Brady's dad has a point, as does his agent and the Pats owner Kraft. Goodell is running a Keystone Cops organization with his "enforcement." No consistency and a forever-moving line for determining guilt. Brady's agent wasn't on the mark on everything (how can it be a sting operation if the balls are actually deflated?), but he was right about the "investigation" being a sham. They had the conclusion beforehand, and just had to find enough to conclude that it was likely he knew. What kind of penalty does one deserve if they "probably knew" something? A preponderance of the evidence standard is very shaky when you're talking about bringing forth suspensions, levying fines, and generally affecting lives/jobs.
For example, the report talks about no phone communication between Brady and the equipment dudes for the 6 months leading up to the Colts game and then a shitload afterwards. They use that as a factor in determining it was likely he knew something about it. Well, if you think he did, you are going to conclude that they had to chat and get their stories straight. But if he didn't, then of course he's going to communicate with him and figure out WTF is going on. And no phone communication for 6 months would seem to support that there was no conspiracy, unless the conspiracy was strictly verbalized. But which scenario trumps the other? If you're a firm being paid to investigate and draw a conclusion, then you conclude it's "more likely than not" evidence of some conspiracy.