We look back at four of the more memorable first appearances for members of the Red Sox.
Greg and Lou defend some points they made yesterday about the Patriots defense.

[0:02:34] ... Malcolm brown may be as an impact but. In jail but Jones Rob Ninkovich what we're expecting everybody takes leaps forward in potentially on a high towers on potential Collins and everything else and maybe it's ...
[0:07:15] ... every get. As far as the secondary goes. And not bring back Ty Law you not rejected British are referred for this isn't he very it's technically a slightly SEC is why I was back in ...
[0:09:03] ... Marcel Darius Jerry Hughes. Who to vote fraud for elegant awfully say Mario Williams are so there is going to Gerri use. That's a four man front the you can sit their city they can disguise ...
[0:12:12] ... I keep thinking about. The Packers because they are so nervous about Aaron Rodgers and his ability to run that nobody wanted to over pursued it wanna you know rush to quarterback and and and pass ...






Although Christian has all the power in NFL media circles, he's got NO game in his own relationship.

[0:00:15] ... three for all of these keys Murr Loney and Fauria. Liner tribute Freddie Bynum or. Not done about it. 1 o'clock hour walk and show but we don't and honored to support division I. Thought five ...
[0:04:15] ... staying in my role. Alvin I don't know what to expect the Dallas Clark thirty dominating women. Giving them you need to know that used via a former. NFL player and it is the kind of ...
[0:07:24] ... female impersonator club it is well established that you wore. Frugal but Hugh Laurie in Miami. Like a little bull ride somewhere to seek a lot. She can you Betsy NFL where all this hurt her ...
[0:12:36] ... On the fourth and final hour endurance Sports Radio WEE I would Christian Fauria and liberal. Even when you know Gainey I mean all. Our. ...






Disclaimer: I’m not Jerry Thornton. He’s the entertainer’s entertainer, a global icon with comedy chops, a radio show and a full head of hair. I have none of these things. I merely have the unenviable task of keeping the award-winning Thornography blog afloat while Jerry is on vacation, undoubtedly enjoying a romantic getaway with Johnny Weir.

Chris Mortensen is a tremendous reporter and a man of great integrity. This much we’ve been told.

Chris Mortensen also dug himself up to his head in a pile of manure at the center of a [expletive]-storm he created.

After bailing on WEEI’s Dennis & Callahan Morning Show on Friday, the ESPN NFL insider instead addressed his controversial Deflategate report on Monday with The Dan Le Batard Show, naturally an ESPN Radio program. Who better to question the objectivity of ESPN.com’s investigative reporting than ESPN Radio? That’s like if the NFL allowed Roger Goodell to preside over Tom Brady‘s suspension and serve as arbitrator of his appeal. Oh, wait …

For anyone who has been hiding under a rock for the past six months, it was Mortensen’s Jan. 20 tweet that sent Bob Kravitz’s Jan. 19 report about an investigation into the inflation of footballs during the AFC Championship Game into another stratosphere, making Deflategate the top story on every network news broadcast leading up to the Super Bowl.

Mort

The Wells Report proved Mortensen wrong three months ago, as all 11 of New England’s footballs were well within two pounds of the requisite 12.5 PSI, according to at least one of the two gauges officials used to test the air pressure.

While I was writing this, Mortensen finally deleted the tweet 196 days and 15,000 retweets later. It even stood for a week after Patriots owner Bob Kraft said in a press conference, “The league’€™s handling of this entire process has been extremely frustrating and disconcerting. I will never understand why an initial erroneous report regarding the PSI level of footballs leaked by a source from the NFL a few days after the AFC championship game was never corrected by those who had the correct information. For four months, that report cast dispersions and shaped public opinion.”

Like it or not, Mortensen became part of the story. He was used by someone within the league office to paint the Patriots in a bad light, and his refusal to accept that as the real truth further kept Bob Kraft & Co. in the dark. That’s why WEEI booked him on Friday, and that’s why he ultimately addressed it on ESPN Radio three days later.

Thanks to MassLive’s Kevin Duffy, we have the full transcript of Mortensen’s appearance on The Dan Le Batard Show, and we can rip every last bit of it to shreds before finally throwing this story in the trash where it belongs. Shall we?

Le Batard: “You’ve got people in Boston speculating who your source is or was. What do you do with that speculation?”

Mortensen: “You cannot touch it. The reason why you create trust with sources is you don’t even go there, and it could be very unfair to the person identified by somebody as a source. And, by the way, we have sources. It’s not a single source at the time. What you do is you have to keep your distance. That’s how you keep your credibility with your sources anyway — just to maintain that level of trust. You’re never going to bend in terms of identifying them. Somebody could be taking a wild guess, which I think they are here.

“And I go back, really what we’re talking about, is a three- or four-day period of reporting. The game itself was on a Sunday, right? Unbeknownst to me, those footballs were taken at halftime and measured because of a complaint that took place in the first half. Bob Kravitz of the Indianapolis media reported that there’s an investigation into under-inflated footballs and there’s silence for about two days, and I’m getting ready to go to Arizona for the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl, which we happen to have on ESPN, and all I can tell you is my inquiry was focused just like this with somebody on the night I was looking forward to leaving the next morning to get out of the winter and into the sun.

“(The inquiry) was, ‘How many footballs are we talking about here? Three or four?’ And what came back to me was 11. And that was a significant number. That was my focus. Because, quite frankly, I didn’t even know what the PSI regulations were at that time, but when I heard 11 footballs were under-inflated, then I got on the phone and talked to three different people and one of them said … 11 footballs was consistently verified, as it was in the Wells Report, by the way. The PSI level, one of my sources said ‘two pounds under.’ And another said ‘significantly under-inflated.’ I used both those terms. Two pounds under and significantly under-inflated. Who those sources are will forever remain in my confidence.”

Protect your sources. I get it. I really do, even in an instance when that source burned you like William Wallace at a Northern England outpost. Mortensen benefits from keeping Mike Kensil his source’s name secretive twofold: 1) He has incredible leverage over him going forward, and 2) Other current and future sources can rest easy with the knowledge Mort will protect their anonymity. But to maintain the accuracy of his interpretation of “two pounds under” and “significantly under-inflated” when science has since proven neither to be true is at best disengenous.

Le Batard: “What needs to be corrected about the report? What was wrong about the report?”

Mortensen: “What needs to be corrected has been corrected. I didn’t correct it on Twitter, which was a mistake by the way. Twitter, I’m still trying to figure it out. The bottom line is, as the Wells Report showed, there were not 11 balls that were all two PSI under the 12.5 minimum requirement. Now let me say this, and I’ve done this before: I can understand after reading the Wells Report, because we had silence for three months, that could somebody generalize two pounds under based on the range of 12.5 to 13.5? Yeah, they could have. Now, that’s my job to do a better vetting job as a journalist.

“But let me ask you this question: If I had simply reported, which I did include in the original report, that 11 footballs were found to be significantly under-inflated, what would the reaction have been? The same, I think. Which is the descriptive narrative that I actually did change it to and correct it. What I didn’t do is I didn’t write a formal, something on Twitter to say, ‘OK, we’re getting conflicting information. Leave it at significantly under-inflated.’

“And then Roger Goodell’s appealed decision, if you read it, the 20-page decision in which he upheld the suspension of Brady, you get the idea that they are going with the gauge that said he had five balls in the 10 range and four in the lower 11 range and another couple maybe in the middle 11 range. And, oh by the way, in my original reporting, (I) never implicated Tom Brady. Never implicated the Patriots. I did ask the question if Walt Anderson, the referee, followed the protocol, and the league assured me he had. But the first person who really mentioned Tom Brady in this whole matter happened to be Bill Belichick in that Thursday press conference: ‘If you want to ask about the footballs, ask Tom.'”

Oh, man. This is rich. Where to begin? When Michael Holley predicted Mortensen would use the ol’ “I’m still trying to figure it out” Twitter excuse prior to his canceled WEEI interview, I figured there was no way he’d think we were that dumb. Again, Chris Mortensen, by all accounts, is a tremendous reporter, one who tweeted 32 times on the first day of the NFL Draft, so it’s hard to imagine he couldn’t figure out how to delete a tweet or ask one of ESPN’s thousands of employees how to do so in the span of six months. After all, it only took a day once he made this comment publicly.

At the time of this post, Mortensen has yet to write formally on Twitter, “OK, we’re getting conflicting information.” Likewise, the first two paragraphs of Mortensen’s Jan. 21 story on ESPN.com remain inaccurate and unchanged. For the record, Mortensen figured out how to embed several tweets within this story, far more difficult than deleting one.

The NFL has found that 11 of the New England Patriots‘ 12 game balls were inflated significantly below the NFL’s requirements, league sources involved and familiar with the investigation of Sunday’s AFC Championship Game told ESPN.

The investigation found the footballs were inflated 2 pounds per square inch below what’s required by NFL regulations during the Pats‘ 45-7 victory over the Indianapolis Colts, according to sources.

Finally, while Mortensen may have “never implicated Tom Brady,” how can he claim to have “never implicated the Patriots” with a straight face? That’s like saying Samuel Gerard never implicated Dr. Richard Kimble in “The Fugitive.”

Oh, and Mortensen discussed Brady’s alleged involvement during ESPN’s NFL Insiders the day the report came out.

“People will hear about the evolution of the footballs, because Peyton Manning got a contingent of quarterbacks together, which included Tom Brady, and went to the league,” he said on Jan. 21. “They actually had a conference call at one point a few years back to talk about the Super Bowl footballs, which are a new ball used every down and have a sheen or a film over them, and they were slick footballs. And then ultimately the league started letting the quarterbacks treat it. In fact, in the rules and procedures, it says especially the quarterback should look at it and feel good about it, but that’s when the ball goes to the referee before the game to make sure everything is according to regulation.”

But, yeah, let’s go with Belichick being the first person to implicate Brady in Deflategate. That seems reasonable. Unless, of course, you read Yahoo columnist Dan Wetzel’s Jan. 21 submission: “Why Tom Brady should be at the center of deflate-gate.” Wetzel is only one of the nation’s best sports writers, so it’s not like he had his finger on the pulse.

Le Batard: “Do you feel betrayed by your source or sources, Mort?”

Mortensen: “Listen, one of the sources I did not feel betrayed by. I think I’ve got a pretty good understanding of what happened. I feel like I probably could have done a better job of vetting, but I didn’t have access to that person for that long a period, but I did on a couple of others. For me, it’s a matter of, ‘When you say two pounds under, what are you talking about? Are you generalizing a range of two pounds under?’ And, oh by the way, in the NFL letter of notification to the Patriots, when they notify them, ‘Hey, we’re looking into this,’ Dave Gardi, who is part of the football operations for the NFL, said one ball was as low as 10.1 PSI. Turns out there was no ball 10.1 PSI. And so therefore, I think there was some inaccurate data at the time that was passed on to me, but I also talked to other sources who verified the number that I was focused on. The number of footballs. Eleven was a significant number, and ‘significantly under-inflated’ was a significant description. And so therefore do I feel betrayed? No.

“And by the way, this whole concept of being deliberately lied to, that means somebody called me up. When anybody calls me up and volunteers significant information, I always get suspicious of motive. That’s a red flag right there. As I said, you go through that process and you review your own work. And I’ve done that. And I’ve actually talked about it on more than one occasion, but for some reason people think that I’ve just gone into a cave. If I go quiet after the NFL Draft, I go quiet. That’s usually what I do.”

Let’s go over that again: “I think there was some inaccurate data at the time that was passed on to me, but I also talked to other sources who verified the number that I was focused on. The number of footballs. Eleven was a significant number, and ‘significantly under-inflated’ was a significant description. And so therefore do I feel betrayed? No.”

Again, these are not the ramblings of an insane person. Chris Mortensen, by all accounts, is a tremendous reporter and a man of great integrity. This much we’ve been told. So, it boggles my mind that he can utter the phrases, “I think there was some inaccurate data at the time that was passed on to me,” and, “so therefore do I feel betrayed? No,” in the same breath. The number 11 is a significant number, but so is the number two, as in two PSI, and therein lies the betrayal.

Le Batard: “Mort, why did you cancel on WEEI?”

Mortensen: “Well, first of all I’ve done WEEI before. Did something with Christian Fauria before the Super Bowl talking about this issue. And the other thing is the day before, listen, they text me and said, ‘Do you have time — €”7:45 in the morning?’ I happen to be doing a lot of ESPN work, working on Russell Wilson contracts, a lot of things. And I wasn’t on the internet reading and somebody said, ‘Hey there’s a story out there that you’re going to talk about this for the first time,’ which was not true, by the way. I wasn’t talking about it for the first time. And Adam Schefter, my partner at ESPN, one of my partners in journalism there, had been ambushed a little bit. And I said, ‘you know what? I’ve got enough to work on tomorrow.’ And all I did was text the night before and said ‘Look, you made a mistake. You’ve drummed up business as if this is the first time I’ve talked about this, which it isn’t. And I said I’m not going to let you or Mr. Kraft or anybody do any more misreporting about this thing, so don’t call.’

“And to be honest with you, Robert Kraft and I have had a conversation since then. It’s going to remain confidential. But it’s basic gist is: My fight, our fight, is not with you. It’s with the NFL. We have no beef with you. We have a beef with the NFL.”

Other than the fact he made no mention of his workload, Adam Schefter — a regular on WEEI’s airwaves throughout the year — was far from ambushed and Mortensen had not publicly addressed his report since both the Wells Report and Kraft had proven it to be erroneous, sure, maybe D&C shouldn’t have drummed up interest in his appearance.

It’s also true that Mortensen appeared on WEEI before the Super Bowl, on Jan. 27, and here’s that transcript.

Lou Merloni: “Hey, Mort, your original tweet and story was that 11 of the 12 were at least two pounds under. Since then, (Mike) Florio had that report that 10 of 11 actually were closer to one pound under. I mean, to me that’s like a huge, huge detail. Like, I’m just wondering, do you still back up that it was two pounds each?”

Mortensen: “I get the argument. Listen, I went back, and I can’t go through too many of the steps I took, because it wasn’t just a single source, but I’m sitting there saying — and I actually even before that report came back that maybe they were one pound underneath — I agree, maybe it’s a huge difference, but what I was told was, I said listen, I says, is there any discrepancy in what I reported, because I want to know, even on a small detail like that, and I was just told, ‘No, you were right on.’ Now, what I was said was, there’s part of me that wonders if somebody interprets because 13.5 pounds can be the maximum allowable and whether they were 11.5, I don’t know the answer to it. But I do know this much, because it comes back to me all the time, it says use common sense. One team’s footballs, basically all of them were under-inflated. The other team’s footballs when re-tested — and the Colts like them on the low end too, by the way — were all within regulation, so all the scientific minutiae that’s been thrown at us, be careful about buying into it.”

Merloni: “That was one small detail, too, that we haven’t really heard before, because I was wondering, does Andrew Luck prefer his at 13.5?”

Mortensen: “I was told they prefer theirs at the lower level, too.”

Fauria: “All right, Mort, so I guess the question I have for you is, with Bill Belichick coming out and talking, Kraft coming out and talking, was it one of those situations where they just couldn’t stand all the misinformation that was coming out — just them getting fed up with all the breaking news that was coming out from different reporters? Did it feel like they just decided, ‘You know what? I’m done with this. I’m going to get ahead of it, and here’s what the truth is, and here’s what we found’?”

Mortensen: “Wait, wait, wait, you’re saying they’re telling the truth and that we’re disseminating misinformation. What I’m saying, their reaction, I will say this, I thought Bill was really good on (Jan. 22). Listen, it’s not my job to form an opinion now. I’m in a reporting mode, but I’ll say this: I thought Bill was very good on (Jan. 22). I thought (Jan. 24) did not come off well because of the science. Either way, Bob Kraft, what he did last night, was, as I’ve been told by other people in the league, was astounding, because we all know he’s now thrown down the gauntlet to commissioner Goodell, who obviously Bob Kraft‘s been his biggest ally. So, we’ve now created a different storyline, and I understand the tenacity and the passion of their position, because this is a great game, they’re a great football team, and they were about to I think erase the stain of whatever Spygate was lingering over their previous Super Bowls, and I understand their passion and tenacity on it. And the thing about is, we have to see what the Ted Wells report is going to determine. It’s very unfortunate, I think, that there’s a formal investigation into what happened (Jan. 18).”

Fauria: “Hey, Chris, yeah, ’cause you know you said that you didn’t really think that Bill’s impromptu speech went that well, but I mean, as a former player, living in Boston, having a radio show where we talk to fans all the time, for them this was a drop-the-mic, in-your-face, now-what-do-you-have-to-say moment as far as they were concerned.”

Mortensen: “It doesn’t explain how the Colts’ footballs remained within regulation.”

Fauria: “I get that, but as far as what they can control and what they found out based on what they did, did it at all strike you as, I guess, surprising that he would go out there and do his own science, trying to act like Bill Nye The Science Guy, did it surprise you that he would go to that length and he would show so much irritation with the process?”

Mortensen: “I kind of had some hints that that was going to happen. I found it to be fascinating TV, but it didn’t persuade me. Certainly, if you’re a Patriots fan, I get it. The one thing people have to realize, even as a reporter, I’ve got to kind of be in a narrow lane here, I love football. Hey, I gave my spleen to football. My son played college football. I love this game. I picked the Patriots to go to the Super Bowl. I think they’re going to win the Super Bowl, and I think they’re going to win it because they’re the better team, so that we’re talking about this I understand how unique and willing Bill Belichick was on (Jan. 22 and 24) that they truly believe this was bologna. And to me I don’t know all the answers. I know there’s still a common-sense factor of one set of footballs were and one set of footballs were not. How it got that way, we don’t know.”

Of course, the Wells Report eventually revealed that the Colts did not prefer their footballs at the lower level, but rather 13.0 PSI, all of them had lost air pressure, as the Patriots’ balls did, and three of the four Indianapolis balls tested were discovered to be under the requisite 12.5 PSI, according to one of the two gauges used by the officiating crew.

You’ll be happy to know Mortensen concluded his Jan. 27 interview with WEEI by saying, “Listen, we’re just going to have to wait and see, because the bottom line is there’s going to be public findings to this investigation, and whatever comes out as fact or gray area, I’m sure we’re going to be having this discussion again.” We tried, Mort, we tried.

Le Batard: “There’s a perception out there that perhaps you were used by the NFL to launch a smear campaign on either the Patriots or Brady. Is that a fair perception?”

Mortensen: “No, not at all. Nobody from the NFL ever identified Brady as being the target of an investigation in that first week we’re talking about, within three days of the game. Brady’s never mentioned. The Patriots are never mentioned. And the Wells investigation was not launched because of my reporting. There’s no evidence of that. I’ve checked on that. So, therefore it’s hard to feel I was used. And Ted Wells himself in a conference call said, ‘It’s ludicrous to think that the league would want to smear its face of the league in Tom Brady with this type of campaign.’ To me, it’s an insult a little bit to the intelligence. But I do know the Patriots believe that, by the way. That is their belief, and therefore obviously their fanbase believes that, too …

“Sometimes, as time passes on, the narrative — €”that’s the popular word — that everything changes where people think, like I say, I never even identified Brady. I never had NFL sources say Brady was the target.”

Following this logic, the Patriots believe someone within the league office intended to smear Brady by passing misinformation to Mortensen, this is an insult to intelligence everywhere and therefore all of New England is dumb. This seems like a good time to mention, among others, professors at MIT, one of New England’s many esteemed universities, have since shown the recorded deflation of the Patriots’ footballs can be explained by the ideal gas law.

LB: “Is there a need to retract the orginal story?”

Mortensen: “I already had changed the descriptive tone. And I did with our news desk, pretty early, to ‘significantly under-inflated.’ And I will never retract that. The two pounds PSI, that was obviously an error and clarified and corrected. If you want to call it a retraction … what I didn’t do was retract it on Twitter. And that was probably technically a mistake.”

False. The ESPN.com story, at this point in time, still erroneously reports “the footballs were inflated 2 pounds per square inch below what’s required by NFL regulations.” And, again, “significantly under-inflated” isn’t accurate, either.

LB: “I want to know a person you are angriest at right now … within this story.”

Mortensen: “I’m going to stay level-headed on this one. …Well, listen, all I know is they had an investigation and I had nothing to do with the investigation. They made their findings. I was also on the record as saying there never should have been an independent investigation. There should have been a review, get it to the competition committee, slap people on the wrist and move on. But that’s not what the league chose to do.”

Finally, we agree on something. Let’s bury this in that manure pile of yours and put an end to this [expletive]-storm.

Blog Author: 
admin

Wondering why Chris Mortensen finally deleted his well-publicized Deflategate tweet after letting it live for more than six months? (For more on the deletion of the tweet, click here.)

Two words: Christian Fauria.

This is what happened …

During the 11 a.m. segment of the Fauria and Merloni Show Tuesday morning Fauria received a call from Mortensen. Thinking that the ESPN reporter might want to appear on the show to further clarify his January report on deflated footballs, Fauria jumped off the airwaves and on to the call.

After some conversation, during which Mortensen said he was not going to offer any more insight to his report after appearing on the Dan LeBatard Show Monday, Fauria advised Mortensen to delete the Jan. 20 tweet.

A few moments later … the tweet was gone.

“Christian Fauria has freaking power!” explained Lou Merloni after joining Greg Dickerson in listening to Fauria explain the event.

Keep listening to the show, which runs from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m., Monday through Friday, for much more …

Blog Author: 
admin
Chris Mortensen finally deleted his inaccurate tweet from January when he wrote that 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were underinflated by 2lbs. Mort made the decision after speaking to Christian on the phone shortly before. Listen to Christian, Merloni and Dickerson tell the story here.

[0:00:04] ... for the dead ends of the world Boris do sports all Obama Christian Fauria. Spoke with Chris mortenson moments ago. Morton's and ask Christian should I delete the tweet on he declines you just heard ought ...
[0:03:50] ... take it away it's done a delicate I won the damn lab art show like talked about it. I gave all my reasoning behind what I said in my research. On its Opel. I think you ...
[0:07:39] ... come out and say. Was that may I mention patriots in the Bill Belichick was the one who sit Tom Brady. That people can continue to bring you up and think of you as a as a fraud. Now I feel pretty easily ...





Chris Mortensen, after cancelling his interview with WEEI, decided to take on a much safer interview with Dan Le Betard, in which he stated that he "hasn't figured out Twitter yet" and says he should have corrected the story.

[0:09:59] ... cancel W eon. Welfare fraud done deed WEEI. Deported from the Christian Christian Fauria think the big before the Super Bowl talking about this issue. And the other thing is that the day before. You know if they tax me. I think you ...
[0:11:25] ... He was right so we had a long before this at the Super Bowl. But since he's been proven wrong and in correct. Like nobody questioned at the David Carty email to Robert Kraft what he ...
[0:15:22] ... days. And I get ready to go to Arizona for the global Super Bowl which we have and adding his BM. And all I can tell you is my inquiry. This focuses despite this there's somebody. ...
[0:20:13] ... arranged. And oh by the way in my original reporting never implicated Tom Brady. Never implicated the patriots. I did ask the question whether Walt Anderson the referee. Called the protocols in the league assured me yet. But the first person. Who really mention Tom Brady in this whole matter happened to be Bill Belichick in that Thursday press top. Boy it is not his fault that it's and I thought if it's one of us aren't ...






After six and a half months since the initial report, ESPN NFL reporter Chris Mortensen has finally deleted the tweet that made deflate-gate the lead story on every network news broadcast leading up to the Super Bowl.

On Jan. 20, two days after the AFC Championship Game, Mortensen cited league sources in reporting, “NFL has found that 11 of the Patriots footballs used in Sunday’s AFC title game were under-inflated by 2 lbs each.”

The post was retweeted by more than 14,000 Twitter users, standing as Mortensen’s most popular tweet for the majority of the offseason. This information was eventually proven to be incorrect by the Wells Report, which showed all 11 of the Patriots’ footballs used in the AFC Championship Game to be within two pounds per square inch of the requisite 12.5 PSI, according to at least one of the two gauges used by NFL officials.

And yet there it stood on Twitter until Aug. 4 — a week after Patriots owner Bob Kraft blasted “this entire process” in the wake of “an initial erroneous report,” a few days after Mortensen canceled an appearance on WEEI’s Dallas & Callahan Morning Show and some 17 hours after he claimed to be “still trying to figure out” Twitter on ESPN Radio’s Dan Le Batard Show. It only took six and a half months, but he finally figured it out.

Blog Author: 
admin
Michael McCann of SI.com joins the show to talk about the latest news surrounding the legal case Brady vs the NFL

[0:03:12] ... in the air and the caller was asking about defamation suit in. Tom Brady has any right there and we asked you about this before and I believe you said it was very difficult for many ...
[0:03:44] ... And others in the NFL for defamation and it would follow what Jonathan Vilma did. In the aftermath of delegate or he argued that the commissioner. Made public statements about him that would not only lies. But seriously damaged his reputation and so that would be a lawsuit that Brady was based outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. It's a separate area of law Briere nationalist island Massachusetts. Thank you would be under state law rather than federal law. Now the difficulty of that back kind of pursuit is one it's not gonna get him on the field it's not gonna ...
[0:06:29] ... aren't. A party in the sense that you know they're not on Tom Brady's side in the in this particular matter they're clearly. I think supporting Brady and I think that the that the judge looks at that as you know that was ultimately about an allegation that Tom Brady. Do or may have known that two other people on the team may have deflated football intentionally away that was outside the ...
[0:08:21] ... reminding via felt that he that you wage in this litigation with Tom Brady we have all of those emails you sent. Not only from Jeffords I imagine from other officials. And we can just keep. In every Friday we could just start sending more more out if one can predict the picture to reminding the NFL isn't just you vs Tom Brady. It worked out with Tom Brady technically but we're certainly supporting him. People honestly to Warren pretty well I don't think the pictures are gonna do everything Robert ...






Michael McCann of SI.com joins the show to talk about the latest news surrounding the legal case Brady vs the NFL

[0:03:12] ... in the air and the caller was asking about defamation suit in. Tom Brady has any right there and we asked you about this before and I believe you said it was very difficult for many ...
[0:03:44] ... And others in the NFL for defamation and it would follow what Jonathan Vilma did. In the aftermath of delegate or he argued that the commissioner. Made public statements about him that would not only lies. But seriously damaged his reputation and so that would be a lawsuit that Brady was based outside the scope of the collective bargaining agreement. It's a separate area of law Briere nationalist island Massachusetts. Thank you would be under state law rather than federal law. Now the difficulty of that back kind of pursuit is one it's not gonna get him on the field it's not gonna ...
[0:06:29] ... aren't. A party in the sense that you know they're not on Tom Brady's side in the in this particular matter they're clearly. I think supporting Brady and I think that the that the judge looks at that as you know that was ultimately about an allegation that Tom Brady. Do or may have known that two other people on the team may have deflated football intentionally away that was outside the ...
[0:08:21] ... reminding via felt that he that you wage in this litigation with Tom Brady we have all of those emails you sent. Not only from Jeffords I imagine from other officials. And we can just keep. In every Friday we could just start sending more more out if one can predict the picture to reminding the NFL isn't just you vs Tom Brady. It worked out with Tom Brady technically but we're certainly supporting him. People honestly to Warren pretty well I don't think the pictures are gonna do everything Robert ...