Report just released, Pats likely cheated by deflating balls

I really do think you are a nice guy but when it comes to this topic you are delusional or in denial. Your team cheats. I had to step back and see that Suh was dirty, maybe you need to step back and face facts. I do not expect you will. I expect you to keep believing we all are jealous haters.

As many super bowls? Great coach and owner?Envious? Not hardly, I'm a Steeler fan, Pats are in our rearview mirror. Anything but envious.
I would be rather embarrassed if Any the Steeler victory's had such a culture of cheating. I've looked down on the Patsies since they were caught videotaping Steeler practices right before that one AFC championship game. The Steelers were such a better team and probably would've won if the Pats hadn't cheated.

Pats first earned * ,but not to be their last.

EDIT TO ADD: I will give the owner a nod for sure, Kraft seems to be a pretty classy guy, but Belichecks win at all costs, which includes not bending the rules but actually breaking them is what gives the team a big ol' black eye. Fan or not, it's reality and nothing can change it.

Those who are willing to lie and cheat will always lie and cheat when they believe it benefits them. Honest folks are wired differently, and possess a moral compass which prevents such lying and cheating.

With all the money out there in pro sports, it's probably surprising this didn't happen a few years sooner. It also makes you wonder how many others cheated, we just never found out about it.

Tim

So the verdict is .......... "it is more probable than not"


That is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", and there is no proof.

I'd hate to have some of you on a jury.


Rick

The text messages are very damning. I'm guessing before it is over, Brady will confess.

Uh, did you see the text messages, there is no defense to those. None. They told the story of almost exactly what happened.

I believe the "more probable than not" terminology actual carries some weight as regards civil suits, and it would be enough to justify a punishment. That specific phrase was chosen for a reason.

------------------

To the non-lawyer, the money quotes from the Ted Wells report suggest a mere probability that cheating occurred. But the specific terminology used by Wells actually indicates a belief that the evidence satisfies one of the most common standards used in a court of law.

“More probable than not” equates to a “preponderance of the evidence,” the standard that applies in most civil lawsuits. It means that the evidence makes it more likely than not, in the opinion of the investigator, that “New England Patriots personnel participated in violations of the Playing Rules and were involved in a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules,” and that “Tom Brady . . . was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities.”

That’s a standard perhaps even higher than the one that applies to players accused of violating the Personal Conduct Policy, where “credible corroborating evidence” (even without cooperation from the alleged victim) can result in a significant suspension. Regardless, it’s enough proof on which the NFL can base punishment of a team.

“Too often, competitive violations have gone unpunished because conclusive proof of the violation was lacking,” Commissioner Roger Goodell wrote to the NFL’s Competition Committee in 2008, after the last game-integrity infraction involving the Patriots. “I believe we should reconsider the standard of proof to be applied in such cases, and make it easier for a competitive violation to be established.”

Although there was nothing easy about the Wells investigation, his decision that a preponderance of the evidence points to a deliberate effort to circumvent the rules gives Goodell the green light to impose discipline.

Still, the use of the term “more probable than not” takes some of the sting out of the finding by allowing non-lawyers to believe that, as Patriots owner Robert Kraft has always said, there was no hard evidence of cheating. When it comes to issues of this nature, hard evidence isn’t needed to justify a stringent punishment.

There will be no jury as the NFL is not a court of law.