#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[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.

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.

   If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.

   

[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.

   If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.

 

? Impossible.  It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured.  The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam.  You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected. 

[Vermont Green]

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.

I am on board with most if not all of what Dowd is writing but I just find it odd that he is being so vocal.  I am suspicious that he has some past beef with Wells or the NFL but I don't know.

[Vermont Green]

I keep trying to come up with a parallel and it is hard but here goes. 

Think if there was a police department that suspended a cop for tampering with evidence to help himself get promoted.  It all came about after they do a rushed inventory of the evidence room and find that something is missing (and subsequently leak this to the press, permanently harming the cops reputation).  Oh, they were tipped off by another cop was known not to like the accused cop in part because the tipper cop lost the promotion to the accused cop. 

They look into it, find some strange emails between the accused cop and the evidence room clerk's assistant (not a cop, just a low level employee) and have film of the clerk's assistance going into the bathroom with papers that he routinely carries from the evidence room to a court room (but isn't supposed to take into the bathroom).

Then, after a 4 month investigation, they find out that the inventory they took was flawed because they didn't account for the fact that evidence dries out and when they weighed the evidence, they didn't know what scale to use and aren't really sure what the evidence weighed in the first place, and in the end, they weren't sure that anything was even missing but there was a chance that maybe depending on what assumptions you make that some very small amount of evidence was missing.  Of course this potentially tampered with evidence was not impacted enough to have any barring on the case or the promotion.

Based on the independent investigation, the cop is suspended big time.

So 5 months later, during the accused cop's appeal (he has maintained his innocence all along), they ask for his phone.  The cop (in the union) didn't need to provide his phone but the other assistant guy did and provided it months ago.  The union guy had gotten a new phone along the way and "destroyed" his old phone because it included messages about cases and other sensitive information.  Hmmmm, "sounds fishy to me" the investigators say to themselves.

The final conclusion from the investigation appeal?  "Even though we don't know for sure if anything was missing from the evidence room, we believe that destroying of the phone proves that the cop was hiding something so he will be suspended for more probably than not, hiding something about an infraction that more probably than didn't happen".  Oh, and our investigation that we said was independent?  It wasn't independent because we don't think it needed to be independent.  And we are not going to allow anymore to be said about that due to client privilege.

Then the cops takes this to a real court where a real judge reviews the facts and provide a verdict that.........

(fill in the rest yourself or wait a few weeks).

[knuckleballer]

I keep trying to come up with a parallel and it is hard but here goes. 

Think if there was a police department that suspended a cop for tampering with evidence to help himself get promoted.  It all came about after they do a rushed inventory of the evidence room and find that something is missing (and subsequently leak this to the press, permanently harming the cops reputation).  Oh, they were tipped off by another cop was known not to like the accused cop in part because the tipper cop lost the promotion to the accused cop. 

They look into it, find some strange emails between the accused cop and the evidence room clerk's assistant (not a cop, just a low level employee) and have film of the clerk's assistance going into the bathroom with papers that he routinely carries from the evidence room to a court room (but isn't supposed to take into the bathroom).

Then, after a 4 month investigation, they find out that the inventory they took was flawed because they didn't account for the fact that evidence dries out and when they weighed the evidence, they didn't know what scale to use and aren't really sure what the evidence weighed in the first place, and in the end, they weren't sure that anything was even missing but there was a chance that maybe depending on what assumptions you make that some very small amount of evidence was missing.  Of course this potentially tampered with evidence was not impacted enough to have any barring on the case or the promotion.

Based on the independent investigation, the cop is suspended big time.

So 5 months later, during the accused cop's appeal (he has maintained his innocence all along), they ask for his phone.  The cop (in the union) didn't need to provide his phone but the other assistant guy did and provided it months ago.  The union guy had gotten a new phone along the way and "destroyed" his old phone because it included messages about cases and other sensitive information.  Hmmmm, "sounds fishy to me" the investigators say to themselves.

The final conclusion from the investigation appeal?  "Even though we don't know for sure if anything was missing from the evidence room, we believe that destroying of the phone proves that the cop was hiding something so he will be suspended for more probably than not, hiding something about an infraction that more probably than didn't happen".  Oh, and our investigation that we said was independent?  It wasn't independent because we don't think it needed to be independent.  And we are not going to allow anymore to be said about that due to client privilege.

Then the cops takes this to a real court where a real judge reviews the facts and provide a verdict that.........

(fill in the rest yourself or wait a few weeks).

How about this?  A bank was robbed of hundreds of thousands from its vault.  A tip points to a bank executive from a rival executive. All fingers then point at that executive.  They then learn that the armored truck arrived earlier than thought and all the cash is accounted for.  Still, the powers that be choose not to point this out and investigate this executive.  This executive is well to do and earns a good salary, but there are some e-mails that suggest he likes wealth and even once discussed bank security which he is not specifically responsible for.  The powers that be then learn that there is possibly $100 missing, but aren't sure because an accounting error may explain it.  An independent audit finds that the $100 is most definately an accounting error but can't say positively, but it's not that much money, easy to write off, and would not make sense for this executive to steal such a small amount of money considering the risk, his wealth, and his salary.  Still, the powers that be prosecute and convict the executive over the e-mails that he likes wealth and once discussed security.

[knuckleballer]

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.

I am on board with most if not all of what Dowd is writing but I just find it odd that he is being so vocal.  I am suspicious that he has some past beef with Wells or the NFL but I don't know.

It's the type of matter he has been involved with and as he has expressed that he is shocked and outraged by the stupidity and injustice of what has transpired.  Investigating this kind of thing is a small industry, if you could even call it that, and he feels himself to be a rare expert on the subject. 

[BballTim]

I keep trying to come up with a parallel and it is hard but here goes. 

Think if there was a police department that suspended a cop for tampering with evidence to help himself get promoted.  It all came about after they do a rushed inventory of the evidence room and find that something is missing (and subsequently leak this to the press, permanently harming the cops reputation).  Oh, they were tipped off by another cop was known not to like the accused cop in part because the tipper cop lost the promotion to the accused cop. 

They look into it, find some strange emails between the accused cop and the evidence room clerk's assistant (not a cop, just a low level employee) and have film of the clerk's assistance going into the bathroom with papers that he routinely carries from the evidence room to a court room (but isn't supposed to take into the bathroom).

Then, after a 4 month investigation, they find out that the inventory they took was flawed because they didn't account for the fact that evidence dries out and when they weighed the evidence, they didn't know what scale to use and aren't really sure what the evidence weighed in the first place, and in the end, they weren't sure that anything was even missing but there was a chance that maybe depending on what assumptions you make that some very small amount of evidence was missing.  Of course this potentially tampered with evidence was not impacted enough to have any barring on the case or the promotion.

Based on the independent investigation, the cop is suspended big time.

So 5 months later, during the accused cop's appeal (he has maintained his innocence all along), they ask for his phone.  The cop (in the union) didn't need to provide his phone but the other assistant guy did and provided it months ago.  The union guy had gotten a new phone along the way and "destroyed" his old phone because it included messages about cases and other sensitive information.  Hmmmm, "sounds fishy to me" the investigators say to themselves.

The final conclusion from the investigation appeal?  "Even though we don't know for sure if anything was missing from the evidence room, we believe that destroying of the phone proves that the cop was hiding something so he will be suspended for more probably than not, hiding something about an infraction that more probably than didn't happen".  Oh, and our investigation that we said was independent?  It wasn't independent because we don't think it needed to be independent.  And we are not going to allow anymore to be said about that due to client privilege.

Then the cops takes this to a real court where a real judge reviews the facts and provide a verdict that.........

(fill in the rest yourself or wait a few weeks).

  Just a quick fix, but something more accurate would be them asking him for his phone early on. He doesn't give them the phone and later destroys it. At the end of the investigation, he gets a slap on the wrist for the evidence thing but a larger punishment for the phone thing.

[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.

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.

   If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.

 

? Impossible.  It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured.  The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam.  You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.

  You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.

[kozlodoev]

  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).

Oh please. Between the sticky towels, silicone uniforms, and heated balls, we know precisely how much punishment the NFL has deemed necessary for equipment violations aimed at potential competitive advantage.

[BballTim]

  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).

Oh please. Between the sticky towels, silicone uniforms, and heated balls, we know precisely how much punishment the NFL has deemed necessary for equipment violations aimed at potential competitive advantage.

  True, but the discussion IIRC was about failure to cooperate with an investigation.

[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.

   If they'd been able to explain it, the explanation would have held for all the scenarios. You didn't explain it either.

 

? Impossible.  It depends on the timing of when the balls were measured.  The balls come to equilibrium quickly and that is important. This has been explained ad nauseam.  You are demanding something that is phsyically impossible. Based on the most obvious assumptions per what the refs said, they balls measured as expected.

  You're part way there. The balls come to equilibrium quickly, and that is important. The longer the balls are in the warmer room, the warmer they get (until they get to equilibrium). The warmer they get, the closer to the original psi they get. So the last balls they measure should be very close to the original psi levels. That clearly didn't happen with the pats balls. You don't explain that, and the video certainly doesn't.

You can't seriously be asking that question.  It has been explained.  It's accounted for in the transient curves.

[kozlodoev]

  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).

Oh please. Between the sticky towels, silicone uniforms, and heated balls, we know precisely how much punishment the NFL has deemed necessary for equipment violations aimed at potential competitive advantage.

  True, but the discussion IIRC was about failure to cooperate with an investigation.

How did that continue past the $50,000 that Farve got?

Also, Gostkowski refused to provide his cellphone in the investigation of the K-ball that was tacked into the Wells report, and wasn't disciplined (the report conveniently brushes that one under the rug).

And while we're at it, a refresher -- there was an NFL employee stealing game balls to sell them for profit. Except this fact is not mentioned anywhere in the report, and the whole thing is roundly ignored with the conclusion that "removing the K1 ball had no effect on the outcome of the game". Coincidentally, that seems to be the only place where Wells cares about this -- as he makes no mention how the second half of the Colts game turned out (while playing with fully inflated balls).

[Rondo2287]

Great takes here for people that think the punishment was within the rules of the CBA. 

http://www.footballbyfootball.com/column/myth-busted-cba-is-no-magic-wand-for-roger-goodell

[D.o.s.]

http://larrybrownsports.com/football/tom-brady-doesnt-want-to-admit-guilt/269955

Despite Judge Richard Berman urging the NFL and NFL Players Association to engage in “further good-faith settlement efforts,” Dan Graziano of ESPN reports that the two sides remain “extremely” far apart. Apparently no progress has been made toward a settlement since before Roger Goodell announced that Brady’s four-game suspension would be upheld.

The issue, of course, is that Brady truly believes he is guilty of nothing. Because of that, he seems willing to fight until the suspension is overturned completely.

“To this point, the Brady side has held firm that they don’t want to accept any kind of suspension or don’t want to admit any guilt,” Graziano reported. “They don’t feel like he did anything wrong.”

However, Graziano noted that Brady might be inclined to accept a one-game suspension once Berman starts his own “arm-twisting.”

“If the league came to Brady and said, ‘OK, one-game suspension and admission of guilt,’ you’d think he would have to take that at this point because the fear of losing the case in front of a judge and having to serve a four-game,” Graziano said.

Brady’s reputation has always been the larger issue in the case. He can live with missing one or even a few games, but he can’t live with the NFL labeling him a cheater. If there’s some way the league could present the language so that it seemed like Brady was being suspended strictly for a lack of cooperation, he might be more inclined to accept.

[rocknrollforyoursoul]

  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).

Oh please. Between the sticky towels, silicone uniforms, and heated balls, we know precisely how much punishment the NFL has deemed necessary for equipment violations aimed at potential competitive advantage.

  True, but the discussion IIRC was about failure to cooperate with an investigation.

"Failure to cooperate" is debatable, as seen on this thread.

But regardless of Brady's level of cooperation, this "investigation" shouldn't have occurred in the first place. If someone tries to bulldoze me even though I'm innocent—or if I committed only a minor offense—I'm gonna be a little peeved, and probably a little "uncooperative."

For some reason, the league has been out to get Brady from the start. And when the physical evidence didn't pan out, they went after him for "failure to cooperate" ... with something that shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.