Tired of Deflategate

[DC Tom]

Welcome to WeoWorld.

 

It's not just him, though. It's the entirety of "Pats Nation," with their "He didn't cheat, and it didn't affect the outcome of the game when he cheated" logic.

[MattM]

I guess you missed this part: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/07/don-yee-explains-bradys-refusal-to-provide-texts-and-email/

 

Or are you saying that Wells didn't need Brady's texts because there was nothing to find.

Wow--that article was a blast from the past--a time when Florio wasn't totally in the Pats*' pocket, like he's been the last month or so. He's been positively schizophrenic on this topic over its life.

 

On the original topic of why he didn't hand over phone evidence, I wonder if the request was so broad that it included evidence of any form of violating league rules. If so, that could obviously be a problem (see, for ex., Belicheat's offseason e-mails to Hernandez). Similarly, his turning things over may have also involved a certification by his lawyers as to the search, making lying tough. I'd wager one or both of these may be behind the failure to turn anything over or to claim there was nothing relevant to turn over (which he's never said).

Edited June 30, 2015 by MattM

[NoSaint]

Turning over that "smoking gun" is one thing, turning over nothing shows he had something to hide (kind of how innocent people don't run from the cops). I'm sure Wells had everything from Brady's end from Jastremsky and McNally's phones but getting Tom's phone is makes their evidence more damning. Is it possible that BB was told by Brady, absolutely, but without Brady's phone no one knows how many people knew about the balls being altered.

I think you may have missed the point of my post if you are discussing whether BB knew

[Kelly the Dog]

 

It's not just him, though. It's the entirety of "Pats Nation," with their "He didn't cheat, and it didn't affect the outcome of the game when he cheated" logic.

Right, to me it is like cheating in cards. If you get caught cheating in cards, you're a cheater, and no one wants to play with you anymore, regardless of if you won or lost or whatever. End of story.

Wow--that article was a blast from the past--a time when Florio wasn't totally in the Pats*' pocket, like he's been the last month or so. He's been positively schizophrenic on this topic over its life.

 

On the original topic of why he didn't hand over phone evidence, I wonder if the request was so broad that it included evidence of any form of violating league rules. If so, that could obviously be a problem (see, for ex., Belicheat's offseason e-mails to Hernandez). Similarly, his turning things over may have also involved a certification by his lawyers as to the search, making lying tough. I'd wager one or both of these may be behind the failure to turn anything over or to claim there was nothing relevant to turn over (which he's never said).

Wells asked his lawyers to just print out the "relevant" texts and emails (perhaps phone logs not sure) pertinent to the deflate case. But they were to produce only the relevant ones to the case. They never even asked for him to turn over his phone.

[DC Tom]

Right, to me it is like cheating in cards. If you get caught cheating in cards, you're a cheater, and no one wants to play with you anymore, regardless of if you won or lost or whatever. End of story.

 

Unless it's euchre. Because everyone cheats at euchre. Cheating's in the rules for euchre. Which always confused me...if it's in the rules, how is it cheating?

 

I bet Brady would suck at euchre. He wouldn't be able to figure out how to cheat.

[3rdand12]

 

Unless it's euchre. Because everyone cheats at euchre. Cheating's in the rules for euchre. Which always confused me...if it's in the rules, how is it cheating?

 

I bet Brady would suck at euchre. He wouldn't be able to figure out how to cheat.

see this is why Bellicjhick is what he is.

 

Brady is a hand puppet for bills bizarre carnival of cheating.

ernie is his favorite and most popular character. brady is a twit. he has Bills finger .. manipulating his movements.

i just grossed myself out. but wow am i witty.

 

 

Go Bills!

[Mr. WEO]

The investigation is invalid because it's incomplete...but the incomplete evidence wouldn't have changed the outcome.

 

That is ridiculous logic.

 

Not quite. The investigation has obvious flaws (it's "validity" is a matter of opinion). Many others have pointed them out. What I am clearly saying is the Wells is at least being disingenuous when he claims the team was uncooperative when they refused to make McNAlly available a second time because of "new evidence" (a "Deflator" reference from Nov '14).

 

You know that Brady would not have provided a single text in addition to what they already had between him and his deflator ball boys (he was allowed to submit anything wanted related to this affair). So ,yeah, the simple conclusion is that his (redundant) texts would not have changed his guilty verdict. Not sure where you confusion arises from.

 

 

It's not just him, though. It's the entirety of "Pats Nation," with their "He didn't cheat, and it didn't affect the outcome of the game when he cheated" logic.

 

You know I have already stated I think Brady is guilty of telling the boys to deflate the ball yet you still say I claim he didn't cheat. Your reasoning can be paraphrased as "because......pats fan!"

 

It's not just you, though. There are plenty here like you who begin and end their line of reasoning on anything realted with that clever "logic".

 

As for whether the deflation affected outcome of games, answer this: a day before the Colts AFCC game, the Colts brought up the "well known around the league" complaint that NE played with deflated balls. Well known, but never drew investigation by the NFL. Why not? Let Ted Wells tell you: "Nobody paid much attention to it". Until the next day of course, when the NFL suddenly was paying so much attention that they swooped in to check some balls. Yet, despite the league not really caring about this well known around the league cheating by NE, the rapidly developed an interest--yet Wells confidently claims "It wasn't a sting operation".

 

Ted Wells is not an impartial investigator, he's a league lawyer. He has been legal counsel for the NFL and was retained by them to represent the league against the former players' concussion suit (which settled). He has been paid tens of million sof dollars by the NFL for his accumulated services. The company Wells hired to provide the scientific review specializes in producing reports (faulty ignition does not cause fires, asbestos in car brakes doesn't cause cancer, neither does second hand cigarette smoke, etc) for corporations to use in defense of litigation.

 

Perhaps a review of the material? Or a re-review? By different sets of eyes and interpretive analyses? Are you really that dismissive in your efforts to paint Wells as a bungling, over-charging idiot?

 

You'd make a fine addition to Brady's team.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

You have three principles you have to interview. You have a finite number of texts to read in preparation. You have a staff of people working with you with unlimited resources. You have 3.5 months to compile, compose revise, edit and publish your exhaustive report. And then it's "oops, we didn't see that"?

 

Anyway, is it bungling or intentional--you tell me:

 

 

MAy 6: Wells report released.

 

MAy 12th: Wells goes nuts and hits the airwaves ( after NE attacks his reports) and tells the world that NE was uncooperative.

 

May 14th: (that's 2 days after his loud self defense) he admits that he "didn't realize" he had a deflator text from May 14, claiming he initially only reviewed 2014 in-season texts (where he claimed he first saw "deflator" in a November text).

 

So, a week after he releases his report, he admits he at some point realized the Deflator text existed before McNally's first interview--yet he STILL went on in his report to accuse NE of obstructing his investigation by not providing the second interview for what we now can conclude were bogus reasons ("new evidence").

 

It seems clear that he wanted to grill McNAlly some more and made up the Deflator text as an excuse. Bungler or schemer. You pick.

 

I wouldn't be much help for Brady's team--these problems with Wells, his realtionship with the league and his report are well described pretty much everywhere in the past 2 months.

 

As I posted weeks ago, my only advice to Brady at the time would have been to cop to telling the boys to "take a little air out--some like the hard, I like them soft, no big deal--I never thought much about whether that migh put them 1 or 2 psi under the lower limit".

[Kelly the Dog]

WEO, where do you get "made up the deflator text" as an excuse? That's precisely why he wanted to grill McNally a second time. It's paramount to the case of deflating. He also wanted to ask about the suspicious halftime text and other things since other people were interviewed after him, and since Brady said he didn't know him. Whether or not Wells should have found them earlier, which you don't know the reason. And it's not at all an outrageous request to try to re interview one of the main conspirators. And it's still total non cooperation from the Patriots.

[K-9]

 

As I posted weeks ago, my only advice to Brady at the time would have been to cop to telling the boys to "take a little air out--some like the hard, I like them soft, no big deal--I never thought much about whether that migh put them 1 or 2 psi under the lower limit".

 

That's right. And he would have gotten the slap on the wrist that trivial attempts by players to gain minute advantages had always earned. But he had to lie and then he had to compound his lie by violating a far less trivial league rule of mandatory cooperation in an investigation, which is what earned him the harsh penalty.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Doc]

That's right. And he would have gotten the slap on the wrist that trivial attempts by players to gain minute advantages had always earned. But he had to lie and then he had to compound his lie by violating a far less trivial league rule of mandatory cooperation in an investigation, which is what earned him the harsh penalty.

 

GO BILLS!!!

Yup. He should have lied originally.

[Mr. WEO]

WEO, where do you get "made up the deflator text" as an excuse? That's precisely why he wanted to grill McNally a second time. It's paramount to the case of deflating. He also wanted to ask about the suspicious halftime text and other things since other people were interviewed after him, and since Brady said he didn't know him. Whether or not Wells should have found them earlier, which you don't know the reason. And it's not at all an outrageous request to try to re interview one of the main conspirators. And it's still total non cooperation from the Patriots.

 

I just showed you--immediately after the report was issued, he admitted that he did come to realize the the Deflator texts were available before the first interview---yet he decided to chastise the patriots for noncompliance anyway...and he based this on the refusal to produce McNally a second time after "new evidence" (HE specifically said "new" meant deflator text).

 

If he wanted to interview a second time for some other reason, he was free to say what for--instead his report includes a known falsehood as to the reason.

Edited July 1, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Kelly the Dog]

 

I just showed you--immediately after the report was issued, he admitted that he did come to realize the the Deflator texts were available before the first interview---yet he decided to chastise the patriots for noncompliance anyway...and he based this on the refusal to produce McNally a second time after "new evidence" (HE specifically said "new" meant deflator text).

 

If he wanted to interview a second time for some other reason, he was free to say what for--instead his report includes a known falsehood as to the reason.

It was new information to him, and explosive new information. And he should chastise the Patriots for non compliance because they were non-compliant. Regardless of when the information was discovered.

Not to mention that the Pats excuse for not doing it was a total lie.

[SCD]

This thread needs to catch its breath.

[Mr. WEO]

It was new information to him, and explosive new information. And he should chastise the Patriots for non compliance because they were non-compliant. Regardless of when the information was discovered.

Not to mention that the Pats excuse for not doing it was a total lie.

 

It was no longer "new" or "explosive" when it came time to summarize his findings and write his report.

 

Wells knew when he wrote the report, which included a condemnation of the pats for refusing to yeild to "new evidence" of "the Deflator", that he wasn't telling us the truth.

 

If he was honest, his report would have said "NE refused to produce the witness for a second interview after I realized I screwed up the review of evidence and/or my staff never told me we already knew he was the Deflator and forgot to ask him about it on the first interview".

Edited July 1, 2015 by Mr. WEO

[Kelly the Dog]

It was no longer "new" or "explosive" when it came time to summarize his findings and write his report.

 

Wells knew when he wrote the report, which included a condemnation of the pats for refusing to yeild to "new evidence" of "the Deflator", that he wasn't telling us the truth.

 

That's exactly what happened. He was telling the truth. It was new evidence. If you are in a court case, and you have boxes and boxes of information you sift through, and two weeks later you find something essential if not the most damaging information, it is new evidence. It's not old evidence.

 

And again, the Pats told him no because it was the fifth time he was asked to be question in the investigation which was totally untrue. It was the second.

[Mr. WEO]

That's exactly what happened. He was telling the truth. It was new evidence. If you are in a court case, and you have boxes and boxes of information you sift through, and two weeks later you find something essential if not the most damaging information, it is new evidence. It's not old evidence.

 

And again, the Pats told him no because it was the fifth time he was asked to be question in the investigation which was totally untrue. It was the second.

 

 

There were not boxes and boxes of texts. Anyway...weeks after realizing your error in concluding that a team was noncompliant for a reason you now know is not correct, you can't write a final report using that same incorrect reason for admonishing a team. Pick another reason (the one I suggested above is accurate). He chose to go with the one he knew was no longer true.

 

After the report came out he was still repeating this "new evidence" line---until a few days later he was busted on it and admitted that he did come to realize it was not actually new and was in their possession all along. After that, we didn't hear much from the NFL's lawyer....I mean independent investigator.

[K-9]

 

I just showed you--immediately after the report was issued, he admitted that he did come to realize the the Deflator texts were available before the first interview---yet he decided to chastise the patriots for noncompliance anyway...and he based this on the refusal to produce McNally a second time after "new evidence" (HE specifically said "new" meant deflator text).

 

If he wanted to interview a second time for some other reason, he was free to say what for--instead his report includes a known falsehood as to the reason.

So Wells tricked them into not complying? Right.

[Matt in KC]

You are crazy and splitting hairs, WEO. The investigation was still open. If they were cooperating, there was no reason they shouldn't made McNally, Brady, or anyone else available. IF they Pats had said up front that Wells got one and only one chance to ask questions, it night have been more understandable, but would still have been non-compliant. Wells' requests were very reasonable.

 

I'm not saying he didn't miss something, or even make a mistake. Humans do that. That doesn't excuse anyone from the Patriots from being obligated to answer questions or provide information (i.e. texts).

[Kelly the Dog]

So Wells tricked them into not complying? Right.

 

 

 

There were not boxes and boxes of texts. Anyway...weeks after realizing your error in concluding that a team was noncompliant for a reason you now know is not correct, you can't write a final report using that same incorrect reason for admonishing a team. Pick another reason (the one I suggested above is accurate). He chose to go with the one he knew was no longer true.

 

After the report came out he was still repeating this "new evidence" line---until a few days later he was busted on it and admitted that he did come to realize it was not actually new and was in their possession all along. After that, we didn't hear much from the NFL's lawyer....I mean independent investigator.

It. Was. Non-compliance.

 

Period.

 

There is no rule that says investigators have one chance and one chance only to interview the main players in an investigation.

[Mr. WEO]

So Wells tricked them into not complying? Right.

 

No. Wells gave a reason to compel NE to comply which he later knew to be false, but he wrote them up for it anyway.

 

 

 

You are crazy and splitting hairs, WEO. The investigation was still open. If they were cooperating, there was no reason they shouldn't made McNally, Brady, or anyone else available. IF they Pats had said up front that Wells got one and only one chance to ask questions, it night have been more understandable, but would still have been non-compliant. Wells' requests were very reasonable.

 

I'm not saying he didn't miss something, or even make a mistake. Humans do that. That doesn't excuse anyone from the Patriots from being obligated to answer questions or provide information (i.e. texts).

 

They did make McNally available. And Brady. Brady complied with everything asked of him except give his copies of the texts they already had of his.

 

 

 

It. Was. Non-compliance.

 

Period.

 

There is no rule that says investigators have one chance and one chance only to interview the main players in an investigation.

 

Is there a rule that an indivdual has to be made available to be interviewed as many times as an "independent investigator" realizes that he overlooked the absolutely most basic evidence already in his possession?

 

Here's how absurd it must have been:

 

Brady: "so how did it go?"

 

McNally: "it was weird--i gave him all the texts and yet he never asked me about "the Deflator"

 

Brady: "holy sh""T! haha"

 

Time passes....

 

Wells: "hey wait a minute! I just realized that my The Wells Report staff had already identified McNally "the Deflator" before I interviewed him---and I had no idea! I need to interview him all over again. You must comply!"

 

Kraft: "blow me..."