean to suggest that any burden of proof for punishment is less as much as I think the suggestion of "probably" knowledgeable can be made based upon less.

[Guinevere]

Meade, there is a whole world of administrative law out there, where participants never cross the threshold of a court, but evidence is evaluated and rights are adjudicated.

Brady's agent is clearly lurking at Plan B, his comments are pretty much exactly in line with mine:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/07/us/nfl-de ... index.html

An excerpt:

Brady's agent went on to challenge the integrity of the investigation, noting that "the league is a significant client of the investigators' law firm."

"This was not an independent investigation and the contents of the report bear that out -- all one has to do is read closely and critically, as opposed to simply reading headlines," he said. "The investigators' assumptions and inferences are easily debunked or subject to multiple interpretations."

Yee concludes, "This report contains significant and tragic flaws, and it is common knowledge in the legal industry that reports like this generally are written for the benefit of the purchaser."

[BoSoxGal]

Liar for hire . . .

I don't care much about football but compelled to defend the Patriots because bay colony gal; the evidence in the report is suspect but even if it were not, at the time of the scandal it was widely reported that these practices are common in the sport and it seems clear that the deflated balls were not the deciding factor in the Patriots' domination of other teams and ultimate super bowl win.

I believe the Lord Jim standard is, unless you can prove that the deflated ball(s) [or false testimony] was the sole evidence for the win, it don't really matter.

[oldr_n_wsr]

As much as I dislike the Pats (I'm a Jet fan), this is as flimsy a report as there can be. Seems like the league got hoodwinked if this is waht hte guy came up with. I could have written this the day after the story broke. 6 months and this is the best he could do?
Ho hum. They'll give Brady a slap on the wrist (a veyr light one at that). I fear the other two guys will be the scape goats as they are not as important to the team (and to the league) as Brady is.

[Lord Jim]

I'm assuming that nobody here is so deep in denial as to dispute the fact that somebody in the Patriots organization deliberately deflated those footballs. The proof on that is ironclad; the balls were checked for proper pressure, and from that moment until the time they were checked again and found to be more than two pounds below regulation pressure, the balls were in sole possession of personnel from the New England Patriots. Period. Nobody else.

So unless your theory is that The Invisible Man some how slipped down to the sidelines and deflated the balls, or that aliens from outer space did it remotely with a beam from their orbiting space ship, somebody in the Patriots oraganization had to have done it. Period. Case closed.

Now, the week this scandal Broke, Belichik supposedly (I say "supposedly" because since there were no independent observers on hand there's no way to know for sure what the hell he did.) ran some sort of half-assed "simulation" of balls being tested, used in game conditions and re-tested.

But by Belichik's own admission even this highly questionable "simulation" of his only accounted for less than half the pressure loss.

This fact has not stopped him or others in the Patriots organization from pointing dishonestly to this "simulation" as some sort of vindication and proof that the deflation took place innocently as a result of regular play, in an attempt to blur the issue with the public. (In his statement in response to the report Kraft appears to be using this dishonest tactic yet again.)

The fact is, based on his own reported findings Belichik's "simulation" proved exactly the opposite; that the amount of deflation that was measured could not possibly have occurred innocently as a result normal game conditions. It would defy the laws of physics for it to have happened that way.

So, as I said, I'm going to assume that nobody here is really so in the tank for the Patriots that they want to dispute the indisputable and deny the undeniable, but rather that the argument being made here is against the naming of specific individuals as responsible, not that somebody in the Patriots organization must have done this deliberately. The latter is inarguable.

Okay, all of that having been said, I have a theory as to why Wells named the names he did, and chose the language he chose. To explain this, I'll begin by re-posting my comments about what I thought would happen in this investigation when we had our original discussion about it. :

If the person in the patriots organization who did this (and all those who know who did this) just stonewall it, I don't see how the league could develop any independent evidence.

And all the incentive is on the side of stonewalling. The league investigators have no leverage to bring to bear to compel anyone to come clean. This isn't a crime; they aren't federal prosecutors who can haul people in front of a grand jury and have them thrown in the clink for contempt if they refuse to testify, or charge them with perjury if they lie under oath.

On the other hand, anyone in the Patriots organization who turns rat and comes forward about this is sure to be out of a job.

So if everybody just sticks to the same story as Belichick and Brady, "I didn't do it, and I have no idea who did", I don't see how even an honest investigation can get to the bottom of this. ...

...If, as I suggested might be the case earlier, everybody stonewalls and nobody fesses up I guess at the end of the day the only option the league will have is to impose a punishment on the franchise but not on any individuals.

So, what I suggested would the most likely scenario for the investigation; that everyone would stonewall, and no one would come clean, appears to be what happened. What I didn't anticipate however, is how thorough and meticulous Wells would be in conducting the investigation. I applaud him for that.

Rather then just take the stonewalling and throw up his hands, he carefully developed detailed evidence related to the time line and who had specific possession of the balls that enabled him to make conclusions about specific individuals. He refused to allow the fact that the cheaters and those who were lying for the cheaters would not tell the truth deter him.

Now let's look at the language and standard he used, "more probable than not"....

This has been referred to here as "weasel words"; that is completely inaccurate. That is a completely acceptable standard under NFL guidelines promulgated by the commissioner, years before this latest incident happened:

“More probable than not” carries important legal meaning

To the non-lawyer, the money quotes from the Ted Wells report suggest a mere probability that cheating occurred. But the specific terminology used by Wells actually indicates a belief that the evidence satisfies one of the most common standards used in a court of law.

“More probable than not” equates to a “preponderance of the evidence,” the standard that applies in most civil lawsuits. It means that the evidence makes it more likely than not, in the opinion of the investigator, that “New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules,” and that “Tom Brady . . . was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities.”

That’s a standard perhaps even higher than the one that applies to players accused of violating the Personal Conduct Policy, where “credible corroborating evidence” (even without cooperation from the alleged victim) can result in a significant suspension. Regardless, it’s enough proof on which the NFL can base punishment of a team.

“Too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking,” Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote to the NFL’s Competition Committee in 2008, after the last game-integrity infraction involving the Patriots. “I believe we should reconsider the standard of proof to be applied in such cases, and make it easier for a competitive violation to be established.”

Although there was nothing easy about the Wells investigation, his decision that a preponderance of the evidence points to a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules gives Goodell the green light to impose discipline.

Still, the use of the term “more probable than not” takes some of the sting out of the finding by allowing non-lawyers[and lawyers who also happen to be hardcore Patriots fans] to believe that, as Patriots owner Robert Kraft has always said, there was no hard evidence of cheating. When it comes to issues of this nature, hard evidence isn’t needed to justify a stringent punishment.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... l-meaning/

Now, if somebody had actually come forward and told the truth, obviously he could have used an even higher standard to characterize his findings. That didn't happen, but the standard he did use is a completely legitimate one, and punishment to both the individuals named and the team as a franchise are wholly appropriate based upon it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

“More probable than not” equates to a “preponderance of the evidence,” the standard that applies in most civil lawsuits. It means that the evidence makes it more likely than not, in the opinion of the investigator, that “New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules,” and that “Tom Brady . . . was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities.”

No kidding? Like in civil law? Not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal law? Now who the hell would have guessed that?

[Lord Jim]

No kidding? Like in civil law? Not "beyond a reasonable doubt" as in criminal law? Now who the hell would have guessed that?

Probably anyone not wearing one of these:

[Guinevere]

LJ, that article is total and complete crap, and actually contradicts itself as to what the standard means and its legal significance. But go ahead and take the word of someone who has never actually proved a civil case, or a disciplinary action under a collective bargaining agreement. You too, Meade.

READ THE DAMN REPORT. Like the Jets fan did.

[Lord Jim]

Guin, that article quotes the commissioner , and he's the one who (five years ago) ordered that a new standard be created to establish the level of proof needed for the NFL to take action in cases of wrong doing by players, personnel, or teams.

How can that possibly be "total and complete crap"? He's the one with the authority to set the relevant standard.

READ THE DAMN REPORT.

Well Guin, I'm not sure exactly when I'm going to have the time to wade through a 243 page report, but it won't be today. (I have something much more exciting planned...watching the British election results!)

ETA:

And Guin, why aren't you at all upset by the fact that whoever works for your team who did the deflating hasn't manned up and told the truth about it? (Whether it's the people named in the report or someone else.) And that no one who knows who did it has said anything either?

Doesn't it bother you at all that somebody on your team must be responsible for this cheating but won't come forward and admit it?

[Long Run]

On the whole it appears the "court of public opinion" is running against Brady at this point, which is tinged in a fair bit of sadness because he is generally well-liked and respected so this report is disappointing news. However, the columnist at Breitbart Sports noted that the investigator's own science experts stated that all of the game balls lost pressure in the first half, and the drop in air pressure for 8 of the 11 Patriot game balls (as well as 4 of the Colts game balls) were entirely consistent with expectations given the balls were used out in the cold air. So one possible explanation why no one from the Patriots has "manned up" is that no one let any air out of the balls. Of course, it is possible they cheated too, but this report doesn't get us to that conclusion.

http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/05 ... -patriots/

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, I'm thoroughly deflated.

[Lord Jim]

However, the columnist at Breitbart Sports noted that the investigator's own science experts stated that all of the game balls lost pressure in the first half, and the drop in air pressure for 8 of the 11 Patriot game balls (as well as 4 of the Colts game balls) were entirely consistent with expectations given the balls were used out in the cold air.

I don't know where he's getting that from...

Look at the section on "Scientific Analysis" of the Wells report which starts on page 110 which cover the half time analysis....(There's absolutely nothing there that supports the claim of the Breitbart writer; I think he's talking completely out his ass)

From page 112:

112

None of the physical factors tested including variations in the way a football is used during a game
and differences in ball preparation were found to contribute in any material way to changes in the internal pressure of footballs or the difference in the observed pressure drops between the Patriots and Colts balls when measured at halftime. In particular, the vigorous rubbing described by Coach Belichick during a January 24 press conference does not explain the reduction in air pressure in the Patriots game balls measured at halftime because the impact such rubbing dissipates within 15-30 minutes, and the rubbing of Patriots game balls was complete more than thirty minutes before they were inspected by the referee prior to the game.

Based on tests using the most likely game day conditions and circumstances, and,
where possible, setting the experimental parameters to levels that would maximize the possibility of replicating the Patriots halftime measurements, the ex
periments and simulations failedto explain the halftime measurements recorded for the Patriots game balls.

The only way to reconcile the Patriots halftime measurements with both the Colts halftime measurements and the range of physically plausible pressure levels predicted by the experiments was to set certain experimental parameters particularly the timing of the halftime testing and the surface condition of the game balls at levels believed to be unrealistic and unlikely to have been present on the day of the AFC Championship Game Our scientific consultants ultimately informed us that the data alone did not
provide a basis for them to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not
tampering.

Based on extensive testing and analysis, however, Exponent concluded that, within
the range of game conditions and circumstances most likely to have occurred on game day, they
could identify no set of credible physical or environmental factors that completely accounts for
the magnitude of the reduction in air pressure of the Patriots footballs or the additional drop in
air pressure exhibited by the Patriots game balls, as compared to the drop in air pressure
exhibited by the Colts game balls.

(Copying and pasting from that PDF is a royal pain in the ass, so I don't plan to do much of it.)

Everything you find in that section backs up completely the conclusion that game conditions could not possibly account for the loss of pressure in the Patriots balls, and that there was no where near any comparable loss with the Colts balls.

Given the overwhelming evidence and undisputed facts, if we're going to debate whether or not the Patriot balls were actually tampered with, or whether it had to be someone with the patriots organization that did the tampering, we might as well debate whether the sun rises in the East or the West; the facts are THAT conclusive.

Now, we can debate whether or not you like this or that thing about the report, or what punishments if any are appropriate, or if you like the standards used, etc...

But anyone who wants to try and argue against the two points I just referenced is arguing against the laws of physics and/or the known fact that only Patriots personnel had access to the balls during the time the deflation occurred. Anyone who wants to do that is just going to make themselves look silly and unreasonable. (If not detached from reality)

So again I would say that it's a real failing of character that whoever did this, and whoever knows who did this, hasn't manned up and come forward. (This is particularly true if the ones named in the report aren't the ones involved. That would mean that some person or persons are willing to let innocent people face professional career black marks when they don't deserve it. Anyone who would do that is a real slimebag...)

[Long Run]

Well, given that the Patriots were kicking the stuffing out of the Colts, it is possible they kicked the stuffing out of the balls too.

[BoSoxGal]

[Joe Guy]

......So again I would say that it's a real failing of character that whoever did this, and whoever knows who did this, hasn't manned up and come forward.......

And let's face it, American football is all about good character...

[BoSoxGal]

It's a stupid violent game that causes brain damage and lifelong suffering to veteran players.

Really hope I live to see it go away.

[Big RR]

Well to each his own.

eta: There are many things that are dangerous from mountain climbing to hang gliding, diving to skiing; football is among them. by all means let's try to develop equipment and reasonable rules to prevent or lessen at least some of the injuries; but I am happy to let consenting adults participate in risky activities so long as they understand the risks and accept them.

[Lord Jim]

I would like to associate myself entirely with the remarks of the Right Honourable Gentleman from Pennsylvania...

[oldr_n_wsr]

let consenting adults participate in risky activities so long as they understand the risks and accept them.

Along with collecting the usually large paycheck.