Tom Brady was at least "generally" aware that the footballs he was using in the AFC Championship game were not inflated correctly, according to findings in a report following months of investigations into the "Deflategate" incident. Brady's agent, Don Yee, was unsurprisingly critical of the final report.
Tom Brady’s agent calls DeflateGate report ‘terrible disappointment’
Don Yee was not thrilled with the findings of the report, and he made that clear with a statement Thursday morning.
Yee responded Thursday morning to the findings by Ted Wells and didn’t mince any words in the process.
“The Wells report, with all due respect, is a significant and terrible disappointment. It’s omission of key facts and lines of inquiry suggest the investigators reached a conclusion first, and then determined so-called facts later,” Yee said in a prepared statement.
Yee goes on to indicate that the NFL's ethics are brought into question, indicating "the league cooperated with the Colts in perpetrating a sting operation." He also calls into question the law firm that handled the investigation.
“The league is a significant client of the investigators’ law firm; it appears to be a rich source of billings and media exposure based on content in the law firm’s website. This was not an independent investigation and the contents of the report bear that out -- all one has to do is read closely and critically, as opposed to simply reading headlines,” Yee stated.
Yee also suggested the investigators weren’t well versed enough in professional football to be leading the investigation, stating, “It is a sad day for the league as it has abdicated the resolution of football-specific issues to people who don’t understand the context or culture of the sport.”
Yee's statement comes as no surprise, as it's obvious that damage control for the Patriots and for his client is needed at this point, especially when it comes to money-making sponsorships.
Here is Yee’s entire statement:
The Wells report, with all due respect, is a significant and terrible disappointment. It’s omission of key facts and lines of inquiry suggest the investigators reached a conclusion first, and then determined so-called facts later. One item alone taints this entire report. What does it say about the league office’s protocols and ethics when it allows one team to tip it off to an issue prior to a championship game, and no league officials or game officials notified the Patriots of the same issue prior to the game? This suggests it may be more probable than not that the league cooperated with the Colts in perpetrating a sting operation. The Wells report buries this issue in a footnote on page 46 without any further elaboration. The league is a significant client of the investigators’ law firm; it appears to be a rich source of billings and media exposure based on content in the law firm’s website. This was not an independent investigation and the contents of the report bear that out - all one has to do is read closely and critically, as opposed to simply reading headlines. The investigators’ assumptions and inferences are easily debunked or subject to multiple interpretations. Much of the report’s vulnerabilities are buried in the footnotes, which is a common legal writing tactic. It is a sad day for the league as it has abdicated the resolution of football-specific issues to people who don’t understand the context or culture of the sport. I was physically present for my client’s interview. I have verbatim notes of the interview. Tom made himself available for nearly an entire day and patiently answered every question. It was clear to me the investigators had limited understanding of professional football. For reasons unknown, the Wells report omitted nearly all of Tom’s testimony, most of which was critical because it would have provided this report with the context that it lacks. Mr. Wells promised back in January to share the results of this investigation publicly, so why not follow through and make public all of the information gathered and let the public draw its own conclusions? This report contains significant and tragic flaws, and it is common knowledge in the legal industry that reports like this generally are written for the benefit of the purchaser.
See More:
