NFL suspends Tom Brady, hammers Patriots for Deflategate

Tom Pelissero | USA TODAY Sports

Show Caption Hide Caption Deflategate: Impact of Tom Brady's suspension USA TODAY Sports' Lindsay H. Jones examines Tom Brady's four-game suspension and how the New England Patriots will fare without him.

The NFL suspended New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady for the first four games of the 2015 season Monday as part of sweeping punishment against the organization for its actions in the so-called Deflategate scandal.

The league also fined the Patriots $1 million and docked them two draft picks — a first-rounder in 2016 and a fourth-rounder in 2017 — for violating the playing rules "and the failure to cooperate in the subsequent investigation" co-led by attorney Ted Wells.

Brady was suspended "for conduct detrimental to the integrity of the NFL" after a 243-page report released last week by Wells found it more probable than not that Brady "was at least generally aware of the inappropriate activities" by two low-level team employees that led to the Patriots using underinflated footballs in the AFC Championship Game.

Those employees, John Jastremski and James McNally, were suspended indefinitely without pay by Patriots owner Robert Kraft effective Wednesday, the league said, adding the pair cannot be reinstated without approval by NFL executive vice president of football operations Troy Vincent.

But most striking was the suspension of Brady, who is virtually certain to appeal. If the four-game ban were upheld on appeal, Brady would be eligible to play no sooner than an Oct. 18 Sunday night road game against the Indianapolis Colts — the team that first alerted the NFL to the matter before the Patriots pummeled them 45-7 to earn their sixth Super Bowl trip of the Brady era.

"With respect to your particular involvement, the report established that there is substantial and credible evidence to conclude you were at least generally aware of the actions of the Patriots' employees involved in the deflation of the footballs and that it was unlikely that their actions were done without your knowledge," Vincent wrote to Brady in a letter excerpted by the NFL.

"Moreover, the report documents your failure to cooperate fully and candidly with the investigation, including by refusing to produce any relevant electronic evidence (emails, texts, etc.), despite being offered extraordinary safeguards by the investigators to protect unrelated personal information, and by providing testimony that the report concludes was not plausible and contradicted by other evidence.

"Your actions as set forth in the report clearly constitute conduct detrimental to the integrity of and public confidence in the game of professional football. The integrity of the game is of paramount importance to everyone in our league, and requires unshakable commitment to fairness and compliance with the playing rules.

"Each player, no matter how accomplished and otherwise respected, has an obligation to comply with the rules and must be held accountable for his actions when those rules are violated and the public's confidence in the game is called into question."

It was a remarkable rebuke of Brady, 37, a living legend who maintained in a press conference the weekend before the Super Bowl that he had "no idea what happened" to the footballs and "would never do anything to break the rules. I believe in fair play, and I respect the league."

His agent, Don Yee, lashed out at the league.

"The discipline is ridiculous and has no legitimate basis," Yee said in a statement. "In my opinion, this outcome was pre-determined; there was no fairness in the Wells investigation whatsoever. There is no evidence that Tom directed footballs be set at pressures below the allowable limits. In fact, the evidence shows Tom clearly emphasized that footballs be set at pressures within the rules.

"Tom also cooperated with the investigation and answered every question presented to him. The Wells Report presents significant evidence, however, that the NFL lacks standards or protocols with respect to its handling of footballs prior to games; this is not the fault of Tom or the Patriots.

"We will appeal, and if the hearing officer is completely independent and neutral, I am very confident the Wells Report will be exposed as an incredibly frail exercise in fact-finding and logic."

If the suspension stands, it'll likely be second-year pro Jimmy Garoppolo under center for the Patriots in the Super Bowl champions' nationally televised Sept. 10 kickoff game against the Pittsburgh Steelers, the showcase contest that begins the NFL's regular season. If Brady's suspension stands, his first regular-season appearance would come in Week 6 vs. the Colts.

"We reached these decisions after extensive discussion with Troy Vincent and many others," said a statement by Commissioner Roger Goodell, who authorized Vincent to impose the discipline. "We relied on the critical importance of protecting the integrity of the game and the thoroughness and independence of the Wells report."

The Wells report found no wrongdoing by Patriots coach Bill Belichick, any other member of the coaching staff or any staff member other than Jastremski or McNally. But Vincent's letter to the Patriots mentioned the team's prior record — including the so-called Spygate scandal in 2007 — as a factor in assessing the discipline.

Other factors, per Vincent's letter, were the Patriots' refusal to make McNally available for a follow-up interview and that Brady, Jastremski and McNally "were not fully candid during the investigation."

That the Patriots outscored the Colts 28-0 in the second half of the AFC title game — after officials restored the ball to proper inflation levels — didn't matter.

"While we cannot be certain when the activity began, the evidence suggests that January 18th was not the first and only occasion when this occurred, particularly in light of the evidence referring to deflation of footballs going back to before the beginning of the 2014 season," Vincent's letter to the Patriots said.

"It is impossible to determine whether this activity had an effect on the outcome of games or what that effect was. There seems little question that the outcome of the AFC Championship Game was not affected. But this has never been a significant factor in assessing discipline. There are many factors which affect the outcome of a game. It is an inherently speculative exercise to try to assign specific weight to any one factor.

"The key consideration in any case like this is that the playing rules exist for a reason, and all clubs are entitled to expect that the playing rules will be followed by participating teams. Violations that diminish the league's reputation for integrity and fair play cannot be excused simply because the precise impact on the final score cannot be determined."

The Patriots' first four regular-season opponents in 2015 are the Steelers, Buffalo Bills, Jacksonville Jaguars and Dallas Cowboys.

***

Follow Tom Pelissero on Twitter @TomPelissero