Brady 4 game suspension upheld; Will go to court

[MattM]

It's not unethical to edit a report. They decided to not make him available. Maybe a mistake but not unethical. Brady's team didn't make jastremski and McNally available. That's way worse.

I'm an in-house attorney (similar to Pash's role here). His "editing" could have been as simple as changing names and titles of the addressees (since the internal who's who of the League is something Wells is not likely to know). I would wager that it's certainly not much more than that--I'd also wager that whatever it was he did it was not substantive.

[machine gun kelly]

God I can't wait for this to be over already. I have deflate gate fatigue. Two or four games? Most likely result. As much as I want to see Brady in week 2 as we are flying up for the game from FL, the smart move to have a chance at the AFCE is a four game suspension.

 

They didn't look good last night, but i know it is pre-season.

[Dibs]

 

 

That's true. But there doesn't need to be. If this were a criminal trial where proof beyond reasonable doubt was required then it would matter. But if it were a criminal trial a lot of other things would have happened, like forcing McNally and Jastremski to testify under oath.

 

But what happened instead, the league questioned everybody, then they decided to start fresh with Wells, etc. with the blessing of the Patriots*. They began their questioning of Brady and the Bobsy Twins with the Colts game in mind. All questions were answered more or less While Brady declined to turn over his phone records while his agent cites precedent and privacy clauses.

 

After the initial interview the league discovers texts that clearly show shenanigans was going on long before the Colts game. Of course they're not going to find balls from a month earlier that are deflated. But that doesn't matter. If they find evidence that Brady conspired with the Bobsy Twins to lower the inflation levels after the balls were officially inspected, that is a serious violation of the rules regardless of whether the balls went below 12.5 psi. During this time they also discovered that many of Brady's answers in his original interview were not plausible (lies).

 

Now, not being a court of law the league doesn't have power of subpoena, so they can only go back to the Bobsy Twins if the Patriots* let them - which they not only didn't let them, they terminated them so the league couldn't even leverage another meeting via "full cooperation" reasons. Once they were terminated the Patriots and league can't make those guys do anything. And let's face it, getting those guys under oath would have blown this thing wide open, but the league was denied. They also requested to interview Brady again but were denied.

 

Then on top of all the lies and other obfuscation, two and a half months after the investigation, and just 6 days before the appeal, Brady comes along and says here's some messages from a couple of my phones I didn't destroy. That other phone I had destroyed because I always destroy my phones (?). Now that 10 weeks have gone by we decided to ask AT&T if they could recover any messages and they said no. Here's a letter from them that says so. Oh by the way here's a list of the people the 10,000 messages went to feel free to look them up - oops, there's 3 messages missing from that report but they weren't important.

 

Now let's remember once again, this isn't a criminal trial. Not only does the league have the right to make their decision based on certain assumptions combined with evidence, the Patriots* and Brady forced them into having to do so. The league took everything they had available, combined it with the different avenues of obfuscation, and came to their conclusion. And since it's not a criminal case with power of discovery and subpoena, they are allowed to reach that decision while under no obligation to provide absolute proof in the form of under inflated footballs from prior games.

 

[Mr. WEO]

It's not unethical to edit a report. They decided to not make him available. Maybe a mistake but not unethical. Brady's team didn't make jastremski and McNally available. That's way worse.

 

If all the NFLPA has to do is show bias to vacate the suspension, don't all of these "mistakes" suggest bias? This is the only issue here--not whether balls were deflated or not or whether there was a coverup. These were not mistakes, but caarefully considered decisions by the league.

 

Why is it you can't acknowledge even the possibliity of the appearance of bias?

[K-9]

That's true. But there doesn't need to be. If this were a criminal trial where proof beyond reasonable doubt was required then it would matter. But if it were a criminal trial a lot of other things would have happened, like forcing McNally and Jastremski to testify under oath.

 

But what happened instead, the league questioned everybody, then they decided to start fresh with Wells, etc. with the blessing of the Patriots*. They began their questioning of Brady and the Bobsy Twins with the Colts game in mind. All questions were answered more or less While Brady declined to turn over his phone records while his agent cites precedent and privacy clauses.

 

After the initial interview the league discovers texts that clearly show shenanigans was going on long before the Colts game. Of course they're not going to find balls from a month earlier that are deflated. But that doesn't matter. If they find evidence that Brady conspired with the Bobsy Twins to lower the inflation levels after the balls were officially inspected, that is a serious violation of the rules regardless of whether the balls went below 12.5 psi. During this time they also discovered that many of Brady's answers in his original interview were not plausible (lies).

 

Now, not being a court of law the league doesn't have power of subpoena, so they can only go back to the Bobsy Twins if the Patriots* let them - which they not only didn't let them, they terminated them so the league couldn't even leverage another meeting via "full cooperation" reasons. Once they were terminated the Patriots and league can't make those guys do anything. And let's face it, getting those guys under oath would have blown this thing wide open, but the league was denied. They also requested to interview Brady again but were denied.

 

Then on top of all the lies and other obfuscation, two and a half months after the investigation, and just 6 days before the appeal, Brady comes along and says here's some messages from a couple of my phones I didn't destroy. That other phone I had destroyed because I always destroy my phones (?). Now that 10 weeks have gone by we decided to ask AT&T if they could recover any messages and they said no. Here's a letter from them that says so. Oh by the way here's a list of the people the 10,000 messages went to feel free to look them up - oops, there's 3 messages missing from that report but they weren't important.

 

Now let's remember once again, this isn't a criminal trial. Not only does the league have the right to make their decision based on certain assumptions combined with evidence, the Patriots* and Brady forced them into having to do so. The league took everything they had available, combined it with the different avenues of obfuscation, and came to their conclusion. And since it's not a criminal case with power of discovery and subpoena, they are allowed to reach that decision while under no obligation to provide absolute proof in the form of under inflated footballs from prior games.

Jimmy McGill would be proud of your summation. Uncle Hector, too.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[NoSaint]

It's not unethical to edit a report. They decided to not make him available. Maybe a mistake but not unethical. Brady's team didn't make jastremski and McNally available. That's way worse.

Remind me how a player can make a (former) team employee available? Or is that more of a pats than Brady issue?

[JohnC]

I'm an in-house attorney (similar to Pash's role here). His "editing" could have been as simple as changing names and titles of the addressees (since the internal who's who of the League is something Wells is not likely to know). I would wager that it's certainly not much more than that--I'd also wager that whatever it was he did it was not substantive.

If his changes were were so cosmetic and benign then why isn't he saying so? It is very hard to believe that an attorney of Pash's prominence within the league office is going to be the person changing names, titles and addresses on such an important report. Your "editing" explanation doesn't seem plausible.

 

I appreciate your legal insight on this case.

[NoSaint]

I'm an in-house attorney (similar to Pash's role here). His "editing" could have been as simple as changing names and titles of the addressees (since the internal who's who of the League is something Wells is not likely to know). I would wager that it's certainly not much more than that--I'd also wager that whatever it was he did it was not substantive.

Then why not answer questions on it and share the materials? I know ktd answered with his opinions but I'd be curious your take as a regular here

Edited August 29, 2015 by NoSaint

[JohnC]

 

 

That's true. But there doesn't need to be. If this were a criminal trial where proof beyond reasonable doubt was required then it would matter. But if it were a criminal trial a lot of other things would have happened, like forcing McNally and Jastremski to testify under oath.

 

But what happened instead, the league questioned everybody, then they decided to start fresh with Wells, etc. with the blessing of the Patriots*. They began their questioning of Brady and the Bobsy Twins with the Colts game in mind. All questions were answered more or less While Brady declined to turn over his phone records while his agent cites precedent and privacy clauses.

 

After the initial interview the league discovers texts that clearly show shenanigans was going on long before the Colts game. Of course they're not going to find balls from a month earlier that are deflated. But that doesn't matter. If they find evidence that Brady conspired with the Bobsy Twins to lower the inflation levels after the balls were officially inspected, that is a serious violation of the rules regardless of whether the balls went below 12.5 psi. During this time they also discovered that many of Brady's answers in his original interview were not plausible (lies).

 

Now, not being a court of law the league doesn't have power of subpoena, so they can only go back to the Bobsy Twins if the Patriots* let them - which they not only didn't let them, they terminated them so the league couldn't even leverage another meeting via "full cooperation" reasons. Once they were terminated the Patriots and league can't make those guys do anything. And let's face it, getting those guys under oath would have blown this thing wide open, but the league was denied. They also requested to interview Brady again but were denied.

 

Then on top of all the lies and other obfuscation, two and a half months after the investigation, and just 6 days before the appeal, Brady comes along and says here's some messages from a couple of my phones I didn't destroy. That other phone I had destroyed because I always destroy my phones (?). Now that 10 weeks have gone by we decided to ask AT&T if they could recover any messages and they said no. Here's a letter from them that says so. Oh by the way here's a list of the people the 10,000 messages went to feel free to look them up - oops, there's 3 messages missing from that report but they weren't important.

 

Now let's remember once again, this isn't a criminal trial. Not only does the league have the right to make their decision based on certain assumptions combined with evidence, the Patriots* and Brady forced them into having to do so. The league took everything they had available, combined it with the different avenues of obfuscation, and came to their conclusion. And since it's not a criminal case with power of discovery and subpoena, they are allowed to reach that decision while under no obligation to provide absolute proof in the form of under inflated footballs from prior games.

If it is such a clear cut case as you are indicating then why is the judge in this case eviserating the league over their conduct in this case in his courtroom? The judge asked Wells point blank if he had direct evidence implicating Brady in this conspiracy. Wells said no. The judge has pointed out to the league side that the evidence in which they have based their original decision is very problematic.

 

 

As you pointed out the league can make some assumptions with respect to the evidence. No one is challenging that notion. But what the league can't do is skirt the procedural rules that undergird this process. One of the judge's primary responsibilities is to ensure that both sides abide by the rules. His role can be described as being a referee. From what I have observed so far is that the league has been wayward to the point of recklessness in adhering to the rules of the legal system. It seems to me (my opinion) that the judge is not going to tolerate the league's distorted view of fairness.

[MattM]

If it is such a clear cut case as you are indicating then why is the judge in this case eviserating the league over their conduct in this case in his courtroom? The judge asked Wells point blank if he had direct evidence implicating Brady in this conspiracy. Wells said no. The judge has pointed out to the league side that the evidence in which they have based their original decision is very problematic.

 

 

As you pointed out the league can make some assumptions with respect to the evidence. No one is challenging that notion. But what the league can't do is skirt the procedural rules that undergird this process. One of the judge's primary responsibilities is to ensure that both sides abide by the rules. His role can be described as being a referee. From what I have observed so far is that the league has been wayward to the point of recklessness in adhering to the rules of the legal system. It seems to me (my opinion) that the judge is not going to tolerate the league's distorted view of fairness.

Very simple explanation--the judge badly wants the case to settle and so is chiding/cajoling the party with the stronger case to try to get them to settle. Game theory would support this view (although he may appear to some a bit foolish for questioning one way and deciding another).

 

On your question above on why Pash would not testify, that also may be as simple as attorney-client privilege, as he's an attorney working for the League. I'm not a litigator (thank God), but attorneys are rarely called as witnesses in most cases.

[JohnC]

Very simple explanation--the judge badly wants the case to settle and so is chiding/cajoling the party with the stronger case to try to get them to settle. Game theory would support this view (although he may appear to some a bit foolish for questioning one way and deciding another).

 

On your question above on why Pash would not testify, that also may be as simple as attorney-client privilege, as he's an attorney working for the League. I'm not a litigator (thank God), but attorneys are rarely called as witnesses in most cases.

There is no doubt that the judge wants the parties to settle. He has made it clear to both sides, but especially to the league that he wants a settlement. If you have been casually following the case you know very well that both sides are dug in and that there won't be a settlement. So the judge is going to be forced to make a ruling.

 

If Pash is acting as the league's attorney then why didn't he simply invoke the attorney-client priviledge? I don't know for sure but I don't think he used that priviledge in explaining why he wouldn't testify. Another issue I find confusing is if it is determined that he was involved with the investigation or the editing of the report I see no conflict with the league making an intial determination but I see a conflict when Goodell is asked to handle the appeal. That is certainly at the minimum an appearance of a conflict of interest. You can't expect the commissioner to repudiate a decision in which his proxies were involved in. In fact Wells has invoked the attorney-client priviedge when asked about his communication with commissioner's office. My problem isn't with the initial ruling by the league but it is when Goodell handled the appeal. Again, it is unreasonable to expect anyone to repudiate their own work. The simple solution to avoid this problem would have been to hand the appeal to a neutral arbitrator. I understand why RG wouldn't want to take that avenue. He has a history of having his judgments overturned when handled by a neutral party.

 

 

Game theory would support this view (although he may appear to some a bit foolish for questioning one way and deciding another).

 

There may be another intrepretation of the judge's focus on the league's conduct in this case. He may be establishing the foundation for a ruling against the league. As you smartly noted the judge has mostly focused on how the league handled the case and has not given too much attention to the NFLPA.

 

I appreciate your input on this topic.

[Tuco]

If it is such a clear cut case as you are indicating then why is the judge in this case eviserating the league over their conduct in this case in his courtroom? The judge asked Wells point blank if he had direct evidence implicating Brady in this conspiracy. Wells said no. The judge has pointed out to the league side that the evidence in which they have based their original decision is very problematic.

 

 

As you pointed out the league can make some assumptions with respect to the evidence. No one is challenging that notion. But what the league can't do is skirt the procedural rules that undergird this process. One of the judge's primary responsibilities is to ensure that both sides abide by the rules. His role can be described as being a referee. From what I have observed so far is that the league has been wayward to the point of recklessness in adhering to the rules of the legal system. It seems to me (my opinion) that the judge is not going to tolerate the league's distorted view of fairness.

I didn't say it's clear cut. I was responding to a post which was basically saying the league couldn't punish anybody for other games because there was no smoking gun evidence that there were balls from those games under 12.5 psi. They certainly can if evidence combined with resistance gives them enough reason to do so. The post I responded to was insinuating they needed 100% forensic proof. I am saying that's not so.

 

As far as the questions the judge asks, well, that's his job. He's charged with the duty of figuring out if the correct process was followed. He asks a question and sees what kind of answer he gets. Every question the judge asks isn't necessarily an accusation.

[JohnC]

I didn't say it's clear cut. I was responding to a post which was basically saying the league couldn't punish anybody for other games because there was no smoking gun evidence that there were balls from those games under 12.5 psi. They certainly can if evidence combined with resistance gives them enough reason to do so. The post I responded to was insinuating they needed 100% forensic proof. I am saying that's not so.

 

As far as the questions the judge asks, well, that's his job. He's charged with the duty of figuring out if the correct process was followed. He asks a question and sees what kind of answer he gets. Every question the judge asks isn't necessarily an accusation.

We both agree that the judge is focusing on the process used by the league. It doesn't really matter if we disagree as to whether Brady is guilty or not regarding what he is charged with. The judge's priority is to focus on the process and make a judgment regarding its fairness.

 

The judge has asked questions regarding Pash's role and lack of disclosure; he has asked questions regarding not only the timeliness of the notification to the accused but also the specificity of the charge; he has asked questions regarding the affect of the infraction on performance and the game (none); he has asked the league why the disparity in punishment between prior ball infractions and this case; he has asked the league why are the rules regarding equipment infractions directed toward the organizations when in this case it was directed toward a player?

 

This no nonsense judge is asking pointed questions (mostly) to the league's side because it is apparent to him that this case was handled differently than other cases. He is basically asking the league why are your standards and approach different in this case? The league can't give a reasonable response (my opinion) to such an elementary question.

 

You are correct that it is a mistake to assume that the questions the judge asks in his courtroom indicate how he will rule. But judges, especially experienced and wise judges, don't repeatingly ask similarly themed questions without a purpose. It seems to me that the judge is concentrating on the process issue because ultimately that is what he is going to rule on.

 

The case before the judge has little to do with imprecise PSI measurements and a HOF qb. It has everything to do with the with the capricious manner in which the league conducted itself in this disciplinary case. At the end of the day he is going to make a determination on its fairness.

[NoSaint]

We both agree that the judge is focusing on the process used by the league. It doesn't really matter if we disagree as to whether Brady is guilty or not regarding what he is charged with. The judge's priority is to focus on the process and make a judgment regarding its fairness.

 

The judge has asked questions regarding Pash's role and lack of disclosure; he has asked questions regarding not only the timeliness of the notification to the accused but also the specificity of the charge; he has asked questions regarding the affect of the infraction on performance and the game (none); he has asked the league why the disparity in punishment between prior ball infractions and this case; he has asked the league why are the rules regarding equipment infractions directed toward the organizations when in this case it was directed toward a player?

 

This no nonsense judge is asking pointed questions (mostly) to the league's side because it is apparent to him that this case was handled differently than other cases. He is basically asking the league why are your standards and approach different in this case? The league can't give a reasonable response (my opinion) to such an elementary question.

 

You are correct that it is a mistake to assume that the questions the judge asks in his courtroom indicate how he will rule. But judges, especially experienced and wise judges, don't repeatingly ask similarly themed questions without a purpose. It seems to me that the judge is concentrating on the process issue because ultimately that is what he is going to rule on.

 

The case before the judge has little to do with imprecise PSI measurements and a HOF qb. It has everything to do with the with the capricious manner in which the league conducted itself in this disciplinary case. At the end of the day he is going to make a determination on its fairness.

And the questions by themselves aren't the issue for the league. He's asking fair and relevant questions and unfortunately they are digging in with "doesn't matter we do what we want" instead of having something positive to sell him.we will see how much leash that buys the league both with the judge, as well as players and public. Edited August 30, 2015 by NoSaint

[Tuco]

We both agree that the judge is focusing on the process used by the league. It doesn't really matter if we disagree as to whether Brady is guilty or not regarding what he is charged with. The judge's priority is to focus on the process and make a judgment regarding its fairness.

 

The judge has asked questions regarding Pash's role and lack of disclosure; he has asked questions regarding not only the timeliness of the notification to the accused but also the specificity of the charge; he has asked questions regarding the affect of the infraction on performance and the game (none); he has asked the league why the disparity in punishment between prior ball infractions and this case; he has asked the league why are the rules regarding equipment infractions directed toward the organizations when in this case it was directed toward a player?

 

This no nonsense judge is asking pointed questions (mostly) to the league's side because it is apparent to him that this case was handled differently than other cases. He is basically asking the league why are your standards and approach different in this case? The league can't give a reasonable response (my opinion) to such an elementary question.

 

You are correct that it is a mistake to assume that the questions the judge asks in his courtroom indicate how he will rule. But judges, especially experienced and wise judges, don't repeatingly ask similarly themed questions without a purpose. It seems to me that the judge is concentrating on the process issue because ultimately that is what he is going to rule on.

 

The case before the judge has little to do with imprecise PSI measurements and a HOF qb. It has everything to do with the with the capricious manner in which the league conducted itself in this disciplinary case. At the end of the day he is going to make a determination on its fairness.

I understand this. If you look at my original post it was in response to a post that was insinuating the league couldn't punish for previous games without smoking gun PSI measurements. They can. And I was pointing out in my post not only why they can but because of the actions of Brady and the league they pretty much had to do it that way. But for some reason you have decided I think it's a cut and dried case in favor of the league. The poster I was responding to seemed to think the suspension was too harsh because there's no documented PSI levels from previous games. I fully understand the suspension could be vacated. But if so it won't be because there wasn't smoking gun evidence of deflation earlier in the season. It will be because the judge ruled the league acted outside the CBA. The CBA requires investigation and cooperation, and specifies who handles what, including appeals. It doesn't require evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

The ruling is all about the process. I get that. The league acted capriciously. Okay. So did the plaintiff, and a lot of what the league did was because of that. I agree the judge will be ruling on whether the CBA was followed. He has to. And my response to your judge and his questions still doesn't mean I think it's a clear cut case, I just don't think the asking of those questions means anything more significant than the judge doing his job. The plaintiff has a list of reasons why he feels he was wronged. The judge asks pointed questions that deal with those reasons. If your landlord brings you into small claims court because he says your cat stunk the place up and you tell the judge the landlord never said you couldn't have a cat, the place wasn't very clean when you moved in and the smell is coming from the place next door, the judge is going to ask the landlord if he said you couldn't have a cat, was the place a dump before and is the smell possibly coming from next door. The questions are specific because the appeal points are specific, not because the judge thinks the defendant is wrong.

 

If the judge doesn't like the answers and vacates the suspension, it's not because of a lack of deflated footballs in previous games. That was my original point.

[JohnC]

And the questions by themselves aren't the issue for the league. He's asking fair and relevant questions and unfortunately they are digging in with "doesn't matter we do what we want" instead of having something positive to sell him.we will see how much leash that buys the league both with the judge, as well as players and public.

When this case first started the judge encouraged both parties to settle. He advised/warned both sides that he saw merits to both of their positions and that he was in position to make a determination that went either way. He was signaling that neither party should assume that they were on a clear cut winning side.

 

Without a doubt the judge's focus of attention has been on how the league handled this case. Most of the pointed questions have been directed toward the league. Their constant fallback position is that they have the authority to make a judgment regardless of the merits of the case and how capriciously they acted. In my mind not only are their responses nonsubstative but sometimes very lame. One example is when the judge asked RG why he dispensed such a severe punishment to Brady. He responded that he compared it to someone who took steroids. The judge scoffed at that nonsensical response.

 

I agree with Tuco (knowledgeable and impressive poster) that the line of questioning that the judge is posing to the league doesn't necessarily indicate how he will rule. But it can't be ignored that there is a consistent theme to his questions. The responses for the most part have been unimpressive.

 

When one makes a legal argument that one has the authority to do whatever it wants to do, capricious as it may be, it is a weak position to take in front of a judge. Acting arrogantly before a judge is not an approach that the judge will find very endearing. Not only are their legal positions weak but their general attitude toward the court room isn't smart. Most often in court being respectful is more appropriate and productive than being imperious.

 

There is an irony to this court case. It must be remembered that the league ran to this court to get their ruling stamped with approval. What it didn't expect is to have a judge do his job by acting judiciously.

[JohnC]

I understand this. If you look at my original post it was in response to a post that was insinuating the league couldn't punish for previous games without smoking gun PSI measurements. They can. And I was pointing out in my post not only why they can but because of the actions of Brady and the league they pretty much had to do it that way. But for some reason you have decided I think it's a cut and dried case in favor of the league. The poster I was responding to seemed to think the suspension was too harsh because there's no documented PSI levels from previous games. I fully understand the suspension could be vacated. But if so it won't be because there wasn't smoking gun evidence of deflation earlier in the season. It will be because the judge ruled the league acted outside the CBA. The CBA requires investigation and cooperation, and specifies who handles what, including appeals. It doesn't require evidence beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

The ruling is all about the process. I get that. The league acted capriciously. Okay. So did the plaintiff, and a lot of what the league did was because of that. I agree the judge will be ruling on whether the CBA was followed. He has to. And my response to your judge and his questions still doesn't mean I think it's a clear cut case, I just don't think the asking of those questions means anything more significant than the judge doing his job. The plaintiff has a list of reasons why he feels he was wronged. The judge asks pointed questions that deal with those reasons. If your landlord brings you into small claims court because he says your cat stunk the place up and you tell the judge the landlord never said you couldn't have a cat, the place wasn't very clean when you moved in and the smell is coming from the place next door, the judge is going to ask the landlord if he said you couldn't have a cat, was the place a dump before and is the smell possibly coming from next door. The questions are specific because the appeal points are specific, not because the judge thinks the defendant is wrong.

 

If the judge doesn't like the answers and vacates the suspension, it's not because of a lack of deflated footballs in previous games. That was my original point.

In general we are in accord. The case in front of the judge mostly deals with the process.

 

It may seem to many that I believe that only one side acted inappropriately. That's not the case. I believe that Brady should have been more cooperative right from the start. But I understand why he didn't trust RG and the league to manage a fair investigation. After examining how it was conducted it is obvious (at least to me) that not trusting the league was a reasonable position to take.

 

My position from the start is that this was a trivial issue that should have been handled with a greater degree of proportion and common sense. The level of response with its multi-million $$$ investigation was ridiculous and absurd.

 

RG turned a jay walking case into manslaughter case. This is a manufactured fiasco caused by a commissioner who has demonstrated time and time again that he lacks good judgment when involved in disciplinary actions. In my view the problem with RG is that he mistakenly believes that he is the law instead of he represents the law. That is a very destructive difference.

Edited August 30, 2015 by JohnC

[K-9]

It was a jaywalking case until the evidence suggested something far more serious was occurring inside an organization previously found guilty.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[l< j]

Then why not answer questions on it and share the materials? I know ktd answered with his opinions but I'd be curious your take as a regular here

Same question needs to be answered by Brady in re: his phone. It's not the NFL that has destroyed evidence at the center of this case.

[NoSaint]

Same question needs to be answered by Brady in re: his phone. It's not the NFL that has destroyed evidence at the center of this case.

He surely has to face those questions, but in being the judicial organization here, the nfl is facing a different standard/expectations. It's totally possible they are both in the wrong and the punishment will still be wiped. I know the CBA is separate from our legal system but in general our foundations are lined to giving accused a fair process and holding the side with the power to a high standard.