#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[BballTim]

So was it 22 minutes, after ?nearly ten? minutes? Or was it about 49 minutes, after about nine minutes? Does this matter, all these facts and figures? Only insofar as the Wells Report (and Goodell) have tried to transform an avalanche of statistics about cellphone conversations into evidence of wrongdoing. If that?s your strategy, at least stay consistent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/

The tide has turned on the discredited NFL league office, who have proven time and time again that the "popular decision" will always be their path, regardless of the actual circumstances surrounding a case they're handling.

   While the mistakes he pointed out don't affect the story much, you'd hope that with the millions he was charging the nfl Wells would have put out a report that was free of such errors.

[knuckleballer]

I agree that the Wells report for what it cost should not be so easy for regular people to point out its flaws.  Exponent received $600K and laymen like me pointed out its many flaws upon first reading that were later pointed out by scholars like Dean Snyder and many other respected staticians and scientists. 

You should read Wells' colleague Lorin Reisner's attempted take down of a Yale dean's destruction of Exponent's report.  It is a fascinating take of dumb attacking smart.

[Beat LA]

While watching american ninja warrior tonight, my sister remarked, "these guys are all stuck on the balls," to which I replied, "so is the nfl," .

[knuckleballer]

While watching american ninja warrior tonight, my sister remarked, "these guys are all stuck on the balls," to which I replied, "so is the nfl," .

Are you sure you understood what your sister was referring to?            

[Vermont Green]

So was it 22 minutes, after ?nearly ten? minutes? Or was it about 49 minutes, after about nine minutes? Does this matter, all these facts and figures? Only insofar as the Wells Report (and Goodell) have tried to transform an avalanche of statistics about cellphone conversations into evidence of wrongdoing. If that?s your strategy, at least stay consistent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/dc-sports-bog/wp/2015/08/05/roger-goodell-misled-me-brady-appeal-transcript-shows/

The tide has turned on the discredited NFL league office, who have proven time and time again that the "popular decision" will always be their path, regardless of the actual circumstances surrounding a case they're handling.

   While the mistakes he pointed out don't affect the story much, you'd hope that with the millions he was charging the nfl Wells would have put out a report that was free of such errors.

The point of the article is Goodell made false statements in his 20 page appeal verdict (or what ever it is called).  The author agrees with you that the jumbled figures are not a large issue:

Still, that’s mostly trivia and fact-checking.

His real problem with Goodell (and mine) is:

Being deliberately misleading about whether or not Brady admitted to discussing the allegations with the assistant during those conversations is not [mostly trivial].

Here are the specific quotes taken from the transcript:

“Mr. Brady testified that he was unable to recall any specifics of those discussions and he suggested that their principal subject was preparation of game balls for the Super Bowl,”...Goodell further argued that the huge uptick in communication between Brady and the assistant "undermines any suggestion that the communications addressed only preparation of footballs for the Super Bowl rather than the tampering allegations and their anticipated responses to inquiries about the tampering.”

After the Well's report quoted Brady's testimony as:

Brady admitted that he didn’t “remember exactly what we discussed,” but suggested there were two topics: “one was the allegations which we were facing and the second was getting ready for the Super Bowl,” and that he was talking to the assistant “about those things.”

and

“I think I was trying to figure out what happened [with the footballs], you know what could be — possibly could have happened to those balls.”

All of this continues the pattern of blatantly false statements by the NFL intended for the sole purpose of disparaging Brady.  It was bad enough when such false and misleading statements were secretly leaked but in this case they are in writing, pretending to be a decision reached in an impartial appeal hearing.  How can anyone continue to take the side of the NFL on this; Pats fan or otherwise?

[Beat LA]

While watching american ninja warrior tonight, my sister remarked, "these guys are all stuck on the balls," to which I replied, "so is the nfl," .

Are you sure you understood what your sister was referring to?            

Yes, but that was obviously the other way to take the conversation, lol .

[knuckleballer]

While watching american ninja warrior tonight, my sister remarked, "these guys are all stuck on the balls," to which I replied, "so is the nfl," .

Are you sure you understood what your sister was referring to?            

Yes, but that was obviously the other way to take the conversation, lol .

Hey man, this isn't about you... 

[danglertx]

I keep hearing people say this evidence is circumstantial as a way to minimize circumstantial evidence but actually circumstantial evidence is often the best evidence.  However, most of the evidence Well's uses isn't really circumstantial evidence, it is just pure speculation on his part. 

For instance, Well's asks Jasteremski, McNally and Brady if they did it.  They say, "no."  That is direct evidence, testimony from people who were there or not there, whatever.  This evidence is totally uncontroverted.  Nobody says, "I saw them do it."   There isn't any video of someone doing it.  There is literally no other direct evidence in this case directly tying these three guys to deflating the footballs.And to be fair, we generally don't put much stock in direct evidence like this because, well people lie.

Yet, the fact that McNally took the balls into a restroom on his way to the field and is there for an amount of time I don't think anyone would say isn't consistent with doing what people normally do in a restroom, many people hold that as more evidential than the direct testimony of three people.

[Roy H.]

Yet, the fact that McNally took the balls into a restroom on his way to the field and is there for an amount of time I don't think anyone would say isn't consistent with doing what people normally do in a restroom, many people hold that as more evidential than the direct testimony of three people.

I think people see it as being important because of the imaginary urinal.

"He said that on the day of the AFC Championship Game, he entered the bathroom, dropped the ball bags to his left, and used the urinal to his right," the report said. "That bathroom, however, does not contain a urinal. Upon further questioning, McNally claimed that he did not pay attention to what type of fixture he used."

If that's the type of direct testimony elicited, I would see it as lacking credibility and being self-serving, too.  From what I read of the transcript, I see Brady's testimony the same time.  His lack of credibility goes a long way in making me doubt his claims.

Of course, none of that means anything conclusive, but it certainly doesn't paint a portrait of open and honest witnesses.

[danglertx]

Yet, the fact that McNally took the balls into a restroom on his way to the field and is there for an amount of time I don't think anyone would say isn't consistent with doing what people normally do in a restroom, many people hold that as more evidential than the direct testimony of three people.

I think people see it as being important because of the imaginary urinal.

"He said that on the day of the AFC Championship Game, he entered the bathroom, dropped the ball bags to his left, and used the urinal to his right," the report said. "That bathroom, however, does not contain a urinal. Upon further questioning, McNally claimed that he did not pay attention to what type of fixture he used."

If that's the type of direct testimony elicited, I would see it as lacking credibility and being self-serving, too.  From what I read of the transcript, I see Brady's testimony the same time.  His lack of credibility goes a long way in making me doubt his claims.

Of course, none of that means anything conclusive, but it certainly doesn't paint a portrait of open and honest witnesses.

Was there a fixture on the right?  Does this guy just say urinal when describing the place he pees?  Did they look to see if he ever used that restroom before?  Did Well's ask him?  Certainly you'd agree, if he walked in there he would have seen if there was a urinal or toilet there, even if he was just in there to deflate the balls. 

The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty, and the fact that Wells didn't check or at least doesn't mention that information to verify whether McNally has ever been in that restroom before says more about his independent investigation than whether or not McNally urinated in the bathroom.

Lets say McNally used that bathroom ten times before, does that make the fact he called the place he urinated a urinal instead of a toilet more or less likely that he deflated the footballs?  Or does that just mean he deflated the footballs in there ten other times?

People make mistakes on words all the time.  They say car when they really mean vehicle or truck for van.  It doesn't make them any less honest, it makes them human and not lawyers.  If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy a liar. 

[Cman]

Yet, the fact that McNally took the balls into a restroom on his way to the field and is there for an amount of time I don't think anyone would say isn't consistent with doing what people normally do in a restroom, many people hold that as more evidential than the direct testimony of three people.

I think people see it as being important because of the imaginary urinal.

"He said that on the day of the AFC Championship Game, he entered the bathroom, dropped the ball bags to his left, and used the urinal to his right," the report said. "That bathroom, however, does not contain a urinal. Upon further questioning, McNally claimed that he did not pay attention to what type of fixture he used."

If that's the type of direct testimony elicited, I would see it as lacking credibility and being self-serving, too.  From what I read of the transcript, I see Brady's testimony the same time.  His lack of credibility goes a long way in making me doubt his claims.

Of course, none of that means anything conclusive, but it certainly doesn't paint a portrait of open and honest witnesses.

Was there a fixture on the right?  Does this guy just say urinal when describing the place he pees?  Did they look to see if he ever used that restroom before?  Did Well's ask him?  Certainly you'd agree, if he walked in there he would have seen if there was a urinal or toilet there, even if he was just in there to deflate the balls. 

The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty, and the fact that Wells didn't check or at least doesn't mention that information to verify whether McNally has ever been in that restroom before says more about his independent investigation than whether or not McNally urinated in the bathroom.

Lets say McNally used that bathroom ten times before, does that make the fact he called the place he urinated a urinal instead of a toilet more or less likely that he deflated the footballs?  Or does that just mean he deflated the footballs in there ten other times?

People make mistakes on words all the time.  They say car when they really mean vehicle or truck for van.  It doesn't make them any less honest, it makes them human and not lawyers.  If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy a liar.

Unless of course he usually pees in the sink.
Doesn't make him a liar just would give me pause before washing my hands in a sink at Gilette.

[colincb]

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/curran-inconsistencies-regarding-possible-sting

"When we look at the notion of a sting, one glaring aspect of the testimony and that’s Troy Vincent, the NFL's vice president of operations, saying he had no awareness of a scheme to deflate footballs or an alert to check for deflated footballs until Ryan Grigson, the Colts GM, knocked on the door," Tom E. Curran said. "In the Wells Report, that was established long prior to that. Both Troy Vincent and Mike Kensil had mobilized prior to Ryan Grigson knocking on the door. These little inconsistencies hint at the NFL trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube."

[Roy H.]

The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty

No.  I think that anybody with common sense knows the difference between a toilet and a urinal.  The "I didn't pay attention to whether it was a urinal or a toilet" doesn't ring true at all to me.  Every man who has ever used one knows that there's a difference; you're not going to get them confused because you weren't "paying attention".

I would expect that people who accept that testimony as credible are also the type that accept that the nickname "deflator" was in reference to weight loss.

If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy[ a liar.

My educated guess is that you would then posit that people get their left from their right mixed up frequently, and that the contradictory testimony means very little.

[smicker16]

It is definitely clear that the Patriots and Brady contradict themselves but so don't the NFL a bunch of times too. It could just be not remembering every little detail or it could be covering something up.

As for the deflator comment I imagine you think that nickname came from him illegally deflating footballs?  The question then is what is your explanation for the Jets game? Brady decided to not have them deflate the footballs against a Rex Ryan defense he always struggled against? That might be the hardest thing to believe out of this. In which case the deflator nickname does not have to do with him illegally deflating footballs. Now whether you believe the weight loss explanation which is a real term or not is up to you. But based on text messages after that it clearly shows it does not mean illegally deflating footballs.

Also this is a random question and I'm not sure if anyone else knows but when did they look at these two guys text messages? I just find it hard to believe if they were illegally deflating footballs the only mention of psi ever is in a text where they directly say the balls should have been at 13psi. For two guys who aren't careful about what they text I just find it hard to believe they didn't message each other at all about illegally deflating footballs.

The fact you see that as making him less than honest says more about your position than his honesty

No.  I think that anybody with common sense knows the difference between a toilet and a urinal.  The "I didn't pay attention to whether it was a urinal or a toilet" doesn't ring true at all to me.  Every man who has ever used one knows that there's a difference; you're not going to get them confused because you weren't "paying attention".

I would expect that people who accept that testimony as credible are also the type that accept that the nickname "deflator" was in reference to weight loss.

If there was a sink on the right I'd be more inclined to call the guy[ a liar.

My educated guess is that you would then posit that people get their left from their right mixed up frequently, and that the contradictory testimony means very little.

[Rondo2287]

With regards to the jets game what about the text to his wife where he says, they were at 16, they were supposed to be at 13.  Are we to believe be lied to his wife?  What was his motivation for lying to his wife via text. 

This also comes after the deflator text.