Included to not limited to.....if you're caught.
Correct me if I'm wrong chief, but has someone been caught at fault in this investigation?
The answer: No........but maybe, probably, most likely, I think, who knows, etc., etc
Since that's the case, how can one justify giving out a higher penalty than the base penalty stated....especially when there's no specific person at fault.
Oh Todd, Todd, Todd. I admire your aspirational view of the league, but the NFL, as regards the Pats, seems to replicate (with the help of various media outlets) the general plot of the trial of Socrates.
As I recall, he had a jury of 500 Athenians, 300 of whom found him guilty of corrupting the youth, introducing strange gods, etc.
Okay fine, you say, them's the rules of Athens, right?
The principle argument was that a great society like Athens would not try a man of such charges unless he were guilty.
Then in the sentencing phase, a far larger number voted for the death penalty.
The argument was that a society as great as Athens, having found him guilty of such heinous crimes, could not in all good conscience settle on a lesser penalty.
The upshot: Some number of jurors sentenced Socrates to death for crimes that they did not believe he committed.
Turn on your TV to NFLN or ESPN and see if you think it'll be limited to 25K.
"More probable than not" (as we've learned here) is code for "preponderance of evidence" in NFL-land, which is code for "punishable threshold."
So I'm not thinking Brady's going to have to pay 25K and that's that. (Maybe those other two guys, who would actually feel the 25K.)