MattM

I noticed that, too, in reading the decision. It's really quite a tight defense of his ruling, which is why the attack has now turned to the process and not the substance so much. What happened to the days when people owned up to their mistakes?

Do yourself a favor and Google "Sally Jenkins" and "Lance Armstrong". Sally was one of Lance's staunchest defenders until the bitter end. Here's one of many, many articles castigating her for her defense of that cheater. Do you see a pattern here (in addition to the pattern of Patriot* cheating, spinning, lying, covering up)? http://dcist.com/2012/12/sally_jenkins_finally_writes_about.php

I remain stunned that there are so many Pats* defenders on this board--a team that's been caught cheating repeatedly and accused of much, much more--in the face of mounting evidence of their cheating. I mean, the guy destroyed his phone in order to avoid giving over evidence. Three days ago, when that came up as a Steven A. Smith-hinted possibility these same folks were saying that the messenger was so often wrong that such a supposition was ludicrous, but seemed to admit that if it was true it would be a big deal. Now that we know that's true, some of those same folks have found new ways to gloss over that same major development. Amazing willful blindness in defense of....?...a well-known and documented cheating opponent? Really? (On Yee's and Brady's explanations of why that specific phone was destroyed, they are laughable at best--first it was that Brady cycles his phones regularly and destroys all of the old ones (oops, except the last couple before the phone in question), then it was that Brady wanted the "new" Iphone 6 (oops, that phone came out 6 months earlier--in fact, well before he'd even bought the second to last phone he used), then it was well, we cooperated and gave you the names of about 30 folks who might have relevant testimony--go sue all of them for the messages. Sorry, you don't get to smash the evidence into a gazillion pieces and then bring all the pieces and say "Here, it's all there, you fix it." Our discovery system doesn't work that way.) If I didn't know better I'd be wondering if we've been invaded by sockpuppets! Amazing.....

I recall seeing something stating that the system initially involved a backup QB relaying the D signals in and that this started when Bledsoe was QB. If true (I have a vague recollection that it may have been the HBO special on Matt Walsh or the Spygate book), then it would have either been Tommy Boy or Rohan Davy perhaps, but my memory is hazy on this. Anyone else recall this?

The "no notice" argument here is just asinine. To take it to its logical conclusion, if the Pats* come up with some new way to cheat, they'll always be able to claim they were not aware of what the specific discipline would be for their new shenanigans, so therefore can't be punished for them. Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds?

Funny, then, that Goodell wanted to meet them both at the appeal, but it was Brady who said no (you really need to read the decision), but maintained they were his friends who would back him up if they were there. You really can't make this stuff up..,,,

For all those wondering how we'd react in similar circumstances I offer one, Orenthal James Simpson. At the risk of showing my age here, he was a god in my house growing up, but neither I nor anyone else on this board have any illusions about what he did. It's just a special kind of stupid in Boston.....

I read the decision on the way home tonight and a few interesting observations-- 1. In defending the 4 games,Goodell compared Brady to a PED user seeking an unfair advantage. Even more interestingly, he compared him to a PED user using a masking agent to cover up his crime, which is supposed to get you 6 games. Here, Brady covered up the cover up until June 18, well after the initial punishment came out. Personally, I think that's why the League is taking no prisoners here--they feel they, too, were cheated and lied to; 2. The Commish really wanted to hear from Tweedledum and Dumber, but it was Brady who said no, while at the same time claiming those two were his buddies who'd back him up (but we were supposed to take his word for it); and 3. Lots of inconsistencies in Brady's arguments exposed--like the "I always destroy my old phone, oh, except for the one I used until November, 2014--that one I'll give you." It's a riot full of very tight legal arguments that I suspect the Pats* lawyers will break their fangs on.....

Noted in my original post, but "if" he's right, to quote "Aliens" "Game over, man!"

Wow--if true (and I agree with most here that, considering the source, it's a very big "if"), the destroying the phone thing is a game changer, especially in the court of public opinion. While I agree that in reality it gets you little, I've seen insider trading cases where well-educated Wall Street professionals have tried to cover their tracks by destroying their phones, so that move isn't just for total dumbarses. Here's hoping it works for Brady as well as it worked for those schmucks!

If so, it looks like the Pats* paid as much attention to it as the explicit letter they got the summer before Spygate warning teams not to film signals. Again, I think that's the reason a number of owners want Goodell to stand firm here--they're fed up with the cheating. Personally, I think the real test may come from how their games are officiated this year--let's see if they still get calls like the Jerry Hughes headslap 15 yarder on a key third down or Nate Clements' "inadvertent whistle" on a pick 6 or the no call on a clear holding penalty on the game-winning TD against the Saints. That to me will be when we know something has changed at League HQ.

For all those saying that the League should have simply warned the Pats* when they got reports of underinflating balls, two points. First, life doesn't work that way--try that sometime if you ever get arrested or pulled over. "Sorry, officer, but you should have warned me first." The cheater blaming the League for not letting them off with a warning is absolutely ridiculous to the point I'm starting to think some of you are paid by the Pats* to spread doubt (much like Mike Florio seems to be ever since that switch flipped sometime in May). Secondly, remember this particular team*'s history--that warning before Spygate really did a lot of good, didn't it? After hearing that several owners want to see the full punishment, combined with prior stories about the Pats* being the unabashed kings of tomfoolery of all kinds (witness the NFL Competition Committee members right after Spygate saying it was them over and over and over again being brought before them on charges of cheating), I really suspect that we only know less than half the story on this team. I think these guys are finally just fed up with all of it and want to not see them skate for a change.

Sorry, Ryan--the link still didn't work for me. PS. Please say hi to my buddy at Scout, Dan Bova, for me.

If you have time and are not from the area, try the Abbott's custard on Fairport Road--great stuff. They've got a new one about 40 minutes away from me in Westchester, but I must admit that I've made that trip for it at least once.

It's kind of funny that there are so many here admitting that the Pats* intentionally deflated footballs (presumably for some kind of advantage, at least in their mind (and, the fumble data would show, in reality), otherwise why do it?), and yet are still defending them, spinning and twisting to find any reason to argue that what happened to them (being punished for cheating after being caught in two of the biggest cheating scandals in recent years, if not NFL history, and being suspected of much more) is not fair. Amazing stuff....

Riiigghhtt--the League just loves having a major scandal envelope their SB champs during the entire offseason. That's just how Goodell and boys drew it up in Marketing 101.....

Right--he basically said what I did above. Just like in civil litigation, the respondent conducts their own search pursuant to the rules of discovery and any agreement with the other side and turns over what they find, often certifying it. That's all he's saying here colloquially for a general audience (and you're just being intentionally dense to try to make some kind of point).

I think this part is being somewhat misconstrued--what I'm sure they said was Brady and his lawyers could do the search and turn over what they find rather than turn the phone over to the League for the League to search it. That doesn't mean they can send what they want--they are still obligated to search properly (perhaps using agreed upon search terns) and turn over their findings and the lawyers may even need the certify what they did (which long ago I suspected may have been the sticking points, a law firm not wanting to lie for Brady). This is SOP for discovery in normal civil litigation. No criminal right to not incriminate one's self in a non-legal case like this (remember, that was simply internal League discipline, much less a criminal case).

King is also known as a Pats* homer from way back, having grown up in CT. I wonder what that means that someone like him is now pretty sure that Goodell is in fact bringing the hammer down.

My apologies, No Saint--been a busy weekend--but to answer your question way above, if it's a legit third party (ie, a federal judge) hearing the case and decides for Brady then I guess I'd have to be ok with it, although I agree with you and Bandit above on the narrow scope of the appeal which to me means Tommy Boy has little chance to win there. Oddly, that also means that I agree with WEO above--he gets reduced to two (Goodell trying to split the baby to please all) and takes it, declaring victory (even though as a pure factual matter I think Brady told those two goofballs to do what they did and then lied about it; I also suspect that we'll find out lots more about other Brady/Belicheat* shenanigans over the years as time rolls on). Edit--did not see the headline in the King link above before typing that. Peter is pretty dialed in and so my guess is he talked to someone in the know, so perhaps it does stay at 4. We can only hope!

If that happens, the League better get ready for some major fan backlash. That would be utter BS and make a mockery of the League disciplinary process. The lesson? Just make enough of a stink and create a teeny tiny sliver of doubt and wedge yourself right through that sucker to daylight. It would also look an awful lot like a compromise between Kraft and Goodell--fine and draft picks in exchange for Brady. Until, of course, Bob tries to weasel those back, too, on the back of the suspension being vacated.

I summarized the main point of the article--funny how you left out the columnists' call to reason for Pats* fans to understand that what they're relying on has not been subject to anywhere near the same scrutiny as the Wells report and what scrutiny it has come under has shown the AEI report to be wanting and flawed. On the bought and "paid" for point, you're smart enough to understand that the LAST thing the NFL wanted was for Ted Wells and Exponent to have found evidence of cheating, unless you're a bigger condpiracy theorist than you claim me to be. The fact that the Wells report reached the conclusions it did and saw the light of day (unlike the last "destroy the evidence" foray) speaks volumes for the underlying facts here pointing to cheating.

For those putting any stock in the AEI report, I thought you'd find this of interest: https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/27/tom-brady-appeal-about-more-than-quarterback/ihhIAb6oJJdUrFS8V8w7uJ/story.html# Apparently a Pats* fan who happens to be a professional statistician looked at the AEI report and redid the experiments that AEI claimed to have used to debunk Exponent and the Welks report and instead found them to be exactly what Exponent and Wells claimed. He asked AEI what's up with that and got crickets chirping (probably because they didn't want to debunk their own bought and paid for report).

That's great to hear--thanks for sharing!

Not a former Bill, but what kind of a guy was Reggie Williams? I've read several glowing pieces on him, especially since he was one of the earliest and best Ivy League players to make it in the modern NFL. From your note there it sounds like he was a good dude, too, hopefully?