Were you surprised that, despite Brady testifying under oath and risking perjury charges, (at least one of) the judges didn't find him a 'credible witness', disbelieving what he said?

However, it did seem as if the NFL was given short shrift in terms of the importance of ball pressure, something illustrated by the second half scoring the AFCCG and Brady's touchdown-two-interception ratio this past season. I think it was Katzmann who seemed very sceptical about the importance of 2 psi to a game of football compared to Stickum and PEDs.

Could this have been a case of the judges wanting clarification on issues from the written briefs they were uncertain of/wanted to explore, with the oral arguments comprising a small percentage of the decision-making process compared to the written material?

Excellent article, thank you.

How important is the addition of Paul Clement to the NFL's legal team? It seems they have almost gone with a new team of attorneys for the appeals hearing, with Clement as the 'Star attraction' (referred to as the LeBron James of the group) due to the number of cases he has argued before Scotus and previous position as US solicitor general. In contrast, Brady/NFLPA have retained the same counsel which appeared successfully in front of Judge Berman. As such, is continuity important when dealing with the same facts, cases and precedent, or can a fresh set of eyes and gifted orator make a big difference?

Also, what if the Eighth Circuit rules whilst the Second Circuit is deliberating, delivering a strongly worded opinion in favour of one side? (The length of time between the case and the pending ruling suggests a very lengthy opinion/ruling, which would act as precedent in any new argument, written or oral, and is presumably watertight.)

Is it a possibility that the NFL knew the Wells Report was junk and wanted Brady to sign off on it in order to save face, knowing that if he didn't, there was a chance Judge Berman would rule in their favour anyway?

I hope this won't happen, but could the NFL head office/Roger Goodell decide to blame everything on poor legal representation and make scapegoats of Ted Wells, Jeff Pash, Daniel Nash and Lorin Reisner – basically moving on from Paul, Weiss – rather than admit it made a mountain out of a molehill, as Jonathan Kraft suggested, introducing a disciplinary process with the appeals away from Park Avenue? In any case, the work done by Ted Wells and Jeff Pash on the Report and the advice (PR man and certainly no lawyer) Roger Goodell received (from immediately after the AFC Championship Game to the settlement hearings in front of Judge Berman) was terrible. At times Daniel Nash was trying to defend the indefensible.

Thank you for the annotations – they were very helpful – and the overall transcript and context.

Is it too late for such an interaction? Surely the more the owners know about how thoroughly bodged this 'investigation' was, and how it is similar to previous prosecutorial investigations (BountyGate, BullyGate etc.) means that, unless Goodell is completely chastised in court and by owners who, like John Mara, who may have been enlightened by what took place in Judge Berman's chambers, another -Gate will take place before Goodell is up for re-election in 2017.

I completely understand that owners are in a bubble of their own, almost entirely focused on how their own team functions on the field, and the players off it, rather than taking the big picture approach and doing what the Commissioner should do, which is looking out for the NFL as a whole.

Just going by Twitter, it seems there are no shortage of lawyers around the country with affiliations to one team or another who could do worse than spending an hour writing a letter to the team owner expressing their concerns from the perspective of an attorney and football fan. It would carry more weight than a letter from someone with no legal training. Of course, if Goodell was doing his job and not being 'The Enforcer', there would be no need for such action. In this case, it would be very much closing the stable door after the horse has bolted but, if it can prevent future débâcles, it'd be worth it. Just going from the 'Wells Report in Context' and the e-mails to and from the Patriots (Stacey James and Robyn Glaser), if the owner doesn't read the correspondence, the people responsible for media relations and advising the owner on legal matters might and pass the information on if they consider it relevant/interesting.

For example, if every owner (or their counsel) read your blog, the league would be more likely to settle and better prepared for any future scandal.

Don't McNair's comments, and the fact he spoke with Goodell that morning, show the reverence in which the owners hold the commissioner and the information (or misinformation) coming from 345 Park Avenue, whether directly or indirectly through media outlets such as ESPN?

The owners should be deeply concerned about the long-term implications about this case – whichever way it goes – and appraise themselves of the information as deeply and as fully as possible. If, for example, something like this did happen to J.J. Watt, McNair should know who to trust, who to ignore and how to approach the media. In terms of the law, ignorance is no excuse, so the owners would be wise not to be so naïve.

A couple of questions about the Letter from NFL attorney Daniel Nash, which appears to indicate they are very worried about not making Jeff Pash available for questioning at Brady's arbitration hearing:
- I know the law can often be a matter of semantics, and second-guessing Judge Berman is impossible, but is the word 'crucial' of particular importance, or is withholding a witness enough?
– As regards Jeff Pash, Isn't the contents of edits to the Wells Report 'crucial' and 'pertinent and material' and, at the arbitration, of particular interest to the NFLPA? I know the NFL would try to dismiss that because they aren't obligated to give an independent investigation, but it did seem like Berman was zoning in on Jeff Pash not being available for cross-examination.

Excellent work as always in making this stuff digestible for those of us without a law degree. I don't think some fans (possibly most fans) realise how much is at stake for the players because if the NFL wins, the league office can basically do what it wants and punish how it wants without any fear of legal redress. Perhaps predictably enough, blind allegiance to a particular team and hatred of the Patriots is preventing people looking below the surface and realising this could happen to their star quarterback/linebacker/defensive end/wide receiver/tight end (delete as applicable) so, for the good of football, the NFLPA has to prevail. Conversely, the NFL can settle and Article 46 is still in place and with the same sweeping powers until the CBA is renegotiated in 2020.

I have a couple of questions, which aren't particularly related:
- As Tom Brady can't accept the findings of the Wells Report without committing perjury, and seemingly will only accept a fine (no suspension) for some degree of non-cooperation, even though what he did wasn't compulsory under the CBA, is there any way that at this stage and the stakes being so high personally for Roger Goodell that the NFL would accept a settlement with Brady being fined but serving no suspension? Does the fact/rumour that some owners now want DeflateGate to just go away, while others want Brady to be hit hard (to affirm the power balance in the NFL) make a settlement more likely the longer this drags out, particularly into September?
- If there is going to be any defamation legal action from the Patriots, could it be directed directly at Jeff Pash rather than the NFL as a whole? Because the e-mails sent between the Patriots and the NFL were (mostly) between Stacey James/Robyn Glaser and Jeff Pash, could he be held personally responsible for the misinformation being left in the public eye without any correction and therefore malicious?

What is your best guess as to Judge Berman's thoughts on Loren Reisner and Jeff Pash in terms of their influence on the Wells Report, acting as counsel to the NFL when cross-examining Brady, being part of the same law firm as Ted Wells and yet insisting the Wells Report was independent? Is it unethical?

Thanks for your analysis and the links to other related articles on the transcript breakdown, which I had already read this morning. I couldn't figure out why Roger Goodell said he didn't believe Tom Brady even though he risked a federal court hearing by testifying under oath, with any lie potentially resulting in a prosecution for perjury. As I understand it, the same thing happened to Joe Vitt in the BountyGate investigation and hearings/appeal.

I suppose my question is if you think Roger Goodell generally has massive trust issues or whether nothing could convince him that (in this case) Tom Brady was telling the truth when testifying under oath. Surely the onus is on Brady to be as truthful as possible, especially when asked closed questions where the answer is either yes or no.