Tired of Deflategate

[Kelly the Dog]

..... still doesn't mean Brady knew him as McNally!

Brady said in his testimony he didn't know McNally, didn't know what he did, didn't know that he had anything to do with the game balls or the officials. It's directly in the report. Jastremski said he did. McNallt said he did.

 

"During his interview, Brady denied any knowledge of or involvement in any efforts to deflate game balls after the pre-game inspection by the game officials. He claimed that prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any role relating to game balls or the game officials. We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. In fact, during his interview, Jastremski acknowledged that Brady knew McNally and McNally‟s role as Officials Locker Room attendant."

[NoSaint]

Brady said in his testimony he didn't know McNally, didn't know what he did, didn't know that he had anything to do with the game balls or the officials. It's directly in the report. Jastremski said he did. McNallt said he did.

 

"During his interview, Brady denied any knowledge of or involvement in any efforts to deflate game balls after the pre-game inspection by the game officials. He claimed that prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any role relating to game balls or the game officials. We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. In fact, during his interview, Jastremski acknowledged that Brady knew McNally and McNally‟s role as Officials Locker Room attendant."

Maybe that's why they hate the guy! Ha!

[Pneumonic]

Brady said in his testimony he didn't know McNally, didn't know what he did, didn't know that he had anything to do with the game balls or the officials. It's directly in the report. Jastremski said he did. McNallt said he did.

 

"During his interview, Brady denied any knowledge of or involvement in any efforts to deflate game balls after the pre-game inspection by the game officials. He claimed that prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any role relating to game balls or the game officials. We found these claims not plausible and contradicted by other evidence. In fact, during his interview, Jastremski acknowledged that Brady knew McNally and McNally‟s role as Officials Locker Room attendant."

 

Context ...... once this goes to court, the context will become clearer.

[Kelly the Dog]

Maybe that's why they hate the guy! Ha!

I wish people would spend the time arguing here and read the thing. There are 100 little pieces of evidence. They all point to one thing. Each one of the hundred could possibly be explained away by farcical explanation or coincidence. But it's virtually impossible for all of them to. It's clear as day what happened if you look at it as a whole.

[Kelly the Dog]

Context ...... once this goes to court, the context will become clearer.

Yeah, right. Directly from the report... (The first part is discussing the Jet game earlier in the year)

 

"According to Jastremski, while complaining about the balls on the sidelines during the game, Brady made a comment about McNally and referred to the testing of the game balls by the game officials prior to the game. Jastremski explained that Brady “knows that Jim is the referees locker room attendant,” and recalls that Brady said something like, “isn‟t he in there to make sure the balls are staying where they should be?” Jastremski said that he mentioned Brady‟s comment to McNally on the sideline, and that McNally responded “f— Tom.” McNally also recalls Brady being angry about the footballs during the game and expressing frustration about the game officials and their examination of the game balls. McNally claimed that he viewed Brady‟s comments as “an attack on me” because McNally was responsible for bringing the game balls to the Officials Locker Room, and interpreted Brady‟s statements as criticism.

 

When interviewed, Brady claimed that, prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any responsibilities relating to game balls or the game officials. When asked specifically whether he had spoken with Jastremski about McNally on the night of the Jets game, he stated: “I didn‟t know who Jim McNally was so I find it hard to believe I could bring that up.” On this point, Brady‟s statement is inconsistent with Jastremski‟s statements that Brady knew McNally and made a comment about McNally during the Jets game when complaining about the game balls. With respect to his complaints about the footballs during the Jets game, Brady remembers being angry and expressing frustration about the balls. Brady recalls telling Jastremski that the game balls “f-ing suck” to express his unhappiness, although he also acknowledged that the game officials were the more appropriate target of his frustration.

[Pneumonic]

I wish people would spend the time arguing here and read the thing. There are 100 little pieces of evidence. They all point to one thing. Each one of the hundred could possibly be explained away by farcical explanation or coincidence. But it's virtually impossible for all of them to. It's clear as day what happened if you look at it as a whole.

 

Depends on what angle (guilty or not guilty) one is approaching the info from. In the end, it's ALL speculative (unsupported at that) based on the Well's report alone. At least, we now have some contrary evidence to digest from the defense' perspective

Yeah, right. Directly from the report... (The first part is discussing the Jet game earlier in the year)

 

"According to Jastremski, while complaining about the balls on the sidelines during the game, Brady made a comment about McNally and referred to the testing of the game balls by the game officials prior to the game. Jastremski explained that Brady “knows that Jim is the referees locker room attendant,” and recalls that Brady said something like, “isn‟t he in there to make sure the balls are staying where they should be?” Jastremski said that he mentioned Brady‟s comment to McNally on the sideline, and that McNally responded “f— Tom.” McNally also recalls Brady being angry about the footballs during the game and expressing frustration about the game officials and their examination of the game balls. McNally claimed that he viewed Brady‟s comments as “an attack on me” because McNally was responsible for bringing the game balls to the Officials Locker Room, and interpreted Brady‟s statements as criticism.

 

When interviewed, Brady claimed that, prior to the events surrounding the AFC Championship Game, he did not know McNally‟s name or anything about McNally‟s game-day responsibilities, including whether McNally had any responsibilities relating to game balls or the game officials. When asked specifically whether he had spoken with Jastremski about McNally on the night of the Jets game, he stated: “I didn‟t know who Jim McNally was so I find it hard to believe I could bring that up.” On this point, Brady‟s statement is inconsistent with Jastremski‟s statements that Brady knew McNally and made a comment about McNally during the Jets game when complaining about the game balls. With respect to his complaints about the footballs during the Jets game, Brady remembers being angry and expressing frustration about the balls. Brady recalls telling Jastremski that the game balls “f-ing suck” to express his unhappiness, although he also acknowledged that the game officials were the more appropriate target of his frustration.

 

Again, once contradictory evidence is supplied (presuming it does) all context will become clearer.

[NoSaint]

 

Depends on what angle (guilty or not guilty) one is approaching the info from. In the end, it's ALL speculative (unsupported at that) based on the Well's report alone. At least, we now have some contrary evidence to digest from the defense' perspective

Short of finding out wells doctored or purposefully omitted evidence - it's an incredible long shot that it's wrong. That's not impossible as i recall lots of very questionable jumps in bounty gate and some boldly wrong stuff as the proof came out but we really don't have access to anything making it anywhere near a coin flip guess which way it went.

[Kelly the Dog]

Depends on what angle (guilty or not guilty) one is approaching the info from. In the end, it's ALL speculative (unsupported at that) based on the Well's report alone. At least, we now have some contrary evidence to digest from the defense' perspective

I'm curious as to where you keep referring to as "surname." I'm not denying it, I'm just wondering where that came from. I tried finding a source (a casual search) but don't see it.

 

In their 20,000 word rebuttal the Patriots never mention that, even when talking about Brady knowing who McNally was.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[What a Tuel]

 

Depends on what angle (guilty or not guilty) one is approaching the info from. In the end, it's ALL speculative (unsupported at that) based on the Well's report alone. At least, we now have some contrary evidence to digest from the defense' perspective

 

Again, once contradictory evidence is supplied (presuming it does) all context will become clearer.

 

when they start introducing BS contrary "evidence" like deflator means losing weight, they lose all credibility in my eyes,

[Pneumonic]

Short of finding out wells doctored or purposefully omitted evidence - it's an incredible long shot that it's wrong. That's not impossible as i recall lots of very questionable jumps in bounty gate and some boldly wrong stuff as the proof came out but we really don't have access to anything making it anywhere near a coin flip guess which way it went.

 

Nah, this didn't happen at all in the Wells' investiogatio, errrr, prosecution ......

I'm curious as to where you keep referring to as "surname." I'm not denying it, I'm just wondering where that came from. I tried finding a source (a casual search) but don't see it.

 

because I am ...... ummmm, speculating

[The Wiz]

I'm curious as to where you keep referring to as "surname." I'm not denying it, I'm just wondering where that came from. I tried finding a source (a casual search) but don't see it.

 

In their 20,000 word rebuttal the Patriots never mention that, even when talking about Brady knowing who McNally was.

Kinda like he was talking about Jess that prints stuff for him. He doesn't know her name is Jess but "the girl that prints stuff". Brady didn't know how name was McNally, he just called him " deflator".

[Pneumonic]

 

when they start introducing BS contrary "evidence" like deflator means losing weight, they lose all credibility in my eyes,

 

In all fairness, this was a PR rebuttal and not a cross examination piece which required extensive explanation.

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Nah, this didn't happen at all in the Wells' investiogatio, errrr, prosecution ......

 

because I am ...... ummmm, speculating

So when Brady says "I don't know his name" and I don't know who he is, or what he does with the balls, even though he delivers the balls to Brady on the field, and has for 14 years, you conclude "Brady doesn't know him by his surname?"

 

Got it.

Edited May 16, 2015 by Kelly the Dog

[MattM]

In all fairness, this was a PR rebuttal and not a cross examination piece which required extensive explanation.

 

Funny how Pats* fans nitpick any little potential inconsistency in the Wells report and argue that any tiny little potential incinsistency shows the whole report is wrong, yet won't apply that same standard to the BS the Pats* are spewing on their ridiculous website. Doesn't work that way, sorry. Most reasonable people agree with Tuel--when you make a ridiculous and obvious lie like the "deflator" point everything else you say gets viewed in light of that. As I just said elsewhere, the idiot who came up with that should be fired and the fact that no one else in Pats* land stopped him speaks volumes about their arrogance and sheer disdain for the intelligence of their audience. To wit, my wife nearly spit out her drink when she read that--we all thought for sure it was from the Onion.

 

I'm really starting to think that all Pats* fans are delusional--there is so much evidence here pointing to their guilt, yet absent a signed confession (not likely, since they're already hiding evidence) they don't believe it. It would really be akin to Bills fans militantly thinking OJ was innocent. Not many (if any) of us here believe that I'd wager. It's really a special kind of idiocy infecting Pats* nation right now.

[Dan]

We are talking a "possibility" here so who knows what the Wells team might have surmised and produced for public consumption.

I can understand your wanton desire to defend the Pats**, but you're stretching so far beyond rational thought its hard to imagine you even believe what you're saying.

 

The issue with Brady's phone is quite simple, the league says you must cooperate fully with all investigations. Brady did not. For whatever reasons he had, it's irrelevant. He was asked to provide information and he declined. Was he hiding information? Was he trying to protect someone else? Was he just being pissy because he disliked Wells? We will never know and it doesn't matter.

 

When you're under investigation, you don't withhold evidence because the public may misconstrue it. When you say you don't know someone because "you asked me about McNally, I just knew him as the deflater"; you're being disingenuous.

 

You want to keep implying that there's no direct evidence, as though you want a date-stamped video of Brady standing over McNally with a pressure gauge in one hand and a bag of footballs over his shoulder while McNally is holding a picture of Brady's private birthday party as he's inserting pins into footballs, both wearing league issued ID badges while the PA announcement can be heard in the background stating that the game is underway and all league certified footballs must now be present and accounted for. Rarely in any case is there such direct evidence that removes every possible shadow of doubt, But as KTD pointed out, the preponderance of evidence adds up to one rational conclusion and that conclusion is that Brady was unhappy with the footballs and instructed the, self proclaimed, deflater to fix it.

[Pneumonic]

So when Brady says "I don't know his name" and I don't know who he is, or what he does with the balls, even though he delivers the balls to Brady on the field, and has for 14 years, you conclude "Brady doesn't know him by his surname?"

 

Got it.

 

Seems silly to rely on 1 side of the story only doesn't it?

Funny how Pats* fans nitpick any little potential inconsistency in the Wells report and argue that any tiny little potential incinsistency shows the whole report is wrong, yet won't apply that same standard to the BS the Pats* are spewing on their ridiculous website. Doesn't work that way, sorry. Most reasonable people agree with Tuel--when you make a ridiculous and obvious lie like the "deflator" point everything else you say gets viewed in light of that. As I just said elsewhere, the idiot who came up with that should be fired and the fact that no one else in Pats* land stopped him speaks volumes about their arrogance and sheer disdain for the intelligence of their audience. To wit, my wife nearly spit out her drink when she read that--we all thought for sure it was from the Onion.

 

I'm really starting to think that all Pats* fans are delusional--there is so much evidence here pointing to their guilt, yet absent a signed confession (not likely, since they're already hiding evidence) they don't believe it. It would really be akin to Bills fans militantly thinking OJ was innocent. Not many (if any) of us here believe that I'd wager. It's really a special kind of idiocy infecting Pats* nation right now.

 

Perhaps context will be added to the deflator point and it will make better sense to all who read it? To define certainty to its meaning at this stage may be unwise, no?

I can understand your wanton desire to defend the Pats**, but you're stretching so far beyond rational thought its hard to imagine you even believe what you're saying.

 

The issue with Brady's phone is quite simple, the league says you must cooperate fully with all investigations. Brady did not. For whatever reasons he had, it's irrelevant. He was asked to provide information and he declined. Was he hiding information? Was he trying to protect someone else? Was he just being pissy because he disliked Wells? We will never know and it doesn't matter.

 

When you're under investigation, you don't withhold evidence because the public may misconstrue it. When you say you don't know someone because "you asked me about McNally, I just knew him as the deflater"; you're being disingenuous.

 

You want to keep implying that there's no direct evidence, as though you want a date-stamped video of Brady standing over McNally with a pressure gauge in one hand and a bag of footballs over his shoulder while McNally is holding a picture of Brady's private birthday party as he's inserting pins into footballs, both wearing league issued ID badges while the PA announcement can be heard in the background stating that the game is underway and all league certified footballs must now be present and accounted for. Rarely in any case is there such direct evidence that removes every possible shadow of doubt, But as KTD pointed out, the preponderance of evidence adds up to one rational conclusion and that conclusion is that Brady was unhappy with the footballs and instructed the, self proclaimed, deflater to fix it.

 

Well, in Brady's appeal letter, his attorney's are quite explicit in their thoughts:

 

Third, Mr. Brady’s discipline is premised solely upon the Wells Report, which contains insufficient evidence to find that Mr. Brady committed any violation of NFL rules. Indeed, the Report is wrought with unsupported speculation regarding Mr. Brady’s purported knowledge of, and involvement with, two Patriots employees’ purported conduct, and grasps at dubious, contradictory and mischaracterized circumstantial evidence merely to conclude that it is “more probable than not” that Mr. Brady was “generally aware of” “inappropriate activities.” Report at 17. Mr. Wells conceded that “there is less direct evidence linking [Mr.] Brady to tampering activities than either [Messrs.] McNally or Jastremski.” Id. The Report—based on speculative possibilities piled on top of speculative possibilities and a disregard of contrary evidence—is a legally inadequate basis upon which to impose this unprecedented discipline.

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

Seems silly to rely on 1 side of the story only doesn't it?

 

Perhaps context will be added to the deflator point and it will make better sense to all who read it? To define certainty to its meaning at this stage may be unwise, no?

Too bad the Pats* denied Wells the interview where he intended to find such context...

[Dan]

Well, in Brady's appeal letter, his attorney's are quite explicit in their thoughts:

 

 

Third, Mr. Bradys discipline is premised solely upon the Wells Report, which contains insufficient evidence to find that Mr. Brady committed any violation of NFL rules. Indeed, the Report is wrought with unsupported speculation regarding Mr. Bradys purported knowledge of, and involvement with, two Patriots employees purported conduct, and grasps at dubious, contradictory and mischaracterized circumstantial evidence merely to conclude that it is more probable than not that Mr. Brady was generally aware of inappropriate activities. Report at 17. Mr. Wells conceded that there is less direct evidence linking [Mr.] Brady to tampering activities than either [Messrs.] McNally or Jastremski. Id. The Reportbased on speculative possibilities piled on top of speculative possibilities and a disregard of contrary evidenceis a legally inadequate basis upon which to impose this unprecedented discipline.

Imagine that... Brady refuses to cooperate fully and provide evidence (to prove his guilt or innocence), then states that the report has no evidence. You really don't see what's wrong with that?

 

Short of getting a video of Brady deflating balls, what would you say is evidence?? The investigation has on record 2 team employees talking to each other, one saying Brady told me he's unhappy with the balls, the other saying he'll take care it if Tom gets him some merchandise. One actually calling himself the deflater. And that's not evidence that something was going on? Or that Brady was not in some fashion aware that something was going on? ...not to mention the fact that ALL league employees and players are required of cooperate FULLY with all league investigations.

 

So, I ask, what would you require as proof of cheating here by the team or Brady?

 

To take it further, the league had similar proof (texts) in the Browns scandal and levied punishment. Do you also think the Browns got railroaded with a lack of evidence?

Edited May 16, 2015 by Dan

[K-9]

I don't know what's funnier, the Pats** trotting out more crap to insult our collective intelligence or the extremes to which their defenders go to convince us it isn't crap.

 

"Crap with context." That's rich.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Kelly the Dog]

 

Seems silly to rely on 1 side of the story only doesn't it?

You mean except for the fact that it's not one side of the story? The information comes from Brady's side of the story, not the opposition? The reason Wells knows that Brady was lying and knows McNally, outside of the fact that's it's blatantly obvious, is that both McNally and Jastremski flat said he did in the interviews. You're digger yourself a deeper hole.