Deflategate? B.S.

Ok, so you knew this was coming.

I'll start off by saying that I try not to be a Boston sports homer. I try to stay as level headed as possible. I don't always succeed. Do I think the footballs in question were potentially under inflated on purpose? Yes, it is absolutely possible. It would be naïve of me to think otherwise. NFL teams, and pro teams in general, always try to push the envelope of the rules to gain any advantage they can. "Gamesmanship" is as old as sport itself. That said, and I cannot emphasize this enough, I do not believe that Tom Brady told the ball boys to break any rules, nor do I think the Wells report proved any intentional impropriety. There are too many holes in the investigative process to justify this punishment. Let's look at a couple key points.

First and foremost, in my opinion, the most crucial piece of information is not included anywhere in the report. What was the exact psi of both the Patriots' and Colts' footballs when measured by Walt Anderson prior to the AFC Championship Game? This info is at the crux of the entire issue and the report relies on Anderson's recollection as opposed to any documentation. I don't know much about Walt Anderson, other than he is a 19 year veteran NFL official and has a pretty good reputation. That said, doesn't he have a vested interest in protecting his professional reputation? If he came out and said he didn't properly measure prior to the game, wouldn't he now be the one under fire? That is a huge issue to me as far as credibility goes. The other issue with the lack of documented pregame numbers is that the report later asserts that the Patriots' footballs decreased in pressure to a greater degree than the Colts' footballs. Again, relying upon Anderson's recollection of the numbers instead of documented fact. It's very easy to manipulate facts without a starting point being written down. Do I think it is a conspiracy and Anderson hates the Patriots? Absolutely not, but I do feel that there is an inherent interest in protecting his own reputation and image and therefore a conflict of interest in his recollection.

The second issue is that Roger Goodell was asked at his Super Bowl press conference about whether the NFL had ever tested air pressure during halftime of any game in the league's history. Goodell replied that he couldn't say whether they had or hadn't, which to me suggests the latter. If it were common practice, then the Commissioner would have said so. That said, there once again is no reference point (scientists call it a control group) for comparison. During the course of a game, footballs are thrown with great force, hit with helmets as defenders attempt to knock it loose, spiked in celebration, and fallen on by very large men, sometimes several of them at a time. How do we know that any of the above don't or can't affect the psi of the footballs? In short, we can't because they've never measured them before and have no way to show the allegedly decrease in pressure was abnormal.

Also at issue is the fact that 2 separate gauges were used at halftime, showing two different measurements for each of the measured footballs (12 Patriots', 4 Colts'). 2 men using 2 different gauges came up with 2 different measurements each time. The report states that Anderson can't remember which gauge he used pregame versus which he used at halftime. He thinks he used one, but the report asserts that he must have used the other. Again, why? If you're going to rely on his recollection for the baseline psi numbers, why are you then going to refute his recollection of which gauge he used? Because it makes the alleged drop in pressure seem more egregious and damning.

Let's move on to the supposedly incriminating text messages between McNally and Jastremski. (Bird and JJ, respectively.) These texts are taken completely out of context, and we're supposed to take them at face value, with no potential for hyperbole or sarcasm. I read those messages as two guys bitching about their boss. We all do it and we all know other people who do to. How does this prove anything? Yes, McNally referred to himself as "The Deflator." Does this mean Brady told him to set an illegal pressure? Is it outside the realm of reasonable possibility that Brady was upset about game balls not being up to his liking, yelled about it because he wanted them at the minimum level, and the two guys joking about that? If he likes them at 12.5 psi and got them at 13.5 or 14 or 16, wouldn't the name Deflator still apply? Why is this nickname taken to mean something nefarious was going on? Also, nowhere in those text messages does it state that Brady wants the balls set at a particular psi, legal or otherwise. In fact, the only reference to a specific psi was when one of them was lamenting how "the refs f**ked us" by inflating the balls to 16 psi, which he found when he measured them the next day. So, are we to believe that the guy who was allegedly deflating footballs after the refs measure them left them at such a high level?

Now comes Tom Brady. The report states that he lied when he stated that he didn't know McNally, whose nickname around the locker room is bird. You all have known me for years as H. If it wasnt for Facebook friendships, many of you wouldn't know my real name. If someone asked you, "Hey, how's Mike Hilario doing, you might think you don't know me. I have had friends from the music and bar scene who had known me for years without knowing my real name. So if they said they didn't know me, would that make them liars?

As far as the cell phone issue, I can understand Brady not wanting to give his phone to investigators. Like all of us, he likely has personal information on there, conversations with his wife and family, and other potentially sensitive, unrelated information on his phone. With the number of leaks that came out of the NFL offices and other sources in this and other recent investigations, I can understand the concern that personal info could be leaked to the public. We all remember the iCloud hack of not long ago. Is it possible that Brady has similar type of material on his phone? That is only one of literally hundreds of possibilities that could make someone want to hold onto their phone. I don't think his refusal is an admission of guilt. Other than this one area, Brady cooperated fully with the investigation, and the report states as much.

I could go on, but I think I've sufficiently poked enough holes in the report on which the NFL relied upon to determine their punishment of Brady and the Patriots Organization. How you can turn around and justify such a steep penalty using this flawed document is mind boggling. I reference again a quote from page 228 of the report. "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain." Case closed. The report also states that Bill Belichick and the Patriots likely did not know of any tampering that may have occurred.

This penalty is simply an overreaction and response to public pressure and outcry. The NFL botched the initial punishments for Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, and Greg Hardy last season. With the Rice suspension specifically, the initial 2 game suspension was only increased after TMZ released the footage from the elevator, which the NFL to this day denies seeing before that day. After the public outcry, Rice's suspension was increased in length. So, rather than risk another misstep, the NFL released the report last week, waited to gauge public sentiment, and then determined punishment. That is absolutely ridiculous and unfair scapegoating of Tom Brady and the Patriots.

I know I'm going to get slammed for this whole thing, but the point is the NFL doesn't have the evidence required for such a harsh penalty. I really hope that this another case where the NFL loses on appeal, but in general I am very disappointed and surprised about what has transpired here.

Here are my political beliefs

So with the debate last night and all the commentary this morning, I find myself truly wondering who I will vote for. I will start by saying I am actually registered as an independent, though I have more Republican leanings than Democratic. So here we go.

I believe in Freedom. Yes, that sounds very broad, I know, but I believe each of us should have as much freedom to pursue our lives and happiness as possible. There should be as little government interference in that as possible. Government should be there to help the people and keep them safe, regulate those industries that could cause us harm and, most importantly, help every citizen prosper.

I believe in Capitalism. This country was founded on the ideals of working hard in order to prosper. Building yourself up and working towards success. The Constitution grants us the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere is happiness guaranteed, only the pursuit. There are people out there who think that the wealthy of this nation should be taxed more than the poor. I believe this to be contrary to the American spirit. Success should not be punished. I understand that many people in this country inherited their wealth, but there are also those who worked hard and built themselves up from nothing. Why should they be punished by paying more? To me, this hinders the American Dream. What is the incentive to succeed? By the same token, I don't think the wealthy should be given tax breaks either. They should certainly pay their fair share. To me, the simple solution is to have every taxpayer, regardless of income, pay the same percentage. This seems to me to be the only fair way of doing things.

I believe in helping the less fortunate. Programs like Welfare, unemployment, food stamps, social security, disability, etc. are good things. They are necessary things. But they should be reserved for those who truly need them. These programs are designed to help people get back on their feet, and sustain those who can no longer support themselves. Also, to help mothers in bad situations care for themselves and their children. They were not intended as a permanent source of income for people who are too lazy to work or make an effort to be a contributing member of society. Let me restate this. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THESE PROGRAMS FOR THOSE WHO LEGITIMATELY NEED THEM. But those who take advantage of them and "work the system" should be cut off. I work 50-70 hours a week to support myself and I have had plenty of crappy jobs along the way. Any able bodied person should be making a legitimate effort to find a job and support themselves and their families. Period.

I believe in LEGAL immigration. This country was built by those who came from somewhere else. To say we should close the borders is stupid and anti-American. I believe those who go through the proper channels should be allowed to come here. It is a long and difficult process, but anything worth having is! People who come here illegally have no rights. They are not citizens or legal residents of this country, and therefore should have no rights under its laws. Granting them any type of benefits is an insult to those who went through the legal process of moving here. Send illegal immigrants back home, regardless of whether they had children here. Stop letting people exploit our country without becoming a part of it.

I believe your religion has no place in my government. Religion is fine. I was raised Catholic. I understand the comfort and strength through adversity that religion brings people. That being said, believe it or not, we live in a diverse nation where people have differing religious beliefs, including none at all. No government policy can possibly fall in line with every religion simultaneously while excluding or offending no one. Therefore, as the framers of the Bill of Rights intended, church and state should be separate entities. I understand that your religion may prohibit abortion, birth control, same sex marriage and many other things, but what if mine doesn't? Or if I have no religious faith, why should my rights be decided by yours. This is a sticky subject, true, because separating morality from religious beliefs is a very tricky thing to do. But once you remove the religious opposition to the above stated issues, what is left? If you can give me a legal argument as to why two people who love each other, regardless of sex, can't get married like everyone else, I will listen to it. If you give me a ridiculous example like "Next people will want to marry their dog!!" I will simply laugh at you. If someone believes that the best choice for them is to terminate a pregnancy, who are you to force her to carry that child, go through all the difficulties of being pregnant and the pain of childbirth for a child she doesn't want or can't care for? Don't tell me she could always put the child up for adoption, because there are many children who are wards of the state, waiting to be adopted. KEEP YOUR RELIGION OUT OF MY GOVERNMENT!

I believe in responsible government spending. STOP SPENDING MONEY THAT WE DON'T HAVE!! This country should be run like a mother runs a household, on a budget. Figure out how much you have to spend, and then prioritize needs. Spend money on those priorities first and then spend any leftover funds on things that are less necessary. Stop borrowing money to spend foolishly.

Find me a candidate who believes the same things and I will support him or her. See my problem?

Some Fenway Pictures