- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 1,819
- Reaction score
- 2,007
It's a terrible process. Wells acted as prosecutor, judge and jury. Brady and the Patriots had no opportunity to present their defense until after they were convicted, assessed harsh (and unprecedented) penalties, and irretreivably judged gulity in the court of public opinion.
The Deflator stuff will be the sound bite in the short run. One can only hope that the broader picture emerges as more learned and thoughtful people have a chance to consider the Patriots' response.
Once you discredit the Exponent report, the case falls apart pretty quickly. As today's response points out, Wells does not have a single witness that can corroborate his assertions about Jastremski, McNally or Brady. All he has is his conclusion that they are all lying. For evidence, it's pretty thin gruel. Also, Well has to insinute that the deflating activity has been going on for a long time (or the May comment would have no probitive value whatsoever). He does this without even a shred of evidence.
It's interesting to note that the report takes a shot at Wells and his claims of independence by chiding him for not fully disclosing his relationship with the NFL. Maybe this is okay since the NFL is his client, but if he knew that others would see the report (and how could he not know this), he likely had a profesional responsibility to make such a disclosure. (In my profession, this would be an obligation , but I am not a lawyer so cannot say for sure.)
The is but the first skirmish in what looks to be a protracted battle.
The Deflator stuff will be the sound bite in the short run. One can only hope that the broader picture emerges as more learned and thoughtful people have a chance to consider the Patriots' response.
Once you discredit the Exponent report, the case falls apart pretty quickly. As today's response points out, Wells does not have a single witness that can corroborate his assertions about Jastremski, McNally or Brady. All he has is his conclusion that they are all lying. For evidence, it's pretty thin gruel. Also, Well has to insinute that the deflating activity has been going on for a long time (or the May comment would have no probitive value whatsoever). He does this without even a shred of evidence.
It's interesting to note that the report takes a shot at Wells and his claims of independence by chiding him for not fully disclosing his relationship with the NFL. Maybe this is okay since the NFL is his client, but if he knew that others would see the report (and how could he not know this), he likely had a profesional responsibility to make such a disclosure. (In my profession, this would be an obligation , but I am not a lawyer so cannot say for sure.)
The is but the first skirmish in what looks to be a protracted battle.
Last edited: