Attacks on Tom Brady ban are 'ridiculous', says Deflategate investigator
|
Version 0 of 1. Ted Wells, the author of the report into the Deflategate scandal, has said there was direct evidence that led to Tom Brady’s four-game suspension. Both Brady’s team, the New England Patriots, and his agent, Don Yee, criticized the findings and subsequent four-game suspension handed down to Brady. Yee called the report an “incredibly frail exercise in fact-finding and logic”, and said Wells was compromised because of his law firm’s dealings with the NFL. Last week, Wells’s report found “it is more probable than not” that at least two New England Patriots employees improperly deflated footballs in the team’s AFC Championship win over the Indianapolis Colts and that Brady was “at least generally aware” of the wrongdoing. Related: Why Tom Brady's Deflategate ban may well help the New England Patriots “All of this discussion that people at the league office wanted to put some type of hit on the most popular, iconic player in the league, the real face of the league, it just doesn’t make any sense,” Wells said. “It’s really a ridiculous allegation. “What drove the decision in this report is one thing: It was the evidence. I could not ethically ignore the import and relevancy of those text messages and the other evidence.” Wells also rebutted claims the evidence against Brady was purely circumstantial. “[The texts are] not circumstantial evidence,” Wells said. “That is two of the participants in a scheme discussing what has taken place.” The Patriots were also fined $1m and stripped of two draft picks over the wrongdoing. Yee has said Brady will fight his suspension. “It is wrong to criticize my independence just because you disagree with my findings,” Wells said. “In my mind, the NFL certainly wasn’t hoping that I would come back with a report that would find that something happened wrong with the Patriots or Tom Brady. They wanted me to get to the bottom of the facts.” Wells said that Brady had generally been helpful in the investigation but had not turned over his phone for evidence. “[Brady] answered every question I put to him. He did not refuse to answer any questions,” Wells said. “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 in this case, as in most cases, come from people’s cell phones. I want to be crystal clear – I told Mr Brady and his agents I was willing to not take possession of the phone. “I said ‘I don’t want to see any private information. You keep the phone. You the agent, Mr Yee, you can look at the phone. You give me documents that are responsive to this investigation and I will take your word that you have given me what’s responsive.’ And they still refused.” |