#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[kozlodoev]

Another interesting thing:

Blakeman's gauge measures all Pats balls about .3-.5 PSI lower than Prioleau's gauge.

Prioleau's gauge measures all but one Colts balls .3.-.5 PSI lower than Blakeman's gauge.

It doesn't make any sense.

Also filing under "things that don't make sense": the officials had time to only test 15 balls at halftime, and yet the report contends that deflation could reasonably only take a minute.

 

[kozlodoev]

John Tomase @jtomase | 35 min 46 sec ago | The one thing the McNally and Jastremski texts prove incontrovertibly is I wouldn't want to spend 5 seconds with either of them. #toolboxes

Seconded.

[Donoghus]

We waited 3+ months for that?  I'm not sure much as changed since January.  With the "more probable than not" conclusion, is anyone really that swayed here? 

Seems like whatever side of the fence you were in on this back in January, then you're probably on that same side today after the report release. 

[Roy H.]

For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.

It's a very low bar of proof.  To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.

Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years.  It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting.  "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.

In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case.  Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period.  Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.

[KG Living Legend]

 The other thing that is pathetic about this is Roger Godell new what the report was pre draft and decided no draft picks would be taken away which is the only thing i give a [dang] about, Brady not getting suspended if you want fine or fire those two scrubs.

[KG Living Legend]

 IMO it is more probable than not that the NFL and Roger Godell is a joke.

[kozlodoev]

For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.

It's a very low bar of proof.  To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.

Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years.  It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting.  "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.

In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case.  Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period.  Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.

Then again, there is a reason why the standard of proof is lower in civil cases than it is in criminal cases.

[Rondo2287]

Another interesting thing:

Blakeman's gauge measures all Pats balls about .3-.5 PSI lower than Prioleau's gauge.

Prioleau's gauge measures all but one Colts balls .3.-.5 PSI lower than Blakeman's gauge.

It doesn't make any sense.

Also filing under "things that don't make sense": the officials had time to only test 15 balls at halftime, and yet the report contends that deflation could reasonably only take a minute.

 

Does the report say they only had time to measure 15 balls?

[kozlodoev]

Another interesting thing:

Blakeman's gauge measures all Pats balls about .3-.5 PSI lower than Prioleau's gauge.

Prioleau's gauge measures all but one Colts balls .3.-.5 PSI lower than Blakeman's gauge.

It doesn't make any sense.

Also filing under "things that don't make sense": the officials had time to only test 15 balls at halftime, and yet the report contends that deflation could reasonably only take a minute.

 

Does the report say they only had time to measure 15 balls?

Yes, quite literally. The text stated something to the effect of "Only 4 Colts balls were measured because officials ran out of time". 

[Roy H.]

For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.

It's a very low bar of proof.  To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.

Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years.  It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting.  "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.

In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case.  Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period.  Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.

Then again, there is a reason why the standard of proof is lower in civil cases than it is in criminal cases.

Right.  When you're taking away somebody's liberty, you need higher proof, as it should be.  The room for error is higher with a "more likely than not" standard.

I just object to treating the preponderance of the evidence standard almost as if it's some insubstantial standard created by the NFL to screw the Patriots.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

So they found that:

1) Pats told the refs Brady wanted balls at 12.5
2) Colts apparently targeted 13 PSI
3) After being measured by 2 separate officials, 3 of the 4 Colts balls tested at halftime measured below 12.5 PSI (!)

I'm unsure how after that they would expect any Patriots ball to be inflated within the limits. What a monumental waste of time.

This is how I look at it: If the Vikings can get away with heating up balls—on the sidelines—during the game—IN FRONT OF NATIONAL TV CAMERAS ... then people need to shut the heck up about the Patriots.

[kozlodoev]

Right.  When you're taking away somebody's liberty, you need higher proof, as it should be.  The room for error is higher with a "more likely than not" standard.

I just object to treating the preponderance of the evidence standard almost as if it's some insubstantial standard created by the NFL to screw the Patriots.

I agree with that. I just want to point out that the language is consistent with handing out fines (coincidentally, this is what the rulebook suggests, too).

[PhoSita]

For those folks without legal training or knowledge, "more probable than not" means nothing beyond "at least 50.00000000000000001%" likelihood.

It's a very low bar of proof.  To spend weeks and weeks and thousands of dollars in an investigation and come forward with "more probable than not," and nothing more specific than that, is pretty weak.

Well, it's also the same burden of proof as in almost every civil case in the entire country, and has been for hundreds of years.  It's not quite as flimsy as you're suggesting.  "More likely than not" means that the facts weigh in the direction of culpability.

In our legal system, damages aren't determined by how confident the finder of fact is that a plaintiff has proved his case.  Once the case is proved -- whether it be 50.01% or 100.0% -- it's proved, period.  Damages are what they are, and if the NFL follows that model, penalties should be the same whether there was a smoking gun or simply a likelihood of guilt.

You're right.  When it comes to civil cases, 50.000001% is sufficient to meet the burden.

My point is that however much some people may want to make of this report, the conclusions are a far cry from definitive proof that the Patriots are cheaters and that Tom Brady was in on it.

Proving your case in a civil trial is a long way away from clearly proving that the other person did something wrong.

Also, damages can depend on what was actually proven at trial and to what degree.  Meeting the burden often just means that you are entitled to damages.  It's then up to the jury, in many cases, to determine how far above the minimum penalty they will choose to go in penalizing the defendant.

[Cman]

We waited 3+ months for that?  I'm not sure much as changed since January.  With the "more probable than not" conclusion, is anyone really that swayed here? 

Seems like whatever side of the fence you were in on this back in January, then you're probably on that same side today after the report release.

Yes, I agree. It more probable than not that everyone's opinion remains the same. But I've run out of time to do anything more systematic than make that statement.

[kozlodoev]

Also, damages can depend on what was actually proven at trial and to what degree.  Meeting the burden often just means that you are entitled to damages.  It's then up to the jury, in many cases, to determine how far above the minimum penalty they will choose to go in penalizing the defendant.

The minimum penalty here, IIRC, is a five-digit fine...