8/12 NFL counsel: there is no direct evidence, no smoking gun

This is for MCI and Woody John..errr, I mean "unnamed owner" who alleged that the NFL has more evidence on Brady that they are withholding. When is MCI going to post his retraction?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/275211980/NFL-v-Brady-Berman-August-12th-hearing#fullscreen

From the 8/12 court transcript:

Berman: So, anyway, back to the direct evidence that links Mr. Brady to that specific episode, presumably which took place in the men's room or in the bathroom.

MR. NASH: If you are asking, your Honor, is there a text or an e-mail in which Mr. Brady specifically instructs somebody to put a needle in a football after the game official has checked it? No, there is not such direct evidence.
The Commissioner's decision explains this is the fact that there may not be a specific smoking gun with the clear instruction does not mean that there is not evidence of culpability here.
They say, okay, you don't have a smoking gun, you don't have direct evidence therefore you can't make any finding that Mr. Brady was involved. But, your Honor, the Commissioner disagreed.

The Commissioner* can suck it!

As this situation was forming I wondered about this. At no time did they have any direct evidence. All that I read was conjecture. When someone- who wants to punish you -is telling you that there is a good probability that you intended to do (or did) something, then that's a problem! These types of abstractions are easy to throw around and legal people should be on them like a hobo on a ham sandwich. [Hey, there's a probability that you jumped the count, but I'm not really certain if you did...so I'm calling a penalty?]

Goodell's unproven proposition is a farce at best! Did Kraft act prematurely in trusting his buddy, Roger? Of course, this is exactly what Baltimore and Indy ordered. The accusers will get theirs...