I think much bigger than the act of deflating footballs to achieve a very real but marginal advantage was the failure by the Patriots and Brady specifically to cooperate with the investigation.
Brady refused to provide text messages despite the fact that all the investigator was asking for were text printouts pre-vetted by BRADY! And even worse the Patriots refused to allow the investigation to interview the key witness (McNally) when asked to do so by the investigation for a second time?
For all those squakwing about due process you do realize that obstruction of justice is a felony right? You go to jail if you do that in real court...
Add on to that Brady providing at the minimum uncredible testimony more likely than not false testimony the farcial press conferences done by both Brady and Kraft (demanding an apology?) the history of cheating by the franchise (spygate etc)...
I think the Pats got off light.
- Ben.
I don't believe that you can punish employees based on the civil standard of 'more likely than not.' But then again, I don't believe that's what the NFL did. Even though they used that language in their public announcements.
Rick says,
From Field Gulls on why the punishment was so heavy (normally the fine is $25K):
Because the NFL was extremely clear that it wasn't punishing the Pats just for cheating. From the official explanation of the Pats' penalty -- emphasis added:
"For the violation of the playing rules and the failure to cooperate in the subsequent investigation, the New England Patriots are fined $1 million and will forfeit the club's first-round selection in the 2016 NFL Draft and the club's fourth-round selection in the 2017 NFL Draft."
The official explanation of Brady's penalty -- again, emphasis added:
"Quarterback Tom Brady will be suspended without pay for the first four games of the 2015 regular season for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the NFL. Brady may participate in all off-season, training camp and pre-season activities, including pre-season games."
and:
NFL executive vice president Troy Vincent additionally wrote a letter to Brady, in which he states:
...The report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence.
"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football.
http://www.sbnation.com/2015/5/12/8588815/the-nfl-punished-tom-brady-and...
- See more at: http://seattlesportsinsider.com/article/pepper-0#comment-159369
.....
On Field Gulls, did you see the revealed texts between Brady's assistants? Laughing and joking about his directions as to what the PSI's should be for the next game. If you haven't actually read the texts, Gentle Reader, you'll want to go read them. (Maybe a friend can link us up; I'm on the run today and don't have time to find the right article.)
It's a funny thing; sometimes an 8-line text conversation (or hallway conversation) that you overhear --- > can make it crystal clear what was going on. I don't know where this "conspiratorial wink" concept fits under the law; I hope Mojician will chime in.
Now the word is that the Patriots have been doing this for like 7 years?! and it's becoming easier to believe that it was institutionalized there. If the investigators were well aware of that, and Brady was sticking to his "implausible" denials, I become more sympathetic to the NFL dropping the hammer.
There's honor among thieves, and the word is that New England was indeed a "corrupt" franchise even by NFL standards. When one of the mafia goons crosses the line, his own people are going to deal with him...
.....
It's to the point to where they've got me wondering whether inflated footballs will cause the Patriots' offense major problems. Grumpy pointed out that if it saves you even 2-3 fumbles a year, that's huge. But now I'm thinking that their passing game could be seriously affected.
......
Bill James (admirably) argues the abstractions of legal process; he did it with Pete Rose, and he's doing it now on Brady's behalf. Usually I appreciate that, but it seems that you also have to respect the possibility of a situation where the investigators have the situation surrounded, and we'd be naive to question it. If MLB investigators say "The Oakland Orcs were using tech to signs on an unprecedented level and we're suspending Melvin for a year" then I might only need 10 lines of text off Melvin's phone to reach a conclusion. It's not like "stealing signs" is equivalent to "brownies stealing your socks."
This was the case with ARod. Apparently he was suspended based on (1) some ambiguous texts with the drug dealer and (2) whatever evidence MLB had that was out of sight. But we are all crystal clear on what was going on.
In 98% of cases in the past, I've been sympathetic to defense lawyers arguing the abstractions of the law. After all, those "technicalities" stand between us and a Stalinist regime. But there also comes a point where you'd simply be naive if you failed to understand what was going on.
......
One thing I don't understand: why they bent over backwards to try to destroy Brady's legacy. There was remarkable language in the "comeuppance": 'No matter how accomplished or otherwise respected' for an athlete to do this ruins the game. Wow. They went to the flick-knife on this one.
......
Not 100% sure that Brady's case falls under the Pete Rose category, but it sure looks like it from here.
Respectfully, Jeff
Comments
There is no one kind of evidence that is better than another. Direct evidence is where a person states what he saw circumstantial evidence taken with other facts creates an inference that a certain fact is true. Whatever a jury finds the most persuasive is the best kind of evidence.
In conspiracies circumstantial evidence is generally considered more damning that direct evidence.
For example you have a drug case where Doc is accused of smoking crack and then selling some to Moe. Moe then sells crack to Daddy-O who is caught in the shout box red handed with intent to distribute. In State v. Moe jurors generally don't take Daddy-O's bare assertion that he got it from Moe as good evidence. This is because 1. Daddy-O is only snitching to get himself out of trouble and 2. He has a record of crimes of moral turpitude and 3. He is a crack head. Moe is found not guilty.
The smart policeman would instead use Daddy-O's statement to get a warrant to search Moe's house. Inside they find Moe's cell phone with incriminating text messages between Moe and Doc and his crack ledger stating all the people who owe him money and Moe crack pipe made out of a putter. Moe is so guilty at this point that its time to put him into rehab. He then snitches on Doc and all their customers and sets up a controlled buy to keep his keister out of gaol. Circumstantial vs. direct evidence in drug conspiracies is the difference between catching nobody and catching everybody.
Sound farfetched? This is the usual scenario. The circumstantial evidence outclasses direct evidence by orders of magnitude.
Statements made between co-conspirators made during the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy is very strong circumstantial evidence. Motive is also very strong circumstantial evidence. Corroborating direct evidence is very helpful.
In the Brady case you have:
1. Statement made during the conspiracy: "We're going to deflate the footballs for our jobs and to get some free autographs"
2. A well known motive for Brady. He likes deflated footballs and he likes to win a lot.
3. Knowledge of the crime by Brady he knows when his footballs are deflated.
4. Payment from Brady to deflator in the form of autographed stuff. This corroborates the text message and shows that Brady wasn't just a passive recipient of tampered balls.
This evidence is much better than a Deflator saying: "Brady made us do it. He said he would fire us if we didn't." If that were the case Brady's lawyer would be characterizing Deflator's testimony as unwarranted discredited and untrustworthy.
Scoffing at strong circumstantial evidence is something that lawyers for guilty people do. They don't really believe it themselves.
Exactly Moe Many many people don't put enough value in circumstantial evidence. In law-school we called this the 'CSI Effect' - whereby everybody expects the smoking gun the DNA evidence left at the scene the video surviellance footage from the ATM etc..
Reality is that many cases are built on circumstantial evidence alone. And that circumstantial evidence is sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
And even if the NFL were playing by that highest of standard of proof people also totally don't understand what a 'reasonable doubt' is. Drives me crazy how lawyers (and agents) for 'guilty people' (great line) knowingly obsfucate the standard. Ray Rice getting into the elevator alone with his fiance and Ray Rice dragging his fiance out of said elevator by her hair. Is sufficient evidence for the standard to be met. No reasonable person would believe that his fiance hurt herself and he pulled her out by the hair in an effort to aid and assist her. That's fantasy. That's not reasonable.
Life isn't TV - and TV gets it so wrong all the time it does a great disservice to the legal system. Take Daredevil on Netflix. They switched the burden of an affirmative defense onto the prosecution? "If the prosecution can't prove it wasn't self defense than he's innocent?" That's not how it works! The defendant has the burden to prove an affirmative defense (not quilty because of self defense insanity statute of limitatins etc.)!
But because TV (and lawyers for gulity people) gets it so wrong so often the public has a warped idea of what is or is not reasonable and what is or is not sufficient evidence. And the NFL ain't the legal system there is no due process guarantee - it's governed by private (negotiated and agreed to) contract.
Even without the text messages the facts that 1) the balls were systematically deflated bellow the rules; 2) deflated balls gave the team an unfair advantage with regards to low fumble rates; 3) Brady has admitted to liking his balls a 'certain way' and is known to be very particular about his balls and 4) as QB Brady handled the balls more often than any other player and would know and be able to tell if the balls were altered. Heck that would be enough to meet a civil standard.
/rant.
- Ben.
Sounds like good fodder for a new Konspiracy Korner! Videotapes are going to overtake court and do away with the need for lawyers! I remain skeptical. Videos are great when you can get them though.
Heh.
The league overreached. Man every QB tells his ball guy just how he likes the balls. Unless you have Brady texting or saying "Get them below the legal limit dude!" then he's only doing what Russell Wilson et al are doing. It is well know that Brady likes his football as close as possible to the limit telling his ball guy to get them as close as possible isn't a crime or a violation.....or anything. Show me where he said get them to 11.5 psi and I'll change my tune.
Man trying to link this to fumble rates is an overreach too. Holy cow.....in a football universe of a billion variables I'm going to have to see some big proof that .5 psi makes a difference in the rate of fumbles.
The league admits it was asked ahead of the game to keep an eye on ball pressure (by the Colts I would assume) yet the head ref lost track of the balls alltogether (by the way he's not even sure which ball guage he used to measure the psi. There were two one read them as legal the other as too low) AND they didn't even make mention of the concern to the Patriots. Not even.....
Here's the best read I've found (Sally Jenkins of course).......and by the way Aaron Rodgers has admitted to telling his equipment guys to go over the limit on psi. Does he get a suspension too?
www.washingtonpost.com/sports/redskins/deflategate-punishments-are-nfls-...
I've been FOUND OUT!!!
Now you've got me wondering just how good a lawyer you ARE. Despite the outrageous imcompetence on the bench during Konspiracy Korner trials.
I'd call that a legal primer on the subject but the term wouldn't capture the fact that you took us through beginning middle and finish line.
Thanks for holding down the contra side.
In fact the stats on the Patriots' fumbling are SO amazing that you almost think the balls can't be responsible. It's like saying Sammy Sosa used corked bats and that's why he hit the ball farther and then you find he hit them 1032 feet on average.
;- )
........
The point on Aaron Rodgers is a winner there Moe. It has so much traction that you might think that's the #1 reason the NFL emphasized lack of cooperation. No telling how many QB's could be busted for illegal ball inflation.
This Rodgers 16 PSI issue is the only point I've seen so far that would have me as a juror waffling as to whether Mojician's case was anything less than a slam-dunk.
Well if you use a corked bat *and* steroids...
Another point saw over on SB Nation was that the unusually low fumble rates "regressed" to more normal rates once players left the Patriots. This is in addition to the "regression" in receiving stats once players leave the Pats (though of course that regression could be partly explained by having an inferior QB throwing to those players).
Consider all those games in cold weather when the ball is like a rock or harder to grip when wet. Think about all those contested catches made in traffic. Or the balls thrown *just* behind the receiver. Or the ones thrown super high to be safe from the DBs. All those INTs saved by a better grip or QB fumbles averted.
OTOH how much difference is there between 11-11.5 and 12.5 PSI? Enough to make it worth cheating? Apparently it's enough for Drew Brees to tell just by feel:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CFxakOJYOI
My son was really into NASCAR for awhile so I learned a fair amount about it.
1. Everyone tries to push the envelope of what the rules allow as far as possible.
2. "If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin ..."
3. The rules get "tweaked" all the time even in the middle of the season.
4. There are so many rules and so many variables it is completely impossible to attribute any particular competitive outcome to any particular rules violation.
5. NEVERTHELESS the rules that are in effect at the time are enforced strictly as far as I can tell and teams can lose points money and personnel to suspensions when violations are found -- even the teams that would be "Patriots" equivalents and drivers who are "Brady" equivalents. And yes I think avoiding inspection or trying to hide something from an inspection would be as serious as the violation itself.
6. BUT FURTHER NEVERTHELESS there is no "moral opprobrium" that goes along with the cheating -- as in no one is excluded from the Hall of Fame or shunned from respectable society for it.
In other words it seems to me that in that context Brady and the Pats would take their lumps and when it was over he'd jump right back in the driver's seat as if nothing ever happened while they continue to admire their wall of Lombardi Trophies.
Very impactful evidence.
Re: Brees ... Mark Brunell (who we played a bit of intramural flag football with as I recall) stated that "any quarterback" could tell the difference and that it's a decisive factor in bad weather. I myself MUCH prefer a softer basketball to shoot with especially on outdoors courts.
Touch your ball wrong and it's 15 strokes. Forget to sign your card and forfeit the round. But next round we're all friends again.
Which makes it the more impressive that Moe (a scratch golfer) is the one arguing to keep the rules in perspective.
......
Didn't know that about NASCAR Spec. Thanks for sharin'.