Here is a link to the Bill Simmons - Chuck Klosterman discussion on Bill's podcast (it doesn't merit its own thread btw).
Firstly I did not realize that Klosterman was one of the initiators and contributors to Grantland. So be warned, this is a buddy-buddy dialogue, and a mutual admiration love fest. Consequently Simmons fails to defend what should be easily defendable, and lets Klosterman expound his opinion on Brady's reticence to answer his leading question.
To be fair they did discuss how the interview was set up, and admitted that they had no insight into the discussions between GQ, Brady's agent and the "wrangler" (the guy who set it all up), but the way it went down was odd, especially as it appears that the "wrangler" had agreed that "nothing was off the table".
Because "nothing was off the table" Klosterman pursued the question that he thought most readers would like answered. Although he claimed that if he had got a simple singular answer similar to how Brady responded on oath, he would have moved on, nevertheless that is not how he phrased the initial question
"
It (the Wells report) says you were generally aware. So I’m curious—would you say that categorization is accurate? I guess it depends on how you define the word generally. But was that categorization true or false?"
That is not the question he was asked at his appeal under oath, and given the divergence it is a red flag to anybody in the midst of litigation. As such Brady was right to respond as he did. Klosterman is very well educated and bright. It is much more likely that the question was asked to open the door on further questions, in fact Klosterman articulates several that he would have likely asked. I therefore find his incredulity at Brady's innocence disingenuous at best.
Simmons does not come out of the podcast much better, and Klosterman trapped him neatly by getting him to agree (tacitly) that you shouldn't have to have proof before calling someone a liar,
Mehercule!!! Bill made a feeble attempt to assert that IDG was the agent of deflation, and poor procedural actions obfuscated any real information, but it was a by-product and instantly forgotten in the pursuit of the more sensational.
The discussion peetered out before half way through, since Bill wanted to discuss his Obama interviews with his buddy.
Save yourself 20 minutes by not clicking on the link.
