Wells defends Patriots investigation; Kraft Fumes
By The Associated Press
Reporting by Matt Blanchette
Miffed by criticism from Brady’s agent, Ted Wells decided to take the unusual step of holding a conference call with reporters, a day after the NFL suspended the Super Bowl MVP for the season’s first four games based on the report.
Wells said his findings would have been strong enough to convince a jury under the “preponderance of evidence” standard, which is used in many civil cases.
Wells released his report last Wednesday, asserting it was “more probable than not” that Brady “was at least generally aware” of plans by two team employees to prepare the balls to his liking, below the league-mandated minimum of 12.5 pounds per square inch.
His voice frequently rising, Wells testily rebutted assertions from Don Yee, Brady’s agent, questioning Wells’ independence because his firm does other business with the NFL.
“What drove the decision in this report is one thing: It was the evidence,” Wells said. “I could not ethically ignore the import and relevancy of those text messages and the other evidence.”
Sports Illustrated senior NFL writer Greg Bedard say Pats owner Robert Kraft is fuming behind closed doors.
“They are beyond furious there especially Robert Kraft,” This time it’s personal. Now that they have been assailed in this report and in the punishment leveled by the NFL, he is irate.“
Bedard says outside of legal action the Patriots cannot fight their punishment, but he expects Brady will appeal.
“I think Tom Brady has a strong case to get his suspension cut in half… at least if not completely vacated by the right arbitrator.“
Wells specifically mentioned two series of text exchanges between officials’ locker room attendant Jim McNally and equipment assistant John Jastremski. In one, McNally referred to himself as “the deflator” and joked about going to ESPN. In another, Jastremski mentioned speaking to Brady the previous night, saying the quarterback knew McNally was stressed out by needing to deflate the balls.
“That is not circumstantial evidence,” Wells said. “That is two of the participants in a scheme discussing what has taken place.”