Patriots Blast NFL in Their Own Scathing DeflateGate Report

The Patriots released their own report on Thursday in response to last week's "DeflateGate" report, and it was quite caustic -- all 19,000 words.

The NFL's investigation led  by Ted Wells, concluded with a 243-page report which claimed that "it was more probable than not" that Patriot personnel tampered with game footballs used in January's AFC Championship game, and that Tom Brady was "at least generally aware" that the tampering took place.  The report led to a harsh penalty by the NFL; a 4-game suspension for Brady, a forfeiture of 2 draft picks by the team, and a fine of $1 million.

In response, Brady lawyered up, and Patriots' owner Robert Kraft lashed out at NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, exclaiming “Despite our conviction that there was no tampering with footballs, it was our intention to accept any discipline levied by the league. Today’s punishment, however, far exceeded any reasonable expectation. It was based completely on circumstantial rather than hard or conclusive evidence." He added, "Tom Brady has our unconditional support. Our belief in him has not wavered."

Thursday's response, entitled "The Wells Report in Context," has its own dedicated website, and was drafted by Patriots' lawyer Daniel Goldberg of the Boston firm Morgan Lewis. Goldberg was present during all of the interviews of Patriots personnel conducted at Gillette Stadium.

Wells Report In Context: Executive Summary

“The conclusions of the Wells Report are, at best, incomplete, incorrect and lack context. The Report dismisses the scientific explanation for the natural loss of psi of the Patriots footballs by inexplicably rejecting the Referee’s recollection of what gauge he used in his pregame inspection. Texts acknowledged to be attempts at humor and exaggeration are nevertheless interpreted as a plot to improperly deflate footballs, even though none of them refer to any such plot. There is no evidence that Tom Brady preferred footballs that were lower than 12.5 psi and no evidence anyone even thought that he did. All the extensive evidence which contradicts how the texts are interpreted by the investigators is simply dismissed as ‘not plausible.’ Inconsistencies in logic and evidence are ignored.”


Read the entire report here.