Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

No. There were two different readings taken by two different refs. The Patriots focus on one of the ref's readings and rely heavily on the one statement he made about his "best" recollection.

Sure. Because if the referee's best recollection about which gauge he used is correct, then there just isn't that much of an issue.

Either way, I do not believe their take on how much the ball deflates naturally over the course of one half of football, considering the guy drawing that conclusion gets funding from Kraft.

Likewise, one could reject everything in the Wells Report because he was paid by the league.

You recall exactly the way I expect you would--heavily in favor of the Patriots. I'd ask you to go read them again in as neutral a way as possible, but I don't think you're capable.

And you react the way I expect a NY sports fan would, but I guess I have a little more respect for your capabilities. I have done my share of investigations where I had to wade through a mess of documents. If all you know is what Mortensen reported and then you see those texts, you think, sure Brady is guilty as sin. But if you know that what Mortensen reported is wrong and that the NFL has been happy to let people have the wrong impression, and you know that they saw a lot of text messages and that those are the best they have, then you're less impressed. Or I am, anyway. They are far from a smoking gun.

Why? Why were they trying to accomplish that?

With the Colts, I think it's obvious, and it seems to me that some of the leaks could have been from the Colts. From the NFL, it's less obvious. I am inclined to think that the NFL is not acting monolithically, and that there are people within the league who are acting for their own reasons. But I can't really explain, and on some level I am baffled by some of what they have done.

By the way, let's use this as a jump-off on the use of the word, "conspiracy." This is everyone's favorite word to make a spoken or unspoken agreement seem completely ludicrous. In law school we learned that a conspiracy can exist through something as small as a wink or a nod. Maybe there was a conspiracy among three people here (Brady and the guys who work his footballs). If there was, it sure doesn't sound ludicrous to me. But even if there was no outright, spoken conspiracy and Brady simply looked the other way when he knew his guys were breaking the rules to please him, then screw Brady just as much.

In law school we learned that prosecutors think that way, and that if they can get a jury to convict someone on that sort of evidence, judges won't get in the way. Obviously, Burger and I both work in areas of law where these issues are pretty big. I meant to use the word in the way that an ordinary person would use, not as a lawyer.

I think there was an unspoken understanding that Brady's guys would deflate as much as possible based on their interactions with Brady. Brady knew that his guys were doing it and he could tell whenever he picked one up.

I don't think Brady can pick up a football and tell you whether it is legal or not, but otherwise I'm with you. The person I've discussed this with has thirty years experience in professional soccer, fwiw.

He knew the rules were being broken,

I don't see this, but whatever.

but considered the rule stupid and one the NFL really didn't care much about. Then all of a sudden it did, and he knew he was in deep shit. He gave up text messages to the League that wouldn't show wrongdoing. and he probably discussed it (including by text) with people not working for the team. He didn't want to be asked for those, so he destroyed his phone.

Or, he never asked anyone to break the rules, doesn't feel that he is responsible for policing what the team does, and cooperated to a considerable extent with an investigation that, as it turns out, was more interested in whacking him to make Goodell appear tough than it was in finding the truth.

I don't think I know what actually happened, and I don't think the NFL does, either. When I worked for the government, I thought it was my job to only bring charges when I really believed they were well founded and that I could convince a court or jury. So that's my prior. Goodell is playing a different game.