Here we go again. We should be used to it. Again we have to go into our cocoon of fan support, shielding us from the national criticism. But it is really annoying because it did take away from our enjoyment of the pre Super Bowl hype. And this year of course, it robbed us of the fun of wallowing in victory. Even though I’m a Pats fan, I still think I’m not a Pats apologist. Just because I think that we get unfairly scrutinized because we win more than any team, that doesn’t make me a Pats apologist. Unfortunately, everyone that defends the Pats or disagrees with the national opinion is labeled a Pats apologist. Why? Can’t we disagree with the national opinion, especially the national media and players and ex players from other teams? Have the above ever been wrong about anything? Maybe I should ask if they’ve ever been right about anything. Are the above lilly white and without sin? What a joke it is to hear moralizing from Charles Haley and Jerry “I used stickem” Rice. Please, no criticism from the likes of them. But I would respect criticism from someone who looks at both sides of an issue. I thought I’d get it from the usually well regarded “Outside the Lines”. But on Sunday’s program, three talking heads (one of whom I recognized as Howard Bryant ), all had the same opinion. I thought I was watching Fox News. I only watched the show because I thought finally I would get an intelligent, “fair and balanced” analysis of the “deflategate” controversy. But nooo, three guys with the same opinion. No one allowed for the possibility that Tom Brady didn’t do anything wrong. No one questioned the Ted Wells report. It should have been easy to come up with something that you felt was amiss. But these guys had nothing but support for the NFL party line. Disappointing. Therefore, I’ve had to come up with my own list of questions that occurred to me after spending only about an hour or two since the “Spygate”, err,”Deflategate” story came out. Seriously, only an hour or two. I haven’t read the Ted Wells report. I have a job and a life. My opinions and list of questions evolved from reading the newspaper and watching a few sports programs on ESPN and the local Felger and Mazz show. Okay, I gotta digress for a moment. ALL year Mike Felger has excoriated Roger Goodell, in effect calling him every name in the book: incompetent, clueless, untruthful, etc. You get the picture. Felger and Mazz also were all over the NFL league office for cover up and/or sloppy investigations of a few major problems the league had this year (Rice, Peterson, Hardy ). The initial investigation and discipline of Ray Rice was especially mishandled. Felger and Mazz thought Goodell was so incompetent and clueless that he should resign or be fired. By all accounts, it’s been a terrible year for Goodell. So why do Felger and Mazz and the national media and all the Pats critics think this nincompoop now can be trusted to supervise a fair and balanced investigation, and if necessary dole out fair discipline? Hey, when I digress I really digress.
Okay, here’s my list of questions:
1) Is it true that only four Colts footballs were tested as opposed to twelve Pats footballs?
2) Why only four?
3) Is it true that three of the four tested Colts footballs were underinflated?
4) Were the Colts investigated for using three underinflated footballs?
5) If not, why not?
6) Did the Wells report comment on these facts and inconsistent treatment of footballs?
7) If not, why not?
8) You indicated that the Pats were not cooperating because they didn’t allow access to their employee, McNally. Is it true that McNally was made available for four interviews?
9) You indicated that Tom Brady was not cooperating. Is it true that he was interviewed for about 4-5 hours?
10) Is it possible that your investigators could have waited to interview McNally and Tom Brady until they had more information, and thus, would have been more prepared so they wouldn’t need five interviews with McNally and multiple interviews with Tom Brady?
11) If in your opinion your investigators could not wait for more information, could you have at least labeled the conduct of the Pats and Tom Brady by using qualifying language rather than labeling their conduct as “not cooperating”.
12) Given the above, do you understand that by using the language as “not cooperating”, you appear to be biased in favor of the NFL?
13) Do you understand that in 243 pages you did not appear to be considering both sides of the argument?
14) You concluded based on the circumstancial evidence that Tom Brady was”generally aware” that the footballs were tampered with. What was the “legal” standard you used to make that conclusion? Was it “more probable than not”?
15) If so, what specific evidence led you to that conclusion?
16) Do you understand that the one sidedness of your report belies your reputation as an esteemed attorney and makes you appear as a well paid flunky for the NFL?
17) What was your total fee and costs for your work for the NFL?
** I may have more questions and comments as I think about this and as I get responses from friends and Pats Nation.
Stay tuned.
Postscript:
Watched CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley, whom I like. I thought I’d get important news of the day. Guess what story led the newscast? Oh yeah, Deflategate and Tom Brady. WHAT!!!! CBS News decided it was the most important story of the day. Next story was about our courageous veterans getting screwed by drug distributors.100s of millions of dollars wasted, and more importantly, vets not getting the medication they need. Then a story about ISIS. No big deal. Not as important as footballs in a 45 to 7 game. Talk about an overinflated evaluation of the relative importance of a story. Imagine the round table discussion by the geniuses at CBS News. What, was Brian Williams pitching the story trying to get hired by another Network to resurrect his career?