Tweet
Gostkowski refused to fully cooperate, too
Posted by Mike Florio on May 8, 2015, 8:51 AM EDT

Getty Images
In the two days since the Ted Wells report emerged, plenty has been said about the decision of the Patriots not to make Jim McNally available for a follow-up interview and Patriots quarterback Tom Brady not to provide his text messages and emails.
At pages 30 and 31 of the report, another player is identified as refusing to cooperate fully.
“Stephen Gostkowski declined a similar request for pertinent electronic communications, but, unlike Brady, we did not press our request to him because his communications were not viewed as central to our work,” Wells writes.
Regardless of whether or not Ted Wells pressed Gostkowski, the failure to cooperate with a league investigation automatically constitutes conduct detrimental to the league. Absent separate — and stern — discipline, that sets a precedent that could be used by other players, teams, coaches, etc.
Got incriminating info on your phone? Refuse to provide it. Know things that would tend to point toward guilt? Refuse to talk, or at least refuse to answer certain questions.
Some fans think that’s OK, spouting off principles that apply only in the context of criminal prosecutions. But the right to remain silent, the presumption of innocence, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and all other Constitutional protections only matter when the outcome is prison or death.
For workplace investigations, the employer makes the rules. And when the employer expects cooperation, anything other than significant sanctions for failure to cooperate will invite others to refuse to cooperate.
During the various significant NFL investigations in recent years, cooperation has been consistent, and automatic. The Saints cooperated when the NFL was investigating the bounty case. The Ravens cooperated when the NFL was investigating the Ray Rice elevator video. The Dolphins cooperated when the NFL was investigating the bullying scandal — with the exception of trainer Kevin O’Neill, who expressed hostility to the investigation and later was fired.
Per multiple sources, Ravens employees automatically and without hesitation surrendered their cell phones for forensic examination that entailed a specific search for certain recipients and phrases. The procedure balanced the needs of the investigation with individual privacy rights.
Here, multiple individuals chose to extend their privacy rights so broadly that it interfered with their obligation to cooperate with their employer. Separate from whatever the Patriots did or didn’t do to the footballs, the failure to cooperate requires punishment, or others will do the same thing in the future
Posted by Mike Florio on May 8, 2015, 8:51 AM EDT

Getty Images
In the two days since the Ted Wells report emerged, plenty has been said about the decision of the Patriots not to make Jim McNally available for a follow-up interview and Patriots quarterback Tom Brady not to provide his text messages and emails.
At pages 30 and 31 of the report, another player is identified as refusing to cooperate fully.
“Stephen Gostkowski declined a similar request for pertinent electronic communications, but, unlike Brady, we did not press our request to him because his communications were not viewed as central to our work,” Wells writes.
Regardless of whether or not Ted Wells pressed Gostkowski, the failure to cooperate with a league investigation automatically constitutes conduct detrimental to the league. Absent separate — and stern — discipline, that sets a precedent that could be used by other players, teams, coaches, etc.
Got incriminating info on your phone? Refuse to provide it. Know things that would tend to point toward guilt? Refuse to talk, or at least refuse to answer certain questions.
Some fans think that’s OK, spouting off principles that apply only in the context of criminal prosecutions. But the right to remain silent, the presumption of innocence, the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and all other Constitutional protections only matter when the outcome is prison or death.
For workplace investigations, the employer makes the rules. And when the employer expects cooperation, anything other than significant sanctions for failure to cooperate will invite others to refuse to cooperate.
During the various significant NFL investigations in recent years, cooperation has been consistent, and automatic. The Saints cooperated when the NFL was investigating the bounty case. The Ravens cooperated when the NFL was investigating the Ray Rice elevator video. The Dolphins cooperated when the NFL was investigating the bullying scandal — with the exception of trainer Kevin O’Neill, who expressed hostility to the investigation and later was fired.
Per multiple sources, Ravens employees automatically and without hesitation surrendered their cell phones for forensic examination that entailed a specific search for certain recipients and phrases. The procedure balanced the needs of the investigation with individual privacy rights.
Here, multiple individuals chose to extend their privacy rights so broadly that it interfered with their obligation to cooperate with their employer. Separate from whatever the Patriots did or didn’t do to the footballs, the failure to cooperate requires punishment, or others will do the same thing in the future
Comment