The "money" conclusions section:
Exponent made a basic error which has missed by all commentators to date (including my own prior
commentary) and which, when corrected, resolves the entire affair, fully explaining the
“unexplained” deflation, while demonstrating that there was no “tampering” with the footballs
after measurement by the referees.
The newly identified error pertains to Exponent’s simulations of Patriot ball preparation,
an issue identified by Bill Belichick in his first press conference, but dismissed by Exponent and
the Wells Report. In Exponent’s simulations, they set football pressure to 12.5 psi before
gloving, whereas the Wells Report reported that Patriot equipment manager Jastremski set
pressure to 12.6 psi after gloving. In Exponent’s simulations, gloving during ball preparation
increased temperatures and pressures by about 0.7 psi, but the effect wore off in 15-20 minutes.
However, Jastremski’s actual technique necessarily resulted in Patriot balls being slightly underinflated
by about 0.35 psi (approximately 12.1-12.2 psi) when they returned to room temperature. This amount fully accounts for the “unexplained” additional deflation of Patriot balls.
This under-inflation, while slight, was still enough that it should have been observed by
referee Anderson in his pre-game measurement. However, Referee Anderson had two gauges,
one of which (the Logo Gauge) read 0.38 psi too high. By coincidence, the amount of underinflation
under Jastremski’s protocol closely matched the bias in Anderson’s Logo Gauge.
Ten of 12 Patriot balls were measured by Anderson between 12.5 and 12.6 psi, with two under-
inflated. This is only possible if Anderson used the Logo Gauge to measure Patriot balls,
resolving a battleground issue contrary to the findings of Exponent, Wells and Goodell. This is
consistent with Anderson’s recollection of having used the Logo Gauge, a recollection rejection
by Exponent and Wells.
On the other hand, Exponent’s reasoning in respect to Colt balls, the pressures of which
were set at room temperature without rubbing, remains valid: Anderson used the Non-Logo
Gauge to measure Colt balls. The corollary is that Anderson (inattentively) switched gauges
between measuring Patriot and Colt balls. An excellent precedent for this possibility is the
identical inattentive switch of gauges by NFL officials at half-time, even under heightened
scrutiny.
One of the conclusions of the present analysis is that there is a coincidence between the
amount of under-inflation below 12.5 psi arising from Jastremski’s ball preparation and the bias
of Anderson’s Logo Gauge, but it is a coincidence that can be documented. At the Appeal
Hearing, Wells spoke eloquently against coincidence (“lightning strike”), but his own theory
ultimately rests on an implausible coincidence. Wells’ theory requires that, out of all possible deflations available, the Patriots decided to deflate their footballs by the amount of bias of referee Anderson’s Logo Gauge. Wells should have been worried about his own lightning strike.
The Deflategate controversy originated in scientific and technical errors. Appeal courts
are poorly suited to resolve such errors. There is another way to resolve the controversy. The
scientific community takes considerable pride in the concept of science being “self-correcting”.
Under this philosophy, it is the scientific community, not appeal courts, which has responsibility
for identifying scientific errors and correcting the scientific record. When a scientist has
inadvertently made an error, the most honorable and effective method of correcting the scientific
record is issue a corrected report, and, if such is not possible, retraction. If either Exponent or
Marlow conceded the above errors, it is hard to envisage the Deflategate case continuing much further. Accordingly, even at this late stage, Exponent and/or Marlow should man up, acknowledge the errors and either re-issue corrected reports or retract.
