#DeflateGate (Court of Appeals Reinstates Suspension)

[D.o.s.]

^ agreed, kind of. I can imagine that the NFL wouldn't specify because they wouldn't imagine someone would say no -- they're kind of dumb like that.

edit: foiled by the page division.

[BudweiserCeltic]

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?

C) he took a leak

Not sure why that is hard to believe.

Im with you. I want to hear from the people who think brady is lying. I think I just want people to admit that there wasn't even a violation. That seems to get lost in this mess.

  On one hand, you have poorly done measurements that don't prove or discount that a violation occurred. On the other hand, you have a number of texts that imply that such a violation was occurring. You can't really ignore that any more than you can ignore the ideal gas law arguments.

That's false. The texts only insinuate a potential of guilt IF a violation did occur (even that hasn't been proved or acknowledged). The text by themselves are not a smoking gun, in particular since teams are allowed to prepare their own balls so there are a myriad of context in which you could apply those text messages. And further more, if it implicates anything it's from an organization/equipment personnel standpoint... nothing with Tom Brady.

All the texts have shown are that Tom Brady liked his balls prepared properly, and Jastremski felt pressured to make sure those balls were prepared appropriately, it's his job after all, to the point that he [Brady] instructed someone to make sure the Refs are aware of the regulations.

All I've seen from all the evidence as presented is that if a violation did occur it was at the hands of the equipment people. Why they did it if true? Only they can answer it. Job security would be one (if they were being deemed as preparing the balls incorrectly and such).

Violations of rules that weren't even handed to players, just so we're clear on that part.

[BudweiserCeltic]

<^ agreed, kind of. I can imagine that the NFL wouldn't specify because they wouldn't imagine someone would say no -- they're kind of dumb like that.

edit: foiled by the page division.

Fixed it for 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.

[D.o.s.]

<^ agreed, kind of. I can imagine that the NFL wouldn't specify because they wouldn't imagine someone would say no -- they're kind of dumb like that.

edit: foiled by the page division.

Fixed it for you.

TP

[knuckleballer]

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.

Bball, you are right that it was not a court of law.  Nothing close to it.  Finally, a point we agree on.

[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.

[kozlodoev]

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?

  Possibly, but I from everything I heard, the investigation wasn't requesting emails related to pool covers.

Requesting something that doesn't exist and then roundly blasting the person for failure to produce it is a wonderful tactic. I heard it is related to some of the reasons behind the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption.

[knuckleballer]

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.

[Donoghus]

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.

Nailed it.   That is pretty apparent & the gist of what's going on with the Federal Court case, not the nonsense of did he/didn't he that apparently has no smoking gun.  Regardless, its a process thing now, not the deflating nonsense.

[kozlodoev]

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.

Nailed it.   That is pretty apparent & the gist of what's going on with the Federal Court case, not the nonsense of did he/didn't he that apparently has no smoking gun.  Regardless, its a process thing now, not the deflating nonsense.

Of course they are. First, the investigation was "independent". Then it wasn't. Then Goodell apparently cited atourney-client privilege when requesting to hand over his correspondence with Wells (!). And now the NFL is telling us it doesn't really matter.

I don't see how Goodell can keep his job given the monumental botch job he made out of this case.

edit: I'm assuming this already made the rounds, but I'll link to it nonetheless: http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2015/07/29/pot-kettle-black-roger-goodell-cites-attorney-client-privilege-to-hide-correspondence-with-deflategate-investigators-law-firm/

[Donoghus]

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.

Nailed it.   That is pretty apparent & the gist of what's going on with the Federal Court case, not the nonsense of did he/didn't he that apparently has no smoking gun.  Regardless, its a process thing now, not the deflating nonsense.

Of course they are. First, the investigation was "independent". Then it wasn't. Then Wells apparently cited atourney-client privilege during the appeal proceedings (!). And now the NFL is telling us it doesn't really matter.

I don't see how Goodell can keep his job given the monumental botch job he made out of this case.

He'll probably keep it because he's a great target to take the heat off the owners.  The sad thing is that they could bring almost anyone in there for that position & they would probably give the NFL the same results and a helluva lot better PR (let's face it, it can't get much worse that this league office bunch).

[steve]

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.

That's the gauge the ref said he remembered using. I find it curious as to why Ted didn't believe him. As far as the 25% of the balls being outside, I guess I'm trusting that scientist who won the nobel prize on wellsreportincontext. The ball intercepted by the Colts was measured three times and the numbers are 11.35, 11.45 and 11.75 psi. The gauges simply aren't accurate.

I just find it hard to believe that McNally would deflate only 25% of the balls and by such a small margin.

We can argue which gauge was used but if we have to argue that fact, then the whole case should be thrown out. 

[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.

[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.

Bball, you are right that it was not a court of law.  Nothing close to it.  Finally, a point we agree on.

  Yes, and with that should come the realization that the level of proof isn't the same as in a criminal court.