Curiouser and Curiouser

There is no smoking gun. No evidence at all that Brady did what the NFL claims.  No evidence even that he was "generally aware" or that it is "more likely than not" that he was generally aware.

So, I don't get it.  Unless there is some October surprise, I do not get it.

Is Goodell a fool?  Can't believe that, though he has behaved foolishly.  There are so many questions about the NFL's behavior.

• Why has this taken so long? 
• Why go after a person whose behavior has been impeccable and is an NFL icon if there is no evidence of wrongdoing?  
• Once Goodell realized that there was no evidence, why didn't he put an end to the investigation--even if he felt in his gut that Brady was culpable? 
• Why did Goodell conduct an "independent" investigation that was clearly nothing of the sort?

And why are the other owners silent?  This has been a terrible distraction for the league. After the hearing on Wednesday the 12th, it became clear to anyone who looked at the transcript that the NFL had nothing, bubkas, and had drawn conclusions on the basis of logic that would be ridiculed in a middle school classroom.  Why have the owners not met collectively and then fired Goodell?  The owners are interested in the health of the NFL. The season is about to begin.  The league office looks goofy.

At the very least, the result of this nonsense will be a huge battle when it comes time to negotiate a new collective bargaining agreement.  Maybe a strike.  No owner wants that. 

So why haven't the owners stepped in to say Goodell got it wrong.

 I never went to law school, but if what I read from yesterday is the case, the only leg to stand on that the NFL has, is their right to unilaterally make rulings.  However, it would be myopic or arrogant to believe that that right would mean much if the ruling was so clearly inappropriate.  Sure, the judge might uphold the suspension on the grounds that the CBA allows for it, but how long would it be before Brady files a defamation suit that would be a sure winner in a court that does not hop and have a pouch.  

And what is this about, anyway?  The Patriots were winning 17-7 at the half. They inflated the balls. The Patriots won 41-7.  In the superbowl when the balls certainly were not tampered with, the Patriots prevailed with Brady playing impeccably. 

The judge is urging the sides to settle. If you were Brady--AND assuming you did nothing wrong-- what is to settle?  

Consider this scenario.  Someone accuses you of stealing 100 dollars from your wallet. You did not do it.  They form a commission that contends you stole the 100 dollars.  You deny it.  A judge comes in and finds that there is no evidence that you stole the 100 dollars.  

Would you settle and agree that you stole only twenty dollars just to end the matter?