Deflategate results and outrage here

[Bostondevil]

Just wanted to point out that the other quarterback in the game recently saw a serviceman heading back to coach on a plane and upgraded the serviceman to first class. I like Tom Brady because he's an amazing quarterback with a long history of putting his team first. I love Russell Wilson because of stuff like this. Absolute class act.

You mean stuff like this? http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/01/vinc...r-crash-victim

[TampaDuke]

"More likely than not" does not necessarily mean a preponderance of evidence. It might. It might not. In my understanding, it more likely than not means that they can get by with saying whatever they want and not face a defamation suit because you cannot prove that statement to be false. And I didn't bring up Sammy Sosa or Derek Jeter because I was trying to point fingers, I brought them up because of the vagueness of the language.
. . .
But the investigation cleared the Patriots as an organization and Bellichick in particular, so, not repeat offenders.

BD, while I don't personally care about this issue (my guess is that lots of teams are stretching or breaking the rules to gain an advantage), I would point out that courts nearly universally agree that preponderance of the evidence does, in fact, mean more likely than not. Many courts' jury instructions actually define the standard using the "more likely than not" phrasing. You can be found culpable for very serious civil infractions, including wrongful death, with nothing more than being found more likely than not to have committed the offense. In other words, while the phrasing admittedly seems strange as a sports headline, the investigator is basically saying that he found a violation by the two equipment guys and by Brady.

Also, I don't see where the "Patriots as an organization" were cleared. The investigator did find that Belichick, ownership and coaches were not involved and did not have knowledge, but the league my well determine that the Patriots organization has some culpability. That's not as clear, though, as far I could tell since the investigator did not appear to express an opinion on whether the organization should be held liable for the actions of its lower level personnel or Brady. The investigator did say that the Patriots failed to fully cooperate in teh investigation, after initially being very cooperative, so it would be interesting to see what the NFL does, if anything, in response to that. My guess would have been that the NFL would just issue a small fine, but I'm not so sure after reading Kraft's statement essentially refusing to accept the result and any accountability. Perhaps the league will want to send a message. The investigator also specifically found that Brady was not fully cooperative.

[El_Diablo]

My later post corrected my mistake about the first bolded part. "More likely than not" does not necessarily mean a preponderance of evidence. It might. It might not. In my understanding, it more likely than not means that they can get by with saying whatever they want and not face a defamation suit because you cannot prove that statement to be false. And I didn't bring up Sammy Sosa or Derek Jeter because I was trying to point fingers, I brought them up because of the vagueness of the language.

I hate the NFL. The sport of football has no integrity. I didn't watch a single game in its entirety all year, not even the Super Bowl. I only defend the Patriots because this whole thing smells of a witch hunt. It still smells of a witch hunt. Yes, Kraft is one of Goodell's buddies. But my main beef with the NFL is that this investigation is a bigger deal than the fact the Ben Rothlisberger still plays and Jamies Winston was the overall number 1 pick. Integrity and the NFL don't belong in the same sentence. That's always been my problem with this whole Deflategate thing. It gets so much more attention than actual problems. Oooohhhh, the "integrity" of the game.

But the investigation cleared the Patriots as an organization and Bellichick in particular, so, not repeat offenders.

No, that's exactly what it means. And it's the standard that the report itself cites and uses. Here is the report:

http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2015/0506/P...ellsReport.pdf

It cites the applicable standard on page 1 as follows:

Under the Policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred”
is a “Preponderance of the Evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable
than not.”

It then makes the following conclusions (using the "more probable than not" formulation set forth above):

For the reasons described in this Report, and after a comprehensive investigation,
we have concluded that, in connection with the AFC Championship Game, it is more probable
than not that New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and
were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules. In particular, we have concluded
that it is more probable than not that Jim McNally (the Officials Locker Room attendant for the
Patriots) and John Jastremski (an equipment assistant for the Patriots) participated in a deliberate
effort to release air from Patriots game balls after the balls were examined by the referee. Based
on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the
quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of
McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls.

As for "integrity" of the sport, I was not referring to how ethical or moral some of its players are, so please spare me the sarcasm. I am speaking to the fact that there are rules everyone is supposed to abide by in theory, and when people engage in concerted efforts to break those rules and cover it up, failing to enforce those rules can cause customers (i.e., fans) to lose faith in the product (which, like any sport, is predicated on the concept of earnest competition on a level playing field). Cheating cuts away at the integrity of the sport in that sense...same with corking a bat or shaving points.

[Bostondevil]

BD, while I don't personally care about this issue (my guess is that lots of teams are stretching or breaking the rules to gain an advantage), I would point out that courts nearly universally agree that preponderance of the evidence does, in fact, mean more likely than not. Many courts' jury instructions actually define the standard using the "more likely than not" phrasing. You can be found culpable for very serious civil infractions, including wrongful death, with nothing more than being found more likely than not to have committed the offense. In other words, while the phrasing admittedly seems strange as a sports headline, the investigator is basically saying that he found a violation by the two equipment guys and by Brady.

Also, I don't see where the "Patriots as an organization" were cleared. The investigator did find that Belichick, ownership and coaches were not involved and did not have knowledge, but the league my well determine that the Patriots organization has some culpability. That's not as clear, though, as far I could tell since the investigator did not appear to express an opinion on whether the organization should be held liable for the actions of its lower level personnel or Brady. The investigator did say that the Patriots failed to fully cooperate in teh investigation, after initially being very cooperative, so it would be interesting to see what the NFL does, if anything, in response to that. My guess would have been that the NFL would just issue a small fine, but I'm not so sure after reading Kraft's statement essentially refusing to accept the result and any accountability. Perhaps the league will want to send a message. The investigator also specifically found that Brady was not fully cooperative.

Wow - I did not know that about "more likely than not". What I do know about that term is a study done quite some time ago that showed what people actually believe about certain statements and "more likely than not" was one of the most variable. People thought it meant anything from just above 50/50 to near certainty. Other extremely inexact terms in that study, "probably", "likely", "unlikely", and "a certain chance". IIRC people interpreted a certain chance as meaning anything from 1% probability to 99% probability. If instructions to juries really do say that you should find for the plaintiff or whatever based on the inexact term of "more likely than not" then our justice system needs an overhaul. We should be very specific. But, in terms of an NFL investigation, as someone has already pointed out, we are not in a court of law. There were no crimes committed here and no jury will ever hear all the evidence. Preponderance of evidence or not, when you are accusing someone of cheating in a way that will forever stain their reputation - "more likely than not" is not enough. Near certainty was a term in that study that did not have a lot of variability. When somebody says something happened with near certainty, the whole distribution is above 90%. In a case like this there needs to be near certainty. And another thing they said, Tom Brady was "generally aware". What does that mean? Define it. I absolutely believe that well respected lawyers wrote this report. That does not mean it was well written.

Perhaps another example of the same phrase meaning different things to different people, but, I interpret the bold part as saying the Patriots organization and Bellichick are cleared of wrongdoing. Of course the Patriots can still be fined (although Bellichick should not be individually fined) but that's not the same thing. I thought Kraft said the Patriots would accept any penalties and would not appeal. Is that not true? Or are we once again interpreting the same thing in different ways?

[Reilly]

USAToday columnist calls for Brady/Patriots to be hammered: http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports...dell/70911002/

Personally, I'd think having the two equipment guys be fired, Brady suspended for four games, a $5m fine for the Patriots, and a loss of a 1st round draft pick to be about right.

[Bostondevil]

As for "integrity" of the sport, I was not referring to how ethical or moral some of its players are, so please spare me the sarcasm. I am speaking to the fact that there are rules everyone is supposed to abide by in theory, and when people engage in concerted efforts to break those rules and cover it up, failing to enforce those rules can cause customers (i.e., fans) to lose faith in the product (which, like any sport, is predicated on the concept of earnest competition on a level playing field). Cheating cuts away at the integrity of the sport in that sense...same with corking a bat or shaving points.

I was not being sarcastic. I think the behavior of the players off the field is much more important to the integrity of the sport. I accept that you disagree. But, once again, we are arguing about semantics. I wish the NFL really was worried about people losing faith in the product. I am much more dismayed at the thought of Ben Rothlisberger continuing to play, or what has happened to Tony Dorsett, or Junior Seau's suicide or yes, Aaron Hernandez. That's what cuts away at my confidence in the sport as a worthwhile endeavor. Corking bats? Fine the player, maybe suspend them if necessary. Shaving points, I agree is worse - definitely suspend or even ban the player. But none of those things comes close to undermining the sport to me. Neither does something like Spygate.

[Bostondevil]

You know, if I'm being perfectly honest, I find that paying the players undermines the integrity of the sport. Sure, there's tons of money to be made and I don't actually begrudge people making money playing a game. But I do mind all this lofty language about integrity. As a society, we turn away from the behavior of athletes because, well, I'm not entirely sure, but we excuse and forgive and allow and cajole, but, horrors, somebody more likely than not tried to play the game with equipment uniquely suited to their talents and suddenly we care about integrity? We actually call it that? I am not being sarcastic when I say oooooohhhhh, the integrity.

And its not just the athletes, nothing about the commissioner's behavior screams integrity. Nothing about the executive who leaked the deflategate story in the first place screams integrity. There are some owners with integrity issues too. So, fine, be upset about Tom Brady more than likely knowing his ball boys were trying to skirt the rules, but don't use the word integrity. Semantics again. But you people keep using that word and that word doesn't mean what you think it means to me.

And all of that - All of that - is why I cannot get behind the sturm and drung over these footballs.

[El_Diablo]

I was not being sarcastic. I think the behavior of the players off the field is much more important to the integrity of the sport. I accept that you disagree. But, once again, we are arguing about semantics. I wish the NFL really was worried about people losing faith in the product. I am much more dismayed at the thought of Ben Rothlisberger continuing to play, or what has happened to Tony Dorsett, or Junior Seau's suicide or yes, Aaron Hernandez. That's what cuts away at my confidence in the sport as a worthwhile endeavor. Corking bats? Fine the player, maybe suspend them if necessary. Shaving points, I agree is worse - definitely suspend or even ban the player. But none of those things comes close to undermining the sport to me. Neither does something like Spygate.

I didn't say I disagree about player behavior. I think players should be discliplined for their transgressions. And the NFL certainly has other issues to sort out. But that doesn't mean Brady should get a free pass to cheat, in my opinion.

Regardless, my point was that I think the NFL may end up bringing the hammer down because the NFL views systematic cheating as undermining the integrity of the game, not that that I think it is worse in a moral sense than, e.g., sexually assaulting someone.

[TampaDuke]

Perhaps another example of the same phrase meaning different things to different people, but, I interpret the bold part as saying the Patriots organization and Bellichick are cleared of wrongdoing. Of course the Patriots can still be fined (although Bellichick should not be individually fined) but that's not the same thing. I thought Kraft said the Patriots would accept any penalties and would not appeal. Is that not true? Or are we once again interpreting the same thing in different ways?

Per ESPN reports, Kraft is quoted as saying that he would accept the penalties, but only begrudgingly because they don't have any other recourse. My biggest concern if I'm the NFL isn't really that a few employees, and perhaps Brady, went too far in an attempt to get a slight advantage. It's that the team didn't fully cooperate, Brady didn't cooperate, and that the owner refuses to accept accountability after the investigation revealed violations. I know we're not in a criminal court, but we can imagine the sentence imposed on the convicted defendant who refuses to accept accountability versus the defendant who accepts responsibility and expresses remorse. Similar thing here in my mind.

Per ESPN, Kraft's statment:

"To say we are disappointed in its findings, which do not include any incontrovertible or hard evidence of deliberate deflation of footballs at the AFC Championship Game, would be a gross understatement," Kraft said of the report in a statement.

"While I respect the independent process of the investigation, the time, effort and resources expended to reach this conclusion are incomprehensible to me. Knowing that there is no real recourse available, fighting the league and extending this debate would prove to be futile. We understand and greatly respect the responsibility of being one of 32 in this league and, on that basis, we will accept the findings of the report and take the appropriate actions based on those findings as well as any discipline levied by the league."

[Bostondevil]

I didn't say I disagree about player behavior. I think players should be discliplined for their transgressions. And the NFL certainly has other issues to sort out. But that doesn't mean Brady should get a free pass to cheat, in my opinion.

Regardless, my point was that I think the NFL may end up bringing the hammer down because the NFL views systematic cheating as undermining the integrity of the game, not that that I think it is worse in a moral sense than, e.g., sexually assaulting someone.

I never said he should get a free pass either. But, I do think the wording is unfair to Brady. This investigation is not a court of law. Brady will never be able to truly defend himself against the allegations. "More likely than not" is not good enough in this instance. "Near certainty" is. How exactly though, will the NFL bring the hammer down? The report blames Brady and 2 equipment managers. Were the Seahawks fined when Richard Sherman accidentally drank Adderall? Did they lose draft picks? I don't know - I'm asking. I'm not pointing fingers either. I'm asking about precedent. OK, I just looked up player suspensions over the last 10 years or so - none for equipment violations. This case got lots more attention than it otherwise would have because of the leaks and because its the Patriots. Also systematic cheating? What? The balls were measured at one game. One. That's not systematic anything. The NFL really doesn't have any proof of systematic cheating. They can't even say that it was more likely than not.

[El_Diablo]

I never said he should get a free pass either. But, I do think the wording is unfair to Brady. This investigation is not a court of law. Brady will never be able to truly defend himself against the allegations. "More likely than not" is not good enough in this instance. "Near certainty" is.

I do not think the NFL should adjust its standards on the fly. Nor do I think that requiring "near certainty" would allow for a feasible enforcement mechanism.

[Bostondevil]

Per ESPN reports, Kraft is quoted as saying that he would accept the penalties, but only begrudgingly because they don't have any other recourse. My biggest concern if I'm the NFL isn't really that a few employees, and perhaps Brady, went too far in an attempt to get a slight advantage. It's that the team didn't fully cooperate, Brady didn't cooperate, and that the owner refuses to accept accountability after the investigation revealed violations. I know we're not in a criminal court, but we can imagine the sentence imposed on the convicted defendant who refuses to accept accountability versus the defendant who accepts responsibility and expresses remorse. Similar thing here in my mind.

Per ESPN, Kraft's statment:

Evidence?

No, complaints from the guys writing the report are not enough. What did they ask for and not get? What was the defined scope of their investigation? Were they going on a fishing expedition? If we're going to get all legal - there is such a thing as due process. Also - the NFL does not have enough evidence for a conviction. If they did, Kraft would respond differently. May I refer you to Spygate? The report states the (appalling) legal standard of "more likely than not", which is enough in a civil suit. So no, not similar in my mind.

[Bostondevil]

I do not think the NFL should adjust its standards on the fly. Nor do I think that requiring "near certainty" would allow for a feasible enforcement mechanism.

They have accused Brady of cheating in a high profile case. His reputation will more likely than not never recover. Brady has no way to defend himself against these allegations. There should be higher standards.

And now I am going to be sarcastic regarding the bolded comment. Adjust what standards? Since when did the NFL standards?

Seriously though, do you honestly think they don't already adjust their standards on the fly? If so, I suspect you have a lot of integrity. Which begs the question - why bother with the NFL?

[El_Diablo]

They have accused Brady of cheating in a high profile case. His reputation will more likely than not never recover. Brady has no way to defend himself against these allegations. There should be higher standards.

And now I am going to be sarcastic regarding the bolded comment. Adjust what standards? Since when did the NFL standards?

Seriously though, do you honestly think they don't already adjust their standards on the fly? If so, I suspect you have a lot of integrity. Which begs the question - why bother with the NFL?

Huh? I do not really get the last part. But regardless, the NFL's policy on cheating has a standard of proof, and the independent investigator simply applied that standard of proof. The NFL may very well deviate from its standards and require something more when deciding what to do with the report. We shall see.

But they are not mere "allegations" against which Brady had no way to defend himself. They are the conclusions of the investigators, based on a careful review of the facts gathered during a process in which Brady was allowed and expressly requested to participate. However, as the report states with respect to Brady's level of cooperation with the investigation:

he declined to make available any documents or electronic information
(including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited
to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game
balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady‟s
counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive
materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady‟s telephone or other electronic
devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in
Brady's possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the
discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation.

The foregoing passage also speaks to your questions above regarding the scope of what was requested and what they did not get. I do not see how someone can say Brady has had no way to defend himself here.

[cato]

Huh? I do not really get the last part. But regardless, the NFL's policy on cheating has a standard of proof, and the independent investigator simply applied that standard of proof. The NFL may very well deviate from its standards and require something more when deciding what to do with the report. We shall see.

But they are not mere "allegations" against which Brady had no way to defend himself. They are the conclusions of the investigators, based on a careful review of the facts gathered during a process in which Brady was allowed and expressly requested to participate. However, as the report states with respect to Brady's level of cooperation with the investigation:

he declined to make available any documents or electronic information
(including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited
to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game
balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady‟s
counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive
materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady‟s telephone or other electronic
devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in
Brady's possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the
discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation.

The foregoing passage also speaks to your questions above regarding the scope of what was requested and what they did not get. I do not see how someone can say Brady has had no way to defend himself here.

To be fair, counsel in the Boston area are pretty pricey. Perhaps Tom couldn't afford getting his lawyers involved.

[BD80]

... But, I do think the wording is unfair to Brady. This investigation is not a court of law. Brady will never be able to truly defend himself against the allegations. ...

It was established that the equipment managers were deflating balls to attempt to meet Brady's desires. It was also established that they were having difficulty doing what Brady requested.

What were Brady's specific requests? Brady wouldn't release the emails or texts which would have given the "hard evidence" the patriots claim is missing. If Brady's requests were legal, why would they have to deflate balls? Why not just inflate them to Brady's specifications? And why adjust the pressure AFTER the officials checked the pressure? And why would the equipment manager feel entitled to extra benefits for adjusting the pressure?

Brady clearly lied in the press conference when he said he had nothing to do with ball deflation.

This isn't a criminal case, it is a "civil" matter with respect to contracts between the teams as to how they will conduct business. The patriots breached the contract as shown by a preponderance of the evidence.

Back to the patriots/carolina way, pointing to bad things other people do.

[BD80]

Brady better have a really good year throwing the football. It appears that the deflation practice occurred the entire year (the communications establishing the practice were 6 months before the playoff game). So Brady's entire season benefitted from him throwing "customized" balls.

If Brady has an off year, it will appear that he isn't the same quarterback when he has to throw (and his receivers must catch) legally inflated balls

[Reilly]

... Brady clearly lied in the press conference when he said he had nothing to do with ball deflation ...

You know what would be refreshing? If Brady came clean. If he said, "don't fire the equipment guys, they were just trying to do what I asked them to do." If he said, "I'm sorry I didn't cooperate with the investigation." If he said, "I'm sorry I lied to everyone in my press conference -- I'm sitting myself for the coming year for my transgressions, and I hope that action is enough and the NFL spares the Patriots any further punishment."

I guess he'll always be thought of by many as a cheat and a liar, but he could earn back some good will if he came clean.

[Bostondevil]

You know what would be refreshing? If Brady came clean. If he said, "don't fire the equipment guys, they were just trying to do what I asked them to do." If he said, "I'm sorry I didn't cooperate with the investigation." If he said, "I'm sorry I lied to everyone in my press conference -- I'm sitting myself for the coming year for my transgressions, and I hope that action is enough and the NFL spares the Patriots any further punishment."

I guess he'll always be thought of by many as a cheat and a liar, but he could earn back some good will if he came clean.

QED.

You're assuming he has something to come clean about. You do not know that.

[Troublemaker]

You know what would be refreshing? If Brady came clean. If he said, "don't fire the equipment guys, they were just trying to do what I asked them to do." If he said, "I'm sorry I didn't cooperate with the investigation." If he said, "I'm sorry I lied to everyone in my press conference -- I'm sitting myself for the coming year for my transgressions, and I hope that action is enough and the NFL spares the Patriots any further punishment."

Agreed, but looks like he won't be taking that path. I'm assuming Brady's agent spoke to Brady before releasing this statement: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sm3i1u