Five debatable points from Roger Goodell's report on Tom Brady

The NFL has ruled on Tom Brady's four-game suspension, and unlike Greg Hardy's domestic violence case, there was no reduction. Both Hardy and Brady each ended up getting four games.

The NFL hammered hard on the fact that Brady destroyed his cell phone in upholding the suspension, even though the NFL had no right to Brady's personal communication on his phone. It smells like a good way to appeal to the public and put out an easily digestible arguing point, but it doesn't make much logical sense.

[Yahoo Sports Fantasy Football: Sign up and join a league today!]

The longer report by Goodell failed to do one thing critics of Ted Wells' report has pointed to: There's no specific evidence against Brady, and we're still unsure exactly what he did or didn't do.

The report repeats that it seems two Patriots employees did something to the footballs, but it wasn't their indefinite suspensions being appealed. When it comes to Brady, again, there's no specific reason why he was suspended, other than lack of cooperation (which can be debated, and probably will be in federal court). Just some "more probably than nots" and connecting dots without evidence. That shouldn't be enough to suspend a player, who has been a great spokesman for the game and has no similar offenses on his record, for four games.

Here were five points that deserve a closer look from Goodell's report:

1. The second factual finding made makes little sense to upholding the punishment

Read this and tell me what is wrong with it:

"Second, at least by the time of the AFC Championship Game, the inflation level of the footballs was a matter of particular interest to Mr. Brady. He told the Patriots' equipment staff that he wanted the footballs inflated at the lowest permissible level; he reviewed a highlighted copy of the provision of the Playing Rules that addressed inflation of footballs; and he instructed the equipment staff to present a copy of the rule to the game officials. On the day of the AFC Championship Game, Mr. McNally told referee Walt Anderson that Mr. Brady wanted the balls inflated to a pressure of 12.5 psi. He told the investigators that "Tom ... always has me pass a message to the Official's [sic] that he likes the balls at the minimum permissible PSI of 12.5. ... I know this is what Tom wants, and I have been personally told by him of the ball weight preference."

OK, so ... Brady went out of his way to make sure that the balls were inflated to 12.5 psi so they weren't against the rules? That's exactly what that says, that Brady went out of his way to make sure the balls were to his preference but still within the rules, going so far as to review the rulebook to make sure. Yet the NFL presents this as, "Well he did all of this legally BUT IT MAKES YA THINK DOESN'T IT?"

That sums up the lack of evidence. The NFL used a factual finding of non-guilt to justify a four-game suspension.

2. Brady said he always destroys cell phones

This wasn't in the short media release, shockingly enough:

"At the hearing, Mr. Brady testified that it is his practice to destroy (or to give to his assistant to destroy) his cellphone and SIM cards when he gets a new cellphone. Mr. Brady also testified that, based on his typical practice, he would have asked to have the existing cellphone destroyed at or about the same time that he began using his cellphone."

And again, to repeat, the NFL had no right to look at his personal communication, so what's the relevance of what he did with his cell phone? It's a red herring. Goodell said NFL personnel are expected to cooperate fully because the league has no subpoena power, but I'm not sure the union would be too happy to agree with that without limits. Brady answered all of Wells' questions.

Goodell later said that Brady's cell phone before the one in question hadn't been destroyed, which he apparently believed disproved Brady's claim.

3. Goodell decided on four games because the closest precedent was a failed PED test

The punishment part of the report says some commonly discussed precedents don't apply, such as Brett Favre's $50,000 fine for not cooperating for sending inappropriate cell phone pictures ("reflects poorly on the League but does not go to the integrity of the competition on the field"), a Panthers equipment manager warming up a ball on the Vikings' sideline last December ("no player involvement, and no effort to conceal the ball attendant's conduct"), or a 2009 case in which a Jets equipment staff member "'attempted to use' unapproved equipment in plain view of the officials" to kicking balls ("There was no evidence of player involvement").

When handing out the punishment, Goodell instead equated whatever Brady did to a failed test for performance-enhancing drugs.

"In terms of the appropriate level of discipline, the closest parallel of which I am aware is the collectively bargained discipline imposed for a first violation of the policy governing performance enhancing drugs; steroid use reflects an improper effort to secure a competitive advantage in, and threatens the integrity of, the game," Goodell said.

4. Goodell decided to agree with the science in Wells' report

I haven't gotten much into the science and Ideal Gas Law because there is so much conflicting information that it's impossible to know who is right and who is wrong. Goodell disagrees with that; he seems to know who is correct. Plenty of reports have challenged Wells' scientific findings from Exponent, most notably the American Enterprise Institute's report. Instead of acknowledging that many have disagreed with Wells' scientific studies (not to mention that different gauges were used at different times, and Wells used the findings that made it look worst for the Patriots),

Goodell, from the report: "That analysis was in turn reviewed by Professor Daniel Marlow, a professor of physics (and former chairman of the department of physics) at Princeton. The experts from Exponent concluded, and Professor Marlow agreed, that the deflation of the Patriots' footballs cannot be fully explained by environmental factors or scientific principles such as the Ideal Gas Law ... Exponent's conclusions support my finding that the deflation of the footballs was the result of human tampering."

Goodell says the NFLPA and Brady provided experts that refuted Wells' science. He was just "more persuaded" by the experts who agreed with Exponent's findings.

Grandstanding: A Yahoo Sports podcast
Subscribe via iTunes or via RSS feed

5. Goodell thought Brady did something because he talked with Jastremski at length

You'd think that a section titled "What role, if any, did Mr. Brady have in the scheme to tamper with the footballs?" would provide a clear answer to an often-asked question. It tries to connect dots but never in that section is the question answered. Likely because Wells and Goodell had no evidence.

"Mr. Brady confirmed at the hearing that the Patriots' equipment personnel would not do anything to a game ball that was inconsistent with what he wanted," Goodell says. That's not evidence of Brady's wrongdoing. Yet Goodell's report then goes right into "an unusual pattern of communication between Mr. Brady and Mr. Jastremski" after the AFC title game. They had a 25-minute call and exchanged 12 text messages after the AFC championship game. Again, no specific evidence of wrongdoing. That Brady would speak often to a friend who he knew would be in the middle of a controversy can be explained in ways other than "this means Brady is guilty." It's a heck of a leap to answer the question of "What role did Brady have?" by apparently answering "He must be guilty of something bad because he talked to Jastremski a lot."

So still the fundamental question remains: What exactly was Brady suspended for doing? It looks like it's up to the courts to figure out.

- - - - - - -

Frank Schwab is the editor of Shutdown Corner on Yahoo Sports. Have a tip? Email him at shutdown.corner@yahoo.com or follow him on Twitter! Follow @YahooSchwab