Breaking News In The Brady Case

I have no idea if that's true - I'm not keeping up with the story.  But a dedicated team of commenters here is - and they could use a new thread to keep the comments flowing.

And hey, I'm thinking there's about a 1 in 3 chance that I'm right.  If not, something should be along shortly to make it so that I am.

 

Link to Last Page of Thread.

Comments

[henry]

I'm waiting for the Mrs Brady over inflation ruling.

[Jack is Back!]

Why put up this thread and then another one right away?

[Threadkiller]

This is the kiddie table thread, JIB.

[Threadkiller]

This is where we left off, SG.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2015/07/go-tom-brady/comments/page/8/#comments

[maryrose]

JIB
We love to beat this topic to death
Prediction
One or two game suspension and no fines

[Threadkiller]

I like that prediction, maryrose.

[MarkO]

No suspension. Small fine. Pat's decision stays in place. Roger gone within the year.

[narciso]

Theres no there, as gertude Stein said.

Much like the bezos scoop about raxorback and the oligarch

[Thomas Collins]

Thank you Jeff. Team PSI has a new thread.

To my friends here who scoff: They'll be talking about Bradyballs long after The Donald and his hair have been relegated to the scrap heap of history (or is it the rusty gauge of history).

[Thomas Collins]

But narciso, the PSIers here are part of a long and honorable historical tradition.

http://www.ultimatehistoryproject.com/in-rome-all-was-fair-in-games-and-races.html

[Jane]

Mark,

Are you hearing any insider talk?

[Threadkiller]

McNally, the insider, won't talk, Jane.

[MarkO]

Jane, Typepad is eating my comments.

No insider talk. Check McCann's Tweets.

With the release of the appeal transcript, the NFL has again been shown to be inept, incompetent and corrupt.

Adios Roger.

[narciso]

I understand and I see it a template for institutional arrogance, however some questions occur to me.

[Some Guy]

The NFLPA wanted to release the transcript the day of the hearing, but the NFL said no. Now I can see why.

Goodell misrepresented Brady's testimony in his ruling (aka lied), and actually made a more agressive scientific finding without evidence. Wells and Vincent confirmed the lack of procedure and lack of notice issues.

I still can't tell if Goodell is getting horrible legal advice or he is just ignoring good advice.

[Threadkiller]

http://deadspin.com/highlights-of-tom-bradys-personal-emails-revealed-in-n-1722160002

Should be satire. I really can't tell.

I'm not sure why these emails would be considered relevant at all.

Funny comment section I might add.

[Threadkiller]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tom-bradys-reaction-being-told-160000166.html

Geez...

[Threadkiller]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/04/why-didnt-goodell-call-jastremski-and-mcnally/

I disagree with the author.

[My seeester, she's got soft balls.]

McNally had no idea long the piss he was taking was.

[Glad he didn't psit.]

er, 'how long the piss'.

[Thomas Collins]

Some Guy, re your 8:42 PM post yesterday: I think Goodell views this from a PR perspective, and that his ruling was focused on getting good press to pressure the NFLPA and Brady to settle for something like a 2 game suspension and an admission of guilt by Brady. Now that it's clear that isn't happening, and that the PR tide is turning, it will be interesting to see what Goodell's next move will be.

Remember, this is a man rebuked by Judge Jones for justifying a two game suspension for a criminal battery on the ground that the perp wasn't really clear about what happened, when the evidence indicated that the perp was clear and Goodell was more than generally aware of the perp's admission, he was in the room when the admission took place.

TK, I guess Brady is a thrifty guy!

[Threadkiller]

Very thrifty, TC. :-)

Do you think the emails are getting copied and then posted by someone with a PACER account?

I haven't found a source for the 4000 pages of the document dump.

[maryrose]

All you Patriots fans are correct to support your quarterback and your team
Outside New England we all know something hinky went down in the Colts New England playoff game
Should have played the game over to remove all doubt
Now however it plays out you have a tainted victory

[MarkO]

"Outside New England we all know something hinky went down in the Colts New England playoff game"

I know exactly what it was. The Pats beat the Colts. Everyone knows you can't beat the Colts by 38 points without cheating.

[Some Guy]

It will be interesting how the settlement conferences proceed.

I don't see any real incentive for Brady to settle for anything that might save face for NFL now.

- He is innocent (or is on record under oath saying he is, so he can't back off that position)
- The "lack of cooperation" has been exposed as a lie by Wells' own testimony
- He can't be embarrassed anymore, as all those things people claimed Brady wouldn't want exposed are now public knowledge.

His only risk is the judge will defer to the arbitration and refuse to intervene. However, there are so many issues of Labor Law, the Law of the Shop, and examples of Evident Partiality that Berman would have a hard time thinking he wouldn't get smacked on appeal.

There is plenty to the NFLPA case to feel confident that the upper court would hear the appeal and issue an injunction. So a threat from Berman in private to "settle or you won't like what I rule" shouldn't be too convincing. Additionally, the NFLPA probably doesn't want to settle but would rather have a federal judge further erode Goodell's credibility and power.

On the NFL side, "settle or you won't like what I rule" is a very credible a threat, and the NFL can be embarrassed further.

[MarkO]

The burden of persuasion, as a matter of law, was on the NFL. Had Goodell been seeking the truth, he would have insisted the ball boys show up. Brady, whose interest in this proceeding is defending himself, had no need to call the ball boys because he was going to deny ordering any deflation.

This is another massive failure by Goodell and the Wells "independent" group.

Could it be that Goodell was actually using this episode as a labor war on the players? If he could beat down the best player in the League, suspend and humiliate him, he might have some leverage over the union.

That would explain why Kraft went along with it.

But, as a matter of fair adjudication of a single alleged violation, it skinks.

[Some Guy]

Outside New England we all know something hinky went down in the Colts New England playoff game

Well, I'm in California and what went down as hinky was the Colts illegally measuring a football, and having a GM who slept through his high school physics class running upstairs to the NFL suite whining that "we are playing with small balls". That and an NFL employee stealing game balls, and substituting unofficial balls into the game.

Should have played the game over to remove all doubt

It would have only removed all doubt that the Colts have a great quarterback, and no defense.

[Threadkiller]

I think you are reading that wrong, MarkO. Goodell left the hearing open and the NFLPA squandered the opportunity to get M&J in front of him.

If the NFLPA thought they had an advantageous witness in either one of those guys, they weren't prevented from showcasing them.

I would like to see their post hearing briefs.

[Threadkiller]

The security guards weren't called either by Goodell, but the NFLPA attorneys felt comfortable with how The Wells Report represented them and used that as a basis for questioning Wells.

If they didn't like what Wells wrote about the ball boys, they shoud have called them in.

[MarkO]

No, TK.

It was a weak litigation maneuver by Goodell to suggest that Brady was afraid of the ball boys. It was Goodell's obligation as an "unbiased" hearing officer, to produce the best evidence. For him, there would have been no better evidence than an confession from the ball boys.

Maybe when he's fired, Skinnerville will return.

[Threadkiller]

I would think being unbiased would be as simple as not having restrictions on who can be called.

What we haven't seen is the post-hearing brief from the NFLPA that should address why they didn't call M&J.

Probably on PACER.

[Threadkiller]

Did the ball boys confess?

[MarkO]

Did the ball boys confess?

To something that didn't happen?

[Threadkiller]

You suggested that "For him[Goodell], there would have been no better evidence than an confession from the ball boys."

[Some Guy]

Actually MarkO the ball boy gambit by Goodell, Moe & Larry was far more sleazy.

They asked if the NFLPA thought the ball boy testimony was necessary, and since they are both on record as denying anything that implicates Brady, they correctly stated it wasn't necessary. Not to mention it would use up valuable time that was limited in the appeal.

Then Goodell turns it on its head to claim a negative inference can be drawn from their non-appearance and uses it to disregard their testimony exonerating Brady.

It is another example of Evident Partiality because the wording of the request for a brief regarding the ball boys, cannot justify a leap to negative inference. It was an obvious ploy they thought no one find out about.

[Threadkiller]

They asked if the NFLPA thought the ball boy testimony was necessary, and since they are both on record as denying anything that implicates Brady, they correctly stated it wasn't necessary.

You are lying.

[Some Guy]

btw, did anyone else notice in reading the hearing transcript that Roger Goodell was just a potted plant who only asked questions because he didn't hear something? Levy ran the hearing, decided objections, etc.

[Some Guy]

LOL

[Threadkiller]

Laughing isn't a denial.

You made shit up again. And got caught again.

[Some Guy]

Laughing is the only option. You are a clown.

[Threadkiller]

You are a liar that even a clown can catch.

[Threadkiller]

SG's lie is exposed on page 456.

[Porchlight]

I know exactly what it was. The Pats beat the Colts. Everyone knows you can't beat the Colts by 38 points without cheating.

I don't question the outcome of that game. My chief interest is in whether this was an ongoing activity by the Pats. Arguably, if they were cheating, it helped them get to the championship in the first place. Remember, they only barely squeaked by the Ravens in the previous game. In much colder weather.

[Thomas Collins]

Ah, Porchlight, you've rejoined the PSI Fray. I guess I still can't convince you that (I) the Patriots cheat, and (II) the Patriots are well within the norm of sports cheating (including Texas hero Nolan Ryan who, despite a speed of light fastball, pitched in front of the pitching rubber in certain situations). Well, I suppose you're convinced of my first proposition. :-)

But I hope everyone agrees that, whatever Brady's ball preferences may be, the story linked below is a far bigger story. Brady thinks he'll outlast Peyton Manning by six years on the gridiron.

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13383354/tom-brady-new-england-patriots-predicts-peyton-manning-end-stamp-rivalry

[Some Guy]

My chief interest is in whether this was an ongoing activity by the Pats.

Porchlight, would you surmise that the NFL had reviewed security footage from the Ravens game, as well as other prior games at Gillette looking for nefarious tinkle breaks and other evidence of cheating?

Further would you surmise that if they had found any, it would have been included in the Wells/Pash report?

[Threadkiller]

Porchlight, would you surmise the Kraft handed over more security footage than we have been told?

If so, would you surmise that the other footage helped in his decision to can the ball boys?

[Thomas Collins]

TK, it's possible that if all the security footage were released, it would look worse for the NFL. If I am an NFL officer, I don't want footage out there with Mac in plain sight of NFL personnel lugging Brady's balls around on a week after week basis. If the "generally known" statement in the Colts internal email exchange is confirmed, it seems to make the NFL look even more like Keystone Kops (with apologies to the Keystone Kops). Not to mention the game officials.

In any event, I wonder what a sponsor would pay this year if the NFL agreed to televise its weigh-in before the game began.

[Threadkiller]

I am with you on hiw it would look for the NFL, TC, assuming it was damaging.

Since it is Kraft's to release, my hunch is it isn't very damaging.

[Threadkiller]

...how...

[Porchlight]

I really don't know what the NFL reviewed and what it didn't. But it's a good question.

TC, no doubt, there is cheating everywhere, but I don't consider it relevant to the case at hand.

Brady vs. Manning - Brady should be careful, for those are major jinxing words. Comparing QBs is sort of fruitless - you have to pass to someone, you have to hand off to someone, you have to be protected by someone, etc., someone has to play decent defense when you're not on the field, etc.

[Porchlight]

Also it's kind of funny reading Brady's buddies blowing sunshine at him. Manning is infinitely more likable no matter how deflategate shakes out. And I say that as a sometime Manning hater. ;)

[Some Guy]

I really don't know what the NFL reviewed and what it didn't. But it's a good question.

Now, wouldn't it also be a good question, 'if they didn't review footage of prior games -- why the hell not?'

It is clear from the Wells/Pash Report that the Patriots cooperated fully and without reservation to any request for that type of information. So why wouldn't they request it?

[Threadkiller]

The Wells Report should have shown McNally consistently violating NFL rules to prove the video tape of McNally violating the rules during the AFC Championship game was a video tape of McNally violating the rules during the AFC Championship game.

[Porchlight]

So why wouldn't they request it?

Well, they may have done so. Perhaps the request was refused. Perhaps the footage was no longer available. I don't know.

[Some Guy]

Well, they may have done so. Perhaps the request was refused.

That is likely impossible. If they had, and the request was refused, it would have been highlighted in the Wells/Pash report and used as justification for any penalties.

Perhaps the footage was no longer available.

Certainly possible, but so highly unlikely that in and of itself would be reason for suspicion. Since the game was a week before and Patriots' security would have other obligations to retain the tapes longer than just a week.

[Porchlight]

Maybe the focus of that investigation was that particular game, SG. Had they gotten into investigating all the other games they probably wouldn't be done yet.

[Thomas Collins]

Well, I doubt that if Manning replies, it will reach this level of entertainment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKLWAZhTFsQ

[MarkO]

NFL corruption, and lack of evidence to support Goodell's stated conclusions.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/roger-goodell-s-manipulation-of-tom-brady-s-testimony-leaves-nfl-on-slippery-slope-214409591-nfl.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw

[Porchlight]

From the Wells report:

I. Investigative Activities

A. Scope of Investigation

On January 23, 2015, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell publicly announced that
the NFL had retained Theodore V. Wells, Jr. and Paul, Weiss to conduct an investigation,
together with NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash, into whether the footballs used in the
AFC Championship Game complied with the specifications set forth in the NFL‟s Playing Rules.
As described by the League, the “goals of the investigation will be to determine the explanation
for why footballs used in the game were not in compliance with the playing rules and specifically
whether any noncompliance was the result of deliberate action.”

So there you have it, I guess. Scope limited to AFC game. Now, corroborating evidence from prior games would have been nice. But getting all the footage from all the games (going back to...?) would likely be more than the investigation could manage/afford/allow time for.

[Porchlight]

I didn't read far enough. Here is the answer, from the footnote on page 29 of the Wells report.

4 The security footage collected from inside Gillette Stadium proved helpful in establishing the timing of certain events on the day of the AFC Championship Game. Our ability to rely on this footage, however, was limited in a number of ways. First, because the footage was recorded by a camera that rotates among different angles, certain events were not recorded or were only partially captured on video. Second, the security cameras trained on the field were located at a distance that made it difficult to ascertain various events taking place on the field. Finally, Patriots personnel explained that the footage captured by security cameras in Gillette Stadium is overwritten every 10 days as a regular practice. We were, therefore, unable to review footage filmed during prior Patriots home games, which may have proved useful.

[Thomas Collins]

That's probably true, Porchlight, in light of the fact that the NFL couldn't procure a video of a criminal battery by one of its stars that TMZ could.

The Pats play the Cowboys in Week 5. The Pats' bye week is Week 4, and the Cowboys' bye week is Week 6. At the moment, both Brady and Greg Hardy have four game suspensions. If Brady's suspension is not overturned, Greg Hardy will be playing in the Pats-Cowboys game, and Brady will not. If I'm an NFL owner, that's not an aspect to the game buildup that I'll want emphasized.

[Threadkiller]

Wells should have demanded they undelete the written over footage.

That would have been the honest thing to do.

[MarkO]

I wandered off. I don't see from this on p. 456 of the transcript how SG is lying:

"In your briefs, the Commissioner would like you to address the question of whether he should hear from Mr. McNally and/or Mr. Jastremski before resolving the issue, before deciding the matter."

If I were representing Brady, I would not be one to tell the Commissar how to try his case. I Is Goodell to stupid to know what evidence he should present? [actually, Wells appears to be that stupid]

[Some Guy]

Thanks Porchlight, I had to run out but I was going to look for similar information when I got back. Excellent find.

However, if it is overwritten every 10 days wouldn't the Ravens game still be available?

[MarkO]

What follows is a longish quote, but it has massive evidentiary meaning. The NFL has the burden of persuasion. Below, in the record on which the decision must be made, is the fully admitted testimony from Brady that John Jastremski denied doing anything with the footballs. It was up to the NFL to bring him in and impeach the testimony.

CROSS/BRADY/REISNERPage 135
Have you seen the text messages referenced in the report sent between Jim McNally and John Jastremski referring to inflating footballs, deflating footballs, "The only thing deflating Sunday is his passer rating"?
Have you seen those text messages?
A. In the report, yes.
Q. Any concerns at all. Did they raise concerns
CROSS/BRADY/REISNERPage 137
that something improper was happening?
A. I think that you can interpret however you want to interpret them. Me, personally, John said he didn't do it. I believe John. I never authorized anybody to do it. I never talked about doing it, so I don't know what else I can say. I'm on the field playing. He said he didn't do it. I believed him. I can't speculate to something that I was never there for that I never saw that I never talked about.

[Some Guy]

MarkO it's Chinatown.

[Porchlight]

However, if it is overwritten every 10 days wouldn't the Ravens game still be available?

The Ravens game was on 1/11, the Colts game was on 1/18, and the investigation was announced on 1/23. Theoretically they could have gotten it together quickly enough to get the Pats to hold the tape, but doubtful, since at that point they hadn't even set the parameters of the investigation and figured out who to interview to find out whether the tape was available. I don't think the investigation even properly started until the 26th.

From the report: "On January 26, 2015, Mr.
Wells issued a statement making clear that the investigation would follow customary
investigative procedures and that the results would be shared publicly."

[Rocco]

Football is a tough and sometimes often dirty game. I played a little bush league in the EFL and once spit in the defensive lineman's face to draw an off side. It happens all the time and most of the time we never hear about it. Our running backs would use double sided tape to keep their jersey's tight against their pads and one guy used to spray his entire jersey with PAM, an odorless cooking oil spray. This was a sting!

[Threadkiller]

No "negative inference" was maintained MarkO.

That is why SG chopped up his comment. Attempting to make one thing seem as though it was said or done by misstatements about something else.

[Threadkiller]

The entirety of footnote 7 contained in Goodell's 20 page opinion needed to be read.

[MarkO]

I shouldn't read this transcript. It just gets worse.

A. No. I mean, just, I want to be clear. Look, Mr. Brady denied any involvement. Mr. Jastremski and Mr. McNally denied any involvement or that anything happened, including with respect to their knowledge of Mr. Brady. Coach Belichick said he had talked to Mr. Brady and that Mr. Brady had denied doing anything, and I think Coach Belichick said he believed him. I think those are the only witnesses who said something about Mr. Brady. And that's all in the report; I believe so. (P. 326, Testimony of Wells.) Yes. Wells.

[Porchlight]

Wow, they all denied involvement. They must be innocent.

[Rocco]

Gotta love Bill Simmons (if you're a Pats fan that is)

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-simmons-patriots-deflategate-2015-8

[Porchlight]

It happens all the time and most of the time we never hear about it.

Agreed. But when we do hear about it, or about allegations anyway, "it happens all the time, NBD" is not a persuasive response IMO. It tends to indicate a callousness toward cheating which goes to the very root of the charges against the Pats.

[MarkO]

Shameful behavior for any organization. Is this a labor war and they chose Brady as the token. Is Goodell attempting to win back leverage he has lost. It can't be a serious adjudication. The NFL will lose badly.

Brady's Testimony. Uncontradicted.

Q. Now, you were interviewed by Mr. Wells and his team, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And did they spend a number of hours with you?
A. Yes.
Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?

A. No. (p. 86)

[MarkO]

"Wow, they all denied involvement. They must be innocent."

No. That's not the point at all. The issue is what evidence is in the record. These denials are in the record. I suppose if you lose 45-7 you don't have to believe it. But, if you are conducting a fair hearing, you have to have evidence. The NFL has nothing.

[Thomas Collins]

Porchlight, it's a persuasive response to me when "legends" such as Don Shula cast aspersions on the Patriots achievements from the 2000-2014 seasons. If the Patriots are run of the mill scoundrels, then 12 out of 15 playoff seasons, nine AFC Championship Games and a 6-3 record in them, six Supers Bowls and a 4-2 record in them, and one losing season in all that time, is an achievement that should not be sullied by envy, which I think is the emotion of many players and so-called experts.

[MarkO]

"It tends to indicate a callousness toward cheating which goes to the very root of the charges against the Pats."

You assume, with only speculation in the record, that Brady is a cheater and, thus, the callousness.

If it happened, once or 10 times, it should be punished according to rule. So far, the evidence of it happening is speculative and weak.

There is only one area of discipline for which a broken rule is fully proven: the Referee failed to maintain the psi in the footballs.

[Porchlight]

Okay, MarkO. I've already said I don't care about the 45-7 loss. And Brady's involvement interests me not at all. I'm interested in whether the thing happened and if so, who did it and how.

[MarkO]

Me, too, Porch.

[Porchlight]

You assume, with only speculation in the record, that Brady is a cheater and, thus, the callousness.

One doesn't have to assume anything about cheating in this case (by Brady or anyone else) to perceive a general callousness to cheating in the "it happens all the time, NBD" response. That was my point.

[Porchlight]

I'm still interested in knowing whether the Pats defenders were just a tad dismayed to read the Wells report and see multiple discussions of deflation and needles between the very employees most likely to have been involved in the alleged activity. And strong implications that they were in trouble for stealing equipment as well.

Circumstantial, sure. But still, that had to be a jolt.

[Rocco]

If the Pats are assumed guilty because of Spygate, then can we make a similar assumption about Irsay?

Of course NOT! Being an alcoholic myself (with 22 years of sobriety) I wish Jim Irsay the best!

[Rocco]

If the Pats are assumed guilty because of Spygate, then can we make a similar assumption about Irsay?

Of course NOT! Being an alcoholic myself (with 22 years of sobriety) I wish Jim Irsay the best!

[Rocco]

I think Marlene jinxed me!

[Some Guy]

The Ravens game was on 1/11, the Colts game was on 1/18, and the investigation was announced on 1/23.

Except we know NFL Security commenced investigating the night the of the Colts game, and one would think security footage would be top of mind for any direct evidence.

[Porchlight]

Except we know NFL Security commenced investigating the night the of the Colts game, and one would think security footage would be top of mind for any direct evidence.

Yes, good point. They would have had to scramble, though, to get to the right people to find out if the tape was recoverable before 1/21, and to get the legal clearance to take it or at least make sure it wasn't overwritten. Naturally their focus at the time was what happened at the AFC game.

It does bring to mind Belichick's statement that he knew nothing about any of this until he got to the stadium on Monday morning 1/19. Anyone still believe that? :)

[Some Guy]

"I'm still interested in knowing whether the Pats defenders were just a tad dismayed to read the Wells report and see multiple discussions of deflation and needles between the very employees most likely to have been involved in the alleged activity."

At the time of publication of the Wells Report I wasn't a Pat's defender or a hater for that matter. At first reading, if you recall, I found the circumstantial evidence enough to conclude that based on the prior Jets game incident, that McNally may have tried to adjust the two balls the officials had inflated after testing.

However, after more fully digging into it, the problem with circumstantial evidence is that it ceases to be evidence when there was no actual crime. The NFL didn't, and can't prove, or come close to proving, that a violation occurred.

A guy who refers to himself as "killer" is only interesting, when someone was actually murdered.

[Porchlight]

A guy who refers to himself as "killer" is only interesting, when someone was actually murdered.

True. But not all crimes produce evidence as incontrovertible as an obviously murdered corpse. In this case it doesn't help that the suspects often joked about killing with the same weapon they were alleged to have used in the murder.

[Some Guy]

alleged to have used in the murder.

alleged to have used in an alleged murder where there is no body or missing persons.

[MarkO]

Good circumstantial evidence is when you find a fish in the milk. Compare and contrast this case.

[Porchlight]

Right. Like I said, not all crimes produce a handy corpse.

And this isn't crime being investigated and tried in a court of law, anyway.

[MarkO]

As I adumbrated, I have begun to believe the NFL saw this as a chance to regain leverage against the Union by severely punishing a star player. The case was leaked and then manufactured. The evidence was weak and speculative.

It's a theory that can be supported by reference to every part of the story.

[Some Guy]

Porchlight, would you concede that there are literally thousands of people who might refer to themselves as "killer" or "slayer" and who also might in text messages spanning a couple of years talk about guns or knives or other weapons of mayhem...

...and yet they aren't also involved with an actual murder?

[Porchlight]

That's an interesting theory, MarkO. But highly risky behavior, as we have seen.

The NFL is a strange animal - a bureaucracy, a corporation, a federation of individual owners, and more. As a frequent target of litigation it tends to be risk-averse. This seems a mighty dangerous way to go about union-busting. Not much upside and tons of downside. I think the PR stunt theory is stronger, but as this drags out it seems that isn't a very good explanation either.

If the NFL really did believe (possibly erroneously) that a violation occurred, but didn't have strong evidence, but also didn't want to be bullied into backing down by powerful owners, how do you think this would play out? It seems to me that it's played out about how one would expect it to. Elaborate theories aren't necessary.

[Porchlight]

Yes, I would concede that, SG. The failure of that particular analogy doesn't change my opinion about Jastremski and McNally, however.

[MarkO]

Porch, I'm just trying to understand why the NFL would push such a weak case about the psi in a football. We don't even know if it would make a difference in the competitive balance of a game.

Sports leagues are subject to heavy abuse.

[Porchlight]

Subject to abuse meaning subject to being abused? Or did you mean prone to inflicting heavy abuse? It is true, they wield a lot of power and certainly abuse it on occasion. But they aren't the government and this isn't a criminal investigation. Everyone's participation so far is voluntary.

[MarkO]

"Subject to abuse meaning subject to being abused? Or did you mean prone to inflicting heavy abuse?"

Both.

[Porchlight]

Gotcha.