Deflategate--the NFL actually does something

In a previous post I wrote about how sports often disappoints, that you expect a great game or a great performance and instead you get a blowout.  Well, sometimes the opposite is true; you expect nothing, but suddenly something appears that . . . doesn’t suck.  As someone once said, the great thing about being a pessimist is that you’re only pleasantly surprised.

The NFL released a 243-page report on the scandal known as “Deflategate.”  I expected a thin report to be issued in several months, maybe right after the start of the season, one that concluded that maybe mistakes were made but who can really say since we don’t have a “Ray Rice Second Video,” so no harm, no foul.  At best I thought some low-level Patriot employees might be implicated, but not identified by name or formally accused.

So imagine my shock when the report come out during the doldrums after the draft and specifically names Tom “The Golden Boy” Brady as a likely culprit.  Brady didn’t order the balls deflated, but played the role of Henry II, texting, “Will no one rid me of these troublesome over-inflated footballs?”  Brady’s father says his son has been found guilty until proven innocent; no, there is a 243 page report that proves he’s guilty (maybe not beyond a reasonable doubt, but this isn’t a court of law).

Two Patriot’s employees, Jim McNally the Locker Room Attendant and John Jastremski, an equipment assistant, were named and implicated with a bit more forcefulness.  The report, which I will read in its entirety on a night when there is nothing good on TV or in my Netflix queue, is described as thorough and damning.

Of course not everyone is convinced.  Robert Kraft, the owner of the Patriots, said he was disappointed that there was no “incontrovertible or hard evidence” in the report identifying wrongdoing on the part of the Patriots.  Let me clarify something for Mr. Kraft—even the American judicial system does not require “incontrovertible” evidence of guilt, just evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  I suppose Mr. Kraft is upset that Aaron Hernandez won’t be playing for the Pats next season because there is not ‘incontrovertible” evidence he murdered three people.

Kraft basically wants a Ray Rice Second Video, and since there weren’t any surveillance cameras in the Patriot’s locker room (have they checked the visitor’s locker room?  Just a thought) then the Patriot’s must be acquitted.  First, there is substantial circumstantial evidence that prompted the author of the report to its conclusion; the failure of there to be a “smoking gun” does not mean the mountain of evidence that does exist should be ignored.

Second, as I said before when writing about Deflategate, it is a strict liability standard of care.  The rules do not make it an offense to let air out of a football; the rules say the balls SHALL be properly inflated, and the fact that 11 of the 12 Patriot’s balls tested as low is a de fact violation (the average pressure for the Patriot’s 12 balls was 11.11 PSI by one test, 11.49 by the other, for the Colts’ 4 balls that were tested the PSI averages were 12.63 and 12.44, with the minimum proper pressure being 12.5).

One of the arguments being forwarded by Patriot apologists is that there is no evidence that the Patriots benefitted from the deflated balls.  This is stretching.  Let’s say you rob a bank and walk out the door with $50,000; you hop in your get a way car and speed off, and rounding the first corner the loot flies out of the car window.  Are you now innocent of bank robbery because you didn’t benefit from having the $50,000?

Even if you don’t buy that line of reasoning, the fact is this is sports—if you THINK you have an advantage, then you have an advantage.  Sports psychologists charge big fees to convince athletes they have an advantage over their opponents.  If the Patriot’s personnel thought deflating balls would give them an edge (and why would they do it otherwise?), then they benefitted from the cheating.

I suppose you could argue that the Patriots were favored against the Colts and would have won anyway, therefore there was no benefit as the outcome is the same without the chicanery.  But the outcome of the game shouldn’t influence the rules the game is played under.  Do referees stop calling pass interference if a team is down by four touchdowns in the fourth quarter?  Does a team with a 20 point lead have to gain 15 yards for a first down?  Was Richard Nixon not guilty of the Watergate burglary because he won in a landslide?  I think not.  It’s like saying Barry Bonds gained no advantage from using steroids because he was a great player before shooting himself up to the size of a Macy’s Thanksgiving Day balloon.

The question now is the penalty phase.  I said before I felt that making the Patriots forfeit the game was appropriate, and I still do.  Of course several months have passed, and the Super Bowl could hardly be replayed given team roster changes.  I suspect the two Patriots not named Tom Brady will be thrown under the proverbial bus.  Brady will get a fine that he’ll pay with the residuals his wife gets from the 2008 Victoria’s Secret catalog. The Pats will probably skate by scott free, maybe perhaps losing a low round draft pick in 2017.  I would say Bill Belichick’s reputation is irrevocably sullied, but if anything this probably enhances it. 

The report says there was no knowledge of the wrongdoing by Belichick and Kraft, but a phrase used in college football is “lack of institutional control.”  People who work for Belichick probably know his definitions of “right” and “wrong’ have been flexible in the past, and operate under that perspective.  I was surprised that the NFL report named Tom Brady as a wrong-doer; maybe they’ll surprise me again and suspend him for multiple games.