Dear Mr. Ted Wells,
Let's start with this disclaimer: I'm from Boston. I grew up a Patriots fan. The fan in me wants to believe the Pats are clean. But as far as Deflategate is concerned, the person in me that has a brain thinks something screwy probably went on. I believed that before the release of your report, and I still believe it now; it just makes the most sense.
Thing is, I don't know what happened . . . and neither do you. But I do know you were supposedly hired to investigate what went on. Instead, all you've told us is you think it's "more probable than not" that the Patriots "generally" may have done something to the footballs. Based on that "probability", Tom Brady has been suspended for four games and the Patriots organization has been slapped with the biggest penalty in the history of professional football.
Naturally, I have a lot of questions but -- unfortunately -- I wasn't invited to sit in on your conference call yesterday with select members of the media. I did listen in and found you to be very entertaining. The tough guy of Torts. I particularly liked your "Who is Karim Garcia?"-type dismissal of Tom Brady's agent, Don Yee.
However, had I been invited to the call, here are the questions I would have asked:
-- Just because you reject the notion that you're biased, does that mean you aren't? If you are biased, would you tell us?
-- If you'd been hired to represent the NFL before, isn't that an inherent conflict whether or not the Patriots complained about it beforehand?
-- Tell us a little bit about the consulting firm Exponent and what it is they were hired to do. In light of what's been reported, would you characterize them as neutral or independent?
-- You said you were able to draw your conclusions that it was "more probable than not" that the Patriots cheated and that you feel you made a compelling case in your report. Why, then, did you need Brady's phone, or another interview with Jim McNally, when you already believed there was a preponderance of evidence suggesting they were guilty? Wouldn't you say the cooperation they did provide actually helped make the case against them?
-- How did handing over a cell phone turn out for Richie Incognito? His punishment was almost solely the result of what he wrote in text messages.
-- In a civil trial, you get to hear from both sides. How can the NFL come to a decision based solely on your report when you didn't include a single word of testimony from Brady, McNally or John Jastremski?
-- What did Brady, McNally and Jastremski say when you asked them about the texts? Isn't that something that everyone -- literally -- would like to know?
-- If, as you say, the NFL didn't take the complaint seriously at first, and then launched what proved to a 103-day investigation, do you think maybe they should have taken it seriously? If it wasn't serious before, why was it serious during and after?
-- When referring to the publishing of Brady's notes, you said they wouldn't change your decision. Why did you use the word "decision"? Were you hired to make a decision, or were you hired to investigate what went on and objectively present your findings?
-- Did you ask the Colts if they deflated the ball they intercepted? If so, what did they say?
-- You say it wasn't a sting operation, but how can you be sure? Did you ask anyone on the Colts for their phones? How about anyone from the NFL? Mike Kensil, perhaps? If there was a preconceived plan to trap the Patriots, wouldn't the information on their phones be relevant?
-- You say officials were made aware of ball deflation well before the game. The head of officiating, Dean Blandino, says the issue was first raised during the game. Which is it?
-- If the officials had been notified ahead of time, how was McNally able to walk into that room, grab a bag of 12 footballs, and then just walk out?
-- If Blandino lied, is it reasonable to conclude it was to cover up a sting?
-- You said on your conference call that the Patriots were all over you from Day 1. In what way?
-- Do you think it's okay that only 4 of the 12 Colts balls were measured?
-- Is it right to assume that the mere act of Brady communicating with McNally and Jastremski is indicative of guilt? Even if he had nothing to do with this at all, don't you think he would still want to talk to them afterwards just to see what happened?
Again, guilty? Maybe. Heck, I don’t know. Probably.
But based on the report, and all the questions it raised, I'm only able to conclude the following: It's more probable than not the league wanted to catch the Patriots in the act. It's more probable than not this investigation would not have taken place if it was any team but the Patriots. It's more probable than not the outcome of this investigation was a foregone conclusion the moment you were hired.
It's also more probable than not that your report will be torn to pieces during the appeals process. And it's more probable than not that you know it.
Sincerely,
John Zannis
John Zannis serves as the Executive Producer of Chevrolet SportsNet Central on Comcast SportsNet.[/b]
Let's start with this disclaimer: I'm from Boston. I grew up a Patriots fan. The fan in me wants to believe the Pats are clean. But as far as Deflategate is concerned, the person in me that has a brain thinks something screwy probably went on. I believed that before the release of your report, and I still believe it now; it just makes the most sense.
Thing is, I don't know what happened . . . and neither do you. But I do know you were supposedly hired to investigate what went on. Instead, all you've told us is you think it's "more probable than not" that the Patriots "generally" may have done something to the footballs. Based on that "probability", Tom Brady has been suspended for four games and the Patriots organization has been slapped with the biggest penalty in the history of professional football.
Naturally, I have a lot of questions but -- unfortunately -- I wasn't invited to sit in on your conference call yesterday with select members of the media. I did listen in and found you to be very entertaining. The tough guy of Torts. I particularly liked your "Who is Karim Garcia?"-type dismissal of Tom Brady's agent, Don Yee.
However, had I been invited to the call, here are the questions I would have asked:
-- Just because you reject the notion that you're biased, does that mean you aren't? If you are biased, would you tell us?
-- If you'd been hired to represent the NFL before, isn't that an inherent conflict whether or not the Patriots complained about it beforehand?
-- Tell us a little bit about the consulting firm Exponent and what it is they were hired to do. In light of what's been reported, would you characterize them as neutral or independent?
-- You said you were able to draw your conclusions that it was "more probable than not" that the Patriots cheated and that you feel you made a compelling case in your report. Why, then, did you need Brady's phone, or another interview with Jim McNally, when you already believed there was a preponderance of evidence suggesting they were guilty? Wouldn't you say the cooperation they did provide actually helped make the case against them?
-- How did handing over a cell phone turn out for Richie Incognito? His punishment was almost solely the result of what he wrote in text messages.
-- In a civil trial, you get to hear from both sides. How can the NFL come to a decision based solely on your report when you didn't include a single word of testimony from Brady, McNally or John Jastremski?
-- What did Brady, McNally and Jastremski say when you asked them about the texts? Isn't that something that everyone -- literally -- would like to know?
-- If, as you say, the NFL didn't take the complaint seriously at first, and then launched what proved to a 103-day investigation, do you think maybe they should have taken it seriously? If it wasn't serious before, why was it serious during and after?
-- When referring to the publishing of Brady's notes, you said they wouldn't change your decision. Why did you use the word "decision"? Were you hired to make a decision, or were you hired to investigate what went on and objectively present your findings?
-- Did you ask the Colts if they deflated the ball they intercepted? If so, what did they say?
-- You say it wasn't a sting operation, but how can you be sure? Did you ask anyone on the Colts for their phones? How about anyone from the NFL? Mike Kensil, perhaps? If there was a preconceived plan to trap the Patriots, wouldn't the information on their phones be relevant?
-- You say officials were made aware of ball deflation well before the game. The head of officiating, Dean Blandino, says the issue was first raised during the game. Which is it?
-- If the officials had been notified ahead of time, how was McNally able to walk into that room, grab a bag of 12 footballs, and then just walk out?
-- If Blandino lied, is it reasonable to conclude it was to cover up a sting?
-- You said on your conference call that the Patriots were all over you from Day 1. In what way?
-- Do you think it's okay that only 4 of the 12 Colts balls were measured?
-- Is it right to assume that the mere act of Brady communicating with McNally and Jastremski is indicative of guilt? Even if he had nothing to do with this at all, don't you think he would still want to talk to them afterwards just to see what happened?
Again, guilty? Maybe. Heck, I don’t know. Probably.
But based on the report, and all the questions it raised, I'm only able to conclude the following: It's more probable than not the league wanted to catch the Patriots in the act. It's more probable than not this investigation would not have taken place if it was any team but the Patriots. It's more probable than not the outcome of this investigation was a foregone conclusion the moment you were hired.
It's also more probable than not that your report will be torn to pieces during the appeals process. And it's more probable than not that you know it.
Sincerely,
John Zannis
John Zannis serves as the Executive Producer of Chevrolet SportsNet Central on Comcast SportsNet.[/b]
