#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[PhoSita]

  But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.

We can agree on this, then.  I'll say again, I think the Pats deserve a fine, and so does Brady.  Should have been a fine from the beginning and then let's move on.

Instead, we have a circus.

  I think that the circus is at least somewhat self inflicted on the Pat's side though.

I agree, the Patriots definitely made this all more difficult than it could have been.  Though then again, it seems their paranoia about how the league would handle all of this was not unfounded.  On the other hand, that same paranoia pretty obviously exacerbated things.

[BballTim]

"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".

Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.

You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?

  The pats were accused  of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.

  But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.

This is wrong

  It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.

Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.

  I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.

[Rondo2287]

"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".

Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.

You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?

  The pats were accused  of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.

  But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.

This is wrong

  It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.

Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.

  I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.

Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report

[BudweiserCeltic]

I have really gone full arc on this.  When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:

"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"

I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.

But if the first story was something more like:

"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"

I think this whole thing would be a very different story.

Same now with the Phone:

"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"

or if you believe Sally Jenkins:

"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information.  Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."

Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks.  Why??

  Wells didn't say he did not need any further phone related information. He said that he didn't need to see the phone himself, he just wanted them to provide information from the phone that was related to the investigation. Brady refused to provide the information and directed someone to destroy the phone.

This is Sally Jenkins version of the alleged statements:

Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.

Not even close to the way the NFL's leaks portrayed this.  That is my point.  The NFL is going out of their way to make it seem that Brady did not cooperate by "refusing" to give up his phone, then leaked that he "destroyed" his phone implying that this was further impeding the investigation.

Why didn't the NFL say what Well's said.  We don't need his phone and he has been "totally cooperative".

  This is from the Wells report:

"Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered
questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information
(including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited
to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game
balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady?s
counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive
materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady?s telephone or other electronic
devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in
Brady?s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the
discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation."

  Jenkins (and you) seem to be taking that out of context.

Wells did mention they were "totally cooperative" and voluntary, his direct words. At the same time he DOES make note that Brady refused to provide the requested electronic data... which Wells had NO right to in the first place. Which is the key in all of this.

So yes, Brady was cooperative to the extent that he was required to.

Again, the NFL had no right, even in a limited scope, to go through his private data in one form or another, and Brady setting precedent to make it OK for them to do so would've been idiotic.

[colincb]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html

What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?

Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.

Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?

Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.

[Jon]

Given all the leaks and evidence that suggests that the league was intentionally trying to turn the public's opinion against the Pats, I don't see why people aren't demanding to see the phones and internal emails of league employees including Roger Goodell. 

And before anyone goes crazy and compares this to an employee asking an employer to take the same drug test that he is, please keep in mind that Roger Goodell is not Brady's employer, Robert Kraft is. Goodell and other league officials are also employees. 

[Evantime34]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html

What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?

Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.

Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?

Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.

However, after the appeal Brady's lawyer said he provided the NFL with an "unprecedented" amount of electronic data. It seems like Brady was more cooperative during the appeals process but by that point the NLF wasn't trying to hear it. That makes me believe that the NFL was more concerned with getting a PR win than actually finding out what happened. The report is that had Brady admitted guilt his suspension would have been reduced. That screams, please vindicate us for wasting everyones time.

[Donoghus]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html

What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?

Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.

Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?

Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.

However, after the appeal Brady's lawyer said he provided the NFL with an "unprecedented" amount of electronic data. It seems like Brady was more cooperative during the appeals process but by that point the NLF wasn't trying to hear it. That makes me believe that the NFL was more concerned with getting a PR win than actually finding out what happened. The report is that had Brady admitted guilt his suspension would have been reduced. That screams, please vindicate us for wasting everyones time.

Wait.....the NFL would do this?  Noooooo   

[Moranis]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html

What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?

Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.

Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?

Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.

However, after the appeal Brady's lawyer said he provided the NFL with an "unprecedented" amount of electronic data. It seems like Brady was more cooperative during the appeals process but by that point the NLF wasn't trying to hear it. That makes me believe that the NFL was more concerned with getting a PR win than actually finding out what happened. The report is that had Brady admitted guilt his suspension would have been reduced. That screams, please vindicate us for wasting everyones time.

Or maybe the NFL is like the Court system and you can't bring up new evidence that was available at the time of the original action. 

If you fail to cooperate you get burned.  Period.

[BballTim]

"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".

Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.

You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?

  The pats were accused  of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.

  But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.

This is wrong

  It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.

Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.

  I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.

Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report

  Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.

[BudweiserCeltic]

"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".

Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.

You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?

  The pats were accused  of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.

  But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.

This is wrong

  It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.

Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.

  I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.

Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report

  Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.

The reasons for that has already been explained by Ideal Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.

[D.o.s.]

Or maybe the NFL is like the Court system and you can't bring up new evidence that was available at the time of the original action. 

If you fail to cooperate you get burned.  Period.

There seems to be some inconsistency about when the NFL is allowed to be held to the standards of a court (when it wants to crush players who step out of line, mostly) and when it doesn't (like when it needs to cooperate with the rules of evidence).

[Donoghus]

"the margin of error in the measurements will be larger than what they're trying to measure".

Clearly that was going to be the case, and obviously that's what happened.

You don't think that's a pretty serious problem when the NFL seeks to hand down one of the most severe punishments in the history of the league (picks + fines + suspension) for a violation it doesn't have the ability to prove even happened?

  The pats were accused  of doctoring the air pressure in their footballs by another team, and the (poorly done) pressure measurements seem to at least somewhat support the claim. Further investigation (which was probably warranted) uncovered some fairly incriminating texts.

  But the punishments do seem to be exceptionally severe for the infraction.

This is wrong

  It's obviously not wrong. If they'd measured the balls at halftime and the pats PSIs were within the allowable limits then it would have been unlikely that anything untoward happened. Measuring the balls and finding many of the pats balls below the allowable limit and none of the colts balls below the limit clearly seems to somewhat support the claim.

Ummm....except for the part in the Wells Report that showed 3 out the 4 balls from the Colts measured were under the minimum according to one gauge at halftime.

  I stand corrected. One of the colts balls was within range on both measurements, the other three were within range on one measurement. None of the pats balls were within range on either measurement. One of the 8 colts measurements was lower than the highest measurement of a pats ball, and 21 of the 22 measurements of the pats balls were lower than the lowest measurement for the colts balls. So that correction still doesn't really exonerate the pats.

Unless, the colts balls started at 13 psi instead of 12.5 as was WIDELY reported including by Walt Anderson in the wells report

  Do the math, the difference in the average between the pats and colts balls at halftime is probably well over that .5 psi starting difference.

The reasons for that has already been explained by Gas Law which indicated by the nature of them being measured after the Patriot's ones [and whatever time passed between them] was a factor for the increased PSI.

Yup.  There certainly can be a scientific explanation for it & this was also addressed in the Wells Report.   Up to 0.7 PSI in 13 minutes.

[BballTim]

I have really gone full arc on this.  When along with the rest of the NFL fandom, I heard:

"The Patriot's balls were 2 psi under the minimum of 12.5 psig (the "g" here is important) and McNally was shown on film going into a bathroom with the balls"

I thought, OK, wow, I can't believe my Pats did this.

But if the first story was something more like:

"The Pats balls do not appear to be measurably underinflated and McNally took the balls into a bathroom for 90 seconds"

I think this whole thing would be a very different story.

Same now with the Phone:

"Brady destroyed his phone to avoid having to turn over information, continuing his pattern of lack of cooperation with the investigation"

or if you believe Sally Jenkins:

"Wells stated that Brady cooperated fully with the investigation and Wells did not need any further phone related information.  Brady got a new phone and destroyed his old phone."

Context is very important and it is clear that the NFL is going out of their way to create the worst possible context for all of these leaks.  Why??

  Wells didn't say he did not need any further phone related information. He said that he didn't need to see the phone himself, he just wanted them to provide information from the phone that was related to the investigation. Brady refused to provide the information and directed someone to destroy the phone.

This is Sally Jenkins version of the alleged statements:

Wells never asked for Tom Brady’s cellphone and didn’t require it. “Keep the phone,” Wells told Brady and his agent. He insisted his investigation was thorough without it. “I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report,” he said. Those were his exact words. So were these, after interrogating Brady for more than five hours: “Totally cooperative,” Wells said of Brady’s testimony.

Not even close to the way the NFL's leaks portrayed this.  That is my point.  The NFL is going out of their way to make it seem that Brady did not cooperate by "refusing" to give up his phone, then leaked that he "destroyed" his phone implying that this was further impeding the investigation.

Why didn't the NFL say what Well's said.  We don't need his phone and he has been "totally cooperative".

  This is from the Wells report:

"Similarly, although Tom Brady appeared for a requested interview and answered
questions voluntarily, he declined to make available any documents or electronic information
(including text messages and emails) that we requested, even though those requests were limited
to the subject matter of our investigation (such as messages concerning the preparation of game
balls, air pressure of balls, inflation of balls or deflation of balls) and we offered to allow Brady?s
counsel to screen and control the production so that it would be limited strictly to responsive
materials and would not involve our taking possession of Brady?s telephone or other electronic
devices. Our inability to review contemporaneous communications and other documents in
Brady?s possession and control related to the matters under review potentially limited the
discovery of relevant evidence and was not helpful to the investigation."

  Jenkins (and you) seem to be taking that out of context.

Wells did mention they were "totally cooperative" and voluntary, his direct words. At the same time he DOES make note that Brady refused to provide the requested electronic data... which Wells had NO right to in the first place. Which is the key in all of this.

So yes, Brady was cooperative to the extent that he was required to.

Again, the NFL had no right, even in a limited scope, to go through his private data in one form or another, and Brady setting precedent to make it OK for them to do so would've been idiotic.

  While they note that Brady answered all of the questions voluntarily, they don't seem to believe that he answered all of the questions honestly, specifically his lack of any recollection of what he and Jastremski discussed in the days following the afc title game. While they'd view such answers as voluntary, I doubt they'd consider them to be full cooperation with the investigation.

[colincb]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/05/12/full-transcript-ted-wells-conference-call-deflategate-report/sweK5ADLDyhQjnaVBmJRtM/story.html

What about Tom Brady’s lack of cooperation? Did you view Tom Brady as not cooperating fully?

Wells: Mr. Brady, the report sets forth, he came to the interview, he answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions. In terms of the back and forth between Mr. Brady and my team, he was totally cooperative. At the same time, he refused to permit us to review electronic data from his telephone or other instruments. Most of the key evidence, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones and he refused to let us review the phone and I want to be crystal clear. I told Mr. Brady and his agent I did not, I was willing not to take possession of the phone. I said I don’t want to see any private information, I said you keep the phone. You the agent, Mr. Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive. And they still refused.

Does the lack of cooperation from Brady to turn over the texts, the emails and then the lack of cooperation from the Patriots to produce McNally for a follow up, what kind of holes can that create in your report?

Wells: I don’t think it undermines in any way the conclusions of the report. I do believe that if I had had access to Brady’s electronic messages and if I had received all of the messages that it might have yielded additional insights into what happened and I think that would have been good for everybody regardless of what it showed. and I think it’s disappointing that they would say on one hand they are cooperating and yet refuse to give me access to the electronic data. I mean as I said a few minutes ago, most of the evidence in a huge number of cases today is based on a review of electronic data, be it text messages, emails, what have you. That’s just how our society has evolved. So the notion that you are going to say you’re cooperating but I won’t let you look at perhaps the most fruitful area of evidence I think is inconsistent.

However, after the appeal Brady's lawyer said he provided the NFL with an "unprecedented" amount of electronic data. It seems like Brady was more cooperative during the appeals process but by that point the NLF wasn't trying to hear it. That makes me believe that the NFL was more concerned with getting a PR win than actually finding out what happened. The report is that had Brady admitted guilt his suspension would have been reduced. That screams, please vindicate us for wasting everyones time.

Or maybe the NFL is like the Court system and you can't bring up new evidence that was available at the time of the original action. 

If you fail to cooperate you get burned.  Period.

So Goodell said he was willing to hear new information, but he really didn't mean it?