Patriots Legal Counsel Rebuttal of Wells Report

considering all the lawyers the pats have hired...i have to hope no one wouldve signed off on the deflator explanation if they didnt have sufficient proof and followup since this is not some guy in a presser or interview giving this explanation of weight loss for this comment. If Don Yee had said this during his radio tour it wouldve looked absurd but Iam hoping pats did due diligence in this.

upstater1 said:

They should have avoided the deflator text and focused in the science

Click to expand...

There is no getting around dealing with this. The science part of the Wells report states they are not sure if anything even happened out of the ordinary. All the NFL actually had to hand a coat on was that one text. Patriots had to deal with it. The coat text is the only saving grace there.

Makes me wonder if McNally was illeging dropping weight with PEDs could help him move down the sidelines faster....should try to get some weight records up.

BTW, does anyone else laugh at the connection between the "If you've got nothing to hide, you can give us your phone" theory and

If Ted Wells and the NFL believe, as their public comments stated, that the evidence in their report is “direct” and “inculpatory,” then they should be confident enough to present their case before someone who is truly independent.

Click to expand...

Dr Pain said:

There is no getting around dealing with this. The science part of the Wells report states they are not sure if anything even happened out of the ordinary. All the NFL actually had to hand a coat on was that one text. Patriots had to deal with it. The coat text is the only saving grace there.

Click to expand...

Could "coat" be codeword for cocaine? Are Patriots employees using cocaine on game day to stay more active and alert? Unless I see some proof that's the conclusion I'm drawing from all of this.

Dr Pain said:

There is no getting around dealing with this. The science part of the Wells report states they are not sure if anything even happened out of the ordinary. All the NFL actually had to hand a coat on was that one text. Patriots had to deal with it. The coat text is the only saving grace there.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your post on multiple counts. The Wells report actually stated the balls were most likely tampered with. They did not say they were unsure. They said the readings on the gauges meant that it was statistically improbable for natural causes to yield such readings.

Eventually they might've gotten around to deflator, but the number one goal is to absolutely kill the report by citing its own duplicity. Kill the science first. Then maybe Ina. Week come back and address the texts.

PatsFanInLondon said:

One thing about this "deflator" explanation: this isn't the Patriots desperately trying to come up with an excuse - it's what JJ and JM told them. Furthermore, this explanation (which I admit doesn't look great) is at a minimum every bit as plausible as referring to illegally deflating footballs?

Haters gonna hate. Mediots have their own agendas and act accordingly. The truth, however, is there in black and white - this is a witch hunt, pure and simple.

Click to expand...

Maybe he's a Jay-Z fan?

http://genius.com/10658/Jay-z-izzo-hova/Ive-seen-hoop-dreams-deflate-like-a-true-fiends-weight

upstater1 said:

I disagree with your post on multiple counts. The Wells report actually stated the balls were most likely tampered with. They did not say they were unsure. They said the readings on the gauges meant that it was statistically improbable for natural causes to yield such readings.

Eventually they might've gotten around to deflator, but the number one goal is to absolutely kill the report by citing its own duplicity. Kill the science first. Then maybe Ina. Week come back and address the texts.

Click to expand...

The science is already dead, or at least on life support.

upstater1 said:

I disagree with your post on multiple counts. The Wells report actually stated the balls were most likely tampered with. They did not say they were unsure. They said the readings on the gauges meant that it was statistically improbable for natural causes to yield such readings.

Eventually they might've gotten around to deflator, but the number one goal is to absolutely kill the report by citing its own duplicity. Kill the science first. Then maybe Ina. Week come back and address the texts.

Click to expand...

I will give you that it was in the Exponent portion
Page 238, Para 13 of Wells Report - "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain."...

Dr Pain said:

I will give you that it was in the Exponent portion
Page 238, Para 13 of Wells Report - "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain."...

Click to expand...

But that's not what wells said in the report

wahwho said:

What do you think of the sections in the rebuttal that were calling out Wells to release drafts and notes between Exponent and his firm?

Click to expand...

The date of the Exponent report stood out to me immediately. I have never seen a specialist's report concurrent with the date of a report that incorporates it by reference. It was good to see the rebuttal report latch onto that too:

Why is there no letter or written report from Dr. Marlow? Why are all of Exponent’s reports, relied on in the report issued May 6, dated May 6? How many draft Exponent reports were sent to the investigators for input and comment before the final May 6 reports? What comments were made on these drafts? How did drafts change over time? What notes are there of discussions with the consultants?

wahwho said:

What do you think of the sections in the rebuttal that were calling out Wells to release drafts and notes between Exponent and his firm? They did it several times, and at least once really hammered on the point hard enough that it stood out to me. To me that read like the Pats know, or at least strongly suspect, that Wells influenced the language of the science reporting and there would be something in the drafts they could use to poke (more) holes in Exponent's conclusions.

Click to expand...

Those drafts and notes will be part of discovery if they end up in court.
I assume the focus on it was a shot across the bow under the 'drop it and apologize because you won't survive court' message.

Dr Pain said:

I will give you that it was in the Exponent portion
Page 238, Para 13 of Wells Report - "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain."...

Click to expand...

I wish we had public information about the communications between Wells and Exponent so we could see how constrained Exponent was on the assumptions and parameters.

PatsFan98117 said:

The date of the Exponent report stood out to me immediately. I have never seen a specialist's report concurrent with the date of a report that incorporates it by reference. It was good to see the rebuttal report latch onto that too:

Why is there no letter or written report from Dr. Marlow? Why are all of Exponent’s reports, relied on in the report issued May 6, dated May 6? How many draft Exponent reports were sent to the investigators for input and comment before the final May 6 reports? What comments were made on these drafts? How did drafts change over time? What notes are there of discussions with the consultants?

Click to expand...

This needs more attention.

If the report wasn't done until 5/6 how did Marlow study it? Why wouldn't Marlow's support be in writing?
Much of the report, including the conclusion, references the findings from Exponent. How did they write the report and those portions without the Exponent study?
I predict it is more probable than not that the drafts and notes will show that Wells' team directed some of what is in the report.

smurfalarm said:

I wish we had public information about the communications between Wells and Exponent so we could see how constrained Exponent was on the assumptions and parameters.

Click to expand...

They will have to turn it over if the case goes to court.

Horace's Ivories said:

Wells - Your fired!

Click to expand...

By mid-2017, Wells will be settling divorces in Western Ohio.

Well, a man can dream at least.

Sfpat said:

If you truly believe this, then you have to claim the Wells report was pure BS and has no merit or standing whatsoever and that no penalties were justified and that Brady and the Pats are entitled to any and all damages that they desire because Wells has a long history of being the NFLs hitman.

Click to expand...

They're not exclusive. The Wells report is pure BS AND Kraft screwed up for not properly vetting their expert.

Dr Pain said:

I will give you that it was in the Exponent portion
Page 238, Para 13 of Wells Report - "In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information that is not certain."...

Click to expand...

With no control group, no knowledge of the original pressure, uncalibrated gauges, no scientific peer group would ever accept the results of the Exponient tests. If they submitted this as a scientific paper, it would be immediately returned to them as garbage. If I had submitted this report to one of my chemical engineering professors, I would have received an F and the recommendation to pick another major. If I had submitted this report to my boss, I would probably had been fired. It's as poor of a scientific report that I have ever seen.

AndyJohnson said:

They will have to turn it over if the case goes to court.

Click to expand...

Granted, but that's only if the court agrees that Brady and/or the Patriots have standing to sue, and even if they are exposed to the lawyers, are they allowed to make those documents public? I hope I'm wrong, but I expect that the communications between Wells and Exponent will never see the light of day.

Dr Pain said:

There is no getting around dealing with this. The science part of the Wells report states they are not sure if anything even happened out of the ordinary. All the NFL actually had to hand a coat on was that one text. Patriots had to deal with it. The coat text is the only saving grace there.

Click to expand...

No doubt...the conclusion of the Wells report can be boiled down to this:
1. Scientific evidence was inconclusive, the lower PSI's for the Pats lend credence to deflation but it's not conclusive (partly because Exponent spun it to their 'inconclusive' benefit, but I digress)
2. 'Deflator' text indicates McNally likely deflates footballs, with some supplemental texts used as support documentation
3. ‘…He actually brought you up and said you must have a lot of stress trying to get them done…” text implicates Brady and suggests he had a general awareness of the illegal activities in point #2.

Those, as the rebuttal stated, are the lynchpin arguments. They HAD TO provide context around those texts, especially where they're the main focus in all media reports.

I'm not gonna pretend they did themselves any favors (vis-a-vis the media) with their explanations but I think they're plausible. Further, I think they did a great job explaning the science and why it should be the main focus. If the science most likely exonerates the Pats then questionable text messages shouldn't condemn them...and I think that was the argument the Pats laid out.

In a court of law, with these guys taking the stand, with McNally's friend taking the stand about the tickets, this is a slam...friggin...dunk. And I think that's what was accomplished here: 'Goodell, here's what we have, we'll murder you in court. Work with us here or we sue...and oh by the way there's Blandino's lie, the media leaks, the sting...you don't want this in court'.