[tony20009]

Originally Posted by csu87

Wow, I give you props for that response; must be a slow day at the office.

Yes, I read it. I have way too much free time at work. The general gist I was making...is that the entire "More probable than not" stance, is completely based on Wells interpretation of the report. A report that he was paid, by the NFL, to prove that ball deflating occurred.

If you read through the report through unbiased eyes, you can see that you can interpret the "findings" in many different ways. One being that sure, maybe something against the rules happened and Brady was involved, one being something against the rules happened and Brady wasn't involved, another being nothing against the rules happened, and so on. If this was a criminal trial, and this was the evidence brought forth, everyone would have been acquitted. It is all purely circumstantial with no actual facts or evidence.

There have also been numerous scientific studies showing that the balls would have lost pressure due to the conditions. But of course Wells didnt use any of those studies.

Red:
Upon what do you think Mr. Goodell should have based his decision if not the Wells report? Do you think that would have led to a better or different outcome? Perhaps you think Mr. Goodell should have conducted his own interviews and analysis?

The burden of proof with which Mr. Wells et al were required to adhere is "preponderance of the evidence." Are you intentionally playing semantics by raising the point you did about the "more probable than not" verbiage? What exactly do you see as the substantive difference(s) between "more probable than not" and "preponderance of the evidence?"

For reference, the standard of proof required is stated in the Wells report and appears on page one of it.

Under the Policy, the “standard of proof required to find that a violation of the competitive rules has occurred” is a “Preponderance of the Evidence,” meaning that “as a whole, the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”

Blue:
I don't think the purpose of the report or the investigation was expressly to prove that Mr. Brady et al were cheating. "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." The report is merely Mr. Wells' and his firm's communication of what they found during the investigation. It would surprise me if Paul, Weiss were charged with showing that malfeasance occurred rather than determining whether it occurred.

As I've stated, I'm no attorney, but I am a CPA and I have worked as an auditor. CPAs routinely, as I once did with KPMG, examine company financial and business records to determine whether the financial statements the companies publish "are free of material misstatement." A "material misstatement" is an assertion a company makes (typically, but not necessarily, a sum shown in its financial statements) that will mislead readers of those statements. Put another way, it's an assertion that cannot be corroborated by the preponderance of information in the company's financial records to such an extent that, were the assertion corrected, folks who would rely upon those figures to make decisions would likely alter their view of the company in question and may as a result make a different decision about the nature and extent of their interactions with the company. (The preceding is not a comprehensive discussion of what "materiality" is, but it is the gist of it. If you want to fully understand it, Google "materiality accounting." You'll find plenty of discussion on the matter.)

Examining data and events to determine whether something probably occurred is not at all the same as looking through business records expressly to find instances of errors having occurred, or to find actual wrongdoing. I suspect the very same conceptual distinction applies to the investigation Paul, Weiss performed. Moreover, just as an accountant's determination of what is or isn't material is in part a matter of professional judgement, which includes human judgement, I suspect the same degree of leeway existed in Paul, Weiss' investigative and analytical activities that lead to the report they submitted to Mr. Goodell.

At the end of the day, one either accepts that Mr. Wells et al knew what they were doing or one doesn't. It's clear that you think they were all but clueless idiots or complete novices in the exercise of professional judgement, examining the information available to them, and drawing conclusions from those two things.

Purple:
See the Purple section following the next quote.

Originally Posted by csu87

No, I understand that. Civil cases are much easier to get a "Guilty" since a lot less is needed to be proven. Just a lot of the comments I have seen about it on here and elsewhere seem to think it is an open-shut case, when it simply isn't.

When the NFL doesn't reduce the suspension and this ends up going to appeals court, the suspension will be reduced. There is no question about that. The report was biased, and if they wanted to, Brady could commission his own report from a "Third Party" firm to take the exact same evidence and testimony and prove he had nothing to do with it.

The biggest problem going on now is that Goodell is the guy hearing the current appeal. Of course he isnt going to come out and say "I was wrong, we didnt have enough evidence to prove Brady was cheating, he gets no suspension for cheating and a fine for not cooperating." No one would admit that publicly, especially not someone with as much ego as Goodell.

Red:
To be honest, I don't see court trials -- criminal or civil -- as having as a goal to get a guilty verdict. I'm not so "green" that I think prosecutors and defense attorneys don't see it that way or the reverse. They necessarily have to approach their jobs from a "winners and losers" perspective. As an observer, an "unofficial juror," I merely expect that the facts be fairly and completely presented.

That done, it's merely a matter of using one's sound reasoning (and make no mistake, I don't have a lot of confidence in the strength and rigor of many people's reasoning skill) to determine whether the facts show, to the requisite burden of proof, whether the accused did as alleged. Given that the Deflategate matter is not a court action, the burden of proof is considerably lower than it would be in even a court room. Also, that lower burden of proof is something with which, by accepting a job in the NFL and with the Patriots, all parties allegedly involved agreed long before the game commenced.

Based on what I have read in the report as well as from other sources (I've cited many of them in my earlier posts in this thread), I think given the standard of proof, Mr. Brady and the two equipment handlers are "guilty as charged." Moreover, though I wouldn't have fired Mr. Brady were I his boss, the only reasons I would not have done is because (1) I agree that there is a some uncertainty surrounding the nature and extent of his role in the matter, and (2) the dude wins games and were I a team owner and/or NFL commissioner, honestly but embarrassingly, I'd weigh his worth as a "game winner" against the cost of keeping him around as a potential cheater; as I wrote before, the NFL and its teams are about being profitable businesses. Be that as it may, that Mr. Brady (1) was involved, and (2) is highly likely to have noticed the under inflation of the balls is not all in doubt in my mind.

Green:
That outcome may happen, but that it will hardly seems a foregone conclusion to me. As I've said before, I don't see why this matter would ever make it to a courtroom trial. It could get a preliminary hearing or something like one, but I think a judge would toss it out, saying that there's no contractual breach or legal wrongdoing associated with the NFL's handling of the matter. Maybe one of those two things happened in the course of events, but I don't know that one did.

Orange:
Mr. Brady could have done that, and he could have asked to have it included with the information included in the Wells report. He didn't so do. I don't care why he didn't; the fact remains that he did not and he could have. At the very least, had he done, in the eyes of the "court of public opinion," the information in his own commissioned report may have cast matters in a more favorable-to-him light. That's without even considering that his experts' analysis may have brought to light information that credibly and strongly refutes the information/conclusions Paul, Weiss had/drew.

Blue:
Perhaps you are correct that Mr. Goodell wouldn't admit to having been mistaken or to have misconstrued the information he was given. I happen to think that part and parcel with the type of integrity and ethical behavior and standards for which I've been advocating in this thread is that he would do exactly that if in fact additional information shows/suggests he should. If it be so that the Mr. Wells and his colleagues incorrectly (or worse) developed their report, I also believe Mr. Goodell should recant not only for Mr. Brady, but more importantly, for the two equipment handlers who, unlike Mr. Brady, got fired and who almost certainly haven't deep reserves of money to easily weather having been fired.

Purple:
Perhaps not all the details are "open and shut." Perhaps the overall read of the events that Mr. Wells and Mr. Goodell took is mistaken. That seems unlikely to me, and it seems especially unlikely re: Mr. Brady given his actions. You write about "things" not being "open and shut," but there are some things that are indisputable:

• Either Mr. McNally lied about having met and spoken with Mr. Brady, or Mr. Brady lied about his not knowing Mr. McNally. Which of the two do you think more likely to lie in light of the potential consequences?
  
  It's plain to me that Mr. McNally had more reason to lie and say that he didn't know and never interacted with Mr. Brady personally. Why? Well, assuming the two had already colluded to under inflate the balls, what's one more dishonorable act? Also, Mr. Brady is rich as hell and will be for the rest of his life; he's been a very winning QB and playing pro football for 14 years. How could he not be? He damn sure should be. In return for "saving his skin" (lying), Mr. Brady has ample cash he could channel Mr. McNally's way in gratitude for corroborating Mr. Brady's statements. In contrast, there's nothing for Mr. Brady to gain from admitting prior interactions with Mr. McNally, but plenty to gain from denying them.
  
  Now that doesn't show guilt or innocence, but it does clarify who has what kind of motive to aver one way or the other.
• Mr. Brady has by other acts shown that he has little regard for NFL rules and will do what he wants to. The NFL guideline/rule (not a game-play rule) along with earlier mentioned one re: reporting rule violations ASAP, is the following one.

"... the NFL expects you to recognize and avoid activities and relationships that involve, or might appear to involve, conflicts of interest, as well as behavior that may cause embarrassment to the NFL."

Now where I come from, the principles "avoiding the appearance of a conflict of interest" and maintaining the "highest ethical standards," the standard of conduct to which both Mr. Brady and Mssrs. McNally and Jastremski agreed upon accepting their jobs with the NFL, makes everything having to do with the gifts Mr. Brady proffered to his colleagues, to say nothing of willfully under inflating the balls and not reporting so much as the ball's seeming like maybe it was under inflated.

As I've said before, and given the "preponderance of evidence" burden of proof, my "issue" with the whole of Deflategate is the the ethics, or more to the point, the lack thereof, of it. The balls being under inflated, in and of themselves, doesn't bother me. It's the conduct of the people involved, or allegedly involved, that I find deplorable. That's especially so for Mr. "24 million dollar contract" Brady. That man is and has been compensated more than enough to justify his upholding and living by the highest ethical standards.

I don't make $7 million/year (or more than that LOL), and from the very start of my career when I earned less than $100K/year as well as later when I came to earn more than that, I have been able to live by very high personal and professional ethical standards, and in doing so I've managed to enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle, one with no ethical regrets. I'll wager you don't make that kind of money either. Do you have difficulty living with and consistently demonstrating high ethical standards?

• Paul, Weiss did consider that temperature variances could effect deflation in the balls. They said as much in the report and they provided in the report the details of the nature and extent of empirical testing -- for both the balls and the gauges -- their experts, Exponent, conducted to determine whether temperature variances alone could account for the difference between the required minimum ball pressure and the observed ball pressure at halftime.
  
  So I ask you, which of the following is it that you find to be not "clear cut?"
  • Facts that Exponent were given to apply in conducting their analysis?
  • The method they used to perform their analysis?
  • Or is it that you think Exponent are not qualified and capable to perform the relevant tests and interpret the results of those tests?

You write that on some findings (you haven't indicated what specific key findings) there are varying ways to interpret them. Well, of course there are; it's not as though anyone has video/audio tape evidence of acts in question. But that degree of proof -- beyond all reasonable doubt -- isn't expected or required, and neither are the actors entitled to it.

Nonetheless, different individuals can yet arrive at different interpretations/conclusions based on the information obtained during the investigation. That different folks can and may arrive at different conclusions doesn't at all suggest that all or any of those different conclusions are the least bit sensible, plausible, or probable in association with the burden of proof required and the information available.

For example, based on all the evidence I have about deer, when I see one on the side of the road, I'm going to conclude that it is a wild deer and not one that escaped from a zoo. I know damn well that there are deer in the zoo, and I know it's not entirely impossible for one to escape and end up trotting to when I am on the road. Even so, it's more probable that deer is wild one and not a zoo deer. That's how "preponderance of evidence" works.

In light of that, I'm asking you what specific elements of the Wells report do you take exception with to the extent that you think they more probably show "the deer beside the road is from a zoo," so to speak? I've very clearly noted what points in the Wells report lead to my agreeing with the conclusions Paul, Weiss drew. I'm merely asking you to afford me the same courtesy in support of your position.

All the best.