Patriots being investigated after Colts game (2 Viewers)

[moleculo]

Guys, just put him on ignore. It really makes this thread readable and once you no longer see the blabberings of a 15 year old girl, its actually a good thread with good discussion and points from both sides.

If you choose not to ignore him, I'll again ask you to not quote him. 1) it helps the ignore function work for everyone else 2) he brings nothing to the table anyways so there really is no point in discussion.

 

[Run It Up]

This has already been established in this thread, multiple times: McNally had ONE interview with Wells. The earlier interviews were with the NFL, not Wells.

When the Raiders interview an african-american for their HC postition, does that satisfy the Rooney rule for other teams?

An interview with the NFL doesn't count as an interview by Wells, despite people trying to spin it otherwise.

Can we talk about this for a minute.

Wells makes this distinction, and we've known about it since the Wells report came out. But what is the difference really? Wells not being in the room?

Guarantee you the things said in the NFL interviews were used in the Well's investigation.

 

[Tango]

2-NE not allowing Wells a 2nd interview with Mcnulty (sp?). The "we didn't to take him away from work excuse doesn't fly," he's a grown man, let him make that decision. They didn't even tell him Wells asked for another interview. The idea that Mcnulty was "in on it," does not make sense either, because if he was "in on it," the NFL would find another way to get Mcnulty to say "Tom told me to do it!"

This isn't true. Mcnally told the NFL he would make himself available for an interview over the phone and Wells told him no.

Hadn't seen this. Where is that from?

From the Wells report, page 24:Counsel for the Patriots apparently refused even to inform McNally of our request.

YEAH, IT SAYS IT RIGHT IN THE REPORT!!

We do not know

definitively

whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request.

So the line right before that one says NE "communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview." And then says "we do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request," and you take that as some sort of confirmation that he WAS told? So it goes like this:

NE-"we don't want to call McNally back for another interview."

McNally never does a 2nd interview.

If you put the 1st statement with the 2nd statement, a logical assumption would be that NE didn't tell McNally about the 2nd interview request. Yet you want us to conclude that despite NE saying they didn't want McNally to do another interview, and him not doing another interview, that they DID tell him. While that's possible, it's not as likely as the fact that they didn't tell him.

This is the kind of nonsensical argument that weakens your (Pats fans) position. If you present facts, and rely on facts, rather than trying to make very loose connections, your argument is stronger. When you make these kind of flimsy defenses/explanations, it makes the strong arguments look weaker.

Wasn't it the fifth interview that was refused?(checks) Yup

I was offended by the comments made in the Wells Report in reference to not making an individual available for a follow-up interview. What the report fails to mention is that he had already been interviewed four times and we felt the fifth request for access was excessive for a part-time game day employee who has a full-time job with another employer.

This has already been established in this thread, multiple times: McNally had ONE interview with Wells. The earlier interviews were with the NFL, not Wells.

When the Raiders interview an african-american for their HC postition, does that satisfy the Rooney rule for other teams?

An interview with the NFL doesn't count as an interview by Wells, despite people trying to spin it otherwise.

Taking this further, the Patriots went out of their way to say to Wells that Wells should view NFL Security with skepticism and that Wells should not rely on whatever work they do; therefore encouraging Wells to work independently interviewing the subjects such as McNally.

But once Wells recovered the deleted texts that apparently no one thought he would be able to recover and he then asked for the second interview....out of nowhere Wells, who used to be the darling in the eyes of the Pats mere days beforehand, was suddenly being shunned and labelled as an a abuser of sodium-chloride.

This was all in the Wells press conference.

 

[Bucky86]

This has already been established in this thread, multiple times: McNally had ONE interview with Wells. The earlier interviews were with the NFL, not Wells.

When the Raiders interview an african-american for their HC postition, does that satisfy the Rooney rule for other teams?

An interview with the NFL doesn't count as an interview by Wells, despite people trying to spin it otherwise.

Can we talk about this for a minute.

Wells makes this distinction, and we've known about it since the Wells report came out. But what is the difference really? Wells not being in the room?

Guarantee you the things said in the NFL interviews were used in the Well's investigation.

 

[Bayhawks]

Why were the Patriots balls much more deflated than the Colts balls?

Cause they started much lower and then the atmospheric conditions in conjuction with a different gauge recorded an even lower number.

Why would Tom call the ball boys for an hour when the story broke nation-wide?

Tom called Jestremski after Jestremski texted him, after deflategate blew up.

How would the Colts have known to alert the league office of this situation before the game was played?

Because it was coordinated? Why were the Colts the only team to bring this up? Why did the NFL disregard it?

What does the NFL gain by exposing their winningest team of cheating?

An attempt at parity and appeasement.

Solid work here.

Those are legitimate points. But what about the other 4 questions posed? Why are those edited out and ignored when responding?

 

[BroadwayG]

Those are legitimate points. But what about the other 4 questions posed? Why are those edited out and ignored when responding?

They were deemed implausible.

 

[Bayhawks]

This has already been established in this thread, multiple times: McNally had ONE interview with Wells. The earlier interviews were with the NFL, not Wells.

When the Raiders interview an african-american for their HC postition, does that satisfy the Rooney rule for other teams?

An interview with the NFL doesn't count as an interview by Wells, despite people trying to spin it otherwise.

Can we talk about this for a minute.

Wells makes this distinction, and we've known about it since the Wells report came out. But what is the difference really? Wells not being in the room?

Guarantee you the things said in the NFL interviews were used in the Well's investigation.

I'd be happy to discuss it.

Do you think the NFL knew about McNally calling himself "the Deflator" in texts when they interviewed him?

Do you think the NFL had the text messages that Wells had?

Because that is the distinction. It doesn't matter if Wells had access to what the NFL had asked McNally, because unless they knew about those texts, they wouldn't have been able to ask the specific questions Wells wanted/needed to ask him.

 

[Run It Up]

Why were the Patriots balls much more deflated than the Colts balls?

Cause they started much lower and then the atmospheric conditions in conjuction with a different gauge recorded an even lower number.

Why would Tom call the ball boys for an hour when the story broke nation-wide?

Tom called Jestremski after Jestremski texted him, after deflategate blew up.

How would the Colts have known to alert the league office of this situation before the game was played?

Because it was coordinated? Why were the Colts the only team to bring this up? Why did the NFL disregard it?

What does the NFL gain by exposing their winningest team of cheating?

An attempt at parity and appeasement.

Solid work here.

Those are legitimate points. But what about the other 4 questions posed? Why are those edited out and ignored when responding?

Cause those were the most glaring to me. In a post of like 20 loaded questions I'd figure I'd answer the ones that were wrong (Brady contacting anyone), the basic premise for the scientific aspect and the two that set up a possible scenario that has been in leaked information months before the Wells report and the one NE has publicly and privately said (calculated effort to knock NE down )

 

[Bayhawks]

Those are legitimate points. But what about the other 4 questions posed? Why are those edited out and ignored when responding?

They were deemed implausible.

These were deemed implausible?

Why are the two ball boys suspended?

Why did Tom's agent scream that this was a sting operation? (Doesn't that word by itself state that they were caught doing something)

Why would Goodell intentionally go after his friend? The one who likely got him the job and a big raise.

Why is one of the ball boys nick-named the deflator?

What were the texts about if not deflating the footballs?

Why didn't Tom (screened through his agent) release the texts that had to do with this (Wells specifically stated he did not need the phone nor wanted to see personal information)?

Why was Wells not allowed to interview McNally a second time (you know to ask about the texts where he is called the deflator among other things)?

How are those things "implausible?" That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you meant unimportant, but that would be wrong, as well.

 

[Bayhawks]

Why were the Patriots balls much more deflated than the Colts balls?

Cause they started much lower and then the atmospheric conditions in conjuction with a different gauge recorded an even lower number.

Why would Tom call the ball boys for an hour when the story broke nation-wide?

Tom called Jestremski after Jestremski texted him, after deflategate blew up.

How would the Colts have known to alert the league office of this situation before the game was played?

Because it was coordinated? Why were the Colts the only team to bring this up? Why did the NFL disregard it?

What does the NFL gain by exposing their winningest team of cheating?

An attempt at parity and appeasement.

Solid work here.

Those are legitimate points. But what about the other 4 questions posed? Why are those edited out and ignored when responding?

Cause those were the most glaring to me. In a post of like 20 loaded questions I'd figure I'd answer the ones that were wrong (Brady contacting anyone), the basic premise for the scientific aspect and the two that set up a possible scenario that has been in leaked information months before the Wells report and the one NE has publicly and privately said (calculated effort to knock NE down )

Fair enough, but the questions you didn't answer are more telling to me, ie-NE not allowing Wells to interview McNally a 2nd time & why wouldn't TB give printed copies of what he chose to divulge of his phone/text records to Wells?

 

[Run It Up]

This has already been established in this thread, multiple times: McNally had ONE interview with Wells. The earlier interviews were with the NFL, not Wells.

When the Raiders interview an african-american for their HC postition, does that satisfy the Rooney rule for other teams?

An interview with the NFL doesn't count as an interview by Wells, despite people trying to spin it otherwise.

Can we talk about this for a minute.Wells makes this distinction, and we've known about it since the Wells report came out. But what is the difference really? Wells not being in the room?

Guarantee you the things said in the NFL interviews were used in the Well's investigation.

I'd be happy to discuss it.Do you think the NFL knew about McNally calling himself "the Deflator" in texts when they interviewed him?

Do you think the NFL had the text messages that Wells had?

Because that is the distinction. It doesn't matter if Wells had access to what the NFL had asked McNally, because unless they knew about those texts, they wouldn't have been able to ask the specific questions Wells wanted/needed to ask him.

I'm not sure, I haven't heard anything about the actual nfl interviews. Until Wells made the distinction it was widely viewed that Mcnally was interviewed 4 times about deflategate, not 3 times by the NFL and once by Wells.It was/is the Patriots position on the matter.

Has anyone heard anything about the NFL'S interviews?

 

[Tango]

This has already been established in this thread, multiple times: McNally had ONE interview with Wells. The earlier interviews were with the NFL, not Wells.

When the Raiders interview an african-american for their HC postition, does that satisfy the Rooney rule for other teams?

An interview with the NFL doesn't count as an interview by Wells, despite people trying to spin it otherwise.

Can we talk about this for a minute.Wells makes this distinction, and we've known about it since the Wells report came out. But what is the difference really? Wells not being in the room?

Guarantee you the things said in the NFL interviews were used in the Well's investigation.

I'd be happy to discuss it.Do you think the NFL knew about McNally calling himself "the Deflator" in texts when they interviewed him?

Do you think the NFL had the text messages that Wells had?

Because that is the distinction. It doesn't matter if Wells had access to what the NFL had asked McNally, because unless they knew about those texts, they wouldn't have been able to ask the specific questions Wells wanted/needed to ask him.

I'm not sure, I haven't heard anything about the actual nfl interviews. Until Wells made the distinction it was widely viewed that Mcnally was interviewed 4 times about deflategate, not 3 times by the NFL and once by Wells.It was/is the Patriots position on the matter.

Has anyone heard anything about the NFL'S interviews?

Post 9769 provides some insight into how the Patriots viewed them...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Those are legitimate points. But what about the other 4 questions posed? Why are those edited out and ignored when responding?

They were deemed implausible.

These were deemed implausible?

Why are the two ball boys suspended?

Why did Tom's agent scream that this was a sting operation? (Doesn't that word by itself state that they were caught doing something)

Why would Goodell intentionally go after his friend? The one who likely got him the job and a big raise.

Why is one of the ball boys nick-named the deflator?

What were the texts about if not deflating the footballs?

Why didn't Tom (screened through his agent) release the texts that had to do with this (Wells specifically stated he did not need the phone nor wanted to see personal information)?

Why was Wells not allowed to interview McNally a second time (you know to ask about the texts where he is called the deflator among other things)?

How are those things "implausible?" That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you meant unimportant, but that would be wrong, as well.

Nah he never believed they were implausible. Hell he wasnt even the one who partially answered the questions. He was just spewing anything he could.

 

[BroadwayG]

Those are legitimate points. But what about the other 4 questions posed? Why are those edited out and ignored when responding?

They were deemed implausible.

These were deemed implausible?

Why are the two ball boys suspended?

Why did Tom's agent scream that this was a sting operation? (Doesn't that word by itself state that they were caught doing something)

Why would Goodell intentionally go after his friend? The one who likely got him the job and a big raise.

Why is one of the ball boys nick-named the deflator?

What were the texts about if not deflating the footballs?

Why didn't Tom (screened through his agent) release the texts that had to do with this (Wells specifically stated he did not need the phone nor wanted to see personal information)?

Why was Wells not allowed to interview McNally a second time (you know to ask about the texts where he is called the deflator among other things)?

How are those things "implausible?" That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you meant unimportant, but that would be wrong, as well.

I was making a joke about how any evidence that might disrupt the guilty narrative in the report was dismissed as implausible.

Perhaps you can explain how Anderson's memory about the pregame ball psi is perfect, but his memory about the gauge he used is faulty?

 

[Bayhawks]

This has already been established in this thread, multiple times: McNally had ONE interview with Wells. The earlier interviews were with the NFL, not Wells.

When the Raiders interview an african-american for their HC postition, does that satisfy the Rooney rule for other teams?

An interview with the NFL doesn't count as an interview by Wells, despite people trying to spin it otherwise.

Can we talk about this for a minute.Wells makes this distinction, and we've known about it since the Wells report came out. But what is the difference really? Wells not being in the room?

Guarantee you the things said in the NFL interviews were used in the Well's investigation.

I'd be happy to discuss it.Do you think the NFL knew about McNally calling himself "the Deflator" in texts when they interviewed him?

Do you think the NFL had the text messages that Wells had?

Because that is the distinction. It doesn't matter if Wells had access to what the NFL had asked McNally, because unless they knew about those texts, they wouldn't have been able to ask the specific questions Wells wanted/needed to ask him.

I'm not sure, I haven't heard anything about the actual nfl interviews. Until Wells made the distinction it was widely viewed that Mcnally was interviewed 4 times about deflategate, not 3 times by the NFL and once by Wells.It was/is the Patriots position on the matter.

Has anyone heard anything about the NFL'S interviews?

From what I understand, Wells asked for the 2nd interview AFTER he found McNally's text calling himself "the Deflator," therefore it stands to reason the NFL didn't have that information when they interviewed him, and couldn't have asked him those questions. Therefore, it was a perfectly reasonable request to ask for a 2nd interview, which NE chose not to allow, and according to Wells, they didn't even want to let McNally know Wells wanted another interview.

 

[Tango]

Just released, the Patriots view:

http://www.Wellsreportcontext.com

 

[rick6668]

As noted, there was a significant exception to the cooperation provided by the Patriots. Although we requested a follow-up interview of Jim McNally after our initial interview, counsel for the Patriots refused our request. We offered to conduct the interview at any time or location that would be convenient for McNally, and explained—both in writing and in-person during other meetings—that our follow-up questions would be limited to subject matter directly relevant to the investigation that was developed following our initial interview with McNally. McNally was one of the earliest Patriots personnel interviewed by our investigative team and a number of important follow-up questions had arisen based on subsequent interviews and information discovered after our initial interview of McNally. Counsel for the Patriots, however, declined to produce McNally, and communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview. We do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request. The investigative process would have benefited from further questioning of McNally on certain topics, and we believe that the actions of the Patriots and their counsel in this regard are inconsistent both with the club‟s public pronouncements of full cooperation with the investigation and its obligations under Section 2 of the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules.

We made written requests to counsel for the Patriots on February 28, March 2, 3, 9 and 17 for a follow-up interview with McNally. Counsel for the Patriots repeatedly refused to make McNally available for a reinterview claiming, among other things, that McNally lived more than an hour away and already had missed work at his full-time job to attend earlier interviews. In addition, counsel for the Patriots asked that we provide in advance the subjects we proposed to cover, submit written interrogatories, and stated that “you have given me very little incentive or basis to try to get him back once more.” As noted above, we offered to meet with McNally at any time and any location that was convenient and explained that it would not be appropriate from an investigative standpoint to disclose in advance the specific subjects we intended to cover. We cautioned counsel for the Patriots in writing that: the “refusal to make Mr. McNally available for a brief follow-up interview raises serious concerns and is inconsistent with the obligations of the Patriots under the League Rules to provide „full support and cooperation‟ in the investigation. We also believe it is inconsistent with the public expressions of cooperation by the Patriots.” Counsel for the Patriots continued to refuse to make McNally available as requested.

 

[Old Smiley]

Just released, the Patriots view:

http://www.Wellsreportcontext.com

Go Pats.

 

[Tango]

"Based on this understanding, the Patriots asked Mr. McNally, a game day only employee with whom the team had no ongoing employment relationship, to leave his full-time, out-of-state job in order to be available for an interview at the stadium. Prior to the interview, the Patriots prevailed upon Mr. McNally to allow his personal phone to be checked for any relevant information, all of which was provided to the Wells investigators before the interview. The investigators therefore had all of Mr. Jastremski’s texts (which were provided three weeks before Mr. McNally was interviewed) as well as Mr. McNally’s phone records. The Wells investigators brought four lawyers to the McNally interview. They spent the entire day with him. He gave over seven hours of testimony. He answered every question. Among other things, the Wells investigators inquired at length about texts with Mr. Jastremski. Having taken a day off work, he was willing to stay as long as it took to finish. The interview did not end until the investigation team exhausted every topic and question they had.

Thus, when subsequently asked for what would have been a fifth interview of Mr. McNally, Patriots counsel wanted to understand what unanticipated circumstances warranted this, including whether the interview would be limited to matters that were simply not available to the investigators during Mr. McNally’s prior interview. The Patriots advised the investigators of their reluctance to have Mr. McNally back yet again, particularly given the media harassment he and his family had suffered as a result of prior leaks of Mr. McNally’s name and hometown. The distress to him and his family caused by the ensuing media attention was described in detail to the investigators. With this background, there was a high hurdle before the Patriots would ask Mr. McNally to appear yet again for what would be his fifth interview, and a particular desire to be sure that the standard for another interview — unanticipated circumstances — was met.

While the report states that certain of Mr. Jastremski’s texts were not “discovered” until after this interview (pg. 75, footnote 47), there is no question that the investigators had all such texts in their possession and available for the questioning. They apparently just overlooked them, identifying them now as a matter they wanted to cover in yet another interview. (pg. 75) Although asked numerous times for the reason for their request for yet another interview with Mr. McNally, the Wells investigators never stated the reason that now appears evident from the Report: They had overlooked texts in their earlier interviews and wanted the opportunity to ask about them. This information would have confirmed what is now clear. The request was inconsistent with the interview protocol agreed to at the outset.

Although receiving no assurances that the requested additional Mr. McNally interview would satisfy the agreed-upon interview protocol, Patriots counsel nonetheless suggested that there might be ways other than another in-person interview to get whatever further information was sought. Patriots counsel offered to be of assistance in those respects. There was no follow-up from the investigators. It now appears that the Patriots are being severely punished because the Wells investigative team apparently overlooked materials they had in their possession long before their interview with Mr. McNally — scarcely an “unanticipated circumstance” calling for yet another interview — and refused to disclose their reason for an additional interview. There was no refusal to cooperate by the Patriots."

______________

Quick take:

Fairly weak argument here by the Pats, but some elements of interest. Overall: not convincing and some pieces of he-said she-said have emerged

 

[BigSteelThrill]

As noted, there was a significant exception to the cooperation provided by the Patriots. Although we requested a follow-up interview of Jim McNally after our initial interview, counsel for the Patriots refused our request. We offered to conduct the interview at any time or location that would be convenient for McNally, and explained—both in writing and in-person during other meetings—that our follow-up questions would be limited to subject matter directly relevant to the investigation that was developed following our initial interview with McNally. McNally was one of the earliest Patriots personnel interviewed by our investigative team and a number of important follow-up questions had arisen based on subsequent interviews and information discovered after our initial interview of McNally. Counsel for the Patriots, however, declined to produce McNally, and communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview. We do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request. The investigative process would have benefited from further questioning of McNally on certain topics, and we believe that the actions of the Patriots and their counsel in this regard are inconsistent both with the club‟s public pronouncements of full cooperation with the investigation and its obligations under Section 2 of the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules.

We made written requests to counsel for the Patriots on February 28, March 2, 3, 9 and 17 for a follow-up interview with McNally. Counsel for the Patriots repeatedly refused to make McNally available for a reinterview claiming, among other things, that McNally lived more than an hour away and already had missed work at his full-time job to attend earlier interviews. In addition, counsel for the Patriots asked that we provide in advance the subjects we proposed to cover, submit written interrogatories, and stated that “you have given me very little incentive or basis to try to get him back once more.” As noted above, we offered to meet with McNally at any time and any location that was convenient and explained that it would not be appropriate from an investigative standpoint to disclose in advance the specific subjects we intended to cover. We cautioned counsel for the Patriots in writing that: the “refusal to make Mr. McNally available for a brief follow-up interview raises serious concerns and is inconsistent with the obligations of the Patriots under the League Rules to provide „full support and cooperation‟ in the investigation. We also believe it is inconsistent with the public expressions of cooperation by the Patriots.” Counsel for the Patriots continued to refuse to make McNally available as requested.

KABOOM!

 

[BigSteelThrill]

As noted, there was a significant exception to the cooperation provided by the Patriots. Although we requested a follow-up interview of Jim McNally after our initial interview, counsel for the Patriots refused our request. We offered to conduct the interview at any time or location that would be convenient for McNally, and explained—both in writing and in-person during other meetings—that our follow-up questions would be limited to subject matter directly relevant to the investigation that was developed following our initial interview with McNally. McNally was one of the earliest Patriots personnel interviewed by our investigative team and a number of important follow-up questions had arisen based on subsequent interviews and information discovered after our initial interview of McNally. Counsel for the Patriots, however, declined to produce McNally, and communicated an unwillingness even to advise McNally of our request for a follow-up interview. We do not know definitively whether McNally was, in fact, informed of our request. The investigative process would have benefited from further questioning of McNally on certain topics, and we believe that the actions of the Patriots and their counsel in this regard are inconsistent both with the club‟s public pronouncements of full cooperation with the investigation and its obligations under Section 2 of the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of Competitive Rules.

We made written requests to counsel for the Patriots on February 28, March 2, 3, 9 and 17 for a follow-up interview with McNally. Counsel for the Patriots repeatedly refused to make McNally available for a reinterview claiming, among other things, that McNally lived more than an hour away and already had missed work at his full-time job to attend earlier interviews. In addition, counsel for the Patriots asked that we provide in advance the subjects we proposed to cover, submit written interrogatories, and stated that “you have given me very little incentive or basis to try to get him back once more.” As noted above, we offered to meet with McNally at any time and any location that was convenient and explained that it would not be appropriate from an investigative standpoint to disclose in advance the specific subjects we intended to cover. We cautioned counsel for the Patriots in writing that: the “refusal to make Mr. McNally available for a brief follow-up interview raises serious concerns and is inconsistent with the obligations of the Patriots under the League Rules to provide „full support and cooperation‟ in the investigation. We also believe it is inconsistent with the public expressions of cooperation by the Patriots.” Counsel for the Patriots continued to refuse to make McNally available as requested.

KABOOM!

We believe the failure by the Patriots and its counsel to produce McNally for the requested follow-up interview violated the club’s obligations to cooperate with the investigation under the Policy on Integrity of the Game & Enforcement of League Rules and was inconsistent with public statements made by the Patriots pledging full cooperation with the investigation.

 

[rick6668]

From the Wells Report:

Following the AFC Championship Game, McNally was asked to explain his actions on a number of occasions, including during three interviews with NFL Security. The substance of these interviews was recorded in written interview reports prepared by NFL Security personnel and reviewed by Paul, Weiss during the course of the investigation. According to a report of the interview with McNally on the night of January 18, McNally told NFL Security representatives that he “decided to walk the balls out to the field,” and was “not certain why [he] chose to go out to the field at this time or without an escort.” McNally also told NFL Security during this interview that he walked directly to the field and that nothing unusual occurred during the walk from the locker room to the field. According to the interview report from a telephone interview with NFL Security on January 19, McNally stated that he stopped to use the bathroom on the way to the field and took the game balls with him into the bathroom. contains no other fixtures or structural stalls, and therefore has a significant amount (approximately 60 sq. ft.) of open floor space. As noted, the door to the bathroom locks from the inside. 59 During this interview, he explained that he did not use the bathroom in the Officials Locker Room because he did not want to disturb the officials. He claimed that he had left the Officials Locker Room with game balls but without a game official on a few occasions over the years, but could not identify any particular games where that had occurred. According to the interview report from an NFL Security interview of McNally on January 21, McNally said that he did not know why he would leave the locker room with the game balls without being accompanied by game officials, and “just decided to leave the locker room at that time to go to the field.” He said that no one had ever told him that he was required to wait for the officials. He also claimed that he went into the bathroom with the game balls because when he got to the end of the tunnel, he realized that he suddenly had to use the bathroom. On February 12, 2015, we interviewed McNally on these topics as well. He explained to us that he told the game officials that he was moving the game balls to the sitting room, where he watched the end of the NFC Championship Game for up to ten minutes. He estimated that there were twenty people in the sitting room at the time. According to McNally, when the NFC Championship Game ended shortly after the start of the overtime period, an unidentified NFL official said something like “we‟re back on again,” so he picked up the balls and began to walk out of the Officials Locker Room. With respect to his decision to use the bathroom, McNally claimed that he has used the bathroom near the field entrance while in possession of the game balls many times. He said that on the day of the AFC Championship Game, he entered the bathroom, dropped the ball bags to his left, and used the urinal to his right. That bathroom, however, does not contain a urinal. Upon further questioning, McNally claimed that he did not pay attention to what type of fixture he used. He also acknowledged that the bathroom areas in both the Officials Locker 60 Room and the Chain Gang Room each contain two or three urinals and two or three toilets in separate stalls, and that he had used the facilities in those rooms many times. When asked why he did not use the bathrooms available in the Officials Locker Room or the Chain Gang Room on the day of the AFC Championship Game, McNally claimed that the officials often ask for time to themselves prior to the game, though he did not mention anyone making such a request that day. Walt Anderson and most other officials interviewed said that it would have been ordinary and customary for McNally to use the bathrooms in the Officials Locker Room and that, in their opinion, McNally appeared to feel very comfortable in the locker room. McNally claimed that he did not use the facilities in the Chain Gang Room because it was crowded and it would have been hard to maneuver with the bulky ball bags.

NFL Interviews were from January 18th, 19th and 21st.

No reason to interview him again right?

 

[rick6668]

How many times does this McNally guy change his story?

I can picture it going like this:

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: Oh. Wow. Gee Whiz. Looky here. You know we're always fascinated when we find leg irons with no legs in them. Who held the keys sir?

Old Guard: Me.

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: Where those keys at?

Old Guard: I don't know.

Poole: Care to revise your statement, sir?

Old Guard: What?

Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard: Do you want to change you bull#### story, sir?

Old Guard: He might have got out.

 

[Tango]

The Pats regarding the texts the day the story broke: "Mr. Brady’s reaching out to Mr. Jastremski to see how he was holding up in these circumstances is not only understandable, but commendable."

But when the report gets released on May 6 and Jastremski gets suspended without pay as a result; what does Brady do about it?

Not only does Brady say/do nothing on May 6 and let's this guy take the fall, the next night on May 7th Brady announces to Jim Gray and the world that he cares so little about Jastremski that he didnt even bother to read the report that took away Jastremski's livelihood. Commendable? What a joke.

This is the issue where that transformed whole saga from slightly amusing talk show banter about a QB I like ----> to me wondering out loud how anyone could possibly ever call Tom Brady a leader. He is the opposite of a leader.

Maybe he bought him off with hush money and the guy is happy? That's quite possible, but it doesnt make Brady look any better, does it?

 

[Tango]

The Pats regarding the texts the day the story broke: "Mr. Brady’s reaching out to Mr. Jastremski to see how he was holding up in these circumstances is not only understandable, but commendable."

But when the report gets released on May 6 and Jastremski gets suspended without pay as a result; what does Brady do about it?

Not only does Brady say/do nothing on May 6 and let's this guy take the fall, the next night on May 7th Brady announces to Jim Gray and the world that he cares so little about Jastremski that he didnt even bother to read the report that took away Jastremski's livelihood. Commendable? What a joke.

This is the issue where that transformed whole saga from slightly amusing talk show banter about a QB I like ----> to me wondering out loud how anyone could possibly ever call Tom Brady a leader. He is the opposite of a leader.

Maybe he bought him off with hush money and the guy is happy? That's quite possible, but it doesnt make Brady look any better, does it?

Im glad Scott Zolak agrees on this. Live on 98.5 he just read this line and said:

"Seriously, this line is ridiculous" and went on to ridicule the Pats on this issue

 

[Tango]

Patriots:

"Deflator" means McNally was trying to lose weight.

Oh my.....did Yee refer the Patriots to these attorneys?

Boston radio is mocking this thing. Yes, Boston.

 

[mbuehner]

For me the disappearing footballs and the texts messages mentioning deflating and needles months before that game are enough.

That being said, im curious about the Wells report conclusions on measurements as a purely academic questions.

This link sums it up pretty well:

http://wellsreportcontext.com/

Given the gauges varied from each other, the only relevant halftime psi measurements are those shown by the gauge that was used pre-game. One gauge, referred to as the Logo gauge, was consistently .3 to .45 psi higher in its measurements than the non-Logo gauge. Referee Walt Anderson, who was alerted to psi issues before the game, has a detailed recollection of the unrecorded psi levels of the 48 footballs he gauged pre-game — essentially 12.5 for the Patriots footballs and 13.0 or 13.1 for the Colts footballs. His Recollection of those pre-game psi levels is one of the foundations of this report. MR. ANDERSON SPECIFICALLY RECALLS THAT HE USED THE LOGO GAUGE FOR THESE PRE-GAME MEASUREMENTS (pg. 52). (This is the only recollection of Mr. Anderson that the report rejects.) Therefore, the Logo gauge numbers are the correct numbers to use for halftime psi. The investigators did rely on those Logo gauge halftime psi numbers in dealing with the Colts footballs. Using that gauge, all the Colts footballs were within regulation. That justified the officials not adding air to them. However, when assessing the Patriots footballs, the investigators reject Anderson’s best recollection that he used the Logo gauge pre-game, and instead look to the larger psi drop that is shown by the lower psi, non-Logo gauge.

This is a curious lapse for such a detailed investigation. The second gauge is utterly irrelevant if it wasnt used pregame. You are looking for the difference in pressure, so obviously you need a defined starting pressure. IE- if Anderson OK'd a ball that read 12.5 psi on his gauge, you could immediately remeasure it with the second gauge and it would be an illegal ball. That second gauge should be tossed out completely, it just confuses the issue.

Its also odd that the investigator pressed Anderson on how sure he was on which gauge he used (a monstrously important question) and Anderson that it was 'possible' he used the other gauge. On the other hand, they seemed entirely comfortable with his exact recollections of the pre-game inflation pressures- the Colts were either '13.0 or 13.1', pretty damned precise. And what are the odds that all 48 balls were within .1 psi of each other (per team) when the teams delivered them? Almost impossible i'd argue.

The problem is Anderson. We talked this to death, but it seems very likely that if Anderson even measured the balls, it was a slipshod job done with little precision (see the Bears video floating around of the refs lockerroom). Now long after the fact Anderson is doing some CYA and remembering very specific pressures he read (but never recorded, the usual practice). The other problem is Wells, who knew he had an Anderson problem and muddied the water about what could be truly known about relative pressures that day. But the bottom line is garbage in-garbage out. If you dont have any reliable measurements from pregame, you half time measurements are useless.

Again- Pats are guilty of this ####, but this report was ginned up a bit to make the NFL look better than they should on the issue.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

So who's this "renowned" legal team Brady has put together that will exonerate him according to FBG? This is all about his legacy now. Too bad the "Deflator" couldn't afford such counsel ...

I hear that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochran will make time from their busy day to help out.

He's dead, man.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I can't believe the Pats are going the full-on alien abduction route here.

The yokels around town might be dumb enough to give these alternate explanations the time of day, but everybody else thinks the Pats are embarrassing themselves.

ETA: turns out even the yokels aren't giving them the time of day.

 

[Tango]

"I had high hopes for this website. Now it's heading South.. This is ridiculous. Borderline crazy"

-Scott Zolak

 

[flapgreen]

Pats

 

[mbuehner]

So who's this "renowned" legal team Brady has put together that will exonerate him according to FBG? This is all about his legacy now. Too bad the "Deflator" couldn't afford such counsel ...

I hear that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochran will make time from their busy day to help out.

He's dead, man.

But if Chewbacca is not from Endor, you must acquit.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So who's this "renowned" legal team Brady has put together that will exonerate him according to FBG? This is all about his legacy now. Too bad the "Deflator" couldn't afford such counsel ...

I hear that Robert Kardashian and Johnnie Cochran will make time from their busy day to help out.

He's dead, man.

I literally have Alan Dershowitz personal cell # in my phone. Maybe he could lend a hand (again) instead of Cochran.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Kinda dumb way for the Pats to take this honestly. There are always people willing to ignore the truth if they're invested, but there's a limit -- if you make them feel stupid for believing what you say it can fall apart in a hurry.

 

[Tango]

"Going to ESPN with this" text

PATS EXPLANATION:

Jastremski and McNally teasing each other about going behind Jastremski's boss for free sneakers...

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Kinda dumb way for the Pats to take this honestly. There are always people willing to ignore the truth if they're invested, but there's a limit -- if you make them feel stupid for believing what you say it can fall apart in a hurry.

So McNally wasn't really trying to lose weight?

 

[Tango]

Kinda dumb way for the Pats to take this honestly. There are always people willing to ignore the truth if they're invested, but there's a limit -- if you make them feel stupid for believing what you say it can fall apart in a hurry.

So McNally wasn't really trying to lose weight?

McNally produced a receipt for Slimfast = Brady innocent.

Let's go to Park Avenue and throw Slimfast bottles at the HQ building.

 

[Tango]

98.5 Boston right now regarding "http://wellsreportcontext.com/":

"Does this website help the Patriots case or hurt it? It hurts it"

Oy Pats.

 

[Old Smiley]

I freaking love that Pats response. It's everything I've been saying for months.

On another forum someone joked about how a Roman senator would end his every senate speech by saying Carthage must be destroyed. And how he would now end all of his posts to that forum: Goodell Delenda Est

 

[mbuehner]

98.5 Boston right now regarding "http://wellsreportcontext.com/":

"Does this website help the Patriots case or hurt it? It hurts it"

Oy Pats.

I dont think their work does anything to absolve the Pats. It makes some good points, but the points really only lead you to the conclusion that the report took liberties trying to make the NFL look good. Thats a different question of whether it treated the Pats unfairly, and the facts pretty much speaks for themselves.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Jerrah, and the Maras and the Rooneys need to have a come to Jesus meeting with their boy Robert and help him find wisdom. This stuff is just shockingly bad.

 

[Tango]

98.5 Boston right now regarding "http://wellsreportcontext.com/":

"Does this website help the Patriots case or hurt it? It hurts it"

Oy Pats.

I dont think their work does anything to absolve the Pats. It makes some good points, but the points really only lead you to the conclusion that the report took liberties trying to make the NFL look good. Thats a different question of whether it treated the Pats unfairly, and the facts pretty much speaks for themselves.

Yeah, agree.

No doubt...

the wells report has holes here and there regarding air pressure

It's *possible* Brady is innocent

But when you add it ALL up, it's pretty clear from (1) what Wells found out (with NFL support, but not subpoena power) and (2) without full cooperation and (3) from Brady's very weak public defense...that Brady had general knowledge.

But no question there are holes and anything is possible. But, just like Wells, with the evidence I have seen...I vote "guilty"

 

[davearm]

For me the disappearing footballs and the texts messages mentioning deflating and needles months before that game are enough.

That being said, im curious about the Wells report conclusions on measurements as a purely academic questions.

This link sums it up pretty well:

http://wellsreportcontext.com/

Given the gauges varied from each other, the only relevant halftime psi measurements are those shown by the gauge that was used pre-game. One gauge, referred to as the Logo gauge, was consistently .3 to .45 psi higher in its measurements than the non-Logo gauge. Referee Walt Anderson, who was alerted to psi issues before the game, has a detailed recollection of the unrecorded psi levels of the 48 footballs he gauged pre-game — essentially 12.5 for the Patriots footballs and 13.0 or 13.1 for the Colts footballs. His Recollection of those pre-game psi levels is one of the foundations of this report. MR. ANDERSON SPECIFICALLY RECALLS THAT HE USED THE LOGO GAUGE FOR THESE PRE-GAME MEASUREMENTS (pg. 52). (This is the only recollection of Mr. Anderson that the report rejects.) Therefore, the Logo gauge numbers are the correct numbers to use for halftime psi. The investigators did rely on those Logo gauge halftime psi numbers in dealing with the Colts footballs. Using that gauge, all the Colts footballs were within regulation. That justified the officials not adding air to them. However, when assessing the Patriots footballs, the investigators reject Anderson’s best recollection that he used the Logo gauge pre-game, and instead look to the larger psi drop that is shown by the lower psi, non-Logo gauge.

This is a curious lapse for such a detailed investigation. The second gauge is utterly irrelevant if it wasnt used pregame. You are looking for the difference in pressure, so obviously you need a defined starting pressure. IE- if Anderson OK'd a ball that read 12.5 psi on his gauge, you could immediately remeasure it with the second gauge and it would be an illegal ball. That second gauge should be tossed out completely, it just confuses the issue.

Its also odd that the investigator pressed Anderson on how sure he was on which gauge he used (a monstrously important question) and Anderson that it was 'possible' he used the other gauge. On the other hand, they seemed entirely comfortable with his exact recollections of the pre-game inflation pressures- the Colts were either '13.0 or 13.1', pretty damned precise. And what are the odds that all 48 balls were within .1 psi of each other (per team) when the teams delivered them? Almost impossible i'd argue.

The problem is Anderson. We talked this to death, but it seems very likely that if Anderson even measured the balls, it was a slipshod job done with little precision (see the Bears video floating around of the refs lockerroom). Now long after the fact Anderson is doing some CYA and remembering very specific pressures he read (but never recorded, the usual practice). The other problem is Wells, who knew he had an Anderson problem and muddied the water about what could be truly known about relative pressures that day. But the bottom line is garbage in-garbage out. If you dont have any reliable measurements from pregame, you half time measurements are useless.

Again- Pats are guilty of this ####, but this report was ginned up a bit to make the NFL look better than they should on the issue.

We don't know for certain which gauge Anderson used pre-game. However I'm willing to believe that after ball inflation was made a point of emphasis to him by his bosses, his recollections of the psi measurements are legit (12.5 Pats, 13.0 Colts).

We know from the table shown in the report that at halftime, the Pats' 11 footballs held an average of 11.11 psi on the non-logo gauge, and 11.49 psi on the logo gauge. We also know that the 4 Colts balls measured 12.33 psi and 12.74 on the non-logo and logo gauges, respectively.

So, now what is the loss in psi between pregame and halftime?

If Anderson used the logo gauge to get his pre-game readings, then the Pats' balls deflated by 1.01 psi (12.5 - 11.49), and the Colts' balls deflated by 0.26 psi (13.0 - 12.74). Pats' balls show 0.75 psi more deflation.

If Anderson used the non-logo gauge to get his pre-game readings, then the Pats' balls deflated by 1.39 psi (12.5 - 11.11), and the Colts' balls deflated by 0.68 psi (13.0 - 12.33). Pats' balls show 0.72 psi more deflation.

Ignoring for now what the Ideal Gas Law tells us the psi loss should have been, we're left to wonder why, regardless of which gauge was used pre-game, the Pats' balls showed 0.72-0.75 psi more deflation than the Colts' balls.

 

[massraider]

98.5 Boston right now regarding "http://wellsreportcontext.com/":

"Does this website help the Patriots case or hurt it? It hurts it"

Oy Pats.

Ho-leee smoke.

Well, Brady no longer looks the worst in this. The Pats organization just blew by him.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Kinda dumb way for the Pats to take this honestly. There are always people willing to ignore the truth if they're invested, but there's a limit -- if you make them feel stupid for believing what you say it can fall apart in a hurry.

So McNally wasn't really trying to lose weight?

McNally produced a receipt for Slimfast = Brady innocent.

Let's go to Park Avenue and throw Slimfast bottles at the HQ building.

If the 36"s don't fit, you must acquit!

 

[massraider]

Was he fired for being fat, then?

 

[BroadwayG]

Ignoring for now what the Ideal Gas Law tells us the psi loss should have been, we're left to wonder why, regardless of which gauge was used pre-game, the Pats' balls showed 0.72-0.75 psi more deflation than the Colts' balls.

In the scientific report, they expect nearly a .8 psi increase from being taken from the cold into the warm locker room at halftime. Perfectly reasonable the colts balls, tested at the end of halftime instead of the beginning are significantly higher. Of course, this is never brought up by the investigation because it all points to nothing happening.

The chart is on page 204 of the report.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Brady comes off terribly here too. Letting your lackeys take the fall was bad enough even if you're shipping them some hush money.

But allowing the entire organization to publicly humiliate itself in order to "get your back" and cover your lies is even worse.

No schtick, not twisting the dagger -- I've lost all respect for the guy.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

I was dying reading the {omitted out of respect to Mrs Jastremski}

12:21:46: JM “Whats up dorito dink”
12:22:53: JJ “Nada”
12:22:53: JM “Whens the pong party….im on fire”
12:23:10: JJ “Omg”
12:23:34: JM “Bring it”
16:29:48: JM “You still with your women”
16:29:59: JJ “Yup”
16:33:21: JM “You must have her [omitted out of respect to Mrs. Jastremski]”
16:34:39: JM “You must have a picture of her [omitted out of respect to Mrs. Jastremski]”
16:36:31: JJ “Omg”
16:37:16: JM “You working”
16:37:53 JJ “Yup”
16:39:40 JM “Nice dude…jimmy needs some kicks….lets
make a deal…come on help the deflator”

[After Mr. Jastremski does not respond for several minutes, Mr. McNally sends a follow-up text.]
16:47:15 JM “Chill buddy im just f****n with you….im not going
to espn….yet”

 

[Bucky86]

this has got to be a joke.