Pneumonic

I can't imagine much, if any, personal material is legally allowed. Any labour law guys around?

To what though? Are there specific obligations spelled out in the CBA that reference handing over personal cell phones? Does this obligation extend to other instances of personal information beyond cell phones? For example, is he also obligated to make available a search of his car, or vacation home or permanent residence? Are his wife's personal belongings open game as well?

That is your opinion but even I could blow apart the science without much trouble. The league itself has already admitted its P&P are lacking and have changed them. The arbitration side of things already has been successfully challenged by the NFLPA previously. He can voluntarily make available his personal phone records but he is is not obligated to do so unless a subpoena is in place. On all other accounts, he fully co-operated.

There are holes galore in the science, the policies and procedures (for taking measurements) and, ultimately, in the administration of applying the penalty, that I can't see any of them holding up if this goes to an independent judge. All that is left is non co-operation and, for the life of me, I can't see anyway the labour guys don't easily knock that out of the park in seconds flat.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the reason(s) are for not handing over the personal documentation; Brady was not obligated to to do so. If he's penalized for doing so, this likely ends up a labour law issue.

it doens't matter the reason(s) for not divulging his personal info. He isn't required to do so unless court ordered. I could have said he didn't want to do so because he is hung like a budgie bird and there is proof on his phone to document it as so.

Certainly Brady should be advised to fully co-operate with the investigation up the point where personal documentation (ie phone records) becomes involved. Then, absent a court order to provide such info, he should refrain from doing so. Celebrity or not this is simple common sense protocol.

Brady spent the better part of a day answering every ? asked of him. The issue presented itself when they asked for his private phone contents which, absent a subpoena, he was advised, understandably so, not to provide them with.

Any "talk" between Brady and the ball boys was already disclosed and noted during Brady's initial cooperation stage. Absent a subpoena, Brady had no legal reason to continue on with the witch hunt by supplying them with any further personal phone info. Given the NFL/Wells' blatant disregard for non disclosure, neither would most sensible people.

I am sure the Brady team could easily find justifiable means for them wanting to withhold sensitive personal info from an outfit that has proven itself to be incapable of keeping things secret. if the NFL was so concerned about non co-operation, why didn't they penalize, say, Gostowski, for not co-operating with Wells?

Short of providing the entirety of his personal phone data,messages, there was no amount of co-operation that Brady could have exhibited that would have been enough. The Wells team had a built-in excuse for non co-operation. If they needed, or wanted, it.

Surely you don't actually believe this? No matter what Brady relinquished to Wells, it would have not be enough information. Brady's team knew this.

Mother nature's?

Agree, but I can't imagine any scenario where Brady would prefer to see his personal contents opened up to the NFL/Wells team for review and interpretation over a court system. He might as well simply give it to the National Enquirer.

In the end I think Brady gets a monetary fine for not co-operating but one can hardly blame the guy for not doing so. Afterall, he and his wife are seriously famous which means the last thing I imagine he would want to do is give his personal phone contents to an organization that is notorious for its inability to prevent leaks and which, has proven time and again that it cannot, under any circumstance, guarantee that any info provided it will be kept confidential and secret.

Gooder at what?

Define "better"?

The Bills may well end up fielding one of the worst starting QB's in the NFL. The Pats may well field the best. I guess I don't really understand the ?

Surely the Wells team will be summoned to the area to unearth what really happened

The pt that would certainly be countered is that without any R&R protocol, there is no assurance that the "tolerance" isn't consumed by the variability of the measurement itself. This is an either (100%) or not (100%) situation.

Certainly at the NFL appeals level this is likely the case. All that is needed is a "more likely than not" outcome. I think things becomes much cloudier should this end up in court over a labour law issue. I would imagine (guess?) that the burden of proof for denying Brady employment opportunity would rest with the NFL. I can't see where simple suspicion of guilt would cut it. But, I'm no lawyer. So, what might be the proof if not the science? Electronic communication certainly. Admission by Jastermski/McNally. A "not as yet revealed" smoking gun?

... that the science test performed on the balls was 100% flawed. Ah, sorry. I misquoted you and meant my summary science response for Kelly the Dog's post. Apologies. I think it is possible to prove that tampering occurred; just not via the establishment of the original PSI methodology which seems to be the basis for the entire Wells report. I have no opinion on the "more probable than not" point as it's an exercise in futility to try and figure out what Goodell might do.

There are two distinct science points here. The first is the establishment of the baseline reference of the original PSI which, due to improper testing methodologies employed by the league (its refs) can never be established such that any conclusions drawn from it are deemed scientifically plausible. At it's basic and fundamental level the issue is fatally flawed. The second is whether or not PV=nRT even need be considered since, its inclusion is to determine if basic gas law can account for any noted gas pressure drop relative to temperature conditions. The issue with this point is any "noted" gas pressure drop will not have been properly accounted for due to not passing go wrt point 1 above.

I am only speaking of PSI testing and methodology and not of any new science discovery that may, or may not, be relevant.

Not sure how else to put it other that .... for a test to be scientifically valid, strict protocols and testing methodologies must be followed. If those aren't followed then the test is invalid. From a legal perspective, I would think that any conclusions drawn from the test would be viewed as suspect, at best. But, that's not my area. Again, I am not speaking from a legal standpoint here. If it ends up in court my gut feeling is it'll be union vs goliath. Can goliath prove that there is enough proof to justly firing the union guy? I pass this off to the legal experts.