That someone ‘probably’ did something is not evidence nor substantiation of charges.
It seems that ‘probably’ is all they could come up with after 4 months of investigation.
It seems that ‘probably’ is all they could come up with after 4 months of investigation.
Yes it is. The standard of proof under the NFL's rules (which is the same as the standard of proof in nearly ever civil lawsuit) is the "preponderance of the evidence," meaning that, in order to impose disciline on someone, all they have to prove is that it was "more probable than not" that the person violated the rules.
The fact that this investigation found that it was "more probable than not" that Brady was involved does not indicate weakness in the evidence, it indicates that they conducted the investigation pursuant to the relevant burden of proof.