[CornFed]

One last point
The evidence in the report is not "beyond reasonable doubt".  In a court of law, it would certainly not be enough to convict Brady, and probably not be enough to convict McNally and Jastremski of anything beyond violating pre-game protocol.  The Wells report could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt than in the minute forty seconds that McNally was in the bathroom with the balls, that he took a needle and let some air out of them.  That being said, the NFL is not a court of law, and the term "more likely than not" carries a specific meaning in the NFL and is the standard used to apply sanctions.  What those sanctions will be, I don't know; for Brady it is possible that the loss of reputation is enough.  Part of me hopes the league brings down the hammer on Brady and the Pats because what they did, was so galling.  But it wasn't so material, so that's the balance that the league office will need to make.


While criminal trials require prosecutors to establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", civil trials would be able to reach judgment against the Patriots on a "more likely than not" standard.  At least that is my understanding from watching Perry Mason.  That and I stayed at a Marriott last night (or whatever hotel chain that ad is from).  In any case, it seems more appropriate to apply the standard from a civil suit (or a War of Agression suit) rather than that of a criminal litigation.

[CornFed]

One last point
The evidence in the report is not "beyond reasonable doubt".  In a court of law, it would certainly not be enough to convict Brady, and probably not be enough to convict McNally and Jastremski of anything beyond violating pre-game protocol.  The Wells report could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt than in the minute forty seconds that McNally was in the bathroom with the balls, that he took a needle and let some air out of them.  That being said, the NFL is not a court of law, and the term "more likely than not" carries a specific meaning in the NFL and is the standard used to apply sanctions.  What those sanctions will be, I don't know; for Brady it is possible that the loss of reputation is enough.  Part of me hopes the league brings down the hammer on Brady and the Pats because what they did, was so galling.  But it wasn't so material, so that's the balance that the league office will need to make.


While criminal trials require prosecutors to establish guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt", civil trials would be able to reach judgment against the Patriots on a "more likely than not" standard.  At least that is my understanding from watching Perry Mason.  That and I stayed at a Marriott last night (or whatever hotel chain that ad is from).  In any case, it seems more appropriate to apply the standard from a civil suit (or a War of Agression suit) rather than that of a criminal litigation.