#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[BballTim]

For the record, Ballghazi is a better name than DeflateGate.

  Sure, and you've got the Brady phone/Hillary email server parallel.

[D.o.s.]

precisely (tinfoil hat, activate!), plus everything gets the -Gate suffix. It's beyond passe at this point.

[knuckleballer]

When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.

Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.

But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.

So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:

A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time

B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls

If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?

Option B is ridiculous.

Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.

Is there an option C? What am I missing?

That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.

I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.

Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed.  They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said.  They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. 

Here's why that logic is flawed.  They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to.  Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing.  If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used.  Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74. 

I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why.  If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that.  And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in. 

Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him.  And that's correct.  But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report.   Why or how did they overlook this?  Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology?  Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative.  They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians.  What?? How could I make such an accusation?  Exponent is infamous for exactly this.  They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.

If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video.  (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo


It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with.  It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd.  Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges).  Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.

  That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.

What?  It's not weak.  First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report.  Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns.  Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner.  Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount.  Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.

  Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.

Trust you?!  A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you.  You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop.  I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong.  So, no I do not trust you.

I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates?  Thanks for the laugh.

  I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.

  To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).

It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure?  Nothing after that is worth reading.  Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close.  You do not pass 8th grade science.

And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong.  I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is.  The video I posted as well as the very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned.  They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others. 

[BballTim]

When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.

Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.

But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.

So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:

A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time

B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls

If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?

Option B is ridiculous.

Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.

Is there an option C? What am I missing?

That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.

I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.

Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed.  They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said.  They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. 

Here's why that logic is flawed.  They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to.  Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing.  If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used.  Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74. 

I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why.  If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that.  And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in. 

Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him.  And that's correct.  But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report.   Why or how did they overlook this?  Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology?  Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative.  They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians.  What?? How could I make such an accusation?  Exponent is infamous for exactly this.  They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.

If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video.  (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo


It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with.  It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd.  Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges).  Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.

  That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.

What?  It's not weak.  First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report.  Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns.  Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner.  Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount.  Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.

  Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.

Trust you?!  A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you.  You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop.  I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong.  So, no I do not trust you.

I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates?  Thanks for the laugh.

  I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.

  To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).

It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure?  Nothing after that is worth reading.  Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close.  You do not pass 8th grade science.

  When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which is certainly the case.

And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong.  I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is.  The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned.  They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.

  Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?

[BballTim]

precisely (tinfoil hat, activate!), plus everything gets the -Gate suffix. It's beyond passe at this point.

  While it's beyond passe, the "people get into more trouble for the cover-up than the crime" aspect never gets old. It's practically unavoidable.

[BballTim]

So, as part of the appeals process, Brady submits some emails completely unrelated to deflategate (in an effort to convince people he's trying to cooperate). Since they were made public (as the rest of the appeal was), he can now claim that he was right to not turn over texts because they'd obviously be leaked, and he was understandably worried that all of his personal (non deflate-gate related) texts, which the investigation *never asked to have* would also be leaked? I hope nobody's seeing anything else when they look at that.

The email release was ordered by Judge Berman, wasn't it?

Yeah but that didnt fit Tim's narrative.

But anyways I am so sick of this. Brady clearly had some level of guilt. But I still find the punishment imposed on the Patriots egregious. A first round pick when the Wells report specifically exonerates Kraft and Bellicheck? I get a 4 game Brady suspension but I dont get that.

  I don't really see what his comment (or yours) have to do with the part of my post that was bolded. Why would Brady turn over texts about a pool cover in response to a request for texts related to deflate-gate? Why would anyone consider that to be cooperation?

"To try and reconcile the record and fully cooperate with the investigation after I was disciplined in May, we turned over detailed pages of cell phone records and all of the emails that Mr. Wells requested,” Brady wrote. “We even contacted the phone company to see if there was any possible way we could retrieve any/all of the actual text messages from my old phone. In short, we exhausted every possibility to give the NFL everything we could and offered to go thru the identity for every text and phone call during the relevant time. Regardless, the NFL knows that Mr. Wells already had ALL relevant communications with Patriots personnel that either Mr. Wells saw or that I was questioned about in my appeal hearing.”   http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-turned-over-emails-cell-phone-records/268756



"On June 3 his forensic examiner catalogued all 5,317 emails Brady sent or received between Sept. 1, 2014 and March 1, 2015. These emails were searched for the following terms:

k-ball, kball, gage, air-pump, airpump, needle, pin, PSI, pounds per square inch, 12.5, bladder, McNally, Bird, 1 pound, 1 lb, one pound, one lb, 2 pound, 2 lb, two pound, two lb, gaug* [the * means that all variations of “gaug” were included, such as gauge, gauging, gauged etc.], pump*, inflat*, deflat*, (game OR kick*) ball ~2 [this means Brady’s emails were searched to see whether the words “game” or “kick*” were found within two words of “ball”], (prep* OR rub*) AND (ball OR football) ~10, (investigat* OR meet* OR discuss* OR question) AND (championship OR Jan* 18 OR 1/18), investigat* AND (ball OR football OR Ind* OR Colts) ~10, (equilib* OR atmosphere* OR climat* OR environment* OR test* OR experiment) AND (ball OR football) ~10".  http://deadspin.com/the-full-story-of-tom-bradys-destroyed-cell-phone-1722190784


pump* is in the pool cover e-mail

  Ok, so they were in "flood the investigation with reams of irrelevant data" mode after destroying the data that was requested. Got it.

  But how does that fit in with his refusal to comply with the investigation's original request because of the precedent it would set?

From the hearing Ted Wells testified “I did not tell Mr Brady at any time that he would be subject to punishment for not giving … not turning over the documents. I did not say anything like that."



Also from the hearing, there is this exchange between Kessler and Brady

Q. During that time, did they ever tell you that if you didn't turn over some texts or e-mails or respond to that that you were going to be disciplined in any way, you know, that you were going to be violating some, you know, specific policy about that or anything like that? Did they ever tell you that?

A. No.

Q. If you had been informed by them and they said look, this is your duty to cooperate, would you then have produced them no matter what your agents and your counsel said?

A. Yes.

  I don't get the expectation that every request from the investigation needs to be accompanied by a statement about any possible punishments for failure to comply with it. Wouldn't you expect at least some of that responsibility to fall on his own counsel?

No.  There was no legal obligation to turn over the phone or to provide electronic communication.  It was a basic discovery dispute that Wells did not challenge.  It's not the lawyers fault the NFL would use such nonsensical reasoning to determine guilt in absence of real evidence that would be thrown out of every court in the country.

  This wasn't a court of law. There was no claim that it was, and the punishment was based  on conclusions that contained phrases like "more likely than not". You're trying to apply standards that apparently don't fit the situation.

  And while there was no "legal" obligation to provide the electronic communication, the nfl had apparently punished a player in the past for a lack of cooperation, so it should have been clear that there could be consequences for that action.

If it was "clear", it would've been spelled out. Heck, the NFL can't even get it straight with this notion.

  So you're saying, for the sake of clarity, that every single request the nfl  makes would come with a list of possible punishments for failing to comply? I don't think that's very realistic. I'd guess that before Brady refused the request, he'd have consulted with someone who was in some way representing his interests. Whoever that was should have looked into the issue before advising him.

What were they supposed to look into?  The only time someone was fined for not handing over their cell phone was when Brett Favre was fine $50,000 for sending young female NFL employees pictures of his penis from his cell phone which was obviously the center of that case.  How were they supposed to know that it would lead to a $1 million fine, a first and fourth round pick to the team, and a four game suspension for Brady? 

Wells testified that he did not tell them that failure to produce the phone would penalize them, nevermind be the primary factor in these punishments.  The NFL is making things up as they go along as well as telling many lies.  There is no way to deal with that.

  I don't think that the team's punishment was wholly based on Brady not cooperating with the investigation. Beyond that, though, since Favre had been punished for not cooperating with an investigation, Brady's advisers should have known that there could have been repercussions for not turning over the texts and informed Brady of that.

I'm sure the notion of a fine for not cooperating was breached.  (See $50,000 for Favre is that particular incident).  However, I'm not sure anyone realized the NFL was gonna make things up on the fly and throw a 4 game suspension at him without pay.  Which is going to cost a helluva lot more than $50,000.

Brady settles for a fine.  Pretty sure of that.

  So if Brady's advisers told him that he might get fined, then you'd have to fault them for telling Brady he wouldn't get more of a punishment than that without checking into the situation. You'd also have to wonder how accurate Brady's "I had no idea you could get punished for that" claim was.

Tim, there isn't a precedent for this.  There is nothing even close.  You have the benefit of 20/20 here.  Are they going to outline every possible scenario under the sun ever conceived or spell out ramifications based on NFL precedent?  The NFL made up things on the fly here and have continually "moved the goal posts" based on the timeline of events. 

That's why this whole sham of a process is in a federal court right now.

  Yes, the punishments were shocking. But that's not really the same as "nobody's ever been punished for that before" which I've heard a lot (not from you).

[knuckleballer]

When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.

Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.

But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.

So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:

A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time

B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls

If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?

Option B is ridiculous.

Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.

Is there an option C? What am I missing?

That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.

I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.

Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed.  They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said.  They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. 

Here's why that logic is flawed.  They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to.  Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing.  If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used.  Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74. 

I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why.  If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that.  And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in. 

Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him.  And that's correct.  But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report.   Why or how did they overlook this?  Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology?  Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative.  They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians.  What?? How could I make such an accusation?  Exponent is infamous for exactly this.  They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.

If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video.  (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo


It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with.  It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd.  Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges).  Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.

  That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.

What?  It's not weak.  First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report.  Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns.  Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner.  Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount.  Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.

  Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.

Trust you?!  A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you.  You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop.  I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong.  So, no I do not trust you.

I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates?  Thanks for the laugh.

  I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.

  To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).

It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure?  Nothing after that is worth reading.  Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close.  You do not pass 8th grade science.

  When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.

And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong.  I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is.  The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned.  They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.

  Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?

Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning.  We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake.  We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".

The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures.  Obviously, you did not watch the whole video.  Two scenarios by two scenarios.  Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated.  Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge.  (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing.  Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.)  The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios.  They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance.  Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance.  And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range.  Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).

Sigh, what's next?  Smh.

[Vermont Green]

An interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork

By:

John M. Dowd served as Special Counsel to three commissioners of Major League Baseball in the investigations of Pete Rose, George Steinbrenner, and others. As a federal prosecutor, he conducted the internal investigation of the FBI and of Congressman Dan Flood of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of is the author of www.DeflategateFacts.com. The views expressed are his own.

Not sure if Mr. Dowd has a reason for any bias in this but he has pretty strong opinions.

By telling Brady they didn't "want to take access" to his cellphone, the league effectively set Brady up for an ambush when he was unable to produce it upon appeal. By failing to notify Brady that not producing his phone would result in discipline for non-cooperation, the league denied him his fundamental right to a notice of charge and the right to defend against it. And by repeatedly shifting its goal posts on what was expected of him -- and what could be used against him -- the NFL's investigation lost its fairness and integrity.

and

The NFL's fundamental failure to conduct an expeditious, fair, honest and consistent approach to rules enforcement undermines the entire game. The league needs to reconsider its suspension of Tom Brady, and use this unfortunate episode as an opportunity to correct a terrible injustice to one the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.

And on the question of precedent for being penalized for noncooperation, he clarifies this:

No player has ever been suspended for failing to cooperate before.

Players have been penalized (fined) but never suspended.

[Donoghus]

Details on that Jim Turner lawsuit filed earlier today (former Dolphins coach).  Where have we seen this headline before? 

Jim Turner’s lawyer accuses Ted Wells of giving NFL what it wanted

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith has described the outcome of the league’s “independent” investigation of the Patriots as the client getting what the client wanted. Former Dolphins offensive line coach Jim Turner believes that’s not the first time this has happened.

In a press release issued Monday regarding Turner’s suit against Ted Wells and the Paul, Weiss law firm, Turner accuses Wells of “echo[ing] the NFL’s predetermined conclusion that [Jonathan] Martin was the innocent victim of bullying and harassment and ignored and mischaracterized what really occurred in the Dolphins locker room.”

(Patriots fans are currently sporting their shocked faces.)

Turner, through lawyer Peter Ginsberg, contends that the NFL’s investigation had more to do with responding to public pressure than getting to the truth, and that the NFL “could not afford to be perceived as insensitive or unwilling to take harassment seriously.”

Turner specifically claims that Wells and his firm “withheld and ignored key information from the final Report, including testimony and potential testimony of several former and current Dolphins players and coaches.” Turner contends that Wells and his firm “falsely accused [Turner] of helping to create the atmosphere that allowed bullying and harassment to happen.”

Said Ginsberg to close the press release: “The Defendants, reflecting the NFL’s and Commissioner Goodell’s mindset, ignored and simply did not care that they were sacrificing the reputations and careers of people like Jim Turner in order to fashion a public relations campaign designed solely to ‘protect the shield.’ It takes someone like Jim, with courage and conviction, to stand up against the NFL machine and its law firm hired guns.”

It indeed takes plenty of courage for Turner to do this, because filing a lawsuit definitely not one of the steps for getting back into the NFL. With more than a full year passed since Turner was fired by the Dolphins, that’s apparently not happening anyway. So why not fight back?

[knuckleballer]

An interesting article:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/07/opinions/dowd-nfl-brady-investigation/?iid=ob_article_footer_expansion&iref=obnetwork

By:

John M. Dowd served as Special Counsel to three commissioners of Major League Baseball in the investigations of Pete Rose, George Steinbrenner, and others. As a federal prosecutor, he conducted the internal investigation of the FBI and of Congressman Dan Flood of Pennsylvania. He is also the author of is the author of www.DeflategateFacts.com. The views expressed are his own.

Not sure if Mr. Dowd has a reason for any bias in this but he has pretty strong opinions.

By telling Brady they didn't "want to take access" to his cellphone, the league effectively set Brady up for an ambush when he was unable to produce it upon appeal. By failing to notify Brady that not producing his phone would result in discipline for non-cooperation, the league denied him his fundamental right to a notice of charge and the right to defend against it. And by repeatedly shifting its goal posts on what was expected of him -- and what could be used against him -- the NFL's investigation lost its fairness and integrity.

and

The NFL's fundamental failure to conduct an expeditious, fair, honest and consistent approach to rules enforcement undermines the entire game. The league needs to reconsider its suspension of Tom Brady, and use this unfortunate episode as an opportunity to correct a terrible injustice to one the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.

And on the question of precedent for being penalized for noncooperation, he clarifies this:

No player has ever been suspended for failing to cooperate before.

Players have been penalized (fined) but never suspended.

I believe Dowd said he is a Steelers fan.  He's just outraged by the awful work of someone who also works in this limited field.  It's a good article, but his website on the subject is even better.  http://www.deflategatefacts.com

[Donoghus]

Yeah, Dowd has come out and said he's a Steelers fan so that Pats bias cry can go out the window on this one.

[mef730]

For the record, Ballghazi is a better name than DeflateGate.

  Sure, and you've got the Brady phone/Hillary email server parallel.

And there's the breakthrough. Brady didn't toss his phone because he had naked pictures of Gisele, but rather, because he was having an affair with Hillary. Knowing that his hot texts with HC would become public and remembering what Elin Nordegren did to Tiger's car, he dumped the phone. And Hillary Clinton, knowing that government emails would be retained, used her personal email accounts.

Mike

[BballTim]

When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.

Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.

But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.

So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:

A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time

B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls

If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?

Option B is ridiculous.

Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.

Is there an option C? What am I missing?

That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.

I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.

Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed.  They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said.  They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. 

Here's why that logic is flawed.  They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to.  Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing.  If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used.  Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74. 

I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why.  If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that.  And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in. 

Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him.  And that's correct.  But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report.   Why or how did they overlook this?  Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology?  Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative.  They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians.  What?? How could I make such an accusation?  Exponent is infamous for exactly this.  They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.

If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video.  (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo


It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with.  It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd.  Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges).  Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.

  That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.

What?  It's not weak.  First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report.  Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns.  Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner.  Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount.  Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.

  Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.

Trust you?!  A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you.  You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop.  I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong.  So, no I do not trust you.

I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates?  Thanks for the laugh.

  I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.

  To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).

It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure?  Nothing after that is worth reading.  Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close.  You do not pass 8th grade science.

  When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.

And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong.  I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is.  The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned.  They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.

  Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?

Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning.  We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake.  We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".

  You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last  months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.

The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures.  Obviously, you did not watch the whole video.  Two scenarios by two scenarios.  Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated.  Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge.  (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing.  Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.)  The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios.  They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance.  Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance.  And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range.  Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).

  So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.

[BballTim]

For the record, Ballghazi is a better name than DeflateGate.

  Sure, and you've got the Brady phone/Hillary email server parallel.

And there's the breakthrough. Brady didn't toss his phone because he had naked pictures of Gisele, but rather, because he was having an affair with Hillary. Knowing that his hot texts with HC would become public and remembering what Elin Nordegren did to Tiger's car, he dumped the phone. And Hillary Clinton, knowing that government emails would be retained, used her personal email accounts.

Mike

  Apparently he tossed it because he's foolish enough to download a bunch of contracts onto it and leave them there.

[knuckleballer]

When the 2 pounds report, the deflator text and the ballboy in the bathroom were reported, I thought the pats did it.

Then two things happened. The actual measurements came out and the drop could be explained by the ideal gas law.

But the text and the bathroom visit still looms and the coincidence is tough to swallow.

So let's say that brady conspired in the scheme, that means that either:

A) the deflator takes the balls in the bathroom and decides that for some reason he's not going to take air out this time

B) the deflator takes maaaybe .01 out of the balls

If you believe in the ideal gas law AND you believe that brady is guilty then you must believe in A or B. So which is it?

Option B is ridiculous.

Option A means there is no violation, at least for this game.

Is there an option C? What am I missing?

That's only if you believe that the Wells report got it wrong regarding which gauge was used, and if you further assume that environmental factors led to over 25% of the balls still being outside the scientific range.

I've already explained the valid and expected reasons why some balls would fall below the range and that overall, or on average, the measurements of the balls fell within the expected range.

Exponent's logic to determine the gauge was totaly flawed.  They found that since the non logo gauge was closer to a master gauge that it was more likely the non logo gauge was used despite what Walt Anderson said.  They also bought a dozen or more store bought gauges which measured closer to the non logo gauge. Of course all the gauges they bought coincidentally was the exact same model as the non logo gauge. 

Here's why that logic is flawed.  They chose not to test either the Patriots or Colt's gauge and they don't know which gauge they were closer to.  Also, even if both the Colts' and the Pats' gauges were perfectly aligned with the master gauge, it still tells you nothing.  If it was just 3 degrees warmer in the rooms they set the balls, it would be more likely that the logo gauge was used.  Keep in mind that the room the ref measured the balls in pregame was set to 67-71 while the locker room they measured the balls at half time was 71-74. 

I find their logic extremely suspicious and here's why.  If you want to make your best estimation to which gauge was used, you would obtain the Colt's and the Pats gauge, talk to the equipment managers about their process of preparing the balls including rubbing them down which raises psi and when they set the psi level relative to that.  And as I already pointed out, check the thermostats of the rooms it was done in. 

Both Wells and Exponent pointed out that the process I mentioned was irrelevant to determine the starting psi level of the footballs because the ref did not measure them for an hour after the balls were delivered to him.  And that's correct.  But it is very relevant to determine which gauge was used which was imperative to the report.   Why or how did they overlook this?  Exponent is smart, so how could they overlook something so very obvious in replace of such a flawed methodology?  Because they were not interested in getting facts, but proving a certain narrative.  They made several mistakes, some obvious to any thinking non scientist and some less obvious that were caught by scientists and staticians.  What?? How could I make such an accusation?  Exponent is infamous for exactly this.  They are currently in contempt of court (maybe not the right terminology) for refusing to support their work which a judge thought was bunk.

If you want to understand the science and Exponent's biggest mistake in logic, watch this video.  (You can also read Steve McIntyre's blog.)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Cx0P3NErcNo


It breaks down the science very well and points out that the balls most likely weren't tampered with.  It also points out that the worst case scenario, only about 0.35 psi was removed which isn't enough for a human to notice, therefore is absurd.  Hmmm, that number sounds familiar (the calibration difference between the two gauges).  Especially when running such a risky scheme using a part time, minimum wage, obese employee who acts like a clown.

  That's a pretty weak ob of breaking down the science, and even at that he points out that the balls *most likely* weren't tampered with. You keep reading these questionable reports and deciding that "most likely" means "definitely". It doesn't.

What?  It's not weak.  First of all, I figured most of this out myself when I read the report.  Second of all, I can point you to many other scientific breakdowns.  Third, no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner.  Fourth, the worst case, unlikely scenario, even according to Exponent, was that only a few tenths of a psi was removed and that is an irrelevant amount.  Fifth, the balls measured as they were expected as per the gauge the ref said he used and therefore there was no reason for any suspicion in the first place except for pure ignorance.

  Trust me, it's weak. And, for the record, "no one can say "definitely" about this as there are too many variables as the testing was done in an uncontrolled manner" is what I've been saying all along, which you've been disagreeing with.

Trust you?!  A week ago you had no clue about the science after more than six months of expressing your opinion about the subject and I had to correct you.  You incorrectly thought it was impossible that science could even explain a 1.1 psi drop.  I worked it out myself back in January. It's so easy to calculate and you still had it wrong.  So, no I do not trust you.

I'm supposed to trust a guy who failed at a middle school science problem who he had over six months to figure out over myself, Ivy league deans, physics professors, world renowned staticians, and chemistry Nobel Laureates?  Thanks for the laugh.

  I think we've already established that your trust on this issue is based on whether a claim supports the pats even half as much as you think it does. It's true that I didn't consider the effect of atmospheric pressure in my *initial* calculation, it's equally obvious that you don't know much about what you're discussing.

  To summarize that report, the guy claimed that the colts balls had higher PSIs that the pats balls because the air in them had warmed more, didn't offer any explanation whatsoever as to why that pattern wasn't apparent in the pats balls (the balls measured last had less pressure than most of the balls measured before them), and then simply declared the amount of under-inflation in the pats balls to be "statistically insignificant". This seems to have escaped your attention, apparently you didn't read that on the internet (oops, I mean work it out yourself).

It's true that after seven months of writing your opinions, you still had not considered atmospheric pressure?  Nothing after that is worth reading.  Sorry, but you do not match up with the people whose work your are criticizing, not even close.  You do not pass 8th grade science.

  When you get a chance, have someone explain what the word "initial" means. Hopefully someone from the pro-Brady camp, so you'll be more willing to listen to them. The only comment that I made before that was that the nfl would never be able to determine what happened based on their measurements, which has certainly the case.

And honestly, everything you wrote is wrong.  I don't mean to be a jerk, it just is.  The video I posted as well as they very many high end intellectuals who have written on the subject have adressed every thing you just questioned.  They did not just declare things to be scientifically insignificant, they used common practice standards as was explained in that video and by so many others.

  Ok, I'll bite. What was the explanation (from the video) for why the pats balls didn't follow the expected pattern of balls being measured later having higher psi than the pats balls measured earlier (when they were colder)?

Initial: existing or occurring at the beginning.  We are now six plus months into this and you have written your opionions many, many times before understanding your "initial" mistake.  We are well beyond "initial" and if I did not correct you, you would still be pushing your wrong "initial" "calculations".

  You stopped too early when you went to learn what initial means. It also means first, as in "the first time I calculated psi loss". I haven't spent the last  months writing my opinions on this, you're just making things up.

The video gave 4 scenarios for explanations for the ball pressures.  Obviously, you did not watch the whole video.  Two scenarios by two scenarios.  Order of measurements: Pats balls measured, Pats balls inflated, Colts balls measured; Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated.  Calculated for both the logo and non logo gauge.  (You seriously did not watch the video you are criticizing.  Why I'm explaining this two you, I dont know since will just make something else up.)  The video created 4 quadrants for the 4 scenarios.  They found that under 3 of the scenarios, the balls measured within the range of statistical significance.  Only under the non logo gauge, Pats balls measured, Colts balls measured, Pats balls inflated scenario did the Pats ball fall outside of statistical significance.  And in that scenario, the Patriots balls fell 0.35 psi outside of range.  Of course this scenario means the ref was wrong about which gauge he used, the refs were misleading when they said they ran out of time measuring the Colts balls, and it doesn't make any sense since the 0.35psi is not noticeable to the human touch (and coincidentally the difference between the calibibration difference between the two gauges, hmmm).

  So in other words, no explanation at all about why the pats balls didn't follow the same pattern as the colts balls (the predicted pattern), just a claim that the under-inflation was statistically insignificant. Which is what I said, if you can remember that far back.

They did depending on the scenario.  I explained it. The video explained it.  Good God, man.  If only you spent as much time learning as you do writing.  Smh.