sundin13 said:
You first have to prove something happened before proving there was a coverup.
|
I do not believe this is correct. The penalty is largely based on non-cooperatioin. Whether he did not cooperate to cover up a wrong or not is immaterial.
That said, his lack of cooperation appears to have created a reasonable inference that it is to hide a wrongdoing, and circumstancial evidence combined with this inference enough to make the investigator conclude that 1) there was probably a knowing wrong committed, and 2) Brady was likely a knowing part of that wrongdoing. In other words, there has indeed been a conclusion that something happened, and that it was covered up.
For what it's worth, I share your belief that Brady could have several completely legitimate reasons for not handing his phone over. That said, he is party to the collective bargaining agreement, which apparently gives the NFL the right to request (though not compel) the production of his phone, and nothing prevents them from drawing inferences from Brady's refusal to do so.
I also share your belief that the team penalty is not warranted. At best, a minor fine for not better policing its employees might be in order. I cannot explain that part.
Finally, regarding the harshness of the penalty on Brady proper, I think it's crucial to realize that two of the four suspended games are against the Jets and Bills, so it really is only a two game suspension.