OT: Brady's Freed

[toadfoot]

Prior threads would indicate that we have some real Deflategate junkies around here -- experts in all aspects of the case.

For those interested in reading the full 40 page decision, here it is:

"The first is the club's prior record. In 2007, the club and several individuals were sanctioned for videotaping signals of opposing defensive coaches . . . ."

To me this statement is proof positive that Goodell and others were simply out to get the Patriots and Brady. Why you ask? Because it is not now and has never been illegal to videotape opposing coaches, yet I constantly see reports on ESPN and elsewhere that refer to this 'supposed' spying (hence the name Spygate). Let me repeat, it is not now and has never been against any NFL rules to videotape opposing coaches signals. I dare anyone to provide the NFL rule that says it is. The violation was for videotaping from an unapproved location in violation of a memo that in itself misstated NFL rules. In other words, a minor technical violation of videotaping rules.

 

[j66kicker]

"The first is the club's prior record. In 2007, the club and several individuals were sanctioned for videotaping signals of opposing defensive coaches . . . ."

To me this statement is proof positive that Goodell and others were simply out to get the Patriots and Brady. Why you ask? Because it is not now and has never been illegal to videotape opposing coaches, yet I constantly see reports on ESPN and elsewhere that refer to this 'supposed' spying (hence the name Spygate). Let me repeat, it is not now and has never been against any NFL rules to videotape opposing coaches signals. I dare anyone to provide the NFL rule that says it is. The violation was for videotaping from an unapproved location in violation of a memo that in itself misstated NFL rules. In other words, a minor technical violation of videotaping rules.

They videotaped the signals, matched them up with the plays, and then used them in the second halves of the SAME GAMES, which is the illegal part. I think BFD - the blockers still had to block, the receivers still had to get open, Brady still had to get the ball to them, and they still had to catch it. But they did break the rules in this case.

 

[toadfoot]

They videotaped the signals, matched them up with the plays, and then used them in the second halves of the SAME GAMES, which is the illegal part. I think BFD - the blockers still had to block, the receivers still had to get open, Brady still had to get the ball to them, and they still had to catch it. But they did break the rules in this case.

Completely untrue. Part of the myth that has grown up around this entire incident.

 

[intlzncster]

"
Because it is not now and has never been illegal to videotape opposing coaches, yet I constantly see reports on ESPN and elsewhere that refer to this 'supposed' spying (hence the name Spygate). Let me repeat, it is not now and has never been against any NFL rules to videotape opposing coaches signals. I dare anyone to provide the NFL rule that says it is. The violation was for videotaping from an unapproved location in violation of a memo that in itself misstated NFL rules. In other words, a minor technical violation of videotaping rules.

Here's what you need to know about spygate:

And just for fun, here's the Jet's sideline during that season:

 

[intlzncster]

They videotaped the signals, matched them up with the plays, and then used them in the second halves of the SAME GAMES, which is the illegal part. I think BFD - the blockers still had to block, the receivers still had to get open, Brady still had to get the ball to them, and they still had to catch it. But they did break the rules in this case.

Yeah, that actually didn't happen. But OK. And even if they had, you'd like to think the other team would run more than a couple plays?

 

[toadfoot]

Yeah, that actually didn't happen. But OK. And even if they had, you'd like to think the other team would run more than a couple plays?

Or maybe change signals at halftime. Or maybe have 2 people flashing signals. The original signaler giving bogus signals and another signaler giving the real signals in an attempt to trick the Patriots. Whole thing was unbelievably silly. I view Spygate and now Deflategate as nothing less than an attempt by the league office to accomplish in the backroom what teams have been unable to accomplish on the field. The NFL wants parity.

 

[ed4ourgirls]

My condolences to Jets fans.

 

[pinotbear]

My condolences to Jets fans.

Not me - let 'em suffer in that concrete hell they live in.

 

[toadfoot]

Not me - let 'em suffer in that concrete hell they live in.

Ever since the recent thread "So, what's the meaning of your handle..." I've been meaning to mention that while I was a cabernet only drinker for a long time, in the last few years I've become a fan of pinot noir. A very nice one from Ca. called Road 31 is worth a try if you should ever come across a bottle. Not too pricey, ~$30, but in my opinion very good. Not sure the vintner distributes as far east as New England, but I definitely recommend it.

 

[pinotbear]

Ever since the recent thread "So, what's the meaning of your handle..." I've been meaning to mention that while I was a cabernet only drinker for a long time, in the last few years I've become a fan of pinot noir. A very nice one from Ca. called Road 31 is worth a try if you should ever come across a bottle. Not too pricey, ~$30, but in my opinion very good. Not sure the vintner distributes as far east as New England, but I definitely recommend it.

thanks! always like a recommendation. I owned and managed my own little package store for 15 years. I enjoy cabs immensely, good riojas, good sangiovese-based Tuscans, medium-bodied Rhones - but, after all those years of trying wine, pinots are my favorite. Tho', on a cold winter night, I won't say no to a tawny port nor an amaretto.

 

[j66kicker]

Yeah, that actually didn't happen. But OK. And even if they had, you'd like to think the other team would run more than a couple plays?

I think it did actually happen, but whatever... BTW I'm a Pats fan, not a hater. But anyone who really finds this subject interesting should read this very compelling book:

http://www.spygatebook.com

 

[intlzncster]

I think it did actually happen, but whatever... BTW I'm a Pats fan, not a hater. But anyone who really finds this subject interesting should read this very compelling book:

http://www.spygatebook.com

Where is that actual physical evidence of this? (I'm not reading that book--it doesn't exactly look credible).

If anyone suspected them of anything, why didn't the other teams change signals etc (hint: they did; and still do)? They could easily see the patriots guy from the sideline. It's not like anyone was hiding anything (as all the other teams did the same thing).

And if the patriots needed all that 'intelligence' to win, why have they continued to roll through the NFL since then? Even with the advent of radios in helmets.

 

[j66kicker]

Where is that actual physical evidence of this? (I'm not reading that book--it doesn't exactly look credible).

If anyone suspected them of anything, why didn't the other teams change signals etc (hint: they did; and still do)? They could easily see the patriots guy from the sideline. It's not like anyone was hiding anything (as all the other teams did the same thing).

And if the patriots needed all that 'intelligence' to win, why have they continued to roll through the NFL since then? Even with the advent of radios in helmets.

Physical evidence was destroyed by Goodell and the NFL after the outrageous penalties were imposed.

Up to you on the book. They say don't judge a book by its cover.

Agree with all your thoughts on why don't the other teams just react in a rational manner, etc. Never said the Pats 'needed' all that intelligence to win - they win because they have good players and a better coach.

BTW speaking of radios in helmets, book has a VERY interesting section on that too.

 

[toadfoot]

I think it did actually happen, but whatever... BTW I'm a Pats fan, not a hater. But anyone who really finds this subject interesting should read this very compelling book:

http://www.spygatebook.com

Physical evidence was destroyed by Goodell and the NFL after the outrageous penalties were imposed.

Up to you on the book. They say don't judge a book by its cover.

Agree with all your thoughts on why don't the other teams just react in a rational manner, etc. Never said the Pats 'needed' all that intelligence to win - they win because they have good players and a better coach.

BTW speaking of radios in helmets, book has a VERY interesting section on that too.

Even Goodell conceded that the Patriots never used video taken during a game. And the home page for www.spygate.com says all anyone needs to know about the author's agenda. For example,"sophisticated cheating system" & "elaborate Spygate system". Sophisticated and elaborate, yet done in plain view of a stadium full of fans, players and officials. Now that is truly sophisticated.

As for Goodell's destruction of the tapes I've always wanted someone to explain to me just what double-secret stuff was on those tapes that Goodell didn't want people to see. Maybe you can help. We know that it contained footage of the game, scoreboard and coaches signals, none of which was or is illegal, so what else could possibly have been on those tapes that would be considered cheating? Was there footage of the opposing teams locker room? Probably not, surely the other teams would have noticed a strange individual standing in the corner with a 20 lb. camera on his shoulder. Perhaps they recorded opposing teams GM offices or draft room discussions. Nope, same problem of a strange man with a camera in the room. Maybe they had video of US nuclear secrets. Nah, that wouldn't help on gameday. Come on, help me out here. Use your imagination and get as creative as you like. What could have been on those tapes that the Patriots could use to defeat their opponents?

Oh, and you do realize that Jay Glazer of Fox Sports still has copies of those tapes. You knew that right? So, just maybe, Kraft is paying off Glazer to keep him from exposing the contents? Um... no, Kraft is rich enough that he could just make a one-time payment to get the tapes so that he could destroy them.

What's far more likely is that Goodell destroyed the tapes because there wasn't anything on them that every other team in the league wasn't also taping. It would have been enormously embarrassing to penalize one of the premiere franchises only to discover that every team in the league was doing something similar. Keep in mind that even today when an NFL official makes comments about Spygate they almost always make a point of saying that the Patriots videotaped signals, which is clear evidence that they still don't quite understand that doing so is perfectly legal. Just my personal opinion, but as with the current Deflategate nonsense, where the officials admitted that prior to the AFC Championship game most were completely unaware that footballs lose psi due to weather conditions, I suspect that in 2007 most were completely unaware that filming signals was legal. However, similarly to Deflategate, once the propaganda campaign had shaped public opinion the NFL was between a rock and a hard place and Goodell felt compelled to severely penalize what was a minor technical rule violation.

 

[j66kicker]

Even Goodell conceded that the Patriots never used video taken during a game. And the home page for www.spygate.com says all anyone needs to know about the author's agenda. For example,"sophisticated cheating system" & "elaborate Spygate system". Sophisticated and elaborate, yet done in plain view of a stadium full of fans, players and officials. Now that is truly sophisticated.

As for Goodell's destruction of the tapes I've always wanted someone to explain to me just what double-secret stuff was on those tapes that Goodell didn't want people to see. Maybe you can help. We know that it contained footage of the game, scoreboard and coaches signals, none of which was or is illegal, so what else could possibly have been on those tapes that would be considered cheating? Was there footage of the opposing teams locker room? Probably not, surely the other teams would have noticed a strange individual standing in the corner with a 20 lb. camera on his shoulder. Perhaps they recorded opposing teams GM offices or draft room discussions. Nope, same problem of a strange man with a camera in the room. Maybe they had video of US nuclear secrets. Nah, that wouldn't help on gameday. Come on, help me out here. Use your imagination and get as creative as you like. What could have been on those tapes that the Patriots could use to defeat their opponents?

Oh, and you do realize that Jay Glazer of Fox Sports still has copies of those tapes. You knew that right? So, just maybe, Kraft is paying off Glazer to keep him from exposing the contents? Um... no, Kraft is rich enough that he could just make a one-time payment to get the tapes so that he could destroy them.

What's far more likely is that Goodell destroyed the tapes because there wasn't anything on them that every other team in the league wasn't also taping. It would have been enormously embarrassing to penalize one of the premiere franchises only to discover that every team in the league was doing something similar. Keep in mind that even today when an NFL official makes comments about Spygate they almost always make a point of saying that the Patriots videotaped signals, which is clear evidence that they still don't quite understand that doing so is perfectly legal. Just my personal opinion, but as with the current Deflategate nonsense, where the officials admitted that prior to the AFC Championship game most were completely unaware that footballs lose psi due to weather conditions, I suspect that in 2007 most were completely unaware that filming signals was legal. However, similarly to Deflategate, once the propaganda campaign had shaped public opinion the NFL was between a rock and a hard place and Goodell felt compelled to severely penalize what was a minor technical rule violation.

Sooo... I'm assuming you are a Patriots fan. So am I. All I said is the book is very compelling. Regardless of the author's alleged agenda, he did some impressive research into the Pats' organization, and what 'really' went on. And he presents some compelling (and verifiable) statistical 'circumstantial' evidence on a variety of different angles, from a gambler's perspective (I'm guessing his agenda is he felt cheated as a gambler, not a Patriots hater).

Maybe the edge they gained if they did cheat is no bigger than the micro-edge they got if Tom really did intentionally play with deflated balls. All I'm saying is the book is interesting for those who are interested. I'll argue about the book if you want to read the book.

 

[meyers7]

Here's what you need to know about spygate:

And just for fun, here's the Jet's sideline during that season:

Yes, exactly, they were videotaping from the wrong area.

 

[toadfoot]

Sooo... I'm assuming you are a Patriots fan. So am I. All I said is the book is very compelling. Regardless of the author's alleged agenda, he did some impressive research into the Pats' organization, and what 'really' went on. And he presents some compelling (and verifiable) statistical 'circumstantial' evidence on a variety of different angles, from a gambler's perspective (I'm guessing his agenda is he felt cheated as a gambler, not a Patriots hater).

Maybe the edge they gained if they did cheat is no bigger than the micro-edge they got if Tom really did intentionally play with deflated balls. All I'm saying is the book is interesting for those who are interested. I'll argue about the book if you want to read the book.

Wow! Where to begin. I've done a bit of research on this "book" and quite frankly it looks to be crap.

1. O'Leary raises the issue of Matt Walsh filming the Rams walkthrough, a claim that's been thoroughly discredited. He also asserts that Walsh entered into an agreement with the NFL to keep him quiet, but the facts are that Walsh signed a 5 year agreement to refrain from trying to benefit financially from video tapes that he retained after Spygate. Some have pointed to that agreement as evidence of some gigantic coverup, but that agreement expired 2 years ago, yet to my knowledge Walsh hasn't come forward with anything. Why not?

2. Apparently a statistician named Zang from SMU did an analysis of Patriots' home record, home winning margin, etc. and found them to be statistical outliers. Well, you know the old saying, "lies, damn lies and statistics". That's simply evidence of a statistical anomaly. What about the Patriots' road record? Would an examination of their road winning percentage, road winning margin show a similar statistical anomaly? I'm guessing O'Leary left that out of the book because it would undermine his conspiracy theories. FYI, I looked up the records and since 2000 the Patriots have the best road record in the NFL and the best road record against the spread. By the way, Seattle has the best home record against the spread despite the fact that Seattle has not been an elite team for much of that stretch. Apparently Seattle is cheating even better than NE.

3. O'Leary claims that Brady's college career stats raise a lot of questions about how Brady could have been this good as a pro. Well, I looked up Brady's college stats. His passer rating during the 2 seasons as the starter were both north of 130 and his senior year he led the Big Ten in rating and completion percentage, so what the hell is O'Leary talking about?

4. O'Leary makes completely outrageous and unsupported claims that the Patriots used and continue to use a 'secret' communications link between Ernie Adams and Brady. Conspiracy theories can certainly be fun and there are even some that I'd like to believe, but explain 2008. They failed to make the playoffs, although they were the first 11 win team to not do so, but by any measure still had a pretty successful year. Surely any secret communications scheme would have had to include Matt Cassel that year. So why hasn't Cassel blown the whistle since he left NE?

5. Lastly, not only is O'Leary a Pittsburgh fan, which raise questions about objectivity, but he's also a former securities worker who had his license revoked permanently by the SEC for securities fraud. I know nothing about his alleged fraud, but see how easy that is to make unsubstantiated allegations.

 

[j66kicker]

Wow! Where to begin. I've done a bit of research on this "book" and quite frankly it looks to be crap.

1. O'Leary raises the issue of Matt Walsh filming the Rams walkthrough, a claim that's been thoroughly discredited. He also asserts that Walsh entered into an agreement with the NFL to keep him quiet, but the facts are that Walsh signed a 5 year agreement to refrain from trying to benefit financially from video tapes that he retained after Spygate. Some have pointed to that agreement as evidence of some gigantic coverup, but that agreement expired 2 years ago, yet to my knowledge Walsh hasn't come forward with anything. Why not?

2. Apparently a statistician named Zang from SMU did an analysis of Patriots' home record, home winning margin, etc. and found them to be statistical outliers. Well, you know the old saying, "lies, damn lies and statistics". That's simply evidence of a statistical anomaly. What about the Patriots' road record? Would an examination of their road winning percentage, road winning margin show a similar statistical anomaly? I'm guessing O'Leary left that out of the book because it would undermine his conspiracy theories. FYI, I looked up the records and since 2000 the Patriots have the best road record in the NFL and the best road record against the spread. By the way, Seattle has the best home record against the spread. Apparently Seattle is cheating even better than NE.

3. O'Leary claims that Brady's college career stats raise a lot of questions about how Brady could have been this good as a pro. Well, I looked up Brady's college stats. His passer rating during the 2 seasons as the starter were both north of 130 and his senior year he led the Big Ten in rating and completion percentage, so what the hell is O'Leary talking about?

4. O'Leary makes completely outrageous and unsupported claims that the Patriots used and continue to use a 'secret' communications link between Ernie Adams and Brady. Conspiracy theories can certainly be fun and there are even some that I'd like to believe, but explain 2008. They failed to make the playoffs, although they were the first 11 win team to not do so, but by any measure still had a pretty successful year. Surely any secret communications scheme would have had to include Matt Cassel that year. So why hasn't Cassel blown the whistle since he left NE?

5. Lastly, not only is O'Leary a Pittsburgh fan, which raise questions about objectivity, but he's also a former securities worker who had his license revoked permanently by the SEC for securities fraud. I know nothing about his alleged fraud, but see how easy that is to make unsubstantiated allegations.

The stats analysis of the Pats home performance against the spread during the Belichick years up to when the book was written was more than an "outlier" - it was so statistically unlikely it's basically "impossible" for it to be random. The LV spread takes into account home field advantage, and eventually catches up to a larger-than-normal home field advantage, but not this one. (BTW Seattle is also known to have a greater-than normal home field advantage with the decibel level produced by their crowd and the stadium architecture.)

Regarding Cassel, O'Leary notes that he was excellent filling in for Brady in the Pats' system in 2008. But as a starter in Kansas City after that his completion % AND yards per completion dropped way off. He also notes coaches who did well as assistants at NE, but bombed as head coaches after they moved on (Josh McDaniels, Charlie Weiss). And if any of these guys were in on any cheating, why would they admit it afterward and implicate themselves?

None of this is "evidence, just observations. But, even as a Patriots fan, I thought there was a large body of interesting observations.

 

[toadfoot]

The stats analysis of the Pats home performance against the spread during the Belichick years up to when the book was written was more than an "outlier" - it was so statistically unlikely it's basically "impossible" for it to be random. The LV spread takes into account home field advantage, and eventually catches up to a larger-than-normal home field advantage, but not this one. (BTW Seattle is also known to have a greater-than normal home field advantage with the decibel level produced by their crowd and the stadium architecture.)

Regarding Cassel, O'Leary notes that he was excellent filling in for Brady in the Pats' system in 2008. But as a starter in Kansas City after that his completion % AND yards per completion dropped way off. He also notes coaches who did well as assistants at NE, but bombed as head coaches after they moved on (Josh McDaniels, Charlie Weiss). And if any of these guys were in on any cheating, why would they admit it afterward and implicate themselves?

None of this is "evidence, just observations. But, even as a Patriots fan, I thought there was a large body of interesting observations.

The only thing I would add in rebuttal is that if you're going to factor in elements of home field advantage, and I lived in the Seattle area from 2005-2010 so I know their stadium provides an advantage, then you need to do the same with NE. It's definitely an advantage for the Patriots in November/December when opponents are from warm weather areas. In other words, you're giving credit to Seattle's fans/stadium for their record at home, but disregarding the advantage the Patriots would have playing at home against teams not used to playing in cold, rain and snow conditions. Given that during the last 15 years that Seattle has more often than not been a mediocre team their home record against the spread MUST be much more "impossible" statistically than the Patriots, but I don't hear any suggestions that they're cheating.

 

[j66kicker]

The only thing I would add in rebuttal is that if you're going to factor in elements of home field advantage, and I lived in the Seattle area from 2005-2010 so I know their stadium provides an advantage, then you need to do the same with NE. It's definitely an advantage for the Patriots in November/December when opponents are from warm weather areas. In other words, you're giving credit to Seattle's fans/stadium for their record at home, but disregarding the advantage the Patriots would have playing at home against teams not used to playing in cold, rain and snow conditions. Given that during the last 15 years that Seattle has more often than not been a mediocre team their home record against the spread MUST be much more "impossible" statistically than the Patriots, but I don't hear any suggestions that they're cheating.

Yeah Pete C got out of LA just in time as the Reggie Bush stuff was just starting to hit the fan - new lease on life back in the NFL. Guess that, along with your Seattle home-against-the-spread stats pretty much proves the Seahawks are cheating . Plus Russell Wilson and Ciara not having sex - surely that must be cheating. Somebody needs to write and expose' book!

 

[toadfoot]

Yeah Pete C got out of LA just in time as the Reggie Bush stuff was just starting to hit the fan - new lease on life back in the NFL. Guess that, along with your Seattle home-against-the-spread stats pretty much proves the Seahawks are cheating . Plus Russell Wilson and Ciara not having sex - surely that must be cheating. Somebody needs to write and expose' book!

Where did I say Seattle's home record against the spread (ATS) proved they were cheating? What I said was that you're using the Patriots' home record ATS statistics to suggest they're cheating, but Seattle's ATS record is even better than the Patriots despite the fact that Seattle was generally mediocre most of those seasons. It's illogical and frankly disingenuous to suggest that the Patriots' ATS suggests cheating and Seattle's doesn't. I personally don't believe either team has cheated.

No idea who Ciara is and care even less, but it does sound like I hit a nerve. Really a Seahawks fan perhaps?

 

[j66kicker]

Where did I say Seattle's home record against the spread (ATS) proved they were cheating? What I said was that you're using the Patriots' home record ATS statistics to suggest they're cheating, but Seattle's ATS record is even better than the Patriots despite the fact that Seattle was generally mediocre most of those seasons. It's illogical and frankly disingenuous to suggest that the Patriots' ATS suggests cheating and Seattle's doesn't. I personally don't believe either team has cheated.

No idea who Ciara is and care even less, but it does sound like I hit a nerve. Really a Seahawks fan perhaps?

Nope, not a Seahawks fan (Go Malcolm Butler!). Pats and Cowboys for me. I do believe the Pats cheated, but in ways where the competitive impact is trivial compared to all the fuss made about it. I also think every other team does too, or would if they could get away with it.

Ciara is a pop musician and Russell's fiancée. They are very publicly abstaining from consummating their relationship until they get married, for religious reasons.

I am super happy about Tom Brady's recent beat-down of Roger Goodell, especially since I have tickets to to Pats-Cowboys game in Dallas in what would have been the 4th game of Brady's suspension. YESS!!

 

[Huskies Rule]

I'll be fleeing to WitSec after these comments... but A-Roid Rodriguez, Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Bonds and McGwire, The 1919 Black Sox, the 2000 Spanish Paralympic teams, Rosie Ruiz, Shady Brady and Beli-Cheat- they are all birds of a feather. Based upon how beloved an athlete is or how devoted people may become to a particular sports team, people will believe what they choose to believe, willing to ignore even the most reasonable of inferences while demanding only direct evidence, which is often not possible but doesn't mean the charged is any less guilty.

People have been convicted of serious crimes based upon far less circumstantial evidence than was presented by Wells and the NFL. It is critical to note that Judge Berman only dismissed the NFL's case (and Brady's punishment) on procedural grounds, not evidentiary. Judge Berman's decision was strictly (and lawfully) based upon his finding that Brady, in Berman's opinion, had been denied due process. To wit:
1) the inadequate notice to Brady of his discipline and alleged misconduct,
2) the denial of Brady to examine lead investigator Jeff Pash, and
3) the denial of equal access to investigative files.

Brady's NFL punishment was rejected by Judge Berman because he deemed the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to have been violated. ANY evidence of cheating by Brady or New England Patriot employees, whether the result of evidence- circumstantial or direct- was NEVER considered by this court and this judge.

Don't get me wrong. We are nothing, if not a nation of laws. ALL defendants must have the absolute right to the safeguards of a fair trial that follows the rules constitutionally provided for all Americans. From John Rowland to Charles Manson to the poorest of the poor. For that reason, and that reason alone, I cannot argue with Judge Berman's decision. However; do not for one moment interpret that to mean Tom Brady is innocent of that which he was charged. He beat the charge and the punishment based upon three legal 'technicalities,' which I do not minimize for they are the bedrock of our justice system. But this is very very different than saying that Tom Brady is innocent of deflating footballs- that allegation has yet to be adjudicated, folks.

 

[calpedaler]

I'll be fleeing to WitSec after these comments... but A-Roid Rodriguez, Lance Armstrong, Ben Johnson, Bonds and McGwire, The 1919 Black Sox, the 2000 Spanish Paralympic teams, Rosie Ruiz, Shady Brady and Beli-Cheat- they are all birds of a feather. Based upon how beloved an athlete is or how devoted people may become to a particular sports team, people will believe what they choose to believe, willing to ignore even the most reasonable of inferences while demanding only direct evidence, which is often not possible but doesn't mean the charged is any less guilty.

People have been convicted of serious crimes based upon far less circumstantial evidence than was presented by Wells and the NFL. It is critical to note that Judge Berman only dismissed the NFL's case (and Brady's punishment) on procedural grounds, not evidentiary. Judge Berman's decision was strictly (and lawfully) based upon his finding that Brady, in Berman's opinion, had been denied due process. To wit:
1) the inadequate notice to Brady of his discipline and alleged misconduct,
2) the denial of Brady to examine lead investigator Jeff Pash, and
3) the denial of equal access to investigative files.

Brady's NFL punishment was rejected by Judge Berman because he deemed the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to have been violated. ANY evidence of cheating by Brady or New England Patriot employees, whether the result of evidence- circumstantial or direct- was NEVER considered by this court and this judge.

Don't get me wrong. We are nothing, if not a nation of laws. ALL defendants must have the absolute right to the safeguards of a fair trial that follows the rules constitutionally provided for all Americans. From John Rowland to Charles Manson to the poorest of the poor. For that reason, and that reason alone, I cannot argue with Judge Berman's decision. However; do not for one moment interpret that to mean Tom Brady is innocent of that which he was charged. He beat the charge and the punishment based upon three legal 'technicalities,' which I do not minimize for they are the bedrock of our justice system. But this is very very different than saying that Tom Brady is innocent of deflating footballs- that allegation has yet to be adjudicated, folks.

Berman commented on the evidence or lack thereof against Brady with his questioning. If this had been about actual evidence instead of speculation, this would have been tossed long ago.

 

[UcMiami]

Just an interesting point that was brought up in an article I read - Berman tossed the NFL case on the three points listed above, but on his last page noted the other points the NFLPA had brought up that he wasn't even going to bother reviewing - all aimed at Goodell being 'evidentially partial' as the arbitrator. Should the NFL appeal actually succeed, the case will end up on his desk again, and he would more than likely take up those points - something that would actually be more damaging to the NFL should he rule them valid:
Right now he tossed the case because the NFL screwed up the procedure by the numbers, making them look like bumbling fools, but not effecting the structure of Goodell being investigator, prosecutor, judge, executioner, and appellate court.
Should he rule on the other NFLPA points, it would call into question Goodell's ability to appoint himself as arbitrator (appellate court) in any disciplinary decision that he had any input on. And it would create legal precedence for challenging his impartiality.
I think the NFLPA actually had a very good case on those additional points, but Berman I think didn't want to complicate the case in front of him or set 'precedence' beyond what he had to.