The Patriots on Thursday "escalated their high-stakes counterattack against the NFL" and the investigation by Ted Wells into Deflategate by "launching a website to publish an exhaustive rebuttal portraying the inquiry’s findings as a Kafkaesque injustice," according to a front-page piece by Bob Hohler of the BOSTON GLOBE. Morgan Lewis Partner Daniel Goldberg, an attorney for the Patriots, "cited the conclusions of Roderick MacKinnon," an '03 Nobel Prize recipient in chemistry, "that Wells’s scientific findings were 'incorrect.'" The Patriots' rebuttal website "initially stated MacKinnon offered them his expertise and had no personal relationship with the team." But several hours later, "after reports of a possible conflict of interest arose, the Patriots updated the site to say they are a passive investor in MacKinnon’s biotechnology company, Flex Pharma" (BOSTON GLOBE, 5/15). ESPN BOSTON's Mike Reiss wrote the Patriots "didn't just challenge the Wells report," as they also "aggressively challenged the NFL league office, too, starting with publishing emails" from Senior VP/Football Operations T. David Gardi and NFL Exec VP & General Counsel Jeff Pash (ESPNBOSTON.com, 5/14). In Boston, Ben Volin writes despite the Patriots' "fiery rhetoric and some convincing arguments about bias from the league office, the Patriots’ 'Context' report still falls short in answering the crucial questions that played a large role in Wells and the NFL determining their guilt." The Patriots' report "paints an interesting, if not entirely believable, picture of the league having it out" for them. But the rebuttal never states, "We didn’t do it" (BOSTON GLOBE, 5/15).
SCIENCE EXPERIMENT: ESPN’s Tony Kornheiser said he "found interesting" that the Patriots in their rebuttal "went after the science” (“PTI,” ESPN, 5/14). ESPN's Bomani Jones noted the Wells Report included 100 pages “of chemistry, of science, and not a damn one of you read a single word of that science." Jones: "So what are the Patriots doing? They’re coming back and they’re attacking the science. They know you didn’t check the first science so they’re going to tell you what they had to say about their science." That is the "brilliance of what the Patriots are doing right now" ("Highly Questionable,” ESPN, 5/14). ESPN’s Israel Gutierrez said he was "glad" the Patriots released their response, as it "shows you there are a lot of inconsistencies.” espnW’s Kate Fagan: “I love that the Patriots are doing this. The NFL always thinks it can control the narrative, now here are the Patriots …. offering people their own version of things” (“Around The Horn,” ESPN, 5/14).
DEFENDING HIS HONOR: In Boston, Karen Guregian writes Patriots Owner Robert Kraft "goes into attack mode" when someone begins to put the team's brand "at stake, question its reputation and put his very legacy at risk." Guregian contemplates Kraft's next move and asks, "Will he appeal? Will he sue? ... Anything's possible when you attempt to sully the family name and his beloved franchise" (BOSTON HERALD, 5/15). ESPN BOSTON's Reiss wrote Kraft's decision to fight the league's punishment of the team "comes down to legacy and reputation -- of his family's name and the Patriots franchise." Both have "been called into question by the NFL based on the severity of penalty." Kraft is "doing what he said he initially wouldn't -- fighting the league and extending the public debate" (ESPN.com, 5/14). In N.Y., Ralph Vacchiano writes Kraft "sure has put himself and his reputation on the line the way he’s dug in for a fight" against Goodell. He is "letting Goodell know he's plenty mad." Kraft has "been an aggressor from the outset, almost as if he’s daring the NFL to come after him" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 5/15). ESPN.com's Kevin Seifert writes this episode is "one of the most direct challenges to league authority in recent NFL history." The rebuttal's message is that by "funding the Wells report, the NFL endorsed a poor investigation and produced a faulty ruling that merited a public rebuke, debate and who knows what else." Kraft and the Patriots have "challenged the essential power structure of the NFL." This is "as close to an internal civil war as we've seen" since late Raiders owner Al Davis "sued the league" (ESPN.com, 5/14). SNY's Adam Schein noted Kraft is "rightly going all in." Schein: "Dare I say we haven’t had a team, an owner and quarterback go in like this against the league since Al Davis. ... I never thought it would be Bob Kraft, who for years has been buddy-buddy with Roger Goodell” ("Loud Mouths," SNY, 5/14).
YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS: In N.Y., Manish Mehta writes the Patriots' rebuttal was "a manuscript for the stupid." The "few passages of believability were overshadowed by mountains of nonsense" (N.Y. DAILY NEWS, 5/15). In Providence, Jim Donaldson writes under the header, "You Have To Laugh At Patriots Rebuttal To Wells Report" (PROVIDENCE JOURNAL, 5/15). In N.Y., David Waldstein writes the Patriots' rebuttal, which "sets the team on a course directly at odds with the league, mirrored the Wells report in one way, by making many solid arguments but diminishing the impact of them by including some preposterous claims" (N.Y. TIMES, 5/15). ESPN.com's Seifert wrote while the Patriots' rebuttal "makes some important points," it also "strains credulity in some instances" (ESPN.com, 5/14). USA TODAY's Nancy Armour writes under the header, "Patriots' Rebuttal Has Air Of Absurdity." The Patriots "should have quit while they were ahead" (USA TODAY, 5/15). In Boston, Dan Shaughnessy writes the Patriots with their rebuttal are "insulting your intelligence again" because they "know that most Patriots fans believe the team can do no wrong." It is "hard to escape the conclusion that this is headed to court." That means "disclosure, never a friend of the Patriots" (BOSTON GLOBE, 5/15).
MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLEHILL: SPORTS ON EARTH's Andrew Garda writes the Patriots' rebuttal "shows exactly how out of hand this has all gotten, and how the whole affair has become more damaging to everyone involved than the actual (alleged) act itself." The Patriots "have acted like children from the beginning" (SPORTSONEARTH.com, 5/15). SNY's Schein said this was “not the crime of the century,” but an “equipment violation.” Schein: “This should have been a fine, it should have been over in January" ("Loud Mouths," SNY, 5/14).
