The National Football League has released the full report on the investigation into whether the New England Patriots violated league rules in tampering with the footballs used during regular and post season games in 2015. The Wells report found the balls were deliberated deflated and that Tom Brady was aware of the actions by team personnel.
Along with the report, Commissioner Roger Goodell issued the following statement:
STATEMENT OF NFL COMMISSIONER ROGER GOODELL
I want to express my appreciation to Ted Wells and his colleagues for performing a thorough and independent investigation, the findings and conclusions of which are set forth in today’s comprehensive report.
As with other recent matters involving violations of competitive rules, Troy Vincent and his team will consider what steps to take in light of the report, both with respect to possible disciplinary action and to any changes in protocols that are necessary to avoid future incidents of this type. At the same time, we will continue our efforts vigorously to protect the integrity of the game and promote fair play at all times.
Update:
We have now reviewed the full report and can offer our analysis. First, it’s important to understand what the report was charged with performing and its best we begin with its rendering of the background facts in the matter and the circumstances leading up to the investigation. All quoted sections are obtained directly from the report which you can find here.
On January 18, 2015, the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts played in the AFC Championship Game at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts to determine which team would advance to Super Bowl XLIX. During the first half of the game, a question was raised by the Colts concerning the inflation level of the footballs being used by the Patriots. As a result, at halftime, members of the officiating crew assigned to the game, overseen by a senior officiating supervisor from the National Football League (the “NFL” or the “League”), tested the air pressure of footballs being used by each of the Patriots and the Colts. All eleven of the Patriots game balls tested measured below the minimum pressure level of 12.5 pounds per square inch (“psi”) allowed by Rule 2 of the Official Playing Rules of the National Football League (the “Playing Rules”) on both of two air pressure gauges used to test the balls. The four Colts balls tested each measured within the 12.5 to 13.5 psi range permitted under the Playing Rules on at least one of the gauges used for the tests. (p. 1)
On January 23, 2015, the NFL publicly announced that it had retained Theodore V. Wells, Jr. and the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison (“Paul, Weiss”) to conduct an investigation, together with NFL Executive Vice President Jeff Pash, into the footballs used by the Patriots during the AFC Championship Game. The investigation was conducted pursuant to the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules. That Policy provides that “[a]ctual or suspected competitive violations will be thoroughly and promptly investigated.” 1 This Report is the product of that investigation. It was prepared entirely by the Paul, Weiss investigative team and presents the independent opinions of Mr. Wells and his colleagues. (p. 1)
Following an approximate 100 day investigation, the Wells report was unleashed with the following findings and conclusions:
For the reasons described in this Report, and after a comprehensive investigation, we have concluded that, in connection with the AFC Championship Game, it is more probable than not that New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules. In particular, we have concluded that it is more probable than not that Jim McNally (the Officials Locker Room attendant for the Patriots) and John Jastremski (an equipment assistant for the Patriots) participated in a deliberate effort to release air from Patriots game balls after the balls were examined by the referee. (p. 2)
Based on the evidence, it also is our view that it is more probable than not that Tom Brady (the quarterback for the Patriots) was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls. Based on the evidence, the investigation has further concluded that that there was no deliberate attempt by the Patriots to introduce to the playing field a non-approved kicking ball during the AFC Championship Game. Although Patriots personnel provided a kicking ball to game officials that did not have the distinctive inspection mark of the referee, we find that the Patriots personnel involved believed the ball to be authentic and appropriate. (p. 2)
We do not believe that there was any attempt by Patriots personnel, including Patriots kicker Stephen Gostkowski, to deliberately circumvent the rules by offering the kicking ball for play. 3 We do not believe that the evidence establishes that any other Patriots personnel participated in or had knowledge of the violation of the Playing Rules or the deliberate effort to circumvent the rules described in this Report. In particular, we do not believe there was any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing by Patriots ownership, Patriots Head Coach Bill Belichick or any other Patriots coach in the matters investigated. We also do not believe there was any wrongdoing or knowledge of wrongdoing by Patriots Head Equipment Manager Dave Schoenfeld. (p. 3)
In reaching these conclusions, the Wells investigators relied upon the following summary of facts (in addition to expert data gathered that will take longer to analyze). Per the report:
In reaching the conclusions set forth in this Report, we are mindful that the analyses performed by our scientific consultants necessarily rely on reasoned assumptions and that varying the applicable assumptions can have a material impact on the ultimate conclusions. We therefore have been careful not to give undue weight to the experimental results and have instead relied on the totality of the evidence developed during the investigation. Even putting aside the experimental results, we believe that our conclusions are supported by the evidence in its entirety. (p. 13)
The report states this evidence alone supports its findings and conclusions. Please note the facts contain NSFW language which we have opted to leave intact as is appropriate in legal proceedings:
In reaching these conclusions, we have considered, among other things, the following facts that we believe are established by the evidence for the reasons detailed in this Report:
1. Rule 2 of the Official Playing Rules of the NFL requires that footballs used during NFL games must be inflated to between 12.5 and 13.5 psi. In particular, the rule states that “[t]he ball shall be made up of an inflated (12½ to 13½ pounds) urethane bladder enclosed in a pebble grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind.”
2. Several hours before the AFC Championship Game, Jim McNally, the Patriots employee responsible for delivering the Patriots game balls to the game officials for pre-game inspection, brought the balls into the Officials Locker Room at Gillette Stadium. At or around that time, McNally told the referee, Walt Anderson, that Tom Brady, the Patriots quarterback, wanted the game balls inflated at 12.5 psi. McNally has been employed by the Patriots as a seasonal or part-time employee for the past 32 years. His work for the Patriots during the 2014-15 NFL season took place only on a part-time/hourly basis on days on which the Patriots had home games. His legitimate job responsibilities as Officials Locker Room attendant did not involve the preparation, inflation or deflation of Patriots game balls.
3. During the pre-game inspection, Anderson determined that all but two of the Patriots game balls delivered by McNally were properly inflated. Most of them measured 12.5 psi. Two tested below 12.5 psi and Anderson directed another game official to further inflate those two game balls, which Anderson then adjusted to 12.5 psi using a pressure gauge. Most of the Colts game balls tested by Anderson prior to the game measured 13.0 or 13.1 psi. Although one or two footballs may have registered 12.8 or 12.9 psi, it was evident to Anderson that the Colts‟ inflation target for the game balls was 13.0 psi. No air was added to or 4 released from the Colts game balls pre-game because they were all within the permissible range.
4. When Anderson and other members of the officiating crew were preparing to leave the Officials Locker Room to head to the field for the start of the game, the game balls could not be located. It was the first time in Anderson‟s nineteen years as an NFL official that he could not locate the game balls at the start of a game. Unknown to Anderson, and without Anderson‟s permission or the permission of any other member of the officiating crew, McNally had taken the balls from the Officials Locker Room towards the playing field. According to Anderson and other members of the officiating crew for the AFC Championship Game, the removal of the game balls from the Officials Locker Room by McNally without the permission of the referee or another game official was a breach of standard operating pre-game procedure. According to Anderson, other members of the officiating crew for the AFC Championship Game and other game officials with recent experience at Gillette Stadium, McNally had not previously removed game balls from the Officials Locker Room and taken them to the field without either receiving permission from the game officials or being accompanied by one or more officials.
5. Based on videotape evidence and witness interviews, it has been determined that McNally removed the game balls from the Officials Locker Room at approximately 6:30 p.m. After leaving the Officials Locker Room carrying two large bags of game balls (Patriots balls and Colts balls), McNally turned left and then turned left again to walk down a corridor referred to by Patriots personnel as the “center tunnel” heading to the playing field. At the end of the center tunnel on the left-hand side, approximately three feet from the doors that lead to the playing field, is a bathroom. McNally entered that bathroom with the game balls, locked the door, and remained in the bathroom with the game balls for approximately one minute and forty seconds. He then left the bathroom and took the bags of game balls to the field.
6. In the weeks and months before the AFC Championship Game, McNally periodically exchanged text messages with the Patriots equipment assistant primarily responsible for the preparation of the Patriots game balls, John Jastremski. In a number of those text messages, McNally and Jastremski discussed the air pressure of Patriots game balls, Tom Brady‟s unhappiness with the inflation level of Patriots game balls, Jastremski‟s plan to provide McNally with a “needle” for use by McNally, and McNally‟s requests for “cash” and sneakers together with the “needle” to be provided by Jastremski. A sports ball inflation needle is a device that can be used to inflate a football (if attached to an air pump) or release air from a football (if inserted alone into a ball).
For example, on October 17, 2014, following a Thursday night game between the Patriots and the New York Jets during which Tom Brady complained angrily about the inflation level of the game balls, McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following text messages:
McNally: Tom sucks…im going make that next ball a fuckin balloon Jastremski: Talked to him last night. He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done…
Jastremski: I told him it was. He was right though…
Jastremski: I checked some of the balls this morn… The refs fucked us…a few of then were at almost 16
Jastremski: They didnt recheck then after they put air in them
McNally: Fuck tom …16 is nothing…wait till next sunday
Jastremski: Omg! Spaz
On October 21, 2014, McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following text messages:
McNally: Make sure you blow up the ball to look like a rugby ball so tom can get used to it before sunday
Jastremski: Omg
On October 23, 2014, three days before a Sunday game against the Chicago Bears, Jastremski and McNally exchanged the following messages: Jastremski: Can‟t wait to give you your needle this week
McNally: Fuck tom….make sure the pump is attached to the needle…..fuckin watermelons coming
Jastremski: So angry
McNally: The only thing deflating sun..is his passing rating
The next day, October 24, 2014, Jastremski and McNally exchanged the following messages:
Jastremski: I have a big needle for u this week
McNally: Better be surrounded by cash and newkicks….or its a rugby sunday
McNally: Fuck tom Jastremski: Maybe u will have some nice size 11s in ur locker
McNally: Tom must really be working your balls hard this week
On October 25, 2014, McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following messages:
Jastremski: Size 11?
Jastremski: 2 or 3X?
McNally: Tom must really be on you
McNally: 11 0r 11 half……2x unless its tight fitting
Jastremski: Nah. Hasn‟t even mentioned it, figured u should get something since he gives u nothing
On January 7, 2015, eleven days before the AFC Championship Game, McNally and Jastremski discussed how McNally would have a “big autograph day” and receive items autographed by Brady the following weekend, before the playoff game against the Baltimore Ravens. McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following text messages:
McNally: Remember to put a couple sweet pig skins ready for tom to sign
Jastremski: U got it kid…big autograph day for you
McNally: Nice throw some kicks in and make it real special Jastremski: It ur lucky. 11?
McNally: 11 or 11 and half kid
On January 10, 2015, immediately prior to the game between the Patriots and the Ravens, in the Patriots equipment room with both Brady and Jastremski present, McNally received two footballs autographed by Brady and also had Brady autograph a game-worn Patriots jersey that McNally previously had obtained.
7. In addition to the messages described above, before the start of the 2014-15 season, McNally referred to himself as “the deflator” and stated that he was “not going to espn……..yet.” On May 9, 2014, McNally and Jastremski exchanged the following text messages:
McNally: You working
Jastremski: Yup
McNally: Nice dude….jimmy needs some kicks….lets make a deal…..come on help the deflator 7
McNally: Chill buddy im just fuckin with you ….im not going to espn……..yet
8. During the second quarter of the AFC Championship Game, a ball thrown by Tom Brady was intercepted by a player for the Colts and the ball was taken to the Colts sideline. On the sideline, Colts equipment personnel used a pressure gauge to measure the inflation level of the ball, determined that it was below the minimum 12.5 psi level and informed a game official and other NFL personnel. Prior to the game, Colts personnel had notified the NFL that they suspected that the Patriots might be deflating game balls below the minimum level permissible under the Playing Rules, although they did not support their suspicions with any specific factual information. In response to the pre-game concerns raised by the Colts, NFL Football Operations staff had notified the head of the NFL Officiating Department, Dean Blandino, and a senior officiating supervisor who would be attending the game, Alberto Riveron. During a pre-game conversation concerning various game-day topics, Riveron told referee Walt Anderson that a concern had been raised about the air pressure of the game balls. Anderson told Riveron that he would be sure to follow his usual ball inspection procedure to ensure that the balls were properly inflated.
9. After being informed during the second quarter of the AFC Championship Game that the Colts had measured a Patriots game ball and found it to be under-inflated, and having previously been advised of the Colts‟ suspicions, Riveron decided that the game balls for both teams should be inspected at halftime by the game officials. Two other senior NFL personnel present at the game, Troy Vincent and Mike Kensil, independently reached the same conclusion.
10. At halftime, under Riveron‟s supervision, two alternate game officials (Clete Blakeman and Dyrol Prioleau) tested eleven Patriots game balls and four Colts game balls. The Patriots ball intercepted by the Colts was not among the eleven Patriots balls tested. Each official used a separate air pressure gauge provided by referee Anderson that Anderson had brought with him to the game, one of which also had been used by Anderson for his pre-game inspection. Each of the eleven Patriots balls tested at halftime measured below the minimum 12.5 psi level established by the Playing Rules on both gauges. Each of the four Colts balls tested measured within the permissible 12.5 to 13.5 psi range on at least one of the gauges. The measurements were recorded in writing by Richard Farley, an NFL security official who has been assigned to the Patriots and Gillette Stadium for approximately twelve years. Only four Colts balls were tested because the officials were running out of time before the start of the second half.
Farley recorded the halftime pressure measurements taken by the game officials as follows:
Before halftime ended, all eleven Patriots balls were inflated and set to a permissible pressure level. The four Colts balls tested were not inflated because they measured within the permissible range on at least one of the gauges used at halftime. The fifteen footballs tested, and the balance of the Colts balls collected at halftime, were returned to the field for use in the second half.
The pressure of the Patriots ball that had been intercepted by the Colts was separately tested three times, and the measurements, all of which were below 12.5 9 psi, were written on athletic tape that had been placed on the ball for identification. The intercepted ball was retained by the NFL and not returned to the field for use in the second half.
11. Following the game, before he left the stadium, McNally was interviewed by members of NFL Security. During that interview, McNally did not mention that he had taken the game balls into the bathroom. Instead, he stated that he walked directly to the field and that nothing unusual occurred during the walk from the locker room to the field. In subsequent interviews, McNally provided varying explanations for the bathroom stop and his decision not to utilize readily available bathroom facilities in the Officials Locker Room and adjacent Chain Gang Locker Room. (pp. 3-9)
The Wells investigation found that Tom Brady was aware of the general nature of the deflation based on a variety of factors including text messages. From the report:
We nevertheless believe, based on the totality of the evidence, that it is more probable than not that Brady was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities of McNally and Jastremski involving the release of air from Patriots game balls. Evidence of Brady‟s awareness appears in text communications between McNally and Jastremski. (p. 17)
The report further notes that Brady was a constant note of reference throughout the bulk of the communications contained therein and further that text messages between Jastremski and Brady increased materially during the effected period. The report also notes that neither McNally nor Jastremski appear to be leaders nor have incentive to conduct such activity without the knowledge and approval of Brady.
Finally, Brady had acknowledged he preferred gameballs to be slightly under inflated and while the report doesn’t openly question his credibility it at least finds it difficult to believe some of Brady’s statements on the matter.
Brady has also acknowledged publicly that he likes game balls inflated at the low end of the permissible range. The inflation level of game balls clearly is important to Brady, as demonstrated by his reaction when he believed that game balls were inflated at an undesirable level. In addition, Brady personally was involved in the 2006 rule change that allowed visiting teams to prepare game balls in accordance with the preferences of their quarterbacks. During the process of advocating that rule change, it is reasonable to infer that Brady was likely to be (or become) familiar with the NFL rules regarding game balls, including the 12.5 psi minimum inflation level, although Brady denies having been aware of Rule 2 or the minimum inflation level until 2014 (despite approximately fourteen years as an NFL quarterback). (p. 19)
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. Similarly, 20 McNally told NFL Security that he had been personally told by Brady of Brady‟s inflation level preference. (p. 19)
In regard to the Patriots, the report found the team cooperated throughout the investigation but did note that legal counsel for the team failed to produce McNally for a follow up interview. It further noted that McNally might not have been aware his presence had been requested again. That led to this finding which might prove crucial in the subsequent punishment:
We believe the failure by the Patriots and its counsel to produce McNally for the requested follow-up interview violated the club‟s obligations to cooperate with the investigation under the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of League Rules and was inconsistent with public statements made by the Patriots pledging full cooperation with the investigation. (p. 20)
As for Brady, the report also finds he failed to cooperate fully as well and that could prove crucial to his punishment as well:
Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information (including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady‟s counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady‟s telephone or other electronic devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in Brady‟s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation. (p. 21)
Finally, in regard to legal counsel’s behavior, this can’t be good for the Patriots either:
At various points in the investigation, counsel for the Patriots questioned the integrity and objectivity of game officials, various NFL executives and certain NFL Security representatives present at the AFC Championship Game or otherwise involved in the investigative process. We found no evidence to substantiate the questions raised by counsel. Specifically, we identified no evidence of any bias or unfairness. We believe that the game officials, NFL executives, NFL Security representatives and other members of the NFL staff who participated in the testing of the footballs and the subsequent investigative process acted fairly, properly and responsibly. (p. 21)
The investigators also relied upon expert consultation which made certain “reasonable” assumptions but the report is clear that the remaining weight of the evidence, consisting of communications and video, was enough to support its findings and conclusions alone.
In a related issue, the report does exonerate the Patriots in regard to questions surrounding the kicking ball in the AFC Championship game. These concerns had been raised by the Baltimore Ravens prior to that game. The report states as follows:
Conclusions
We do not believe that the evidence supports a conclusion that there was any deliberate effort by the Patriots to circumvent the NFL‟s Playing Rules with respect to the kicking balls used during the AFC Championship Game. We have reached this conclusion for a number of reasons.
First, based on the information from and recollection of referee Walt Anderson, we find that it is plausible that K-Ball #1 was not marked with Anderson‟s initials prior to the game. Second, we were unable to determine conclusively whether the football identified as K- Ball #1 was or was not one of the k-balls shipped by Wilson for use during the AFC Championship Game. The ball was stamped with a “K,” which we understand to be consistent with Wilson‟s practice for conference championship footballs, and Jastremski identified the numbers drawn on the ball as the ones he had drawn. The ball did not have any additional markings that allow Wilson to determine with certainty whether it was one of the k-balls it delivered for the game. Third, we find credible the explanations from Schoenfeld, Gostkowksi and other Patriots personnel that they believed the kicking ball to be authentic and appropriate for use in the game when attempts were made to reintroduce the ball into play. We also believe that Miller‟s involvement in the chain of custody of this football counsels against making any conclusive adverse findings.
In addition, we believe that it was not inappropriate for the game officials to disallow a ball of questionable authenticity into the game. We also note that the use of K-Ball #2 in the second half had no apparent adverse effect. When interviewed, Gostkowski inaccurately believed “100%” that K-Ball #1 was returned to play during the game because he recalled kicking the ball out of the end zone several times and playing with a well-prepared ball in the second half. (pp. 132-39)
In summarizing the report, we relied heavily on the contents contained therein and for good reason. It’s important to look at what is said and not said in various passages throughout the document. Further, rather than paraphrase what the document said we felt it incumbent on us to provide you with its terminology and language rather than our own.
The report acknowledges there isn’t a lot of direct evidence to make a connection and there are more than a few assumptions drawn (they appear to be fair however). There is even less direct evidence of Brady’s involvement which is where his failure to cooperate fully could come into play.
Technically, admissions are treated as hearsay being they are out of court statements used to establish the proof of whatever is being asserted. In Brady’s situation, the investigation sought communications in his possession during the relevant time period and even offered to allow his counsel to participate in the process. This request was denied and Brady did not turn over his own communications. These are largely considered circumstantial evidence but in the case of admissions there is a difference.
An admission, whether by silence or by an affirmation, under the right circumstances can be particularly damning because it comes straight out of the horse’s mouth (so to speak). The legal definition of direct evidence should show you where these two standards can intersect when it comes to an admission:
Direct evidence is evidence that directly proves a fact. It is evidence which by itself, if found to be true, establishes that fact.
On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is defined as follows:
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that, if found to be true, proves a fact from which an inference of the existence of another fact may be drawn.
An inference is a deduction of fact that may logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts established by the evidence.
Where then does an admission lie? Generally defined as circumstantial its not uncommon for admissions to be treated much like direct evidence by a trier of fact. What better and more clear evidence of guilt can there be than a statement from someone saying “I did this.” In effect, this is the gist of what Brady’s failure to provide communications does.
The text messages we know about reveal pretty clearly McNally and Jastremski were actively involved in working with the footballs intended for Brady and there is more than enough evidence to suggest Brady was involved and knew. Thus, his failure to provide documentation to refute these conclusions could operate as admissions against him.
While its true no one likes to reveal private communications, there appears little incentive for Brady to refuse here. Anything personal could have been redacted and his counsel was encouraged to participate in the disclosure. Furthermore, Brady was surely advised that failure to provide this information would be detrimental to the investigation as well as possibly enhance his punishment. He simply chose to refuse and accept the consequences. It cannot have escaped him or his counsel that the league was particularly hard on Greg Hardy under similar circumstances.
In any event, focusing on whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial largely ignores the weight of the evidence. There are far more concerning questions that can be raised without resorting to mental mechanics over it.
One of the biggest questions seems to be why there is such a huge disparity in the readings conducted on the balls in the AFC Championship game. We know little how about those measurements were conducted and if properly calibrated devices were used. Clearly one of the testing gauges was not calibrated like the other as evidenced by the difference in measurements.
That makes it difficult to trust the measurements from either testing gauge. There is no explanation provided for the discrepancy nor any discussion within the report on whether the difference was noted or even accounted for unless its contained within the expert findings which are yet to be analyzed.
We are left with real questions concerning the testing process and no clear answers. Why is there such a difference? Do officials make sure their testing equipment is properly working and calibrated? None of this is answered nor is it clear whether the discrepancy can be explained in a manner that preserves the findings and conclusions of the report.
Regardless, it does appear the overwhelming weight of the evidence establishes that an attempt was made to circumvent the rules concerning proper inflation of the footballs used in the game. Given the amount of evidence and data collected, it seems reasonable to assume the testing differences aren’t a major deterrent for the league to utilize the report and consider punishment.
Here, then, is where the failure to cooperate can really come into play. As mentioned earlier, and as we wrote here, Hardy’s punishment appeared to be heavier due to his failure to cooperate. The league was careful not to state it but its a reasonable inference. Patriots owner Robert Craft is known to be close to Goodell and was one of his biggest supporters during the Ray Rice fiasco. How will Goodell handle the punishment considering that fact? Not to mention “Spygate” which is still fairly fresh in everyone’s mind? Repeat offenders usually are punished more severely.
The league has a huge mess on its hands made even more complicated by the fact that it probably didn’t matter that much to the outcome of the game. The final score was 45-7. Brady threw the ball 35 times completing 23 of those passes (and three touchdowns mind you.) He also threw one interception (that ball was tested in game but not part of the subsequent investigation.)
Andrew Luck didn’t fare as well only completing twelve of his 33 passes for 126 yards. He also threw two interceptions. The game was played in a driving rain which does raise some questions but how then do you explain away the rushing performance put on by LeGarrette Blount? His 148 yards and three touchdowns also had an effect and cannot be discounted.
Either way, it seems a no brainer that the league must come down and come down hard. What punishment should Brady and the Patriots get? There is no way the league negates the Super Bowl victory. For Brady, at least 2-4 games would appear to be the baseline while the Patriots surely must lose a draft pick in addition to paying another stiff fine.
What punishment do you think they should get? Leave your answers in the comments.
Addendum:
Many people has questioned the use of “more probable than not” in the report so let us briefly explain why that is not an issue. The standard by which a violation of this rule is determined is dictated by the rule itself which states:
This is contained within a footnote on the first page of the report itself. So don’t mistake those words for inconclusiveness because it is most certainly not.
Don’t miss a minute of the action! Subscribe to the Pro Player Insiders newsletter for exclusive content, VIP invites and special access delivered right to your inbox.
In any event, focusing on whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial largely ignores the weight of the evidence. There are far more concerning questions that can be raised without resorting to mental mechanics over it.
